geesessessessesseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees;
ū; • * *
§
GENERAL LIBRARY
OF
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIG AN
PR Esº nºr ED BY
- \ \\ } - - - - * * * * * *
.*
Wº, - .
*====================================s*
----- º M. - Nº. yº º V. * , º A. is º l Nº. sº • *. º, - g s - '--------->
ºf Jºy Wºº v \,\!, \º.




IE
| 740
A DICTIONARY
T*-----,
º **-e- i -- * - ſ .. * *
Y. STL, & Z
EDITED BY > * º º: lºy ºr
*******-ār-------...- **::- - Jº
WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D.’
HON. D.C.L. OXFORD ; HON. PH.D. LEIPZIG ;
(HREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES.
****
WILLIAM WAYTE, M.A.
FoRMERLY FELLow of KING's college, CAMBRIDGE:
G. E. MARINDIN, M.A.
FORMERLY FELLOW OF KING's COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE.
THIRD EDITION, REWISED AND ENLARGED.
IN TWO VOLUMES.—VOL. II.
I, O N DO N :
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1891.

LONDON :
PRINTED BY william CLowes AND SONS, LIMITED,
STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS,
LIST OF WHITERS IN THE NEW EDITION,
INITIALS. NAMES.
W. C. F. A. W. C. F. ANDERSON, M.A.
Professor of Classics in Firth College, Sheffield.
J. I. B. J. T. BEARE, M.A.
Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin.
A. H. C. A. H. COOKE, M.A.
Fellow and Tutor of King's College, Cambridge.
J. L. S. D. J. L. STRACHAN DAVIDSON, M.A.
Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford.
J. H. F. J. H. FLATHER, M.A.
Master of Cavendish College, Cambridge.
W. W. F. W. WARDE FOWLER, M.A.
Sub-Rector of Lincoln College, Oxford.
E. A. G. ERNEST A. GARDNER, M.A.
Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge; Director of
the British Archaeological School, Athens.
P. G. PERCY GARDNER, M.A., Litt.D.
Professor of Archaeology in the University of
Oxford.
A. G. ALFRED GOODw1N, M.A.
Professor of Classics in University College, London;
formerly Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford.
J. G. JAMES Gow, Litt.D.
Headmaster of High School, Nottingham ; formerly
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
A. H. G. A. H. GREENIDGE, B.A.
Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford.
H. H. HERMANN HAGER, Ph.D.
Professor in Owens College, Manchester.
E. G. H. E. G. HARDY, M.A. -
Formerly Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.
C. B. H. C. B. HEBERDEN, M.A.
Principal of Brasenose College, Oxford.
M. R. J. MonTAGUE RHODEs JAMES, B.A.
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge.
R. C. J. R. C. JEBB, Litt.D., LL.D.
Professor of Greek in the University of Cambridge.
iv.
LIST OF WHITERS IN THE NEW EDITION.
INITIALS.
W. M. L.
J. M.
J. H. M.
D. B. M.
J. B. M.
J. R. M.
A. S. M.
E. M.
H. N.
C. T. N.
J. H. O.
H. F. P.
L. C. P.
F.T. R.
W. R.—y.
H. J. R.
G. M*. N. R.
A. H. S.
NAMIES.
WALLACE M. LINDSAY, M.A.
Fellow of Jesus College, Oxford.
G. E. MARINDIN, M.A.
Examiner in Greek in the University of London;
formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge.
JOHN MARSHALL, B.A.
Late Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge.
J. H. MIDDLETON, M.A.
Slade Professor in the University of Cambridge, and
Fellow of King's College.
DAVID B. Monro, M.A.
Provost of Oriel College, Oxford.
J. B. Moyle, D.C.L.
Fellow and Tutor of New College, Oxford.
J. R. MozEEY, M.A.
Formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge.
A. S. MURRAY, LL.D., F.S.A.
Keeper of Greek and Roman Antiquities in the
British Museum.
ERNEST MYERs, M.A.
Formerly Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford.
H. NETTLESHIP, M.A.
Professor of Latin in the University of Oxford.
Sir C. T. NEWTON, K.C.B.
JoHN HENRY ONIONs, M.A.
Late Student of Christ Church, Oxford.
HENRY F. PELHAM, M.A.
Camden Professor of Ancient History in the
University of Oxford, and Fellow of Exeter
College.
H. A. PERRY, M.A.
Fellow of King's College, Cambridge.
L. C. PURSER, M.A.
Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin.
F. T. RICHARDS, M.A.
Fellow of Trinity College, Oxford.
WILLIAM RIDGEWAY, M.A. ſe
Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge; Professor of
Greek in Queen's College, Cork.
H. J. ROBY, M.A.
Honorary Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge.
G. M*. NEILE RUSHFORTH, M.A.
Formerly Scholar of St. John's College, Oxford.
A. H. SMITH, M.A.
Assistant in the Department of Greek and Roman
Antiquities in the British Museum.
LIST OF WEITERS IN THE NEW EDITION. V.
INITIALS.
C. S.
H. B. S.
E. W.
W. W.
E. A. W.
A. S. W.
W–k W-h.
NAMES.
CECIL SMITH.
Assistant in the Department of Greek and Roman
Antiquities in the British Museum.
HENRY BABINGTON SMITH, M.A.
Of the Education Office; Fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge.
WILLIAM SMITH, D.C.L., LL.D., Ph.D.
Formerly Classical Examiner in the University of
London.
H. ARNOLD TUBBS, B.A.
Formerly Scholar of Pembroke College, Oxford.
E. WARRE, D.D.
Headmaster of Eton College.
WILLIAM WAYTE, M.A.
Examiner in Greek in the University of London;
formerly Fellow of King's College, Cambridge,
and Professor of Greek in University College,
London.
E. A. WHITTUCK, M.A. p
Fellow and Tutor of Oriel College, Oxford.
A. S. WILKINS, Litt.D., LL.D.
Professor of Latin in Owens College, Manchester.
WARWICK WROTH.
Assistant in the Department of Coins in the British
Museum.
LIST OF WRITERS IN THE OLD EDITION.
-*----
INITIALS. NAMIES.
A. A. ALEXANDER ALLEN, Ph.D.
W. F. D. WILLIAM FISHBURN DONKIN, M.A.
Fellow of University College, Oxford.
W. A. G. WILLIAM ALEXANDER GREENHILL, M.D.
Trinity College, Oxford.
B. J. BENJAMIN JowHTT, M.A.,
- Master of Balliol College, Oxford.
C. R. K. CHARLES RANN KENNEDY, M.A.
Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
T. H. K. THOMAS HEWITT KEY, M.A.
Professor of Comparative Grammar in University
College, London.
H. G. L. HENRY GEORGE LIDDELL, D.D.
Dean of Christ Church, Oxford.
G. L. GEORGE LONG, M.A.
Late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
J. S. M. JoHN SMITH MANSFIELD, M.A.
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
C. P. M. CHARLES PETER MASON, B.A.
Fellow of University College, London.
W. R. WILLIAM RAMSAY, M.A.
Professor of Humanity in the University of Glasgow,
A. R. ANTHONY RICH, Jun., B.A.
Late of Caius College, Cambridge.
L. S. LEONHARD SCHMITZ, Ph.D., F.R.S.E.
Rector of the High School of Edinburgh.
P. S. PHILIP SMITH, B.A.
Of the University of London.
W. S. WILLIAM SMITH, LL.D., Ph.D.
R. W. ROBERT WHISTON, M.A.
Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge.
R. N. W. RALPH. N.J.Hui,SON WORNUM.
J. Y. JAMES YATES, M.A., F.R.S.
A
DICTION A R Y
OF
GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES.
L.
LA'BARUM. [SIGNA MILITARIA.]
LABRUM. [BALNEAE, p. 277 a.]
LABYRINTHUS (Aagúpiv60s). This is by
some set down as the corruption of an Egyptian
word meaning “the building at the entrance of
a reservoir” (Brugsch, Egypt under the Pha-
raohs), by others derived from a king Lamaris
or Labaris (whose name, however, should per-
haps be Maris or Moeris), but it is more probably
an older form of the word Aaúpa, “a passage.”
This older form became stereotyped as the pro-
per name for a building with a maze of such
passages, while the later form, Aajpal, is par-
ticularly applied to the passages of a mine.
Accordingly the labyrinth was a large and com-
plicated subterranean building, with numerous
chambers and intricate passages, like those of a
mine. Hence the cavern near Nauplia was
called a labyrinth (Strabo, viii. p. 369). And
all the structures to which the ancients apply
the name labyrinth are described as entirely or
partially under ground.
Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. § 84) notes four. 1. As
the earliest, largest, and most famous, that of
Egypt, described by Herodotus (ii. 148), near
lake Moeris, and 100 stadia, as Strabo states,
from Arsinoë (Strabo, xvii. p. 811). The remains
have been found 11% miles from the pyramid of
Hawara, in the province of Faioum. Herodotus
ascribes its construction to the dodecarchs (about
650 B.C.); and Mela (i. 9) to Psammetichus
alone. Other and more correct accounts refer
its first construction to a much earlier period
(Plin. l. c.; Diod. Sic. i. 61, 89). It is very
likely, however, that additions were made at
various times. The names of more than one
king have been found there, the oldest that of
Amunmhe III., who is placed in the 12th
Dynasty, about 1960 B.C. This labyrinth is
described as having 3,000 chambers, 1500 under
ground and the same number above, and the
whole was surrounded by a wall. It was
divided into courts, each of which was sur-
rounded by colonnades of white marble. At the
time of Diodorus and of Pliny it was still
extant; the remains now serve only to show
WOL. II.
7/
the exact position and size corresponding with
the stadium of length given by Strabo. Hero-
dotus, who saw the upper part of the labyrinth
and went through it, was not permitted to enter
the subterranean part, and he was told that the
kings, by whom the labyrinth had been built,
and the sacred crocodiles, were buried there.
Pliny’s theory that it was divided into a number
of halls or buildings corresponding to the num-
ber of nomes, and the consequent theory that it
was a place of assembly for the nomes, do not
agree with the account of Herodotus; and the
number of nomes too varied greatly at different
times: nor is there any better foundation for
the idea, alluded to also by Pliny, that the plan
had something to do with the solar system. It
is unnecessary to imagine more than that it was
monumental, and a monument of more than one
king of Egypt.
2. Pliny gives as second the Cretan labyrinth
(cf. Diod. Sic. l. c.), which was said to have
been built by Daedalus near Cnosus, after the
model of the Egyptian, but very much smaller.
(For further legendary accounts, see Verg. Aen.
vi. 27, v. 588; Ov. Met. viii. 159; Apollod.
iii. 15; and Dict. Biog, under “Daedalus.”)
Most modern writers trea: the Cretan labyrinth
as a purely mythical or poetical creation, fol-
lowing Höck, who lays stress on the fact, that
no ancient writer describes it as an eye-witness,
and that neither the Homeric poems nor Hero-
dotus mention it. That it was designedly built
after any Egyptian pattern is improbable, but
sufficient groundwork for the legends can be
found in the rock-excavations existing in Crete.
Admiral Spratt (Travels and Researches in Crete,
ii. 42) points out that the subterranean passages
in limestone rock near Gortyn correspond to
the ancient description of the labyrinth—tor-
tuous alleys which occupied two hours to pass
through. ...They were plainly, as might be seen
by the märks of tools, ancient quarries, and had
been used by the Christians in recent times as
places of refuge. We can understand from this
why Claudian (Seat. Cons. Hon. 634) speaks of
Gortyn as the site of the labyrinth. Admiral
Spratt found also the entrances of subterranean .
passages, apparently sepulchral, in the rocks
B
2 LABYRINTHUS
LACINIA
near Cnosus. These were too much blocked up
to explore, but there seems no reason why in
ancient times they should not have been as
extensive as the caverns at Gortyn, and so have
given rise to the myths, connected with Cnosus,
3. A third labyrinth, the construction of
which belongs to a more historical age, was that
in the island of Lemnos. It was begun by
Smilis, an Aeginetan architect, and completed
by Rhoecus and Theodorus of Samos about the
time of the first Olympiad. It was in construc-
tion similar to the Egyptian, but had as a
special feature one hundred and fifty columns,
Remains of it were still extant in the time of
Pliny. Some have conjectured that it was in-
tended as a temple of the Cabeiri.
It may be mentioned here that the labyrinth
said on the authority of Pliny (H. N. xxxiv. § 83)
to have been built by the same Theodorus at
Samos, has probably been created by a misplaced
comma. The passage should be read: “Theo-
dorus, qui labyrinthum fecit, Sami ipse se ex
aere fudit.”
4. Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. § 91) classes as a
labyrinth the tomb of Porsena at Clusium,
a description of which he quotes from Varro
—a monument in masonry, 300 feet square
and 50 feet high, beneath which is a labyrinth,
“quo si quis introierit, sine glomere lini
exitum invenire nequeat.” It had above it
five pyramids of astonishing height. Niebuhr
altogether discredits it; , but, though, with
Pliny, we may think the dimensions, exag-
gerated, it may be permitted to ask whether
there is not too great a tendency to treat as
pure fictions the statements of ancient writers.
Dennis in his latest edition (Cities of Etruria, ii.
p. 349) gives an interesting description of recent
explorations in a tumulus at Poggio Gajella,
three miles north of Chiusi. These are exten-
sive sepulchral remains; in fact, it is described
as like a city of tombs, with a network of small
streets and alleys bearing the Egyptian charac-
ter, which is so suggestive in Etruscan remains;
and further a labyrinth of low, narrow passages
in the heart of the mound. There seems really
no valid reason for asserting the impossibility of
some such great sepulchral building as Varro
describes having once existed as a superstruc-
ture. It is possible that Varro himself found
only a part standing, and that the huge size of
the pyramids at the corners may be a somewhat
exaggerated account given him as a tradition by
the people of the district. This is surely a
safer view than, with Niebuhr, to accuse so
sober a writer as Varro of giving us “tales from
the Arabian Nights.”
LAEY}|N 7+TNy’
+US FA&17Asſ,
Labyrinthus. (Museo Borbonico.)
The garden labyrinth, or maze, is purely
modern; but Pliny (l.c.) speaks of the word as
applied to "an intricate pattern drawn on the
pavement or scratched on the ground in a boyish
game; and to this may be referred the rude
drawing, given in the Museo Borbonico, which
was scratched on a pilaster at Pompeii, and
is somewhat similar to the modern idea of a
labyrinth. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
LACERNA (answering in most respects to
the Greek x\auês) was a woollen cloak worn by
the Romans over the toga (Mart. viii. 28), which
explains Juvenal's expression “munimentum
togae” (Juv. ix. 28). It had a hood (cucullus),
and sometimes the plural lacernae is used to
express, both together (e.g. Mart. xiv. 132,
“totae lacernae''); but in Horace, Sat. ii. 7, 55,
lacerna includes the hood. It was worn open
and loose, fastened to the shoulder by a fibula,
so that in Mart. ii. 29 the white toga is seen
below the purple lacerna; and thus it differed
from the paenula, which fitted close and was
fastened all the way up, and from the birrus,
because that form of wrap was stiff (rigens
opposed to the fluens lacerna, Sulp. Sever. i.
21, 4), whereas the lacerna was light and of
fashionable make. The Schol. on Pers. i. 51,
however, uses them as convertible terms. It
seems to have been introduced at Rome by men
of fashion as a protection against rain—Pliny
(H. N. xviii. § 225) says that the price of
lacernae goes up in threatening weather—and to
wear in theatres, &c. (Mart. ii. 29): thus we
are told that the equites used to stand up at the
entrance of Claudius and lay aside their lacernae,
as a mark of respect (Suet. Claud. 6). Its
colour depended on taste and circumstances,
sometimes “fusci coloris’ (Mart. i. 97, 9), and
made of the dark wool of the Baetic sheep
(Mart. xiv. 133), sometimes of bright colours
(Juv. i. 27; Mart. i. 97) and very expensive
(Mart. viii. 10). By an order of Domitian,
about 88 A.D., white lacernae only were allowed
in the theatre (Mart. v. 8; xiv. 137). It would
appear from Mart. ii. 29 that there was no such
rule before. The material as well as the colour
varied, and for the poorer wearers it was un-
fashionably coarse (Juv. ix. 27). Cicero (Phil.
ii. 30, 76) speaks of it as an unusual form of
dress, but as a military cloak it may have been
worn earlier. Cassius wears it at Philippi
(Well. ii. 70, 2; cf. Prop. iv. 12, 7; Ov. Fast. ii.
746), and to some extent it displaced the sagum.
Under the Empire it became common at Rome,
as we learn from Suetonius, who says (Aug. 40)
that Augustus seeing one day a great number of
citizens before the tribunal dressed in the lacerna
repeated indignantly the line of Virgil, “Ro-
manos rerum dominos gentemque togatam,” and
gave orders that the aediles should allow no one
to wear that dress in the forum, being anxious
“pristinum vestitum reducere.” (See also
Marquardt, Privatleben, 569; Becker-Göll, Gal-
lus, iii. 220.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
LACI’NIA, the angular extremity of the ,
toga, one end of which was brought round over
the left shoulder. It was generally tucked into
... the girdle, but sometimes was allowed to hang
down loose. Plautus (Merc. i. 2, 16) indicates
that it occasionally served as a pocket-handker-
chief: “At tu edepol sume laciniam atque
absterge sudorem.” Welleius Paterculus (ii. 3)
represents Scipio Nasica as wrapping the lacinia
of his toga round his left arm for a shield (com-

LACONICUM
LAENA 3
pare Val. Max. iii. 2, 17) before he rushed upon
Tib. Gracchus; while, according to Servius (ad
Verg. Aen. vii. 612), the Cinctus Gabinus was
formed by girding the toga tightly round the
body by one of the laciniae or loose ends. These
expressions are quite irreconcilable with the
opinion that the lacinia was the lower border or
skirt of the toga, while all the passages adduced
by them admit of easy explanation, according to
the above view. The lacinia was undoubtedly
permitted by some to sweep the ground,
especially by such as wore their garments
loosely. Thus Macrobius (Sat. ii. 3) remarks
upon one of Cicero's witticisms, “Jocatus in
Caesarem quia ita praecingebatur, ut trahendo
laciniam velut mollis incederet,” which corre-
sponds with the well-known caution of Sulla
addressed to Pompey, “Cave tibi illum puerum
male praecinctum ; ” and Suetonius tells how
the Emperor Caligula, being filled with jealousy
on account of the plaudits lavished on a
gladiator, hurried out of the theatre with such
haste, “ut calcata lacinia togae praeceps per
gradus iret.” The etymology of the word (Aak,
Adkos, lacero, and perhaps, as Curtius inclines to
think, also Šćkos) points to the same sense, and
it is probable that its primary meaning was a
jagged edge or pendent corner, and so, as given
above, a piece or corner of a dress, not, as Rich
thinks, “a weighted drop.” If any such drop
can be traced in the tunica, which is doubtful,
it cannot in the toga, to which the lacinia
generally belongs; and all the uses for wiping,
wrapping, &c. imply that it is a piece of cloth.
Thus in Cic. Fam. xvi. 21 we find it used to
wrap up pips of fruit taken from the dinner-
table: it is the corner of dress seized to stop
anyone (Suet. Claud. 15; Vulg. Gen. xxxix.
12), whence came the proverbial expression
obtinere lacinia of a precarious hold (Cic. de Orat.
iii. 28, § 110; Plaut. Asin. iii. 2, 41). The other
meanings agree with the above explanation: (1)
two jagged excrescences, hanging from the neck
of a she-goat; (2) a corner or promontory of land
(Plin. v. § 148), “promontorium in quo Megaria
oppidum fuit : unde Craspedites sinus vocabatur,
quoniam id oppidum velut in lacinia erat; ” (3)
a point or tongue of a leaf (Plin. xv. § 130). The
corresponding Greek term, as seen from the
passage quoted from Pliny, is kpáorreóov, and
accordingly Plutarch (Tib. Gr. 19) and Appian
(B. C. i. 16) use that word in narrating the
story of Scipio given above. [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
LACO'NICUM. [BALNEAE, p. 277 b, p.
278 a.]
LACU’NAR. [DOMUs, p. 686 a.]
LACUS. 1. See Fons. 2. See Torcu,AR.
3. Lacus (Baq))) was also used for the bath in
which the smith (xankets or faber ferrarius)
plunged the hot iron to give it the harder
qualities of steel. (Verg. Georg. iv. 172;
Ovid. Met. ix. 170, xii. 276; Lucr. vi. 968;
Mart. iv. 55, 15; Plin. H. N. xxxiv. § 146.)
It is maintained by the best modern authorities
on Greek and Roman metal working that by this
method a kind of steel was manufactured as far
back as the Homeric age. (See Blümner,
Technol. iv. 342 sqq.) Though neither Greek
nor Latin has a distinct word for steel (except
the poetical xáAviſ, chalybs), yet this process
was known, and the words arouotiv, a réuwaris,
otópiapia all refer to the steeling effect of the
Baph, and this corresponds to the Latin signifi-
cance of acies (cf. French acier). The earliest
precise mention is that of 0d. ix. 391 :
&s 3' 8t’ &våp xaxkei's tréaekuv uéyav #è a-kémapvov
eivääare livXpó Bárrm peyúAa ióxovra
bapuágorov, rö yāp aire orišmpoi, Ye kpáros éariv,
(where Eustathius, grouoiral yèpoſièmpos rotatºrm
824 fi Conf. Plut. Def. orac. 41, p. 433A ; Poll.
vii. 107, &c.; and especially Plut. An. rat. uti, 16,
p. 988 D, &vöpetas oiov Baq'ſ ris 6 0waás éart
real arduoua, which expression seems to fix the
precise idea of the much-disputed Baq'f oriðmpos
às in Sophocles Aj. 650, i.e. “I, who was then
steeled and made ävöpelos as iron is by the bath,
am instead made 67avs by Tecmessa’s words”
(the stop being at &s, and the aorist as usual
referring to the time of speaking).
It is true that there was also a practice of
dipping smaller steel implements, such as needles
and brooch-pins, in oil, to make them less
brittle, as was supposed (Plut. de prim. frig. 13,
p. 950 C.; Plin. xxxiv. § 146); and so this pas-
sage has often been explained, but there is no
mention at all of any such practice earlier than
Plutarch, and then only of small articles,
whereas there is in earlier Greek writers a
frequent allusion to the Baqº, especially in the
moral application (Arist. Pol. vii. 14, &c.), and
invariably (as Latin lacus) of hardening or
steeling, which is a strong argument for giving
the same meaning in the passage cited. This
process would not apply to XaAkós, and such is
perhaps the meaning of XaAkoo Baqal in Aesch.
Ag. 589, though Clytemnestra may merely be
disclaiming all technical knowledge of weapons.
The colouring of copper by Baqº) as mentioned
by Plutarch and Pollux is altogether later.
[For a discussion of this treatment of iron, see
Blümner (Technologie, iv. 342–350), who refers
to a larger work of Paehler, Die Löschung des
Stahles bei den Alten.] [G. E. M.]
LAENA. The same word as the Greek
XAalva, and perhaps radically connected with
AdXwm (lana), though Curtius is doubtful on that
point (Etym. 336). It was manufactured,
according to Strabo, in later times in Gaul : # 6&
épéa (of the Belgians) tpaxeſa uèv. čkpópañAos
8è &@' fis rows Sage's odºyous évºlaivovoriv offs
Aaivas kań00ai : but, as Marquardt points out,
it was an old Roman dress, being worn by the
Flamines, fastened with a bronze fibula (Cic.
Brut. 14, 56, of the Flamen Carmentalis): cf.
Serv. ad Aen. iv. 262, “est autem proprie toga
duplex, Graece XAalva, amictus auguralis.” (See
Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, iii. 336.) Festus
derives its origin from the Etruscans: Cicero
(l. c.) connects the surname Laenas of the
Popilii with this dress, because Popilius was
wearing it, being Flamen Carmentalis as well as
Consul, when he quelled a tumult.
1. It signifies then properly a woollen cloak,
the cloth of which was twice the ordinary
thickness (“duarum togarum instar,” Varro,
L. L. v. 133), and therefore termed duplex
(Festus, s. v.; Serv. l.c.), shaggy upon both sides,
worn over everything else for the sake of
warmth (Mart. xiv. 136). Hence persons car-
ried a laena with them when they went out
to supper (Mart. viii. 59); and the rich man in
Juvenal, who walks home at night escorted by a
train of slaves and lighted by flambeaux, is
B 2
4. LAGONA
LAMPADEDROMIA
wrapped in a scarlet laena (Juv. iii. 283, where
see Mayor's note). The courtly bard in Persius
(i. 32) is introduced reciting his fashionable lays
with a violet-coloured laena over his shoulders;
but that it was also worn by the poor appears
from Juv. v. 131. (See also Becker-Göll,
Gallus, iii. 221.)
2. The dress of the Flamines, as mentioned
above. The correspondence of the laena with
the Greek xxaſva is seen (i.) by the description
(Homer, Il. x. 133):
&uði 3’ &pa x\atvav repóvmorav botvikóeorgav
Simºv, in račinv, ovan 8' inevivo9e AdXwm’
(ii) its use for warmth (àvenookerhs, Il. xvi.
224); (iii.) from the fact that the x\aſya is the
Homeric dress of heroes, while the Latin poets
clothe them in the laena. (Aeneas in Verg. Aem.
iv. 262; Hasdrubal in Sil. Ital. xv. 424; cf.
Plut. Num. , 7, &s éq6povy oi iepe’s Aatvas 6
*IóBas XAatvas pnolv elvai. See Marquardt,
Privatleben, 569.) [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
LAGO'NA or LAGU’NA (also lagoena,
lagena, Adyvvos). There is considerable dif-
ference about the spelling of this word. Pro-
fessor Mayor (on Juvenal, v. 29) compares, for
the Latin o beside the Greek v, the words
ancora, storaa (orrúpaš), now, mola, cocles [kö-
kAwy]. The last of these connexions both
Corssen and Curtius disapprove, but there are
abundant instances without it. Corssen shows
that the Old Latin form to the end of the
Republic in inscriptions is laguna and sometimes
lagena (in MSS. also lagoena), in the imperial
times lagona, as in the annexed engraving.
It was an earthenware jug with one handle, a
long narrow neck, widened mouth, and swelling
body (whence “ventre lagonae,” Juv. xii. 60).
Its narrow neck is shown also by its use in
Phaedrus for the fable of the stork and the fox,
and by the lines in the Anthology eis Adyvvov :
orrpoyyúAm, eúrópvºore, provoúate, MaxporpäxmAe,
inhaúxmv, a retvig $6eyyouévn a répart.
In fact, it was in shape much like the well-
known Orvieto wine-flask, but, if so covered with
wickerwork, would be
Sº y
$E.
called pKöorkm or
q^aorktov (Suid. s. v.
Trurívm). It was used
for holding wine, and
was set beside the
guests (Hor. Sat. ii.
8, 41; Juv. v. 29).
They were used also
in Gaul for beer, as is
shown by an inscrip-
tion on a lagona in
the Musée Carnavalet
at . Paris, “Ospita
reple lagona cervesa.”
Martial (vii. 61)
speaks of a shop with
these vessels hung in a string by the handles
(catenatae lagonae).
The illustration (from Marquardt) represents
a lagona in the Museum at Saintes, the in-
scription on which is “Martiali soldam lago-
nam.” (See Marquardt, Privatleben, 649; Guhl
and Koner, Das Leben Griechen und Rom.,
160.) [G. E. M.]
LAMPADA'RCHIA. [LAMPADEDROMIA]
Laguna. (Marquardt.)
LAMPADEDRO'MIA (AautraSmöpouſa),
often also simply Aautrés, Aapitrabowyos &ydºv or
8póuos, éopth Aamiráðos, and less frequently, as
in Herod. viii. 98, Aaputraśm?opia, a torch-race,
celebrated not only at Athens, but also at many
places in Greece and Greek colonies: at Corinth,
in honour of Athena Hellotia (Schol. Pind.
Olymp. xiii. 56; Athen. xv. 678); at Byzantium
(Aautrās àvá8wv, C. I. G. 2034); at Ceos (id.
2360); at Syros, in honour of Demeter; to
Artemis, at Amphipolis (Diod. xviii. 4; Liv.
xliv. 44); and other places (see Boeckh, Staats-
haush., ed. Fränkel, i. 550). Alexander celebrated
a torch-race at Susa (Arrian. iii. 16). The torch-
race was held also at Epitaphia; at the Theseia
(C. I. A. ii. 444), and in later times at the
Germaniceia (C. I. A. iii. 1096; Fränkel on
Boeckh, ii. 113*; A. Mommsen, Heortologie, 170);
and possibly at any great funeral games, where
sufficient funds were provided.
At Athens we know of five celebrations of
this game: one to Prometheus at the Promethea
(Schol. ad Arist. Ran. 131; Harpoc. s. v.; Paus.
i. 30); a second to Athena (Phot. s. v. Aapºráčos)
at the Panathenaea (whether the greater only
is uncertain, but see Boeckh, l.c.); a third to
Hephaestus on the evening of the day after the
Apaturia (cf. Herod. viii. 9); a fourth to Pan
(Herod. vi. 105; Phot. s. v. Aaputrés: cf. Paus.
viii. 54, § 6); a fifth to the Thracian Artemis or
Bendis (Plat. Rep. i. p. 328 A). The three former
are of unknown antiquity; the fourth was intro-
duced soon after the battle of Marathon; the
last in the time of Socrates.
The race was run, usually on foot, by ephebi,
horses being first used in the time of Socrates
(Plato, l.c.); and at night. The administration
of it was undoubtedly under the gymnasiarch in
the time of Xenophon (de rep. Ath. 13), and it
was a liturgy involving emulation and cost; the
tribe being honoured as in the choregia, by a
victory of its contingent. Thus an inscription
runs, 'Akapaavrls évſka Aapatráðt IIava.0%ivata rā.
Heydāa śir’’Apxfov špxovros' EevokAñs éyuu-
vaguápxel (C. I. A. ii. 1229): but we hear later
of a Aapºračapxta, as in Aristotle (Pol. v. 8), who
speaks of the AaputraSapxia as a costly and rather
useless liturgy, which he would like to prohibit ;
and the words Aapitrabápxms, Aapitrabapxeiv occur
in inscriptions (see Krause, ap. Pauly, Real.
Encycl. s. v.); but Isaeus, like earlier writers,
uses the expression yuavaortapxeiv Aaſutrā6t,
and so in inscriptions (one as late as 166 A.D.:
Boeckh, i. 554, and Fränkel's note). It is no
doubt possible that in Aristotle's time a custom
had arisen of making a special liturgy called
Aaputrabapxta for the festival itself, akin to but
separate from the gymnasiarchy; more probably,
however, there was not
a distinct office, and it
was merely usual to
speak of the gymnasiarch
under this title at the
time of the torch-race,
which was regarded as
the most important
branch of his office and
its most public mani-
festation. The gymna-
siarch had to provide the
Aautrés, which was a candlestick with a kind of
shield set at the bottom of the socket, as is seen
Torch used in the race.
(From a coin.)



LAMPADEDROMLA
LAMPADEDROMLA 5
in the preceding woodcut, taken from a coin in
Mionnet (pl. 49, 6). In the two cuts given
below the torches are somewhat different: in
one they are formed of thin strips of wood, no
T
Torch used in the race. (Krause.)
/
doubt smeared with resin or pitch, and held
together by the disc through which they are
passed, and which served as a guard to the hand
from the dripping of the pitch (some represen-
tations show also a crossed string binding the
strips of wood): in the other cut the runners
carry shields (as in the 6tratroëpopufa, but with-
out helmets); while the torches have a flame,
apparently from a wick steeped in oil or liquid
pitch, in the hollow at the top, somewhat like
the modern torch. The gymnasiarch had also to
Torch used in the race.
(Krause.)
provide for the training of the runners, which was
of no slight consequence, for the race was evi-
dently a severe one (compare Aristoph. Vesp.
1203; Ran. 1087), with other expenses, which on
the whole were very heavy, so that Isaeus (Or.. 6
[Philoct.] § 60) classes this office with the xopm-
'yła and Tpimpapxſa, and reckons that it had
cost him 12 minae. The discharge of this office
was called Yvuvaquapzeſv Aauróði (Isaeus, l.c.),
or *w rais Aauréal yuuvariapxeſoróat (Xen.
de Vectig. iv. 52). The victorious gymnasiarch
presented his Aapur&s as a votive offering (āvā-
6mua, Boeckh, Inscr. Nos. 243, 250); and we
find the victorious runner, when there were
single competitors, receiving a jöpta (see A.
Mommsen, Heortologie, p. 169).
As to the arrangement of the lampadedromia,
it seems necessary to understand two different
methods, whether we regard them as co-existent
or as belonging to different periods. (1) Hero-
dotus (viii. 98) speaks of this game to illustrate the
Persian system āyyapmtov; Plato (Legg. vi. 776 B)
of “handing on the torch of life from one genera-
tion to another; ” and the same metaphor is used
by Lucretius, ii. 77; Varro, de Re Rust. iii. 16, 9;
Pers. vi. 61 : so also Aristot. Phys. v. 4, 10, olov
# Aaparès ék Staffoxiis pop& éxopuévn, with which
compare 6taðoxats trampoſſuevot, Aesch. Ag. 313;
and Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 46, “qui taedas ardentes
accipit celerior est quam ille qui tradit quod
defatigatus cursu integro facem tradit.” Here
we are clearly to understand lines of runners
(Aapitrabiatal or AaputraSmpópoi), posted at inter-
vals, the first in each line who receives the
torch, or takes it from the altar, running at his
best speed and handing it to the second in his
own line, and the second to the third until the
last in the line is reached, who runs with it up
to the appointed spot. Of course, if any torch
went out, the line to which it belonged was
out of the race. The victory (vikāv Āauráð)
fell to that line of runners whose torch first
reached the goal alight. Assuming that all the
gymnasiarchs contended on each occasion, there
would be ten such lines (or, after B.C. 307,
twelve), one for each tribe; but it is possible
that each gymnasiarch performed his service
only once a year, and that only a certain number
were told off for each festival. All the runners
in the winning line or chain contributed to the
victory, and this may possibly be the explana-
tion of the well-known line of Aeschylus (Ag.
314), vuká 6' 6 trpatos kal reaevrafos Spauðv,-
“the last and the first (i.e. all alike in the chain)
are successful.” The beacons are all victorious
because all belong to the successful chain of
light, as in the torch-race each person in the
line shares the victory.
But, if this is the right rendering, there is
certainly an obscurity of diction in putting kal
reAevrafos for x& reMeuratos, which the strict
idiom would require, and that, too, without any
metrical reason, such as exists in the passage
(line 324) cited by Mr. Sidgwick. It may
therefore be better to explain it with reference
to the fact that the first or winning torch
was handed in (to the archon basileus) by the
last recipient of it, and therefore, “he who is
both first to arrive and last in the chain wins
in the race.”
That Pausanias, however, saw a different
kind of torch-race, there can be no doubt. He
says (i. 30, § 2): év 'Akaënufq Sé £ort IIpopum-
6éa's Bapids, kal 6éovariv &n' airoi, trpos rhy
tróxiv čxovres katouévas Aapºrdàas. To 8& &yd-
viorpa Śuoi ré Spéluq q.vxdéal rºw 5382 Łrt
kaiopičvmv čarív' &moogearðeforms & otbèv šti riis
wikms rig trpárq, Sevrépg, 8& àvr' airot a regruv.
ei 5& uměš roërp katoiro, 6 rpſtos éoriv 6
kparāv, ei 8& traorw &moa Seorgetm, où8els ēotiv
ârg, Karaxeſmeral # víkm. Here there is evi-
dently no handing of the torch from one to
another — several torch-bearers are started,
possibly one for each tribe; the first who
reaches the goal with his torch alight wins:
the competition is individual, not one chain of
runners against another. And it is no doubt to
such a race that inscriptions which speak of a
single victor with a single prize, refer. Whether
this was a new method, or one which had
existed alongside of the other, it is impossible to
say with certainty; but it is probable that the



6 LAMPADEDROMIA
LANTERNA
different kinds of torch-race were in vogue at
different times; for it is fair to assume from
the language of Pausanias, that he had not
witnessed the kind of race described by the
earlier writers who have been quoted above.
The starting-point at Athens was the altar of
Prometheus in the Academy, and the course passed
through the Ceramicus to the city (irpos, thv
Tróxiv), perhaps, as Mommsen (Heortologie,
p. 312) thinks, to the Prytaneum under the
north side of the Acropolis, a distance of a little
over a mile. The archon basileus presided
(irpoéatmke Tów &ydºvov táv ćirl Aaputrööt, Poll.
viii. 90), and gave the prize to the victor. Both
starting-point and goal may have varied some-
what at different times, or in different festivals.
Plutarch (Solon, 1) says that the torches were
lighted at the altar of Eros, which was not far
from the altar of Prometheus (irpo rhs égéðov
Tâs és 'Akaëmutav, Paus. i. 30, § 74); the
mounted race in honour of Bendis was run in
the Peiraeus (Plato, l.c.).
As regards the origin of these games, it may
safely be said generally that it is to be sought
in the worship of Hephaestus, Prometheus, and
Athena, who are all connected with fire and
Tight, and with those arts and manufactures in
which fire is an agent. But it may further be
conjectured that this form was first used in
honour of Prometheus, to represent the myth of
his giving fire to men. The torch is kindled at
his altar and carried, if the theory above men-
tioned is correct, to the Prytaneum, where the
national fire was preserved, as carefully as though
it were still, what it had been in primitive times,
hard to rekindle if once it died out: then this
gift of the truppópos 6eós, representing the
koixos vépômé (Hesiod. Theog. 566), is handed to
the king archon, who represents in religious
matters the original guardian of the national
hearth. The same idea can be traced in a
custom which Maury cites (from Philostratus),
as existing in the games at Olympia: the
runners are placed a stade from the altar where
wood is to be lighted; near the altar stands the
priest, who awards a crown to the first who
touches the altar with his torch. (Maury,
Religion de la Grèce antique, iii. 491.)
But with the giver of fire were soon
associated in this worship the Olympian deities
who presided over its use: Hephaestus, who
taught men to apply it to melting and moulding
of metal; and Athena, who carried it through
the whole circle of useful and ornamental arts.
On the close connexion of Hephaestus with
Prometheus, and of both with Athena, see
Preller, Griech. Mythol. p. 80 (ed. 1872).
Both indeed are connected by myths with the
birth of Athena as well as with her presidency
over arts and manufactures, under her name
ºpyéum (Paus. i. 24, §36). It is suggested by
Welcker (Aeschyl. Tril. p. 21) that the com-
munity of potters instituted the torch-race. It
is true that the course was mainly in the outer
and inner Ceramicus, and that Athena was the
Patroness of the kepaufis (Sepp &Y’ ‘A9hvaſm ca)
*reſpexe xeipa kaufvov is the address in the
Kepguis); but the original connexion of the
torch-race with Prometheus is more natural,
and moreover the starting-point is in fact not
actually in the outer Ceramicus, but beyond it.
In later times the same honour was paid to all
gods who were in any way connected with fire,
as to Pan, to whom a perpetual fire was kept
up in his grotto under the Acropolis (cf. also
Pausan. viii. 37, § 677); so also to Artemis, as a
moon-goddess, whom Sophocles (Trach. 214)
calls àupſtrupos (cf. truppépoi ’Aprepatoos aiyaai,
Oed. Tyr. 207, and 6 truppépos Oebs Titáv IIpo-
pumbeſs, Oed. Col. 56). The mounted race in
honour of Bendis, the Thracian Artemis, was no
doubt introduced by the numerous Thracian
metoeci who lived for trading purposes at the
Peiraeus. In the still later extensions of the rites
mentioned at the beginning of this article all
symbolism was probably lost, and for these it
was merely adopted from the older festivals as a
striking spectacle. [H. G. L.] [G. E. M.]
LANTERNA (only in late Latin laterna.
Curt. Gr. Et. 266; Corssen, Lat. Sprach. i. 256)
= the Greek Auxvoúxos (see below), also itſuás
(Aristoph. Paw, 841), a lantern. Two bronze
lanterns, constructed with nicety and skill, have
been found in the ruins of Herculaneum and
Pompeii. One of them is represented in the
woodcut below. Its form is cylindrical. At
the bottom is a circular plate of metal, resting
on three balls. Within is a bronze lamp attached
to the centre of the base and provided with an
extinguisher, shown on the right hand of the
lantern. The plates of translucent horn (Plin.
H. N. xi. §49; Lucret. ii. 388), forming the sides,
probably had no aperture; but the hemispherical
cover may be raised so as to admit the hand and
to serve instead of a door, and it is also per-
forated with holes through which the smoke
might escape. To the two upright pillars sup-
porting the framework, a front view of one of
which is shown on the left hand of the lantern,
chains are attached for carrying the lantern by
means of the handle at the top.
Lantern found at Herculaneum.
We learn from Martial's epigrams (xiv. 61,
62) that bladder was used for lanterns as well
as horn ; also linen, as the cheapest form of
lantern (Cic. Att. iv. 3, 5; Plaut. Bacch. iii. 3, 42).
The lanterna Punica (Aul. iii. 6,30) was probably
a horn lantern, as the best kind then known.
Some centuries later glass was also used (Isid.
Orig. xx. 10). When the lantern was required
for use, the lamp (lucerna) was lighted and
placed within it. (See Mart. xiv. 61; Veg.
Mil. iv. 18.) It was carried by a slave called
lanternarius or servus praelucens (Plaut. Amph.

LANX
LARARIUM 7
Prol. 149, i. 1, 185; Cic. in Pis. 9, § 20; Juv. iii.
285; Mart. viii. 75). Suetonius (Aug. 29)
mentions that the “servus praelucens” was
struck by lightning while Augustus was being
carried in his litter. We learn from Photius
that the name Auxvoixos was given to a lamp
enclosed in a case of horn or of transparent
skin, and that perforated pitchers were used in
the same way: for instances, see Rutherford,
New Phrynichus, p. 131. The pdivos was a
link or torch of strips of resinous wood tied
together, but in late Greek used for Auxvoú-
xos, a lantern (Rutherford, l. c.). (See also
Marquardt, Privatl. 712; Becker-Göll, Gallus,
ii. 404.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
LANX. 1. A general term, including
various forms of dishes different in shape and
use, but, as far as can be gathered, a large dish.
It should have been originally flat, according to
Corssen's view that it is connected with plancus,
planus, TAdé, TXakoús: but it was also deep
(cava, Mart. xi. 31) and, so far, like the
catinus. The epithet panda applied to it in
Virgil (Georg. ii. 194) probably has the same
meaning. In Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 40, it is round and
large enough to hold a wild boar; but it is
square or quadrangular in Ulp. Dig. 34, 2,
19. Ovid (Pont. iii. 5, 50) describes it as em-
bossed (caelata) and holding fruit, but most
frequently we find it used for bringing meat or
fish to the table (Hor. l. c.; Juv. v. 80; Plaut.
Curc. 323). It is used for incense (Ov. Pont. iv.
8, 40; Prop. ii. 13, 23). Its use in sacrifices,
both for the exta and for incense, may be seen
from Verg. Georg. ii. 194, 394; Aen. viii. 284,
xiii. 215; Ov. l. c. All passages which give any
indication of its material tend to prove that the
lanx was always of metal; for the rich, of silver
(Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 40; Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 145,
where lances are mentioned weighing from 100
to 500 pounds, and requiring a special officina to
make them). In Cicero, Att. vi. 1, 13, the lanx
embossed in filigree work (filicata) is opposed to
vasa fictilia; but that it was made, if always of
metal, sometimes of cheaper metal than silver,
is implied by its rustic use in Verg. Georg. l. c.
The following lines from Ovid (Pont. iv. 8, 39,
40) are instructive both as to size and relative
cost :—
“Nec quae de parva dis pauper libat acerra
Tura minus, grandi quam data lance, valent:”
and it is noticeable that Pliny (l. c.), speaking
of very costly silver plate, uses the word lana,
but in xxxv. § 163, when he speaks of pottery
made at an extravagant price, he uses the word
patina. (Marquardt, Privatl. 654; CATINUS.)
2. The metal dishes of the balance [LIBRA]
were called lances, and sometimes the word lana:
(= libra bilana) was used to express the balance:
so Suet. Vesp. 25; Verg. Aen. xii. 725, &c.
(Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 367.) [J. Y.] [G.E.M..]
LA'PHRIA (Aáqpta), an annual festival,
celebrated at Patrae in Achaia, in honour of
Artemis, surnamed Laphria. The peculiar
manner in which it was solemnised during the
time of the Roman empire (for the worship of
Artemis Laphria was not introduced at Patrae
till the time of Augustus) is described by Pau-
sanias (vii. 18, § 7). On the approach of the
festival the Patraeans placed in a circle, around
the altar of the goddess, large pieces of green
wood, each being sixteen yards in length; within
the altar they placed dry wood. They then
formed an approach to the altar in the shape of
steps, which were slightly covered with earth.
On the first day of the festival a most magnifi-
cent procession went to the temple of Artemis,
and at the end of it there followed a maiden
who had to perform the functions of priestess
on the occasion, and who rode in a chariot
drawn by stags. On the second day the goddess
was honoured with numerous sacrifices, offered
by the state as well as by private individuals.
These sacrifices consisted of eatable birds, boars,
Stags, goats, sometimes of the cubs of wolves
and bears, and sometimes of the old animals
themselves. All these animals were thrown
upon the altar alive at the moment when the
dry wood was set on fire. Pausanias says that
he often saw a bear, or some other of the
animals, when seized by the flames, leap from
the altar and escape across the barricade of
green wood. Those persons who had thrown
them upon the altar caught the devoted victims
again, and threw them back into the flames.
The Patraeans did not remember that a person
had ever been injured by any of the animals on
this occasion. (Comp. Paus. iv. 31, § 6; Schol.
ad Eurip. Orest. 1087.) [L. S.]
LAPICIDI’NAE. [LAUTUMIAE.]
LAPIS MILLIA'RIUS. [MILLIARIUM.]
LAPIS SPECULARIS. [DoMUs, p. 686 b.]
LA’QUEAR. [DOMUS, p. 686 a.]
LAQUEATO'RES.. [GLADIATOREs.]
LA’QUEUS, properly a rope with a noose
in it, whereby anything might be pulled or led
(according to Corssen's reference to lacio), used
to signify the punishment of death by hanging,
called triumvirale supplicium, Tac. Ann. v. 9
(vi. 4). Hence “Fortunae laqueum mandare *
(Juv. x. 52) means “to bid Fortune go hang”
(see Mayor's note). This mode of punishment
was never performed in public, but only in
prison, as in the Tullianum. Hence we find
laqueus joined with carcer (Tac. Ann. iii. 50),
and with carnifex (v. 9, xiv. 48). See also the
account of the punishment of the Catilinarian
conspirators (Sall. Cat. 55), where the punish-
ment is inflicted by “vindices rerum capitalium.”
Mommsen identifies (Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. 595)
these with the triumviri or tres viri capitales,
and thinks that, in the case of important crimi-
nals and women, these officials were the actual
executioners, for which theory he quotes Sallust
(l.c.), Val. Max. v. 4, 7. At the same time it
is possible, and in the nature of things probable,
that these high officials are spoken of as
strangling, when they were merely present to
see that the carnifex did his duty. The passage
in Tac. Ann. v. 9 (or vi. 4) at any rate shows
that the execution of women was sometimes left
to the carnifex, if not always. The punish-
ment was not uncommon under Tiberius (Tac.
Ann, ll. cc., vi. 39; Suet. Tib. 61); but in the
ordinary course of law the milder punishment
of exile was inflicted for crimes which in old
times were capitally punished, and executions
were mainly reserved for real or imaginary
crimes against the emperor. (Cf. Tac. Ann.
xiv. 48.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
LARA'RIUM was a place set apart in a
Roman house for the worship of the Lar
familiaris or (later) Lares. (See Marquardt,
8 LARENTALIA
LATER
Staats. iii. 123.) Originally this shrine, with
the image or images, was in the Atrium, as the
place where the hearth stood and the family
assembled for meals; but, when the hearth and
the kitchen were moved to the back part of the
house, the lararia were placed elsewhere, some-
times in the kitchen, sometimes in the dining-
room, sometimes in the peristyle, and frequently
at the entrance of the house (especially in the
later empire). Even in the 5th century Jerome
(in Esaiam, c. 57) speaks of “idola post fores
domorum quos domesticos appellant lares,” and
of the “Tutelae simulacrum,” to which they
paid reverence as they went out or in. At these
shrines was placed a lighted candle or lamp, and
an offering of food was made at the secunda mensa
(Serv. ad Aen. i. 730; Varro, ap. Non. p. 544,
1; Ov. Fast. ii. 633). Hence (when the Genius
of Augustus had, after Actium, been associated
with the Lares) we can explain the expression
“alteris te mensis adhibet deum ” (Hor. Od. iv.
5, 31). We learn from Petronius (60) that, if
there was no lararium in the dining-room, the
statues of the Lares were sometimes brought to
the table; but more usually a small table for
this offering was placed before the lararium,
wherever it might be, with a salt-cellar upon it
(see Arnob. ii. 67; Pers. iii. 25; Liv. xxvi. 36),
and this is probably the special significance of
the paternum salinum (Hor. Od. ii. 16, 14). It
was an old Roman custom for the master of the
house with his household also in the morning
to make an offering with prayers &o the Lar
familiaris. Hence we find that the emperor
had a lararium in his bed-chamber (Suet. Aug.
7, Domit. 17). Here also Alexander Severus is
said to have placed with the Lares images not
only of Orpheus and Alexander the Great, but
of Christ (Lamprid. Al. Sev. 29; Gibbon, ii. 529).
On the occasion offeriae privatae on the Kalends,
Nones and Ides, at the Saturnalia (Mart. xiv.
70), the birthday of the master of the house
(Tibull. i. 7; Hor. iv. 11, &c.), the Lares were
crowned and special offerings were made to
them, and in the lararium also was hung up the
bulla of the son who assumed the toga virilis.
(For further particulars regarding the worship
of the Lares, see Marquardt, l.c.; Preller, Röm.
Myth. p. 497, and Dict. Myth. s. v.) [G. E. M.]
LARENTALIA, sometimes written LAREN-
TINALIA (Macrob. i. 10; Lactant. Inst. i. 20),
was a Roman festival in honour of Acca Larentia,
the wife of Faustulus and the nurse of Romulus
and Remus. It was celebrated on December 23
(Fest. s. v.; Macrob. l.c.; Ovid. Fast. iii. 57).
The sacrifice in this festival was performed by
the Flamen Quirinalis, as the representative of
Romulus (Gell. vii. 7, 7), in the Velabrum,
where the Via Nova entered it, not far from the
Porta Romanula (Burn’s Rome, 278; see Varro,
L. L. v. § 164). At this place Acca was said
to have been buried. (See also Preller, Röm.
Myth. p. 422; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung,
iii. 335.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
LARES. See Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Bio-
graphy and Mythology.
LARGITIO. [AMBITUS; FRUMENTARIAE
LEGES.
LARNAX. [ARCA; FUNUs.]
LATER, din. LATERCULUS (rx'v60s,
dim. TAlv6ts, trav6íov), a brick. Besides the
Greeks and Romans, other ancient nations em-
ployed brick for building to a great extent,
especially the Babylonians (Herod. 179; Xen-
Anab. iii. 4, §§ 7, 11 ; Nahum iii. 14) and
Egyptians. In the latter country a painting on
the walls of a tomb at Thebes (Wilkinson's
Manners and Customs, vol. ii. p. 99) exhibits
slaves, in one part employed in procuring water,
in mixing, tempering, and carrying the clay, or
in turning the bricks out of the mould [FORMA,
and arranging them in order on the ground to
be dried by the sun, and in another part carry-
ing the dried bricks by means of the yoke
[ASILLA). In the annexed woodcut we see a
man with three bricks suspended from each end
of the yoke, and beside him another who returns
from having deposited his load.
Egyptian brick-makers.
(From Thebes.)
These figures are selected from the above-
mentioned painting, being in fact original por-
traits of two Aiyêrriot trav6opópol, girt with
linen round the loins in exact accordance with
the description given of them by Aristophanes,
who at the same time alludes to all the opera-
tions in the process of brick-making (TAlv60-
Trotta, Schol. in Pind. Ol. v. 20), which are
exhibited in the Theban painting. (Aves, 1132-
1152; Schol. ad loc.)
The clay was carried in shovels (&pal) and
placed in troughs (Aekäval), to be manipulated
there and moistened with water (for which the
word āpydºw is used). ".
It is necessary to distinguish the sun-dried
bricks, which were used in the earliest times,
from the baked bricks. The word later is strictly
a sun-dried or unburnt brick, whereas testa is
kiln-baked brick; so the word lateritius means,
made of crude or sun-dried bricks, testaceus
made of burnt bricks, and wherever no quali-
fying word is used this distinction will usually
be observed, but the former are also termed
lateres crudi, the latter lateres cocti or coctiles,
and similarly waſv6ot &pial and trafvéot &mtat ;
trafvéos being strictly a sun-dried rectangular
brick (whence the word is used for shape inde-
pendently of material). Babylonian brickwork
is partly of sun-dried bricks with a thin layer
of reeds between each course; but it appears
from the remains that the walls were originally
faced with burnt bricks. These bricks are found .
bearing the name of Nebuchadnezzar. (Layard,
p. 406; Rawlinson on Herod. Book iii., Appen-
dix.) Egyptian bricks were generally sun-dried,
and many of the burnt bricks found in Egypt
are Roman. The dry climate probably made
them last better than in damper countries.

IATER
LATINITAS 9
Usually the proportion of length to width is
2 to 1; of length to thickness, 3 to 1. In length
they vary from about 1 foot to 17 inches. (See
Birch, Ancient Pottery, vol. i.) The Greeks
used only crude or sun-dried bricks down to
the time of the Roman conquest, or at any rate
till after Alexander (Birch, i. 158). As an
instance may be mentioned the temple of Demeter
at Lepreon (Pausan. v. 5, § 6). Pausanias
(ii. 18, § 150) speaks of baked bricks in a temple
at Argos, but that is conjectured to be of
Macedonian or Roman date. Marquardt (Privat-
leben, 636) cites the Philippeum at Olympia
(Pausan. v. 20, § 10) as the earliest dated
building in Greece of baked brick (B.C. 337):
but Blümner denies this upon the evidence of
the recent German excavators at Olympia, who
informed him that in all the remains of the
Philippeum there was no trace of baked brick
(Blümner, Technologie, ii. 16). Walls of Greek
cities were generally of stone, but instances of
sun-dried brick walls can be found in Pausanias,
viii. 8, § 7 (of Mantinea), and the birds in Aristo-
phanes built their wall of this material (Arist.
Aves, 1136). Their partial use for dwelling-
houses, especially of the poorer classes, is men-
tioned in Xenophon, Mem. iii. 1, 7.
Roman bricks were crude till the end of the
Republic (Varro, ap. Non. s. v. suffundatum;
Cic. de Div. ii. 47, 99): the use of baked brick
probably became more common as houses of
more stories were built, but they were only
used for facing. Witruvius (ii. 3) seems to speak
solely of lateres crudi, for he does not mention
the triangular bricks found in existing walls at
all. The earliest baked bricks are found in
the Rostra (B.C. 44), and even in the time of
Augustus crude bricks only were used, of which
none remain. The baked Roman bricks are of
various colours—red, yellow, more rarely brown,
some of red pozzolana mixed with clay, as in
the Flavian palace on the Palatine (Middleton's
JRome). Their thickness varies from 1 in. to
1% in. The commonest size is 15 inches long
and 14 wide. Those in the “palace of Constan-
tine’ at Treves are 15 inches square and 14
thick. Vitruvius (who, as mentioned above,
seems to be treating only of crude bricks) states
that spring was the best time for brick-making,
for those made in summer were apt to dry
unequally and crack, and they should be kept
two years before being used. He speaks of three
shapes: the Lydian, 1% (Roman) feet long and a
foot broad; the pentadoron, five palms square;
and the tetradoron, four palms (Vitruv. ii. 3).
Pliny (H. N. xxxv. § 49) mentions some which
were so porous and light that they floated in
water. Blümmer states that the same kind of
brick was made at Nuremberg in the 14th and
15th centuries and was called Schwammstein. As
regards the baked Roman bricks, we find them
stamped at Rome in the 2nd century A.D.: but
in other parts of Italy the stamped bricks are
found earlier. These stamps have a figure of
some god or animal, as a trade-mark, encircled
by the name of the brick-maker, sometimes of
the consul also, and, in the case of bricks made
by soldiers, of the legion to which they belong.
As the Roman armies brought their brick-
making art with them wherever they went, we
can trace in some instances the movements of a
legion by the brick-stamps. For the methods
of building with bricks, see MURUS and PARIES :
and for further information about their manu-
facture and history, see Birch, Ancient Pottery;
Blümner, Technologie, ii. 16. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
LATI'NITAS, LATIUM, JUS LATII
(to kaxoguevov Adriov, Strabo, iv. p. 187; Aartov
6tratov, Appian, Bell. Civ. ii. 26). To under-
stand the meaning of these terms at various
periods of Roman history, it is necessary to go
back to the conquest of Alba Longa by Rome,
which then entered into an aequum foedus with
the Latini, or peoples of Latium, who at that
time were leagued together in a federation of
thirty towns (Dionys. v. 61). The attempt of
Rome to assert a sort of suzerainty over the
Latin league led to a war (Dionys. v. 34), which
resulted in the Latins, though nominally re-
maining socii of Rome, being practically reduced
to dependence on her (Dionys. iii. 54; Liv. i.
35–38). However, they seized the opportunity
of Rome's struggle with Porsena to repudiate
the yoke : she surrendered the claim to exercise
a protectorate, and in 493 B.C. a new alliance
was concluded on terms of absolute equality
(iorotroAireta, Dionys. viii. 70), the members of
the league and Rome enjoying reciprocal rights
of conubium (Liv. i. 49; Dionys. vi. 1), com-
mercium (Liv. xli. 8), and of settling on one
another's territory with at any rate some public
rights: we read of Latins voting in the comitia
tributa in Dionys. viii. 72; Liv. xxiii. 3, 16;
Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 23, &c. In 486 B.C. the
Hernici were admitted to the confederation,
which endured between the three peoples sub-
stantially for 140 years. In 340 B.C. occurred
the Latin war, which terminated in the dissolu-
tion of the league : the interchange of commer-
cium and conubium between its members ceased
(Liv. viii. 14 ; ix. 43, 2, 4), and each of the
towns which had belonged to it was brought
into a direct relation of dependence with Rome,
though there was great variety in the privileges
which they enjoyed with respect to her, some
apparently retaining conubium, commercium, and
the right of acquiring civitas by settlement.
From this time onward the Italian civitates or
communities are roughly divisible into those
which possess the Roman civitas in whole or part
(municipia and coloniae Romanae; see Colonia),
and those which retain their independence by
treaty, their only obligation towards Rome as a
rule being the furnishing of a contingent of
troops to the Roman army (civitates foederatae
and coloniae Latinae). It has been pointed out
under the head of COLONIA that joint colonies
had been founded by the Romans and the Latin
league both before and after the accession of the
Hernici; these colonists being in all cases called
Latini. Colonies which were founded after the
destruction of the league (340 B.C.) under the
name Latinae were established solely by Rome,
and lay outside the limits of Latium. The
colonists were in the main Latins, or members of
other kindred or allied communities: but among
them there were often some of the poorer Roman
citizens, who were tempted to surrender their
Roman civitas, thus suffering capitts deminutio
media (Gaius, iii. 56; Cic. pro Caec. 33,98; pro
Domo, 30, 78), by the offer of an assignment of
land. These later Latin colonies at first p0S-
sessed the same rights with those which had
been jointly founded by Rome and the league :
10 LATINITAS
LATINITAS
they were in a large measure independent of
Rome, not being bound to adopt the Roman law
unless they became fundus (Gell. xvi. 13; Cic.
pro Balb. 8, 21), having their own coinage, and
their citizens being, in relation to Rome,
peregrini (Gaius, i. 79; Liv. xliii. 13), though
obliged to serve in the Roman army. As pos-
sessing the rights of conubium and commercium,
and of acquiring at least a limited civitas by
settling at Rome, they were described, along
with such old Latin colonies and towns of the
league as had retained their ancient privileges,
as socii Latini nominis, socii of a privileged order.
But these privileges were at last curtailed.
After the colonisation of Ariminum (268 B.C.)
there is observable a strong tendency to confine
the rights of new coloniae Latinae strictly to
commercium. Later writers speak of Latini
coloniarii having commercium (Ulp. Reg. 19, 4),
but not conubium (ib. 5, 4). Similarly their
general right of settling at Rome, and thereby
becoming cives if they left a son behind in the
colony (Liv. xli. 8, 9), was taken away from
them. The Roman dislike of its exercise is at-
tested by the expulsion of Latins from Rome in
B.C. 187 and 177 (Liv. xxxix. 3; xli. 9, 9), and
eventually Latini coloniarii were able to rise to
the Roman civitas only in two ways: by dis-
charging one of the higher magistracies
(honores) in their own colony (App. Bell. Civ. ii.
26; Strabo, iv. 1, 12), and by bringing a suc-
cessful prosecution under the Lex Acilia repe-
tundarum, passed B.C. 123 (C. I. L. i. 198, ll. 76,
78). The phrase “per Latium venire in civita-
tem” (Plin. Paneg. 37; Gaius, i. 95) denotes
in particular the first of these. Under the em-
perors, attainment of an honor in some towns
with Latin rights made only the individual him-
self civis: in others the privilege was shared
with him by his parents, wife and family, and
this seems to be the clue to the meaning of
&minus Latium, majus Latium in Gaius, i. 95,
and the Lex municip. Salpens. c. 21.
Thus before the Social War there were only
two classes of persons, cives and peregrini, the
Latins being included under the latter denomi-
nation, along with the socii and the provincial
subjects of Rome. The leges Julia and Plautia
Pāpiria, passed at the end of that war [CIVITAs),
extended Roman citizenship all over Italy, so
that Latinitas in the old sense disappeared. But
the rights which it connoted—commercium with-
out conubium or the public rights of citizenship
—had become a distinct political conception:
and the term was retained to denote a status
which the Romans conferred on towns and
countries outside Italy by way of favour. The
first step in this direction was made by a Lex
Pompeia, B.C. 89, which conferred this Latinitas
on the Transpadane Gauls (Ascon. in Pis. p. 3),
and expressly provided that the attainment of
a honor should be a title to the civitas. Cicero
says the same status was bestowed on the Sici-
lians after Caesar's death (ad Att. xiv. 12):
Hadrian granted it to a large number of cities
(Spart. Had. 21), and Vespasian to the whole of
Spain (Plin. H. W. iii. 4) and to some of the
Alpine tribes (ib. iii. 20); and Richard of Ciren-
cester, in his work de situ Britanniae, speaks of
ten cities in Britain which were “Latio jure
donatae.” The number of communities possessed
of the same rights was increased by the estab-
lishment of Latin colonies in the provinces after
the Social War: thus (e.g.) Comum was made
a colonia Latina by Caesar (B.C. 59) under the
name of Novum Comum (Appian, Bell. Civ. ii.
26), and several towns of this class, especially in
Spain, are mentioned by Pliny: , see Colon1A.
The Latini coloniarii mentioned by Ulpian are
thus apparently the inhabitants either of coloniae
Latinae in the provinces, or of towns or districts
on which the jus Latii had been conferred by a
lex or imperial favour, both of which seem to be
included under the “oppida Latinorum veterum ”
which Pliny (iii. § 18) mentions along with the
“oppida civium Romanorum,” military colonies
of Roman citizens.
A new class of Latins originated with the Lex
Junia Norbana, the date of which is approxi-
mately 19 A.D. Prior to that statute, slaves
manumitted otherwise than by vindicta, census,
or testamentum [MANUMISSIO), even though
fully owned “ex jure Quiritium ” by their
masters, had not become free in the eye of the
law; but they were said “in libertate esse,”
being protected by the praetor so long as they
lived against any attempt on the part of the
master to exercise the rights of ownership over
them (“olim ex jure Quiritium servi, sed
auxilio praetoris in libertatis forma servari
soliti,” Gaius, iii. 56). The number of such
semi-free persons was increased by the Lex Aelia
Sentia, A.D. 4, which further curtailed the
power of making slaves cives by manumission
(Gaius, i. 18, 38). A legal status, however, was
given them by the Lex Junia Norbana, which
provided that, like Latin: coloniarii, they should
have the commercium without the conubium or
the public rights of civitas: hence they were
called Latini Juniani (Gaius, i. 22, iii. 56).
Even the ordinary rights of commercium, how-
ever, were curtailed largely in their case by the
statutes depriving them of the power of making
a will, of benefiting under the will of another
person, and of competence to be appointed
guardian under a testament (Gaius, i. 22, 24;
Ulp. Reg. 20, 8): consequently as they must die
intestate, and could have neither sui heredes nor
agnates, their property went inevitably on their
decease to the patron “jure quodammodo peculii”
(Gaius, iii. 56; Inst. iii. 7, 4). The children of
a Latinus Junianus inherited their father’s
status. But there was a large number of ways
in which a Latinus Junianus could rise to the
civitas either alone, or along with his wife and
children: these, which are enumerated by Gaius,
i. 28 sq., and more fully by Ulpian, Reg. 3, com-
prise remanumission in one of the statutory
modes, serving a certain time in the Roman
guards, imperial grant, jus liberorum, &c. (See
Mr. Poste’s Gaius, note on i. 35.)
The status of Latinitas disappeared momen-
tarily when Caracalla bestowed Roman citizen-
ship on all the free subjects of the Empire
[CIVITAS], but the operation of the Lex Junia
must have at once re-created it. Justinian says
(Inst. i. 5, 3) that in his time Latins were not
often met with, and by Cod. vii. 7 he abolished
the status of Latinitas altogether.
(Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i.
pp. 23–57; Savigny, Ueber die Entstehung und
Fortbildung der Latinitàt, vermischte Schriften, i.
pp. 14–18; Der römische Volkschluss der Tafel
von Heraclea, ib. iii. pp. 293–304; Madvig, de
LATRINA
LATRUNCULI 11
Jure Coloniar., opusc. acad., pp. 271–284;
Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, § 11; Wan-
gerow, Latini Juniani, Marburg, 1833; Puchta,
Institutionen, §§ 62, 63.) [J. B. M.]
LATRINA, Greek [DOMUs, p. 664 al;
Roman [DOMUs, p. 672 al.
LATROCINIUM, LATRO'NES. Armed
persons who robbed others abroad on the public
roads or elsewhere were called latrones, and their
crime latrocinium. Murder was not an essential
part of the crime, though it was a frequent ac-
companiment (Sen. de Ben. v. 14; Dig. 49, 15,
24; 50, 16, 118). Under the Republic latrones
were apprehended by the public magistrates,
such as consuls and praetors, and forth with exe-
cuted (Liv. xxxix. 29, 41). By the Lex Cornelia
de Sicariis of the dictator Sulla, they were
classed with Sicarii and punished with death,
and this law continued in force in the imperial
times (Dig. 48, 19, 28; Sen. de Clem. ii. 1, Epist.
7; Petron. 91); from the 2nd century onwards
the praefectus urbi had summary jurisdiction in
such crimes in the city and for a circuit of 100
Roman miles about it (see Marquardt, Staatsver-
waltung, i. 225; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1067).
The grassatores were another kind of robbers,
who robbed people in the streets and roads, and
besides robbing murdered and kidnapped (Suet.
Aug. 32; Tib. 8; cf. Juv. iii. 305, x. 22, xiii.
145; Friedländer, ii. 29). The name grassator
seems strictly to belong to the unarmed footpad:
if they used arms, they were punished, like the
latrones, capitally, or in less flagrant cases they
were condemned to the mines or exiled. (Cic.
de Fato, 15; Dig. 48, 19, 28: see also Rein,
Criminalrecht, p. 424.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
LATRU'NCULI (trégorot, Jºãºpol, calculi), a
game of skill resembling draughts, played in
a variety of ways by both Greeks and Romans.
The invention of it was commonly ascribed to
Palamedes, who, according to some, was also the
inventor of dice (Soph. fr. 380, 381, Dind.;
Eurip. Iph. A. 196, Tregoſov jöopévows uoppatori
aroxum Aókous, the “combinations” of the game:
a curious but perhaps interpolated passage).
Homer represents the suitors of Penelope
amusing themselves with it (Od. i. 107). Plato
assigns both terreta and ſcuffeta with other more
useful arts to Theuth, the Egyptian Hermes
(Phaedr. p. 274 D); and it is at least certain
that such games were known to the Egyptians.
Besides numerous paintings representing the
game, draught-men have been discovered in the
tombs. Among the recent acquisitions of the
British Museum are some beautiful specimens;
a set, apparently of cne type, carved as lions’
heads; others in glass (a favourite material
with the Romans; see below) of two sizes, as
if for a game in which there were both “officers”
and “men.”
The annexed cut, from a papyrus in the
British Museum, represents a game of draughts
between a lion and an antelope; each plays with
five men, distinguished, not by colour, but by
their shape: the lion has won, and holds in his
left paw a purse containing the stakes. In
Wright's Hist. of Caricature (1865, p. 8), the
vanquished animal is described as “a unicorn”;
in Becker-Göll, Charikles (ii. p. 373), as a .
hare (!). It is clearly meant for an antelope,
though only one horn is seen, owing to the
absence of perspective.
• Among the Greeks two kinds of tretreſa
at least are clearly distinguishable, though
º;
lili III:
\NYST –I.
Sº Nº.
Egyptian Draughts. (From a papyrus in the
British Museum.)
ſº |
% *
º
e
there were probably others. We may notice,
in passing, the explanation of the Homeric
trea ool as quoted from Apion by Athenaeus
(i. p. 16 f, 17 a). According to a tradition
which Apion heard from a native of Ithaca,
this was a game not of mental but of bodily
dexterity, a sort of bowls or nine-pins in which
a mark was aimed at. Too much has been
made of this passage by Becq de Fouquières
(pp. 405–407); Homer says simply trea'aoſ, and
all the rest is fancy (cf. Becker-Göll, Charikles,
ii. 372). Of the two modes of play of which
we have distinct accounts, the simpler and
doubtless the older was the game of the five
lines, Trévre Ypappaſ, thus described by Pollux
(ix. 97): étrelë, 5è pipot uév eioſiv of tretrot,
Trévre 3’ &Körepos róv traigóvrwv eixev étri Trévre
ºypapºuðv, eircóra’s eſpnrat XoſpokMe? kal Treorož
Trevréypaupa kal kūBow BoAat rôv 8& Trévre róv
éicatépo6ev Ypappºv aéorm Tis ºv iepā Ypappuſ'
kal 6 row éice?0ev kivav ćrofel trapopºtav Icível Tov
&q’iepās. The matural inference is that in this
game the pieces moved along the lines, not the
spaces between them; though a board of 36
squares, i.e. divided by five lines each way, has
been suggested (L. and S. s. v. trea orof). Eusta-
thius (on Il. vi. p. 633, 58) throws some further
light on the proverbial expression kivetv Tov
âq’iepās, “to try one's last chance: ” it is well
known through allusions in literature (Alcae.
fr. 77 Bergk; Theocr. vi. 18; and elsewhere);
but why it was dangerous to move this piece,
when it became necessary to move it, or what
was the effect upon the game, it is impossible to
say. The Greek idiom of course implies that
the iepā ypaupº was the original station of this
piece; a sufficient answer to the notion of Becq
de Fouquières (p. 402) that it was a part of the
board which it was dangerous to approach, and
from which a player had to remove his man if
possible. It is a matter of probable conjecture,
but not expressly stated, that in this game, as
in the other form of retreſa, the object was to
hem in the enemy’s men, or to place one of them
between two adversaries, in which case it was
taken off the board; and that the game was won,
as in modern draughts, either by the capture of
all the opposing forces or by their inability to
In OVC. -
The accounts of the other kind of retreſa are
a little more explicit: it was called tróAus or


12 LATRUNCULI
LATRUNCULI
rather réAets, another name for the x&pal
or squares. The leading passage is Pollux,
ix. 98: # 6& 61& roMAów iſ fighwu traičić, TAlv6íov
éarl x&pas àv Ypaupaſs exov 8takeipićvas' ral to
pºv arxiv6tov kaxeſrai tróAis, táv 8& Whipwv
£ráarm köwy Śimpmuévov 8& eis São Töv iſ hºpww
kari, rås xpéas, # téxvn rās traičias €ati
replAh!et 360 phºwv ćuoxpówy thv čtepáxpovv
&vexe?v. We have here distinct mention of
squares instead of lines, of the different colours
of the men (here called köves and not reoroloſ),
of the rule that a man caught between two
adversaries was lost. In the words kal rô wév
TAuv6íov kaxeſrat tróAus, there seems to be a
confusion between the board (trxiv6íov) and the
squares (xãopal) into which it was divided;
other passages, however, clear up this difficulty.
Zenob. Cent. v. 67: tróAets traigetv’ wéuvmtal
taúrms Kparivos év Aparería, [fr. 51 M. ap.
Poll. l. c.] § 5& réAus eiðos éarl traičias retrev-
tukis, kal bokeſ uérevmvéx0at &mb rāv rais
Whqois traigóvrwv, rais Aeyouévais viv učv
X&pais, Tóte 8& tróAeow. Plat. Rep. iv. 422 E:
ékáorrm yap airóv tróAets eigl trautroAAal, àAA’
où tróAus, to róv traigávrov: with the Scholia.
These passages show that the game was really
called rôAets raiſely : and Becq de Fouquières
is not happy in his conjecture that the tróAis
was a particular part of the board. Compare
Plat. Rep. vi. 487 B, Örö rôv retreſſelv Šeivāv
oi uh teNevrávres &mokAetovrai kal oik #xovow
8 ti pépoorly, where “hemming in ’’ the enemy
is of the essence of the game and pépéiv is a
technical word for “to move,” another being
6égéal. Polyb. i. 84, troXAobs &moreºváuevos
kal ovykaetov &gtrep &yaôós retreuths. The
giving of odds (kpeſororov) is alluded to (Eurip.
Suppl. 409); and taking back a move (āva6é-
orðal, [Plat.] Hipparch. 229 E). The number of
biqol in the developed form of this game seems
to have been thirty on each side: this rests on
Phot. Lew. p. 439, 1: TróAeus trafgely rês vov
xapás [xºpas is an obvious correction] kaAov-
aévas €v rais Q', where Porson corrects º'. In
Pollux (vii. 206), Eustathius (ad Îl. vi. 169),
and Hesychius (s. v. Ölaypaupuapés), perhaps by
a confusion, sixty men are also assigned to games
with dice. The Greeks used simple materials:
the reorool were merely round or oval stones
(Witbol, calculi), and, as with us, the same men
might be used for draughts and backgammon
[DUODECIM SCRIPTA].
In none of the Greek forms of draughts is
there any mention of pieces more powerful than
the rest, like the crowned kings or dames of the
modern game. This distinction first appears in
the Roman latrunculi, which in other respects
were very like the tróAets just described. The
calculi, a name common to this with other
games, were here specially called latrones, i.e.
not robbers, but soldiers; the word comes from
Adrpov, “pay ” (Varro, L. L. vii. 52; Fest.
Epit. p. 118 M.); more commonly the dim.
latrunculi, or in verse milites (Ov. A. A. ii.
207-8, iii. 357; Trist. ii. 477): for the game
may be said to represent a miniature combat
between two armies. That they stood on the
Squares of the board (tabula latruncularia, Sen.
Ep. 117, § 30), not on the lines, is proved by
another passage of Varro (L. L. x. 22): “Ad
hunc quadruplicem fontem ordines diriguntur
bini, uni transversi, alteri directi, ut in tabula
Piso.
solet, in qua latrunculis ludunt.” Neither the
number of squares nor of men is anywhere
mentioned: the latter are conjectured to have
been thirty a side as in the Greek game. Glass
was a common material (Ov. A. A. ii. 208;
Mart. vii. 72, 8); when “gems” are mentioned,
imitation jewels of glass are probably meant
(Mart. xii. 40, 3; xiv. 20); sometimes they
were made of earthenware, ivory, or the
precious metals. The colours are distinguished
(Ov. Trist. l.c.; Paneg. Pis. 182; Mart. xiv.
17); a set of stone calculi of a hemispherical
shape found in a tomb at Cumae are curiously
enough of three colours, white, black, and red
(Bullett. Nap. 1852, p. 132).
The distinction between “officers” and “men,”
noticed above in Egyptian draughts, is also
proved to have existed in the Roman game;
see Isid. Orig. xviii. 67: “Calculi partim ordine
moventur, partim wage. Ideo alios ordinarios,
alios vagos appellant. At vero, qui moveri
omnino non possunt, incitos dicunt; ” and the
passage quoted below from the Panegyric on
Here ordine seems to mean “one square
at a time,” vage “in any direction so far as the
range was unobstructed; ” though a leaping
movement has also been suggested (Marquardt,
p. 833). The officers probably stood on the first
rank, the men as a “row of pawns” (Bauern-
reihe) in front of them; but we must beware of
pursuing too far analogies derived from chess.
The superior pieces were called latrones, the
inferior very probably latrunculi; the doubtful
term mandra comes in here for discussion. We
find it in Mart. vii. 72, “Sic vincas Noviumque
Publiumque, Mandris et vitreo latrone clusos; ”
and in Paneg. Pis. 191, “fracta prorumpat in
agmina mandra.” The sense of “sheepfold’’ or
“cattlepen’’ passes easily into that of “a drove
of cattle” (Juv. iii. 227) or “a string of mules”
(Mart. v. 22). As applied to the game of
latrunculi, mandra may mean a square of the
board, and so it is usually explained in the line
of Martial: in Paneg. Pis. it undoubtedly means
the row of pawns, which is broken through in
order to afford scope to the more powerful
pieces; a sense which will equally suit the
former passage. But even the high authority
of Becker (Gallus, p. 471) and Marquardt
(Privatl. 833) will not convince us that mandra
could be applied to the single pawn. As in the
Greek game, the object was to get one of the
adversary's men between two of one's own, and
then take it off the board (Ov. ll. cc.; Mart.
xiv. 17); or else reduce him to a dead block
(ad incitas redigere). In this phrase, so often
used figuratively (Plaut. , Poen. iv. 2, 85;
Trin. ii. 4, 136) the word to be supplied is
calces, an older form for calculos, not lineas,
as sometimes stated. To attack a man is usually
alligare (Sen. Ep. 117, § 30); but we shall
find also obligare and the simple ligare.
The most important passage on the game of
latrunculi is in the Panegyricus ad Pisonem,
printed in old editions of Lucan, and subsequently
ascribed to Saleius Bassus, but now regarded as
the work of an anonymous young poet of the
age of Claudius (Teuffel, Röm. Lit. § 296). The
poem will be found in the Poetae Latini Minores
of Wernsdorf or Bährens, or in the Corpus
Poetarum of Weber (pp. 1411–1413). We
reproduce this passage (vv. 180-196) with a few
LATRUNCULI
IEBES 13
comments: one phrase in it, we think, has
never yet been correctly explained.
“Callidiore modo tabula variatur aperta
Calculus et vitreo peraguntur milite bella,
Ut niveus nigros, nunc et niger alliget albOS.
Sed tibi quis non terga dedit? quis te duce cessit
Calculus? aut quis non periturus perdidit hostem *
Mille modis acies tua dimicat: ille petentem 185
Dum fugit, ipse rapit: longo venit ille recessu,
Qui stetit in speculis: hic se committere rixae
Audet et in praedam venientem decipit hostem.
Ancipites subit ille moras similisque ligato
Obligat ipse duos: hic ad majora movetur,
Ut citus et fracta prorumpat in agnina mandra
Clausaque deiecto populeturmoenia vallo.
Interea sectis quamvis acerrima Burgant
Proelia militibus, plena tamen ipse phalange,
Aut etiam pauco spoliata milite, vincis, 195
Et tibi captiva resonat manus utraque turba.”
V. 184, periturus perdidit hostem : i.e. Piso
sacrificed pieces which his opponent could not
take without suffering a greater loss; &vravat-
peois in Eustath. p. 1397, 45. V. 186, longo
weniš, &c. This is a “discovered check” from
one of the superior pieces by moving a pawn.
But the officers all move alike in the Roman
game, a fundamental difference which must pre-
vent its being confounded with chess. V. 189,
Ancipites subit. One man exposes himself to a
double attack or cross-fire, mora being a tech-
nical word for attack. In the words which
follow, similis ligato has always been understood
as if it were simply ligatus; and Becq de Fou-
quières gives a diagram (p. 449), any number of
which might be invented, to show how an at-
tacked piece may move to the other end of the
board and attack two enemies. This, however,
leaves ancipites moras without a meaning ; as
we explain it, he is not really en prise of two
pieces, but places himself between them, so that
he attacks both, while either could take him if it
were not for the other; he is similis ligato, but
not ligatus; the well-known manoeuvre called the
lunette at draughts, and a further point of re-
semblance with the modern game. V. 191.
For et fracta of the MSS. effracta or ecſracta is
now read; the verse has been explained above.
It is clear that if the pawns moved straight
forward, they captured diagonally ; otherwise
the line could not be broken through. V. 194 f.
The fewer pieces the winner had lost, the more
glorious the victory: this is illustrated by a
story in Seneca (de Tranq. An. 14, § 7), and
furnishes an additional proof, as Becker has re-
marked, that the game was more like draughts
than chess, notwithstanding a superficial resem-
blance to the latter. The winner was called rea:
or imperator (Vopisc. Proc. 13).
After all, it must be pronounced impossible to
form an adequate conception of the game; we
must admit, with Becker, that many questions
remain unanswered. Becq de Fouquières has
been decidedly less successful in explaining this
game than in the Duodecim Scripta. While
treating of games of skill among the ancients,
it may be as well to say that, since the history
of chess was written by the Englishman Thomas
Hyde at the end of the 17th century, no scholar
has held that it was known to the Greeks or
Romans. Chess cannot be traced in the West
before the time of Charlemagne and Harun-al-
Rashid (A.D. 800); the Greek words for it,
Qarpſiclov and ordvrpač, are found only in late
180
190
Byzantine writers; both are derived from the
Arabic shatranj, and that from the Sanscrit
chatur-anga.
(The older learning is collected, very copiously
but without sufficient discrimination between
the different games, in a note of Salmasius on
Vopisc. l.c., Hist. Aug. ii. 736–761, ed. 1671.
Modern authorities: Becq de Fouquières, Jeux
des Anciens, ed. 2, 1873, chaps. 18, 19; Becker-
Göll, Charikles, ii. 371 ff.; Gallus, iii. 468 ft. ;
Hermann-Blümner, Privatalterth. 508 f.; Mar-
quardt, Privatl. 832 ft.) [W. W.]
LAUTU'MIAE, LAUTO'MIAE, LATO'MIAE, or
LATU'MIAE (Au00Topital or Aaroufal, Lat. Lapici-
dinae), are literally places where stones are cut,
or quarries; and in this sense the word Aarouſal
was used by the Sicilian Greeks (Pseudo-Ascon.
ad Cic. in Verr. ii. 1, p. 161, Orelli; cf. Diod.
xi. 25; Plaut. Capt. iii. 5, 65; Poen. iv. 2, 5;
Festus, s. v. Latumiae). In particular, however,
the name lautumiae was given to the quarries
of Syracuse, frequently mentioned by ancient
authors (Cic. Verr. i. 5, § 14; v. 27, § 68; b.
55, § 143; Aelian, W. H. xii. 44), and still called
Latomie (with the Greek accent). They are
situated on a part of the heights called Epi-
polae, to the north of the city, which at the .
time of the Athenian siege was outside the walls
of Achradina; the elder Dionysius a few years
later included the whole of the Epipolae within
his fortifications. On account of their security
they were used as prisons from an early period;
the deepest and most inaccessible, now called
the Latomia de' Cappuccini, is probably that in
which the 7,000 Athenian prisoners were con-
fined (Thucyd. vii. 86, 87; Diod. xiii. 33). They
continued to serve for the same purpose, and in
the days of Cicero were used as a general prison
for criminals from all parts of Sicily. The so-
called Ear of Dionysius is in the Latomia del
Paradiso; but the name is a mele fancy of a
scholar of the Renaissance, and Cicero and Aelian
are certainly mistaken in the notion that the
lautumiae were excavated by that tyrant ex-
pressly for a prison, though he may have enlarged
them (cf. Dict. Geogr. ii. 1066 a). Several of
them are now laid out as gardens, and being
completely sheltered from all winds, though
open to the sky, contain a rich sub-tropical
vegetation, which renders them one of the most
attractive sights of modern Syracuse.
For the prisons called Lautumi.ie at Rome,
see CARCER. [L. S.] [W. W.]
LEBES (Aé8ms), in Greek usage a sort of
kettle made of copper or iron, and put over
the fire to cook (Il. xxi. 362). Buchholz says,
“smaller than a tripod.” (Homerische Realien, ii.
§ 100), and that is perhaps true of the Homeric
times, but that later it was not necessarily small
may be seen from Thucydides, iv. 100, where the
huge caldron used in the siege of Delium is a
Aé8ms. It was also used as the basin for wash-
ing the hands of guests at dinner, which were
held above the silver Aé8ms while water was
poured over them from a jug (Od. i. 137), and
even of so large a vessel as the bath in which
Agamemnon was killed (Aesch. Ag. 1129).
Pausanias (v. 10, § 4) speaks of Aé8mtes over-
laid with gold set on the corners of the temple
roof at Olympia: in the Tragedians it occurs as
an urn for holding ashes (Aesch. Ag. 444, &c.):
in Herod. vi. 58, a Aé8ms is beaten like a kettle-
14 LECTICA"
IECTICA
drum by Spartan mourners, and in the same
way the Aé8mres at Dodona were sounded,
whence Virgil borrows his conventional epithet
Dodonaci lebetes. The Aé8ms, like the rptrovs,
was a common prize at Homeric games (Il.
xxiii. 259), so much so that airſ.gov &KóAous
oëk &opas oëbè Aé8mras (Od. xvii. 222) merely
means “a beggar with no ambition beyond it
for heroic contests.” The general conclusion
from all this is, that the size varied, but the
material was always metal : in shape it was
rounded at the bottom, so that sometimes it
was supported or suspended when it was over
the fire, but sometimes it had feet and is called
Aé8ms ºrptrovs (Aesch. Fr. 1). From this metal
Aé8ms of common use, the lebes shape was
adopted for pottéry: for examples, see FICTILIA.
The Cretan Aé8ms (in Gortyna Insc.) was a
stater stamped with a lebes (cf. Boës, Aesch.
Ag. 36): examples of this coin of the 5th and
4th cent. are found (Svoronos. Bull. Corr. Hell.
1888). The lebes in Latin seems to have been
merely a poetical word borrowed from Greek
poets. [G. E. M.]
LECTI’CA, in Greek popeſov or orkutróðiov
(Dio Cass. lvii. 4), was a litter or palanquin in
which persons were carried in a lying position
from one place to another. For sick persons
and invalids of both sexes they were no doubt in
use in Greece from early times, but probably in
the form of the ordinary bed, being usually
called cAtvm. As an article of luxury the
qopeia were introduced from Asia, where they
had been long in use, and were at Athens em-
ployed for carrying ladies (see Suidas, s. v., who
calls them yuvaiketa); and by men only when
they were lame or in ill-health. The lame
Artemon, who habitually used a litter, was
nicknamed trepiq6pmros, either because this in-
dulgence even for a lame man was unusual, or
because, according to one account, he used a
specially luxurious hammock (Plut. Pericl., 27;
Anacr. ap. Athen. xii. 533; Andoc. de Myst. § 61;
Plut. Eum. 14). If a man without any physical
necessity made use of a lectica, he drew upon
himself the censure of his countrymen as a
person of effeminate character (Dinarch. c.
Demosth. § 36). The popeia were light bed-
steads with mattress and pillows, and an
awning, supported by four posts, with curtains
to it (Plut. Eum. l. c.). When the Macedonian
conquests had made the Greeks better acquainted
with Asiatic luxury, popeſa were not only more
generally used, but were also more magnificently
adorned : so Antigonus provides one for Nicaea,
8aaixukós kekoopamuévov (Plut. Arat. 17).
The bearers were called popea pópol, and were
usually four in number (Diog. Laert. v. 73;
Lucian, Somn. S. Gall. 10; cf. Plut. Pelop. 30.
See also Becker-Göll, Charikles, i. 200).
At Rome, as in Greece, no doubt the sick were
carried on some sort of couch from the earliest
times: e.g. Latinus in the year B.C. 489 was
carried into the forum on what Livy calls a
lectica (Liv. ii. 36); but it probably was merely
the sick man’s bed (cf. Catull. x. 17). The
lectica strictly so called was probably first intro-
duced into Rome from Asia after the victories
over Antiochus, and then used chiefly for travel-
ling; rarely in the streets of Rome itself. The
earliest mention of it is found in a speech of
Gaius Gracchus quoted by Gellius (x. 3). From
this passage it is evident that the lectica was
an article of luxury lately borrowed from Asia,
whence the rustic imagined it to be a bier con-
veying a dead man, though (unlike an ordinary
bier) it was covered. The lectica had an arched
roof (cf. arcus, Tac. Ann. xv. 57), consisting of
leather stretched over it upon four posts, much
like the Greek popeſov, and the sides also were
covered with curtains (vela, plagae or plagulae):
hence Martial speaks of “lectica tuta pelle
veloque” (cf. Suet. Tit. 10): such a litter is
called by Greek historians popeſov karáorreyov.
Tiberius sent Agrippina and her children after
their condemnation in a litter with the curtains
sewn up (obsuta, Suet. Tib. 64). In the Empire,
however, as time went on, curtains were not
thought a sufficient protection; and we find
that lecticae used by men as well as women were
closed at the sides with windows made of talc
(lapis specularis), whence Juvenal (iv. 20) calls
it antrum clausum latis specularibus (compare
Juv. iii. 239). We sometimes find mention of a
lectica aperta (Cic. Phil. ii. 24, 58), but we have
no reason to suppose that in this case it had no
roof, for the word aperta probably means nothing
more than that the curtains were drawn aside :
it was considered incorrect for women to go in
a litter with the curtains open (Sen. de Benef.
i. 9, 3; Apul. 76). The whole lectica was of
an oblong form, and the occupant lay on a bed,
his head being supported on a pillow so that he
might read and write in it with ease. To what
extent this luxury was carried as early as the
time of Cicero, may be seen from one of his
orations against Verres (v. 11, 27). Feather beds
seem to have been used (Juv. i. 159): the frame-
work, as well as the other furniture, was often
of the most costly description, adorned with
ivory and silver (Lamprid. Heliogab. 4). The
lectica, when standing, rested on four feet : it
was carried by slaves (lecticarii) by means of
poles (asseres) attached to it, but not fixed, so
that they could easily be taken off (Suet. Calig.
58; Juv. vii. 122, iii. 245; Mart. ix. 23, 9).
These asseres generally rested on the shoulders
of the lecticarii, being passed through lora,_
that is, straps fixed on the lectica (Sen. Jºp. 80,
110; Juv. iii. 240; Mart. ii. 57): sometimes
they were carried lower by straps (struppi) round
the necks of the bearers, like the modern trag-
sessel (Gell. x. 3; cf. Plut. Pericl. 27). The
art of taking the lectica upon the shoulders was
called succollare, and the person who was carried
was said succollari (Plin. H. N. xxxv. § 117; Suet.
Otho, 6). From this passage we also learn that
the name lecticarii was sometimes incorrectly
applied to those slaves who carried a person in
a sella or sedan-chair. The number of lecticarii
employed in carrying one lectica varied accord-
ing to its size, and the display of wealth which
a person might wish to make. The ordinary
number was probably two (Petron. Sat. 56 ;
Juv. ix. 142); but it varied from two to eight,
and the lectica is called hexaphoron or octo-
phoron, accordingly as it was carried by six or
eight persons (Juv. i. 64; Mart. ii. 81, vi. 77 ;
Cic. c. Verr. v. 11, ad Q. Fr. ii. 10). Wealthy
Romans kept certain slaves solely as their
lecticarii (Cic. ad Fam. iv. 12); and for this
purpose they generally selected the tallest,
strongest, and most handsome men, and had
them always well dressed. Liburnians seem to
LECTICA
LECTISTERNIUM 15
have been much used for this in Juvenal's time
(iii. 240, iv. 75, vi. 477), so that Liburnus was
used for the office, like the word Suisse in Paris.
In the first passage, it is true, some read Liburna,
and explain it as a sort of litter,-‘‘ named from
the Liburni,” is Professor Mayor's suggestion;
but he adopts the reading Liburno in his text,
and this in view of the two other passages is most
probable. In the time of Martial it seems to
have been customary for the lecticarii to wear
red liveries. The lectica was generally preceded
by a slave called anteambulo, whose office was to
make room for it (Martial, iii. 46; Plin. Epist.
iii. 14; compare Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 158).
The following cut shows a lectica constructed
from fragments found on the Esquiline in 1874.
%-
~T-- É-Sº-
Lectica. (See Castellani, Bull. Commun. 1881, p. 214, tav. 15.) .
Shortly after the introduction of these lecticae
among the Romans, and during the latter period
of the Republic, they appear to have been very
common, though they were chiefly used in jour-
neys, and in the city of Rome itself only by
ladies and invalids (Dio Cass. lvii. 17). But
the love of this as well as of other kinds
of luxury increased so rapidly, that Julius
Caesar thought it necessary to restrain the
use of lecticae, and to confine the privilege
of using them to certain persons of a certain
age, and to certain days of the year (Sueton.
Caes. 43).
In the reign of Claudius we find that the pri-
vilege of using a lectica in the city was still a
great distinction, which was only granted by
the emperor to his especial favourites (Suet.
Claud. 28). It was apparently a senatorial pri-
vilege granted by Claudius as a favour to his
freedman Harpocras (Friedländer, i. 157). But
what until then had been a privilege became
gradually a right assumed by all, and every
wealthy Roman kept one or more lecticae, with
the requisite number of lecticarii. The Emperor
Domitian, however, forbade prostitutes the use
of lecticae (Suet. Domit. 8). There was a com-
pany or corpus lecticariorum with officers over
them. In the inscriptions we find praepositus
lecticariorum, decurio lecticariorum (C. I. L.
8874, 5), and a castra lecticariorum in the
Regio transtiberina belonging to the lecticarii
Žſm *
غz., - * -
$@ ãº
=7% {{{ * *
=55-5-sº-sº
7.
ſ
|
C.
a
7 gº
º
t;
Č.
*
Malmø/
****, *...
Øsº
f
Sº?
§/ ... z º.º.
-º *3% *.
º
& Ż
publici, who stood ready for the service of
the magistrates (Preller, Regionen, p. 218),
but probably also for general hire (Juv. vi.
353). They were of the class of freedmen (cf.
Mart. iii. 46).
The lectica above mentioned in which the
occupant reclined, must be distinguished from
the sella gestatoria or sedan-chair in which he
sat [see SELLA); but, if Dio is right in his
statement that the sella was never used before
the reign of Claudius, we must conclude that
Suetonius in Aug. 53 uses one inadvertently for
the other. Lectica is also used sometimes as
the word for a bier, which is more usually
called lectus or lectus funebris [see under
LECTUs]. (For further information see Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 29; Marquardt, Privatleben,
736.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
LECTICA'RII. [LECTICA.]
LECTISTERNIUM (orpäuval, Dionys. xii.
9, and expressed in the kindred Greek cere-
monies by the words k^{vmy orpāorai : Theocr.
xv. 127, &c.), a sacred feast at which certain of
the gods were represented as reclining (accu-
bantes) on a lectus, each with the left arm rest-
ing on a cushion (pulvinus), whence the lectus
was called pulvinar. It was set in the open
street, and before it was placed a table with
offerings of food from the people. Livy (v. 13)
gives a distinct account of its origin and first
celebration: that it was ordained by the Sibylline























16 LECTISTERNIUM
LECTISTERNIUM
books in a time of pestilence, B.C. 399; Duumviri
sacris faciendis were appointed to hold the feast
for eight days (Dionysius, l.c., says seven).
There was a general celebration also through
the city by the citizens from their private
resources, the doors thrown open and hospitality
offered to all comers, as though to induce for-
getfulness of the public troubles. The deities
so approached with prayers, and a feast on this,
the first, occasion were Apollo and Latona, Diana
and Hercules, Mercury and Neptune, placed in
pairs on the sacred couches; and at all proper
lectisternia the deities were placed in pairs:
that is to say, their statues, covered with
drapery, which Festus (s. v. tensa) calls exuviae
deorum, or, as Marquardt prefers to think,
draped wooden figures with heads of bronze,
wax, or marble, like the Greek acroliths, were
so arranged: possibly they were borne to the
pulvinar upon sacred tensae as on the (totally
different) occasion of the Circensian games.
The idea that these statues were merely busts is
probably wrong, and rests only on the words in
Liv. xl. 59, “deorum capita quae in lectis erant,”
but here Madvig reads qui. It is an error to
confuse this sacred rite with the epulum Jovis,
which represented the old family offering to
Jupiter Dapalis, with whom were associated the
other Capitoline deities, Juno and Minerva, as
permanent protectors of the state, and Mer-
curius, who in this respect bore, like Jupiter,
the surname Epulo. The epulum Jovis was an
archaic festival superintended by the pontifices,
until the special officers called epulones were
appointed, and it differed from the lectisternium,
as originally instituted, in placing the god on a
lectus and the goddesses by Roman custom, con-
servative in religion, on sellae. In Liv. xxii. 1
it is said that a lectisternium was given to Juno
Regina on the Aventine, and in B.C. 217, after the
disastrous battle of Trasimene, there was a lec-
tisternium for three days to six pairs of deities
(Liv. xxii. 10). Livy numbers the lectisternia
which fall in his first decade; the 3rd was
“pacis exposcendae causa,” the 4th in time of
pestilence upon consultation of the Sibylline
books, the 5th “placandis diis” at the outbreak
of the second Samnite war (Liv. vii. 2 and 27 ;
viii. 25). It should be noticed that all the early
lectisternia were in time of trouble to appease
the anger of heaven, not as thanksgivings, being
no doubt adopted from the Sibylline books when
other means failed.
It appears from Liv. xxxvi. 1, xlii. 30, that
there was later a constant or perhaps daily
lectisternium, “majorem partem anni,” to certain
deities. This must be held distinct from the
extraordinary lectisternium ordered for a special
crisis. It was no doubt a regular celebration in
the different temples, and its method was bor-
rowed from the lectisternium proper. The
supplicatio, which was an old Roman rite
(Liv. iii. 63), became connected with the lecti-
sternium and to some extent confused with it,
since it was celebrated commonly “omnibus
diis quorum pulvinaria Romae erant,” i.e. to
those deities in whose honour the lectisternium
also was held. In the imperial times, by a sort
of reaction to old Roman feeling, a change was
made as regards the lectisternium, that for god-
desses it should be a sellisternium (i.e. they
should, in old fashion, sit instead of reclining).
This alteration is mentioned by Tacitus in a
celebrated chapter (Ann. xv. 44) as taking
place when Nero tried various means, and finally
a persecution of Christians, to escape the infamia
of the burning of Rome (cf. also Val. Max. ii.
1, 3).
As regards the origin of the lectisternium,
there is some controversy. Preller (Römische
Myth. p. 133) maintains that it belonged to the
national religion of Rome handed down from the
earliest times, and cites in proof a statement of
Pliny, H. N. xxxii. 2, that “cenae ad pulvinaria”
had been ordained by Numa, and from Varro
(quoted by Servius, ad Aen. x. 76) that there was
a lectus spread before Picus and Pilumnus it
behalf of child-birth. It must be recollected,
however, that from the familiarity of writers in
the late Republic and Empire with the terms of
the lectisternium, they were likely to apply
them to the old Roman offerings, such as those
of Jupiter Dapalis, the Lares, &c.; and these
vague notices can hardly weigh against the pre-
cise statement of Livy, that the first lectister-
nium was in B.C. 399. It is safer therefore to
adopt Marquardt's view, that it was a Greek
custom introduced into Rome, and afterwards
more or less amalgamated with other older
institutions of native origin. Of this Greek
origin there are several indications: (1) The
source of the ordinance, the Sibylline books, is
Greek. (2) Three of the deities first so honoured
were unknown to the Romans of the oldest
times—Apollo, Latona, and Artemis (the Delphic
Triad)—and a fourth (Hercules) is worshipped
in new fashion, since according to Servius, ad
Aen. viii. 176, the lectisternium was prohibited
at the Ara Maxima. (3) The recumbent posi-
tion for the gods and goddesses was altogether
contrary to old Roman custom: in the earliest
times all in the Roman family alike sat, and in
later times the wives and children. It may be
added also that the number, two on each couch,
was Greek, not Roman; for at Rome three was
the number on each lectus. We know, too,
of this as a Greek rite in early times—e.g.
at Athens to Zeus Soter and Athene Soteira
(C. J. A. ii. 305); to Pluto (C. I. A. ii. 948);
at Tegea to Athena (Pausan. viii. 47); to
Pulvinar at the Theoxenia. (From a Greek vase.
Roy. Soc. Lit., N. S., ix. p. 434.)
Heracles, as represented in many ancient
works of art; at Alexandria to Adonis and

LECTUS
LECTUS 17
Aphrodite (Theoc. xv. 127); and to these may
be added the Theoxenia at Delphi, with which
A. Mommsen (Delphika, 303) compares the
lectisternia.
Of the two cuts given, the first, taken from
a Greek vase, represents the pulvinar at the
Theoxenia of the Dioscuri, and a palm branch
upon it, offered by an Olympic victor. The
mounted figures supply pictorially the names of
the Dioscuri. It must not be supposed that
they were actually so shown in the feast. The
second cut, representing the pulvinar of a
lectisternium, was taken by Mr. Yates from
one in the Glyptothek at Munich. (See also
*- S– Rºss.
--> = 1 =
Hºt
ſitſº
Pulvinar of a Lectisternium. (From the Glyptothek
at Munich.)
on this subject Marquardt, Röm. Staatsver-
waltung, iii. 45, 187.) [G. E. M.]
LECTUS (k\{vm, Aéxos, süvå), a bed. In
the Homeric poems we find three kinds of beds
distinguished: (1) Aéxos, a heavy compact bed-
stead, even a fixture, as the famous bedstead
in the palace of Ulysses; (2) 66 wwwa, easily
transportable, like a camp-bed; (3) a “shake
down” upon the floor, with no framework at
all, expressed by the words xãuaôis oropéoral.
As the most noticeable instance of the Aéxos,
we have the description (Od. xxiii. 190) of the
bed made for himself by Ulysses. The actual
trunk of an olive-tree, round which he has built
and roofed his chamber, forms one solid and
immovable post, lopped and smoothed with the
axe; upon this is constructed the rest of the
wooden framework, with the other three feet;
the whole inlaid with gold and silver and ivory,
and having a red leather strap across to sup-
port the bedding. (Buchholz somewhat strangely
interprets the iuas to be a strap hung above the
bed, by which the occupant might raise himself
up. The only argument for such a view appears
to be the use of the singular; but there is no
reason why one girth should not be used—révos
would be the word in later Greek—even if we
do not take it as a poetical usage of singular for
plural.)
For the 8éuvia as a quickly improvised bed,
see Od. iv. 296, vii. 335; Il. xxiv. 643. From
these passages it appears that Séuvia means a
light framework, such as slaves could bring
out into the portico, and over it was spread the
bedding (see below). The passage in the Iliad,
it is true, seems to use Aéxos contrary to custom
in the same sense. For the third kind, see
Od. xx. 1, where Ulysses, as a poor wanderer,
has no bedstead but merely an ox-hide and the
bedding placed upon it. The Aéxos was, as has
been said, a fixed or at least a solid framework,
VOL. II.
and therefore called rvkivöv (Od. vii. 340, &c.):
when oropéoral is joined to it, the arrangement
of the bedding is referred to. It is made with
rounded posts (Sivaróv) and carved. (The word
rpm rés, however, to which Buchholz gives this
meaning, may only imply that the framework
was pierced for the cords or girths.) The plural
Tâ Aéxea includes bedstead and bedding, which
was arranged as follows. On the Aéxos or
6éuvia were placed (1) śńyea = mattress and
pillows. (Göll argues from their being washed
that they were merely woollen rugs; but they
are always distinct from rémres.) (2) Over
these were spread ºrdimres, woollen blankets,
not for a covering, but to make the bed softer ;
both fiftyea and rémres were under the sleeper,
and over him were (3) XAaïval as a coverlet
(Od. iv. 296, vii. 338; Il. xxiv. 647). The word
eivil in Homer is merely a sleeping-place with
or without a bed (comp. Od. vii. 347, xi. 188).
The poorer classes, as in the passage cited from
Od. xx., had a hide in place of the Aéxos, and
kóea in place of the 5% yea and réirmres (cf. Od.
xiv. 518. For fuller discussion, see Buchholz,
Homerische Realien, § 60). The complete bed
consisted in later times of the following parts:
kAtvm, étrítovot, rvaetov or kvépañAov, trpooke-
ºpdxalov, and orpáuara. -
The KAfvm, though used generally for the
whole (eivil being rare in prose), is, properly
speaking, only the bedstead, and seems to have
consisted only of posts fitted into one another and
resting upon four feet. At the head part alone
there was a board (āvākauvrpov or étrauvrpov)
to support the pillow and prevent its falling out.
Sometimes this was wanting, as we see in
drawings Ön ancient vases (see also Poll. x. 34;
vi. 9). Sometimes, however, the bottom part of
a bedstead was likewise protected by a board, so
that in this case a Greek bedstead resembled a
modern so-called French bedstead. The kAſym
was generally made of wood, which in quality
varied according to the means of the persons for
whose use it was destined; for in some cases we
find that it was made of solid maple or box-
wood, or veneered with a coating of these more
expensive woods. At a later period bedsteads
were not only veneered with ivory or 'tortoise-
shell, but sometimes had silver feet (Pollux, l.c.;
Aelian, W. H. xii. 29; Athen. vi. p. 255). This
method of veneering is like that described by
Pliny, H. N. ix. § 33: “testudinum putamina
secare in lamnas, lectosque et repositoria his
vestire Carvilius Pollio instituit.”
The bedstead was provided with girths (révol,
from which possibly the metaphor about
Cratinus is drawn in Aristoph. Eq. 532),
érírovo, keipia on which rested the bed, or
mattress (kvépaxov, rvXeſov or rúam : the last
word, however, is an old Ionic domestic term in
this sense, in Attic a knot or hump : Rutherford's
New Phrynichus, p. 256). The cover or ticking
of a mattress was made of linen or woollen cloth
or leather, and the usual stuffing (trahpapa)
was dried reeds or wool. At the head part of
the bed and supported by the étríkAuvrpov lay
a round pillow (rpooksq.dxalov) to support the
head; and in some ancient pictures two other
square pillows are seen, which were intended
to support the back. The covers of such
pillows are striped in several pictures on ancient
vases (see the woodcut under SYMPOSIUM), and
(S




18. LECTUS
LECTUS
were therefore probably of various colours. They
were undoubtedly filled with the same materials
as the beds and mattresses.
The bed-covers, which may be termed blankets
or counterpanes, were called by a variety of
names, such as reptorptºpara, inrootpdºgata,
érigAftwara, peatpifies, xNaïval, duºpteorptèes,
emigáAata, Sáničes, pixočátrúes, §votöes, xpvač-
traorrow, rdºrm'res or duºpitármtes. The common
name, however, was orptºpara. They were
generally made of cloth, which was very thick
and woolly either on one or on both sides (Pollux,
vi. 9). It is not always easy to distinguish
whether the ancients, when speaking of KAival,
mean beds in our sense of the word, or the
couches on which they lay at meal-times. We
consequently do not know whether the descrip-
tive epithets of k\ival, enumerated by Pollux,
belong to beds or to couches. But this matters
little, as there was scarcely any difference be-
tween the beds of the ancients and their couches,
with this exception, that the latter being made
for appearance as well as for comfort, were, on
the whole, undoubtedly more splendid and costly
than the former. Considering, however, that
bedsteads were often made of the most costly
materials, we may reasonably infer that the
coverings and other ornaments of beds were
little inferior to those of couches. Notwith-
standing the splendour and comfort of many
Greek beds, the Asiatics, who have at all times
excelled the Europeans in these kinds of luxuries,
said that the Greeks did not understand how to
make a comfortable bed (Athen. ii. p. 48; Plut.
Pelop. 30). The places most celebrated for the
manufacture of splendid bed-covers were Miletus,
Corinth, and Carthage (Aristoph. Ran. 410, 542,
with the Schol. ; Lysistr. 732; Cic. c. Verr. i. 34;
Athen. i. pp. 27, 28). It appears that the
Greeks, though they wore nightgowns (xitov
eivnrhp, Pollux, x. 123), did not simply cover
themselves with the otpégara, but wrapped
themselves up in them. Less wealthy persons
continued, according to the ancient custom, to use
skins of sheep and other animals, especially in
winter, as blankets (Pollux, x. 123; Aristoph.
Nub. 10). *
The bedsteads of the poorer classes are de-
signated by the names orkſpatrovs, &ardvrms :
a description of such a bed is given by Aristo-
phanes (Plut. 540, &c.; compare Lysistr. 916).
Socrates sleeps on a grktutrovs (Plat. Protag.
310 C). For this kpá88aros is used by New
Testament writers and in Scholiasts; it is
said by Salmasius to be a Macedonian word,
whence its use in Hellenistic Greek (see
Rutherford, New Phrynichus, p. 138). The
words xaueðvm and xaueðviov, which originally
signified a bed of straw or dry herbs made
on the ground (Theocrit. xiii. 33; Plut. Lycurg.
16), were afterwards applied to a bed which
was only near the ground, to distinguish it
from the kxtum, which was generally a high
bedstead. Xapletivia were the usual beds for
slaves, soldiers in the field, and poor citizens,
and the mattresses used in them were mere mats
made of rushes or bast. (Pollux, l.c., vi. 11,
x. 7; Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 74–81 ; Guhl
and Koner, 143.)
The beds cf the Romans (lecti cubiculares) in
the earlier periods of the Republic were probably
of the same description as those used in Greece;
but towards the end of the Republic and during
the Empire, when Asiatic luxuries were im-
ported into Italy, the richness and magnificence
of the beds of the wealthy Romans surpassed
everything we find described in Greece. The
bedstead was generally rather high, so that
persons reached the bed by means of a footstool
(scammum, Varro, L. L. v. 35, 46): it was
veneered with costly woods, tortoiseshell and
ivory (cf. Supra on RAſym), or overlaid with
plates (lamnae) of gold or silver (Mart. ix. 22),
or gold leaf (bracteae) which the dishonest slave
scrapes off with his nail (Mart. viii. 33, 5). The
aurei lecti (Cic. Tusc. v. 21, 61; Suet. Jul. 49)
and eburni (Hor. Sat. ii. 6, 103) were no doubt,
as Göll says, not solid gold or ivory, but overlaid
with gold and ivory = inaurati, eburati: so
also lecti aerati (Liv. xxxix. 6) were overlaid
with bronze. We hear, however, of massive
silver bedsteads (Petron. 73; Lamprid. Helioſ.
29). Often the feet, too (fulcra), were of gold
or silver (Verg. Aen. vi. 603; Suet. Claud. 32;
Prop. iii. 5, 5, iv. 7, 3; Juv. xi. 95). Becker
less satisfactorily takes these fulcra as equivalent
to Scammum (supports for the foot in mounting
the bed). In Propertius, “Cynthia namgue meo
visa est incumbere fulcro,” the foot of the bed
stands for the bed itself. The lectus pavoninus
of which Martial speaks (xiv. 85) was inlaid
with variegated woods, citrus, &c., of many
colours. The bed or mattress (torus) with the
pillow (culcita, cervical) rested upon girths
(fasciae, institae, restes or funes: Cic. de Div. ii.
65, 134; Mart. v. 62; Hor. Epod. xii. 12). The
two sides of the bed are distinguished by different
names: the side at which it was entered was
open and called sponda; the other side was pro-
tected by a board and called pluteus (Isid. xx. 11).
There was always a raised head-board at one
end; sometimes (as also occasionally in Greek
beds) a raised foot-board too. The two sides are
also distinguished as torus exterior and torus
interior or sponda eacterior and sponda interior
(Ov. Amor. iii. 14, 32; Hor. Epod. iii. 22; Suet.
Caes. 49). The ordinary stuffing (tomentum) of
the mattresses and pillows was wool (Plin.
H. N. viii. § 192), for cheaper bedding straw or
dried reeds (Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 117; Mart. xiv. 160),
which had been the old-fashioned material (Plin.
H. N. viii. § 193) in less luxurious times. Later
feathers were commonly used, especially for
pillows; so that pluma is used for the pillow
itself (e.g. Juv. vi. 88; Propert. iv. or iii. 7,50;
Mart. xiv. 149). Becker wrongly used this
passage to show that feather tapestry, like the
Lectus, in which the usual pluteus is wanting. (From
- a Pompeian painting.)
old Mexican work, was used for casings by the
Romans: pluma versicolor is merely a pillow

LECTUS
LEGATUM 19
with a striped covering, and the art of the
plumarius is not what Becker imagined (see
Göll's note on Gallus, iii. 339; Blümner, Techn. i.
210; and the article PLUMARIUS). As a special
luxury, Heliogabalus had pillows made of the
soft plumage under the partridge's wing. The
blankets or counterpanes (vestes stragulae) were
in rich houses of costly make, dyed purple, and
embroidered in gold. These gold-embroidered
coverlets were called Attalicae vestes, Attalica
peripetasmata, being, as Pliny (H. N. viii. 196)
says, first used by Attalus. Hence in Propert.
iii. 5, 5, Attalicus torus is used for a bed so
covered. The name stragula belongs both to
the blanket on which the occupant lay as well
as that which covered him, but the latter was
strictly called opertorium (Sen. Ep. 87, 2).
2. The lectus tricliniaris (for the use and
arrangement of which, see CENA and TRI-
'CLINIUM) was in most points like the lectus cubi-
cularis. It was, however, lower, as may be
gathered from the use of scandere, &c. applied
to the latter (see also Serv. ad Aen. iv. 685).
It had also, at least in most cases, a pluteus, as
may be seen from Suet. Cal. 26; Propert.
iv. (or v.) 8, 68: and this appears also in draw-
ings. At one end only there was a raised ledge
on which a cushion was placed, and on ‘this the
left arm rested. Among the Romans it held
three persons; among the Greeks, two. Like
the bed, it had a mattress (torus), over which
coverlets of fine stuffs, “Tyriae º vestes, &c.,
were thrown. The toral was a sort of valance
from the torus to the ground (Becker-Göll, ii.
343). Some have thought that the aulaea (Hor.
Sat. ii. 8, 54; Od. iii. 29, 14; Verg. Aen. i.
697) were a canopy over the lectus, and so Göll
maintains; but it is better with Marquardt to
take them as wall-hangings, in no way part of
the lectus (see AULAEA). For pictures of the
dectus tricliniaris, see CENA.
3. The lectus genialis was the marriage couch
to which the newly-married were led by the
pronuba. It was placed in the atrium opposite
the door, and hence was called lectus adversus
(Prop. v. 11, 85; Laberius, ap. Gell. xvi. 9).
When a new marriage took place, it was again
prepared (stratus, Cic. Clu. 5, 14 : cf. Hor. Ep.
i. 1, 87; Arnob. ii. 67; Juv. x. 333). Till that
time it remained unoccupied in the atrium: by
it in old and simple times sat the mistress of the
house, spinning and superintending household
work. “Lucretia nebat: ante torum calathi
lanaque mollis erat’” (Ov. Fast. ii. 739; cf.
Ascon. ad Cic. Mil. 5, 13). The lectus genialis
was higher than the ordinary bed, and ascended
by steps, “gradibus acclivis eburnis,” Lucan. ii.
356. (“Qua simplici scansione scandebant in
lectum non altum scabellum, in altiorem scam-
num : duplicata scansio gradus dicitur,” Varro,
L. L. v. 168.)
4. The lectus lucubratorius, often simply lectus
or lectulus, and in Suet. Aug. 78 lectica lucubra-
toria, a reading couch smaller and no doubt
usually simpler than the bed, but otherwise of
much the same construction.
Here the Roman of literary habits spent
much of his day, especially in the morning,
reading and writing: to this, not to sleep,
Horace’s “ad quartam jaceo” refers, and the
lectulus is his place of meditation (Sat. i. 4,
was in the habit of going to his reading couch
after dinner: see also Pliny the younger's
account of Spurinna (Ep. iii. 1), and of his
uncle's habits (Ep. iii. 5) and the description in
Ep. v. 5, “jacere in lectulo suo compositus in
habitum studentis, habere ante se scrinium.”
The “habitus studentis” was the reclining
posture on the left arm, using the right for
writing or holding the book: cf. Ov. Trist. i. 11,
37; Sen. Ep. 72; Pers. i. 52.
5. Lectus funebris, also but less frequently
lectica, and in Corn. Nep. Att. 22 lecticula (cf.
Tac. Hist. iii. 67), sometimes in poets feretrum,
the couch or bier on which the dead were borne.
They were sometimes elaborately ornamented.
Dio Cassius (lvi. 34) thus describes the bier of
Augustus: KXtvm fiv čk re éAéqavros kal Xpwood
tretroimuévn kal ortpøpiggiv &Aoup'yo's 8taxpúa'ous
(i.e. Attalicis vestibus) kekoopmuévy). For other
particulars, see article FUNUS, and Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 508. Representations of lecti
funebres have been found on several sepulchral
monuments. The following woodcut represents
Lectus funebris. (From an ancient tombstone.)
one taken from a tombstone. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
LE'CYTHUS (Aflicv60s). [AMPULLA.]
LEGA’TUM is defined by Florentinus in Dig
30, 116, as “delibatio hereditatis qua testator
ex eo quod universum heredis foret alicui quid
collatum velit : ” another less full definition
given by Modestinus in Dig. 31, 1, 36, and prac-
tically adopted by Justinian in Inst. ii. 20, 1, is
“ donatio testamento relicta.” Thus the notion
of a legatum implies both that of a testament
and that of a universal succession. There might
be fideicommissa or trust bequests, but there
could be no legata, without a testament : and
by a testament the deceased person's universitas
juris devolves on the heir or person in loco
heredis [BoxoruM PossESSIO). The testator
first bestows his h reditas—the aggregate of his
proprietary relations—on his heir or heirs, and
any legacies which he may proceed to give are
so much deducted from what the heir would
otherwise have. And the rule that there can
be no legatum without a will was never altered,
though, from the time of the classical jurists
onwards, it had been so far relaxed as to admit
the validity of legacies given in codicill; con-
firmed by the will “legatum codicillis relictum
non aliter valet, quam si a testatore confirmati
fuerint, id est mist in testamento caverit testa-
tor, ut quicquid in codicillis scripserit, id ratum
sit” (Gaius, ii. 270 a). The fact that the heir
suffered by every legacy given explains the
phrase ab herede legare, to give a legacy away
from the heir (Cic. pro Cluent. 12; Dig. 30, 16).
The Roman term for the legatee is legatarius.
He did not succeed in any way to the universum
jus of the deceased (Inst. ii. 10, 11), and for
that reason he could not in his turn be charged
with the payment of a legatum out of what was
133). Suetonius (l.c.) tells us that Augustus given him, though he could be º, with a
C

20 LEGATUM
LEGATUM
fideicommissum: “a legatario legari non potest,”
Gaius, ii. 271. &
The word legatum contains the same element
as lea: ; legare is to dispose of a matter (e.g.
“legatum negotium,” Plaut. Cas. i. 1, 12), and
it is used in this comprehensive sense to denote
a man's testamentary dispositions in general in
the Twelve Tables: “verbis legis xii. tabu-
larum his, uti legassit suae rei, ita jus esto,
latissima potestas tributa videtur et heredes in-
stituendi, et legata et libertates dandi, tutelas
quoque constituendi,” Dig. 50, 16, 120. Ulpian
accordingly explains the word legatum by refer-
ring to its etymology, and likening a legatum to
a lea, properly so called : “A legatum,” he says,
“is that which is left by a testament, legis
modo, that is, imperative; for those things which
are left precativo modo are called fideicom-
missa" (Reg. 24, 1). Being, as contrasted with
a fideicommissum, an institution of the jus
civile, it had always under the older Roman law
to be expressed in Latin (Gaius, ii. 281; Ulp.
Reg. 25, 9), and (as will be seen below) in cer-
tain set forms, civilia verba. A legacy which
was valid or good was legatum utile; one which
was void was in utile; if it was free from all
conditions, it was pure datum, or, as is said in
Dig. 36, 2, 5, legatum purum.
Originally there were four forms in which
alone legata could be given, and up to the time
of Nero (and perhaps far later still), unless they
were given in one or other of them, they were
void. These forms were called per vindica-
tionem, per damnationem, sinendi modo, and per
praeceptionem. A legatum per vindicationem
was expressed thus: “L. Titio hominem Stichum
do lego; ”or “L. Titius hominem Stichum sumito,
capito,” or “sibi habeto ” (Gaius, ii. 193). Its
name was derived from the legatee's remedy, if
anyone in possession of the res legata refused to
give it up : for immediately on the heir's accept-
ance of the inheritance the ownership of the res
legata vested in the legatee by operation of law
(whence legatum is a mode in which ownership
is acquired): it became his ea jure Quiritium,
and he could maintain a real action (vindicatio)
for its recovery, though, as had been held by
the Proculian school of jurists, whose view was
confirmed by Pius Antoninus, an acceptance
express or tacit was required on his part before
the property became definitely his (Gaius, ii.
195). There was a similar difference of opinion
between the Sabinian and the Proculian schools
in the case of a legacy per vindicationem subject
to a condition: the former holding that the
thing belonged to the heres during the pendency
of the condition, while the latter maintained
that in the interval it was res nullius (Gaius, ii.
200). Nothing, as a rule, could be bequeathed
per vindicationem which did not belong to the
testator ea jure Quiritium, at the time both of
the execution of the will and of his decease,
though it was sufficient if the so-called res
fungibiles (“res quae pondere, numero vel men-
sura constant,” e.g. wine, oil, corn, “pecunia
numerata,” &c.) were his ea jure Quiritium at
the latter date only (Gaius, ii. 196; Ulp. Reg.
24, 7). If the same thing was given per vindi-
cationem to Inore than one person either jointly
(conjunctim, e.g. “Titio et Seio hominem Stichum
do lego") so as to make them collegatarii, or
severally (drºſtinctim, e.g. “Titio hominem
Stichum do lego: Seio eundem hominem do
lego”), each took an equal share : the share of
any who failed to take accrued to the rest in
equal portions (Gaius, ii. 199).
The form of legacy per damnationem was
“Heres meus Stichum servum dare damnas
esto” or “dato.” In this mode a testator could
lawfully bequeath property which belonged to
anyone (the heir being bound, if it belonged to .
a third party, to do all he could to buy it, or,
if this was impossible, to pay its value to the
legatee), and also things which were not in
existence at the time when the will was executed
—e.g. the future offspring of an ancilla or female
slave. The result of acceptance of the inhe-
ritance by the heir was different from that in
legacy per vindicationem : the res legata did not
become the property of the legatee by operation
of law, but a quasi-contractual obligation was
established between him and the heir, by virtue
of which he was able to bring an actio in per-
Sonam for its transfer to him by the appropriate
mode of conveyance (mancipatio, in jure cessio,
or traditio). If the legacy was of an ascer-
tained sum of money and the heir denied his
liability, the legatee could, on proving his case,
recover twice the original sum (“infitiando lis
crescit in duplum,” Gaius, ii. 283; Inst. iii. 27,
7). There was a difference, too, in the matter
of joint legatees. If the same thing was given
per damnationem to two or more persons con-
junctim, each took an equal share, though, if
any failed, their portion fell by the original
law into the hereditas, and did not accrue to the
co-legatees: but the Lex Papia made it caducum,
and gave it first to collegatarii who had children,
then to the heredes who had children, and finally
to the other legatees who had children; a privi-
lege alluded to by Juvenal (dulce caducum, ix.
88). Gaius says (ii. 208) that most authorities
held that the rules of the Lex Papia as to
caducitas applied also to “conjunctive ’’ legacies
given per vindicationem. In the case of a legacy
of the same thing given per damnationem to
two or more persons disjunctim, the heir had to
give it to one, and pay its full value to each of
the rest (Gaius, ii. 201—208).
The form of legacy sinendi modo was “heres
meus damnas esto sinere L. Titium hominem
Stichum sumere sibique habere:” by means of
it a testator could bequeath anything which
belonged either to himself or to his heir at the
time of his decease, and, as in the previous case,
the legatee had merely an actio in personam
against the heres, though it was doubted whether
the form of bequest imposed any active duty on
the latter: it being argued that his only obliga-
tion was to allow the legatee to “take” the
object bequeathed to him. This difference of
opinion led to a similar difficulty where the
same thing was given in this form to two or
more persons disjunctim : it being questioned
whether the whole was due to each, or whether
on the principle of “first come first served” the
heir's obligation was not altogether satisfied
when one of the legatees had got the res legata.
If the same thing was left to two or more
conjunctim, they took it in common, but without
any right by accrual to the shares of any who
ſailed to take (Gaius, ii. 209-215).
Legatum per praeceptionem was in the form
“L. Titius hominem Stichum praecipito.” The
LEGATUM
LEGATUM 21
Sabinian school held that praecipere here meant
“praecipuum sumere,” so that a legacy could be
left in this way only to one of two or more co-
Jeredes, and not to anyone else: the legacy
meaning no more than that the testator
wished one of his heirs to have some specific
piece of his property rather than any of the
rest. Consistently with this they maintained
that the only action by which the legatee
could get the res legata was that called
familiae erciscundae, the heir's partition suit,
and also that nothing could be left thus
which was not the testator's at the time of his
decease: and finally they held that a bequest
in this form to any person other than an heir
was not validated by the Senatusconsultum
Neronianum (of which below), because, accord-
ing to them, that enactment related only to
defects of form, and had no bearing on legacies
which were void by reason of the incapacity or
disqualification of the legatee. The Proculians,
on the other hand, were of opinion that a legacy
could be given to anyone per praeceptionem, its
effect being much the same as if the form had
been per vindicationem, and the legatee's remedy
(as in that case) being a real action: and Gaius
says (ii. 221) that their view was held to be
supported by an enactment of Hadrian. If the
same thing was thus left to more than one,
either disjunctim or conjunctim, each had only
his share. Per vindicationem, praeceptionem,
and sinendi modo, only res corporales and jura in
re aliena could be bequeathed: per damna-
tionem, anything whatever could be bequeathed
which could be the object of an obligation.
The importance of precisely observing these
forms was considerably diminished by a senatus-
consult of Nero, A.D. 64: “Scº. Neroniano
cautum est, ut quod minus aptis (ratis?) verbis
legatum est, perinde ac si optimo jure legatum
esset : optimum autem jus legati per damna-
tionem est,” Ulpian, Reg. 24, 11. The effect of
this seems to have been that a legacy given per
vindicationem, sinendi modo, or per praeceptionem,
which would hitherto have been void owing to
the neglect of some formal rule applicable to
the particular form employed, was now to be
taken to have been given per damnationem
(e.g. Gaius, ii. 197, 212, 218, 220); though
Gaius' words in § 218 suggest that the senatus-
consult may have dispensed with the necessity
of observing any one of the four established
forms at all, while it still required the use of
Latin. Some hundreds of years later testators
were enabled by enactments of Constantius,
A.D. 339, and Theodosius II., A.D. 439, to give
legacies in any words they chose, whether
Greek or Latin (Cod. 6, 37, 21; 6, 23, 21, 6).
Justinian finally assimilated the civil law
legatum in every way to fideicommissa, which
had always been governed by laxer rules, both
as to form and substance. Any superiority in
law which either had possessed over the other
was in future to be common to both, and the
object of a bequest, whether technically a
legatum or a fideicommissum, was to be re-
covered by the beneficiary by the most appro-
priate remedy, real or personal (Inst. ii. 20, 3).
The legatee acquired a “real” right to the
res legata in every case where it belonged to the
testator, and in no other, unless indeed the
testator himself expressed a contrary intention
(Cod. 6, 43, 1): he acquired a personal right
against the heir in every case, and this was
secured by a statutory hypotheca, first given
by Justinian himself, over everything which
the person on whom the legacy or fideicom-
missum was charged had himself received from
the inheritance (Cod. 6, 43, 2). In their cele-
brated phrase “uti legassit,” &c., the Twelve
Tables were interpreted to have given testators
absolute freedom to dispose of their property as
they pleased. The result was that they were
commonly so lavish in legacies as to leave
practically nothing to the instituted heres, so
that the latter refused the inheritance, and the
deceased became intestate (Gaius, ii.224). The
Roman dislike of intestacy accordingly led to a
series of statutes restricting the freedom of
testamentary disposition conferred by the
Twelve Tables. The first of these was the Lex
Furia testamentaria, B.C. 183 (Gaius, ii. 225, iv.
23, 24; Ulpian, Reg. i. 2; 28, 7; Warro, 3; Cic.
pro Balbo, 8), which imposed a penalty of four
times the excess upon anyone (except the
cognates, if any, of the person by whom the
testator had been emancipated or manumitted,
Ulpian, l.c.), who took by way of legacy or
donatio mortis causa more than 1000 asses from
the same person. But this enactment, as Gaius
remarks, altogether failed in its object, because
it did not prevent a man from giving as many
several thousands to as many persons as he
pleased, and so exhausting the estate. The Lex
Voconia (Cic. pro Balbo, l.c.; in Verr. 2, 1, 42,
43; de Senect. 5; de Fin. 2, 17; de Republ. 3,
10), fourteen years later in date, enacted
(according to Gaius, ii. 226) that no one should
take as legatee or donee mortis causa more than
the heir or any one of two or more coheirs: but
in reality it seems to have only been a relaxa-
tion of the Lex Furia in favour of wealthy
testators; any person ranked in the first class
of the census as possessing 100,000 sesterces or
upwards (Cic. in Verr. l.c.) being allowed to
bequeath away as much as he pleased, provided
no legacy or gift mortis causa exceeded the pro-
portion specified. In any case it was no less a
failure than the Lex Furia, because by the
testator distributing his property among
numerous legatees the heres might have so
small a portion as not to make it worth his
while to assume the burdens and liabilities
attached to the hereditas. The Lex Falcidia
(Dio Cass. xlviii. 33; Plin. Ep. 5, 1; Isidor.
Origg. 5, 15), passed B.C. 40, eventually pro-
vided a satisfactory remedy by enacting that,
if a testator gave more than three-fourths of his
property in legacies, these must abate pro-
portionately, the heir or heirs being in all cases
entitled to a clear fourth of the inheritance (see
Gaius, ii. 227; Inst. ii. 22). After the Lex
Julia vicesimaria the state had a direct interest
in the upholding of testaments, and so in the
Lex Falcidia, so that, if a testator forbade his heir
to deduct the “Falcidian fourth,” the jurists
held the prohibition void: but by Justinian this
was allowed (Nov. i. 2; crix. 11). For the
extension of the principle of the Lex Falcidia to
trust bequests [FIDEICOMMISSUM], see Gaius,
ii. 254; Inst. ii. 23, 5; Dig. 35, 2, 18; and to
donationes mortis causa, Dig. 24, 1, 32, 1 ; 31,
77, 1. .
The chief rules as to the necessary form
22 LEGATUM
LEGATUM
of legacies have already been touched on.
Under the older law it had been impossible
validly to give a bequest before the institution
of the heir, because the latter was “caput et
fundamentum totius testamenti’ (Gaius, ii.
229), but this restriction was eventually
removed by Justinian (Inst. ii. 20, 34). The
other grounds upon which a legacy might be
void are: (1) The character of the legatee;
(2) the character of the bequest itself; and
(3) the legal character of the res legata.
1. A legacy was void if left to a person who
had not the commercium (in particular peregrini),
for without the commercium he had no testa-
mentifactio. Latini Juniani, though possessed
of commercium, were expressly disabled by the
Lex Junia Norbana from taking any benefit
under a will either as heirs or legatees (Gaius,
i. 23, 24) [LATINITAS]. Until quite late again
in the history of Roman law, no legacy could be
validly given to incertae personae (including
postumi alieni, children unborn at the making of
the will, and who on being born would not be
in the testator's potestas): an incerta persona
being one of whom the testator had no determi-
nate conception (“quam per incertam opinionem
animo suo testator subjicit,” Gaius, ii. 238).
But even in Gaius's time a legacy to an incerta
persona “sub certa demonstratione” was good
(e.g. “ex cognatis meis qui nunc sunt, qui
primus ad funus meum venerit, ei decem milia
heres meus dato,” Gaius, l. c.); and between
the times of Gaius and Justinian the rule about
âncertae personae was gradually so broken down
that in the latter's legislation its only remain-
ing trace is that certain corporations cannot
validly be either instituted heirs or made
legatees without special permission from the
emperor. Lastly, the Próculian school, arguing
on the so-called “regula Catoniana ’’ (Dig. 34,
7, 1), held that no legacy could validly be given
to any person in the power of the instituted
heir. The Sabinians, whose view was adopted
as law by Justinian (Inst. ii. 20, 32), were of
opinion that a legacy might well be given to
such person sub conditione, i.e. provided he was
not in the power of the heir when the latter
accepted the inheritance; while Servius Sul-
picius had thought such a bequest good at the
outset, even though unconditionally expressed;
though liable to become void by the legatee
being in the institutus' power at the testator’s
decease (Gaius, ii. 244). A legacy to the
dominus or paterfamilias in whose potestas the
instituted heir was was not void (according to
Gaius, ii. 245, confirmed by Justinian, ii. 20, 33),
though it would be extinguished if the dominus
or paterfamilias became heir through the insti-
tuted slave or son, because a man could not owe
a thing to himself: but if the son was emanci-
pated, or the slave was manumitted or trans-
ferred to another, so that the former became
heir for himself, or the latter made another
person heir, the legacy was due to the father or
former master. Ulpian, however, had held
such a legacy void ab initio (Reg. 24, 24).
2. Legacies given to take effect only after the
death of the heir (e.g. in the forms “ cum heres
meus mortuus erit” or “pridie quam heres
meus morietur”) were void under the earlier
law, though Gaius says (ii. 232) that in the
* form “cum heres morietur” or “moriatur” they
were good: a distinction which he himself con-
siders was “non pretiosa ratione receptum.”
Under Justinian, however, all these forms were
equally valid (Inst. ii. 20, 35). Similarly, up
till the time of that emperor, legacies given
poenae nomine, i.e. for the purpose of inducing
the heir to do, or not to do, some particular act
(e.g. “si heres meus filiam suam Titio in matri-
monium colloeaverit, decem milia Seio dato,”
Gaius, ii. 235), were void: but Justinian
repealed this rule except where the act or for-
bearance which the testator wished to Secure
was either illegal or contra bonos mores (Inst. ii.
20, 36). -
3. A legacy of a res extra commercium (e.g. a
basilica or a temple) was void (Inst. ii. 20, 4);
as also was one of property which at the
moment of the execution of the will already
belonged to the legatee (ib. 10).
The objects of a legatum (things which could
be bequeathed) comprise tangible objects,
whether the testator's own or some other
person’s (the heir in this case being bound to
try and get them for the legatee, otherwise to
pay him their value, Inst. ii. 20, 4), and
whether actually in existence or not, provided
they probably will exist at some future time
(ib. 7; Gaius, ii. 203): release from a debt
owed to the testator by the legatee (ö. 13), or
money owed to the latter by the testator, pro-
vided the legacy put him in a better position
than he was in before (ib. 14): claims of the
testator against third persons, the heir being
bound to assign the legatee his rights of action
against them (ib. 21); in fact, any act or for-
bearance which could lawfully be the object of
an obligation in general : and finally servitudes
and other jura in re aliena. By a senatuscon-
Sultum passed about the end of the Republic, it
became possible to create by legacy a quasi-
usufruct of “res quae usu consumuntur’ (e.g.
wine), which could not be done by agreement
inter vivos (Cic. Top. 3; Inst. ii. 4, 2). But
the legacy need not be of any single thing,
corporeal or incorporeal, nor even of any
aggregate of them: the heir might be directed
to transfer a half or any other definite quota of
the hereditas to a legatee (“legatum partitionis,”
Cic. de Legg. ii. 20; pro Caec. 4; Ulpian, Reg.
24, 25). In such a case the instituted heir not
unfrequently refused to accept unless guaranteed
pro rata portione against creditors’ claims and
other expenses, so that it became usual for the
heir and partiary legatee to enter into a formal
contract (“stipulationes partis et pro parte”),
by which the latter engaged to indemnify the
former against liabilities in proportion to the
share of the estate transferred to him, and the
former that he would hand over to the legatee
his fair proportion of the assets.
A legacy might be transferred from the
legatee to another person, or altogether taken
away by another will, or codicilli confirmed by
the original testament (Inst. ii. 21): it might
also be revoked by erasure of the gift from the
will (Dig. 34, 4, 16 and 17), or tacitly by any
act from which it could be gathered that the
testator no longer wished the legatee to have it
—e.g. by alienation of the res legata in the
testator's lifetime (Inst. ii. 20, 12; Dig. 34, 4,
15). •
The acquisition of legata depends on the
LEGATUS
LEGATUS 23
meaning of two expressions—“dies (legati)
cedit,” and “dies (legati) venit,” which mark
two points of time in the history of the legatee's
rights. Dies cedit means that he acquires a
provisional right to the bequest: a right which
he can only lose by failure of all instituted
heirs to accept under the will, so that if he dies
immediately after dies cedit, but before dies venit,
the right passes to his heir. . The date of this
was the testator's decease (altered by the Lex
Papia Poppaea to the opening of the will, but
the old rule was restored in Justinian's time),
unless the legacy was subject to a condition
precedent or a dies ea quo (e.g. six months after
my decease), in which case dies cédit only on the
fulfilment of the condition or the arrival of the
dies. Dies venit means that the legatee acquires
a right to demand the res legata by action: its
date is acceptance of the inheritance by the
heir, unless dies cedit itself occurs later by
reason of a condition precedent or a dies ea quo.
(Gaius, ii. 191–245; Inst. ii. 20; Ulpian, Reg.
24; Paul. Sent. rec. iii. 6; Dig. 30–32; Cod. 6,
37; 6, 43; Rosshirt, Die Lehre von den Ver-
nächtnissen nach rām. Rechte, Heidelberg,
1835.) [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
LEGA"TUS is a person dispatched on an
official mission, just as the neuter legatum is
used of property of which the succession is
determined with legal formality by the testator.
The precise meaning of legatus changes accord-
ing to the nature of the mission, but the idea
inherent in the word—that of official appoint-
ment for a definite purpose—is the same
throughout the history of the Roman consti-
tution. -
The various uses of thword may be reduced
to two, under one or other of which the rest
may be conveniently classed: viz. 1. legatus =
an envoy dispatched by a magistrate, under
advice of the senate, for some object of diplo-
macy, inquiry, or organisation; 2. legatus = a
person formally attached to a general-in-chief
or provincial governor, as lieutenant or staff-
officer. Though it will be convenient to con-
sider these two usages separately, it must be
observed that there is no difference between
them in constitutional law. The principle of
appointment was the same in both cases; and
the form of it also, as will be shown, remained
technically the same at all times; all state
legati being in the eye of the law the messengers
of the magistrate presiding in the senate at
the time the appointment was made. Varro
(L. L. v. 87) defines both kinds of legati
in a single sentence, and treats them as
essentially the same: “Legati, qui lecti publice,
quorum opera consilioque uteretur peregre
magistratus (2), quive nuntii senatus aut populi
essent (1).” Cicero also (in Vatin. 15, 35),
when attacking Watinius in 56 B.C. for obtaining
a legatio without a decree of the senate, ex-
claims: “Adeo afflictus senatus, adeo misera et
prostrata respublica, ut non nuntios pacis atque
belli, non oratores, non interpretes, (1) non belli
consilii auctores, non ministros muneris provin-
cialis (2) senatus more majorum deligere
posset’ ”, From these passages it is plain that
legati only differed in respect of the duties
entrusted to them, and that those duties were in
the main of two kinds. We proceed to consider
, these two in detail: * * . . . .
I. Legati as State Envoys (legati ad aliquem).
—The first appearance of legati of this kind
is in the year 456 B.C., when three envoys,
whose names are given by Livy (iii. 25), were
sent to the Aequi “ questum injurias et ex
foedere res repetitum.” Up to this time it
would appear that the duties of diplomacy and
treaty-making, which in the earliest times were
doubtless simple and straightforward, had been
discharged by the college of Fetiales (Liv. i. 24).
But from 456 B.C. onwards Livy constantly
makes mention of legati sent on missions of
various kinds, but chiefly employed in nego-
tiation, while the function of the Fetiales seems
to have been restricted to the actual declaration
of war. Thus Varro writes (ap. Nonium,
p. 529), “priusquam indicerent bellum is a
quibus injurias factas sciebant fetiales, legatos
res repetitum mittebant quattuor, quos oratores
vocabant.”
Mode of appointment.—In the earliest instance
just referred to, we are not told how the legati
were appointed ; but from Livy's language in
subsequent cases it may be gathered that the
usual and natural method was for a magistrate
to consult the senate on the advisability of
the mission, when a senatusconsultum would
authorise him to select the envoys (Liv. v. 35;
xxix. 29; xliii. 1. See also the “Senatus-
consultum de Thisbanis,” in the Ephemeris
Epigraphica, vol. i. p. 279; Mommsen, Staats-
recht, 2nd edit., vol. ii. pt. 1, p.658). But there
can be no doubt that from an early period the part
played by the senate in their appointment came
to be regarded as the essential one; and thus
Cicero could expostulate with Watinius, in the
passage already quoted, for having violated im-
memorial usage in becoming a legatus without
the authority of the senate. “Ne hoc quidem
senatui relinquebas,” he goes on, “quod nemo
unquam ademit, ut legati ex ejus ordinis
auctoritate legerentur” (in Wat. 15, 35). There
is no known instance of the authorisation of
legati in this sense by the people in Comitia,
though the language of Varro (ap. Non. p. 529)
must be taken to imply that there was nothing
to prevent it. But when Polybius (i. 63)
writes of the 67pos sending ten commissioners
to arrange terms of peace after the First Punic
War, he may be either writing loosely and
without marking the special form of procedure,
or these commissioners may have been rather
independent quasi-magistrates for making peace,
of the same kind as those appointed under
agrarian laws for the division of land, and nöt
legati in any strict sense of the word. (Cf.
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. pt. 1, p. 624, with
Willems, Le Sénat de la République, ii. 475,
note. -
The selection of the individual envoys rested,
as we saw, technically with the magistrate ;
but towards the close of the Republic it would
seem that the choice was sometimes made by lot
(sortitio) from the several ranks of senators
(consulares, praetorii, &c.). An example of this
method occurs in Cic. ad Att. i. 19, 3; and
Tacitus (Hist. iv. 6, 8) writes as though it had
once been a common practice (“vetera exempla,
quae sortem legationibus posuissent "). This
must be regarded as a departure, characteristic
of the last age of the Republic, from the strict
form of procedure; induced no doubt by the
24 LEGATUS
LEGATUS
profit attaching to commissions of this kind,
and by the consequent strenuous competition for
them.
Qualification.—It was the general practice to
select senators only (Cic. Att. xiii. 20, 3), and
such senators as were not at the time holding
office, which would disqualify them for duties at
a distance from Rome; but there seems to have
been no definite rule, for we have one or two
instances in which, on an emergency, non-
senators were chosen (Liv. iv. 52, “consules ...
coacti sunt binos equites adjicere: ” cf. Liv.
xxxi. 8). In almost all important missions, one
legatus at least was a consularis; if there were
two, the senior consularis was princeps lega-
tionis (Sall. Jug. 16). Even in the large lega-
tiones of the late Republic, the practice of
employing ex-magistrates for the most part still
held good, and exemplifies the importance
attached by the Romans to official experience, in
this as in other public duties. Thus the legatio
of 189 B.C. which settled terms of peace with
Antiochus consisted of three consulares, four
praetoriani, and three quaestorii (Liv. xxxvii. 55:
cf. Cic. Att. i. 19 ; Willems, Le Sénat, ii. 506).
Number. — In the earliest legationes, the
number of legati was three (Liv. iii. 25, 6;
Dionys. Hal. ix. 60, xix. 13, 17). But we have
instances of legationes consisting of two, four,
and six members, and most embassies after the
Second Punic War were of ten (Liv. xxxiii. 24;
xxxvii. 55; xlv. 17). Single legati are found
from time to time (Liv. xxi. 8, 4, “ad bellum
indicendum; ” cf. xxxiii. 39 and xxxix. 48). It
has been supposed that when a single legatus is
thus mentioned, we are to understand that the
princeps legationis is put for the other members;
but it is clear from the practice of granting
liberae legationes (to be explained directly) to
individuals, that there was no definite rule
against the appointment of single legati. (For
full details as to the number of members of
a legatio see Willems, Le Sénat, vol. ii. p. 499
foll.).
Authority and Responsibility.—No legatus
could hold imperium, for imperium could not be
delegated; their powers may best be expressed
by the word auctoritas; i.e. they acted under
the sanction of the home government. Being
as a rule unable to communicate easily with the
authorities in Rome, they would naturally be
given much freedom in their dealings with
foreign governments, and were in fact plenipo-
tentiaries; but on the subject of their instruc-
tion (mandata) and responsibility we have hardly
any information. It is not till quite at the
close of the Republic that we find any trace of a
legalised responsibility, beyond the mere decla-
ration in the senate of the results of their
mission (e.g. Liv. xlv. 13), which might, how-
ever, be made the opportunity of an attack on
their proceedings, as we see from Liv. xlii. 47,
where the impeachment was (no doubt as usual)
unsuccessful. We have an example of the
successful impeachment of legati by means of a
lear instituting a quaestio extraordinaria to try
them, in the year 110 B.C. (Sall. Jug. 40); but
these legati were not state envoys of the kind
now under discussion (ib. ch. 28). It was
Caesar's law de repetundis, of 59 B.C., which first
made all kinds of legati liable for misdoing
in their office (Dig. 48, 11, 1): but this law
apparently touched them only in so far as they
had been guilty of pecuniary corruption or
extortion.
Emoluments. – All legati travelled at the
expense of the state (Zoharas, viii. 6), to which
they were entitled by virtue of the ring which
they wore (see Zonaras, viii. 6; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, i. 301 ; and article ANULUS). A
ship or ships of war were, on important occa-
sions, allotted them for transport (Liv. xxix. 11;
xxx. 26). It seems also that in the last age of
the Republic one or two lictors were allowed
them, at the discretion of the provincial governor
in whose province they travelled (Cic. Fam. 12,
21; cf. 12, 20). All were personally inviolable,
as were the envoys of foreign peoples in Italy
(Liv. iv. 17 foll. ; Tac. Hist. iii. 80; Pomponius
in Dig. 50, 18). -
Legatio libera.-The advantages and emolu-
ments just mentioned led to a scandalous abuse
of the legatio, which came into vogue in the
last century of the Republic, when rich senators
frequently had private business and interests in
the provinces. In order to maintain a state and
dignity which would place him at an advantage,
and give him practically the status of an am-
bassador, a senator could obtain from the senate
a free mission (legatio libera) on stating the
province for which he desired it, and perhaps
also the nature of his affairs (Cic. Fam. 12, 21;
Att. 4, 2, 6). This practice became such a
scandal in Cicero's time, that he made a vigorous
attempt in his consulship to abolish it; but the
feeling was so strong against him in this effort
at reform, that a tribune was found to interpose
his veto, and Cicero was forced to be content
with a senatusconsultum limiting these lega-
tiones to one year (see ad Att. xv. 11, 4 ; de
Leg. iii. 8, 18, iii. 3, 9). A law of the dictator
Caesar confirmed this limitation; but the legatio
libera was not abolished, and we hear of it under
the Empire (Suet. Tib. 31 ; Dig. 50, 7, 15).
Cicero gives a very definite opinion of the abuse
he tried to remedy: “apertum est nihil esse
turpius quam est quempiam legari nisi reipub-
licae causa’ (de Leg. iii. 8, 18): but what had
once become a senatorial prerogative easily lost
the taint of immorality in the minds of the
privileged capitalist.
Legati as Envoys under the Empire.—When
the Republic came to an end, all negotiations
with foreign peoples passed into the hands of
the princeps, who appointed his own deputies by
virtue of his unlimited proconsulare imperium
(Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 892). The right of
the senate to send legati remained, however, in
theory; and we find them sending deputations
to the princeps when he happened to be in the
provinces (Tac. Hist. iv. 6-8; Dio Cass. lix. 23).
Legati in the sense of Envoys from foreign
peoples.—The word legatus was used by courtesy
of an ambassador from another state. All such,
if coming from a friendly power, were inviolable
(Dig. 50, 18), and treated with high considera-
tion. They were lodged and boarded (locus et
lautia) at the public expense, and sometimes
presented with gifts (Liv. xxviii. 39; xxxv. 23;
Senatusconsultum de Asclepiade, line 8 of the
Latin version). On arriving they gave in their
names to the praetor or quaestor urbanus at the
temple of Saturn (Liv. x.45; Plut. Quaest. Rom.
43), and in due time were introduced to the Senate,
LEGATUS
LEGATUS
25
where they stated the object of their mission;
this was done in Latin or through an interpreter
down to the last half-century of the Republic,
when, as all educated Romans spoke Greek,
they began to be allowed to use that tongue if
they wished. Cicero’s rhetorical teacher, Molo,
was the first to whom this privilege was granted
(Val. Max. ii. 2, 3). When they had made their
statement, they were liable to be questioned by
individual senators (Liv. xxx. 22), under the
usual formalities of senatorial procedure; they
then withdrew to a platform outside the Curia
called the Graecostasis (Varro, L. L. v. 155),
where they waited until called back to hear the
response of the senate (Liv. xxvi. 32, xxx. 22);
or it was communicated to them by a magistrate
(Liv. xlv. 20). Occasionally it happened that
the senate had too much business on hand to
allow them to give audience to all the envoys in
Rome; in this case a committee of experienced
Senators was appointed to hear them (Liv.
xxxiv. 57; Polyb. xxiii. 4; Senatusconsultum
de Thisbanis, line 11, in Ephemeris Epigraphica,
vol. i. p. 279). That the business became
arduous as the Empire increased may be gathered
(1) from the tradition, recorded by Plutarch
(Quaest. Rom. 43), that the envoys ceased to be
given locus et lautia, save the most distinguished,
owing to their great numbers; (2) from what
we know of two laws, the Lex Papia and the
Lex Gabinia (both of uncertain date, but the
latter either of 67 or 58 B.C.), which ordained
that the senatorial sittings of the month of
February should be entirely devoted to this
kind of business (Cic. Fam. i. 4, 1 ; Q. Fratr.
ii. 13, 3).
If the envoys were from a nation at war with
Rome, they were received with great caution.
- They were not admitted into the city, but, if an
audience were granted them, were lodged in the
Campus Martius, and the senate met in the
temple of Bellona or in that of Apollo (extra
wrbem, Liv. xxxiv. 43 ; Festus, s. v. senacula,
p. 347, ed. Müll.). If no audience was accorded,
they were required to quit the city and Italy
within a certain time, and in their journey
through Italy were escorted by a senator (Liv.
xxxvii. 1; Polyb. xxxii. 1; Sall. Jug. 28).
The same title of legatus was used of com-
missioners from the provinces or from commu-
nities within them, bearing either congratula-
tions on the conduct of a provincial governor, or
complaints against him. A good example of a
commission charged to explain provincial griev-
ances will be found in Liv. xliii. 2. Cicero
frequently mentions such missions in the Werrine
orations; e.g. in i. 19 and 4, 31. Under the
Empire these legationes were put under stringent
regulations, of which an account will be found
in Dig. 50, 18.
II. Legati as staff-officers; “quorum opera
consilioque uteretur peregre magistratus ”
(Varro, l. c.). These were said to be legati
alicui, as opposed to legati ad aliquem.
Origin.--Livy mentions these at the very
outset of the Republic (ii. 20; iii. 5), but his
evidence is not conclusive, and it is remarkable
that so late as the battle of Cannae (B.C. 216)
no legati are mentioned in the list of the slain,
though we are told of consulares, quaestors,
tribuni militares, and senators who were killed
there. On the other hand, so deeply rooted was
the idea of the consilium of the magistrate in
the Roman mind, that it is difficult to imagine
that the consuls in the field were left wholly
without unofficial advisers. Perhaps the practice
began as a regular institution with the acquisi-
tion of transmarine provinces; but no reason
can be shown why even in Italian campaigns of
an earlier date the senate should not from time
to time have made use of a natural mode of
keeping the commanders informed of their
wishes. However this may be, from the Second
Punic War onwards, every commander and
provincial governor had legati with him, and
Polybius writes of them as a standing institution
in his time (Polyb. vi. 35; cf. Liv. xxxviii.
28, 12).
Mode of Appointment.—As in the case of legati
as envoys, a senatusconsultum authorised the
magistrate to select the legati out of the
members of the senate (Liv. xliii. 1; cf. xliv. 18).
As it frequently happened that the presiding
magistrate was a consul or praetor who was
about to become a provincial governor, he thus
became entitled to nominate his own legati (Sall.
Jug. 28: “Calpurnius [consul] parato exercitu
legat sibi homines nobiles,” &c.; cf. Plut. Flam.
3; Cic. Att. ii. 18, 3): and this mode of
appointment being a convenient one, it was
natural that the provincial governor should
desire to establish it as a right. As a rule, how-
ever, the consent of the senate was no doubt
formally obtained (Schol. Bob. on Cic. Wat. 15,
35). In the last century of the Republic we
find examples of laws in which the number and
qualification of the legati to be chosen by the
proconsul was expressly laid down: this was the
case in the Lex Gabinia of B.C. 67, under which
Pompeius received a command against the pirates
(Plut. Pomp. 25; Appian, Mithr. 94), and
probably in the Lex Watinia which gave Caesar
the command of Cisalpine Gaul in B.C. 59.
Under the Empire the nomination of legati seems
always to have been the right of the holder of
the imperium proconsulare, whether of the prin-
ceps himself as having a majus imperium, or
the proconsuls who continued to govern the
senatorial provinces (Dio Cass. liii. 14), but in
the latter case the consent of the princeps was
necessary to the validity of the nomination.
(See Willems, Droit Romain, p. 510.)
Qualification.—The general rule was that these
legati must be senators; no certain instance is
recorded of an exception, but it does not follow
that there was any definite disqualification of
non-senators. (Cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 661,
note 1, with Willems, vol. 2, p. 608, note 4.)
The rule held good under the Empire.
Number.—This was no doubt usually settled
by the authorising senatusconsultum in each
case. After the Second Punie War, where Livy's
information may fairly be relied on, the number
in attendance on a praetor is generally two,
while a consul has three. Later, again, we find
consuls with five and praetors with three.
(See Willems, Le Sénat, ii. p. 611.) By the
Lex Gabinia, Pompeius had twenty-five allowed
him, Caesar ten by the Lex Pompeia-Licinia of
55 B.C. Under the Empire there was a fixed
rule that in senatorial provinces (where alone
legati in the strict sense of the word are found)
a pro-praetor should have one, a proconsul three
(Dio Cass. liii. 14).
26 LEGATUS
LEGATUS
Duties.—As we have seen, no legatus was in
any sense a magistrate, and could have no in-
dependent authority of his own; all were strictly
under the orders of their chief, and were bound
to carry out any kind of work he might allot
them. (Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, i. 387;
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, 679.) But as the tenure
of provincial commands became extended, legati
were frequently employed by their Generals-
in-chief as commanders of division (i.e. of a
legion), and thence gained a standing position
in the army beyond that of a mere counsellor.
This becomes first apparent in Caesar's Gallic
war, but it may have been to some extent the
practice before (Caesar, B. G. 1, 52; 2, 20;
5, 1; and Rüstow, Heerwesen Caesar's, p. 28).
It was the natural result of the practice by
which commanders selected their own legati;
for they took care to choose men on whose skill
and fidelity they could rely, and to whom they
could entrust the sole conduct of difficult or
distant operations. Recommended by its useful-
ness, it took definite shape under the Empire.
From the time of Augustus onwards each legion
had its own legatus (legatus legionis, as dis-
tinguished from other legati), and the governors
of imperial provinces had as many legati as
legions (Tac. Ann. i. 44; 2, 36; Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, ii. 457), all of whom, however,
were selected by the princeps.
All military legati had the right of travelling
free of cost; and the fact that they were in-
cluded in the Lex Julia de repetundis, already
alluded to, shows that they had opportunities of
gain in the provinces where they served. Before
the passing of that law, the governor or com-
mander was himself solely responsible for the
conduct of his subordinates. (See Liv. xxix.
19 foll., for the famous case of Scipio and his
legatus Pleminius. Rein, Criminalrecht, pp. 192,
606.) He had, however, the power of dismissing
a legatus, and could thus relieve himself of
responsibility (Cic. Verr. iii. 58).
Legati pro praetore.—The increase in the im-
portance of the legatus towards the close of the
Republic is shown not only by his being fre-
quently attached to a particular legion as its
commander, but also by the growing practice
by which the provincial governor deputed him
to act for him in some special locality or depart-
ment. As early as the earlier half of the 2nd
century B.C., we find a consul, at war within
the bounds of Italy, having his army in charge
of a legatus in order to preside at the consular
elections; and a century later it frequently
happened that a legatus was placed over a whole
province in the absence of the governor. Thus
Caesar, who from 59 to 49 B.C. was in com-
mand both of Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul,
used to leave the one or the other in the charge
of a legatus when he himself was necessarily
absent (Caes. B. G. i. 10; i. 54). The practice
was carried a step farther by Pompeius between
55 and 50 B.C., for he governed his province of
Spain by legati while he himself remained in
Italy (Welleius, 2, 48). In such cases it became
the practice to style the deputy legatus pro
praetore (Caes. B. G. i. 21 : cf. Sall. Jug. 26 and
38). Such a title could not mean that the
legatus actually held the imperium of a pro-
praetor, for, as we saw, imperium could not be
delegated; but that he held a power which was
practically equivalent to it, under the auctoritas
of his chief. But there can be no doubt that
as provincial commands grow longer and more
important, civic technicalities tended to lose
their strength and rigidity; and we have men-
tion in the year 82 B.C. of a legatus pro praetore
(Pompeius in Sicily and Africa) appointed by
the senate, who is also styled by one author
legatus cum imperio (cf. Liv. Epit. , 89, with
Granius Licinianus, p. 29, Bonn edit.). The
practice of governing by deputies with this
honorary title led directly to the system by
which, under the Empire, the princeps, as holder
of an unlimited imperium, governed all the
provinces not under senatorial authority (see
PROVINCIA and PROCONSUL) through legati pro
praetore appointed by and responsible to himself.
This system began with the division of pro-
vinces between Augustus and the senate in
B.C. 27. From that time down to the complete
reconstruction of the provincial system by
Diocletian, the imperial provinces were governed
by legati, either of consular or praetorian rank,
according (as a rule) to the number of legions
stationed in the province ; but all alike were
styled legati Augusti (or Caesaris) pro praetore,
the designation vir consularis, or vir praetorius,
being entirely unofficial. (Marquardt, Staats-
verwaltung, i. 408–10.) They are to be distin-
guished from the legati legionis already men-
tioned, though it sometimes happened that the
two offices were combined, in which case the
style was legatus pro praetore legionis (Marq.
op. cit. 309); and also, of course, from the
ordinary legati of the proconsuls who continued
to govern the senatorial provinces. These legati
pro praetore were always, down to the reign of
Gallienus, of senatorial rank, as is shown by the
fact that the one provincial governor who was
not a senator, the praefectus Aegypti, was never
accorded the title of legatus.
Legati juridici.-Lastly, we find under the
Empire, in the imperial provinces, certain legati
juridici (also known simply as juridici), who
seem to have been persons of senatorial rank
appointed by the princeps to perform the sub-
ordinate judicial duties which in senatorial
provinces were administered by the ordinary
legati of the proconsul. These date probably
from the beginning of the Empire; for as the
legatus pro praetore, being himself a delegate of
the princeps, could not delegate his duties to
others like a proconsul, the governors of imperial
provinces would have had no assistants for their
work if the princeps had not supplied them.
Thus we find even under Augustus (Strabo, iii.
4, 20) a legatus pro praetore in Spain, with three
legati under him, who must have been legati
juridici; and in later times, especially after
Hadrian’s reign, the title legatus juridicus occurs
frequently in inscriptions. (The best account of
these will be found in the French translation of
Mommsen's Staatsrecht, by P. F. Girard, i. pp.
263, 264, and notes, where the additional matter
has the sanction of the author of the work.)
After the reconstitution by Diocletian and
Constantine of the whole system of government,
the word legatus rapidly disappears, in the
technical senses which have been explained;
only surviving in the case of the legati attached
to the provinces of Asia, Africa, and Achaia,
which continued to be governed by proconsuls,
LEGES
LEITURGIA 27
or in an occasional inscription showing that the
new nomenclature of praesides or rectores pro-
vinciarum did not at once supersede it in common
usage. (Cf. Notitia Occidentalis, xviii. p. 162,
2, 3; and Orelli, Inscr. 3672; Schiller’s Ge-
schichte der Kaiserzeit, ii. p. 56.)
[For more detailed information, see the chapter
on Legati in Mommsen's Staatsrecht, 2nd edit.,
ii. p. 657 foll. ; cf. vol. i. 222 foll., with the
additional notes in the French translation: also
Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, i. 408 foll. ;
Willems, Le Sénat de la République, ii. 492 foll.
and 608 foll. ; Buettner-Wobst, de Legationibus
Reipublicae, Leipzig, 1876.] [W. W. F.]
LEGES. [LEx.]
LEGIO. [ExERCITUS.]
LEGIS ACTIO. [ACTIo.]
LEITU'RGIA (Aetrovpyía, or in the older
form found in inscriptions up to the 3rd century,
Antowpyta, derived from Aéros or - Affºros, a
synonym of Smuéotos, and *ēpya), the name
given to certain public services, consisting partly
of money and partly of personal labour, per-
formed by wealthy individuals (called liturgi in
this relation, Gr. Aelroup'yol) for the state, in
Athens and other states of Greece. (A list of
these other states may be found in Boeckh's
Public Economy of Athens, book iii. c. 1. The
most remarkable are Thebes, of which we read
in Plutarch's Aristides, c. i., that Epaminondas
assisted by Pelopidas provided there a concert of
flute-players; and Aegina, as to which see the
singular and amusing story, antecedent to the
Persian wars, related in Herod. v. 83.) We
know, however, but little of these “liturgies”
in any other state except Athens. At Athens
they were among the most characteristic institu-
tions of the democracy; and though they had
their faulty side, there was much in the working
of them that was brilliant, and even solidly ex-
cellent.
The whole idea of the liturgies was that the
rich men of the community should expend their
substance and devote their labour for the benefit
of all, whether in the way of solid protection or
by the encouragement of graceful pursuits and
exhilarating contests; the honour and glory of
thus administering to the entire nation, and
sometimes of winning prizes for pre-eminence in
the displays, being the sole and a sufficient re-
ward. Nothing exactly similar has ever been
seen in modern times; a faint reflection of it
may be found in such an office as that of high
sheriff among ourselves, which is at once one-
rous, obligatory, and conveys with it a certain
credit to him who holds it.
Our detailed knowledge of these liturgies is
for the most part derived from the orators of
the 4th century B.C., in whose various speeches,
public and private, they are constantly men-
tioned. , Nevertheless, that century was not the
time of their greatest splendour; the Sicilian
expedition, and the disastrous close of the Pelo-
ponnesian war, had thrown a cloud over the
fortunes of individual citizens, as well as over
the state at large. They attained their culmina-
tion during the few years which succeeded the
Peace of Nicias. But on this point, and on their
history generally, more will be said in a subse-
quent part of this article.
There were two main kinds of liturgies at
Athens: those relating to the amusements of a
population in its peaceable life, which were
called “ordinary” (êykūkaioi); and certain
others to which no specific Greek name was
assigned (by modern writers they are called
“extraordinary”), but which practically related
to the defence of the state against foreign foes."
The ordinary liturgies were principally the
Choregia, or maintenance and training of a
chorus for the theatrical festivals; Gymnasi-
archia, or training and maintenance of gymnasts
(likewise with a view to public festivals); with
this last the Lampadedromia, or preparation of
runners for the torch-race, was closely connected;
Hestiasis, or the feasting of the tribe to which
the “liturgus ” belonged; and lastly the Archi-
theoria, or superintendence and furnishing forth
of sacred embassies, such as those to Delphi or
Delos. It would be very incorrect to conceive
of any of these great offices as a mere tax in
money upon the holder of them; they were this
indeed, but they were more : the choregus, the
gymnasiarch, the phylarch, and the architheo-
rus were bound to bestow personal labour in
their respective offices. (See the separate
articles: CHOREGUS; GYMNASIUM ; LAMPADE-
DROMIA ; HESTIASIS ; THEORIA.) Every citizen
whose property amounted to three talents or
upwards was liable to be called upon to under-
take an ordinary liturgy; citizens of less means
were, it would appear, not liable. (Compare
Dem. c. Aphob. p. 833, with the closing sentences
of Isaeus, de Pyrrhi hered.)
The extraordinary liturgies were the Trier-
archia, or the fitting out of a ship of war, and
the Proeisphora, or the advance, in time of need,
of the Eisphora, or war-tax, due by less wealthy
citizens (who, however, could be made to refund
afterwards). The Eisphora itself has sometimes
been reckoned among the liturgies; but it is
distinguished from them by the fact that no
man by paying it escaped from the performance
of another liturgy (Dem. c. Leptin. p. 465;
c. Euerg. et Mnesib. p. 1155). [TRIERARCHIA ;
EISPHORA; PROEISPHORA.] The Trierarchia
was the most expensive of all the liturgies,
sometimes costing as much as a talent, and
demanded greater wealth in the holder of it.
Hence after the time of the Sicilian expedi-
tion it became common to join two persons in
the performance of it; and in B.C. 358 the law
of Periander made the trierarchy still more like
a mere tax, by enacting that it should be con-
tributed by companies (ovuuoptal), like the war-
tax. None of the other liturgies suffered this
degradation; though for a short time after the
Sicilian expedition two persons were permitted
to join in the office of choregus (Scholiast, Arist.
Ranae, 404; and see also Fränkel's note 757
to Boeckh). The trierarch, like the other
liturgi, had to give personal service; he com-
manded his own ship in the old times: how the
actual commander was appointed when the orvu-
poptal were introduced, is not clear; he appears
sometimes to have been an outside person
who contracted to take the duty (Dem. c. Mid.
p. 564).
How were the various liturgi appointed P
The answer to this question has some elements
of difficulty. Essentially, the tribe was re-
sponsible for the appointment; and in the case
of an ordinary liturgy, this responsibility cen:
tred in the overseers of the tribe (étriplexntal
28 LEITURGIA
LEITURGIA
ris puxſis). Supposing a tribe failed to appoint
a liturgus, the archon (i.e. the Archon Eponymus
or the Archon Basileus, according to the festival
concerned) would inquire the reason of such
default from the overseers; and lively scenes
of recrimination would ensue, as we learn from
the speech of Demosthenes against Midias
(p. 519), where such a default on the part of
the tribe Pandionis is recorded (in this instance
Demosthenes himself, though of another tribe,
eventually volunteered to take the office). It
is not to be inferred, however, that the
overseers had an absolute power of appointing
the liturgus; had this been the case, the
difficulty in the tribe Pandionis could hardly
have arisen. The Scholiast to Demosthenes
(quoted by Fränkel in note 754 to Boeckh)
affirms that the rich men of the tribe took the
office by turns. That this should have been the
case to some extent, was almost inevitable; but
the notices in the orators do not permit us to
suppose that such an order was very accurately
preserved. If a man was conspicuously wealthy,
and especially if he had landed property, he
would often be expected to serve, whether it
were his turn or not (see Dem. c. Polycl. p. 1208:
a passage not less pertinent because it refers to
the trpoetorqopd, an extraordinary liturgy). And
in fact, whatever the power of the overseer in
this respect or the validity of the rule of
rotation in the selection, it is probable that
direct election by the votes of the tribe was
not unfrequently resorted to. (Observe especially
in Dem. c. Boeot. p. 996, the phrase of puxeral
oforoval...xopmxöv # yvuvagtapyov h éotidropa,
and compare Antiphon, Choreut. §§ 11–13, where
the speaker is choregus of his tribe by direct
appointment, and yet from the way in which
Amynias, the overseer of the tribe, is mentioned,
it seems unlikely that the appointment lay in
his hands.) Voluntary offers to undertake a
liturgy no doubt sometimes superseded the
necessity of a formal appointment; but this
would be the exception: in the passage just
referred to (Dem. c. Boeot. p. 996) it is assumed
that a man would naturally seek to escape the
burden of a liturgy. From the next page of
the same oration (p. 997) we learn that the two
principal archons and the managers of the
contests at the Panathenaea (&0\00éral) would
on occasions appoint a liturgus; and clearly the
Architheorus, for instance, who had a function
that concerned the whole state, would not be
appointed by any particular tribe. The ā0A0-
6état were, however, tribal officers.
The method of appointment to the extra-
ordinary liturgies was also connected with the
tribes; but here the general (arparmyös) was
the authority by whom the appointment was
made ; at any rate this was the case with
respect to the trierarchy, and probably with
respect to the trposuo popä as a rule, though in
Dem. c. Polycl. p. 1208 we find the members of
the Council (Bouxeural) directed by the people to
draw up a list of the rich men in their several
demes who should make these advances of the
war-tax. The generals, it would appear, sat as
a united board for the appointment both of the
trierarchical classes and the individual trierarchs
(Dem. c. Lacrit. p. 940; c. Boeot. 997); we
may conjecture that each general would mainly
arrange for the trierarchs in his own tribe, and
the constitution of Cleisthenes provided that
each tribe should contribute an equal number
of ships to the state, but nothing is said on
these points in later times, and it is possible
that the connexion with the tribes gradually
dropped out of view in respect of the trierarchy.
As to the limitations on the liability of any
special man to be called upon to perform any
liturgy, two rules are mentioned: one, that no
man could be required to perform two liturgies,
ordinary or extraordinary, at once (Dem. c. Lept.
p. 462, § 19); another, that no man could be
required to perform a liturgy during two suc-
cessive years (Dem. c. Lept. p. 459, § 8). In
spite of these rules, we find in Dem. c. Polycl.
p. 1209, § 9, the complainant affirming that
he had been chosen to perform the trpoelorqopä.
while yet performing the office of trierarch: he
implies indeed that he might have refused to
do so; but clearly this would have been an
unpopular act. So, too, the plaintiff in the
speech of Isaeus, Or. 7 [Apollod.], § 38, says of
his grandfather, “Besides having served all the
other liturgies, he continued his whole time to
do the duty of trierarch; not getting his ship
in an association like men of the present day,
but at his own cost; not jointly with another,
but singly; not every other year, but without
intermission; not in a perfunctory way (āqoo low-
Revos), but providing the best possible equip-
ments. For which you not only honoured him
in remembrance of his conduct, but prevented
his son being deprived of his property,” &c. It
is implied no doubt in this passage (as in the
similar passage, Lys. pro Polystr. § 31 ff.) that
such liberality on the part of the liturgus was
in great measure voluntary; but we cannot
mistake the fact of there being great irregularity
in the practical carrying out of all rules in
regard to these appointments.
The connexion with the tribes, in the ordinary
liturgies, existed not only in respect of the
appointment of the liturgus, but also in respect
of any victory won by his chorus of singers, his
gymnasts, &c. On the tripod that he was
privileged to put up after such a victory (for
which tripods a special street in Athens was
set apart), not only his name but the name of
his tribe was inscribed.
Various other liturgies of minor importance
are mentioned. (See article ARRHEPHORIA;
also Boeckh, book iii., c. 21, and the note 755 of
Fränkel.) The Aéroikoi or resident aliens were
capable of performing the choregia at the festi-
val of the Lenaea (Schol. ad Arist. Plut. 954)
and the Hestiasis (Ulpian, ad Dem. Leptin. § 15);
possibly, too, there were some peculiar to the
wérotrol. A liturgy which citizens performed
was called Aeltowpyta troAttikā, in opposition to
a Aeltovpyta rāv uetoſkov.
How far the liturgies were an oppressive
burden on the rich Athenians, is a point on which
differences of opinion have existed. The threat
of Cleon to the Sausage-seller in the Knights
(v. 912), “I will make you serve as trierarch,
with an old ship and a rotten sail,” &c., is evi-
dence enough that such oppression was possible.
The orators clearly show, as we should expect,
that while some persons sought these offices for
the sake of the popularity they conferred, others
tried to escape them. On the whole, however,
it would appear that the necessary legal burden
LEITURGIA
LEITURGIA 29
which they imposed was not ruinous (see Boeckh
on the point); and though some persons did
ruin themselves by their liturgies, this is gene-
rally attributed to their ambitious extension of
the duty rather than to its intrinsic character.
Yet Antiphanes (in Athenaeus, iii. 62) speaks of
the people as bidding a man waste his money on
a chorus, till he has to go in rags. (See Aristot.
Polit. v. 8; Xen. de Rep. Ath. i. 13; Dem. c.
Euerg. et Mnesib. p. 1155, § 54; various parts
of Lysias, de Aristophanis bonis; and Isocr. de
Big. 15.)
The archons, also heiresses and orphans until
the commencement of the second year after their
coming of age, were free from all liturgies.
So we must conclude from Dem. de Symmor.
p. 182, and Lysias, c. Diogeit. § 24; though,
were it not that these passages especially
related to the trierarchy, we might infer
from Dem. c. Leptin. pp. 462–465, that that
office was an exception as far as the heiresses
and orphans are concerned: so express is the
affirmation in this last oration that no one but
the nine archons was by law free from the trier-
archy. Even the descendants of Harmodius and
Aristogeiton, it is said, who were free from the
other liturgies, were obliged to perform the
trierarchy. The exemption of the descendants
of Harmodius and Aristogeiton was one of those
special immunities which afterwards, in the 4th
century, were granted much more freely than
had been the case previously; and these never
included the trierarchy. Leptines (B.C. 356)
procured the passing of a law which prohibited
these immunities in general ; Demosthenes en-
deavoured, and it is generally thought with
success, to get this law rescinded about a year
afterwards. (On this, see Kennedy's 1st appen-
dix to his translation of Leptines.)
Of all the customs connected with the liturgies,
none was more singular than the right which
every citizen who was nominated for one of them
had, of proposing to any other citizen equally
bound with himself and of greater wealth, either
to take the liturgy in his place or to exchange
properties. That this right was no dead letter,
the speeches of the orators show ; though the
actual exchange probably was seldom carried
out. [ANTIDOSIS.]
It remains to make some observations on the
history and development of these liturgies. We
cannot rely on the specific ascription of them to
Solon as their originator; and yet probably
those who weigh the entire probabilities of the
case will be of opinion that they commenced
not later than his time, and owed, if not their
actual beginning, at all events much of their
subsequent growth, to that liberal impulse which
he imparted to the internal policy of Athens.
It is true, as Fränkel (note 752 to Boeckh) re-
marks, that the liturgies, as we know them,
were in close connexion with the ten tribes of
which Cleisthenes was the author, and that
therefore our knowledge of them, strictly speak-
ing, does not commence earlier than his date.
It is true also, that we may refuse to believe
even so precise a statement as that of Aeschines
(c. Timarch. § 7) to the effect that the actual
Solonic laws on the subject were visible at
Athens in his time, without any imputation of
falsehood against Aeschines, or of forgery against
anyone else: for the whole series of Athenian
laws was revised and remodelled after the expul-
sion of the Thirty Tyrants, under the archon-
ship of Eucleides; and as the object of the
revisers was not antiquarian accuracy, but pre-
sent expediency, much would be set down under
the name of Solon that was really contributed
by the revisers, or perhaps by some earlier
authority. Still we must not refuse all weight
to what Aeschines says; and the second (pro-
bably not genuine) book of Aristotle's Oeconomics
affirms that they were in existence in the age of
the sons of Pisistratus. The probabilities of the
case also are in favour of an early date for them.
The objects for which the liturgies existed were
valid before as well as after the time of Cleis-
thenes; the dithyrambic chorus, for instance,
was very ancient, and even the first dramatic
exhibition dates from B.C. 535. It is in the
abstract conceivable that the state paid the
whole expense of this; but the contrary is more
probable; for the dithyrambic singers were
closely connected with the rhapsodists, and surely
these were not state-paid 2 And if Cleisthenes
had made any great change in the manner of
defraying such expenditure, should we not have
been told of it 2 Nor can we fail to see the
analogy between the naucraros, or chief of the
naucrary (which in the Solonian constitution
was obliged to contribute a trireme and two
horsemen for the state service, Pollux, viii.
108), and the trierarch of a later date. The
naucraros would not of course contribute the
whole ship from his own resources; but it is
natural to suppose that the duty of keeping it
in good trim was mainly imposed on him, so that
the difference between him and the trierarch
would be small. (Cf. in Hermann's Griech.
Staatsalt. § 98, note 3, the quotation from
Bekker's Anecdota.) Besides, the whole look of
such an institution as the liturgy is of some-
thing springing spontaneously out of the popular
sentiment, and therefore of gradual growth ; the
ordinary liturgy was no political, nor even a
religious, necessity (see Dem. c. Leptin. pp. 494,
495). And the derivation of Aeltowpyſa, the
antique character of the first half of the word,
implies considerable antiquity in the thing it
represents.
We may assume, then, that the liturgies were
in process of development during the 6th cen-
tury B.C. The institution of the ten tribes by
Cleisthenes would necessitate their re-arrange-
ment; the immense increase of the Athenian
power during the succeeding century would foster
them into splendour. In no other century do we
find mention of such an incident as that of Cleinias,
who, in the battle of Artemisium, fought in a
ship built and manned (with 200 men) at his
own expense entirely. Plutarch tells us of the
magnificence with which Nicias conducted the
religious embassy at Delos, and of the still
greater display of Alcibiades at the Olympic
games. The Sicilian disaster and the defeat of
Athens at the close of the Peloponnesian war
caused a great fall from this exuberance. Iso-
crates (de Antid, p. 84, §§ 159, 160) forcibly
describes the change in public feeling: in his
own boyhood, he says, every one sought to
make himself appear richer than he was ;
now (rather before the middle of the 4th
century) every one tries to conceal his wealth,
for fear of informers. This has been thought
30 LEMEUS
LENO, LENOCINIUM
to be the grumbling of an old man; but it
was no unnatural result, and there is corrobora-
tive evidence. Thus Demosthenes (c. Lept. p. 492)
implies that the state in his time was much
poorer than formerly.; and he even appears
to connect the growth of the exemptions from
liturgies from this cause; the state could
make more valuable gifts in land and money
formerly, he says. It was, however, the trier-
archy that suffered most from this comparative
poverty; this is clear from the very institution
of the “symmories,” and it is emphasised by
Demosthenes (Phil. i. p. 50, § 35): “How is it,”
he asks, “that your magnificent festivals always
take place at the appointed time, while all your
armaments are after the time 2 Because in
the former case everything is ordered by law,
and each of you knows long beforehand, who is
the choregus of his tribe, who the gymnasiarch,
when, from whom, and what he is to receive,
and what to do. Nothing there is left unascer-
tained or undefined: whereas in the business of
war and its preparations all is irregular, un-
settled, undefined. Therefore it is only when
we have heard some news that we appoint trier-
archs; then we dispute about exchanges, and
consider about ways and means; . . . during these
delays the objects of our expedition are lost.”
It will be seen that this passage implies what
we should also gather from the orators, that the
offer of exchange of property (āvrtôooris) was far
more frequent in the case of the trierarchy than
in the case of the other liturgies; this is another
sign of the comparative unpopularity of the trier-
archy in these later times as compared with the
other liturgies. The reason is obvious, that
there was much less show about it, and there-
fore less personal aggrandisement of the liturgus.
Yet exceptions must in fairness be admitted; as
the splendid discharge of this office by the
banker Pasion, if we way trust his son Apollo-
dorus (Dem. c. Steph. p. 1127); and the more
certain fact that volunteers were for the first
time found for the trierarchy in the enthusiastic
movement, brought about by Timotheus, for
the recovery of Euboea, B.C. 358 (Dem. de Cor.
p. 259; de Cherson. 108). It may be observed
that Aristotle (Polit. v. 8) disapproved of the
ordinary liturgies; remarking that “it would
be better if the people would prevent the rich
men, when they offer to exhibit a number of
unnecessary and yet expensive entertainments of
plays, torch-races, and the like.” He may have
been justified in his own time, while yet in
earlier ages the liturgies may have been a result
of true patriotic impulse, and a binding link
between the rich and the poor.
On the subject of the liturgies, see especially
Boeckh’s Staatshaushaltung der Athener; Her-
mann, Staatsalterth. § 161; Wolf, Prolegom. in
Demosth. Leptin. p. lxxxvi., &c.; Wachsmuth,
vol. ii., p. 92, &c.; Kennedy’s translation of
the Oration against Leptines, &c., Appendix ii.
p. 242. [J. R. M.]
- LEMBUS (Aéugos), according to Fulgentius
called also dromo, which defines it as a swift and
light vessel. It was a small boat used to carry
persons from the ship to the shore (Plaut. Merc.
i. 2,81; ii. 1,35). So in Dem. c. Zenoth. p. 883, the
Aéußos seems to be a small boat towed behind
the ship into which Hegestratus tries to jump so
as to escape to shore; and in Theocr. xxi. 12, it
is a small fishing boat for oars (cf. Verg. Georg.
i. 201). The name was also given to boats
larger than this, but in the same manner light
and swift, sent ahead to obtain information of the
enemy's movements (Polyb. i. 53), or for plunder-
ing excursions (Liv. xxx. 45); also as fast-sailing
transports (Polyb. li. 3). [W. S.J., [G. E. M.]
LEMNISCUS. [See CoRONA.]
LEMURES. See Dict. of Greek and Roman
Biography and Mythology. + 1
LEMU'RIA, a festival for the souls of
the departed, which was celebrated at Rome
every year in the month of May. It was
said to have been instituted by Romulus to
appease the spirit of Remus whom he had slain
(Ovid, Fast. v. 473, &c.), and to have been called
originally Remuria (clearly a fanciful deri-
vation). It was celebrated at night and in
silence, and during three alternate days, that is,
on the 9th, 11th, and 13th of May. During
this season the temples of the gods were closed,
and it was thought unlucky for women to marry
at this time and during the whole month of
May, and those who ventured to marry were
believed to die soon after, whence the proverb
nense Maio malae nwbent. Those who celebrated
the Lemuria walked barefooted through the
house, washed their hands three times, and
threw black beans nine times behind their backs.
At the same time the words were used, “I redeem
myself and my household with these beans,” and
the ghosts were bidden to quit the hôāse. It
was supposed that they followed behind the
thrower and gathered up the beans. The
Lemures, as the Larvae, represented the spirits
of the wicked and haunted a house for evil:
beans were sacred to the infernal powers, for
which reason the Flamen Dialis was forbidden
to touch or even to name them, just as he was
forbidden to approach a grave or a dead body
(Gell. x. 15); and black beans, like the trópºuexas
ôts of Homer, would be particularly appropriate
to the Lemures. That the festival was a very
ancient one may be conjectured from its fetish-
like character, and from the fact that it was
celebrated by the father of the family for his
own household. (For the date of the Lemuria, see
Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, iii. 575: and for
details of the ceremony, Ovid, l.c.; Preller, Röm.
Myth. 499.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
LENAEA.. [DIONYSIA.]
LENO, LENOCI'NIUM. Lenocinium is
defined by Ulpian as the keeping of slaves or free
women for prostitution and the profits of it:
“Lenocinium facit, qui quaestuaria mancipia
habet, sed et qui in liberis hunc quaestum
exercet in eadem causa est” (Dig. 3, 2, 1; ib. 4,
2): cf. Dig. 23, 2, 6–9, “Lenas eas dicinus quae
mulieres quaestuarias prostituunt.” The brothels
of Rome (lupanaria) are mentioned by Plautus,
Juvenal, and Quinctilian. In the Digest it is
said more than once (e.g. 23, 2, 43, 1) that the
keeping of a tavern was often no more than a
cloak for this kind of trade; and Alexander
Severus enacted (Cod. 4, 56, 3) that an ancilla
who was sold under a condition that she should
not be prostituted, should not either be sold into
service in a public house, as if the two things
were almost identical. The trade, however, was
not forbidden, though it seems to have been
requisite for lenones to be registered with the
aedile, and by the praetor's edict they were one
LEONIDEIA.
LESCHE 31
of the classes branded with the stigma of
infamia (Dig. 3, 2, 4, 2): in the time of Caligula,
too (Sueton. Calig. 40), a tax was imposed on all
who kept brothels. Theodosius and Valentinian
(Cod. 1, 4, 12) enabled slaves and children whom
their masters or fathers forced to prostitution
to obtain protection by application to the au-
thorities of the church, and they also forbade
the practice of lenocinium under pain of exile,
corporal punishment, &c. (Cod. Theod. 15, 8, 1,
2; Nov. Theod. tit. 18). Justinian (Nov. 14) also
attempted to suppress the business by banishing
lemones from the city, and by making the
owners of houses who allowed prostitution to be
carried on in them liable to forfeit the houses
and pay ten pounds of gold: those who by
trickery or force got girls into their possession
and gave them up to prostitution were punished
with the “extreme penalties,” but it is not said
what these were.
Most of the passages bearing on this subject
in the writings of the jurists relate to the
lenocinium which the Lex Julia de adulteriis
(Dig. 48, 5, 2, 2; cf. Cod. 9, 9, 2) subjected to
the penalties of adulterium itself, for which see
Inst. iv. 18, 4. Among such acts are allowing
one's house to be used for adultery or stuprum ;
acquiescing in the adultery of one’s wife in order
to share the gain she made ; to keep or take
back a wife whom one has detected in an act of
adultery (Sueton. Dom. 8; Paul. Sent. rec. 2,
26, 8); to let an adulterer detected in the act
escape, or not to prosecute him. A husband
who winked at his wife’s adultery had no right
to retain any portion of the dos (Dig. 24, 3,47);
but by Nov. 117, 9, 3, Justinian allowed a wife
a divorce if her husband attempted to make her
prostitute herself, and enabled her to recover
both dos and donatio propter nuptias. With
respect to other persons than the husband, it
was lenocinium by the Lex Julia if a man
married a woman convicted of adultery: if,
having detected others in adultery, he held his
peace for a sum of money, or if he commenced
a prosecution for adultery and then discon-
tinued it. (Rein, Criminalrecht der Römer,
p. 883; Walter, Geschichte des römischen Rechts,
§ 811.) [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
LEONIDEIA (Aewvibeſa) were solemnities
celebrated every year at Sparta in honour of
Leonidas, who, with his 300 Spartans, had fallen
at Thermopylae. Opposite the theatre at Sparta
there were two sepulchral monuments, one of
Pausanias and another of Leonidas, where a contest
was held, in which none but Spartans were al-
lowed to take part. (Paus. iii. 14, § 1.) [L. S.]
LEPESTA (Aerdarm), a wine bowl men-
tioned by Varro among vasa vinaria. He also
says, “Ubi erat vinam in mensa positum, aut
lepestam aut galeolam aut sinum dicebant; tria
enim pro quibus nunc dicinus acratophoron”
(Warr. ap. Priscian. vi. 714). It was therefore,
like the acratophoron, filled with pure wine and
placed on the table. He speaks, too (L. L. v.
26, 35), of its being used in Sabine sacred rites
to hold wine; and says that it was either of
pottery or metal (Warr, ap. Non. 547, 26. See
also Arist. Paaſ, 916, and Athen. 484 f.). In
these instances it seems to be used as a drinking
cup. Its shape may be guessed from its con-
nexion with the word Aéras, “a limpet,” a more
probable source than Adrto, “to swallow.” It
may be noticed that eonversely the Latin word
for limpet is patella. (Marquardt, Privatleben,
654; Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii. 410.) [G. E. M.]
LEPTON. [CHALCUs; OBOLOs.]
LERIA. [LIMBUs.]
LERNAEA (Aepvaſia) were mysteries cele-
brated at Lerna in Argolis in honour of Demeter
and also to Dionysus, for both deities had
shrines there. Dionysus had descended by the
marsh of Lerna to the nether world to seek his
mother Semele. Pausanias says that part of
these rights might be revealed to the uninitiated,
but that which belonged to Dionysus might not.
Probably these mysteries reproduced the doc-
trines of Eleusis about a future life. We are
told that there was a doubtful tradition to the
effect that Philammon instituted these mysteries.
In ancient times the Argives brought firs for
them from the temple of Artemis Pyronia on
Mount Crathis. (Paus. ii. 36, 37, viii. 15; Maury,
Relig. de la Grèce, ii. 370.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
LESCHE (Aéaxm) seems to be eonnected
with Aéya, though the history of the form
which it takes is not quite clear (Curtius, Greek
Etym. 366). It means conversation, and hence
a place of conversation or council. The defi-
nition in Photius is Aéoxas #Aeyov Šmuootous
tivās Tótrovs, évois oxoxīv &yovres éka0égovro
troAAot .... §§éöpais 6& 6potas yevéo 6ai. In
early times they were the places for lounging
and gossip, such as could be found in the
village smithy, trap 3’ (91 xaxicetov 93rov kal
étraxéa Aéoymv (Hes. Op. 491). (Compare the
mention of furnus as a place for gossip in
Horace.) In Od. xviii. 329 the Aéorzm seems
to be mentioned as distinct from the smithy,
though both are mentioned as places for gossip.
It is probable that even in those early times
there were covered places, porticoes or verandahs,
open to the sun (&Aeetvol rôtrol, as Hesychius
calls them, and this is probably the sense of
étraxás), which were used as a sort of village
club. We gather from the grammarians that
there were commonly in Greek cities such
places called Aérxa, where the idle resorted
for conversation, the poor to find warmth and
shelter; at Athens it is said that there were
several. (Eustath. ad Od. l. c.; Proclus ad
Hes. l. c.; kühn ad Ael. W. H. ii. 34;
C. I. 93, 23.)
In the Dorian states especially we find the
word used for a sort of club-room and as a
place for meeting and consultation. At Sparta
every phyle had its lesche. Pausanias names
two, one called the Aéaxm Kporavöv, the other
(from its decoration) the Aéoxm troukíAm (Paus.
iii. 14, § 240; 15, § 245). Plutarch (Lyc. xxv.
§ 55) speaks of them as used for business also,
but especially for the relaxation of the citizens
(#6vapua row tróvov), in contrast to their severe
bodily exercises and drilling; in fact, “The
proper home of the Spartan art of speech,
the original source of so many Spartan jokes,
current over all Greece, was the Lesche, the
place of meeting for men at leisure near
the public drilling-grounds, where they met
in small bands and exchanged merry talk, as
soldiers do by the watch-fire in the camp.
Here men learnt the give-and-take of Spartan
speech” (Curtius, Hist. of Greece, E.T., vol. i.
p. 205). No doubt those at least mentioned
by Pausanias had some architectural preten-
32 . LEX.
LEX
sions, and we find others such elsewhere, es-
pecially those in connexion with the temples
of Apollo (which suggests, that, though in
vogue among Ionians also, they belonged more
particularly to Dorians); and hence Apollo as
their guardian is , called Aegxnvéptos. Most
famous of all was the Lesche of the Cnidians at
Delphi, a court surrounded by colonnades or
cloisters and painted in the colonnades on the
right and left by Polygnotus: the Trojan war
on the right, with the taking of the city and
the loosing of the fleet; the realms of death,
into which Ulysses descended, on the left. The
paintings are elaborately described by Pausanias
(x. 25–31, § 859 sq.), who was fortunate enough
to have seen them. [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
LEX. This term indicates generally a rule
of law binding universally on the citizens of a
given state: “Lex est commune praeceptum,
virorum prudentium consultum, delictorum
coercitio, communis reipublicae sponsio” (Dig.
1, 3, 1); “Legis virtus est haec, imperare,
vetare, permittere, punire” (ib. 7). In the
works of the Roman writers and jurists it is
used to denote an enactment of any body (or
even individual) constitutionally empowered to
legislate, but more properly it is used only of
the enactments of the Comitia Centuriata.
Definitions of lea: will be found in Cicero, de
Leg. i. 6 (cf. ii. 16); in Aulus Gellius, x. 20 (by
the jurist Capito); in Gaius, i. 3 (adopted in
Justinian's Institutes, i. 2, 4); and in Dig. 1, 3, 1
(by Papinian).
The earliest leges of which we read were those
made in the Comitia Curiata (whence they are
called Leges Curiatae), which till the reforms of
Servius Tullius was the only legislative body at
Rome. Some of these—the so-called leges regiae
—were said to have been enacted by the Comitia
on the motion of Romulus, as well as of the
kings who succeeded him (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 2).
Dionysius says (iii. 36) that a collection of these
leges regiae was made towards the end of the
regal period by one Sextus Papirius, a com-
mentary on which, written in the time of Julius
Caesar by Granius Flaccus, is quoted in Dig.
50, 16, 144; but it is improbable that they
were anything more than formal restatements
of customary law already binding, and the fact
that Sextus Papirius was (according to Dionysius)
a pontifex suggests that they may have been
only of sacerdotal import. (Some of their
substance has been collected in a fragmentary
form by earlier writers, and there is an essay
on the subject by H. E. Dirksen: Versuche zur
Kritik und Auslegung, Leipzig, 1823). It may
indeed be doubted whether any large proportion
of the enactments of the Comitia Curiata were
genuine “laws,” though the fifty leges of
Servius mentioned by Dionysius (iv. 13) seem
to have made some general changes; at any
rate it is certain that after the establishment of
the Comitia Centuriata by Servius Tullius the
assembly of the Curiae, as a legislative body,
fell almost entirely into disuse. We read of its
conferring the imperium on the magistrates,
sanctioning testaments and adrogations, and
confirming some of the resolutions of the
centuries which were held to require a religious
sanction, and in all these cases it acted by a
resolution or lea, but the difference between
such a lea, and a true law is too obvious to need
any further exposition. And though even under
Augustus a shadow of the old constitution was
preserved in the formal bestowal of the imperium
by a Lex Curiata only, the assembly of the
Curiae had ceased even before Cicero's time to
consist of the old patricians: they were merely
represented by thirty lictors. .
In the sense of a genuine enactment, establish-
ing a rule of law, lea: denotes the legislation of
the Comitia Centuriata, in which the law was
proposed (rogabatur) by a magistrate of senatorial
rank, usually by one or both of the consuls for
the year (Inst. i. 2, 4). Such leges were also
called populiscita (Festus, s. v. Scitum Pop.).
The resolutions of the Comitia Tributa, whose
origin was almost contemporaneous with that
of the centurial assembly, had not at first the
force of law: they seem to have been re-
garded merely as expressions of plebeian opinion,
by which the patricians gauged the temper of
the political opposition, and were guided to the
line of policy which party exigencies rendered
expedient. They were known as plebeiscita
because the Comitia Tributa was at first
attended only by members of the plebs, though
every Roman was in fact enrolled in a tribe,
and entitled to attend. When the tribunate of
the plebs was instituted (circ. B.C. 494), a means
was provided by which the resolutions of the
tribes might become law. The tribunes were
permitted to appear at the threshold of the
building where the senate deliberated, and lay
before it the proposals of the order which they
represented: if approved, these proposals could
then be referred in the ordinary way to the
Comitia Centuriata, and thereby become genuine
enactments of the sovereign populus (Val.
Max. ii. 2, 7). After the enactment of the Lex
Horatia Valeria (B.C. 449) the patricians seem
to have begun to take part in the business of
the Comitia Tributa, and it was perhaps provided
by the same statute that plebiscita which
related to matters of purely private law should
have binding force without confirmation by the
centuries. This exemption was apparently ex-
tended to all plebiscita by the first of the Leges
Publiliae, B.C. 339 (Liv. viii. 12; Gellius, xv. 27),
and finally a Lex Hortensia (B.C. 287) dispensed
with the requirement of senatorial sanction to
plebiscita. By this last change they were
placed on a footing of complete equality with
leges passed in the Comitia Centuriata (Dig.
2, 14, 7, 7; Gaius, i. 3; Inst. i. 2, 4): as the
latter were proposed to the centuries by a sena-
torial magistrate, so they were submitted to the
tribes by a tribune: leges related in the main
to administrative and constitutional matters,
plebiscita to matters of private law. The result
of the equal legislative authority of the two
comitia was that plebiscita came not uncommonly
to be called leges, lea, becoming a generic term
(Dig. 1, 3, 32, 1), to which was sometimes
added the specific designation, as “lex plebeive-
scitum,” “lex sive plebiscitum est” (e.g. the
Tabula Heracleensis, Savigny, Zeitschrift, &c.
vol. ix. p. 355). Cicero, in his enumeration of
the sources of Roman law (Top. 5), does not
mention plebiscita, which he undoubtedly in-
cluded under leges: among the so-called leges
which in fact were plebiscita are the Lex
Aquilia (Cic. pro Tullio, 8, 11; Dig. 9, 2, 1, 1),
the Lex Canuleia, Lex Rubria, &c.
LEX
LEX
33
The term rogatio means any measure proposed
(bill, projet de loi) to the legislative body,
whether on its enactment it would technically
be a lex or a plebiscitum: hence the expressions
populum rogare (Cic. Phil. i. 10, 26), plebem rogare
(de Leg. iii. 3, 9), legem rogare (de Republ. iii. 10,
17; Phil. ii. 29, 72; Dig. 9, 2, 1, 1), and, by
analogy, magistratum rogare, to offer a magis-
trate for election to the people (Liv. iii. 65,
vi. 42; Cic. ad Att. ix. 15, 2, &c.; Sallust,
Jug. 29; cf. Festus, s. v. Rogatio). The form
of such rogation (in the case of an adrogation
effected before the Comitia Curiata) is given by
Gellius, v. 19, 5, 9: “Velitis jubeatis, uti
L. Valerius L. Titio tam jure legeque filius
siet, quamsi ex eo patre matreque familias
ejus natus esset, utique ei vitae necisque in eum
potestas siet, uti patri endo filio est, haec ita
uti dixi, ita vos quirites rogo.” Assent to the
proposal was expressed in the form “uti rogas”
(which explains the term sponsio in the defi-
inition of lea, above from Dig. 1, 3, 1); rejection
by the verb antiquo (Liv. iv. 58, v. 30, 55, &c.;
Cic. de Off. ii. 21, 73; ad Att. i. 13; de Leg.
iii. 17, 38). The measures submitted were not
unfrequently called rogationes even after their
definite enactment as leges or plebiscita; and
in Dig. 35, 2, 1, pr., an enacted statute is termed
“lex rogata.” “Promulgare legem’’ denotes
the publication of its terms for the public
information (see LEx CAECILIA DIDIA inf.),
such publication being usually followed by
contiones or meetings in which the bill was
explained and recommended to the people by
its proposer or supporters (suasores): this
promulgation and informal discussion is expressed
by the phrase “ferre legem ’’ as contrasted with
rogare, which is confined to the solemn sub-
mission of the measure to the Comitia for
acceptance or refusal: the general term used
for acceptance is “rogationem accipere.” “Legem
perferre” is to carry a rogatio, to convert it
into a lex (Cic. Cornel. fragm, ap. Ascon. ;
Liv. xxxiii. 46). Other terms familiarly used in
connexion with leges are explained by Ulpian
(Reg. 1, 3): “Lex aut rogatur, id est fertur:
aut abrogatur, id est, prior lex tollitur: aut
derogatur, id est, pars primae legis tollitur:
aut subrogatur, id est, adjicitur aliquid primae
legi : autobrogatur, id est, mutatur aliquid ex
prima lege.”
By Festus rogatio is described as equivalent
to what is otherwise called privilegium ; “a
command of the populus relating to one or
more persons, but not to all persons, or relating
to one or more things, but not to all:” cf.
Pig. 50, 17, 196. Privilegia had been forbidden
by the Twelve Tables (Cic. de Leg. iii. 19, 44; pro
Domo, 17, 43), but in the sense of statutes in
favour of or directed against individuals they
are common; e.g. the Lex Centuriata by which
Cicero was recalled from exile: “Non sunt
generalia jussa, ... sed de singulis concepta,
quocirca privilegia vocari debent, quia veteres
priva dixerunt quae nos singula dicinus”
(Gellius, x. 20, 4). The term is generally used by
Cicero in the unfavourable sense (pro Domo, 17,
43; pro Sestio, 30,65; Brut. 23,89), and from the
language in pro Domo, 11, 28, it may be inferred
that privilegia were not considered leges proper:
cf. Ulpian in Dig. 1, 3, 8: “Jura non in singulas
personas, sed generaliter constituuntur.” In
WOL. II. iº
the Corpus juris privilegium is used generally
to denote a jus singulare or privilege conferred
on classes by law : cf. Dig. 1, 3, 16; 9, 2, 51, 2;
1, 3, 14 and 15: and see Savigny, System,
i. p. 61.
Of the form and style of Roman legislation
we can judge to some extent from the fragments
which survive. The Romans seem to have
always adhered to the old expressions, and to
have used few superfluous words. Great care
was taken with such clauses as were intended
to alter a previous lex (whence the standing
clause “de impunitate si quid contra alias leges,
ejus legis ergo, factum sit,” Cic. ad Att. iii. 23),
and to avoid all interference with prior enact-
ments when no change in them was contem- .
plated (whence the common formula “ejus hac
lege nihil rogatur,” E. H. L. N. R. Lex Tab.
Heracl., Lex Rubria, Lex Quinctia de aquaed. :
cf. Valerius Probus ; Cic. pro Caec. 33,95; pro
Balbo, 14, 32): though the general principle
seems to have been that a subsequent repealed
or modified a prior lex with which it was incon-
sistent. The leges were often divided into
chapters (capita), e.g. the Lex Aquilia (Gaius, iii.
210, 215, 217): cf. also the tablet of the Lex
Rubria or de Gall. Cisalp. and Cic. ad Att. l. c.
In order to preserve a permanent record, the lex
was engraved on bronze (aes) and deposited in
the Aerarium (Sueton. Jul. 28 ; Plut. Cat. min.
17): but it also seems to have been usual to
cut statutes on tablets of oak (Dionys. iii. 36),
which were whitened over and then fixed in a
public place for all citizens to read, though
whether they were so exposed for any great
length of time is uncertain (Cic. ad Att. xiv.
12). The title of the lex was generally derived
from the gentile name of the magistrate who
proposed it, and sometimes from those of both
the consuls or praetors (e.g. Lex Aelia Sentia,
Junia Norbana, Papia Poppaea, &c.): and it
was sometimes further described by reference to
the topic to which it related (e.g. Lex Cincia de
donis et muneribus, Lex Furia de sponsu, Lex
Furia testamentaria, Lex Julia municipalis, &c.).
Leges which related to a common subject were
often designated by a collective name, as Leges
agrariae, judiciariae, sumptuariae, &c. When a
lex comprised very various provisions, relating
to matters essentially different, it was called
Lex Satura.
The terms in which a statute was expressed
were fixed by the proposer, though he would
usually be assisted by others who possessed the
requisite familiarity with technical language :
it was proposed to the Comitia for acceptance or
rejection in its entirety, there being no discus-
sion of or alteration in its clauses, which indeed
in such an assembly would have been injurious,
if not impossible. One important part of the
lex was its sanctio—i.e. that part of it which
provided a penalty for, or declared what should
be the effect of, its infraction (Inst. ii. 1, 10;
Auct. ad Herenn. ii. 10; Cic. de Invent. ii. 49,
146; Papinian in Dig. 48, 19, 41). If the sanctio
declared that the act against which the statute
was directed should be void, the lex was said to
be perfecta ; if there was no such provision, it
was imperfecta (e.g. the Lex Cincia): and if an
act was merely penalised, but not declared void,
the lex is said by Ulpian (Reg. 1, 2) to be called
“minus quam perfecta” (e.g. the Leges Furiae
D
34 LEX
LEX AEBUTIA
testamentaria and de sponsu) ; cf. Savigny,
System, iv. p. 549 sq.
The number of leges was largely increased
towards the end of the republican period (Tac.
Ann. iii. 25–28), and Julius Caesar is said to
have contemplated a revision of the whole of
them. Augustus, and perhaps his immediate
successors, was careful to conduct his legislation
under republican forms, though it may be
doubted whether any statute was enacted after
the fall of the Republic except on the initiative
of the emperor, or at any rate without his
sanction express or implied. The Comitia
assembled and gave the force of law to the pro-
posals submitted to them for some time after
the constitution had lost all trace of real
freedom (Tac. Ann. i. 15 relates to the election
of magistrates, not to legislation); and most of
the Leges Juliae, a Lex Wisellia, an agrarian law
of Caligula, and a law of Claudius (Gaius, i. 157,
171) were enacted in the ordinary way. The
last statute which we know to have been passed
in this manner is a lex agraria of the time of
Nerva (A.D. 96–98), mentioned in Dig. 47, 21, 3,
1. Gaius speaks of the Comitia as in theory
still a source of law (“lex est, quod populus
jubet atque constituit, plebiscitum, quod plebs
jubet atque constituit,” i. 3: cf. Inst. i. 2, 4, in
which the present tense has been turned into
the past): but it is improbable that they had
been called upon to discharge legislative func-
tions since A.D. 100.
For some reigns after that of Augustus legis-
lation was most ordinarily conducted by resolu-
tions of the senate [SENATUSCONSULTUM), into
which the proposed law was introduced by a
consul, or very often by an oration of the
emperor [CONSTITUTIONES]. Originally senatus-
consulta did not acquire the force of law until
they had been confirmed by the Comitia, in
which case they were leges proper: but during
the last half-century of the Republic the senate
asserted and established an independent right
of legislation. Hence, when genuine statutes
ceased to be enacted with any frequency,
senatusconsulta came to be actually called leges.
Justinian says (Inst. i. 2, 5), “Cum auctus esset
populus Romanus in eum modum ut difficile
esset in unum eum convocari legis sanciendae
causa, aequum visum est senatum vice populi
consuli:” a passage based on similar language
of Pomponius in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 9. The name
comitia came to be commonly given to the
sittings of the senate (Tac. Ann. i. 15 ; Capitol.
Maa. 10). Gaius says (i. 4) that a senatus-
consultum “vicem legis obtinet,” and in i. 85 he
terms a senatusconsult of Claudius a lea: ; for
similar passages cf. Dig. 14, 6, 9,4; ib. 14; 48,
16, 10. No senatusconsulta occur after the
reign of Septimius Severus (A.D. 193–211). The
constitutions of the emperors, which succeeded
senatusconsulta as the ordinary mode of legisla-
tion, were also called leges (e.g. Lex Anastasiana,
Cod. 4, 35, 22): cf. Inst. i. 2, 6, and Dig. 1,
4, 1: “Quodcunque Imperator statuit, legem
esse constat.” [See CoNSTITUTIONES.]
A less common and proper signification of
lex, quite distinct from that of a general rule of
law, is that in which it denotes the conditions
under which a thing is to be done, or under
which parties contract with one another:
e.g. “lex commissoria” [CoMMISSORIA]; “leges
venditionis” or “emptionis,” conditions of sale,
Dig. 18, 1, 40 (which explains why Cicero
speaks of Marcus Manilius’ work on sales as
“Manilianas venalium vendendorum leges,” de
Orat. i. 58, 246); “legem traditioni dicere,”
Dig. 8, 4, 17, 3; “lex donationis,” Dig. 1, 5,
22. Accordingly we find the expression “leges
censoriae" to express the conditions on which
the censors let the public property or taxes to
farm, which were perhaps embodied in certain
standing regulations (Fragm. de jure fisci, § 18;
Dig. 50, 16, 203). Similarly the term is used of
conditions imposed on a testamentary disposi-
tion: “legatario legem dicere,” Dig. 40, 5;
40, 1 ; cf. Dig. 32, 22, pr. Not unfrequently
lex denotes merely the statute of the Twelve
Tables (e.g. Dig. 2, 14, 7, 14; 8, 3, 13; 41, 3,
3, &c.), and in one passage it means nothing
more than the nature or character of a thing:
“lea, danda operi talis, ne quid noceat vicinis,”
Dig. 39, 2, 15, 10. The extant authorities for
Roman leges are inscriptions and the works of
the classical writers and jurists. The Corpus
Inscriptionum Latinarum of Mommsen of course
comprises all extant records of authentic legis-
lation, along with a vast number of other
inscriptions; smaller collections, relating more
particularly to leges, are those of Göttling
(Römische Urkunden auf Erz whd Stein, Halle,
1845) and Zell (Delectus inscriptionwm cum
monumentis legalibus fere omnibus): cf. also
Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, i. §§ 81–86.
The best information as to the fragmentary
citations from or references to leges which are
found scattered about in non-juristic Latin
writers is to be obtained from Haubold’s Insti-
tutiones juris Romani litterariae, vol. i.
pp. 241–44, 297-349 (Leipzig, 1809): of the
imperial legislation (independently of the Codes
which have come down to us) there is a very
full collection by Haenel, Corpus legum, &c.
Fasc. i. (Leipzig, 1857). But perhaps the most
useful modern collection to the classical student
is that of Orelli (vol. viii. of his edition of
Cicero) entitled “Indea, legum Romanarum.
quarum apud Ciceronem ejusque Scholiastas,
item apud Livium, Welleium Paterculum, A.
Gellium nominatim mentio fit.”
The following is a list of the principal
Leges:—
ACI’LIA DE COLONIIS DEDUCENDIS, B.C. 198
(Liv. xxxii. 29).
ACI’LIA REPETUNDARUM, B.C. 102 (Cic. in
Verr. i. 17, 51; ii. 1, 9). [REPETUNDAE.]
ACI'LIA CALPURNIA, B.C. 68 (Dio Cass.
xxxvi. 21). [AMBITUS.]
AEBU'TIA, enacted probably about B.C. 170
(for the various views as to its precise date see
Rudorff, Rechtsgeschichte, i. § 44, p. 106;
Padelletti, Hist. Roman Law, ch. 32, note 2): it
abolished the legis actio procedure except in suits
tried before centumviri, in cases of damnum
infectum, and for the voluntary jurisdiction
employed for adoptions, manumissions, in jure
cessio, &c. (Gellius, xvi. 10, 8; Gaius, iv. 31).
[JUDEx; ACTIO.] Another lex of the same
name prohibited the proposer of a lex which
created any office or power (curatio ac potestas)
from having such office or power, and even
excluded his collegae, cognati and affines (Cic.
#!” agr. [in Rull.] ii. 8, 21; de Domo, 20,

*
LEX AELLA
LEX AMPIA 35
AE'LIA. This and a Lex Fufia passed
towards the end of the sixth century of the
city (Cic. in Pison. 5, 10) gave every magistrate
the right of declaring beforehand his intention of
taking the omens on a fixed day, and thereby
(on the plea of their being unfavourable) of
preventing the assembly of the Comitia (obnun-
tiatio). This right was frequently exercised
against the tribunes of the people (Cic. in Vatin.
7, 9), for which reason Clodius (B.G. 58) got it
temporarily taken away (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13).
The better opinion seems to be that there were
two distinct leges (see Walter, Geschichte des
römischen Rechts, $ 152, note 98); they are
frequently mentioned by Cicero, especially in
Vatin. ; pro Sestio; in Pison. ; ad Att. i. 16, ii.
9, iv. 16, 5. See also Orelli’s discussion of them
in his Onomasticon; Indea: Legum, where the
passages in which they are mentioned are col-
lected; and Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, i.
pp. 80, 107.
AE'LIA DE COLONIIS DEDUCENDIS, B.C. 195
(Liv. xxxiv. 53).
AELLA SE'NTIA. This was passed A.D. 4,
mainly to prevent the true Roman population
from being swamped by a too free exercise of
the master’s right of making his slaves citizens
of Rome by manumission [LIBERTUs]. It con-
tained the following provisions:—
(i.) Slaves who had been put in irons or
branded by their masters as a punishment, or
put to torture on a criminal charge and con-
victed, or made to fight in the arena, or thrown
into prison or consigned to the gladiatorial
school, were not by subsequent manumission to
attain any higher status than that of peregrini
dediticii (Gaius, i. 13; Ulpian, Reg. i. 11; Paul.
Sent, rec. iv. 12, 3–8: see DEDITICII and
LIBERTUs). (ii.) Slaves under thirty years of
age could not in future be manumitted so as to
become cives unless the form of manumission
were “per vindictam,” and a sufficient reason
for it were proved before a consilium, consisting
at Rome of five senators and five equites, sitting
on fixed days, and in the provinces of twenty
recuperatores or judges who were cives, and
who sat for this purpose on the last day of the
conventus or judicial assize in different towns
(Gaius, i. 18, 20; Ulp. Reg. i. 12). Among the
“sufficient reasons” (justae causae) were that
the slave was a child or near relation of the
manumitter, or his paedagogus; or that he
wished to make him his agent, or (being a girl)
to marry her (Gaius, i. 19). But even a slave
under thirty could be made a civis by his
master's will if he were instituted heres neces-
sarius “cum libertate,” and the master was
insolvent (Gaius, i. 21). Slaves under thirty
manumitted otherwise than “vindicta apud
consilium ” at first remained slaves in the eye
of the law [LIBERTUs], but by the Lex Junia
Norbana, A.D. 19, they acquired the status of
Latini. The Lex Aelia Sentia, however, itself
provided one way in which they could rise to
the condition of civitas; that is to say, if they
married a civis Romana, or a Latina coloniaria,
or a woman of the same class as themselves,
had as evidence of this fact the presence of five
Roman citizens of full age, and begot a son who
attained the age of one year, they could prove
these facts to the praetor at Rome, or the
governor in a province ; and on the magistrate
declaring the case “proven,” the man, his wife
and child became all Roman citizens. If the
man died before he had proved his case to the
magistrate, the mother could do it, and the
legal effect was the same. There were also
other modes in which a Latinus could become
civis [LATINITAS; cf. Poste's Gaius, note on i.
35]. (iii.) Manumission by a master under
twenty was declared void unless made “per
vindictam ” and on proof of a “justa causa’’ of
the same kind as above before the consilium
(Gaius, i. 38). Thus, after this, though he
could make a will at fourteen, a master could
not manumit his slaves by it unless he was
twenty (Gaius, i. 40); but Justinian permitted
testamentary manumission at seventeen (Inst. i.
6, 7) and (by Nov. 119, 2) even at fourteen.
Even manumission in one of the informal modes
(e.g. inter amicos) by a master under twenty,
which at the most could only have made him a
Latinus, was held void unless a “justa causa’’
were proved before the consilium (Gaius, i. 41).
(iv.) Manumission being an act by which a man
diminished his property, manumission in fraud
of creditors was by the statute made revocable
by the latter (Gaius, i. 37; Inst. i. 6, pr.—4),
and this provision was extended to peregrini by
a senatusconsult under Hadrian (Gaius, i. 47):
but it did not apply to the institution of a slave
as “necessarius heres,” in order to save the
testator from the disgrace of posthumous bank-
ruptcy (Inst. l. c. 1). Similarly the patron of
a freedman who owned slaves was enabled to
prevent the libertus from prejudicing his con-
tingent rights of succession by revoking manu-
missions “in fraudem patroni’’ (Gaius, i. 37).
(v.) The statute also allowed a patron to bring
a criminal prosecution against his liberti if
guilty of ingratitude (Dig. 40, 9, 30; 50, 16,
70, pr. ; cf. Tac. Ann. xiii. 26).
Of the above provisions only the third and
fourth were in force under the law of Justinian.
The supposed reference to a Lex Aelia Sentia in
Cicero (Top. 2, 10) is shown by Orelli to be a
mvth. .
*MILIA BAE'BIA. [CORNELIA BAE-
BIA.
Khuria DE CENSORIBUS, passed by M.
Aemilius when dictator, B.C. 433 : it gave the
censors, though elected at intervals of five years,
only a year and a half instead of a whole lustrum
for the discharge of their functions (e.g. holding
the census and letting out the taxes and public
works to farm), so that the state was without
censors for intervals of three years and a half
(Liv. iv. 24, ix. 33, 34; Mommsen, Röm. Staats-
recht, ii. p. 336).
AEMI'LIA DE LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS,
B.C. 116 (Aurel. Wict. de Vir. illustr. 72).
AEMI'LLA SUMPTUARIA, passed by Aemilius
Lepidus, B.C. 179 (Macrob. Saturn. ii. 13, p. 369).
Pliny (H. N. viii. § 223) seems to be refer-
ring to a different sumptuary law of the same
name passed by M. Aemilius Scaurus, B.C. 116,
though this may have been identical with the
Lex Aemilia de libertinorum suffragiis.
AGRA'RIAE. [AGRARIAE LEGES: and LEX
APULEIA ; CASSIA ; CORNELIA ; FLAMINIA ;
FLAVIA ; JULIA ; LICINIA; MAMILIA ; SEM-
PRONIA ; SERVILLA; THORIA.]
AMBITUS. [AMBITUs.]
A'MPLA, a lex proposed by T. Ampius and
D 2
36 LEX ANASTASIANA
LEX CAECILIA
T. Labienus, trib. plebis, B.C. 64, by which Cn.
Pompeius was allowed to wear a crown of bay
at the Ludi Circenses, and the like (Vell. Paterc.
ii. 40; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 21).
ANASTASIA’NA, a constitution of the
Emperor Anastasius, A.D. 506 (Cod. 4, 35, 22),
providing that no purchaser of a debt or “chose
in action” should be able to recover more from
the debtor than what he had paid for it himself,
with ordinary interest, even though it was
alleged that the transaction was in part a gift
(Vangerow, Lehrbuch der Pandekten, § 576).
ANNA'LES were those statutes which de-
termined at what age a man might be a candi-
date for the several magistracies: if he was
elected to one at the earliest possible age, he
was said to become praetor, consul, &c., “anno
suo " (Cic. de Off. ii. 17, 59; Philip. v. 17, 47
sq.; Tac. Ann. xi. 22). The first of them was
a Lex Willia, proposed by L. Willius, a tribune,
B.C. 180 (Liv. xxv. 2, xl. 44), by which a man
could be elected quaestor at the age of thirty-
one, aedile at thirty-seven, praetor at forty,
and consul at forty-three. There seems to have
been a Lex Pinaria on the same subject carried
by one M. Pinarius Rusca, a tribune, circ. 134
B.C. (Cic. de Orat. ii. 65, 261): see Wex, Rhein.
Museum, 1845, pp. 276-288; Hofmann, Röm.
Senat. pp. 172–177.
A'NTIA (Gell. ii. 24, 13; Macrob. Saturn.
ii. 13). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.]
ANTO'NIA DE TERMESSENSIBUS, a plebisci-
tum enacted circ. 72 B.C., by which Termessus in
Pisidia was recognised as libera. (See FoEDE-
RATAE CIVITATES ; Puchta, Institutionen, § 69;
and Dirksen, Bemerkungen über das Plebiscitum
de Thermensibus.)
ANTO'NIAE, the name of various enact-
ments proposed or passed by the influence of M.
Antonius after the death of the dictator Julius
Caesar (Cic. Phil. iii. 4, 9; v. 4, 10; vi. 2, 3 ;
xiii.3, 5; ad Fam. xii. 14, 6). One abolished
the dictatorship (Phil. i. 1, 3; Dio Cass. xliv.
51); others related to the constitution of the
judicia (Phil. v. 5, 12; viii. 9, 27), to appeals
after conviction for Wis or Majestas (Phil. i. 9,
21), to permutatio of the provinces (Dio Cass.
xlv. 9, 20; Vell. Pat. ii. 20; Appian, Bell. Civ.
iii. 27, 30), to honours to be paid to Caesar at
the ludi Romani (Phil. ii. 43, 110), and to an
agrarian division of land (Phil. v. 3, 7 ; Dio
Cass. xlv. 9).
APULE'IA, B.C. 102, gave one of two or
more sponsors or fidepromissors (sureties), who
paid the whole debt which they had guaranteed,
the right of bringing an actio pro socio against
the rest for the recovery of what he had paid in
excess of his fair share (Gaius, iii. 122). [IN-
TERCESSIO.]
APULE'IA AGRARIA, proposed by the tri-
bune L. Apuleius Saturninus, B.C. 101 (Liv.
Epit. 69; Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 29; Cic. pro
Sestio, 16, 37; 47, 101).
APULE'IA, DE COLONIIs DEDUCENDIs, per-
haps really a chapter of the preceding lex: at
any rate passed by the same tribune in the same
year (Aurel. Vict, de Vir. illust. 73; Cic. pro
Balbo, 21, 48).
APULE'LA FRUMENTARIA, of the same date
and author (Auct. ad Herenn. i. 12, 21). [FRU-
MENTARIAE LEGES.]
APULE'IA MAJESTATIS, probably passed by
the same tribune and about the same time (Cic.
de Orat. ii. 25, 49, 107, 201). [MAJESTAs.]
AQUITIA, circ. B.C. 287. [DAMNI INJURIA
ACTIO.
ATE'RNIA TARPEIA, B.C. 454, gave to
all magistrates the right, which had hitherto
belonged only to the consuls, of fining those who
resisted their authority: the maximum of the
fine, which had been fixed by a Lex Valeria
(B.C. 509) at two sheep and five oxen, was raised
to two sheep and thirty oxen; cf. PAPIRIA or
JULIA PAPIRIA (Cic. de Republ. ii. 35, 60; Dion.
Halic. x. 50; Gellius, xi. 1, 2–3; Festus, s. v.v.
Ovibus, Duobus, Peculatus; Paul. Diac. ex: Festo,
S. v. Maximam Multam ; Plin. H. N. xviii. § 11 ;
Niebuhr, Röm. Geschichte, ii. p. 341 sq.; Momm-
sen, Röm. Staatsrecht, i. p. 128; Huschke, Multa,
pp. 31, 46, 88; Puchta, Institutionen, § 53 ad
fin. ; Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts, $820.)
A"TIA DE SACERDOTIIs, B.C. 63, proposed by
the tribune T. Atius Labienus ; it restored the
regulations of the Lex Domitia on the same
subject, which had been repealed by Sulla (Dio
Cass. xxxvii. 37; Ascon. in Div. 3).
ATI'LIA. [Julia LEx ET TITIA ; TUTOR.]
ATI'LIA MA'RCIA, B.C. 312, related to the
election of tribuni militum by the people (Liv.
ix. 30).
ATI'NIA, passed perhaps B.C. 198, repeated
the rule of the Twelve Tables that stolen pro-
perty should not be acquirable by usucapio, and
added that the vitium furti should be removed,
and the property admit of usucapio, as soon as
the owner recovered possession of it, or was in a
position to bring a vindicatio for its recovery
(Gell. xvii. 7; Inst. ii. 6, 2; Dig. 41, 3, 4, 6;
50, 16, 215: see FURTUM).
ATI'NIA, a plebiscitum of the time of Sulla ;
apparently enacted that tribuni plebis should be
elected solely from senators. The chief autho-
rity on its content is Gell. xiv. 8 (cf. Plin.
H. N. vii. § 143; Cic. pro Dom. 47), which may
also be interpreted to mean (1) that tribuni
plebis should become senators virtute officii swi
(Becker, ii. 2, 277), or (2) that they might (but
not must) be chosen from senators (Hofmann,
Röm. Senat. pp. 144–165). On the different
views, see Walter, Geschichte des röm. Rechts,
§ 140, note 128. There is a reference to certain
Leges Atiniae in Cic. Phil. iii. 6, 16; Verr. i.
42, 109, of which nothing further is known.
AUFI'DIA, B.C. 62 (Cic. ad Att. i. 16, 13).
[AMBITUS.]
AURE'LIA DE AMBITU (Cic. ad Q. fratrem,
i. 3, 8).
AURELIA JUDICIARIA, B.C. 71 (Cornel.
fragm. 26; Ascon. in Pis. p. 16, 19, in Com.
p. 67, 78 sq.; Liv. Epit. xcvii.; Well. Pat. ii.
32, 3). [JudEx.]
AURE'LIA TRIBUNICIA (Ascon. in Com, p.
66, 78). [TRIBUNI.]
BAE'BIA, B.C. 192, enacted that four and
six praetors should be chosen in alternate years;
but the law was not observed, and perhaps
repealed (Liv. xl. 44; Festus, s. v. Rogat ; Meyer,
Orator. Rom. fragm. p. 90, ed. 2).
BAE'BLA CORNE'LIA. See CORNELIA
BAEBIA.
CAECI’LIA DE CENSORIBUS or CENSORIA,
carried by Metellus Scipio, B.G. 52 : it repealed
a plebiscitum of Clodius (B.C. 58) which had
prescribed a formal procedure for the censors in
LEX CAECILLA
LEX CINCIA 37
exercising their functions as inspectors of Mores,
by providing that they should not, in selecting
the senate, pass over and so cast a slur on any
one who had not been explicitly accused before
them, and marked with the nota censoria by
both (Ascon. in Pis. 4, p. 9 (Orelli); Cic. pro
Sest. 25, 55, and Schol. Bob. p. 360; Dio Cass.
xxxviii. 13, 15, xl. 57).
CAECI’LIA DE CN. POMPEIO, B.C. 63 (Schol.
Dob. pro Sestio, p. 302; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 43;
Plut. Cato minor, c. 26 sq.).
CAECI'LLA DE P. SULLA ET P. AUTRONIO
(Cic. pro Sulla, 22 sq.; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 25: see
Orelli, Onomasticon).
CAECI'LIA DE VECTIGALIBUS, B.C. 62, re-
leased the harbours of Italy from payment of
direct taxes (portoria) to the state (Dio Cass.
xxxvii. 51; Cic. ad Att. ii. 16; ad Quint. fratr.
i. 10; Dig. 50, 16, 203), which, however, were
re-imposed by Caesar (Suet. Jul. 43).
CAECI'LLA DI’DIA, B.C. 98, forbade the
proposing of a Lex Satura (i.e. of enactments
relating to different matters in one rogatio), lest
people might be compelled either to vote for
something which they did not approve, or reject
something which they did. It also contained a
provision that leges should be promulgated
trinis mundinis before they were proposed to the
Comitia (Cic. Phil. v. 3, 8; pro Dom. 16, 41;
20, 53; pro Sestio, 64, 135; ad Att. ii. 9, 1 :
see LICINIA JUNIA).
CAE'LIA TABELLA'RIA, B.C. 71.
BELLARIAE LEGES.]
CALI'DIA, B.C. 99, by which Q. Metellus
Numidicus was recalled from exile (Val. Max.
v. 2, 7; Aurel. Vict. de Viris illustr. c. 62; Cic.
pro Plancio, 28, 69).
CALI'GULAE LEX AGRA'RLA. [MA-
MILIA.
CALPU'RNIA DE AMBITU, B.C. 67 (Dio Cass.
xxxvi. 21; Cic. pro Mur. 23, 46; 32, 67). [AM-
BITUS.
CALPU'RNIA DE CONDICTIONE, B.C. 234.
[PER CONDICTIONEM.]
CALPU'RNLA DE REPETUNDIS, B.C. 49 (Cic.
Brut. 27, 106; de Off. ii. 21, 75; Perr. iv. 25,
56, &c.). [REPETUNDAE.]
CANULE'IA, B.C. 445, legalised conubium
between patricians and plebeians, which had been
denied by one of the two last tables of the
decemviral legislation; so that issue of such a
marriage would in future be in the patria
potestas (Liv. iv. 1, 4, 6; Cic. de Rep. ii. 37,
63).
CA'SSIA AGRA'RIA, B.C. 486, one of the
early concessions to the plebs (Liv. ii. 41 ;
Dionys. viii. 76).
CA'SSIA, B.C. 104, proposed by the tribune
L. Cassius Longinus: it deprived of their sena-
torial rank those who had been convicted in a
judicium publicum, or whose imperium had
been taken from them by the populus (Cornel.
fragm. 24, p. 451; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 78, ed.
Orelli). Mommsen conjectures that it also
disabled such persons from all office (Staatsrecht,
i. p. 464).
CA'SSIA (Tac. Ann. xi. 25) empowered the
dictator Caesar to add to the number of the
patricii, in order to prevent their extinction:
cf. Sueton. Jul. 41. C. Octavius was made a
patrician by this lex (Sueton. Aug. 2).
CA'SSIA TABELLA'RIA, B.C. 37 (Cic.
[TA-
a form in which gifts must be made.
Brut. 25, 97; 27, 106; de Legg. iii. 16, 37).
[TABELLARIAE LEGES.]
CA'SSIA TERE'NTIA FRUMENTAT-
RIA, B.C. 73, provided for the distribution of corn
among the poorer citizens, and for the means of
obtaining it from Sicily (Cic. Jerr. iii. 70, 163;
v. 21, 52).
CICERE'IA enacted that a creditor on taking
sponsors or fidepromissors should first state
publicly what the debt to be guaranteed was,
and also the number of sureties he was going to
take : if this were not done, they could, by
taking action within thirty days, procure their
release (Gaius, iii. 123; Dig. 50, 16, 33 ; cf.
Puchta, Institutionen, § 264, note s).
CI'NCIA or MUNERA'LIS, a plebiscitum
carried by the tribune M. Cincius Alimentus,
B.C. 204 (Cic. Cato, 4; ad Att. i. 20; de Orat. ii. 71,
286; de Senect. 4, 10; Liv. xxxiv. 5), and entitled
de donis et muneribus. In relation to gifts pure
and simple, its enactments seem to have been
two : (1) It forbade gifts beyond a certain maxi-
mum, the amount of which is unknown (Fragm.
Wat. 304; Ulp. Reg. i. 1; Paul. Sent. rec. v. 11,
6; Dig. 39, 5, 21, 1); but it did not avoid gifts
in excess of the limit, or even impose a penalty
on the donee for taking the excess: it was, in
fact, a “lex imperfecta” (Ulp. Ireg. i. 1, 2;
Macrob. Somn. Scip. ii. 17). (2) It prescribed
A gift of
a res mancipi was perfecta only if the res donata
were mancipated and actually delivered (Fragm.
Wat. 313), that of a res nec mancipi only if it
were delivered (ib. 293, 313); that of a res
mobilis was not perfected until the domee had
possessed the thing for the greater part of the
preceding year, for not till then was he entitled
to the Interdictum Utrubi for his protection (ib.
293, 311). Absence of the mancipation form, if
requisite, could be compensated for by usucapio
(ib. 293). Thus the general effect of this pro-
vision was that gifts made in any other fashion
(e.g. release or stipulation) were invalid
(Fragm. Wat. 283, 310, 311; Dig. 20, 6, 1, 1).
Puchta (Institutionen, § 206) is of opinion
that a gift was originally revocable in the
ways described below if either of these provisions
was disregarded : but that after some time
observation of the statutory requirement as to
form of conveyance was allowed to atone for
violation of the rule as to amount, so that the
latter became tacitly repealed by disuse. If the
maximum of the Lex Cincia was no higher than
that of the Lex Furia testamentaria, only twenty
years later in date, it certainly must in time
have come to be regarded as ridiculously small.
Certain classes of donees, however, were excepted
(Legis Cinciae exceptae personae) from the ope-
ration of both of these enactments, on the ground
of being connected with the donor by the tie of
kinship, affinity, betrothal, patronatus or guar-
dianship (Fragm. Wat. 298–309).
But though the lex was imperfecta, there
were means by which gifts in violation of its
provisions could be rescinded, by the donor’s
having practically a power of revocation. If he
were sued by a persona non excepta on a promise
to give, he could defeat the action by “exceptio
legis Cinciae " (Fragm. Wat. 310), which was
also available if a res mancipi had been manci-
pated but not yet delivered (ib., and Dig. 44, 4, 5,
2). If it were mancipi, and had been tradita
38 . LEx CLAUDIA
LEGES CORN ELIAE
but not yet mancipated, the donor could assert
his ownership in it by a vindicatio, and meet
the defendant’s “exceptio rei donatae" by
“replicatio legis Cinciae :” and wherever the
donee of a res mobilis had not possessed it for
six months, the donor could recover possession
by the Interdictum Utrubi. Where the gift
was not revocable in any of these ways (e.g. if
it had been a release of a debtor by acceptilatio,
or by novation in favour of a third person, Dig.
39, 5, 21, 1), the donor was allowed an actio
rescissoria, and he could recover by condictio
any property of his which had definitely passed
to the donee “contra legem Cinciam ” (Fragm.
Vat. 266; Dig. 39, 5, 21, 1; 44, 4, 5, 5). If,
however, the donor died without revoking or
expressing his intention of revoking a gift
against the statute, it could not be upset by his
heir : “morte Cincia removetur” (Fragm. Wat.
259, 266, 294).
Under the later Empire the rules of the Lex
Cincia gradually went into disuse. Insinuatio
(registration in the acta) of gifts to non ex-
ceptae personae was first required by Constantius
Chlorus, and this rule was extended to eacceptae
personae by Constantine (Cod. Theod. 3, 5, 1).
Later still the exemption of gifts to exceptae
personae from the requirement of appropriate
conveyance was done away with, except as
between parent and child: and insinuatio was
required by Theodosius II. only if the amount
exceeded 200 solidi in value (Cod. Theod. 3, 5, 8):
this maximum was raised to 500 solidi by Jus-
tinian, who also abolished the necessity of con-
veyance in any form, thus making a mere
promise to give actionable (Inst. ii. 7, 2).
Tacitus (Ann. xi. 5) refers to another enact-
ment of this statute, forbidding a person to take
anything for his pains in pleading a cause, “ne
quis ob causam orandam pecuniam donumve
accipiat :” Ann. xiii. 42 is explained by the fact
that this provision was confirmed by a senatus-
consult under Augustus, which imposed on the
advocate a penalty of four times the sum received
(Dio Cass. liv. 18). Under Claudius, however,
advocates might take fees, but not in excess of
10,000 sesterces for each suit; a sum which
under Nero was represented by 100 aurei: in
this reign, too, further regulations were made
on the subject (Suet. Nero, 17), especially one
subjecting those who took any sum in excess of
the specified maximum to a prosecution for
repetundae. But from Pliny (Ep. v. 21) it
seems that in Trajan's time the fee could not be
paid until the work had been done. (Savigny,
Die Lew Cincia, Zeitschrift, iv. 1; Verm. Schrif-
ten, i. 315–385; Rudorff, de lege Cincia, 1825;
Wenck, Preface to Haubold, Opusc, acad, i. p.
37; Hasse, Rhein. Museum, i. 185 sq., iii. 174
sq.; Puchta, Institutionen, § 206; Francke,
Civil. Abhandl. 1826, p. 1 sq.; Klinkhamer, de
Donationibus, 1826; Bruns, Quid conferant Wat.
fragm. ad Melius cognosc, jus Románum, 1838,
pp. 112 sq.) - .
... CLAU'DIA, passed by the Emperor Claudius:
it abolished the tutela legitima of agnates over
Women not in potestas or manus, thus in effect
greatly enlarging their control of their property
(Gaius, i. 157, 171–2). . .
CLAU'DIA DE SENATORIBUs, a plebiscitum
of 218 B.C.: it enacted that no senator or
senator's son should own a ship of larger cubic
capacity than 300 amphorae (Liv. xxi. 63):
Cicero says that in his time it was “antiqua et
mortua " (in Verr. v. 18, 45). . . * *
CLAU’DLA DE SENATU COOPTANDO HALESI-
NoRUM, B.C. 95 (Cic. in Verr. ii. 49, 122).
CLAU'DIA DE SocIIs, B.C., 177 (Liv. xli.
8, 9). - - - - , - >
CLO'DIAE, a number of plebiscita carried
by Clodius when tribune, B.C. 58, and frequently
referred to by Cicero and Dio Cassius: among
them are— - -
CLO'DIA DE AUSPICIIs [see AELIA]: it is
also enacted “ut omnibus fastis diebus legem
ferri liceret” (Cic. pro Sestio, 15, 33; 26, 56;
in Vatin. 17, 35; in Pison. 4,5; Dio Cass. xxxviii.
13). -
CLO'DIA DE CENSORIBUS. [CAECILIA.]
CLO'DIA DE CIVIBUS RomanIS INTEREMTIS,
which led to Cicero’s exile: it interdicted from
fire and water [EXSILIUM) those who had
ut a Roman citizen to death uncondemned
(Vell. Pat. ii. 45, 1, 2; Dio Cass., xxxviii. 14).
Cicero himself considered it a privilegium (ad
Att. iii. 15, 6; 23, 3; ad Fam. xiv. 4, 2; in
Pison. 13, 30; pro Sestio, 24, 53; 32, 69; pro
Domo, 18, 47, &c.).
CLO'DIA DE COLLEGIIs restored the clubs or .
guilds (collegia) which had been abolished by a
senatusconsult, probably of B.C. 64, and per-
mitted the formation of new ones (Cic. ad Att.
iii. 15, 4; pro Sest. 25, 55; in Pison. 4, 8; Dio
Cass. xxxviii. 13). Nearly all of them were
subsequently swept away by Julius Caesar
(Sueton. Jul. 42). - -
CLO’DIA, DE LIBERTINORUM, SUFFRAGIIS
(Cic. pro Milon. 12, 33; 33, 89).
CLO'DIA DE PESSINUNTIO MATRIS MAGNAE
SACERDOTE (Cic. pro Sest. 26, 56).
CLO'DLA DE PROVINCIIs consula RIBUS (Cic.
in Pison. 16, 37). -
CLO'DIA DE REGE PTOLEMAEO ET DE EX-
sulipUS BYZANTINIs (Well. Pat. ii. 45; Cic. pro
Domo, 8, 20; 20, 52; pro Sestio, 26, 57; Dio
Cass. xxxviii. 30; Plut. Cat. min. 34).
CLO'DLA FRUMENTARIA, directing the free
distribution of corn to the poorer citizens instead
of its sale at a low rate (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 13;
Cic. pro Sest. 25; Ascon. in Pison. 4; pro Dom.
10, 26). [FRUMENTARIAE LEGES.] * *
CO'CTIA, the reading in Cic. ad Att. iv. 16,
14: it means the lex judiciaria of L. Aurelius.
Cotta. [AURELIA JUDICIARIA.] -
COLO'NIAE GENETIVAE, a lex of B.C.
44, regulating the constitution of this colony,
established by Julius Caesar on the site of Urso
in Baetica: discovered on bronze at Osuna in
1870, 1875 (Bruns, Fontes juris Rom. antiqui,
1880, pp. 43–103, 109–127). -
COMMISSO'RLA.. [COMMISSORIA LEx.]
CORNE'LIAE. These comprise (I.) a large
number of leges passed by Sulla in his dic-
tatorship (Liv. Epit. lxxxix.); (II.) leges of
L. Cornelius Cinna; and (III.) a number of
statutes passed by different magistrates bearing
this name. • . ‘. .
I. CORNE'LLAE AGRA'RLAE, “quibus
agri perduellium publicati veteranisque assig-
nati sunt” (Orelli): apparently referred to in
Cic. in Rullum, ii. 28, 78; iii. 2, 6; 2, 8;
3, 12. - – . . . . .
CORNELLA DE CIVITATE (Liv. Epit. .
lxxxvi.; Cic. pro Dom. 30, 79; pro Caec. 35,
LEGES CORNELIAE
LEGES CORNELIAE 39
102; Sallust. Hist. fragm. lib. i. orat. Lepidi):
it took the full civitas away from Wolaterrae and
other municipia.
CORNE'LLA DE FALSIs or TESTAMENTARIA
(Cic. in Verr. i. 42,108; Inst. ii. 12, 5, iv. 18, 7).
[See FALSUM.
CORNE'LLA DE MAGISTRATIBUS, making
discharge of inferior magistracies a necessary
condition to the attainment of higher ones
(Appian, Bell. Civ. 100, 101), and re-affirming
the provisions of certain old plebiscita (Liv. vii.
42, x. 13). The “lex de viginti quaestoribus ”
(Tac. Ann. xi. 22) was probably merely one of
its chapters (see Puchta, Institutionen, § 79,
note a ; Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht, i. pp. 519–
524, 548). -
CORNE'LIA DE PROSCRIPTIONE (Cic. in Verr.
i. 47, 123; pro Seact. Rosc. 43, 125–128; Vell.
Pat. ii. 29; Quintil. Inst. Or. xi. 1, 85; Plut.
Sulla, 31). [PROSCRIPTIO.]
CORNE'LIA DE PROVINCIIS ORDIN ANDIS
dimited the costs which might be incurred by
provincial towns in sending public deputations
to Rome for the purpose of praising their gover-
nor before the senate (Cic, ad Fam. iii. 8,
10), and enacted (1) that those who had pro-
vinces under the Lex Sempronia should retain
their imperium till they had re-entered the city
-on their return (Cic. ad Fam. i. 9, 25); and (2)
that provincial governors should leave their
province not later than thirty days after the
arrival of their successors (Cic. ad Fam. iii. 6,3;
£b. 6). -
CORNE'LIA DE REJECTIONE JUDICUM al-
lowed an accused senator the right of challenging
a larger number of his judges than persons of
lower rank, the latter's challenges being limited
to three (Cic. in Verr. ii. 31, 77; see Orelli's
Onomasticon).
CORNE'LIA DE REPETUNDIS (Cic. pro Ra-
birio, 4, 9). It was under this statute that
Verres was prosecuted. [REPETUNDAE.]
CORNET.IA DE SACERDOTIIS (Liv. Epit.
lxxxix. ; Pseudo-Ascon. in Div. p. 102, Orelli:
see SACERDOTIA).
CORNE'LIA DE SENTENTIA FERENDA en-
abled the accused to say whether the votes of
the judges should be given openly or by ballot:
probably only a chapter of the Lex Cornelia
judiciaria (Cic. pro Cluent. 20, 55; 27, 75).
CORNE'LIA DE SICARIIs ET VENEFICIS.
From Pliny (H. N. xviii. § 12) we learn that the
Twelve Tables contained some regulations as to
homicide, but probably these were little more
than a repetition of the law of Numa Pompilius
which punished intentional slaying with death
(Festus, s. v. Parici): unintentional killing was
atoned for under the old religious law, and pos-
sibly by the Twelve Tables (Cic. pro Tull. 51;
Top. 17; Festus, s. v. Subici, Subigere), by the
offer of a ram (Serv. in Eclog. iv. 43; Georg.
iii. 387; Dion. Hal. vii. 22: cf. Festus, s. v.
Sororium). The Twelve Tables also penalised
incántations (Plin. H. N. xxviii. § 17; Sen. Nat.
quaest. iv. 7 ; Augustin. de Civ. Dei, viii. 19)
and poisoning, both of which offences appear to
have been included under parricidium [PompeLA
DE PARRICIDIIS]: the murderer of a parent was
sewed up in a sack (culleus) and thrown into a
river. It was under the provisions of some old
law that the senate by a consultum ordered the
consuls P. Scipio and D. Brutus (B.C. 138) to
inquire into the murder in the Silva Scantia
(Cic. Brutus, 22). The Lex Cornelia de Sicariis
et veneficis, passed circ. B.C. 81, inflicted penal-
ties not only for actual killing, but for going
about with weapons for the purposes of murder
or thieving; for incendiarism; for preparing,
having, or selling poisons for the destruction of
human life; for inciting a magistrate without
cause to bring a capital charge; for the taking
of money by a magistrate for such a service, and
for bearing false witness in a capital prosecu-
tion (Collatio leg. Mos. i. 3; Cic. pro Cluentio,
54, 55, 57; Dig. 48, 8, passim ; Paul. Sent. rec.
v. 23, 1 and 10; Inst. iv. 18, 5). By an enact-
ment of Antoninus Pius the killing of slaves
without just cause was brought within the
statute (Gaius, i. 53), which by senatusconsulta
and imperial legislation was also extended to the
offence of castration and to human sacrifices.
The penalty which it inflicted was aquae et ignis
interdictio (later deportatio: see ExSILIUM), to
which Julius Caesar added forfeiture (Dig. 48,
8, 3, 5): in the case of meaner criminals, even
death (Dig. ib.).
CORNET,IA DE VADIMONIo. [VADI-
MONIUM.]
CORNE'LIA DE v1. PUBLICA. [WIS PUB-
LICA.] .
CORNE'LIA JUDICIARIA took the judicia
away from the equites exclusively, and divided
them between equites and Senators (Tac. Ann.
xi. 22; Well. Pat. ii. 32, 3: see JUDEX).
CORNE'LIA MAJESTATIS (Cic. in Pison. 21,
50; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 59, Orelli). [MA-
JESTAS.]
CORNE'LIA NUMMARIA (Cic. in Verr. i. 42,
108). [FALSUM.]
CORNE'LIA SUMPTUARIA (Gell. ii. 24, 11 ;
Macrob. Saturn. ii. 13; Plut. Sulla, c. 35).
[SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.] - -
CORNE'LIA TESTAMENTARIA (Cic. in Verr.
i. 42, 108; Inst. iv. 18, 7). [FALSUM.]
CORNE'LIA TRIBUNICIA took away to a
large extent the tribunes’ right of intercession,
and disabled those who had served this office
from attaining a patrician magistracy (Vell.
Pat. ii. 30; Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 100, ii. 29;
Caesar, Bell. Civ. i. 5, 1 ; i. 7, 3; Cic. in Verr.
i. 60, 155: see PoMPEIA TRIBUNICIA).
CORNE'LIAUNCIARIA, perhaps passed about
the same time as Sulla's Lex sumptuaria. It
seems to have lowered the rate of interest
(Festus, s. v. Unciaria).
II. CORNE’LLA DE NOVORUM CIVIUM ET.
LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS, B.C. 87 (Cic. Phil.
viii. 2, 7; Well. Pat. ii. 20: cf. Appian, Bell.
Civ. i. 64 sq.). .
CORNE'LIA DE RECIPIENDO MARIO (Well.
Pat. ii. 21, 6). -
CORNE'LIA DE REVOCANDIS EXSULIBUS
(Aurel. Vict. de Vir. illustr; c. 69).
III. CORNE'LLA BAE’BIA DE AMBITU,
B.C. 181, passed by the consuls P. Cornelius
Cethegus and M. Baebius Tamphilus (Liv. xl. 19;
Schol. Bob. in Cic. pro Sulla, p. 361, Orelli).
CORNE'LIA CAE’CILIA DE CN. POMPEIO,
B.C. 57, gave Cn. Pompeius extraordinary powers
for five years for the management of the corn
supply of Rome (Cic. ad Att. iv. 1, 7; Liv-
Epit. civ.; Dio Cass. xxxix. 9; Plut. Pomp, 49).
[FRUMENTARIAE LEGES.] . . . .
CORNELLA DE EDICTIs, passed by C. Cor-
40 LEGES CORNELIAE
LEX DUODECIM TABULARUM
nelius, tribunus plebis, B.C. 67: it enacted that
praetors should not vary the rules proclaimed
in their perpetual edicts issued on their entry on
office by subsequent Edicta repentina, or apply a
different law from that which they had pro-
claimed they would observe (Ascon. in Corn,
Orelli, p. 58; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 23: cf. Cic, in
Verr. iii. 14, 36). [EDICTUM.]
CORNE'LIA DE INJURIIS, B.C. 81, perhaps
a statute of Sulla. Its original object was the
criminal prosecution of injuriae (assaults and
batteries) “quae manu fiant ’’ (Dig. 47, 10, 5,
pr.); but by gradual usage a civil action was
developed under its provisions, which had the
advantage over the ordinary actio injuriarum in
not being barred by a year’s prescription (Dig.
47, 10, 37, 1; Inst. iv. 4, 8). [INJURIA.]
CORNE'LIA DE LUSU allowed betting at
gymnastic exercises (Dig. 11, 5, 2, 1 and 3).
CORNE'LIA DE Novis TABULIS, passed by
P. Cornelius Dolabella, B.C. 47 (Liv. Epit. cxiii.;
Dio Cass. xlii. 32; Plut. Antonius, c. 9).
CORNE'LIA DE RESTITUENDO CICERONE,
B.C. 57 (Cic. in Pison. 15, 35).
CORNE'LIA DE SPONSORIBUS (B.C. 81), pro-
bably enacted by Sulla : it provided that (with
a few exceptions) no one should become surety
for the same debtor to the same creditor in any
one year for a larger sum than 20,000 sesterces
(Gaius, iii. 124, 5). See INTERCESSIO.
CORNE'LIA GE'LLIA. [GELLIA COR-
NELIA.
CORNE'LIA NE QUIS LEGIBUS SOLVERETUR,
passed by C. Cornelius, tribunus plebis, B.C. 67,
and directed against the reckless exercise by the
senate of its usurped power of granting dispen-
sations from the laws: in future such a dispen-
sation required the presence of, 200 members in
the senate, and also confirmation by the Comitia
Tributa; but no tribune was to be able to veto
the proposal (Ascon. in Corn. p. 57, 72, Orelli;
Dio Cass. xxxvi. 22).
CREPERE'IA, a lex of the Second Punic
War, which regulated the coinage by fixing the
relation between as, sestertius, and denarius
(Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 45; Cod. 8, 54, 37);
according to Studenmund, it is the lex mentioned
in Gaius, iv. 95.
CURIA"TA DE ADoPTIONE (Gell. v. 19; Cic.
ad Att. ii. 7, 2; de prov. Consul. 19, 45; pro
Domo, 15, 39; pro Sest. 7, 16; Tac. Hist. i. 15;
Sueton. August. 65). [ADOPTIO.]
CURLA"TA DE IMPERIO (Cic. de Rep. ii. 13,
25, ii. 17, 18, &c.; Tac. Ann. xi. 22; Liv. v. 46,
ix. 38, &c.). [IMPERIUM.]
DECEMWIRA'LIS.
LARUM.]
DE'CIA DE DUUMVIRIS NAVALIBUS, B.C. 312
(Liv. ix. 30).
DECIMA'RIA, a chapter of the Lex Papia
Poppaea, limiting the amount which a wife could
take under her husband's will, and vice versá, if
they had no children, to a tenth of what was
actually given (Fragm. Wat. 264; Quint. viii. 5;
Cod. 8, 58, rubr.).
DI'DIA, B.C. 144 (Macrob. Saturn. ii. 13).
[SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.]
DOMITIA DE SACERDOTIIs, B.C. 105 (Cic.
in Rull. ii. 7, 18; Epist. ad Brut. i. 5; Suet.
Nero, 2; Well. Pat. ii. 12, 3). [SACERDOTIA.]
DUILIA, a plebiscitum of 449 B.C., imposing
severe penalties on the tribune responsible for
[DUODECIM TABU-
the choosing of his own and his colleague’s suc-
cessors who omitted to see that they were duly
elected, and on those who created new magis-
trates from whom there was no appeal (Liv. iii.
55: see WALERIAE HORATIAE).
DUI'LLA MAE'NLA DE UNCIARIO FENORE,
B.C. 357, establishing or confirming a rate of
interest at 83 per cent. (12 unciae to 100 asses)
per annum (Liv. vii. 16, 19). The same
tribunes Duilius and Maenius carried a measure
for the prevention of such unconstitutional pro-
ceedings as the enactment of a lex by the
soldiers out of Rome on the consul’s proposal
(Liv. vii. 16: see Mommsen, Römisches Staats-
ºrecht, i. p. 69, note 2). .
DUO'DECIMI TABULA'RUM. The enact-
ment of the Twelve Tables was the outcome of
plebeian agitation for an “exaequatio juris”
between the two orders in the state. In the
year B.C. 462 the tribune of plebs C. Terentilius.
Arsa had obtained a resolution of the plebs for
the appointment of five persons, with the object.
of enacting laws for the definition of the con-
sular imperium; but this the senate, the
stronghold of the patricians, had refused to send
on to the Comitia Centuriata (Liv. iii. 9). In
the next year he proposed a codification or
definite statement of the whole law by a com-
mission of ten; but this, though carried by the
plebs, was equally unsuccessful in its later
stages (Liv. iii. 10; Dionys. X. 3). In B.C. 454,
however (Dionys. x. 52, 54), the senate so far
yielded as to assent to a plebiscitum, pursuant.
to which three commissioners were to be sent to
Athens and the Greek cities in order to make
themselves acquainted with their laws. On
their return, after two years' absence, it was
proposed (B.C. 451) that all the ordinary magis–
tracies should be suspended, and the whole
authority of the state vested in ten patrician
commissioners, including the three who had
been to Greece (“decemviri legibus scribundis”),
from whom there was to be no provocatio, and
who were directed to codify the public and
private law of Rome (Dionys. x. 54–57; Liv. iii.
32, 33). The plebeians consented to stand out
of the commission only under express reser-
vation of their previously established rights and
liberties (Liv. iii. 32). This proposal was
carried through the Comitia Centuriata and
Curiata without opposition (Liv. iii. 34; Dionys.
x. 32). The decemviri were appointed by the
comitia of the centuries, being presided over by
Appius Claudius, Consul designate ; but they
took the administration of affairs by turn, the
insignia of office being used only by him who for
the time being represented the executive (Liv.
iii. 33). Ten Tables of laws were prepared
during the year, and after being approved by
the senate were confirmed by the Comitia
Centuriata and Curiata: two further tables
(which Cicero, de Rep. ii. 37, calls “tabulae:
iniquarum legum ”) were added in the next
year, these having been prepared by decemviri
among whom were (according to Dionys. x. 58)
three plebeians, though Livy (iv. 3) does not
suggest that there had been any change in the
constitution of the commission. Cicero's remark
may be due to the fact that the prohibition of
conubium between plebs and patricians was
enacted by the eleventh Table (Dirksen, Ueber-
sicht, &c., p. 740). In their integrity, the whole
LEX DUODECIMI TABULARUM
Twelve Tables were first published in B.C. 449,
after the downfall of the decemviri (Liv. iii. 54,
57); they are mentioned by the Roman writers
under a great variety of names (e.g. Leges
Decemvirales, Lex Decemviralis, Leges Duo-
decim, Duodecim Tabularum, or lea, or leges
simply); and, being the only attempt at codi-
fication of the jus civile until Justinian's time,
are spoken of by classical writers throughout
Roman history as the fundamental element of
the system: by Tacitus as “finis aequi juris,” by
Livy as “corpus omnis Romani juris” and “fons
publici privatique juris.”
Some doubt has been cast, but without reason,
on the story of the embassy to the Greek states,
which preceded the enactment of the Twelve
Tables. Pomponius (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 3 and 4) also
refers to assistance given to the decemviri by
an Ephesian named Hermodorus, who was living
as an exile in Italy; but the assistance con-
sisted perhaps more in interpreting the laws
brought back by the commissioners from Greece
than (as Pomponius hints) in the suggestion of
new legislation. At any rate, this last tradition
was confirmed by the fact of a statue having been
erected in the Comitium at Rome in memory
of Hermodorus; but it did not exist in the
time of Pliny (H. W. xxxiv. § 21). The foreign
source of some of the laws was acknowledged by
the Romans themselves: e.g. Cicero attributes
to Solon the original of the rules as to burial
(de Leg. ii. 25, 64). Similarly Gaius, in his
Commentary on the Twelve Tables, where he is
speaking of Collegia (Dig. 47, 22, 4), says that
the members of Collegia may make what terms
they please among themselves, if they thereby
violate no “publica lex; ” and he adds that this
rule seems to be taken from the legislation of
Solon, to whom also (Dig. 10, 1, 13) he refers
for the origin of certain rules as to boundaries
and the actio finium regundorum. But that the
decemviral legislation contained any consider-
able element of foreign law is in the highest
degree improbable. The law as previously
established seems to have been handed down in
the main, if not entirely, by oral tradition; and
whether it be true or not that the patricians
were especially cognisant of it, it is certain that
the plebeians had suffered largely from having
no certain or full knowledge of its intricate
rules and formulae. What they desired primarily
was a plain and clear statement in writing
(“legibus scribundis’) of the law as it stood :
it was only in the jus pubſicum that they wished
for change, and that only so far as was required
to place the two orders on a tolerable equality
in respect of civil and political rights. The
caprice of the magistrate who administers the
law is best guarded against by those over whom
it is administered having a clear knowledge of
its provisions.
The laws were cut on tablets of bronze and
put up in a public place (Liv. iii. 57; Diod. xii.
56), though Pomponius, in the passage of the
Digest already referred to, says that the
material of the Tablets was ivory (see Zimmern,
Geschichte des röm. Privatrechts, vol. i. p. 101).
It is commonly supposed that they were de-
stroyed in the burning of the city by the Gauls
some sixty years after their enactment, but the
passage of Livy on which this is based (vi. 1) is
just as conclusive against as for the supposition.
LEX DUODECIM TABULARUM 4 ||
The Romans of the age of Cicero had no doubt of
the genuineness of the collection which then
existed; and if we may believe Cyprian (Ep. 2,
4, ad Donat. de gratia Dei), the Twelve Tables
were exposed in the forum as late as the third
century of our era. Cicero speaks of learning
the text of them by rote (“ut carmen neces-
sarium ”) when a boy (de Leg. ii. 4, 23), and
up to his time the chief juristic work of the
lawyer class seems to have been their inter-
pretatio—the extension of a rule of the Twelve.
Tables (or of other early statutes, such as the
Lex Aquilia), to cases not strictly within its
letter: but shortly before the fall of the Re-
public, as he tells us (de Leg. i. 5, 17), the jurists
had abandoned the jus civile, and taken to com-
menting instead on the Praetor's Edict. Of
actual commentaries on the Twelve Tables we
hear of one by Sextus Aelius Paetus Catus
in his Tripartita, a work which existed in the
time of Pomponius [JUS AELIANUM). Others.
were written by another Aelius, by Atilius (Cic.
de Leg. ii. 23, 59; Dig. 1, 2, 2, 38), by Labeo
(Gell. i. 12, vii. 15, xx. 1), and finally by Gaius:
this was in six books, from which twenty ex-
cerpts are preserved in the Digest. The decen-
viral legislation, though largely modified (espe-
cially in the parts of it relating to public law)
by subsequent enactments, was not formally
repealed till the time of Justinian, nearly 1000.
years after its first establishment. No complete
copy of its text has come down to us, but about
100 fragments, partly incomplete, have been
collected from citations and references in clas-
sical and juristic literature. .
It remains to give a short account of the
contents of the Twelve Tables, so far as they
can be gathered from the extant fragments and
the notices of earlier writers.
I. The personal freedom and civil equality of
citizens was secured by the exclusion of all
capital sentences except those delivered by the
Comitia Centuriata (Cic. de Leg. iii. 19, 44; de
Republ. ii. 36, 61; pro Sest. 30, 65), by the re-
cognition as provisionally free of a man whose
free status was called in question, and by the
prohibition of privilegia.
II. Freedom of individual action within the
domain of private law was secured by the re-
cognition of contracts and testaments.
III. Certain points of private law were more
precisely defined which would otherwise have
endangered the security of rights of property,
or opened the door to harshness and oppression:
especially as regards (a) usucapion and the
restrictions imposed on property in the interest
of neighbours; (b) the law of debt and the
rights of unsatisfied creditors; (c) family law
(manus, patria potestas, tutela, and contibium
between patricians and plebeians); and (d) in-
heritance, especially on intestacy.
IV. Capital penalties were prescribed for
false witness, judicial partiality or corruption,
incendiarism, nocturnal theft of crops, and libel;
and the right of appeal from condemnation to
any of these was given to every citizen (Cic. de
Republ. ii. 31).
W. Private poenae were established for injuria,
theft, and certain kinds of damnum.
WI. The mode of summons and the procedure
in actions generally were defined and regulated,
especially with a view to preventing capricious
42 LEX FABIA
LEX HOSTILIA -
exercise of his authority and jurisdiction by the
magistrate; and
VII. Certain sanitary and sumptuary rules
were laid down as to the interment of dead
bodies.
The most celebrated attempt to re-arrange
the extant fragments of the Twelve Tables in
the order in which they originally stood, or to
reconstruct the Tables themselves, is that of
Jacobus Gothofredus (Heidelberg, 1616): on
this and similar works there is an admirable
critique by Dirksen, Uebersicht der bisherigen
Versuche zur Kritik und Herstellung des Teactes
der Zwölf-Tafel-Fragmente, 1824; and especially
M. Voigt, Civil und Criminalrecht der Zwölf
Tafeln. Cf. also Schöll, Leg. XII. Tab. reliquiae,
Leipzig, 1866; Bruns, Fontes juris Rom. antiqui,
ed. 4 (Tübingen, 1880), pp. 14–37; and Puchta,
Institutionen, vol. i. §§ 54, 55.
FA'BIA DE PLAGIARIIS (Cic. Rab. Perd. 3, 8;
Paul. Sent. rec. v. 306; Inst. iv. 18, 10; Dig.
48, 15; Cod. 9, 20). [PLAGIUM.]
FA'BLA DE NUMERO SECTATORUM (Cic. pro
Murena, 34, 70, 71).
FABRI'CIA DE REDITU CICERONIS (Cic. pro
Milone, 14, 38).
FALCI'DIA. [LEGATUM.]
FA'NNIA, B.C. 161 (Gell. ii. 24, 2–6;
Macrob. Saturn. ii. 9, 13; Plin. H. W. x. § 139;
Athen. vi. p. 274 c). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.]
FA'NNIA. [JunIA DE PEREGRINIs.]
FLAMI'NIA, an agrarian law for the distri-
bution of lands in Gaul and Picenum, proposed
by C. Flaminius, tribunus plebis (Cic. Brut, 14,
57; Acad. ii. 5, 13; de Invent. ii. 17, 52; Wal.
Max. v. 4, 5; Polyb. ii. 21). According to
Polybius, who here seems more reliable than
Cicero, the date of the law was B.C. 232.
FLAMI'NIA MINUs solven Dr, B.C. 217,
reduced debts by more than a third by allowing
sixteen asses to be paid by ten (Festus, s. v.
Sestertii).
FLA'WIA AGRA'RLA, B.C. 60: by this the
tribune L. Flavius proposed a distribution of
lands among Pompeius' soldiers (Cic. ad Att. i.
18, 6, i. 19, 4 ; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 50; Marquardt,
Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. p. 446).
FRUMENTA’RIAE. [FRUMENTARIAE
LEGES.
FUFIA. . [AELIA.]
FU'FIA CANI'NIA, circ. A.D.4, limited the
number of slaves who could be manumitted by
will (Gaius, i. 42–46; Inst. i. 7; Ulpian, Reg. i.
24, 25; Paul. Sent, rec. iv. 14; "Cod. 7, 3;
Sueton. Aug. 40). It is also sometimes called
Furia or Fusia Caninia. [MANUMISSIo.]
FU'FIA DE RELIGIONE, B.C. 61, a plebiscitum
of the tribune Q. Fufius Calenus, relating to the
mode of selecting the judges who were to try
Clodius for his outrage on the rites of the Bona
Dea (Cic. ad Att. i. 13, 3; ib. 16, 2).
FU'FIA JUDICIARIA (B.C. 592) apparently
provided that the senators, knights, and tribuni
aerarii, should vote separately in the judicia
(Dio Cass. Xxxviii. 8; Schol. Bob. pro Flacco,
p. 235, Orelli).
FU'BIA ATI'LIA, a plebiscitum of 137 B.C.
enacting the surrender of C. Mancinus to the
Numantines (Cic. de Off. iii. 30, 109).
FU'RIA DE SPONsu (Gaius, iii. 121, 122).
[INTERCESSIO.] .
FU'RIA TESTAMENTARIA, B.C. 183 (Gaius, ii.
|225, iv. 23; Cic. pro Balbo, 8, 21). [LEGA-
TUM.
§ersIA DE SENATU LEGATIS DANDo, a
plebiscitum of Aulus Gabinius, tribunus plebis
B.C. 67, appropriating the sittings of the senate
in the month of February to the reception of
embassies (Cic, ad Quint, fratr. ii. 13, 3; ad
Fam. i. 4). .
GABI'NIA DE UNO IMPERATORE, &c., passed
by the same tribune in the same year, and con-
ferring extraordinary powers on Cn. Pompeius
for conducting the war against the pirates (Well.
Pat. ii. 31, 2; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 6–20; Plut.
Pomp. 25; Cic. pro lege Manilia, 17-19).
GABI'NLA DE VERSURA, passed by the same
tribune in the same year, and forbidding all
loans of money at Rome to legationes from
foreign parts, its object being to prevent the
senate from being bribed by such embassies (Cic.
ad Att. v. 21, 12; vi. 2, 7).
GABI'NIA TABELLARIA, B.C. 139 (Cic. Lael.
16, 41). [TABELLARIAE LEGES.]
GA'LLIAE CISALPI'NAE. [RUBRIA.]
GE'LLIA CORNE'LIA, B.C. 72, gave to
Cn. Pompeius the extraordinary power of con-
ferring the Roman civitas on Spaniards in Spain
with the advice of his council (Cic. pro Balbo,
8, 14 and 19; 14, 32, 33). -
GENU'CIA DE FENORE, B.C. 343, forbade
taking interest for the use of money (Liv. vii.
42; Tac. Ann. vi. 16). It was persistently
evaded (Liv. xxxv. 7), and eventually altogether
disregarded (Plut. Cato Major, 21; Appian, Bell.
Civ. i. 54).
GENU'CIA DE CONSULATU, B.C. 343, a pro-
posal by the same tribune Genucius for opening
both consulships to plebeians (Liv. vii. 42). In
viii. 12 Livy represents the law as having
actually been passed ; but we do not read of
both consuls being plebeians till the 6th century,
and he is probably incorrect: see Puchta, Insti-
tutionen, § 57, note l; Mommsen, Röm. Staats-
recht, ii. p. 76. -
GLI'CIA, a statute supposed by Cujacius as
the origin of the querela inofficiosi testamenti,
but apparently without reason (see Vangerow,
Pandekten, 7th edit. ii. p. 218). , , ,
GUNDOBA'DA, a name sometimes given
to the Lex Burgundiorum of King Sigismund,
otherwise known as “Papian,” A.D. 517.
HERE'NNIA, B.C. 60 (Cic. ad Att. i. 18, 4;
i. 19, 5).
HIERONICA. [DECUMAE, Vol. I. p. 605.]
HI’RTIA DE POMPEIANIS, circ. 49 B.C. (Cic.
Phil. xiii. 16, 32).
HORA’TLA, B.C. 449, made the persons of
the tribunes, aediles, and decemviri sacrosancti
(Liv. iii. 55). [VALERIAE ET HORATIAE.] An-
other Lex Horatia mentioned by Gellius (vi. 7,
2–4) was a privilegium relating to a vestal
virgin named Caia Tarratia.
HORTE'NSIA DE PLEBISCITIS, B.C. 287
(Plin. H. N. xvi. § 37; Gell. xv. 27, 4; Gaius, i.
3; Inst. i. 2, 4). [PLEBISCITUM ; PUBLILIAE
LEGES.]
HORTE'NSIA DE NUNDINIs, of about the
same date, enacted that the market days, which
had hitherto been Feriae, should be dies fast.
This was done for the purpose of accommodating
the inhabitants of the country (Macrob. Saturn.
i. 16; Plin. H. W. xviii. § 13).
HOSTI’LIA enabled the actio furti to be
LEX ICILLA
LEGES JULIAE
43
brought by an agent on behalf of any person
who (or whose tutor) was in foreign captivity
or absent reipublicae causa (Inst. iv. 10, pr.).
ICI'LIA DE AvenTINo PUBLICANDO, a ple-
biscitum proposed by L. Icilius, B.C. 456, grant-
ing the Aventine, hitherto possessed by the
patricians, as a dwelling-place to the plebs, who
thereby acquired a right to the buildings which
they erected on it (Liv. iii. 31, 32; Dionys.
x. 31, 32; cf. Niebuhr, Rom. Hist. ii. 301:
and see SUPERFICIES),
ICI'LLA DE SECESSIONE, B.C. 449 (Liv. iii.
54).
forula TRIBUNICIA, B.C. 469, enacted that
any person who interfered with a tribune in the
exercise of his constitutional powers should be
put to death unless he gave sureties for the pay-
ment of the fine to which he rendered himself
liable (Dionys. vii. 17; Cic, pro Sestio, 39, 84;
Becker-Marquardt, ii. 3, 129).
JU'LIAE LEGES, most of which were
passed in the time of C. Julius Caesar and
Augustus: among them are—
JU'LIA AGRARIA, passed by Julius Caesar in
his first consulate, B.C. 59: it provided for an
assignment of lands in Campania (whence Lex
Campana in Cic. ad Att. ii. 18) to the Pompeian
veterans and the poorer citizens generally,
especially such as had three children (Dio Cass.
xxxviii. 1–7; Well. Pat. ii. 44; Appian, Bell.
Civ. ii. 10; Sueton. Jul. 20; Cic. ad Att. ii. 16,
ad Fam. xiii. 4, Phil. ii. 39, 101, v. 19, 53; Plut.
Cato Minor, 31–33; Dig. 47, 21; Zumpt, Com-
ment. Epigraph. i. 277-302; Harless, Ackergesetz-
gebung C. Julius Caesar, Bielefeld, 1841).
JU'LIA CADUCARIA, identical with the Lex
Julia et Papia Poppaea.
JU'LIA DE ADULTERIIs. [ADULTERIUM.]
JU'LIA DE AMBITU. [AMBITUS.]
JU'LIA DE ANNONA, directed against at-
tempts to raise in any way the price of corn,
and making it a criminal offence (Inst. iv. 18,
12; Dig. 47, 11, 6, pr. ; 48, 12, 2). .
JU'LIA DE Bosis CEDENDIs. Up to nearly
the end of the Republic an insolvent debtor was
unable to escape from the two severe forms of
bankruptcy execution (manus injectio and bono-
rum emptio or venditio) by a voluntary compo-
sition. " This statute (whether due to Julius or
Augustus Caesar is uncertain) enabled him, at
any moment before his creditors took steps to
have him adjudged a bankrupt, to make a cessio
bonorum to them, though the right could not
be exercised if his insolvency was due entirely to
his own fault (Cod. 7, 71, 8, pr.). He surren-
dered his property, which was dealt with in
much the same way as if the procedure had been
by bonorum emptio; but he escaped infamia and
the liability to personal arrest, and was entitled
to the beneficium competentiae : i.e. his creditors
were bound to let him retain so much of his
means as was sufficient to provide him with the
necessaries of life. The provisions of the statute,
originally intended to benefit cives only, were
extended to the provinces by imperial constitu-
tions, Cod. 7, 71, 4 (Caes. Bell. Civ. iii. 1;
Sueton. Jul. 42; Tac. Ann. vi. 16; Dio Cass.
lviii. 21; Gaius, iii. 78). - a
JU'LIA DE CAEDE ET venBFICIo (Sueton.
Nero, 33), perhaps the same as the Lex Julia de
vi publica. ... '
JU'LIA DE CIVITATE, B.C. 90 (Cic. pro Balbo,
[CIVITAS; FoEDERATAE
8, 21; Gell. iv. 4, 3).
CIVITATES.] -
JU'LLA DE CRETA (Cic. Phil. ii. 38, 97).
JU'LLA DE Exsul IBUS (Cic. Phil. ii. 38, 98:
cf. Phil. v. 4, 11). -
JU'LLA DE FENORE (or DE PECUNIIS MUTUIs
or CREDITIS), passed by Julius Caesar when dic-
tator, B.C. 49. It compromised the claims of
creditors and debtors by estimating property at
the value it had held before the depreciation
occasioned by the Civil War, and compelling the
creditors to take it at this valuation; and by
allowing debts to be discharged without pay-
ment of the accumulated interest. It was calcu-
lated that the creditors lost about one-fourth of
what was their due (Caes. Bell. Civ. iii. 1; Sueton.
Jul. 42 ; Plut. Caes. 37; Appian, Bell. Civ.
ii. 48). - t
JU'LIA DE FUNDo DoTALI, a chapter of th
Lex Julia de adulteriis : it absolutely prohibited
mortgages of Italian land which formed part of
a dos by the husband, and allowed its alienation
only with the wife's consent. It was commented
on by Papinian, Ulpian, and Paulus (Gaius, ii.
63; Inst. ii. 8, pr. ; Paul. Sent. rec. ii. 21, 2;
Dig. 23, 5). See ADULTERIUM. t -
JU'LIA DE LIBERIS LEGATIONIBUs (Cic, ad
Att. xv. 11, 4; de Legg. iii. 8). [LEGATUS.]
JU'LIA DE MARITANDIS ORDINIBUs. [Julia
ET PAPIA Poppa EA..] . . . -
JU'LIA DE PROVINCIIS, passed by Julius
Caesar: it limited the governorship of a prae-
torian province to one year, that of a consular
one to two. Orelli also ascribes to this lex cer-
tain regulations of Caesar as to provincial ex-
penses, which Ernesti considers to have been
part of the Lex Julia repetundarum (Cic. Phil.
i. 8; Dio Cass. xliii. 25; Ferrat. Epist. iii. 14).
JU'LLA DE PUBLICANIS (Cic. pro Plancio,
14, 35; Appian, Bell. Civ. ii. 13; Dio Cass.
xxxviii. 7; Sueton. Jul. 20). -
JU'LIA DE REGE DEIOTARO (Cic. Phil. ii. 37,
93: cf. ad Att. xiv. 12, 1).
JU'LIA DE RESIDUIs, part of the Lex Julia
peculatus (Inst. iv. 18, 12; Dig. 48, 13). [PE-
CULATUS.]
JU'LIA DE SACERDOTIIS (Cic. ad Brut. i. 5;
cf. Phil. ii. 3, 6).
JU'LLA DE SACRILEGIS. [PECULATUS.]
JU'LIA DE SICULIS (Cic. ad Att. xiv. 12, 1).
JU'LLA DE VI PUBLICA ET PRIVATA.
WIS. - - , ,
fºLIAE JUDICIARIAE. One of Julius
Caesar deprived the tribuni aerarii of their
share in the judicia publica (Suet. Jul. 41; Cic.
Phil. i. 8); others, more probably of Augustus
than Julius, instituted an “album selectorum
judicum” for the hearing of civil causes (Suet.
Octav. 32; Gell. xiv. 2), and perhaps fixed at
twenty years the age under which a person
could not be compelled to be a judex (Dig. 4, 8,
41); limited the jurisdiction of the centumviri
(Gaius, iv. 30; see Keller, Civil Process, $23);
and divided actions in respect of their pendency
into judicia legitima and judiciº quge imperio con-
tinentur (Gaius, iv. 104). For the whole sub-
ject, see JUDEx. r .
JU'LLA MAJESTATIS (Cic. Phil. i. 9,
23; Inst. iv. 18, 3; Dig. 48, 4). [MAJESTAs.]
JU'LIA MISCELLA, avoiding a condition
annexed to the institution of a heir or a legacy
to the effect that the person benefited should
44 LEGES JULIAE
LEGES JULIAE
not marry : probably a clause of the Lex Julia
et Papia Poppaea (Dig. 35, 1, 64; ib. 72, 4,
&c.; Cod. 6, 40).
Jü'LLA MUNICIPA'LIS, commonly called
the Tabula Heracleensis. It was discovered on
bronze in two fragments at Tarentum (Heraclea)
in 1732 and 1735, which have been united and
kept in the Museo Borbonico at Naples since
1760. The inscription on one side is a Greek
psephisma of the town of Heraclea, that on the
other is a copy of part of a Roman lex (clearly
made for the use of the citizens of the town),
which contains police regulations for the city of
Rome: rules for the constitution of communities
of Roman citizens (municipia, coloniae, prae-
fecturae, fora, conciliabula civium Romanorum),
and others relating to capacity for the decuri-
onatus and magistracies, to the census in the
Italian towns, and to changes in local regula-
tions. It was thus a lex of the class called
Satura.
It seems that the lex of the year B.C. 49,
which gave the civitas to the Transpadani, en-
acted that a Roman commissioner should be sent
to all the towns for the purpose of framing
regulations for their municipal organisation.
The Lex Julia empowered the commissioners to
continue their labours for one year from its
date, and included the whole of Italy within the
scope of their authority. The name of the lex
(which for a long time was called simply Tabula
Heracleensis) was determined by Savigny by
means of an inscription discovered at Padua in
1696 (Orelli, Inscr. ii. 3676): its date is now
regarded by the authorities to be fixed at B.C.
45 by a passage of Cicero (ad Fam. vi. 18), so
that its determining cause seems to have been
the admission of the Transpadani to the civitas,
B.C. 49.
(A lithographed copy of the Table is given by
Ritschl, Tab. xxxiii. xxxiv.: the text may also
be found in Orelli's Inscriptions, i. 206, and
Spangenberg's Monumenta legalia, 1830, No. 16,
p. 99 sq. The first work on the subject is that
of Mazochi, Naples, 1754, 1755: the best is
Savigny’s Essay (with two appendices) in his
Vermischte Schriften, vol. iii. pp. 279–413 ; cf.
Puchta, Institutionen, § 90.)
JU'LIA ET PA'PIA POPPAEA. The
relation of this statute to the Lex Julia de
maritandis ordinibus is not perfectly clear.
Augustus appears in his sixth consulate (B.C.
28) to have issued an edict (Tac. Ann. iii. 28) on
the subject of marriage, which he followed up
(B.C. 18) by proposing a law to the senate regu-
lating certain marriages, imposing disabilities on
unmarried persons (caelibes), and establishing
rewards for those who had married and reared
children (Dio Cass. liv. 16). This he carried
with difficulty through the senate, but, appa-
rently owing to the organised resistance of the
equites, it was tumultuously rejected at the
Comitia (Suet. Aug. 34). Towards the end of his
reign, however (A.D. 3), he succeeded in carry-
ing it, with its rewards increased and its penal-
ties mitigated: it is referred to in the Carmen
Saeculare of Horace, which was written B.C. 17,
and is mentioned under the name Lex Julia dé |
maritandis ordinibus in Dig. 38, 11; 23, 2. The
opposition of the knights was overcome by a
provision that it should not come into force for
three, a period subsequently extended to six,
years; and taking advantage of this, Augustus
passed in A.D. 9 another statute (called "Papia
Poppaea from the consules suffecti for the year,
M. Papius Mutilus and Q. Poppaeus Secundus:
Dio Cass. lvi. 1–10), containing further enact-
ments on the same subject. Some writers are
of opinion that there was but one lex (Papia
Poppaea), in which the earlier unsuccessful law
was incorporated, and it is true that the frequent
mention of them together as one lex (Julia et
Papia Poppaea) lends some colour to the supposi-
tion: but the view here taken seems more in
accordance with the information given by his-
torians, and to be confirmed by the provisions of
the statutes being sometimes distinguished in
close juxtaposition. Sometimes they are cited
by reference to their various chapters: e.g. Lex
Caducaria, Lex Decimaria, Lex Miscella, &c.
Many commentaries were written on these
leges by the Roman jurists, of which consider-
able fragments are preserved in the Digest:
Gaius wrote fifteen books, Ulpian twenty, and
Paulus at least ten. The joint statute con-
tained at least thirty-five chapters (Dig. 22, 2,
19), but as a rule it is impossible to say to which
of the two leges included under the general title
of Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea the several provi-
sions as now known to us belong. Attempts
have been made both by J. Gothofredus and
Heineccius to restore them, on the assumption
that their provisions are reducible to the two
general heads of a Lex Maritalis and a Lex
Caducaria (cf. Puchta, Institutionen, § 107).
Among the enactments of these statutes are
the following:—
(i.) Prohibition of certain marriages under
penalties: viz. of ingenui with infames (e.g.
actresses and prostitutes); and of senators or
their children with freed women, freedmen, and
actors’ daughters (Ulpian, Reg. xiii. 1, xvi. 2;
Dig. 23, 2, 44, pr. and 1). Marriages between
a senator or his issue and libertini were declared
void by a senatusconsult passed under M. Aurelius
(Dig. 23, 2, 16, pr.), and the rule was subse-
quently extended to actors and actresses (Dig.
ib. 42, 1).
(ii) Avoidance of conditions against marriage
annexed to legacies and inheritances. [Julia
MISCELLA.]
(iii.) Provisions to encourage marriage. Cae-
libes were disabled by the Lex Julia from taking
either as heirs or as legatees (Gaius, ii. 111, 144,
286) under a will, unless the testator, were re-
lated to them within the sixth degree (Ulpian,
Reg. xvi. 1; Frag. Vat. 216, 219), or unless they
married within 100 days (Ulpian, Reg. xvii. 1;
xxii. 3). Spadones and vestal virgins were ex-
empted from the operation of the statute, as
were widows for twelve months, and divorced
women for six: these periods were extended by
the Lex Papia to two years and eighteen months
respectively (Ulp. Reg. 14). Again, the penalty
of the statute could be evaded by an engagement
to marry, if carried out within two years
(Sueton. Octav. 34; Dio Cass. liv. 16, lvi. 7;
Dig. 23, 1, 17). Finally, males were released
from its provisions in this respect on attaining
sixty, women on attaining fifty years of age;
but a Senatusconsultum Persicianum passed
under Tiberius enacted that they should be re-
garded as caelibes in perpetuity if they postponed
marrying till so late in life. A Senatuscom-
LEGES JULIAE
LEX JUNIA NORBANA 45
suitum Claudianum so far modified the strictness
of the new rule as to give a man who married
after sixty the same advantage that he would
have had if he had married under sixty, pro-
vided he married a woman who was under fifty;
but it was enacted by a Senatusconsultum Cal-
visianum under Nero, that if a woman over
fifty married a husband under sixty, even the
latter should not escape the disabilities imposed
by the statute (Ulpian, Reg. xvi. 4). Similarly,
by the Lex Papia, orbi (persons who had been
married, but had no children living) were dis-
abled from taking more than a moiety of what
was left them by way of either inheritance or
legacy (Gaius, ii. 111, 286; Ulpian, Reg. xvi. 1;
Sozomenus, 1, 9), unless related to the testator
within the sixth degree. Males escaped the
penalties of orbitas by having a single (even
adoptive) child (Juv. xix. 83, 86–89), but by a
Senatusconsultum Memmianum adoption was
4eprived of this effect when resorted to merely
in order to evade the statute : but women were
not so well off, ingenuae being released only by
three, libertinae only by four children (Paul.
Sent, rec, iv. 9, 1–3). There were exceptions to
these rules if the wife was under twenty or over
fifty, or the husband under twenty-five or over
sixty, and also if the husband was residing away
from the wife reipublicae causa (Ulpian, Reg.
xvi. 1). Legacies and inheritances which could
not be taken either in whole or part, owing to
these provisions of the Lex Julia or Lex Papia
Poppaea, became caduca [BONA CADUCA], the
law upon which subject was considerably modi-
fied by these statutes.
(iv.) Some other provisions have been noticed
elsewhere [DECIMARIA ; JULIA MISCELLA). To
these may be added the rule giving a preference
to candidates for office according to the number
of their children (Tac. Ann. xv. 19; Plin. Ep.
vii. 16): the release of ingenuae with three and
libertinae with four children from tutela (Gaius,
i. 144, 145), and of libertini with a certain num-
ber of children from operarum obligationes (Dig.
38, 1). The exemption of persons from dis-
charging the office of tutor or curator jure
Žiberorum (Inst. i. 25, pr. ; Dig. 27, 1, 18) was
based on these statutes, which also introduced
changes (besides those already noticed) into the
law of succession, both testamentary and intes-
tate, especially in connexion with libertini
(Gaius, iii. 42–50, &c.: see PATRONUs). And
the Lex Julia also fixed the date at which wills
were opened as that at which the rights of
legatees should become indefeasible (dies cedit:
see LEGATUM), which previously had been the
decease of the testator; but the old rule was
restored under Justinian.
After the enactment of the Lex Papia Pop-
paea, it became not unusual to obtain a grant of
a fictitious jus liberorum by special favour from
the senate, and later from the emperor (Dio
Cass. lv.2; Sueton. Claud. 19; Plin. Ep. ii. 13,
x. 2, 95, 96; Paul. Sent. rec. iv. 9, 9), whereby
those who had no children, or not enough, were
enabled to escape its disabilities and even enjoy
most of its benefits (Fragm. Wat. 170). This
privilege is mentioned in some inscriptions, on
which the abbreviation I. L. H. (jus liberorum
habens) sometimes, occurs. The Emperor M.
Aurelius enacted that children should be regis-
tered by name within thirty days of their
birth with the Praefectus Aerarii Saturni (Capi-
tol. Marc. 9; cf. Juv. Sat. ix. 84).
The penalties of caelibatus and orbitas were
abolished by Constantine and his sons (Cod.
Theod. 8, 16), as were the disabilities contained
in the “Lex Decimaria " by Theodosius II. (Cod.
Theod, 8, 17, 2, 3), so that little is left of these
statutes in the law of Justinian.
JULIA PAPIRIA. [PAPIRIA.]
JULIA PECULATUS. [PECULATUs.]
JU'LIA ET PLAUTIA, of uncertain date,
enacted that res vi possessae should stand on the
same footing with res furtivae [ATINIA] and be
incapable of acquisition by usucapio. It related
solely to land, for robbery of res mobiles was
theft itself (Gaius, iii. 209), and land could not
be stolen (Inst. ii. 6, 7). (Gaius, ii. 45, 51;
Inst. ii. 6, 2; Dig. 41, 3, 4, 22.) It would seem
from Theophilus on the passage of the Insti-
tutes last referred to that there were really two
statutes, Julia and Plautia, perhaps the two of
those names “de vi.”
JU'LIA REPETUNDA'RUM.
TUNDAE.
JU'LLA SUMPTUA'RIA, passed B.C. 49 by
Julius Caesar (Cic, ad Att. 13, 7, 1; ad Fam. 7,
26, 2; 9, 15, 5). Augustus, too, seems to have
re-enacted with additional severities the earlier
sumptuary laws (Gell. ii. 24; xliii.25). [SUM-
PTUARIAE LEGES.
JU'LIA THEATRA'LIS (Sueton. Aug. 40 ;
Plin. xxxiii. § 32) permitted Roman equites, in
case they or their parents had ever had a census
equestris, to sit in the fourteen rows of the
theatre appropriated to them by the Lex Roscia
Theatralis, B.C. 67.
JU'LIA ET TITIA (supposed to have been
passed B.C. 31) assigned to the governors of pro-
vinces (praesides) the duty of appointing guar-
dians for women and impuberes who were not
in patria potestas, or already provided with one.
A Lex Atilia, which was in existence in the
seventh century of the city, had already given
the same power in Rome to the praetor urbanus,
acting with a majority of the tribuni plebis
(Gaius, i. 185; Inst. i. 20, pr. ; Ulpian, Reg.
xi. 18).
JU'LLA VICESIMA'RIA, passed by Augus-
tus, A.D. 6 (Dio Cass. lv. 25, lvi. 28; Plin.
Paneg. 37–40; Capitol. Marc. 11). [VICESIMA.]
JU'NIA DE LIBERTINORUM suffraGIIs.
CLODIA ; MANUMISSIO.]
JU'NIA DE PEREGRINIs, or JUNLA PEN-
NI, a plebiscitum of M. Junius Pennus, B.C.
126, expelling peregrini from the city (Cic. de
Off. iii. 11,47; Brut. 28, 109). By a Lex Fannia
(possibly merely an edict of the Consul Fannius)
B.C. 122, Latins and Italians were similarly
treated (Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 23; Plut. C. Grac-
chus, 12; Cic. Brut. 26, 100, pro Sest. 13, 31), as
were all persons who had not an Italian domicile
by a Lex Papia, B.C. 65 (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 9;
Cic. in Rull. i. 4, 11 ; de Off. loc. cit.; ad Att.
iv. 16).
JU'NLA LICI'NIA. [LICINIA JUNIA.]
JU'NLA NORBA’NA, probably A.D. 19 (see
[REPE-
Puchta, Institutionen, § 213, note u), created
the status of Latinus Junianus by enacting that
slaves manumitted otherwise than by one of the
manumissiones legitimae, or against the provi-
sions of the Lex Aelia Sentia, should have the
rights of Latini (i.e. commercium without co-
46 LEx JUNLA PENNI
LEGES LICINIAE
nubium). The statute, however, expressly de-
prived them of the right of making, or taking
under a will, or of being testamentary guar-
dians: see AELIA SENTIA LEX ; LATINITAS;
LIBERTUs; MANUMISSIO. (Gaius, i. 16, 17, 22,
&c., iii. 56; Ulpian, Reg. i., xx. 8, xxii. 3.)
JU'NLA PENNI. [JUNIA DE PEREGRINIs.]
JU'NLA PETRO'NIA, or PATRO'NIA,
enacted that if the judges in a suit relating to
personal freedom were evenly divided, the person
whose status was in question should be declared
free (Dig. 40, 1, 24: cf. Dig. 42, 1, 38, pr.).
Whether it is the same statute as the Lex
Petronia is doubtful.
JU'NIA REPETUNDA'RUM.
TUNDAE.
JU'NIA WELLE'IA, A.D. 10, made it pos-
sible (which hitherto had not been allowed) to
either institute or disinherit certain postumi sui
(i.e. descendants who after the making of a will
come into the immediate potestas of the testa-
tor). Those to whom this lex related were (a)
children of the testator born in his lifetime,
but after the execution of his will; (b) grand-
children of the testator born after their father's
death, but in the lifetime of the testator;
(c) grandchildren born before the execution of
the grandfather's will, but who become sui
heredes by their father’s decease after that
event (Ulpian, Reg. xxii. 19; Dig. 28, 2, 29;
Gaius, ii. 134, and Mr. Poste’s note on § 130).
LAETO'RIA, the same as PLAETO'RIA
[CURATORI. Sometimes the lex proposed by
Wolero for electing plebeian magistrates at the
Comitia Tributa is cited as a Lex Laetoria (Liv.
ii. 56, 57).
LE'NTULI (Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 48), really a
magisterial decretum relating to the provincial
organisation of Cyprus : cf. the “decretum
Rupilii” for Sicily (Cic. in Verr. ii. 13, 16).
LICI'NIAE. In B.C. 375 C. Licinius Stolo
and L. Sextius, two of the tribunes of the plebs,
proposed a number of rogationes, partly in the
political, partly in the economical interests of
the plebeians (Liv. vi. 35). The latter were
aggrieved by their practical exclusion from the
chief magistracies: but they were still more
distressed by the burden of their debts. They
had suffered heavily through the sacking of the
city by the Gauls (Liv. vi. 11, &c.), and in com-
parison with the patricians were taxed out of all
proportion to their real means (Liv. iv. 60, v. 10;
Niebuhr, Röm. Gesch. i. 645); they were largely
indebted to the other order, which was rapidly
buying them out of their land (Liv. xxxiv. 4),
and cultivating its new acquisitions by slave
labour, so that the plebeians were debarred from
making their livings even as farmers holding
under their own creditors (Appian, Bell. Civ.
i. 8).
The Licinian rogation which was intended to
settle the financial question proposed that all
sums which had been paid by way of interest
should be struck off the capital debts, and that
three annual periods should be allowed for the
payment of the residue (Liv. vi. 35, 39). The
precise content of the second (de modo agrorum,
Liv. xxxiv. 4; Gell. xx. 1, 23; Wal. Max. viii.
6, 3; Well, Pat. ii. 6, 3; Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 8;
Plin. H. N. xviii. 3) is less certain. According
to one view (Puchta, Institutionen, § 57) it pro-
posed that no one should own more than 500
[REPE-
jugera of land, or pasture on the ager publicus
more than 100 cattle and 500 sheep or smaller
beasts: others (e.g. Niebuhr, and Walter, Gesch.
des rôm. Rechts, $ 62) hold that it prescribed
the limit of 500 jugera merely for the “posses-
siones” of ager publicus: a third view (advanced
by Huschke, Ueber die Stelle des Varro, 1835,
and Rudorff, Röm. Feldmesser, ii. 312, Röm.
Rechtsgeschichte, i. 38) is that both ownership
and possession were comprised in the enactment.
The first of these theories at any rate seems to
be disproved by Livy, vi. 37 and 39 (“agris
occupatis . . . injustis possessoribus”), Plin.
H. N. xviii. 17, and Appian, Bell. Civ. 18 sq.;
and perhaps that of Niebuhr is best supported
by the authorities. It was also proposed, in the
interest of those plebeians who were too poor to
buy land, that a certain number of free persons
should be employed on every estate (Appian,
loc. cit.). A third rogatio was for the abolition
of the military tribunate (an office created some
years previously in order to relieve the consuls
of some of their less important duties, to which
the plebeians had been eligible, though Livy
says, vi. 37, that in B.C. 369 it had not been
occupied by any of them for forty-four years),
and for the election of one of the consuls every
year from the ranks of the plebeians (Liv. vi. 35,
vii. 1, 21, 22, 25, x. 7; Gell. xvii. 21, 26, 27;
Schol. Bob. pro Scauro, p. 375, Orelli). The
patricians prevented the enactment of these
rogations by inducing the other tribunes to veto
them : Stolo and Sextius, according to Livy,
retaliated in the same way, and, being repeatedly
re-elected tribunes, persevered for five years in
preventing the election of any curule magis-
trates.
In B.C. 368, encouraged by the support of one
of the tribuni militum, M. Fabius, Licinius’
father-in-law, and by the decreasing opposition
of their colleagues, the two tribunes proposed,
and after two years’ violent agitation carried
(B.C. 366), a new rogatio that, instead of the
duumviri hitherto established, there should be a
collegium of decemviri for the custody of the
Sibylline books, and the performance of the
sacra therewith connected, and that one-half of
these decemviri should be plebeians (Liv. vi. 42).
This paved the way for the admission of the
plebeians to the consulship: and in the next
year (B.C. 365) the three original rogations were
at last carried together in the form of a Lex
Satura (Liv. vii. 39; Dio Cass. Fragm. 33), and
L. Sextius was elected consul, being the first
plebeian who attained that dignity. The patri-
cians were in some degree compensated by re-
taining the monopoly of the praetorship (urbana):
but the incorrectness of Livy in representing
them also as solely eligible to the curule aedile-
ship, established about this time, has been shown
by Niebuhr, iii. 39–49.
The penalty fixed for an infraction of the
Lex Licinia de modo agrorum was an arbitrary
fine sued for before the populus by the plebeian
aediles. Curiously enough, Licinius Stolo him-
self was (B.C. 357) the first person against whom
the statute was put in force (Val. Max. viii. 6, 3).
Livy (vii. 16) says that together with his son he
held a thousand jugera of ager, and by emanci-
pating his son fraudulently evaded the provisions
of his own law: which apparently means that
he emancipated the son in order that the latter
LEGES LICINIAE
LEX MAMILIA 47
might get 500 jugera nominally for himself, but
which would practically be at his father's dis-
posal : at any rate, he was fined 10,000 asses.
From this story (which is also told by Columella,
i. 3, and Pliny, H. W. xviii. § 17) it is clear that
the plebeians had now acquired the right of
holding (possidere) the ager publicus, probably
under the Lex Licinia itself; and it would seem
that the estates which the patricians had to
surrender as being against the statute came for
the most part into the possession of plebeians.
Niebuhr (Röm. Geschichte,iii. 19) attributes to the
lex a genuinely agrarian character, and believes
that there was a regular distribution of land
among them ; but the passages on which he
relies (especially Warro, de Re Rust. i. 2, and
Columella, loc. cit.) hardly bear out his view,
which is directly contradicted by Appian (Bell.
Civ. i. 8). The history of the later agrarian
legislation, however, makes it clear that in some
way or other the Lex Licinia de modo agrorum
(if it related at all to the possessiones of ager
publicus, which Puchta denies) was persistently
evaded.
(Besides the works of Niebuhr, Puchta,
Huschke, and Rudorff, already referred to, cf.
Göttling, Geschichte der röm. Staatsverfassung,
p. 354; the Classical Museum, Nos. v. vi. and
vii.; and AGRARIAE LEGES).
LICI'NLA, of uncertain date, containing pro-
visions similar to those of the second Lex Aebutia
noticed above, in connexion with which it is
mentioned by Cicero (in Rull. ii. 8, 21 ; cf. pro
Domo, 20, 51).
LI'CINIA DE CREANDIs TRIUMviris EPU-
LONIBUS, B.C. 197 (Liv. xxxiii. 42; cf. Cic. de
Orat. iii. 19, 73).
LI'CINLA DE LUDIS APOLLINARIBUS, B.C. 209
(Liv. xxvii. 23).
LI'CINIA DE SACERDOTIIS, B.C. 146 (Cic.
de Am. 25, 96).
LI'CINIA DE SODALITIIs, B.C. 56 (Cic. pro
Planc. 15, 36; ad Fam. 8, 2, 1: see Wunder's
Prolegomena, cited in full by Orelli, Ciceronis
opera, vol. viii. pp. 200, 201; and AMBITUs).
LI'CINIA JU'NIA, sometimes called
JUNIA LICINIA, passed B.C. 62 by the consuls
L. Licinius Murena and Junius Silanus, perhaps
to enforce more strictly the provisions of the Lex
Caecilia Didia, in connexion with which it is
sometimes mentioned (Cic. Phil. v. 3, 8 ; ad Att.
ii. 9, 1 ; iv. 16, 5; in Vatin. 14, 23; pro Sestio,
64, 135). But it also seems to have enacted
that a copy of every proposed statute should be
deposited before witnesses in the Aerarium
(Schol. Bob. p. 310; Mommsen, Röm. Staats-
'recht, ii. pp. 532, 533).
LICI’NIA MU’CIA DE CIVIBUS REGUNDIS
(probably REDIGUNDIS), passed B.C. 95 by the
consuls L. Licinius Crassus the orator, and Q.
Mucius Scaevola, Pontifex Maximus; ordained
a strict examination into the title to citizenship,
as many non-cives had contrived to get them-
selves put on the census, and ordered back to
their own civitates all who could not make out a
good title. This measure partly led to the
Marsic war, and is cited by Cicero as an instance
how even the wisest men sometimes pass bad
laws (Cic. de Off. iii. 11, 47; Brut. 16, 63; pro
Balbo, 21, 24; pro Sestio, 13, 30: Ascon. in
Cornel. p. 67).
LICINIA SUMPTUA'RIA (Gell. ii. 24, 7–
10; Macrob. Saturn. ii. 13; Festus, s. v. Cente-
naria). [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.]
LIVIAE. Various enactments carried by
M. Livius Drusus the younger, when tribunus
plebis B.C. 91, for establishing colonies in Italy
and Sicily (Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 35), distributing
corn among the poorer citizens at a low rate
(Liv. Epit. 71), and admitting the foederatae
cºvitates to the Roman citizenship (ib. Appian,
loc. cit.). He was also the author of a lea, judi-
ciaria, dividing the judicia equally between the
senate and the Equites (Well. Pat. ii. 13; Liv.
IEpit. 70; Cic. pro Cluentio, 56, 153), and insti-
tuting a penal procedure against judges who
allowed themselves to be bribed (Cic. loc. cit.;
Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 35); and he is said by Pliny
(H. W. xxxiii. § 46) to have proposed a measure
for adulterating silver by mixing with it an eighth
part of brass. Drusus was assassinated, and the
senate declared his laws not binding, either be-
cause they had been carried “contra auspicia *
(Ascon. in Cornel. p. 68), or because they were
in violation of the Lex Caecilia Didia (Cic. pro
Domo, 16, 41). Cf. Cic. de Leg. ii. 6, 12;
Florus, iii. 17; Plut. C. Gracchus, 9 fl.
LUTA"TLA DE VI [VIS]. The supposed exist-
ence of such a lex (based on Cicero, pro Caelio,
29, 70) is now much discredited ; but see Rein,
Criminalrecht, p. 742.
MAE'NIA, probably passed by Maenius, tri-
bunus plebis, B.C. 287. It is mentioned only by
Cicero (Brut. 14, 55), who says that “M. Curius
Dentatus compelled the Patres ante auctores
fieri, in the case of the election of a plebeian
consul, which was a great thing to accomplish,
as the Lex Maenia had not yet been passed.”
The statute seems to have enacted that the
senatorial auctoritas to the Comitia Curiata (by
a vote of which the magistrates acquired their
imperium) should be given before instead of
after the assembly of the centuries in which
the magistrates were elected (cf. Liv. i. 17; Cic.
pro Plancio, 3, 8; Licinius Macer in Sallust.
Frag. iii. p. 972, ed. Cort; Puchta, Institutionen,
§ 59, notes l and n; Walter, Geschichte des rôm.
Bechts, $ 66; and AUCTORITAs).
MAE'NLA DE DOTE, B.C. 186: see Voigt's
treatise on the subject, Weimar, 1866, and
Puchta, Institutionen, § 74, note k, and $ 292,
note b.
DE MAGISTRIS AQUA'RUM (Haubold,
Spangenberg, Mon. Leg. p. 177).
MAMITIA DE COLONIIs. It was supposed
that Rudorff had proved (Zeitschrift, ix. 12)
that the Lex Mamilia, Roscia, Peducaea, Alliena,
Fabia, is the same as the “Lex agraria quam
Gaius Caesar tulit ’’ (Dig. 47, 21, 3), and that
this Gaius Caesar is the Emperor Caligula. But
Mommsen (Schriften der röm. Feldmesser, ii.
p. 223) believes that the so-called Lex Mamilia
related to the appointment of C. Julius Caesar's
agrarian commission: and this seems to be con-
firmed by the discovery of the Lex Coloniae
Genetivae.
MAMI'LIA DE JUGURTHAE FAUTORIBUS
established a special tribunal of three quaesitores
to. investigate cases of bribery among Romans
by Jugurtha (Sallust, Jugurtha, 40, 65; Cic.
Brut. 33, 34: cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht,
vol. ii. pp. 646, 647). -
MAMI'LIA FINIUM REGUNDORUM (B.C. 110,
Ernesti; B.C. 165, Pighius) re-enacted the pro-
48 LEX MANILIA
LEX PAPIRIA PLAUTIA
vision of the Twelve Tables, that a space of
5 ft. along the boundaries of landed estates (ex-
teading 2+ ft. into each) should be excluded
from usucapio, and ordained a new procedure in
cases of dispute (Cic, de Leg. i. 21, 55; Rudorff,
“Gränzscheidungsklage,” Zeitschrift, x. pp. 355–
363).
*ANILA proposed by the tribune C. Mani-
lius B.C. 66, and conferring on Cn. Pompeius
the command in the war against Mithridates.
It was supported by Cicero when praetor in his
speech pro lege Manilia (cf. Well. Pat. ii. 33, 1 ;
Liv. Epit. 100; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 25; Appian,
Bell. Mithrid. 97).
MANI'LLA DE LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS
(Dio Cass. xxxvi. 25; Ascon. in Corn. pp. 64,
65): perhaps the same as the Lex Manilia de
suffragiorum confusione (Cic. pro Mur. 23, 47),
which seems to have enacted that the libertini
should vote in all and not only in the four urban
tribes.
MANILIA'NAE (Cic. de Orat. i. 58, 246).
These were not statutes at all, but forms which
it was prudent for parties to observe in contracts
of sale, whence they are called actiones by Varro,
de Re Rust. ii. 5, 11. They seem to have been
invented by a jurist called M’. Manilius, who was
consul B.C. 149.
MA'NLIA, a name wrongly given to the
3.ex Licinia de creandis triumviris epulonibus,
because P. Manlius was one of the first triumviri
appointed under its provisions (Liv. xxxiii. 42).
MA'NLIA DE LIBERTINORUM SUFFRAGIIS,
B.C. 58, probably identical with the Lex Manilia
of the same title (Ascom. in Mil. p. 46).
MA'NLIA DE VICESIMA MANUMISSORUM, B.C.
357, imposed a tax of one-fifth on the value of all
manumitted slaves (Liv. vii. 16; cf. xxvii. 10).
{MANUMISSIO.] -
MA'RCLA, circ. 352 B.C., prescribed the
procedure per manus injectionem against fenera-
tores for recovering from them four times any
sum which they had taken by way of illegal
interest (Gaius, iv. 23 ; Liv. vii. 21).
MA'RCLA AGRA'RIA, proposed by L.
Marcius Philippus, tribunus plebis, B.C. 104
(Cic. de Off. ii. 21, 73).
MA'RCLA DE LIGURIBUS, B.C. 172 (Liv. xlii.
22). .
MA'RIA, proposed by C. Marius, when tribune
3.C. 119, for narrowing the pontes at elections
(Cic. de Legg. iii. 17, 38; Plut. Marius, 4).
ME'MMIA or REMMIA. [CALUMNIA.]
MENENIA seems to have in some way
Himited the magistrate's power of inflicting
arbitrary fines: see ATERNIA TARPEIA.
ME'NSIA or MINI'CIA enacted that the
children of parents, either of whom was a
peregrinus, should be peregrini themselves: and
thus (where a civis Romana married a peregrinus)
introduced an exception to the rule that where
there was no conubium between man and wife
the issue should follow the condition of the
mother (Ulpian, Reg. v. 8).
ME'SSIA DE CN. PoMPEII IMPERIO (Cic, ad
Att. iv. 1, 7). -
ME'SSIA DE REvoCANDo CICERONE (Cic.
post Red. in Sen. 8, 21).
METI'LLA, B.C. 217 (Liv. xxii. 25 sq.; Plut.
Fabius, 9).
MINI'CIA (Gaius, i. 78, Studenund ad loc.):
See MENSIA.
MINU'CIA DE TRIUMVIRIS MENSARIIS, B.C.
46 (Liv. xxiii. 21).
MU’CIA, a plebiscitum of 141 B.C.: resulted
in the exile of L. Hostilius Tubulo (Cic. de Fºn.
ii. 16, 54).
NERVAE AGRA'RIA, the latest known
instance of a lex passed at the Comitia (Dig. 47,
21, 3, 1). -
OCTA'VIA, probably B.C. 87 (Cic. de Off. ii.
21,72; Brut. 62,222). [FRUMENTARIAE LEGES.]
OGU'LNIA, proposed by two Ogulnii, who
were tribunes B.C. 300 : it increased the number
of the Pontifices and Augurs from four each to
eight and nine respectively, and enacted that
four of the former and five of the latter should
be taken from the plebs (Liv. x. 6-8).
OPPIA, B.C. 215 (Liv. xxxiv. 1, 8; Val. Max.
ix. 1, 3). It was repealed twenty years after its
enactment. [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.]
O'RCHIA, B.C. 171 (Macrob. Saturn. ii. 13).
[SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.]
OVI'NIA, enacted probably circ. B.C. 312:
apparently assigned to the censors the function
of selecting the senate, but required them to
choose the persons best qualified without dis-
tinction between patricians and plebeians (Festus,
p. 246). Perhaps the strict meaning of Festus’
text is that on coming into office they revised
the list of the senate, those whose names were
passed over ipso facto losing their seats (Hoff-
mann, Röm. Senat, pp. 3–18).
The nature of the Lex Ovinia mentioned by
Gaius (iv. 109) is unknown.
PA'PIA DE PEREGRINIS.
GRINIS.]
PA'PIA DE vKSTALIUM LECTIONE (Gell. i.
12).
PA'PIA POPPAEA.. [JULIAE.]
PAPI'RIA or JU'LIA PAPI'FIA DE MUL-
TARUM AESTIMATIONE, B.C. 430, substituted
money fines for those of cattle and sheep fixed
by the Lex Aternia Tarpeia, a sheep being valued
at ten, a bullock at a hundred asses (Liv. iv. 30 ;
Cic. de Rep. ii. 35). Gellius (xi. 1) and Festus
are wrong in making this change a part of the
Lex Aternia Tarpeia itself.
PAPI'RIA, 89 B.C., fixed the value of the as
at half an ounce : one of the numerous enactments
which tampered with the coinage (Plin. H. N.
xxxiii. § 46).
PAPI'RIA DE ACERRANORUM CIVITATE, B.C.
332, proposed by L. Papirius when praetor, and
giving the civitas sine suffragio to the people of
Acerrae (Liv. viii. 17; cf. Well. Pat. i. 14, 4).
PAPI'RIA DE CONSECRATIONE AEDIUM, circ.
303 B.C., enacted that no land, temple, or altar
should be consecrated without a plebiscitum
(Cic. pro Dom. 49, 50; Liv. ix.46).
PAPI'RIA DE SACRAMENT0, a plebiscitum of
L. Papirius, providing that the tres viri capitales
should be elected by the people, and should exact
from unsuccessful litigants the stake (sacra-
mentum) which they lost in the legis actio of that
name, and which was forfeited to the aerarium
(Festus, s. v. Sacramento: cf. Mommsen, Röm.
Staatsrecht, ii. pp. 580, 585). Puchta (Insti-
tutionen, § 161, note g) conjectures that the
statute also put an end to the actual deposit of
the stake in sacro, and substituted the giving of
security (praedes) for its payment.
PAPIRIAPLAUTIA, B.C. 89, enacted that
all cives and incolae of foederatae civitates, who
[JUNIA DE PERE-
LEX PAPIRIA POETELIA
LEX POMPELA 49
at the date of the statute were domiciled in Italy,
should be able to obtain the Roman civitas by
giving in their names to the praetor urbanus at
Rome within sixty days (Cic. pro Archia, 4, 7 ;
ad Fam. xiii. 30). [CIVITAS; FoEDERATAE
CIVITATES.
PAPI'RIA POETE'LIA. [PoETELIA PA-
PIRIA.
PAPI'RIA TABELLA'RIA,
[TABELLARIAE LEGES.
PE'DIA, B.C. 44, interdicted from fire and
water all who had taken part in the murder of
Julius Caesar (Vell. Pat. ii. 69, 5).
PEDUCAE'A, a privilegium of B.C. 114,
relating to incest committed by certain Vestal
Virgins (Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii. 30, 74; Ascon.
in Milon. p. 46).
PESULA'NLA seems to have extended to dogs
the rule of the Twelve Tables (Inst. iv. 9, pr. ;
Dirksen, Uebersicht, &c. p. 532), that if damage
were done by an animal the owner must either
surrender it or pay compensation (Paul. Sent.
tec. i. 15, 1).
PETI'LLIA DE PECUNIA REGIS ANTIOCHI,
B.C. 186 (Liv. xxxviii. 54; cf. xxxix. 6).
PETRE'IA. A lex of this name (de
decimatione militum) applying in cases of mutiny
is mentioned in the old editions of Appian (de
Bell. Civ. ii. 47), but the true reading is ratplg
B.C. 132.
vöup.
PETRO'NIA forbade masters to make their
slaves fight with wild beasts, unless they had
committed some serious offence, and the magis-
trate had assented to their being so treated (Dig.
48, 8, 11, 2; Gell. v. 14); it was followed by a
number of senatusconsulta to the same purpose.
Puchta (Institutionen, § 107) is of opinion that it
provided for the appointment of special magis-
trates in the towns to deal with the matter; but
the inscriptions on which he relies (cited in
Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. p. 494)
seem to relate to a different Lex Petronia (de
praefectis). Whether there were two leges or
one, the first mention of legislation by this name
occurs in the fasti of Venusia, B.C. 32.
PINA'RIA (Gaius, iv. 15). Its effect is
merely matter of conjecture. According to
Studenund and Walter, a single judge was
originally appointed at the close of the formal
proceedings before the praetor, to try sacramenta:
and this was altered by the statute, which pre-
scribed an interval of thirty days between the
proceedings before the praetor and the appoint-
ment of the judex. Keller supposes that its
effect was not to create a necessary interval of
thirty or any other number of days at all, but
to transfer the hearing of sacramenta from the
standing collegia of judges (decemviri and cen-
tumviri) to a single judex. Bethmann-Hollweg
(Civil Process, i. p. 65) holds that it required
all actions of debt for less sums than 1000 asses
to be tried before a single judge.
PINA'RIA ANNALIS. [ANNALEs LEGES.]
PINA'RIA DE INTERCALANDo, B.C. 472
(Varro in Macrob. i. 13).
PLAETO'RIA or LAETO'RLA (Cic. de Off.
iii. 15, 61; de Nat. Deor. iii. 30, 74). [CURATOR.]
PLAETO'RIA allowed the praetor to fix
any time he pleased for the termination of legal
proceedings, the Twelve Tables having enacted
that they should not close till sunset (Varro,
L. L. vi. 5; Censorin. de Die Nat. 24).
WOL. II. -
PLAUTIA or PLO'TIA AGRATRIA, B.C.
98 or 89 (Cic. ad Att. i. 18, 6).
PLAU’TIA or PLO'TIA DE REDITU LEPI-
DANORUM (Sueton. Caesar, 5; Gell. xiii. 3).
PLAU'TIA or PLO'TIA DE v1 (Ascon. in
Milon. 35; Cic. ad Att. ii. 24; de Harusp. Resp.
8; Sallust. Cat. 31 : see C. G. Wächter's paper
on the subject in the Neues Archiv des Criminal-
rechts, xiii. p. 8 sq., cited at length in Orelli's
Cicero, vol. viii. pp. 233–243, and WIS).
PLAU’TIA or PLO’TIA JUDICIA'RIA,
B.C. 89, enacted that fifteen persons should be
selected annually from each tribe, without
reference to their rank, to act as judges in
criminal trials. It was repealed by the Lex
Cornelia judiciaria of Sulla (Cic. pro Cornel.
fragm. 27; Ascon. in Cornel. p. 79).
PLAU'TIA PAPI'RIA. [PAPIRIA PLAU-
TIA.]
POETE'LIA, a plebiscitum of B.C. 358: the
first law against ambitus (Liv. vii. 15).
POETE'LIA PAPI'RIA, the name usually
given to a lex, supposed to have been passed B.C.
326, for the relief of the nexi (Liv. viii. 28;
Cic. de Republ. ii. 34, 59; Varro, L. L. vii. 105).
[NEXUM.
POMPE'IA, B.C. 89, passed by Cn. Pompeius
Strabo, father of the great Pompeius, when con-
sul: it conferred Latin rights [LATINITAS] on
the Transpadani, and probably the civitas on the
Cispadani (Strabo, v. p. 213; Savigny, Zeitschrift,
ix. 308–326).
POMPE'IA DE AMBITU (Dio Cass. xl. 52;
Ascon. in Mil. p. 37). [AMBITUS.]
POMPE'IA DE IMPERIO CAESARI PRORO-
GANDO, B.C. 55 (Well. Pat. ii. 46, 2; Appian,
Bell. Civ. ii. 18; Cic. Phil. ii. 10, 24).
POMPE'IA DE JURE MAGISTRATUUM (Sueton.
Caesar, 28; Cic. ad Att. viii. 3, 3, cf. Phil. ii. 10,
24; Dio Cass. xl. 56) forbade candidature for
public offices by persons who were not at Rome:
but C. Julius Caesar was excepted from its opera-
tion. This was doubtless the old law, but it
appears to have become obsolete.
POMPE'IA DE PARRICIDIIS, B.C. 52. It is
difficult to come to any definite conclusion as to
the precise meaning of parricida and parricidium
in early Roman history and literature. From a
quotation which Cicero makes from some old
source (“sacrum sacrove commendatum qui cle-
perit rapsitaue parricida esto,” de Leg. ii. 9, 22),
the offence seems at one time not to have been
confined to killing; and even when it had
acquired this narrower signification, it appa-
rently denoted the taking of the life of any free
person (“si quis hominem liberum dolo sciens
morti duit parricida esto,” law of Numa Pompi-
lius in Festus, s. v. Parici Quaestores: cf. Rein,
Criminalrecht, pp. 401, 449). The Romans
themselves seem to have had great doubts about
the etymology of the word: avoréAAovres thv
trpármy ava Na3iv kal 8paxeſav trotoivres, Tows
ºyovéas (pārentes), €rretvovres 6*, rows Śrmkóovs
(pārentes) a muaívovoriv (Johannes Lydus, de
Mag. Rom. i. 26). “Parricida, quod vel a pari
componitur, vel a patre: quibusdam a parente
videtur esse” (Prisc. Gram. i. : cf. Cic. pro Clº-
entio, 11, 32; Liv. xl. 24; Quinctil. Inst. viii. 6,
35). But by the time of Cicero parricidium
seems to have acquired the specific sense of
killing near relatives: the application of it to
Catiline and to the murderers of Caesar (Sueton.
E.
50 LEX POMPEIA
LEX PUBLILLA
Jul. 88) may perhaps be regarded merely as
an oratorical survival of older usage. There
seems to be no doubt that the Lex Cornelia de
sicariis et veneficis contained provisions as to
the killing of near relations (Dig. 48, 9, 1; Inst.
iv. 18, 6 ad fin.): the Lex Pompeia de parri-
cidiis, some thirty years later, apparently re-
enacted these, and defined the crime of parri-
cidium as the deliberate and wrongful slaying of
ascendants, husbands, wives, consobrini, brothers
and sisters, uncles and aunts, stepfathers and
mothers, fathers and mothers in law, patrons
and descendants; but the killing of a child by
its father was excepted (Dig. 48, 9, 1). Hadrian
sentenced a man who killed his son to deportatio
(Dig. ib. 5); but it was not parricidium to kill
one’s own children till the age of Constantine,
who prescribed for it the punishment of the
sack described below (Cod. ix. 17; Inst. loc. cit.).
For most cases of parricidium no change was
made in the penalties of the Lex Cornelia (death,
banishment, and forfeiture) by the statute of
Pompeius; but for the murder of a father,
mother, grandfather or grandmother, the old
punishment of the culleus was ordained (Dig. 48,
9, 9, 1; Paul. Sent. rec. v. 24). This consisted
in the guilty person being first whipped till he
bled, sewn up in a sack with a dog, a cock, a
viper, and an ape, and thrown into the sea or
a river: if there was no water near, Hadrian
sanctioned his being torn in pieces by wild
beasts (Dig. 48, 9, 9, pr.), and in Paulus’ time
he seems sometimes to have been burnt. The
antiquity of this punishment is attested by
Valerius Maximus, who records that it was
inflicted on M. Tullius by Tarquinius when king
(i. 1, 13: cf. “more majorum,” Dig. 48, 9, 9, pr.
and 1; and Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 25, 70, ad Quint.
Fratr. i. 2; Juv. Sat. iii. 8, 212 sq.). The selec-
tion of animals was supposed to be symbolical:
Heră &oreflöv Øov &ore&hs &v0patros (Dosith. iii.
16): Tà 8& Tpoeipmuéva, 6%pta épéâAAeral Stå
Tooro, Štreiðh 6plotórpora airá, éort rô, ačv
ºyap &vaipei rows yovets, rà. 8& Tpos airot's oilk
âtréxeral uáxms (Theophilus). Accessories to
the crime were punished as severely as princi-
pals under the Lex Cornelia (Cod. 9, 16, 7).
POMPE'IA DE v1, a privilegium relating to
the trial of Milo by a quaestio extraordinaria
for killing Clodius, though there was a perma-
nent commission for trying offences of this class
(Cic. Phil. ii. 9, 22): it also seems to have contained
some general provisions as to the procedure and
penalty in cases of violence (Ascon. ; and Schol.
Bob. pro Milone ; cf. Wächter's note, cited by
Orelli, Cicero, vol. viii. pp. 247–250, and Walter,
Geschichte des röm. Rechts, $834, note 7).
Fourwis FRUMENTARIA (Dio Cass. xxxix.
24).
POMPE'IA JUDICIARIA (Cic. Phil. i. 8, 20;
in Pison. 39, 73; Ascon. in Pison. p. 16; Sall.
de Rep. Ord. ii. 3). [JUDEx.]
POMPE'IA TRIBUNICIA, B.C. 70, restored the
old tribunicia potestas which Sulla had almost
destroyed (Sueton. Jul. 5; Vell. Pat. ii. 30;
Cic. de Leg. iii. 9, 11; Liv. Epit. 97). [TRI-
BUNI.]
PO'RCIA, probably B.C. 197, appears to have
enacted that a Roman citizen might save him-
self from the punishment of death or flogging
by withdrawing into exile (Sall. Cat. 51; Cic.
pro Rabirio, 3, 4; in Verr. v. 63, 163; Liv. x.9;
Gell. x. 3, 13). Cicero (de Rep. ii. 31, 54) alludes
to three leges Porciae on this or similar matters,
but nothing more is known about them.
PO'RCLA DE PROVINCIALIBUS SUMPTIBUs,
apparently due to M. Portius Cato, praetor B.C.
298, and perhaps referred to in Liv. xxxii. 27:
it is mentioned in the Plebiscitum de Termess-
ensibus (Lex Antonia), which enacts “nei quis
magistratus prove magistratu legatus neu quis
alius neive imperato quo quid magis iei dent
praebeant ab ieisve auferatur nisei quod eos ex
lege Portia dare praebere oportet oportebit *
(Haubold, Mon. legal. p. 137).
PRAEDIATO'RLA, the reading in some
editions of Gaius (iv. 28); but the true reading,
according to Studenund, is lege censoria.
PUBLI'CIA permitted betting at certain
gailies which required strength, such as running
and leaping (Dig. 11, 5, 2, 1 and 3). [COR-
NELIA ; TITIA.]
PUBLI'LIA, proposed by Publilius Volero,
tribunus plebis, and carried after much oppo-
sition B.C. 471. It provided “ut plebeii magis-
tratus (tribunes and plebeian aediles) tributis
comitiis fierent’’ (Liv. ii. 56); but this appa-
rently should not be taken to mean that these
magistrates had previously been elected in the
Comitia Centuriata (as is held by Mommsen,
Röm. Tribus, p. 83; Becker-Marquardt, ii. 2,
253–260, &c.): the choice had practically been
made by the plebs, but in a less organised
fashion than became the rule after it had by
this statute been definitely assigned to the
Comitia in which the plebeians had the prepon-
derance (Schwegler, xxvi. 7: cf. Walter, Ge-
schichte des rôm. Rechts, $ 44; for another view,
see Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, ii. 2). “From
this time onward,” says Dionysius (ix. 49), “up.
to my own day, the election of tribunes and
aediles was made without birds (augural cere-
monies) and all the rest of the religious forms in
the Comitia Tributa.” By the same enactment
the number of the tribunes was raised from
two to five (Liv. ii. 58; Diod. ii. 38), and
B.C. 454 to ten (Liv. iii. 30; Dionys. x. 30), who
were elected in equal proportions from the five
classes of the Servian Constitution (Ascon. in
Cornel. p. 77): this change was readily ac-
quiesced in and perhaps even suggested by the
patricians, who foresaw in the larger number
increased chances of disagreement, and were
more likely to win over to their own side one of
many than one of few plebeian magistrates.
Possibly, too, the office of tribune was opened to
the patricians, two of whom were tribuni plebis
B.C. 448 (Liv. iii. 65), though these, according
to Mommsen (Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. p. 265), were
only coopted members of the Collegium.
We are told by Dionysius (ix. 43,44) that
when Publicius failed in the first attempt to
carry his measure, he added a fresh provision,
enabling the Comitia Tributa to discuss and
resolve on matters of public importance (cf.
Zonaras, vii. 17): this was carried along with
his earlier proposal, and was of considerable
constitutional significance: for it thus became
easy for the tribunes to unite the plebeians on
any matter on which they had to vote in the
Comitia Centuriata, and also to consult them as
to the submission of proposals for legislation to
the senate: these, if approved, could then be
referred in the ordinary way to the centuries,
LEX PUBLILLA
LEX REGIA 51
and thereby become genuine enactments of the
sovereign populus (Val. Max. ii. 2, 7; Dionys.
x. 30, 48, 52). For the further history, see
PUBLILIAE and PLEBISCITUM.
PUBLI'LLA DE SPONSU gave the kind of
surety called a sponsor an actio depens; to re-
cover twice the sum which he had paid for his
principal unless reimbursed within six months,
and enabled him after obtaining judgment to
proceed at once by manus injectio pro judicato
(Gaius, iii. 127, iv. 22). [INTERCESSIO.]
PUBLI'LIAE LEGES, carried B.C. 339 by
the Dictator Q. Publilius Philo: their substance
is thus described by Livy (viii. 12): “Tres leges
secundissimas plebei, adversas nobilitati tulit:
unam ut plebiscita omnes Quirites tenerent:
alteram, ut legum quae comitiis centuriatis
ferrentur, ante initum suffragium Patres auc-
tores fierent : tertiam, ut alter utique ex plebe,
quum eo ventum sit ut utrumque plebeium
consulem fieri liceret, censor crearetur.” The
first of these seems to stand in connexion with
one of the leges Valeriae Horatiae, B.C. 449,
which enacted “ut quod tributim plebs
jussisset populum teneret” (Liv. iii. 55): i.e. it
restored the Comitia Tributa after the second
secession of the plebs, and perhaps also provided
that plebiscita which had no constitutional
import, or which related purely to matters of
private law, should have the force of statute,
even without subsequent confirmation or enact-
ment by the centuries. In B.C. 339, the patri-
cians having now brought themselves to take
regular part in the business of the Comitia
Tributa, confirmation by the centuries must
have seemed a superfluity in any case; and
accordingly the first Lex Publilia seems to have
dispensed with it for all plebiscita whatsoever.
They still, however, required to be sanctioned
by the senate before they acquired complete
validity; but the necessity of this seems to
have been abolished by the Lex Hortensia,
B.C. 287, which enacted “ut eo jure, quod plebs
statuisset, omnes Quirites tenerentur” (Gaius, i.
3; Dig. 1, 2, 2, 8; Laelius Felix in Gell. xv. 27;
Plin. H. W. xvi. § 37). There is, however, great
difference of opinion as to the real import of,
and the relation between, these three leges,
which, if literally taken, seem all to have
enacted the same thing. Walter (Geschichte des
röm. Rechts, $65) thinks that the last two dis-
pensed with the senatorial confirmation of
plebiscita which were not proposed “ex senatus
auctoritate; ” Niebuhr (ii. 415 ; iii. 170, 171,
491), that the Lex Publilia did away with the
necessity of confirmation by the Comitia Curiata,
and that the senatorial approval was dispensed
with by the Lex Hortensia : while Mommsen
(Röm. Geschichte, ii. 3) and Lange (i. 469–473)
take the accounts given to us literally, and hold
the last two laws to be merely re-enactments of
the Lex Valeria Horatia, which got rid of con-
firmation by the senate and the Comitia Curiata
as well. The view adopted above is that of
Puchta (Institutionen, § 59).
As to the meaning of the second Lex Publilia,
there is also some difference of opinion, occa-
sioned by our uncertainty as to the signification
of “Patres’ in the text of Livy cited above.
According to one view, it simply re-affirmed the
constitutional doctrine that no measure should
be submitted for enactment to the Comitia
Centuriata without having been previously
approved by the senate: such re-affirmation
seeming desirable in consequence of the recent
changes in respect of plebiscita, which were
sanctioned by the senate after, and not before,
being passed by the Comitia Tributa. But
Livy’s remark that all the leges Publiliae were
“adversae nobilitati” makes the view of Niebuhr
more probable, that by “Patres” is meant the
Comitia Curiata; the assent of which was by
this statute reduced to a mere formality by the
requirement that it should be given before the
centuries had considered whether they should
pass any given measure or not.
The third Publilian law requires no explana-
tion. We read of a plebeian being censor as
early as B.C. 351 (Liv. vii. 22; x. 8, 8): but
this statute required that one of the censors
should always be selected from the plebs.
PU'PIA (Cic. ad Q. Fratr. ii. 13; ad Fam. i.4)
enacted that the senate should not sit on dies
Comitiales. Previously it could deliberate on
any day whatsoever (see Cic. ad Fam. xii. 55;
ad Q. Fratr. ii. 1, &c.; ad Att. iv. 2; Liv. xxxix.
39). Its date was perhaps B.C. 224.
QUI'NTIA, a lex proposed by T. Quintius
Crispinus (consul B.C. 9) for the preservation of
the Aquaeductus. It is preserved by Frontinus
(de Aquaeduct. Roman.).
RE'GIA, properly LEx DE IMPERIO PRINCIPIs.
The nature of the imperium, and the mode in
which it was conferred, are explained under
IMPERIUM. Augustus united in his own person
most of the republican powers and magistracies,
though they were bestowed upon him by the
populus separately and at different times. After
holding the consulship for nine years in suc-
cession, he received the proconsulare imperium
and the potestas consularis and tribunicia for
life: the powers of the censorship were granted
him at first for five years, but were periodically
renewed without interruption: he was also
Pontifex Maximus and Princeps Senatus, whence,
according to some, he took the title “Princeps”
by which the earlier emperors were known, and
which personally he preferred to the style of
“lmperator,” which, though it belonged to him, he
never asserted within the city of Rome. [PRIN-
CEPs.] The practice of investing the emperor with
these various powers or authorities by distinct
leges was followed for a considerable time. The
preservation of the Lex de imperio Vespasiani
(which seems to have been only a senatus-
consultum representing the old Lex Curiata de
imperio) has led to the belief that in the time of
that emperor all the powers enjoyed by Augustus
were conferred on the sovereign by a single
statute. The fragment which is extant (Hau-
bold, Spangenberg, Monum. Legal. p. 221) em-
powers Vespasian to make treaties, originate
senatusconsulta, propose persons to the people
and the senate for election to magistracies,
extend the pomoerium, and make edicts with the
force of law: it releases him from the same laws
from which Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius
had been released; and provides that all that he
had done before its enactment should have the
same effect as if it had been done by the people.
But, sweeping as the form seems to be, it is
clear that the senate continued even after
Wespasian “to dispense the various prerogatives
of sovereignty, one by, one, with alsº hesita-
E.
52 LEGES REGIAE
LEGES SACRATAE
tion.” It was not really till the time of Alex-
ander Severus that the whole of the imperial
powers (including the proconsulare imperium,
the principatus senatus, and the tribunicia
potestas) were conferred on the emperor uno ictu,
and Severus himself remarks upon this as a
novelty (“quae omnia novo exemplo uno die in
me contulistis,” Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 1) : but
from his time the practice became usual, the
formal imperium however being bestowed first
by a separate resolution of the senate (cf.
Capitol. Maa.. et Balb. 8; Vopisc. Prob. 2).
For the meaning of legibus solutus as applied to
the emperor, see Mommsen, Röm. Staatsrecht,
ii. p. 728, and Merivale, Hist, of the Romans
wnder the Empire, iii. p. 466 sq.
The Lex de Imperio is in the Corpus Juris of
Justinian sometimes called “Lex Regia,” an
expression which occurs in Dig. 1, 4, 1, pr.
(Ulpian), transcribed in Inst. i. 2, 6, and in
Cod. 1, 17, 1, 7. The title of Dominus was
applied to the emperor as early as Trajan, but
the phrase “lex regia” does not appear to occur
before the third century, when to avoid the
comparison between “rex" and “imperator’”
would have been mere affectation. For the whole
subject, see Dio Cass. liii. 16–19.; Tac. Hist. i.
47, iv. 3, 6; and Merivale, Hist, chap. 31.
RE'GIAE (LEX, p. 32 a supr.; and JUSCIVILE
PAPIRIANUM).
RE'MMIA (Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 19, 55).
[CALUMNIA.]
RHO'DIA, a term used to denote those por-
tions of the Rhodian maritime code (referred to
by Strabo, xiv. p. 652; and Cic. pro lege Manilia,
18, 54) which were adopted into the Roman
law, and on which information may be obtained
from Dig. 14, 2, and Schryver, Sur la loi Rhodia
de jactu, Brussels, 1884. Its main principle
was that, where property was thrown overboard
to lighten and so assist in Saving a ship, the
loss should be portioned out among all in whose
interest the sacrifice was made.
RO'SCIA THEATRA'LIS, carried by the
tribune L. Roscius Otho, B.C. 67: it assigned to
the Equites the fourteen rows of seats in the
theatre next to those of the senators, who sat
in the orchestra, to which apparently (Well.
Pat. ii. 32, 3) they had a kind of prescriptive
right (Liv. Epit. 99; Dio Cass. xxxvi. 25; Cic.
pro Murena, 19, 40; ad Att. ii. 19; Juv. xiv. 324;
Hor. Epod. iv. 16). This provision was re-
enacted by the Lex Julia theatralis. The
statute also seems to have assigned seats in the
theatre to persons who had lost their property,
whether by their own fault or by misfortune
(decoctores), Cic. Phil. ii. 18, 44. The law caused
some popular disturbances when Cicero was
consul, which he allayed by a speech (ad Att. ii.
1; Plut. Cic. 13).
RU’BRIA or GA'LLIAE CISALPI’NAE.
When Cisalpine Gaul ceased to be a province
and became part of Italy, it was necessary to
provide for the administration of justice, as the
usual forms of provincial administration would
cease with the determination of the provincial
mode of government. This was done (B.C. 49,
Mommsen and Rudorff; B.C. 42, Savigny and
Puchta) by a plebiscitum proposed by an other-
wise unknown tribune, named Rubrius, of which
a portion was discovered in 1760 on a tablet in
the ruins of Veleia, which is preserved in the
Museum at Parma. The whole lex probably
covered five Tables, and was divided into chap-
ters, of which we have caps. 20–22 complete,
and parts of the 19th and 23rd: it apparently
followed the order of the praetorian edict, and
regulated the judicial competence and procedure
of the Cisalpine municipia. Its policy seems
to have been restrictive: e.g. it is provided that
the municipal magistrates shall have juris-
diction to try by judices (in the ordinary
Roman fashion) all suits in which the sum in-
volved does not exceed 15,000 sesterces, and
some even irrespective of their amount: as for
actions to which their jurisdiction does not
extend, they may conduct the preliminary in-
quiry, but must remit them for trial to the
praetor at Rome. The 19th chapter relates to
“operis novi nuntiatio; ” the 20th, to “dam-
num infectum; ” the 21st and 22nd, to the
jurisdiction, especially restricting the right of
imprisoning for money debts; and the 23rd, to
the “judicium familiae erciscundae.”
The text of the lex is lithographed in Ritschl's
Inscriptions, vol. i. Tab. xxxii., and may also be
found in Mommsen's Inscriptions, vol. i. No.
205, as well as in the earlier editions of Carli,
Pietro di Lama, and Haubold (Spangenberg).
The subject is expressly handled by Savigny
(Zeitschrift, ix.) and Puchta, Kleine civil. Schrif-
ten, 1851; cf. Huschke, Ueber die Klagformeln
in der Lea, Rubria ; Gaius, pp. 203–242; Hugo,
Civil. Magazin, vol. ii. pp. 431–496; and
Dirksen, Obs. ad selecta legis Gall. Cisalp. capita,
Berlin, 1812.
RUPI'LIAE. These are not leges proper,
but regulations for the organisation of Sicily,
comprised in a decretum issued by P. Rupilius,
its proconsul (B.C. 131), in accordance with
instructions given him by the ten legati
sent by the senate, as was usual (Liv. xlv. 17;
Appian, Iber. 99, Pun. 135; Sall. Jugurtha,
16) when the organisation of a province was
being settled (Cic. in Verr. ii. 13, 16, 40;
Pseudo-Ascon. p. 212: cf. Val. Max. vi. 9, 8).
There is frequent mention in Cicero's second
speech against Verres of the regulations (leges)
of Rupilius in respect of the Sicilian judicial
procedure, e.g. one by which he there established
the supposed principle of the Lex Pinaria, re-
quiring an interval of thirty days between the
proceedings in jure and the appointment of a
judex (cap. 15). Other leges of the same
person, relating to the co-optation of the senate
of Heraclia, where he had established a colony,
are mentioned in Verr. ii. 50, 125; and as to
“res frumentaria,” in Verr. iii. 40, 91. (See
Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, i. p. 341.)
RUTI'LIA related to the appointment of the
tribuni militum (Festus, s. v. Rufuli ; Liv. viii.
5; Ascon. in Verr. i. 10, p. 112, Orelli).
SACRA'TAE (mentioned or referred to by
Liv. ii. 33, iii. 55, vii. 41, &c.; and Cic. pro
Sest. 7, 16, 30, &c.; de Off. iii. 31, 111; de Leg.
ii. 7, 18, &c.). The term seems properly to have
been used of laws to which a religious sanction
was attached, so that the person who was con-
victed of violating them became Sacer: “Sa-
cratae leges sunt, quibus sanctum est, qui quid
adversus eas fecerit, sacer alicui deorum sit
cum familia pecuniaque’’ (Festus). As to the
nature of the sanction, something more may be
gathered from Festus, s. v. Sacer mons : “At
LEX SAENIA
LEX SEMPRONIA 53
homo sacer is est, quem populus judicavit ob
maleficium, neque fas est eum immolari: sed
qui occidit parricidii non damnatur, nam lege
tribunicia prima cavetur: Si quis eum qui eo
plebei scito sacer sit occiderit parricida ne sit.”
Among such leges sacratae were the Lex Valeria
de provocatione, the statute affirming the invio-
lability of tribuni plebis (Liv. ii. 8, 33, iii. 55;
Cic. de Leg. iii. 4, 11), the Lex Icilia de Aven-
tino (Liv. iii. 32) and the Lex militaris referred
to by Liv. vii. 41. See Ernesti's note cited by
Orelli, Cicero, viii. p. 257; Ihering, Geist des
röm. Rechts, pp. 273–276.
SAE’NIA DE PATRICIORUM NUMERO AU-
GENDO, enacted in the fifth consulship of Au-
gustus (Tac. Ann. xi. 25; Mon. Ancyr. Pilae
prioris, tab. 2. See CASSIA).
SALPENSA'NA, a lex of the Emperor Do-
mitian, A.D. 81–84, regulating the constitution of
the Latin colony of Salpensa in Baetica.
SATURA. [LEX, p. 33 b supr.]
SCATI'NIAE, another reading for Atiniae
in Cic. Phil. iii. 6, 16.
SCANTI’NIA, a lex of unknown date, en-
acted for the suppression of unnatural crime
(Auson. Epigr. 89; Juv. ii. 44; Cic. ad Fam.
viii. 12, 14; Suet. Domit. 8), which was treated
by the Lex Julia de adulteriis merely as stu-
prum (Dig. 48, 5, 34, 1; Collatio, v. 2; Paul.
Sent. rec. ii. 26, 13), and punished by partial
confiscation of property, flogging, and relegatio
(Inst. iv. 18, 4). For these death was substi-
tuted by imperial constitutions (Coll. v. 3; Cod.
9, 9, 31).
SCRIBO'NIA, of unknown date, enacted
that praedial urban servitudes should not, be
acquirable by usucapio (Dig. 41, 3, 4, 29):
rustic servitudes could never be so acquired
(apart from the praedia to which they were
annexed), owing to the impossibility of applying
to them the notion of possession (Dig. 8, 1, 14,
pr.). The statute, however, did not prohibit
the extinction of a servitude by lapse of time,
which the Romans call “usucapio libertatis”
(Dig. 41, 3, 4, 29). But the prescriptive acqui-
sition of servitudes was re-introduced through
the praetorian doctrine of longi temporis pos-
sessio. [SERVITUTES; USUCAPIO.] See Unter-
holtzner, Verjahrungslehre, ii. §§ 195—197.
SCRIBO'NIA ALIMENTA'RIA (Cael. ad
Fam. viii. 6, 5).
SCRIBO'NIA WIA'RIA, carried by the
tribune C. Scribonius Curio, B.C. 51. Its motive
and purport are explained by Appian, Bell.
Civ. ii. 26 sq.; cf. Orelli’s Cicero, viii. pp. 259,
260.
SEMPRO'NLA AGRA'RIA, carried by Ti-
berius Gracchus when tribune, B.C. 133. In
settling its provisions he was aided by the
advice of Crassus, then Pontifex Maximus,
Mucius Scaevola, then Consul and later Ponti-
fex Maximus himself, and Appius Claudius
(Plut. Tib. Gracchus, 9); their main objects
being to relieve the poverty of the humbler
Roman citizens, and to establish a population of
free and independent yeomen over the vast
tracts of public land, the enjoyment of which
the patricians had practically appropriated, not-
withstanding the Lex Licinia, and which were
at that date but sparsely peopled by shepherds,
herdsmen, and a few slave cultivators. Its
main enactment was that no person should hold
more than 500 jugera of ager publicus (Liv.
Epit. 58; Aurel. Victor de Vir. ill. 64), with an
additional 250 jugera for each of two sons: but
in no case was the holding to exceed 1000
jugera. From the estates recovered from the
present tenants, as being in excess of the maxi-
mum fixed by the statute, holdings were to be
provided for the poorer and landless citizens,
which they were to have no power of alienating
or even letting (Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 9, 10); the
taxes assessed on the land were to be paid by
the tenant. The execution of the statute was
entrusted to a commission of three, which was
to be elected every year (Appian, loc. cit.), the
first three commissioners being Tiberius himself,
his brother C. Gracchus, and Appius Claudius;
but it was attended with great difficulties. The
ager publicus had been held by private persons
for generations as private property, had often
changed hands by sale or assignment, and had
been improved and built upon. Proposals were
originally made for the payment of compen-
sation for buildings and unexhausted improve-
ments (Plut. loc. cit.; Appian, Bell. Civ.
i. 11); but these, it would appear, were with-
drawn.
The execution of the measure was stopped by
a senatusconsultum which extinguished the
powers of the commissioners to whom it had
been entrusted; but it was revived by the Lex
Sempronia of C. Gracchus, B.C. 123. The senate,
however, practically rendered it a dead letter by
employing Livius Drusus, another of the tri-
bunes, to bring forward agrarian proposals even
more popular with the proletariate than that of
Gracchus; especially one permitting alienation
of the holdings, whereby the tenants got money
instead of land, and the rich were enabled to
buy back the estates of which they had been
temporarily deprived. (Plut. C. Gracchus;
Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 21 ff.: for the whole sub-
ject, see Merivale's Fall of the Roman Republic,
chap. i.) -
SEMPRO'NIA DE CAPITE CIVIUM, carried
by Caius Gracchus, B.C. 123: it re-affirmed the
old legal principle that no judgment should be
pronounced involving the life or freedom of a
citizen without the assent of the Roman people
(Cic. pro Rabirio, 4, 8; in Cat. 4, 5; in Verr. v.
63, 163; Gell. x. 3). See Ahren's Excursus on
the statute, cited by Orelli, Cicero, vol. viii.
pp. 264, 265.
SEMPRO'NIA DE PECUNIA CREDITA or DE
FENORE, passed by the tribune M. Sempronius
Tuditanus, B.C. 193. It was occasioned by the
fact of citizens lending money in the names of
non-cives in order to evade the laws against
usury, to which it subjected the Socii and
Latini (Liv. xxxv. 7).
SEMPRO'NIA DE PROVINCIA ASIA provided
that the taxes of the Roman province of Asia
should be let out to farm by the censors (Cic. in
Werr. iii. 6, 12: cf. ad Att. i. 17, 9): probably a
different lex from that which next follows.
[DECUMAE.
SEMPRO'NIADE PROVINCIIS CONSULARIBUS,
passed by C. Gracchus, B.C. 123: it enacted that
before the election of consuls the senate should
in each year determine the two provinces which
they were to have at the termination of their
year of office; which of the two each was to
take, was to be settled by them afterwards by
54 LEX SEMPRONIA.
LEX THORIA
lot or otherwise (Sall. Jugurtha, 27;-Cic. pro
Domo, 9, 24; pro Balbo, 27, 61; ad Fam. i.
7, 10; de Prov. Cons. 2, 3).
SEMPRO'NIA DE SUFFRAGIIS, passed by C.
Gracchus: it enacted that the order in which
the centuries should vote should be determined
by lot (Sall. de Republ. ordin. ii. 8; Mommsen,
Röm. Geschichte, iv. 3). *-
SEMPRO'NIA FRUMENTARIA of C. Gracchus
(Cic. Tusc. iii. 20, 48; pro Sestio, 48, 103; de
Off. ii. 21, 72; Brut. 62, 222). [FRUMEN-
TARIAE LEGES.
SEMPRO'NIA JUDICIARIA, carried by C.
Gracchus, B.C. 122: it took the judicia publica
from the senate and transferred them to the
Equites (Appian, Bell. Civ. i. 22; Well. Pat. ii.
6, 32; Cic. in Verr. i. 13, 40; Tac. Ann. xii.
60; Florus, iii. 13, 17).
SEMPRO'NIA MILITARIs, for providing sol-
diers with an outfit at the cost of the state
(Plut. C. Gracchus, 5).
SEMPRO'NIA NE QUIS JUDICIO CIRCUM-
VENIRETUR (Cic. pro Cluentio, 55, 151). It
seems in reality to have been somewhat of the
same nature as the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et
veneficis.
SERVI"LIA AGRA'RIA, brought forward
by the tribune P. Servilius Rullus, B.C. 63: it
proposed to divide the ager campanus and campus
stellatis among the poorer citizens (Cic. in Rull.
2, 28), to compensate all who had been robbed
of their property by Sulla by the sale of all the
ager publicus in Italy and the provinces (Cic. ib.
2, 15, 38), and to purchase lands in Italy for
the poor otherwise unprovided for from the
wealth which had poured into the treasury from
the recent conquests of Pompeius. It was
successfully opposed by Cicero as consul, but
was in substance carried by Julius Caesar, B.C.
59 (Cic. in Pison. 2, 4; ad Fam. 8, 6, 5: see
JULIA AGRARIA).
SERVI'LIA GLAU’CIA DE REPETUNDIs,
B.C. 104 (Cic. pro Scauro, 1, 2; pro Rab. Post.
4, 9; in Verr. i. 9, 26; pro Balbo, 24, 54: see
the next note). [DELATIO NOMINIS; REPE-
TUNDAE.
SERVI'LIA JUDICLA'RIA, B.C. 106: by
this the consul Q. Servilius Caepio restored to
the senators the monopoly of the judicia publica
of which they had been deprived by the Lex
Sempronia judiciaria (Tac. Ann. xii. 60; Cic.
Brut. 43,44, 86; de Invent. i. 49; de Orat. ii. 55,
223; pro Cluent. 55, 151), but it seems to have
been almost at once repealed by the Lex de repe-
tundis of Servilius Glaucia: see Klenze's work,
Fragmenta legis Serviliae, &c., Berlin, 1825, and
the extracts from it in Orelli's Cicero, vol. viii.
p. 268.
SES"TIA DE REvoCANDo CICERONE, B.C. 67
(Cic. ad Att. iii. 20, 3; ib. 23,4).
SI'LIA, circ. 244 B.C., introduced the legis
actio called condictio, for the recovery of
“certa pecunia” (Gaius, iv. 19). [PER CON-
DICTIONEM.] i.
SI'LLA, a plebiscitum proposed by P. and M.
Silius, tribuni plebis, in respect of publica
pondera (Festps, s. v. Publica Pondera).
&ILWA'NI ET CARBO'NIS. [PAPIRIA
PLAUTIA.
SULPI'CIAE, proposed by the tribune P.
Sulpicius Galba, a supporter of Marius, B.C. 88,
and enacting the recall of the exiles (Auct. ad
Herenn. ii. 28, 45), and the distribution of the
new citizens and the libertini among all the
thirty-five tribes (Ascon. in Corn. p. 64, Orelli):
conferring the command in the Mithridatic war
on Marius in lieu of Sulla (Well. Pat. ii. 18, 6),
and prohibiting senators from incurring debts
beyond 2,000 drachmae, or 20,000 asses (Plut.
Sulla, 8). Appian (Bell. Civ. i. 59) says that all
these laws were repealed (ás oil, évvopa) by
Sulla and Pompeius. (Cf. Liv. Epit. 77; Cic.
Phil. viii. 2, 7.)
SULPI'CIA SEMPRO'NIA, B.C. 304;
clearly the same as the LEx PAPIRIA DE CONSE-
CRATIONE AEDIUM, and improperly named after
the consuls of the year by some writers; its true
title is clear from Cic. pro Domo, 49 and 50,
128. (Cf. Gaius, ii. 5–7.)
SUMPTUA'RIAE. [SUMPTUARIAE LEGES.]
TABELLA'RIAE. [TABELLARIAE LEGES.]
TARPE'IA ATE'RNIA. [ATERNIA TAR-
PEIA.
*ENTrus, the proposals of the tribune
C. Terentilius Arsa (B.C. 462), which eventually
led to the enactment of the Twelve Tables (Liv.
iii. 9, 10, 31; Dionys. x. 1 sq.) [DUODECIM
TABULARUM.]
TESTAMENTA'RIAE. [CoRNELIA; FAL-
CIDIA; FUFIA CANINIA ; FURIA; VoconIA.]
THO'RIA. This agrarian law, proposed by
a tribune named Sp. Thorius, is mentioned by
Cicero (Brut. 36, 136; de Orat. ii. 70, 284) and
Appian (Bell. Civ. i. 27), and was one of three
statutes by which such provisions of the Lex
Agraria of C. Gracchus as had not been repealed
by M. Livius Drusus were abrogated (Appian, loc.
cit.). The first, whose author is unknown, was
passed B.C. 121, and apparently confirmed the
enactment attributed above [SEMPRONIA AGRA-
RIA] to Drusus, which permitted the sale of lands
assigned to the poorer citizens under the law of
Gracchus : the second (Lex Thoria), B.C. 119 or
118, prohibited all future distributions of ager
publicus, abolished the “triumviri agris dandis
assignandis’ established by Tiberius Gracchus,
and confirmed the old possessores in their hold-
ings subject to the payment of a tax (vectigal),
which was to be divided among the needier
citizens in lieu of land: the third (B.C. 111),
possibly proposed by the tribune C. Baebius
(Sall. Jug. 32, 33), relieved the possessores of this
tax altogether.
The relation of these leges to one another is
connected with the fragments of an extant
bronze tablet, containing inscriptions on both
sides: on one, parts of the Lex Servilia de
repetundis (the chief authority on which is
Klenze’s work); on the other, parts of a Lex
Agraria. The largest and most important of
the fragments is now in the Museo Borbonico at
Naples. The Lex Agraria was cut on the rough
back of the tablet, the smooth side of which was
intended for and occupied by the Lex Servilia;
and the agrarian law being considerably longer
than the latter, “the characters [on the reverse
side] are remarkably small, the lines narrow, the
abbreviations numerous, and the chapters only
separated by two or three points, whereas on the
other side the letters are uniform, large, and
well made, the lines wide, the words written at
full length, and the chapters of the lex separated
by superscriptions . . . Further, the lines of
the Agraria Lex are often so oblique that they
LEX TITIA
LEGES WALERIAE HORATIAE 55
cross the straight lines on the opposite side,
which are cut very deep, and consequently are
visible on the side on which the agrarian law is
cut" (Rudorff).
The main subject of the lex, to which the first
eighteen chapters or forty-three lines refer, is the
public land in Italy as far as the rivers Rubico
and Macra. Its second part, covering fifty-three
lines, relates to land both public and private in
the province of Africa: the final portion to the
Roman public land in the territory of Corinth.
Rudorff (Zeitschrift für rechtsgesch. Wissen-
schaft, vol. x. pp. 1–194) is of opinion that the
lex applied to other land also, and for two
reasons. First, the Roman agrarian laws of the
seventh century of the city (e.g. the Lex Servilia
of Rullus) apparently related to all the provinces
of the Empire. Secondly, the fragment of this
lex, which is preserved, is so broad compared
with its height that the whole tablet may be
concluded to have contained three times as much
as the portion which we have : for nearly all the
bronze tablets, on which Roman laws are cut,
are oblong in form, with the height much
greater than the width. Of the two-thirds of
the tablet which he supposes to have been lost,
no trace has yet been discovered.
Rudorff, in his essay on this lex (written in
1839), identified it with the Lex Thoria, by
which name it was known for some considerable
time. But more recently (Röm. Rechtsge-
schichte, i. § 16: cf. his note in Puchta's Institu-
tionen, § 72, l) he has accepted the conclusion
of Mommsen (Berichte der Sächs. Gesellschaft,
1850, p. 92) that it really is the third of the
leges above mentioned, which possibly was a Lex
Baebia. It is certainly said by Cicero (Brut. 36,
136) that Sp. Thorius “agrum publicum vitiosa
et inutili lege vectigali levavit; ” but this
Mommsen renders “relieved the ager publicus of
the useless agrarian law of Gracchus by imposing
on it a vectigal.” The 19th and 20th lines of the
lex on the tablet (which decree the repeal of the
vectigalia) seem to be conclusive in favour of
this and against Rudorff's earlier theory.
The extant text of this statute is printed by
Mommsen, Inscr. Lat. No. 200, and by Rudorff
in the essay referred to: cf. Huschke, Kritisches
Jahrbuch, 1841, pp. 579–620; Zumpt, Comment.
Epigraph. 1850, pp. 205–221; and Walter,
Geschichte des röm. Rechts, $252, and note 69 ib.
TI'TIA. Similar in its provisions to the Lex
Publicia (Dig. 11, 5, 2, 3).
TITIA AGRA'RIA (Val. Max. viii. 1; Cic.
de Leg. ii. 12, 31; Julius, Obs. c. 45).
TI'TIA DE TUTORIBUs [Julia ET TITIA].
Another Lex Titia is referred to in Cic. pro Mur.
8, 18.
TREBO'NIA, carried by the tribune L.
Trebonius (B.C. 448), and enacting that if the
Comitia were unable to elect ten tribuni plebis
on the proper day, those actually selected should
not fill up the vacancies by cooptation, but the
Comitia be continued until the full number was
complete (Liv. iii. 64, 65; v. 10).
TREBO'NIA DE PROVINCIIs consula RIBUs,
B.C. 55 (Liv. Epit. 105; Dio Cass. xxxix. 33;
Plut. Cato min. 43). -
TRIBUNI'CIA. Plebiscita are commonly
described as “leges tribuniciae :” but the term
is also applied by Cicero (in Verr. i. 16,42) to the
lex by which Pompeius restored to the tribunes
the powers of which they had been shorn by
Sulla.
TU'LLIA DE AMBITU, carried by Cicero B.C.
63 (pro Mur. 3, 23, 32, &c.; pro Sest. 64, 163;
in Vatin. 15, 37; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 29). [AM-
BITUS.]
TU'LLIA DE LIBERIs LEGATIONIBUS, also
carried by Cicero (de Leg. iii. 8, 18). See
LEGATUS.
UNCLA'RIA (Festus, p. 375). [CORNELIA
UNCLARIA ; cf. VALERIA DE AERE ALIENO.]
WALE’RIA DE AERE ALIENO, carried B.C. 86
by L. Valerius Flaccus, reducing all debts by
three-fourths (Well. Pat. iii. 23; Sall. Cat. 33;
Cic. pro Fonteio, 1, 1).
WALE’RIA DE CIVITATE CALLIPHANAE
WELIENSIS, B.C. 98, a privilegium by which a
priestess of Ceres was made a civis Romana
(Cic. pro Balbo, 24, 55).
WALE’RIA DE CIVITATE FORMIANORUM, &c.,
B.C. 88 (Liv. xxxviii. 36).
VALE’RIA DEMANUSINJECTIONE.[VALLIA.]
VALE’RIA DE SULLA DICTATORE, carried by
L. Valerius Flaccus, B.C. 82, giving the force of
law to all Sulla’s acts (Cic. de Lege agr. iii. 2,7;
de Leg. i. 15, 42; pro Rosc. Am. 43, 126; Plut.
Sulla, 33).
VALE’RIAE, proposed and carried B.C. 508
by the consul P. Valerius, with the object of
relieving himself from the suspicion of aiming
at the kingly power and increasing his own
popularity: means by which he acquired the
name of Publicola or Poplicola, by which he is
generally known. The first and best known of
his laws is that which reduced the powers of
the magistrate (de Provocatione—de Multa) by
enacting that every citizen, whether patrician
or plebeian, should have an appeal (provocatio)
to the Comitia (curiata, Walter, Geschichte des
röm. Rechts, $40; Schwegler, xxi. 17, xxv. 12;
centuriata, Mommsen, Röm. Geschichte, ii. 1,
and Huschke, Rein, Becker-Marquardt, &c.) from
any magisterial sentence by which he was con-
demned to death or flogging (Cic. de Rep. ii. 31,
54; Val. Max. iv. 1; Liv. ii. 30), or to payment
of any fine larger than two sheep and five oxen
(Plut. Popl. 11). Cicero (de Rep. ii. 31, 54) says
that this was the first lex passed at the Comitia
Centuriata. The right of appeal only applied
to Rome and its precincts within a mile of the
city, for the imperium of the consuls beyond
this boundary was unlimited (“neque enim pro-
vocationem esse longius ab urbe mille passuum,”
Liv. iii. 20). The second Lex Valeria of Publi-
cola declared accursed anyone who formed
designs to grasp the kingly power, and made
both him and his property sacer [SACRATAE
LEGES]: Dionys. v. 19, 70; Plut. Popl. 12.
WALE’RIAE HORATIAE, carried B.C.449
by the consuls L. Valerius Potitus and M. Hora-
tius Barbatus. The probable import of one of
these, relating to the binding force of plebiscita,
has been stated above [PUBLILIAE LEGES]. A
second was intended to secure the principle of
the Lex Valeria de provocatione, enacting “ne
quis ullum magistratum sine provocatione
crearet: qui creasset eum jus fasque esset occidi,
neve ea caedes capitalis noxae haberetur” (Liy.
iii. 55; cf. Cic. de Rep. ii. 31, 54). This principle
was re-asserted again almost at once by the Lex
Duilia (Liv. loc. cit.), and many years afterwards
by a third Lex Valeria, passed by M. Valerius,
56 LEX VALLIA
LIBELLUS
consul B.C. 300, which Livy (x. 9) says was
armed with more precise sanctions “quod plus
paucorum opes quam libertas plebis poterant.”
A third Lex Waleria Horatia made “sacro-
sancti" the persons of the plebeian tribunes and
aediles and the “judices decemviri’ (Liv. iii.
55): anyone who violated the enactment being
made “sacer” to Jupiter, and his property con-
fiscated to the temple of Ceres and Liber. The
“judices decemviri” seem not to be two sepa-
rate classes of judges, but the collegium of
decemvirs.
WA'LLIA, according to Studenund's recen-
sien, the name of the statute mentioned by Gaius
(iv. 25), which limited the operation of Manus
injectio for execution purposes to judgment
debts (judicatum) and debts established by actio
depensi. [PUBLILIA DE SPONSU.]
WA'RIA (Val. Max. viii. 6, 4; Appian, Bell.
Civ. i. 37; Cic. Tusc. ii. 24, 57; pro Scauro, 1,
3; Brut. 56, 89). [MAJESTAs.]
VATI’NIA DE COLONIS, under which the Latin
colony of Novum Comum in Cisalpine Gaul
was founded B.C. 59 (Suet. Jul. 28).
VATI’NIA DE IMPERIO C. CAESARIs, carried
B.C. 59 by the tribune P. Vatinius: it conferred
on Julius Caesar the province of Cisalpine Gaul,
with Illyricum, for five years: Gallia Trans-
alpina was subsequently added by a senatus-
consultum (Sueton. Jul. 22; Dio Cass. xxxviii.
8; Appian, Bell. Civ. ii. 13; Well. Pat. ii. 44;
Cic. in Vatin. 15, 36: cf. TREBONIA).
VATI’NIA DE REJECTIONE JUDICUM, carried
by the same P. Watinius: it enabled both accuser
and accused in a trial for Repetundae to once
reject the whole consilium of judges drawn by
the praetor: previously they had been able only
to challenge individual members of the panel
(Cic, in Vatin. 11, 27; Schol. Bob. pp. 321, 323,
Orelli).
VATI'NIA DE L. VETTII INDICIO (Cic. in
Watin. 11, 26; Dio Cass, xxxviii. 9; Appian, Bell.
Civ. ii. 12; Schol. Bob. in Vatin. p. 320, Orelli).
VECTIBULICI, a law supposed to have
been passed by the Comitia in the time of Trajan,
and so later than the Lex Agraria of Nerva,
generally held to have been the last enacted in
this manner. The reading in Cod. 7, 9, 2, on
which the assumption rests, is probably corrupt:
see Puchta, Institutionen, § 106, note b.
VERRIA FRUMENTA'RIA (Cic. in Verr.
iii. 49, 117).
VIA'RIA, a name sometimes given to the lex
of Scribonius Curio, de viis muniendis [SCRI-
BONIA], because described under it by Cicero, ad
JFam. viii. 6.
VICESIMA'RIA (Gaius, iii. 125, 126; Dig.
2, 15, 13; 11, 7, 37; 28, 1, 7, &c.). [Julia
WICESIMARIA.
VI'LLIA ANNA'LIS, B.C. 180. [ANNALES
LEGES.
VISE'LLIA, A.D. 23, rendered libertini liable
to, a criminal prosecution who fraudulently
attempt to exercise the rights of ingenui (Cod.
9, 21; 10, 32, 1): it also enabled Latini Juniani
to acquire the civitas by service in the Roman
guards (vigiles) for six years, which was subse-
quently reduced to three by a senatusconsultum
(Ulpian, Reg. iii. 5). [J. B. M.]
LEX WOCONIA. [Voconi A LEx.]
LEXIARCHI (Amitapxol). [ECCLESIA.]
LEXIARCHICON (Amitapzików). [DEMUs.]
LEXIS (Afifts). [DIKé.]
LIBELLA. 1. The diminutive form of
libra, a Roman pound, and naturally applied not
to the heavy pound of copper, but its equivalent
in silver. Varro writes as follows (L. L. v.
174) of the libella: “Nummi denarii decuma
libella, quod libram pondo as valebat, et erat
ex argento parva.” This phrase has been much
discussed, and has misled many metrologists,
but the latest researches (Hultsch, Metrologie,
ed. 2, p. 275) seem to show that Varro's words
contain two errors and one truth. He is wrong
in supposing that the denarius was ever equal
in value to ten heavy or libral asses; in fact it
was equivalent to four (As, p. 205): and he is
wrong in supposing that the libella was ever
issued as an actual coin; it was in fact a mere
money of account, like the guinea among our-
selves. But he is probably right in his asser-
tion that originally the libella was the tenth of
a denarius, and so equal to seven grains of
silver, or one as of the triental reduction [AS,
Vol. I., p. 205]. Later it was reckoned as the tenth
of the sestertius, and so as equivalent only to
1°75 grains of silver. The half of the libella
was the sembella (Varro, v. 174), and its
quarter the teruncius. The relation (one-tenth)
of the libella to the sestertius or denarius gave
rise to the phrase “heres ex libella’’ (Cic.
ad Att. vii. 2, 3), applied to those who inherited
the tenth of an estate ; while he who inherited
the fortieth part was called “heres exteruncio’’
(ib.). - [P. G.]
2. (Also, but less frequently libra.) A car-
penter's level, called by the Greeks 6ta&#Tns,
and also in poets (from the pendant tongue)
orraq.vxh (Hom. Il. ii. 765,
where Schol. oraq.vx}, y&p 6
Terrovicos 6ta}#rms): in Co-
lum. iii. 13, 12, libella fabrilis,
—cf. Plin. xxxvi. 172; Vitruv.
iii. 5, 2: in Lucret. iv. 515
(where other instruments also
are mentioned), “libella aliqua
si ex parti claudicat hilum,”
the idea is clearly of the
legs not being set truly. In &
Caesar (B. C. iii. 40) the form
libra is used, which seems to
be the regular form when it is
applied to water-level, so that
infra libram maris means “be-
low the sea-level.” (Blümner, Technologie, &c.,
ii. p. 236.) # *-d ſº
LIBELLUS, properly the diminutive form
of liber, and therefore means a small book-roll
[see LIBER}; but as regards its use in that
sense, it belonged particularly to books of
poetry. There are other technical meanings
which require notice in this place. We find
libellus most frequently used in writers under
the Empire for a memorial of any kind, either an
accusation (whence our libel), or a petition; and
also to official notifications of any kind. In all
these senses the libellus implies a roll made up
of very few pages, or it might be only a single
page. (Cf. Birt, Antike Buchwesen, p. 22.) It
was used by the Romans as a technical term in
the following cases:—
1. Libelli accusatorum or accusatorii were the
written accusations which in some cases a plain-
tiff, after having received the permission to

Libella, a carpen-
ter's level. (From
a grave-stone,
Gruter, p. 644, 1.)
LIBELLUS
LIBER 57
bring an action against a person, drew up,
signed, and sent to the judicial authorities, viz.
in the city to the praetor, and in a province to
the proconsul. (Cod. 9, 2, 8; Dig. 48, 5, 2, 17,
29; 47, 2, 74.) The form in which a libellus
accusatorius was to be written, is described by
Ulpian in a case of adultery (Dig. 48, 2, 3).
The accuser had to sign the libellus, and, if he
could not write, he was obliged to get somebody
else to do it for him. If the libellus was not
written in the proper legal form, it was invalid,
but the plaintiff had still the right to bring the
same action again in its legal form. (Juv. vi.
244, &c.; Tac. Ann. iii. 44; Plin. Epist. vii. 27;
compare Brisson, de Form. v. c. 187, &c.)
2. Libelli famosi were what we call libels or
pasquinades, intended to injure the character of
persons. A law of the Twelve Tables inflicted
very severe punishments on those who composed
defamatory writings against any person (Cic. de
Re Pub. iv. 10, 33; Arnob. iv. p. 151). During
the latter part of the Republic this law appears
to have been in abeyance, for Tacitus (Ann.
i. 72) says that previous to the time of Augustus
libels had never been legally punished (compare
Cic. ad Fam. iii. 11), and that Augustus, pro-
voked by the audacity with which Cassius
Severus brought into disrepute the most illus-
trious persons of the age, ordained, by a lea:
majestatis, that the authors of libelli famosi
should be brought to trial. On this occasion
Augustus, who was informed of the existence of
several such works, had a search made at Rome
by the aediles, and in other places by the local
magistrates, and ordered the libels to be burnt;
some of the authors were subjected to punish-
ment (Dio Cass. lvi. 27). A law quoted by
Ulpian (Dig. 47, 10, 5) ordained that the author
of a libellus famosus should be intestabilis, and
during the later period of the Empire we find
that capital punishment was not only inflicted
upon the author, but upon those persons in
whose possession a libellus famosus was found, or
who did not destroy it as soon as it came into
their hands (Cod. 9, 36). For further informa-
tion on this subject see Rein, Das Criminalrecht
der Römer, pp. 378, &c., 531.
3. The “comites in fasce libelli” (Juv. vii.
107; see Mayor's mote) are the extracts from
laws and other matters connected with his brief,
which the barrister brought into court. (Cf.
Juv. vi. 244.) -
4. Libellus is used by Roman jurists as
equivalent to Oratio Principis. [ORATIONES
PRINCIPUM.] -
5. The word libellus was also applied to a
variety of writings, which in most cases probably
consisted of one page only :— .
a. To any short letters or reports addressed
to the senate or private individuals (Suet. Jul.
56, Aug. 84; Cic. ad Fam. xi. 11).
b. To the bills or programme called libelli
gladiatorii, or munerarii, which persons who
gave gladiatorial exhibitions distributed among
the people. [GLADIATOREs.]
c. To petitions to the emperors (Juv. xiv. 194;
Suet. Aug. 53; Mart. viii. 31, 3; 82, 1). The
emperors had their especial officers or secretaries
who attended to all petitions (libellis praefectus,
or magister libellorum, or a libellis, Dig. 20, 5),
and who read and answered them in the name
of the emperor (Suet. Domit. 14). Such a
libellus is still extant. See Gruter, Inscript.
p. DCVII. 1.
d. To the bill of appeal called libellus appella-
torius, which a person who did not acquiesce in
a judicial sentence had to send in after the lapse
of two or three days. (Dig. 40, 1.) -
6. To the bills stuck up in the most frequented
parts of the city, in case of a debtor having
absconded (Cic. pro Quint. 6, 15, 19; Rein, Röm.
Privatr. p. 499). Such bills were also stuck
up on the estates of such a debtor, and his friends
who wished to pay for him sometimes pulled
down such bills (Senec. de Benef. iv. 12).
f. To bills in which persons announced to the
public that they had found things which had
been lost, and in which they invited the owner
to claim his property (Plaut. Rud. v. 2, 7, &c.;
Dig. 47, 2, 44). The owner gave to the finder a
reward (eiperpa) and received his property back.
Sometimes the owner also made known to the
public by a libellus what he had lost, stating
his name and residence, and promising to give a
reward to the person who found his property
and brought it back to him. (Propert. iii. 21,
21, &c.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
LIBER (88Xos, BigAſov), a book. But it
must be recollected that these words in Greek
and Latin until a very late period mean a book
in the form of a roll, as will be explained below,
and that the modern book shape was used only
for the codex (in Greek, reoxos : see CODEX),
and not for literary publications. The name
liber itself is either a misconception or a relic of
antiquity applied to something different. It
means “rind * or “bast;” but, there seems no
doubt that not the rind of the papyrus, but the
pith (which Cassiodorus rightly gives as medul-
lae), was used to make paper (charta). The
true liber or bast is thought to have been used
in pre-historic times for writing in some form,
as were also leaves of trees (Plin. H. W. xiii.
§ 69); but this has nothing to do with the
material of charta ; nor has the substance philyra,
which Pliny seems to apply wrongly in describ-
ing the manufacture of paper. Philyra, as Pliny
himself elsewhere (xvi. § 65) explains, was the
inner bark or skin of the lime-tree, which, as
it happens, was also used for writing, though
not in the form of charta (Ulpian, Dig. 32, 52).
It is unnecessary to go further here into this.
point, which is fully discussed by Birt (Antike
Buchwesen, p. 229 sq.). The same view is
adopted by Marquardt (Privatleben, 800) and
Blümmer (Technologie, i. 309). Of the linen
material for books little need be said. It belonged
to very early times among the Romans; for the
Libri lintei are referred to by Livy not as exist-
ing in his own time, but as mentioned by
Licinius Macer (Liv. iv. 7, 13, 20, 23). They
were not books, but merely public records with
lists of magistrates, kept in the temple of Juno
Moneta. Livy also speaks of a Samnite ritual-
book as a “liber vetus linteus” (x. 38). In
much later times linen was used for note-books
by Aurelian (Vopisc. Aur. i. 7). The Egyptian
papyrus of which paper (charta) was made
formed an article of trade before the time of
Herodotus (v. 68). He calls the plant Bö8A0s
or 8(8xos, but Theophrastus distinguishes Tré-
trupos as the plant and 8:8A0s as the pith, the
true material of the paper. It was so largely
| exported that Cassiodorus (Ep. xi. 38) speaks of
58 LIBER
LIBER
the abolition of the tax upon it by Theodoric as
the removal of an impediment to learning. The
papyrus plant grows in swamps to a height of
ten feet or more, and paper was manufactured
from it (principally at Alexandria, but also at
Rome) in the following manner (see Pliny, xiii.
§ 77). The pith of the papyrus was cut into
strips called schidae (or, in Festus, inae); these
strips were placed alongside one another on a
wetted board, and, if there was not glutinous
property enough in the papyrus, they were
smeared with paste: upon them transversely
was placed a second layer forming a cross pat-
tern or network: the whole was pressed and
beaten into a consistent form and smoothed down
with an ivory instrument (hence charta dentata),
or a shell (Mart. xv. 209), forming a single page
(pagina, orexts), which was called in its manu-
facture plagula, because of the network pattern
in the initial stage (cp. the expressions “tea ere
chartam,” #rpia Bö8Aww, &c.). Pliny (l.c.), un-
less the reading is altered, seems to think that
the Nile water itself acted as a paste : this is in
itself highly improbable, and we may more safely
conclude that the papyrus itself yielded the
glutinous substance when, as in Egypt, it was
fresh, but when it was imported and dry the
paste was necessary, which Pliny describes as
used at Rome. Pliny reckons nine sorts or
qualities of paper: (1) the best sort had once
been called in Egypt hieratica, because it was
specially used for sacred books, but in the Em-
pire it was called Augusta, and was 13 digiti
broad, and from a similar compliment the second
quality was called Livia, so that, as Pliny notes,
the hieratica was relegated to the third class;
(4) the amphitheatrica, so called because it was
manufactured near the amphitheatre at Alex-
andria, 9 digiti broad; (5) an improvement upon
this by a Roman Fannius, and therefore called
Fanniana, 10 digit; broad; (6 and 7) Saitica and
Taeniotica (8 digiti), so called from the places of
their manufacture in Egypt; (8) emporetica,
used not for writing, but, as the name suggests,
for wrapping up parcels. Later in Claudius's
reign came the Claudia, which was a foot broad,
and was regarded as an improvement, because it
was thick enough for writing on both sides,
whereas the Augusta was thin and transparent,
and could only take writing on one side. Parch-
ment (membrana) was also a common material
for writing; but
the uses of charta
and membrana were
distinct until late
in the Empire.
Skins of animals
had been used for
writing in very an-
cient times: in fact,
in Asia among the
Persians and, as is
well known, among the Jews, it had been
what papyrus was to the Egyptians (Diod. xi.
32; Herod. v. 58; and see Birt, p. 49). It
is therefore not strictly correct of Varro (ap.
Plin. xiii. § 70) to say that parchment for
writing was an invention of Eumenes II., king
of Pergamum (about 180 B.C.), in consequence
of the jealousy of Ptolemy Epiphanes, who pro-
hibited the exportation of papyrus. (Jerome
tells the same story of Attalus.) The true
account seems to be that great improvement
in the preparation of 8tºp6épal was intro-
duced either by Eumenes or Attalus at Per-
gamum, whence the term pergamena, parchment,
inasmuch as formerly Sup6épal were used (like
charta) only on one side, and now they were
smoothed for writing on both sides, and in this
improved form exported to Rome. But it is
important to notice that charta was until long
after the Augustan age exclusively used for
literary publications. Parchment was bound in
the codex form (or book shape), and used for
account books, for wills, and for notes. In fact,
it competed rather with wax tablets than with
paper. The membrana in Horace, Sat. ii. 3, 2,
A. P. 389, is used for the rough copy of poems to
be altered and published later (“delere licebit
quod non edideris’); and the same purpose is
served by the parchment in a diptych stained
yellow in Juv. vii. 24. For books, i.e. literary
publications, the codex was used first by
Christian writers, beginning with the codices of
the sacred writings; for other writings scarcely
before the second half of the 3rd century, and in
general use not before the 5th century. Excep-
tions to this appear in Martial, xiv. 188, 190,
192; but the membrana there may only refer
to the wrapper, which enclosed the roll: cf. Mart.
i. 3, 3. Letters were written on wax tablets or
on paper, not on parchment. That the word
palimpsestus in Cic. Fam. vii. 18 does not gainsay
this, is shown by his use of chartula in that
passage.
The pages (oreAtóes, paginae) having been
prepared in the manner described above, they
were pasted together (conglutinatae) to form a
long roll; but sometimes the pages were written
first and pasted into a roll afterwards, for which
purpose some people kept glutinatores (Cic. Att.
iv. 4). The writing was in columns, so that the
lines of writing were parallel to the sides of the
roll: on each page there was a column, and
there was a blank space between each column.
Down to the time of Caesar, however, it was the
custom to write official documents transversa.
charta; that is to say, across the whole breadth
of the roll, so that the lines of writing were at
right angles to the sides of the roll. This ex-
plains the passage in Suet. Jul. 56. The shape
and appearance of Greek and Roman books will
be understood from the following woodcut.
(S
| | I"/ VV"
(JoJITV1
Ancient Writing Materials. (From a painting at Herculaneum.)
The roll was sometimes of considerable length.
The Scholiasts indeed (quoted by Birt, p. 444)
speak of Thucydides and Homer being written
each in one long roll. The roll of Thucydides is
estimated at about 578 pages, nearly 100 yards
—surely an incredible length; and a Homer
roll, 120 yards in length, is said to have been in
existence at Constantinople. But this was cer-
tainly not the usual system, and the roll rarely
exceeded 100 pages (cf. Mart. viii. 44), and was


LIBER
LIBER 59
usually much smaller. It was customary to
divide a long work (opus or corpus) into several
books (libri); each liber being in one roll
(volumen ; in Greek, roubs or köAlvöpos). Greek
writers sometimes called these libri or divisions
of a work 8:8Ata, sometimes A6-you, and in the
later Empire orvytypd upwara. Thus, in contrast
to the huge roll of Homer, said to have been at
Constantinople, we have the papyrus of the 24th
book of the Iliad from Elephantine, so that the
complete Iliad would have been in 24 rolls or
volumes. The pages were numbered, or at any
rate the total number was usually put on the
titulus : even the total number of verses, or of
lines in a prose work, were sometimes written
on it. Thus Josephus reckons 60,000 ortxot at
the end of his 20th book of Antiquities, and
Justinian gives to the Digests “centum quin-
quaginta paene milia versuum.” The price of the
book was in part estimated by this number, and
Marquardt cites an edict of Diocletian (C. I. L.
iii. p. 831) in which the payment of the copyist
was fixed at so much for every hundred lines.
The writing was usually only on one side of
the paper. The other side in cast books was
utilised for schoolboys’ exercises: “libelle
inversa pueris arande charta’’ (Mart. iv. 86), or
as scribbling paper (Mart, viii. 62). Both sides
were, however, sometimes used for the original
work, and the books were then called opistho-
graphi (Plin. Ep. iii. 5: see Juv. i. 6, and
Mayor’s note). Sometimes the writing was
sponged out (as in a parchment palimpsest) and
the paper used over again. This is the point of
the joke made by Augustus, “Ajacem suum in
spongiam incidisse’’ (Suet. Aug. 82).
The roll was protected against worms by
being smeared with cedar oil, which gave the
paper a yellow tinge (Ov. Trist. iii. 1, 13; Mart.
iii. 2; Hor. A. P. 331): then the last leaf was .
pasted on to a thin piece of wood called the
wmbilicus or ögqaxos (the umbilicus is found
also made of tightly-folded paper). Hence the
last page is called eschatocollion (Mart. ii. 6);
and the expression “ad umbilicum adducere’”
means, to finish (cf. Hor. Epod. 14, 8; Mart. iv.
89) = “ad cornua,” Mart. xx. 107. The edges
(frons) of the roll were carefully cut, and also
smoothed with pumice-stone, whence the book is
“pumice mundus” (Ov. Trist. iii. 1, 13; Mart.
i. 67, viii. 72; Catull. xxii. 8; Tibull. iii. 1, 10).
There is an amusing mistake in Isidore's state-
ment, “Circumcidi libros primum Siciliae incre-
buit, nam initio pumicabantur,” where he has
confused sicilire, “to cut” (sica), with Sicilia.
His statement is adopted by some modern
writers, but there seems no reason to doubt
that the book was both cut and smoothed with
pumice-stone. As a further decoration, the
ends (cornwa) of the umbilicus were sometimes
gilded as far as they projected (Mart. viii. 61).
The edges themselves (frons) were also coloured
(nigra frons, Ov. Trist. i. 1, 8). A strip of
parchment on which the title or subject of the
book, and sometimes its number of pages or even
lines, was written, was pasted on to the roll.
(In this sense “praetexat summa fastigia’’=
“praetexat frontes.”) This strip was called
titulus or index, in Greek of trubot or orºrtugal
(Cic. Att. iv. 4). (Others spell the word
or(AAvgot, but see Phot. and Hesych. s. v. and
Marquardt's note, Privatleben, 817.) This
titulus or index was often painted a bright
colour, and perhaps the “lora rubra” (Catull.
22, 7) have the same meaning (though Göll
takes the words to stand for the parchment case).
Finally, a cover for the roll (membrana, Sup9épa)
was made of parchment coloured red or yellow,
“Luteased niveum involvat membrana libellum ”
(Tib. iii. 1, 9), which is called purpurea toga,
and also sindon (Mart. x. 93; xi. 1). If one
work was in several libri, they were tied in a
bundle (fasces, fasciculus, Gell. ix.4, or Ségum).
So Aristot. fr. 134: Séguas trävv troAA&s
Stravików Aéryov 'Iookpareſaw reptºpépeo:6al iro
Töv SugatotroAóv. The only other addition to
be noticed is, that occasionally the portrait of
the author was placed on the first page of the
book (Senec. de Tranq. An. 9; Mart. xiv. 186).
It is for the imaginative a matter for specula-
tion whether the portrait of Virgil in the
Vatican edition is the copy of an original.
In reading, the roll (liber or volumen) was
held in both hands and unrolled with one, while
the other rolled it up : the unrolling was called
s
fºllº
22
| |
Book held by a crowned Poet. (From a painting at
Herculaneum.)
evolvere, revolvere, or volvere ; going right
through was called earplicare : rolling up again,
convolvere, replicare, or complicare (Cic. Q. F.
iii. 1, 5). So in Mart. iv. 82, “charta plicetur”
means, “let it remain unread”; “opus expli-
citum ” (xiv. 1) means “read all through " (cf.
“explicet volumen suum,” Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 35,
101). In rolling it up tightly, it was convenient
to do so by holding the umbilicus with both
hands while the first page was pressed under
the chin. This is the meaning of “quae trita.
duro non inhorruit mento” (Mart. i. 66; cf.
x. 93) and fi pá o' &vayvows traſs ris àva6Aſhet
Trpos ré, yewea riðeſs, in the Anthology. The
above apparatus of a book is given completely
by Martial (iii. 2):
“Cedro nunc licet ambules perunctus
Et frontis gemino decens honore
Pictis luxurieris umbilicis;
Ette purpura delicata velet
Et cocco rubeat superbus index.”
The multiplication of books at Rome began
after the conquest and pacification of Italy, but
booksellers' shops were not known until the end
of the Republic. The earliest mention of such

60 LIBER
IIBER, LIBERTAS
shops is in Cic. Q. Fr. iii. 4, and Phil. ii. 9, 21;
but they were then still uncommon, and we find
Atticus selling books for the copying of which
he had a large number of slaves (Cic. Att. ii. 4).
Booksellers were called librarii and also biblio-
polae (Mart. iv. 71, &c.), and in Greek 818Ato-
kdrºxol. Horace gives us the name of the
Sosii (Ep. i. 20, 2; A. P. 345). Martial names
several, and specifies Argiletum as the book-
sellers’ quarter (i. 3, 117): there were also
the Vicus Sandilarius (Gell. xviii. 4) and the
Sigillaria (Gell. v. 4). There were booksellers,
too, in the provincial towns, e.g. at Lugdunum
(Plin. Ep. ix. 11; cf. Hor. Ep. i. 20, 13), at
Brundisium (Gell. ix. 4). As to the price, we
have no very clear information; but it would
seem that a book was not necessarily, as regards
cost of production, very expensive, though it
might from special circumstances command a
large price. Gellius (ii. 3) speaks of the 2nd
Aeneid being bought for viginti aurei = nearly
£18; but it was an antiquarian curiosity, as
being reputed (however unlikely that might be)
Virgil's own copy: and as a literary tradition,
possibly untrue, it was said that Aristotle gave
three talents for an autograph MS. of Speusippus,
and Plato nearly two for three books of Philo-
laus (Gell. iii. 17). Such instances merely show
that book-fanciers lived then as now, and price
was regulated by fashion and rarity. Trust-
worthy copies of Ennius, for instance, were so
rare in the time of Gellius that one of un-
doubted authority was hired for a large sum to
decide a dispute as to the reading “quadrupes
ecus * or “quadrupes eques” (Gell. xvii. 5).
That, on the other hand, the real cost of produc-
tion was not great, may be seen from the fact
that Statius (Silv. iv. 9, 9) speaks of a book
(possibly one of his own) in a neat purple cover
costing about fivepence: the first book of Mar-
tial, in the shop of Atrectus, cost 5 denarii (Mart.
i. 117); but even that was dear; for the book-
seller Tryphon could sell it at a profit for two
(Mart. xiii. 3). The author’s profit could be
made (1) by selling his original copy to a book-
seller (Sen. de Ben. vii. 6; Suet. de Gr. 8),
(2) by selling copies made by his own slaves: but
in the absence of all legal protection, the gains
so to be made were very small, and the author
who sought profit from his writing depended
mainly on the liberality of rich patrons. (See
Friedländer, vol. iv. p. 66–120, French transla-
tion; Birt, ch. vii.)
How early or to what extent booksellers
existed at Athens is a matter of dispute. It is
not unreasonable (with Birt and Becker) to
deduce from the mention of 818Atoypdqol in
Cratinus (Poll. vii. 211) that they existed as
early as 430 B.C. This name, for which 818Ato-
tréams was afterwards used, would imply that
the first booksellers were copyists who both
copied and sold books: and though Boeckh
thinks that the proverbial use of Aó)otorw ‘Epué-
Öopos éutropečeral, with Suidas's explanation,
implies the rarity of such a trade, even after
Plato's time, we have, on the other hand, the
statement of Xenophon (Anab. vii. 5, 14) that
books were on sale even at Salmydessus; we
have a book-market (ra B18Ata) at Athens in
the time of Eupolis (Poll. ix.47); and we might
conclude from Aristoph. Ran. 1109, B18Atov r"
éxov traorros wavčávei Tà èëla, that books were
then easily to be purchased: and the same may
be inferred from the mention of the book col-
lector Eudemus in Xen. Mem. iv. 2. It is
indeed probable that the well-known passage in
the Apology (26 D) is wrongly adduced as an
additional argument. When Socrates says that
you can buy the opinions of Anaxagoras at the
theatre for one drachma, he does not mean, as
has often been imagined (even by Boeckh), that
there was a bookstall there, but simply that
one drachma would procure admission to the
dearest place (ei trgvw troAAoû) in the theatre,
where the doctrines of Anaxagoras might be
heard in some play, perhaps, of Euripides. That
a book of Anaxagoras could be bought there or
anywhere else for a drachma is unlikely, since
an inscription of the year 407 gives the price
of the paper alone as 1 drachma 2 obols a sheet
(i.e. a single roll which would serve for one small
book). (C. I. A. i. 324: see Birt, p. 433.)
Without this passage, however, there is enough
for a fair inference that some kind of book-
market began at Athens and in some other Greek
towns in the latter part of the 5th century B.C.
(See further on this subject Birt, Buch-
wesen, chap. ix.; Becker-Göll, Charikles, ii. 160;
Boeckh, ed. Fränkel, i. 60: see also art. BIBLIO-
THECA. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
LIBER, LIBERTAS. The division of men
into free and slaves is the “summa divisio de
jure personarum ” (Gaius, i. 9; Inst. i. 3, pr.):
according as a man is a member of the one or
the other class, it is decided whether he is
capable of having any legal rights whatever, or
is not a mere thing or chattel in the eye of the
law. Free men were either so from birth
[INGENUI] (Gaius, i. 11; Inst. i. 4, pr.), or they
became free by release from slavery, in which
case they were called libertini [LIBERTUs]
(Gaius, loc. cit.). Libertas is defined by
Justinian after Florentinus (in Dig. 1, 5, 4, pr.)
as “naturalis facultas ejus quod cuique facere
libet, nisi si quid aut vi aut jure prohibetur;”
that is to say, a man is restrained of his natural
freedom when his hands are tied behind his
back, or when the law forbids him to do this or
that, though civil liberty at any rate does not
require that one should be free to act against
the laws (Cic. pro Cluentio, 53, 146; Pers. Sat.
v. 89; Dio Chrysost. Or. 14). By the Roman
jurists freedom was considered the natural con-
dition of man, and slavery an artificial result of
organised political society (Florentinus in Dig.
1, 5, 4, 2; Ulpian in Dig. 1, 1, 4, copied into
Justinian’s Institutes, i. 4, 2; 1, 5, pr.), and in
their eyes it was the first and indispensable con-
dition of protection from the law either to
person or property. Every free man had certain
legal rights; every civis had more; and his
legal status was completed by membership of a
Roman familia [see CAPITIS DEMINUTIO], though
in theory every civis had a “family” (“emanci-
patus ... sui juris effectus propriam familiam
habet,” Dig. 50, 16, 195, 2). The rights which
a man possessed at Rome as being merely free
were those conferred by the jus gentium as
represented in the edict of the Praetor. A
peregrinus who was liber had no commercium or
conubium, and consequently no share in the jus
civile: but he could own property, which was
protected by utiles actiones or actiones in factum
[ACTIOl: his possession was secured by inter-
LIBERA FUGA
LIBERTUS 61
dicts; he could make a valid testament, if such
was the practice of his own state, and he could
engage in commerce through those contracts
which were said to be derived from the jus
gentium. [J. B. M.]
LI'BERA FUGA. [ExSILIUM.]
LIBERA'LIA were celebrated on March 17.
Though the day was sacred to Bacchus, this
must be understood of Liber, the Italian Bacchus;
and the Liberalia must not be confounded with
the festivals Dionysia or Cerialia, which were
of Greek origin and celebrated with ludi at
different times. On this day the boys who took
the toga virilis (called also toga pura and toga
libera) went in procession and made an offering
in the Capitol, of cakes (liba), which were
bought in the streets at little altars. (See the
curious description in Warro, L. L. vi. 14, “per
totum oppidum eo die sedent sacerdotes Liberi,
anus hedera coronatae cum libis et foculo pro
emptore sacrificantes.” As to the origin of the
name, some are disposed to derive it solely from
toga libera, allowing no real connexion with the
name of the deity, and Marquardt seems to take
this view (Staatsverwaltung, iii. 363): but (1) the
day was certainly regarded as sacred to the god
Liber (Ov. Fast. iii. 371; Varro, l.c.), and was
probably the day of an old Italian festival in his
honour; (2) the offering was made by the boys
at the shrine of Liber in the Capitol (“Liberalia
Libero in Capitolio,” Calend. Farnes.); (3) the
toga, when not called virilis, was oftener called
pura than libera; so Cicero (ad Att. vi. 1, 12)
says, “Quinto Liberalibus togam puram cogi-
tabam dare;” and Tertullian (de Idol. 16) calls
the Liberalia “sollemnitas togae purae" (cf.
Plin. H. N. viii. 194); and in poetry the name
pura is the older (Catull. lxviii. 15). While,
however, it seems most natural to connect the
name Liberalia with the Italian deity Liber,
there is little doubt that the idea of freedom
from pupilage was always connected in the
Roman mind with this day, on which the boy
was “liberatus paedagogo.” But in truth there
is no need to quarrel about it ; for even if the
name of the god and the adjective are not
etymologically the same (and, though Curtius
distinguishes them, the distinction is by no
means certain), there is no doubt that Liber was
regarded as the god of freedom at Rome (see
Preller, Röm. Myth. 442): so that it is no
mere poetic conceit, when Ovid says of this
day:
“Sive quodes Liber vestis quoque libera per te
Sumitur et vitae liberioris iter.”
Latin writers sometimes use the word Liberalia
to translate the Greek festival Dionysia, which
must always be distinguished from the above;
and whenever the ludi liberales are mentioned,
they refer either to the Bacchanalia or the
Cerialia (see those articles), not to the Liberalia
properly so called. (See also Serv. ad Verg.
Ecl. iv. 50; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, l.c.;
Preller, Röm. Myth. p. 445.) [G. E. M.]
LIBERA'LIS CAUSA. [AssERTOR.]
LIBERATIS MANUS. [MANUs.]
LIBERATITAS. [AMBITUs.]
LIBERO'RUM JUS. [LEx JULIA ET PAPIA
PoppAEA..]
LIBERTUS (ärexe56epos), a freedman.
1. GREEK. Concerning freedmen, as concerning
slaves, our information mostly relates to Athens;
but we have reason to believe that there was a
general likeness between all the Greek states in
this respect, though Sparta had some distinctive
peculiarities. When we remember that slaves
in Greece were mainly (though not exclusively)
taken from non-Greek and more or less bar-
barous nations, but yet were not distinguished
(like the negro) by any’special external mark,
we shall see how natural was the position that
Aristotle took ; namely, that some men were
fitted by nature to be slaves, while yet the
prospect of freedom as a reward for good work
ought to be held before them (Polit. vii. 10;
Oecon. i. 5, ed. Bekker). Emancipation, then,
formed a cardinal point in the philosophic view
of the subject, and mitigates the force of
Aristotle's approval of slavery.
Emancipation was of course generally the act
of the master of the slave; but sometimes the
state would give freedom as a return for im-
portant public services, compensating (as it
would seem) the master (Plato, de Leg. xi.
p. 914). Thus the slaves who fought in the
battle of Arginusae received freedom and even
citizenship as a reward (Aristoph. Ran. 33,
192, 693); and the same promise was made
to the slaves who fought at Chaeronea (Dio
Chrysost. xv. 21). Other historical instances
are known; and slaves who revealed a dangerous
conspiracy were always, set free at Athens
(Lysias, pro Call. 5; trepl roß ankot, 16); it is
clear that such a rule gave dangerous facilities
to an accuser.
When an individual master set his slave free,
it would either be from gratitude or affection,
or because the slave purchased his freedom.
Slaves could often earn money on their own
account; at the same time they could not
personally make any contract with their
masters that the law would recognise. Hence
the procedure was for the slave to deposit the
money in some temple; the god to whom the
temple was dedicated then bought the slave
from his master, and in the contract thus made
the provision for the freedom of the slave was
inserted. Numerous inscriptions, embodying
such contracts, have been discovered at Delphi
and elsewhere. Conditions are in most cases
found attached to the emancipation; certain
duties to be performed, or payments to be made,
by the freedman for his former master; or, in
case the freedman dies without children, his
former master is to be his heir (this even with-
out special contract was, it appears, the rule at
Athens: Rhetor. ad Alex. i. 16; Isaeus, de
Nicostr. hered. 9; and compare Bunsen, de Jur.
hered. Ath. p. 51); or perhaps even the freedman
has to serve his master until the death of the
latter. It is worth notice that the inscriptions
record nearly twice as many female slaves libe-
rated as males. It was not unfrequent for a
master to emancipate his slaves by testamentary
disposition; directions of this kind are contained
in the wills of the philosophers Plato, Aristotle,
Theophrastus, Straton, Lycon, Epicurus, as com-
municated to us by Diogenes Laertius (iii. 30 ;-
v. 1, 15; 2, 55; 3, 63; 4,72;—x. 21).
For the security of the freedman, the act of
emancipation would often take place in a
theatre (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 44) or other public
place, that there might be as many witnesses
62 LIBERTUS
LIBERTUS
as possible. There was, however, no recognised
form of emancipation; and the state as such
took no interest in it, though for fiscal purposes
lists of the freedmen would in some states be
kept (Curtius, Anecd. Delph. p. 13 sqq.).
When the emancipation was complete, and
all conditions fulfilled, the freedman (except in
special cases, as in that of the slaves who
fought at Arginusae) took the status of a
Aéroikos, or resident alien ; and as such was
bound to choose as his patron (irpoorárms) the
master who had set him free. He had then
certain duties towards his patron (beyond, it
would appear, those of the ordinary puéroucos),
on the transgression of which he was liable to
be proceeded against at law [APOSTASIOU DIKé];
the most serious offence would be choosing for
himself another patron. (Meier and Schöm.
Att. Proc. p. 473, &c.; Petit, Leg. Att. ii. 6,
p. 261; compare Plato, de Leg. xi. p. 915.)
He had to pay the peroíkuov, or tax of 12
drachmae yearly, and a triobolon besides; this
triobolon was probably the tax which slave-
holders had to pay to the Republic for every
slave they kept, so that the triobolon paid by
freedmen was intended to indemnify the state,
which would otherwise have lost by every
manumission of a slave. (Boeckh, Publ. Econ.
p. 331 = Sthh.* i. 403.) Whether the relation
between a patron and his freedman extended to
the children of the latter, is unknown; but
in one of the Delphic inscriptions it is specially
stated that if any of the children of the freed-
man die childless, the patron is to be the heir.
A freedman was said to be kað’ Šavrov (Dem.
pro Phorm. p. 945, §4), and the expression xopls
$rcel in Dem. c. Euerg. et Mnesib. p. 1161, § 72,
is plainly synonymous with “he had been
emancipated; ” probably in Dem. Phil. i. p. 50,
$36, rows Xopls oikoúvras means the same thing,
though from the context some difference is clearly
implied between these and the Aéroucou, due no
doubt to the imperfect character of the emanci-
pation of many freedmen.
Freedmen, like the resident aliens generally,
appear to have taken much to commerce; and
two of the bankers whose names we know best
in all Athenian history, Pasion and Phormio,
had both been slaves, and some years after their
emancipation received the Athenian citizenship.
In the case of Pasion, this was the reward of
services rendered to the state.
We have no mention of any emancipation of
public slaves at Athens; and since these
generally worked in the mines, and were more
hardly treated than others, it is not likely that
their emancipation was frequent. But at
Sparta the emancipation of the helots (who
were, properly speaking, not slaves, but serfs)
was frequent. They were called Neodamodes
when emancipated (Pollux, iii. 83), and formed
from B.C. 421, when they are first mentioned
(Thucyd. v. 34), to B.C. 369, when they are
last mentioned (Xenoph. Hellen. vi. 5, 24), not
an inconsiderable part of the Spartan armies.
The emancipation of the helots required the
action of the state, and could not be carried out
by an individual (Ephorus, in Strabo, viii.
p. 365). Another class of emancipated slaves
at Sparta were the A66akes or pºoves, who
were children brought up with the children of
citizens. (Phylarchus in Athenaeus, vi. 102.
See Müller's Dorians, ii. 3, § 6.) Other classes
are named in the same chapter of Athenaeus as
&@éral, &6éotrotot, €puktipes, and Öeotroglo-
vaúrat. The 5eorºroo’iovaioral served on board
the fleet; of the other classes nothing is known.
(See especially in relation to this subject
Büchsenschütz's Besitz wrºd Erwerö im griechi-
Schen Alterthume, pp. 168–181, to which this
article is much indebted.) [L. S.] [J. R. M.]
2. ROMAN. Freedmen are defined by Gaius,
i. 11, and Justinian, Inst. i. 5, pr., as those
“qui ex justa servitute manumissi sunt.” As a
class they are denoted by the term libertini, but
each freedman, in relation to his late master,
is called libertus (i.e. liberatus). In the time of
the censor Appius Claudius, and for some time
after, libertinus meant the son of a libertus
(Suet. Claud. 24); but this is not the meaning
of the word in the extant Roman writers.
Originally there was but one species of
libertini, viz. liberti cives: they possessed in
substance all the rights, private and public, of
a free-born citizen of Rome. In other words,
if a full owner of a slave ea jure Quiritium set
him free in one of the three civil or statutory
modes of manumission (vindicta, census, testa-
mentum), he became a civis: any other kind of
manumission, or even civil manumission by a
merely “bonitarian * owner, left him a slave in
the eye of the law, though protected by the
praetor in the actual enjoyment of freedom
(Gaius, iii. 56). The children of liberti cives
were vngenus.
Legislation under the first two emperors had
the effect of creating two new classes of
freedmen. The Lex Aelia Sentia, A.D. 4,
enacted that slaves who had been put in chains
by their masters or branded as a punishment,
or convicted of crime after torture or imprisoned,
or made to fight in the arena, or entered at the
gladiatorial school, should, if subsequently
manumitted, have no higher status than that
of enemies who had surrendered at discretion
(“peregrini dediticii,” Gaius, i. 13). The Lex
Junia Norbana, circ. A.D. 19, gave a legal
status to slaves manumitted under circumstances
which prevented their becoming cives without
being dediticii, the number of whom must have
been largely increased by other clauses of the
Lex Aelia Sentia (Gaius, i. 18, 38); they were
to have the rights of Latini Coloniarii (i.e.
commercium without conubium), though the
statute expressly disabled them from making a
will, being testamentary guardians, or taking
under the will of another person either as heirs
or legatees (Gaius, i. 23, 24: see LATINITAS):
they were called Latini Juniani. Hence Ulpian
writes in the third century (Reg. i. 5): “Liber-
tinorum genera sunt tria: cives Romani, Latini
Juniani, dediticiorum numero.”
Dediticii were capable of owning property so
far as other peregrini were, but it went
inevitably to the patron on their decease, as
they could not make a will, and had no sui
heredes or agnates: they might not live within
100 miles of Rome, or be manumitted a second
time, under penalty of being made slaves again;
and there was no means by which they could
rise to any higher civil condition (Gaius,
i. 15, 26, 27). The rights of Latini Juniani,
and the modes in, which they could rise to the
status of civitas, are noticed under LATINITAS.
LIBITINARII
1IBRA
63
Both of these classes were abolished by Justinian,
who thus restored the simplicity of the early
law and made all manumitted slaves citizens of
Rome (Inst. i. 5, 3; Cod. 7, 5 ; 7, 6).
The main point in which a libertus civis was
inferior to an ingenuus was his relation to his
patronus or quondam master. Towards him he
was bound to show obsequium and recerentia, as
a child towards his father (Dig. 37, 15, 9), and
on that account he could bring no action against
him without the praetor's permission, while he
could not bring an actio famosa under any
circumstances whatever (Dig. 37, 14, 1 ; 37, 15,
5, 1; ib. 7, 2; Gaius, iv. 183; Inst. iv. 16, 3):
for breach of this duty he was liable “in
servitutem revocari” (Suet. Claud. 25; Dig.
37, 14, 5, pr.). He was also bound to provide
the patron, his parents, and children with
alimony, if their circumstances became reduced;
and he could bind himself to perform certain
services (operae officiales) for the patron by mere
oath (jurata promissio liberti), which between
ordinary persons would create no legal obliga-
tion whatever (Dig. 38, 1, 7, 3), though this
was not extended so far as to reduce him to a
dependence inconsistent with freedom (Dig.
44, 5, 1, 5). Finally, the patron had certain
rights of inheritance in respect of the freedman's
property, if he died intestate, leaving no issue of
his own; and if it exceeded a certain minimum,
he had a claim to receive a specific proportion
of it under his will. This subject is too long to
be entered into here, but it is treated at length
in Gaius, iii. 39–76; Inst. iii. 7.
The rights of the patron devolved on his
decease upon his children (Gaius, iii. 58;
Dig. 38, 1, 29), and, so far as they related to
liberti cives, could not be bequeathed away by
will to an outsider, because they were based
upon the fiction of relationship. But a Senatus-
consultum Ostorianum (Inst. iii. 8) enabled the
patron to assign a freedman or any number of
them to any child in his power, either by
declaration in his lifetime or by testament; and
if the child was still in the father's power at the
latter's decease, he became sole patronus of the
liberti so assigned to the exclusion of the other
children. s
The patron might lose his rights, either in
whole or part, by their abuse (Dig. 37, 14, 15),
or by neglect of his own duties towards the
freedmen (Dig. ib. 5, 1; 38, 2, 14, pr.). By
special imperial favour, too, a libertus could
become ingenwus, and this in two ways. By a
grant of the jus anulorum aureorum, he acquired
the position of an ingenuus in relation to all
men except his patron, the latter's privileges
remaining unaffected (Fragm. Wat. 226; Dig.
38, 2, 3, pr.; 40, 10, 6). By natalium restitutio,
he became ingenuus in every respect, the
relation of freedman and patron being ex-
tinguished (Dig. 40, 11, 2). [J. B. M.]
LIBITINA'RII. [FUNUs.]
LIBRA, the unit of weight among the
Romans and Italians. The libra or pound of
copper was also the unit of value, and was
called As (q. v.). The weight of the libra has
been fixed by metrologists as 5050 grains (327.5
grammes), nearly 12 ounces avoirdupois. It
was divided into twelve unciae or ounces.
For further details, see AS, Wol. I. p. 202, and
PONDERA. [P. G.]
LIBRA (grafluês), a balance, a pair of
scales. The principal parts of this instrument
were: (1) the beam (jugum, (vyóv), whence
£vyöv iotăval—to weigh (Dem. 1451); (2) the
two scales called in Greek ºrd Aavra (Hom. Il.
viii. 69; xxii. 209, &c.; Aristoph. Ran. 797)
and TAdoriyye (Aristoph. Ran. 1378), and in
Latin lances (Verg. Aen. xii. 725, &c.). [LANX.]
Hence the verb Taxavreća is employed as
equivalent to otaffpiſº, and to the Latin libro,
and is applied as descriptive of an eagle balanc-
ing his wings in the air (Philostrat. Jun. Imag.
6; Welcker, ad loc.). The beam was sometimes
made without a tongue, being held by a ring or
other appendage fixed in the centre (see the
woodcut). When the tongue working in an
eye (agina) is used, as in our scales, it is called
eacamen or ligula (Suet. Vesp. 25). The word
trutina and the Greek rpurdum were used of
this sort of balance, as may be seen from Juv.
vi. 437 and Demosth. p. 60, where there are
clearly two scales. Specimens of bronze
balances may be seen in the British Museum
and in other collections of antiquities, and also
of the steel-yard [STATERA], which was used
for the same purposes as the libra. The wood-
cut to the article CATENA shows some of the
'chains by which the scales are suspended from
the beam. In the works of ancient art, the
balance is also introduced emblematically in a
great variety of ways. The annexed woodcut
is taken from a beautiful bronze patera, repre-
senting Mercury and Apollo engaged in explor-
ing the fates of Achilles and Memnon, by
weighing the attendant genius of the one against
2-2 ºz-S^2=
§ ºvo M
see:=ºſſº-º
SSS.
Libra. (From an ancient vase.)
that of the other. (Winckelmann, Mon. Ined.
133; Millin, Peintures de Vases Ant. i. pl. 19,
p. 39.) A balance is often represented on the
reverse of the Roman imperial coins; and to
indicate more distinctly its signification, it is
frequently held by a female in her right hand,
while she supports a cornucopia in her left, the
words AEQVITA's Avg.VSTI being inscribed on the
margin, so as to denote the justice and impar-
tiality with which the emperors dispensed their
bounty.
The constellation Libra (in Greek guyás) is
placed in the Zodiac at the equinox, because it
is the period of the year at which day and night
are equally balanced. (Verg, Georg. i. 208; Plin-
H. N. xviii. § 245; Lucan. viii. 467, “quo Libra
pares examinat horas.” [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]

64 LIBRAMENTUM
LICTOR
LIBRAMENTUM, LIBRATIO AQUA'-
RUM. [AQUAEDUCTUS.]
LIBRA'RII, slaves who were employed for
writing or copying in any way, and sometimes
also the readers or reciters (ANAGNOSTAE) were
included under this name (Orelli, 2872). They
must be distinguished from the Scribae publict,
who were freemen [SCRIBA], and also from the
booksellers, who were also called librarii (see
under LIBER). The slaves to whom this name
of librarii was given may be divided into three
classes:—
1. Librarii who were employed in copying
books, called Scriptores Librarii by Horace (Ars
Poet. 354): these librarii were also called an-
tiquarii, or, more correctly, the antiquarii were
a special class of librarii who were skilled in
reading and copying ancient MSS. (see Isid.
Orig. vi. 14; Cod. Theod. iv. 8, 2.; Auson. Ep.
16; and Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 423). The
name librarii was also given to the slaves who
had charge of libraries, and to those who made
up the book-rolls, more properly called gluti-
watores (Cic, ad Att. iv. 4).
2. Librari; a studiis were slaves who were
employed by their masters when studying to
make extracts from books, &c. (Orelli, Inscr.
719; Suet. Claud. 28; Cic. ad Fam. xvi. 21).
To this class the notarii, or short-hand writers,
belonged, who could write down rapidly what-
ever their masters dictated to them. (Plin. Ep.
ii. 5; Martial, xiv. 208.) [NOTARII.]
3. Librarii ab epistolis, whose principal duty
was to write letters from their master’s dic-
tation. (Orelli, Inscr. 2437, 2997, &c.) To
this class belonged the slaves called ad manum,
a manu, or amanuenses. [AMANUENSIS.] (See
also Marquardt, Privatleben, 151, and Becker-
Göll, l.c.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
LIBRATOR is in general a person who
examines things by a libra ; but the name was,
in particular, applied to two kinds of persons.
1. Librator aquae, a person whose knowledge
was indispensable in the construction of aque-
ducts, sewers, and other structures for the pur-
pose of conveying a fluid from one place to
another. He examined by a hydrostatic
balance (libra aquaria) the relative heights of
the places from and to which the water was to
be conducted. Some persons at Rome made
this occupation their business, and were en-
gaged under the curatores aquarum, though
architects were also expected to be able to act
as libratores. (Plin. Ep. x. 50; Frontin, de
Aquaed. 105; compare Vitruv. viii. 6; Cod. 10,
66, 1.) [L. S.]
2. Libratores (or libritores, according to some
MSS.) were soldiers who are coupled with
slingers (funditores) in Tacitus, Ann. ii. 20,
xiii. 39. There is much difference of opinion
about them. Some recent writers take them
to be engineers of some description engaged in
the management of tormenta, and the derivation
&rare, “to level,” is suggested as though they
levelled and directed them. It can be inferred
from Marquardt's note (Staatsverwaltung, ii. 526)
that he also classes them with the managers of
formenta, but he gives no definite statement of
his opinion. In Tac, Ann. xiii. 39, in a fresh
sentence after the words “multos tormentis
faces et hastas incutere jubet,” we find “libra-
toribus et funditoribus attributus locus unde
eminus glandes torquerent,” from which the
inference surely would be that they have
nothing to do with the tormenta, and are an
arm of the service more like the slingers: and
the other passage of Tacitus tells the same way,
“funditores libratoresque excutere tela et pro-
turbare hostes jubet: missae et tormentis
hastae.” Forcellini conceives slings which dis-
charged stones of a pound weight to explain the
libralia or librilia saza (cp. Caes. B. G. vii. 81).
If this were a correct view, the key to the
precise explanation might be found in Liv.
xxxviii. 29, where, at the siege of Same in
B.C. 189, slingers are described as brought from
Achaia, who “a pueris' practised slinging sawa
globosa: the force is greater than that of the
Balearic slinger, and the sling is not a single
thong but a triple “scutale” made stiffly, so
that the missile “librata quum sederit velut
nervo missa excutiatur: ” apparently they could
fire more nearly point-blank and with heavier
charge. But against this we have first the fact
that the libratores were to be distinguished
from slingers generally, and not merely from
Balearic slingers; and, secondly, the passage of
Vegetius, ii. 23, which tells us that libralia
sawa were thrown by the hand and with less
preparation as requiring no sling : and Festus
explains librilia as “saxa ad brachii crassitu-
dinem loris revincta.” This suggests the con-
clusion that the stones were swung by the
thong, to which they were fastened, and dis-
charged thong and all. And it is perhaps best
to regard the libratores as stone-throwers em-
ployed, not with the tormenta, but along with the
funditores (cp. the A160862 ou coupled with orghev-
Soviral, Thuc. vi. 69), throwing with the hand
by the thong attached missiles heavier than the
glans of the slinger: and the word should
probably be connected with the sense of swing-
ing in libro (as in Livy, l.c.), rather than with
libra, “a pound.” [G. E. M.]
LICTOR (in Greek writers, pagö00x0s or
paśāoq6pos), an attendant upon certain magis-
trates and other persons discharging official
duties at Rome and in the provinces. Their
name has been derived by many (following
Plutarch, Rom. 26) from ligare ; but apart
from the difficulty of the form of the word for
ligator, it is clear that binding was not the
most ordinary duty of the lictor, nor the duty
most likely to confer the name. Though
Corssen favours the derivation from licium, “a
girdle” (see Gell. xii. 3), it is far more probable
that the word comes from licere, “to summon,”
and that their original function was to summon
assemblies: if so, the lictores curiatii (see below)
probably represent the oldest class of lictors;
though the title “summoner” might also refer
to the magisterial vocatio through a lictor. We
have, however, no account of their first insti-
tution, but find them mentioned in the earliest
times of the monarchy. Livy (i. 8), laying
stress on the favourite Etruscan number twelve,
derives the office from Etruria, and Müller en-
dorses this opinion, in which, however, as Pro-
fessor Seeley in his note on that passage observes,
no great confidence can be placed, since there
was a tendency to ascribe all ancient institu-
tions to Etruria. Virgil (Aen. vii. 173) might be
quoted against it, when he gives “primos attol-
lere fasces” of the early Latin kings; but that
LICTOR
LICTOR 65
is merely a synonym for regnum excipere, and
it would be absurd to give it any antiquarian
authority. All that can be said is, that this
attendance was in earliest times “insigne re-
gium ” (Liv. iii. 36; Dionys. x. 59), in the same
way as the breaking of the fasces was a sign of
rebellion or deposition (Liv. ii. 55; Dio Cass.
lix. 29). It is necessary to distinguish two
kinds of lictors: (1) lictores qui magistratibus
(or Caesari) apparent; (2) lictores qui sacris
publicis apparent. Both are handed down from
the kingly times, inasmuch as the king held also
priestly office, and it is impossible to say which
class is the older; but the attendants on magis-
trates are certainly the more important. They
were the outward mark of authority: they
were not sent for on special occasions, but at-
tended the magistrate like his shadow: if he is
at home, they are in his vestibule (Liv. xxxix.
2); if he goes to the rostra, they precede him
(Liv. xxiii. 23); when he takes his seat on the
tribunal, they stand by him (Cic. Cluent. 53, 147);
when he pays a visit, the lictor knocks for his
admission (Liv. vi. 34; Mart. viii. 66; Juv. iii.
128). The sovereignty of the people is admitted
by the lictors lowering the fasces when the
consul comes to the contio (Liv. ii. 7; Plut.
Pop. 10), and Plutarch says the custom re-
mained to his own time. (Cicero calls this
“the insolence of liberty:” de Rep. ii. 31, 53.)
So also, if a magistrate of lower rank met a
superior, his lictors lowered the fasces, or, if
with imperium, removed their axes; as Dio-
nysius mentions, when he tells the story of
Coriolanus ordering this to be done as a mark
of respect to his mother. The magistrate must,
however, dismiss his lictors when he enters the
territory of an allied independent state. We
find in Tacitus (Ann. ii. 53), Germanicus with
one lictor at Athens; but that this is allowed
him as an accensus, not as a sign of proconsulare
imperium, is clear, for if it had been his sign of
office he would have had twelve.
- The lictors bore fasces with axes, to show that
the king or magistrate had the power of life and
death. Therefore this distinction belonged to the
dictator, from whom there was no appeal; to a
commander in the field; and in older times to
consuls, before the Valerian law of provocatio
(Cie. Rep. ii. 31, 55): and the withdrawal of
the axes showed the withdrawal of summary
jurisdiction or martial law. The axes were
allowed also to consuls in the triumph, because
they still held the imperium, and in processus
consularis (Claud. Prob. et Olybr. 232): The
lictors actually carried out the sentence of death
under the old system, for all Roman citizens
who were condemned, so long as the execution
was in the hands of the Quaestores Parricidii
or Duumviri Perduellionis, as representatives for
this purpose of the consul (see articles on these
offices): but, when executions were controlled
by tribunes and aediles, who were not attended
by lictors, the death sentence was carried out
either by the tribune or aedile in person or by
a carnifex. The carnifex seems, too (probably
after the appointment of Tres viri capitales),
under the Republic, to have taken the place of
the lictor for execution even of citizens: such,
at least, would be the natural inference from the
description in Suet. Claud. 34, “Quum spectare
antiqui moris supplicium concupisset et deligatis
WOL. II.
ad palam noxiis carnifex deesset,” &c. On
active service the execution under martial law
naturally belonged to the lictors (Liv. iv. 29;
xxviii. 29, &c.). The ordinary duty of the
lictors in the city was submovere turbam, i.e. to
make the people give way to the magistrate,
and to disperse any crowd which might inter-
fere with the business in hand (cf. Hor. ii. 16,
9). This duty was heralded by the cry ant-
madvertite, i.e. “pay due observance to the
magistrate’” (Suet. Jul. 80). Pliny speaks of
this as “Sollennis ille lictorum et praenuntius
clamor.” From Liv. xxiv. 44, it would appear
that the technical word animadvertere was also
used of the lictor noticing and reproving dis-
respect, unless (which would make better
sense) the word jubere is added there. The
lictors are also the instruments of the magis-
trate for vocatio, i.e. the summons of any citizen
who offends; whereas tribunes, as being without
lictors, could only arrest by their own hand, or
their clator, but could not summon (Varro, ap.
Gell. xiii. 12); and resistance to a lictor was
equivalent to resistance to the magistrate.
As regards the number of lictors allowed to
different offices, the king was attended by
twelve; though Mommsen (Staatsrecht, i.” 343)
suspects from the words decuriae and decem
primi used of lictors, that the number 12 super-
seded an original number 10. Twelve, at any
rate, is the number given by Cicero, Rep. ii. 17,
31 ; Liv. i. 8; and others. Appian is the only
writer who (B. C. i. 100) says twenty-four,
thinking perhaps of the dictator, and he is in-
consistent in this (see Appian, Syr. 15). As the
consuls originally performed the regular duties
of administration by turns on alternate months,
so the officiating consul was attended by twelve
lictors, the other only by an accensus (Liv. ii. 1;
Cic. Rep. ii. 31, 55). Similarly, as the decemvirs
held office each for a day in turn, the decemvir
of the day had twelve lictors, the others an
accensus each (Liv. iii. 33). It appears, however,
from Suet. Jul. 20, that at some time the
custom came in of an accensus préceding the
consul out of office, while twelve lictors followed
him. There can be no doubt that the state of
the consular military tribunes was regulated by
the same principle as that of the decemvirs.
The dictator had twenty-four (Polyb. iii. 87;
Dio Cass. liv. 1; Appian, B. C. i. 100). Yet
Livy (Ep. 89) says that Sulla was the first so to
appear: perhaps, as Mommsen suggests, the
dictator was attended by twenty-four only with-
out the city, and Sulla's innovation consisted in
his using them also within it. The magister
equitum, nominated by the dictator, had six
lictors (Dio Cass. xlii. 47; xliii. 48), and the
same number was assigned to the praefectus urbi
nominated by Caesar in his dictatorship (Dio
Cass. l. c.). Two belonged to the praetor at
Rome (Censorin. xxiii. 3; Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii.
34, 93); six to the praetors in the provinces
(Appian, Syr. 15 ; Cic. Verr. v. 54, 142), whence
Polybius constantly terms the praetor otpatmyos
éčairéaekvs, and, treating it merely as a synonym
for the magistrate, uses this adjective to express
even the praetor at Rome (Polyb. xxxiii. 1).
(Under the Empire, however, the praetor at
Rome actually had six lictors: Mart. xi. 98, 15.9
Proconsuls outside Rome had twelve under the
Republic, as would belong to those who acted
F
66 LICTOR
LIGO
àS consuls; and those of Africa and Asia, at any
rate, had the same number in the earlier Em-
pire. Ulpian (Dig. 1, 16, 44), however, speaks of
the limitation to six for proconsuls. Six was cer-
tainly the number for propraetors, but five only
for a quaestor or legatus pro praetore (Cic. Att. x.
4, 9); and for Augustus's time a propraetor who
was the imperial legatus pro praetore had only
five, and was called quinquefascalis.
The emperors had twelve lictors to the time
of Domitian, to whom twenty-four were assigned
(Dio Cass, liv. 10; lxvii. 4), but in the later
Empire the attendance of lictors gradually fell
into disuse. It marks the importance of the
curatores viarum under the Empire, that in their
office they had two lictors.
As to the status of the lictors, they are ranked
before viatores and praecomes, but after scribae
and accensi (Cic. Verr. iii. 66, 153; ad Q. F. i.
1, 4; Orelli, C. I.4109). From Tacitus, xiii. 27,
we learn that most lictors were freedmen;
whether it was so in republican times it is
impossible to say: in Liv. ii. 55 they are spoken
of as belonging to the plebs ; it is clear that at
Rome, whether freeborn or not, they were always
free. In the provinces it appears from Gellius,
x. 3, that sometimes at least they were taken
from the class of reduced Italians called Brut-
tiani. At Rome there was a community of three
decuriae of lictors under ten directors (decem
primi).
In Rome they wore the toga, which, one
would gather from Gellius l.c. and from Plut.
Rom. 26, was girded with the licium or limus;
but Mommsen observes that ancient representa-
tions of lictors do not show them with any
girdle, and that the limus belonged rather to
servi publici. Outside Rome they wore the red
sagulum (Sil. ix. 20), and at triumphs naturally
also the same war-dress (Appian, Pun. 61, calls
it Xutºv powukóeus): at funerals, black (Hor.
Ep. i. 7, 5). The fasces, tied with a red strap,
were held in the left hand and carried on the
left shoulder: at funerals they were carried
reversed (Tac. Ann. iii. 2; cf. Verg. Aen. ii. 45):
the fasces wreathed with laurel (laureati) in the
Republic marked the magistrate who had been
saluted as a victorious imperator, and under the
Empire distinguished the imperial lictors.
The lictors always walked in single file (ºf
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i. 374 f.)
up and breaking the clods.
magistrate in office, whence the last in order, who
was the principal lictor, was called proſcimus (Cic.
Div. i. 28, 59; Verr. v. 54,
142; Tac. Hist. iii. 80), but
perhaps also primus (Cic, ad
Q. F. i. 1, 7); and jºyotºuevos
(Appian, B. C. v. 55) may
have the same meaning, ap-
plied to rank, not order of
narch. §
(2) Lictores curiatii (not ... .º.º.
curiati, as may be seen from Cºº
Inscriptions: see Mommsen, led to death by
Staatsrecht, i.” p. 389) were Lictors.
employed originally to sum-
mon the Comitia Curiata. Of these there were
thirty, according to the number of the curiae;
and, when the meeting of the Comitia Curiata
became a mere form, it was represented by
the thirty lictores curiatii (Cic. Leg. Agr. ii. 12,
31). Ovid (Fast. ii. 23) speaks of lictors used in
sacred rites, whom Mommsen with some proba-
bility takes to be lictores curiati; ; and he also
suggests the possibility that they acted as
flamines curiales. They attended specially on
the Pontifex Maximus, probably the same num-
ber (ten or twelve) as had belonged to the king;
and they are called “lictores curiatii qui sacris
publicis adparent.” The Flamen Dialis was
attended by one of these lictors (Plut. Quaest.
Rom. 93); as was also any Vestal who appeared
in public (Plut. Num. 10): a similar distinction
was granted to widows of emperors, as though
they were priestesses of a deified husband (Tac.
Ann. xiii. 2; note the refusal of it by Tiberius,
Ann. i. 14). These lictores curiatii were consti-
tuted as a separate decuria (C. I. L. xiv. 296).
(3) Lictors were specially assigned to attend
for the time on the givers of games who had
not otherwise the right to lictors: as, for in-
stance, in funeral games (Cic. Legg. ii. 24, 61);
perhaps originally because givers of games were
so constantly of magisterial rank that lictors
became a customary part of the spectacle ; or
the public function conveyed the temporary
magisterial rank.
(4) In the games of the Wicomagistri there
were two lictores populares denuntiatores, who
belonged to separate decuria, to attend upon
them (Dio Cass. lv. 8, cf. Liv. xxxiv. 7; Ascon.
in Pison. 7; and see article COMPITALIA). The
origin of the name denuntiator may be gathered
from “ludicrum denuntiare” (Liv. xlv. 32).
As regards the attendance of lictores atri at a
funeral (Hor. Ep. i. 7, 5), it must be understood
that this can be said only of great funerals,
having a more or less public character, when
either the deceased himself was of magisterial
rank and his own lietors attended, or where
funeral games were given, and there were there-
fore lictors assigned (cf. Cic. Legg. ii. 24, 61).
(For full information respecting lictors, see
[G. E. M.]
LIGO (3/keaxa or uſikexXa) was a hoe formed
either of one broad iron or of two curved iron
prongs fixed at right angles to the handle, which
was used by the ancient husbandmen to clear
the fields from weeds. (Ovid, ex Pont. i. 8,593
Mart. iv. 64; Stat. Theb, iii. 589; Colum. x. 89.)
The ligo seems also to have been used in turning
(Hor. Carm. iii. 6,
val. Max. ii. 2, § 4; Liv. xxiv. 445 before the 38; Epist. i. 14, 27; Ovid, Amor. iii. 10, 31;


LIGULA
LITIS CONTESTATIO 67
compare Dickson, On the
Ancients, i. p. 415.) g
LI'GULA, a Roman measure of fluid ca-
pacity, containing one fourth of the CYATHUS.
(Columella, R. R. xii. 21; Plin. H. N. xx. § 36.)
It signifies a spoonful, like cochlear; only the
ligula was larger than the cochlear (see Mart.
viii. 33 and 71). The spoon which was called
ligula, or lingula (dim. of lingua), from its shape,
was used like a dessert-spoon. (Cato, R. R. 84;
Plin. H. N. xxi. § 84; Mart. xiv. 120; Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 293; Marquardt, Privatleben,
314.) For a drawing of the ligula, see under
CocáLEAR, where the larger spoon is the ligula,
the smaller the cochlear. The word is also used
for the leather tongue of a shoe (Pollux, ii. 109,
vii. 80; Festus, s. v.). (See under CALCEUS,
p. 335.) [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
LIMA (5tvm), a file, was made of iron or
steel, for the purpose of polishing metal or
stone, and appears to have been of the same
form as the instruments used for similar pur-
poses in modern times. (Plin. H. N. ix. § 109,
xxviii. § 148, xxxvii. § 109; Plaut. Menaechm. i.
1, 9; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2, 33.) [L. S.]
LIMBUS (trapupfi), the border of a tunic or
a scarf, chiefly in the woman's dress (Verg. Aen.
iv. 137; Serv. ad loc. 7). This ornament, when
displayed upon the tunic, was of a similar kind
with the CYCLAS and INSTITA (Servius in Verg.
Aen. ii. 616), but much less expensive, more
common and more simple. It was generally
woven in the same piece with the entire gar-
ment of which it formed a part, and it had
sometimes the appearance of a scarlet or purple
band upon a white ground; in other instances
it resembled foliage (Verg. Aen. i. 649; Ovid,
Met. vi. 127), or the scrolls and meanders in-
troduced in architecture. A very elegant effect
was produced by bands of gold thread interwoven
in cloth of Tyrian purple (Ovid, Met. 51), and
called Ampol or leria. (Festus, s. v.; Brunck,
Anal. i. 483.) Demetrius Poliorcetes was ar-
rayed in this manner (xpvootrapúbous āAoup'yfort,
Plut. Demet. 41). Virgil (Aen. v. 251) men-
tions a scarf enriched with gold, the border of
which was in the form of a double meander. In
illustration of this account examples of both the
single and the double meander are introduced at
the top of the annexed woodcut. The other
2\\\\\\2 © C C C C C C C C & O
Husbandry of the
- [L. S.]
Limbi. (From ancient vases.)
eight specimens of limbi are selected to show
some of the principal varieties of this ornament,
which present themselves on Etruscanvases and
other works of ancient art. .
An ornamental band, when used by itself as a
fillet to surround the temples or the waist, was
also called limbus. (Stat. Theb. vi. 367, Achitſ.
ii. 176; Claud. de Cons. Malli. Theod. 118.) A
later name for the limbus was lorum, whence
dresses with one or more rows of stripes were
called monolores, dilores, trilores, &c. (Vopisc.
Aurel. 46, 6). The makers of limbi were called
limbolarii (Plaut. Aul. 514, and Wagner's eritical
note). For these limbi, see also Marquardt,
Privatleben, 544; Blümner, Technologie, i. 202;
Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 255, Gallus, iii.
266. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
LIMEN. [JANUA..]
LIMUS was the apron tied round the waist
and reaching nearly to the feet worn by the
popa, or slaughterer who attended on the priest
at a sacrifice (Serv. ad Aen. xii. 120), and by servi
publici in general (Isid. Orig. 19, 33). Hence
Servi publici were known as limo cincti; and
when (as in C. J. L. v. 3401) apparitores and
limo cincti are mentioned together as attending
on a magistrate, the former are free, the latter
slave attendants (see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i.”
324). It would appear from Gellius, xii. 3, that
the word licium was synonymous with limus, and
he states that the lictors were girded with this
limus or licium in former times; but Mommsen
throws doubt upon this (Staatsrecht, i. 375), and
thinks it arose from a confusion of lictors with
servi public; and a desire to derive their title
from licium, since lictors are never represented
in such a dress. That the licium alone should
be worn by a person seeking stolen property
(whence phrase per licium quaerere) no doubt was
arranged to prevent his bringing in the goods
concealed in his dress (see Gell. xi. 18, and cf.
Gaius, Inst. iii. 192). [G. E. M.]
LIPOMARTYRIOU DIKE (Attopapruptov
âtrem). [MARTYRIA.] p
LIPONAU"TIOU GRAPHE (Autovavtſov
ºypaqf). [ASTRATEIAS GRAPHF.] {
LIPOSTRATIOU GEAPHE (Aurorapa-
rtov ypaſpſ.). [ASTRATEIAS GRAPHE.]
LIPOTA(XIOU GRAPHE (Auroraštov
'ypaqf). [ASTRATEIAS GRAPHE.] .
LITHOBO'LIA (Au008óAta), a festival cele-
brated at Troezen in commemoration of two
maidens who came there from Crete, and were
stoned to death during the civil broils of the
place. (Paus. ii. 32, 6; Lobeck, Aglaoph. 680;
Hermann, Relig. Alterth. § 52.) [L. S.]
LITHOSTROTA. [PAviRIENTUM ; PIC-
TURA.] .
LITIS CONTESTA’TIO. Under the oldest
Roman civil process—that known as the legis
actiones—the proceedings prior to hearing and
judgment were of an exceedingly formal and
technical character. The parties, on appearing
before the praetor, had to repeat certain pre-
scribed forms of words, appropriate to the
nature of the particular action, and to perform
a variety of solemn and symbolical acts (e.g.
Gaius, iv. 16); and any error or omission in
these on the part of the plaintiff inevitably lost
him his remedy: “Ex nimia subtilitate veterum
qui tune jura condiderunt eo res perducta est;
ut vel qui minimum errasset litem perderet”
(Gaius, iv. 30). The object of these proceedings
was preliminary: they were intended to ascer-

F 2
68 LITIS CONTESTATIO
LITIS CONTESTATIO
tain the question in dispute, and to prepare it
for hearing and decision. The hearing and de-
cision itself was in many cases entrusted to a
private person appointed by the praetor, though
selected by agreement between the parties, or to
the standing collegia of judges (decemviri and
centumviri): but sometimes the praetor would
undertake it himself. In any case, however, it
seems to have been far less formal than the pre-
liminary proceedings, which had always to take
place before the praetor in person, and to which
alone the term legis actio was applied (Gaius, iv.
11). Owing to the supreme importance to the
parties of their being gone through with perfect
precision, and to the fact that at this period no
written records were preserved of judicial pro-
ceedings, which were purely oral, it was the
practice for both parties, at the close of the
formal legis actio (though before a word of evi-
dence or argument on the question at issue), to
appeal to the bystanders to take note of the
proceedings, that if any dispute subsequently
arose as to their validity evidence might be
forthcoming of what had been done (cf. Ulpian,
I?eg. 20, 9; Dig. 28, 1, 20). This appeal was
called litis contestatio: “Contestari est cum
uterque reus dicit TESTES ESTOTE *; “Contes-
tari litem dicuntur duo aut plures adversarii
quod ordinato judicio (“when the cause has been
made ready for hearing') utraque pars dicere
solet TESTES ESTOTE’’ (Festus). The view here
taken of the nature of litis contestatio is that of
Bethmann-Hollweg (Civil Process, i. p. 177)
and Keller (Civil Process, p. 281). By others it
is held that what the parties called upon the
bystanders to attest was, not that the legis actio
had been duly consummated, but that they had
solemnly agreed to submit their dispute to arbi-
tration instead of settling it in the more primi-
tive way of self-redress (Ihering, Geist des
Tömischen Rechts, i. p. 171); and some (e.g.
Mayer, Die Litis Contestation, 1830, and origin-
ally Rudorff, Römische Rechtsgeschichte, ii. § 71)
go so far as to assert that the form in which the
agreement was made was per aes et libram
[NEXUM]. This theory is based upon the fact
that in the formulary period, as will be seen
below, litis contestatio produced (or, more cor-
rectly, was the outward sign of) consequences
which usually are only producible by contract;
but it is rejected by most writers on the subject
(e.g. Puchta, Institutionen, § 172; Keller, § 62),
and seems too fanciful to be seriously entertained.
Others (e.g. Heffter, Institutionen des rôm. und
teutschen Civilprocesses, 1825) even hold that
there was no real litis contestatio at all in the
legis' actio period, but that it was introduced
with the formulary system to give a solemnity
to the proceedings in jure and their results,
which in themselves they did not possess.
The legis actio procedure was swept away by
the Lex Aebutia, circ. 170 B.C., and its place
was taken by the system of formulae, one of the
main features of which was the universal
division of the proceedings in an action into two
portions: those which took place before the
praetor (in jure) and those which took place
before the judex (in judicio). The object of the
proceedings in jure was to fix the issues to be
tried: when they had been settled, they were
briefly embodied in a written document or
formula, by which the judge was appointed and
informed of the points which he had to deter-
mine : the actual hearing of the case was his
and not the praetor's function (Gaius, iv. 30).
Under this system of procedure, litis contestatio,
in its old sense of an appeal to witnesses, seems
no longer to have taken place, for the best evi-
dence that could be desired of the correctness of
the proceedings in jure was the written formula,
though Bethmann-Hollweg (Civil Process, ii.
p. 480) thinks that it may have survived for
some time through the Roman fondness of old
forms, but at any rate not till the time of the
classical jurists. The term “litis contestatio,”
however, is retained throughout to denote the
point of time in the history or development of
an action at which it passed from praetor to
judex (Cic. pro Rosc. Com. 11, 32; 12, 35 ;
Lew Gall. Cisalp. i. 48; Gaius, iii. 180, iv.
114). It means, technically, the moment at
which the matter really becomes an “action” at
all : the legal position of the parties in respect.
of the particular suit is definitely fixed; and
though perhaps it is incorrect to say that litis
contestatio (in this sense) produces important
results for them, it certainly is the sign and
symbol that those results have ensued. For
instance, from that moment the plaintiff’s right
of action is consumed (Gaius, iv. 106, 107): he
cannot subsequently sue at all, or at any rate he
cannot sue with any effect, on the same ground.
Similarly prescription of the right of action
ceases to run, for the action has been com-
menced ; and consequently also the defendant
cannot as a rule evade condemnation, if the
plaintiff proves his case, even though after litis
contestatio it should become impossible for him
(e.g.) to restore the property in dispute owing
to its accidental destruction. For these, and
other points in which the rights and duties of the
parties were irrevocably fixed by this definite
commencement of the action (and which are
sometimes improperly described as consequences
of litis contestatio), reference may be made to
Mr. Poste's edition of Gaius (pp. 447–451, 2nd
edit.). In point of fact, these consequences are
analogous to those which would be produced by
contract, and many writers attribute these
modifications in the legal relation of the parties
to an assumed contract, by which they are sup-
posed to voluntarily submit themselves to the
jurisdiction of the court, to bind themselves to
abide by its judgment, and to waive any right
which they may have had to settle the matter
after another fashion. But such an assumption
is in reality needless, for these consequences may
more correctly be ascribed to the very nature
of the proceedings in jure, the law implicitly
ordaining that they shall necessarily flow from
the fixing of the issues in the formula (Puchta,
Institutionen, § 172; Walter, Geschichte des
römischen Rechts, $ 720); and if this view be
accepted, it would seem to be unnecessary (with
some of those by whom it is supported) to
regard litis contestatio even as a quasi-contract.
In the time of Diocletian (A.D. 294) the
formulary system finally disappeared, and actions
were commenced and conducted in much the
same way as in modern courts of justice, the
procedure being called simply cognitio. In this
period litis contestatio denotes the summary
statement of his case before the judge by the
plaintiff, and the similarly summary statement
LITRA
LIXAE 69
by the defendant of the nature of his defence,
evidence and argument following in detail: “Lis
tune contestata videtur, cum judex per narra-
tionem negotii causam audire coeperit ” (Cod. 3,
9; cf. Cod. 3, 1, 14, 1; Cod. 2, 59, 2, pr.). The
Greek equivalent of litis contestatio in this sense
is trpokárapčis (Nov. 53, 3, 2; 80, 10; 96, 1;
Basil. vii. 1, 3). Many of the old results for
the parties still ensue, though most writers are
of opinion that the right of action was no longer
necessarily extinguished (see Bethmann-Holl-
weg, Civil Process, iii. pp. 257–262).
(See Holtzendorff's Rechtslexicon, s. v., and
the literature of the topic ad fin., especially
Keller, Litis Contestation und Urtheil, and Wind-
scheid, Actio, $$ 8, 9.) [J. B. M.]
LITRA (Aitpa) was the unit corresponding,
though not equivalent among the Greeks of Sicily,
to the libra of the Italians, and in use for weigh-
ing various substances, including copper. The
word was in use as early as the time of Epichar-
mus, and occurs frequently in Aristotle. It was
divided into twelve ounces, Öykſat. [See PON-
DERA.] Writers like Polybius naturally use the
word to render the Latin libra. The weight of
the litra was about 3366 grains, 218 grammes
(Hultsch, Metrologie, 2nd edit., p. 662). The
equivalent in silver of a litra of copper was a
small coin weighing 13.5 grains, which was in
common use in Sicily, and was the tenth of the
Corinthian stater, called from that fact Seká-
Airpos a raráp. Pollux (ix. 80) gives the value
of the silver litra as the same as that of an
Aeginetan obol (16 grains); but this is only a
rough approximation. [P. G.]
LITTERA'RUM OBLIGATIO. [OBLIGA-
TIONES.
LITU'RGIA. [LEITURGIA.]
LITUUS. Müller (Die Etrusker, iv. 1, 5)
supposes this to be an Etruscan word signifying
crooked, but more probably it is connected with
the verb litare, its augural sense being the
original, and the military lituus being so called
from a resemblance in shape. In the Latin
writers it is used to denote—
1. The crooked staff borne by the augurs, with
which they divided the expanse of heaven, when
viewed with reference to divination (templum),
into regions (regiones); the number of these ac-
cording to the Etruscan discipline being sixteen,
according to the Roman practice four (Müller, iii.
6, 1; Cic. de Div. ii. 18, 42). Cicero (de Div. i. 17,
30) describes the lituus as “incurvum et leviter
a summo inflexum bacillum;” and Livy (i. 18)
as “baculum sine nodo aduncum ” (cf. Serv.
ad Aen. vii. 407; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung,
iii. 402). It is very frequently exhibited upon
works of art. The figure in the middle of the
following illustrations is from a most ancient
specimen of Etruscan sculpture in the possession
of Inghirami (Monumenti Etruschi, tom. vi. tav.
P. 5, 1), representing an augur; the two others
are Roman denarii. It is thought with much
probability that the pastoral staff of bishops (not
the archiepiscopal crosier) was borrowed as regards
its form from the augur's lituus, which in the
earliest Christian representations it exactly re-
sembles. (See Dict, of Christian Antiquities, s. v.)
2. A sort of trumpet slightly curved at the
extremity (Festus, s. v.; Gell. v. 8). It differed
both from the tuba and the cornu (Hor. Carm. ii.
1, 17; Lucan, i. 237), the former being straight,
while the latter was bent round into a spiral
shape. Lydus (de Mens. iv. 50) calls the lituus
Lituus, the Augural Staff.
the sacerdotal trumpet (isparukhv ord Atri'yºya),
and says that it was employed by Romulus when
he proclaimed the title of his city. Ascon. (ad
Hor. Carm. i. 1, 23) asserts that it was peculiar
to cavalry, while the tuba belonged to infantry.
This is not quite correct, for in the armies of
the Sabines and Romans (Ovid, Fast. iii. 216),
where the lituus is mentioned, it is clear that
infantry are to be understood. The bucinator
and the tubicen are both attached to the cavalry
as well as the infantry (Marquardt, Staatsver-
waltung, ii. 553). As regards its shape, Seneca
(Oedip. 733) says, “Sonuit reflexo classicum
cornu Lituusque adunco stridulos cantus elisit
aere.” Its tones are usually characterised as
harsh and shrill (stridor lituum, Lucan, i. 237;
sonitus acutos, Ennius, ap. Fest. s. v.; Stat. Theb.
vi. 228, &c.). The following representation is
from Fabretti. See also the representation of
(Fabretti.)
ſe
Lituus, a trumpet.
a liticen [under CoRNU] from the altar of Julius
Victor (Vol. I. p. 544). [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
LIXAE were sutlers who followed the
Roman legions for trading purposes. So far as
they are distinguished from mercatores, they
sold provisions, while the mercatores dealt in
other wares; but while in Caesar the mercator
stands for both (B. G. vi. 37), in Livy and Taci-
tus we find lizae alone for petty traders of all
kinds, distinct only from the negotiator who
speculated on a large scale. Thus in Liv. xxxix.
1, where there is no prospect of plunder, the
army is unencumbered by livae, i.e. traders who
would have bought up what they could from
the soldiers: so Liv. v. 8, “Lixarum in modum
negotiabantur” (cf. Liv. xxi. 63); and Hirt.
de Bell. Afr. 75, “Lixae mercatoresque qui
plaustris merces portabant.” These traders of
all descriptions had booths for their goods out-
side the camp, which were called canabae, so that
ad canabas legionis means in the market quarter
or bazaar, and in some cases out of these tem-
porary bazaars more permanent settlements
sometimes arose, becoming at last transformed



70 LOCATIO CONDUCTIO
LOCUPLETES
into municipia. (See Marquardt, Staatsverwal-
tung, i. 20.) The licae were sometimes for-
bidden to follow the legion (Sall. B. J. 45),
from which it is clear that they came for their
own profit, and not as a necessary commissariat
adjunct. They are sometimes coupled with
calones, the slaves who attended soldiers, though
quite different from them, merely because both
were distinct from the fighting army. In
emergencies both might be pressed into the
service, as in Liv. xxiii. 16, where they have
somewhat the same effect as the camp-followers
at Bannockburn. [G. E. M.]
LOCATIO CONDU’CTIO, or letting and
hiring, is, like sale [EMPTIO VENDITIO), one of
the four Roman contracts which were said to be
made consensu, because neither form nor part
performance was required to make the agree-
ment actionable. It comprises two varieties,
which are distinguished below, viz. locatio con-
ductio rerum and locatio conductio operarum.
The contract was concluded, and the parties
bound, as soon as they were agreed upon what
was to be hired, and the consideration (merces)
to be paid for it (Gaius, iii. 142; Inst. iii. 24,
pr.). This merces must be money, “pecunia
numerata” (Inst. ib. 2), except that the rent of
agricultural land might be a certain proportion
of its annual produce (Cod. 4, 65,21).
Locatio conductio rei is the letting or hiring
of a res, but the res may be anything which
could be bought and sold (and so not merely
a tangible object, movable or immovable, but
a res incorporalis, such as a usufruct, Dig. 7,
1, 12, 2). The lessee of a house was called
ºnquilinus, of agricultural land colonus. The
letter (locator) of a res was bound to allow
the other to have it for the time or pur-
pose agreed upon, and for that time to take
its fruits if it were a fruit-bearing object; but
as he remained its owner, he could always
recover it back at the cost of having to pay
damages for the breach of his contract: and
similarly, if he sold or otherwise alienated the
ºres locata, the alienee could always make the
conductor give it up (whence the German maxim
Rauf bricht Miethe), though the latter of course
had his remedy against the locator (Dig. 19, 2,
25, 1; Cod. 4, 65, 9). The hirer was bound to
pay the merces agreed upon ; to show the dili-
gentia of a bonus paterfamilias [CULPA] in his
charge of it, and to redeliver it at the termina-
tion of the contract in as good condition as when
it came into his hands, saving ordinary wear
and tear. -
Locatio conductio operarum is the letting
by a free man (locator) of his services at a fixed
'merces. If he was employed to make some
specific object, for the employer (e.g. to build a
house, to make a piece of plate, &c.), he was
called conductor or redemptor (Hor. Carm. iii. 1)
and the employer locator, and the transaction is
sometimes called specifically locatio conductio
operts (faciend). If the agreement was to do
the whole job at a sum absolutely fixed, as dis-
tinct from so much per diem, or so much for
each portion completed, it was said to be made
per aversionem (Dig. 19,
'b. 51, 1). -
The jurists were often doubtful whether a
given contract was sale or hire; as where, in
consideration of so much money to be paid by a
2, 35, pr. ; ib. 36;
customer, a goldsmith agreed to make him a
ring out of his (the smith's) gold (Gaius, iii. 147;
Inst. iii. 24, 4) : other similar cases will be
found in Gaius, iii. 146. Among them was that
of a lease of land in perpetuity at a rent, which
Gaius says was, according to the better opinion
in his time, hire, not sale, but which in later
times became an independent contract distinct
from either [EMPHYTEUsis]. Sometimes again
the transaction was held to be neither sale nor
hire, though closely resembling both, but one of
the so-called innominate contracts, enforced by
an actio praescriptis verbis (Inst. iii. 24, 1 and 2).
(Gaius, iii. 142–147; Epit. ii. 9, 15; Paul.
Sent. rec. ii. 18; Inst. iii. 24; Dig. 19, 2; Cod.
4, 65.) . . . [J. B. M.]
LOCHUS (A6x0s). [ExERCITUs, Wol. I. pp.
769, 770, 775.] -
LO'CULI, a small coffer or casket with com-
partments (cf. loculatae arculae, Varro, R. R. iii.
17), whence it comes that in this signification
the word is only used in the plural. It was
smaller than the arca (Juv. i. 89: see Mayor's
note), but, like the arca, was used to hold money
(Hor. Sat. i. 3, 17; Ep. 11, 1, 175; Mart. v.
39, 7); for jewels (Juv. xiii. 139); to hold keys
(Plin. xiv. 13, § 89), &c. It takes the place of
the larger arca as the treasure chest of the house
(Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 146), and then was placed in
the atrium [see ARCA]: it was made of wood
(Mart. xiv. 13) or sometimes of ivory (Ovid.
Fast. vi. 749; Juv. xiii. 139); for security it
had a lock (Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 149) or was sealed
up (Plin. l. c.). In Hor. Sat, i. 6, 74, Ep. i. 1,
56, the word loculi is used for a small case
holding a schoolboy's libri, chartae, and stilus,
which would generally be called capsa (Juv. x.
117) or theca (Suet. Claud. 35). (See Orelli's
Excursus on Hor. Sat. i. 6.) [G. E. M.]
LO'CULUS. [FUNUs.] -
LOCUPLETES (or adsidui) were Roman
freeholders of land who were included in the
five classes of Servius as liable for summons
to service or tributum. Under this head came
all who held land valued over 11,000 asses (cf.
also Liv. xlv. 15, “eos qui praedium praediave
rustica pluris H. S. triginta millium haberent
censendi jus factum est: ” for the arrangement
of the classes, see COMITIA). The state was
therefore divided into adsidui (or locupletes), i.e.
those who had property, and proletarii, “be-
getters of children,” who were counted by heads,
not by property [see PROLETARII]. This is
shown in Cic. de Rep. ii. 22, 40: “Servius Tullius
quum locupletes adsiduos appellasset ab aere
dando, eos qui aut non plus mille quingentos
aeris aut omnino nihil in suum censum praeter
caput detulissent, proletarios nominavit, ut ex
iis quasi proles, id est quasi progenies civitatis
expectari videretur.” As to the origin of the
two words, for adsiduus we may safely reject
the etymology given by Cicero, “ab aere dando,”
and that suggested in Gellius, x. 16, “a muneris
faciendi adsiduitate.” It means no doubt
“settled on the soil,” or permanently domiciled
(from adsidere; cf. residuus) = the German
ansâssig (Mommsen, Hist. of Rome, i. 196):
locuples is derived by Ovid (Fast. v. 280) from
landholding, where locus is made equivalent to
ager; and so Plin. H. N. xviii. § 11, “Locu-
pletes dicebant loci id est agri plenos.” But it is
clear that this is not the natural sense of locus,
LODIX
LOGISTICA 71
and it is better with Mommsen (Staatsrecht, iii.
237) to take it as referring to wealth of money
and connect it with loculi, the money-chests.
From the passage in Cic. Top. ii. 10, “Cum lex
adsiduo vindicem adsiduum esse jubeat, locu-
pletem jubet locupleti; locuples enim est ad-
siduus, ut ait Aelius,” it is clear that adsiduus
was the older term, written in the Twelve Tables
(cf. Gellius, l.c.). [W. S.], [G. E. M.]
LODIX, dim. LODI'CULA (0.4-ylov), a small
shaggy blanket (Juv. vii. 66). Sometimes two
lodices sewed together were used as the coverlet
of a bed (Mart. xiv. 148). The Emperor Augustus
occasionally wrapped himself in a blanket of this
description on account of its warmth (Sueton.
Aug. 83). It was also used as a carpet (“an-
cilla lodiculam in pavimento diligenter extendit,”
Petron. Sat. 20). The Romans obtained these
blankets from Verona (Mart. xiv. 152). Their
lodix was nearly, if not altogether, the same as
the sagulum worn by the Germans (Tac. Germ.
6). [SAGUM.] [J. Y.]
LOGISTAE (Aoyiotaſ). [EUTHYNE.]
LOGI'STICA [Aoytorich, sc. Téxvm, Plat.
Gorg. 450 D, &c.: the nearest Latin equivalents
appear to be ratiocinandi ars (cf. Cic. Tusc. i.
2, 5), dinumeratio (Id. Rep. iii. 2, 3), rationis
subductio (cf. Subducere, iii. in Smith's Lat.
Dict), or computatio (post. Aug.)] means “the
art of calculation ” as opposed to the “theory
of numbers,” arithmetica (q.v.). Neither, of
course, can exist without the other; but as the
operations of arithmetica were generally per-
formed by means of geometrical figures, which
were found more suggestive as representing not
numbers only, but magnitudes generally, the
customary numerical symbols and the operations
in which they were used were deemed to belong
to logistica, and are more properly treated in
this article. We shall divide the subject accord-
ingly into two parts, dealing first with the
representation of numbers, and secondly with
calculations.
I. NUMERAL SIGNS.
(a.) Greek.—(1) Finger-signs. From the
general use among Aryan peoples of a denary or
vigesimal notation, it may be inferred, with as
much certainty as can ever be obtained about
pre-historic culture, that these nations at a
very early time used the fingers and toes as
symbols of number (cf. A. F. Pott, Zühlmethode,
&c., Halle, 1847, and Sprachverschiedenheit etc.
an den Zahlwärtern, Halle, 1867; Tylor, Primit.
Culture, i. ch. 7). A relic of a yet earlier
notation, the quinary, survives in the words
trepitréeiv, treptăgeogal, reputragrás (Hom. Od.
iv. 412; Aesch. Pers. 981, &c.), which imply
that 5 was at one time the limit of the units
in ordinary counting. At this time, and indeed
for long after the denary notation was adopted,
the Greeks clearly used both hands to count no
higher than 10 (cf. Herod. vi. 63, 65; Arist.
Problem. xv.), and no doubt this simple practice
was never lost. But the references to finger-
reckoning in literature are very scanty until a
late date (Plut. Apophth. 174 b5 Dio Cass. lxxi.
32, § 1 ; Anth. Pal. xi. 72, &c.), when a far
more complicated system, common to Greece,
Italy, and the East, is found in use. (See
Roediger in Jahresö. der Deutsch. Morgenl.
Gesellsch. 1845, pp. 111-129). This is fully
in which they were placed.
described by Nicolaus Smyrnaeus (called also
Rhabda or Artabasda) in a work entitled
ékopagus toū ŞaktvNikoú uérpov, written pro-
bably in the 13th or 14th century, and printed
by N. Caussinus in his book De Eloquentia Sacra
et Humana (lib. ix. ch. viii. pp. 565-568, Paris,
1636; also in Schneider's Eclog. Physic. p. 447).
In this system, units and tens were represented
on the left hand, hundreds and thousands on
the right. The thumb and forefinger of the
left hand were devoted to tens, those of the
right to hundreds; the remaining fingers of
the left hand belonged to the units, those of
the right to thousands. The fingers might be
straight (ékretváuevoi), bent (quoteAAépévot),
or closed (KAwópºevol). In the left hand, bending
the fourth finger marked 1 ; bending the third
and fourth, 2.; the middle, third, and fourth, 3;
the middle and third only, 4 ; the middle only,
5; the third only, 6. Closing the fourth finger
gave 7 ; the fourth and third fingers, 8; the
middle, third, and fourth, 9. The same motions
on the right hand indicated thousands, from
1000 to 9000. The motions of the forefinger
and thumb in representing tens and hundreds,
on the left and right hands respectively, are
more difficult to describe. The reader is
referred to Roediger's article, above cited ; to
Friedlein’s Zahlzeichen und Elem. I'echnen der
Gr. u. Römer, p. 6; and to Prof. Palmer's art.
in Journal of Philology, vol. ii. p. 247 sqq.,
where a plate is given. Martianus Capella (De
Nuptiis Philol. &c., bk. vii. p. 244 of Grotius’
ed. 1599) says, “Nonnulli Graeci etiam pupta.
adjecisse videntur,” and adds, apparentiy in
reference to this usage, “quaedam brachiorum
contorta saltatio fit,” of which he does not.
approve. The motions were probably the same
as those described by Bede in the tract De-
loquela per gestum digitorum (Opera, Basileae,
1563, col. 171–173). Various positions of the
left hand on the left breast and hips indicated
| the ten thousands, corresponding positions of
the right hand on the right side the hundred
thousands, and the hands folded together repre-
sented a million. There is no means of ascer-
taining the origin or the time of introduction of
this method of finger-numeration. It is thought
by some commentators that Aristophanes alludes
to it in Vesp. 656, but it is observable in that
passage that Philocleon only concludes from his
“easy” calculation, that 150 talents are less
than a tenth of 2,000, so that he probably used
his fingers in the ordinary way to divide the
latter number by 10. The more complicated sys-
tem was obviously of no use in calculation, save
as a memoria technica in cases where the mind
might be embarrassed by the consideration of
several numbers at once. It was probably, at
first, only a means of communication between
buyers and sellers who were ignorant of each
other's language. The same or a similar system
is still used for secret transactions in Persia
(cf. De Sacy in Journal Asiat, vol. ii., and Tylor,
Primit. Culture, i. p. 246, n.).
(b.) Pebble-signs.—Under this head may be
included all the representative signs used with
the reckoning-board, abacus, &Saš or à8ákiov
(q.v.). These were generally small stones, or
balls, or dots marked in sand, and the signs
varied in value according to the row of the abacus
(Herod. ii. 36;
72 LOGISTICA
LOGISTICA
Diog. Laert. i. 59: cf. Becker-Goll, Charikles,
ii. 67 ff.; and see below under Roman “pebble-
signs,” p. 74.) [ABACUS.]
(c.) Written Characters.--Iamblichus says (in
Nicom. Arithm., ed. Tennulius, p. 80), without
citing any authority, that among the earliest
Greeks numbers were represented in writing by
repeated strokes. In one inscription (Franz,
Epig. Graeca, p. 347; Boeckh, C. I. G. 2919,
vol. ii. p. 584) from Tralles, āreos l l l l l l l is
found, but Boeckh suspects this to be a forgery
of imperial times. With some limitations, how-
ever, the statement of Iamblichus may be true.
It is possible that with the Greeks, as with the
Phoenicians and Egyptians, the signs of the
units, tens, &c. were at an early date repeated
nine times without any intermediate compendia.
(Cf. Pihan, Exposé des Signes de Numération, &c.
Paris, 1860.)
But the earliest known system of written
numerical symbolism in Greek is that which
used to be called after Herodianus, a Byzantine
grammarian of the 3rd century, who alleged
that these “Herodianic” signs occurred in laws
of the Solonian period and other ancient docu-
ments, coins or inscriptions, seen by him. (See
App. Gloss, to Steph. Thesaurus, vol. xii.;
Walpy's ed. p. 690.) His statement has since
been most abundantly corroborated, especially
in Athenian inscriptions, and the system of
numeration is now generally called Attic. For
our present purpose, however, the old name is
more convenient. Upon this system strokes
served for units less than 5, and the chief
higher numbers are represented by their initial
letters, T for Trévre, A for 6éka, H for ékarów,
X for x{Atol, M for puptot, with further com-
pendia, Fl for 50, ſº for 500, &c. (See C. J. A.
vols. i. and ii.; or Hicks, Gr. Inscr. passim ; or
Boeckh, Att. Seewesen, p. 547 sqq. &c. For
curious Boeotian variations, see Franz, Epig.
Graec. App. II. ch. i. p. 348.) These signs
alone are used in all the known Athenian
inscriptions of any date B.C. (in other words, in
all the Inscr. of C. I. A. vols. i. and ii.). Outside
Attica they certainly remained in use along
with the alphabetical signs, to be next described,
and are found with them on papyrus-rolls pre-
served in Herculaneum, which cannot have been
written before Cicero's time. The two styles
are there used, as we use Roman and Arabic
numerals together, on occasions when arith-
metical division proceeds on two distinct
principles, e.g. to mark the books of an author
as distinguished from the number of lines in the
whole work. (Ritschl, Die Alex. Bibliotheken,
pp. 99, 100, 123, n.) But at some date which,
as will be shown directly, cannot now be
ascertained, the letters of the alphabet with
Some additions came to be used in the Semitic
manner as numeral signs. It has been well
pointed out (Cantor, Vorles. iiber Gesch. der
Math. i. p. 108) that the change was, for all
purposes except brevity, a mistake. With the
Herodianic signs many patent analogies were
exhibited which were wholly obscured by the
new symbolism. To take a very simple in-
stance,. A multiplied by TI gave F, and H
multiplied by ſ1 gave ſl; but on the new
system iſ × e gave v', and p" × e gave p', and
none of these signs contained in itself the least
clue to its meaning. Hence, at every arithmetical
operation with alphabetical symbols, the mind
was really strained, first to interpret the signs,
then to effect the calculation, and lastly to
express the result in signs again. We shall see
later how cumbrous the process was.
When and how the arithmetical use of the
alphabet was adopted in Greece, is a subject
of the greatest difficulty. It is the custom to
say that the practice was originally Semitic
(cf. Nesselmann, Algebra der Griechen, p. 72 sqq.),
but no such practice appears on the Phoenician
inscriptions at present known, and it is not
found on any Hebrew coins before 141–137 B.C.
(Cf. Schröder, Phönikische Spr., quoted by
Hankel, Zur Gesch. der Mathem. p. 34, and
Dr. Euting there cited. Also Madden, Coins of
the Jews, p. 67, temp. Simon Maccabaeus.) On
the other hand, the Hebrew cabbalistic practice
of gematria (i.e. of treating as interchangeable,
for purposes of interpretation, words whose
letters, regarded as numerals, amount to the
same total) is said to be as old as the 7th
century B.C., and, if so, points to the numerical
use of the alphabet at that time (Cantor, Vorles.
i. pp. 87, 104, 105, quoting Lenormant, La
Magie chez les Chaldéens, p. 24: cf. also Rev.
xiii. 18, and Dr. Ginsburg's art. Kabbalah in
Encycl. Brit., 9th edit. vol. xiii.). And there
is a peculiarity in the Hebrew and Greek alpha-
betical numerals which suggests some connexion
between them. In both cases the proper alpha-
bet is deficient, and is supplemented up to the
same limit. The Hebrew alphabet of 22 letters
gives numbers only up to 400. The deficiency
is supplied, up to 900, by using the final forms
of letters, the medial forms of which (cf. Greek
aſ and s) had already been used to represent
20, 40, 50, 80, and 90. The Ionic alphabet of
24 letters, which was formally adopted at
Athens in 403 B.C., could give numbers only as
far as 600. Three letters are wanting to com-
plete the hundreds, and for this purpose the
three étrformua, s, p, and ZA, two of which had
certainly been used in older alphabets, but are
omitted in the Ionic, are introduced. But these
étrformua, unlike the Hebrew finals, do not occur
together, but stand for 6, 90, and 900 respec-
tively, at widely distinct places in the series.
Now s no doubt represents the old Wau (F), and
both this and kéntra (Q) oecur at the proper
places of those letters in the alphabet, yet the
last sign>, whether it represent the Phoenician
Shin (Gr. ordv, Herod. i. 139) or tzade, occurs,
in either case, out of its place and is clearly
resumed into the alphabet for arithmetical
purposes. But if we consider the difficulty of
reviving a long-forgotten letter at all, and
remember that s and Q occur in their proper
order, we should conclude that the Greek
numerical alphabet, if it was settled by custom
only, was settled at a very early time indeed,
possibly before the Hebrew. It is even con-
ceivable that the non-Phoenician letters, v, b,
x, y, w, were originally invented for purely
arithmetical purposes, and were afterwards
adopted as alphabetical signs. -
But against these suppositions there is a mos
formidable array of facts. In the first place,
the inscriptions at present known do not disclose
the existence, for literary purposes, of so full an
alphabet as that used in numeration. There is
none in which both F and Q occur side by side
LOGISTICA
LOGISTICA 73
with both } and w. (See the charts appended to
Kirchhoff, Zur Gesch. des Griech. Alph. 3rd edit.,
1877, and pp. 157–160 of the text. The tran-
script in Hicks, Gr. Inscr. No. 63, p. 117 Sqq.,
is misleading. The original in Rhein. Mus.
1871, p. 39 sqq., contains neither m nor w.)
Secondly, the common alphabetic numerals, do
not appear on inscriptions proper (exclusive,
that is, of coins and MSS. to be mentioned
presently) before the 2nd century B.C., and,
among these, only on the Asiatic. The oldest
specimen is probably one of uncertain place
(printed in C. I. G. vol. iv. pt. xxxix. No. 6819),
which is assigned by E. Curtius to about 180 B.C.
(Franz, Epigr. Gr. p. 349, cites, as oldest, one
of Halicarnassus, C. I. G., No. 2655, which
Boeckh thinks to be little earlier than the
Christian era.) A (not yet published) Rhodian
inscription in the British Museum, assigned to
about the same time, still uses the Herodianic
signs. It should be added, also, that the earliest
Asiatic inscriptions, which contain alphabetic
numerals, arrange them generally with the lowest
digit first, reversing the usual order (e.g. mk, Çic,
&c. in No. 6819 above cited). It has already
been mentioned that no Attic inscriptions before
imperial times contain alphabetic numerals at
all. (It is, no doubt, purely accidental that
2 does not occur in any inscription: Franz,
Epigr. Gr. p. 352.) It may be admitted that
public inscriptions would be the last place into
which a new system of numerals would force
its way, but it is hardly likely that the Hero-
dianic signs would have survived in public
documents several centuries after the alphabetic
had come into general use among merchants, &c.
Thirdly, the earliest numerical or quasi-nume-
rical use of the Greek alphabet, of which we
can be quite sure, is not the same as that now
in question. The tickets of the 10 panels of
Athenian heliastae were marked with letters from
a to k, omitting s. (Schol. to Ar. Plut. 277;
Hicks, Inscr. No. 119, p. 202; Franz, Epigr.
Gr. p. 349.) The books of Homer, as divided
by Zenodotus, are headed with the 24 letters of
the Ionic alphabet, omitting s and Q. The
books of the Ethics, Politics, and Topics of
Aristotle are numbered in the same way; and
that this division is ancient is evident from
Alex. Aphrodisiensis, who (in Metaph. 9, 81 b,
25) quotes from Ç' róv Nukop. a series of defini-
tions which are now found in the 6th book.
It should be mentioned finally, to complete the
perplexity of the subject, which, considering its
importance, has been strangely neglected, that
there is no evidence (it would, of course, be hard
to find) of a time when a short alphabet was
used as far as it would go, and the remaining
hundreds were represented by double letters or
Herodianic signs; nor any evidence of fluctuation
in the value of the letters. Q, for instance,
might be expected to have sometimes its Semitic
value 100, instead of 90, or X might occasion-
ally represent 100, instead of P.
The Greek inscriptions already collected are
so numerous that the statements here made are
not likely ever to want correction in any im-
portant detail. The fact, at present indisput-
able, to which they point, is that alphabetic
numerals do not appear at all until long after
s and Q had disappeared from the literary alpha-
bet, and that these letters are nevertheless used,
and used in their right places, for numeration.
The revival of these letters and of 2 implies,
under the circumstances, a degree of anti-
quarian learning such as cannot be attributed to
the public at large. It looks like the work of
some scholar, backed by the influence of para-
mount political authority. It will be conceded
that Alexandria is the most likely place, in the
first three centuries B.C., to find kings and
scholars in co-operation, and to find some mutual
influence of Greek and Semitic literary usages.
It remains only to add, what has been reserved
for this place, that by far the most ancient and
certain evidence of alphabetic numeration comes
from Egypt under the first Ptolemies. The
oldest Graeco-Egyptian papyrus (at Leyden, No.
379: v. Robiou, quoting Lepsius, in Acad. des
Inscr. Suj. div., 1878, vol. 9), which is dated
257 B.C., contains the numerals kö’ (=29).
Still earlier evidence is furnished by coins,
especially a great number of Tyrian coins of
Ptol. II. Philadelphus, assigned to 266 B.C. (The
k on some coins of Ptol. I. Soter, and the double
signs AA, BB, &c., on those of Arsinoë Phila-
delphi, are of doubtful signification.) From this
time onwards the evidence of Ptolemaic coins
and papyri is abundant. It is not unreasonable
to suppose that the ordinary Greek alphabetic
numeration was first used at Alexandria on
coins, for which its brevity, its sole advantage,
would make it especially useful. Jewish usage
may have suggested it or been suggested by it ;
but, however that may be, Alexandrian com-
merce and the fame of Alexandrian learning
would be sufficiently potent agencies to dis-
seminate the new system throughout the
Hellenic East.
Before proceeding to exhibit the Greek use of
alphabetic numerals, it will be well here to
mention briefly two facts, of some interest in
themselves, which need not further concern us.
Heilbronner, in his Historia Matheseos (pp.
735–737), cites from Hostus, who refers to
Noviomagus, a system of numeral signs in which
arms, as it were, are attached to a central line
according to a fixed plan, which may best be
exhibited by an example. L or T is 1, T or T
is 10, -i or L is 100, T or I is 1000, T is
1111 in the vertical form, and similarly for the
other numbers: e.g. d, is 7744, I. is 7766,
HE is 9999. The work of Noviomagus has been
at last identified by Friedlein (Zahlz, p. 12) as
De Numeris, libri ii. (Cologne, 1539) book i.
ch. 15. This style is said by Noviomagus to be
used by “Chaldaei et astrologi.” It was known
to John of Basingstoke, who learnt it in Athens
about 1240, and is described by Matthew Paris
(Chronica, v. 285, ed. Luard). Secondly, Greek
arithmetic has no cipher. The 0 which De-
lambre (Astron. Anc. i. p. 547, ii. pp. 14, 15)
found in the Almagest is a contraction of oibév,
and occurs only in the measurements of angles
which contain no degrees or no minutes. It
stands, therefore, always alone, and is not used
as a digit of a high number. The stroke which
Otfried Müller found on an Athenian inscription,
and which Boeckh thought to be a cipher, is
clearly explained by Cantor as the iota, the cus-
tomary sign of 10. (See Cantor, Math. Beitr.
p. 121 sqq., and pl. 28; Nesselmann, p. 138, n.
25; Hultsch, Scriptores Metrol. Graeci, Worrede,
74 LOGISTICA
LOGISTICA
pp. v., vi.; Friedlein, p. 82.) The numerical
values attributed to each letter in the Greek
alphabet are stated in every Greek grammar.
Suffice it here to say that the letters a–6', in-
cluding s" for 6, represent the units, '- º' the
tens, pſ—A' the hundreds. For the thousands
the alphabet recommences, but the stroke or
acute accent which marks the numerical use of
a letter is now placed in front of the letter, and
rather below it, so that ,a—,9 represent 1000–
9000. For 10,000 Mu or M, the initial letter of
pºpuou, was generally used on the Herodianic
principle; and with multiples of 10,000 the co-
efficient might be placed before, after, or over
this M. If the co-efficient were placed first, the
M was sometimes omitted and a dot substituted.
Other devices appear in MSS., e.g. , for 10,000,
A for 20,000 in Geminus, or 4, 8, &c. (See
Hultsch, Metrol. Script. Rellig., vol. i. pp. 172,
173; and Ritschl, op. cit. p. 120; Nicomachus, ed.
Hoche, Introd. p. x.) In the case of high num-
bers, accents were usually omitted and a stroke
was drawn over all the component letters (cf.
C. I. A., vol. iii. Nos. 60 and 77, for the two
styles); and as these were arranged in the modern
order, with the highest on the left and the
lowest on the right, the distinguishing mark of
the thousands was also often omitted and the
value of the letter was indicated by its place,
e.g. 8te is 2305. The improved nomenclatures
invented by Archimedes (in the papattns) and
Apollonius (exhibited by Pappus, Math. Coll.,
bk. ii.) may have been originally accompanied by
improved symbolisms, but no trace of them now
remains.
The representation of fractions (Aerrá) in
MSS. is also various, but the most common
methods are either to write the denominator
over the numerator, or to write the numerator
once with one accent and the denominator twice
KO. KOL
with two accents, e.g. 1g or iſ or iſ ka" ka".
Fractions of which the numerator is unity
(“sub-multiples,” as they are sometimes called)
are the most common. With these the nume-
rator is omitted and the denominator is written
above the line, or is written once with two
accents. (See for special details Nesselmann,
pp. 112–115; Hultsch, op. cit., vol. i. pp. 172–
175; Friedlein, Zahlzeichen, pp. 13, 14.) Special
signs for #,All or /2, C' and S, and for 3, w”,
are found. Brugsch (Numerorum Demot. Doctr.,
Berlin, 1849, p. 31) gives, on the authority of
Greek papyri, the signs / for addition, TX for
subtraction, and r2 for a total. (See the plate
appended to Friedlein, op. cit., and references
there given.) . -
(b.) Roman.—(1), Finger-signs. The later mode
of representing numbers on the fingers seems
to have been the same among the Romans as the
Greeks. The best known reference is Juvenal,
x; 248 (where see Prof. Mayor's note). The
oldest is possibly Plautus, Mil. Glor. ii. 3,
“dextera digitis rationem computat,” but the
meaning of this is not very clear. Pliny indeed
(H. N. xxxiv. § 16) says that Numa set up a
statue of Janus with the fingers so arranged as
to represent 355, the number of days in a year
(cf. Magrob. Conviv. Sat, i. 9). - -
. (2) Pebble-signs.—The Romans used at: least
two forms of abacus, one in which buttons
(claviculi) moved in grooves (alveoli), another in
which the stones were loose. . A drawing of a
very elaborate abacus of the first kind is given
by Friedlein in Zeitschr. f. Math. und Phys.,
1864, vol. iv. pl. v. (cf. Zahlz. p. 22). . It is
capable of representing whole numbers up to
999,999, all fractions with 12 for denominator,
and some others. It employs 45 buttons in 19
grooves. Seven vertical grooves at the bottom
of the instrument contain four buttons each,
those in the left-hand groove representing a
million, the values descending towards the right
down to the units. Opposite these grooves, at
the top of the board, are seven smaller grooves,
containing 1 button each, representing 5,000,000,
500,000, &c., down to 5. The eighth lower
groove contains 5 buttons, each representing
# ; the eighth upper groove contains 1 button,
representing #. Three grooves at the side con-
tain a button for 3, at the top, another for # in
the middle, and two for # at the bottom of the
board respectively. It is possible also that some
abaci had balls moving on wires or strings,
similar to those still used in schools. In these,
of course, the lines would be held horizontally,
and not vertically. The so-called Pythagorean
abacus, with its accompanying apices, is not
mentioned by any writer of classical times. The
MSS. of the Geometria, attributed to Boethius,
in which it is first described, cannot be con-
sidered earlier than the 11th century, and no
trace of any such abacus appears elsewhere
before the 9th century. It need not therefore be
discussed in this article (v. Friedlein, Zahlz.
pp. 22–27).
(3.) Written characters.—There are some signs
that the Romans occasionally used their alphabet
for numerical purposes; but the practice was
neither general nor reduced to any fixed rule,
and the dates of our authorities for it, where
known, are all late. Some verses on the subject
appear, with slight variations in several MSS.
One version of them is given by Noviomagus in
the work De Numeris, already mentioned (lib. i.
cap. 10). It begins:—
“Possidet A numeros quingentos ordine recto,
Atque trecentos B per se retinere videtur.
Non plus quam centum C litera ſertur habere,
Litera D velut A quingentos significabit,” &c.
(See Friedlein, Zahlz. pp. 20, 21.) But it is un-
likely that an alphabet so short and so capable
of disturbance as the Roman certainly was, could
ever have been used, in the Greek manner, for
numerical purposes. -
The ordinary Roman numerals are too well
known, and are still in too common use, to
require detailed exhibition. The well-known
theory that 10 was represented by two strokes
(X), 100 by three (D), and 1000 by four (M),
and that V, L and N or P are the halves of these
signs (Nesselmann, pp. 89, 90 ; Key's Latin
Grammar, $ 251), has the advantage of sym-
metry, but does not account for the more ancient
forms of these symbols. (See the plates appended
to Friedlein, op. cit., and Cantor, Worles. Math.)
The more common theories of recent times are
that L, C, and M or A are corruptions of Y
(the Chalcidian form of x, written L), G) and q’,
while X is referred either to 3, the old form
of G), or to the Greek X, so that all these signs
would be adopted from the letters of the Greek
alphabet, for which the Romans had, no use.
LOGISTICA
75
LOGISTICA
(See Ritschl in Rhein. Mus. 1869, xxiv. p. 12;
and Mommsen, Unter It. Dial. pp. 19–34;
Roby, Lat. Gram. App. D, ii.; Friedlein, op. cit.
p. 27.) The objections to this theory are, of
course, that the proposed letters are not used in
their Greek order, and that the Romans and
Etruscans used, in conjunction with these very
signs, a wholly peculiar mode of representing
intervening numbers. Such forms as IX, XL,
XC, are so original, as to suggest the originality
also of the signs of which they are compounded.
(Still stranger forms, as XIIX for 18, are also
found: Friedlein, p. 32; Corssen, Etrusker, i.
39–41.) ; :
A few of the more uncommon Roman numerals
should be here mentioned. The sign for 1000
being rh (not M till post-Augustan times:
Mommsen, op. cit. p. 30), that for 10,000 was
(ſh), and that for 100,000 ((t)); but the
ordinary sign for a million was 53, and any
higher multiple of 100,000 was similarly en-
closed with side and top lines. But the repeti-
tion of rh and the other signs above given being
found cumbrous, it was usual, with intervening
multiples of 1000, to write the coefficient with
a stroke over it, or with milia, or merely M
appended, e.g. XIIDC, or XII milia DC or
XIIMDC. (Cf. Friedlein, Zahlz. pp. 28–31, where
the forms attributed to Pliny are specially dis-
cussed; and Marquardt, Röm. Alt. iii. 2, p. 32,
and v. 1, p. 98, notes 161 and 522.) Other forms
are found, but it is to be remembered that MSS.
are not safe guides to the usages of classical
times. The form “l for 6, for instance, is not
uncommon in MSS., but is not attested by any
coins or inscriptions older than the 6th century
(Friedlein, p. 33).
The fractions generally used by the Romans
were the divisions of the as and uncia. It
should be remembered that the as was, for all
purposes, the type of unity. Thus Balbus (ad
Celsum de Asse, 1) says, “Quidguid unum est,
assem ratiocinatores vocant’ (cf. Marquardt,
iii. 2, pp. 42–44), and the fractions of the as are
applied to divisions of any kind of magnitude.
Livy (v. 24, 5) has “terna jugera et septunces”
and (vi. 16, 6) “bina jugera et semisses agri.”
Columella and the gromatici (ed. Lachmann, &c.,
Berlin, 1848) use the same terms for divisions
of time or length. (Cf. Varro, de R. R. i. 10;
Friedlein, pp. 34, 35 ; Roby, Lat. Gram. i.
App. D, vi.-xiii.) The names of the divisions of
the as from deuna, to uncia, i.e. from # to º,
are set out below in the Appendix, Table XIII.
Those of the uncia are given in Table XIV. It
may be mentioned, however, in this place that
scrupulum is also very often called scrupulus
and scriptulum, and that the book De Asse of
the 3rd century gives, besides duella, the un-
usual fractions drachma (), tremissis (#), and
the name hemisescla for semisextula or dimidia
sextula (Friedlein, p. 41). Other fractions were,
of course, expressible (e.g. quattuor septimae, sc.
partes, &c.), and after the time of Constantine
new terms appear, as translations of Greek or
adaptations of older Roman names (e.g. super-
dimidius, supertertius, &c., for jutdatos, étrf-
Tpiros, &c. : Friedlein, pp. 41–43, 97, 98), but
the divisions of the as and uncia given in the
Appendices are the only fractions for which
special signs are found. The signs from uncia
to quincunx: are merely arrangements of hori-
zontal strokes or dots, as , , ; , ; , , ::, ; : -.
Semis is represented by S, and from this to
deuna, the signs are S, with those for uncia, &c.,
added to the right of it. Then as is an upright
stroke I. The signs below uncia are usually
Semuncia, L or 6 or V, sicilicus J, Sextula \,
ºw or 2, dimidia Seatula E or x, scriptulum R
Ol' *. (Cf. Bede, De Ratione Assis, Opera,
Basileae, i. col. 182.) Much fuller tables are
given in Friedlein, plates 13–15, and the forms
applicable to divisions of the denarius are set
out in Roby, Lat. Gram. i., App. D, viii. It is
possible in this place only to mention the most
common and interesting facts and to refer to
the authorities who treat the subject in detail.
The reader cannot expect here an adequate com-
mentary on . Frontinus or Victorius. (Wide,
beside the references already given, Hankel, Zur
Gesch. der Math. pp. 56–63; Cantor, Worles.
p. 445.)
II. CALCULATION. -
It has been already remarked that finger-
signs are of no practical assistance to calcula-
tion save as a mode of representing a sum,
difference, product, &c., and so relieving the
memory to some extent in the processes of
mental arithmetic. The actual work of cal-
culation was done with the abacus or with
written signs. Addition and subtraction were
always done with the former. So also were
multiplications and divisions, where the multi-
plier or divisor was a low number, but as a
general rule multiplication was done with
written signs, and division by both methods
together. The schemes of addition and sub-
traction set out by Nesselmann (p. 119) are
without authority, and it is to be remarked
that it was in multiplication only that the
ancients approached at all nearly to the modern
facility of using written signs (cf. Friedlein,
pp. 26 and 74).
(a.) Greek-Addition (a tw8eoris) and subtrac-
tion (&paípeois) seem to have involved generally
some mental arithmetic, for apparently on the
ordinary abaci only one number of several digits.
could be represented at a time. The practice.
probably was to set out one of two numbers to
be added, to add the other mentally and set
out the sum (kepdxalov), removing or adding to
the pāqot previously arranged as the calcula-
tion progressed. (This perhaps is what Hero-
dotus alludes to in ii. 36.) Some abaci, however,
notably the Salaminian table (see Cantor, Vorles.
i. pp. 111, 112), have two sets of columns
at opposite ends of the board. It is supposed
by Cantor that these columns were used by two
different persons—a banker, for instance, and
his customer; but it may also be suggested
that the two sets are intended for the repre-
sentation of two numbers in an addition or sub-
traction. Multiplication was sometimes effected
by repeated additions (cf. Lucian, ‘Eppióriuos,
48); but the process, even where the multiplier
is low, is very cumbersome when the multipli-
cand is high, and some sort of a multiplication
table must early have been compiled. The
fullest specimens of Greek arithmetic which we
possess are a great number of multiplications
set out by Eutocius of Ascalen in his notes to
Archimedes (Circ. Dimens., Torelli's ed., pp. 208
76 LOGISTICA
LOGISTICA
sqq.). One of these, which is rendered in
modern figures by Nesselmann (p. 118), and
with some improvements by Friedlein (p. 76),
may be here given. It is the more interesting
because it involves fractions. (The letter k
is used here instead of the Greek sign for #.)
The modern figures are given at the side.
Żyry k 6' 3013 * *
Ayy k 6' 3013 # 4
> y [ _
M M,0 ap ºv. 9000000, 39000, 1500, 750.
M px s 3% 30000, 130, 5, 2}.
,9 X6 a.k kö’ 9000, 39, 14, #, ,
aq, sk 6 m' 1500, 6% , ,
ºn 76 mſ is' 750, 3}, {, },
^m —
M 8xtrô is'. 9082689 tº:
(Cf. also Delambre, Astr. Anc. vol. ii. ch. 1.)
The reader sees that the process begins by
taking the highest multiple of 10 in the multi-
blier and multiplying there with all the digits
of the multiplicand, beginning on the left. The
second digit of the multiplier is then taken, and
so on. The treatment of the fractions should
be observed. Two other very interesting ex-
amples, taken from Heron's Geometica (ed.
Hultsch, pp. 81 and 110), are also given by
Friedlein (p. 77). In the first of these the
process involves the multiplication of $3 by §.
The product is given in the form #. §r, reduced
to § -- #. #, and is there left. (kal £y'86"#6”
Töv Şūo £3";3" pics'É6";6” Tây $6";6", yivá-
Meva kal raßra éémkoo rotéraptov aſ kal £8'53"86"
Töv $6";3".)
The nearest approach to modern multiplica-
tion with Indian numerals is made by Apollonius,
according to the extracts preserved by Pappus
in his 2nd Book above mentioned. Apollonius
recommends that with all multiples of 10 the
co-efficients alone (trw8wéves) should be multi-
plied first, and the tens or powers of ten
multiplied afterwards. ISut this method, as
we have said, does not seem to have been accom-
panied by a new symbolism, and is strictly con-
fined to multiples of 10, with no added units. It
was accompanied by a new nomenclature, similar
to that of Archimedes, according to which
numbers from 1-9999 belonged to the first
group (uupid.6es &TAaſ), 10,000-9999,9999 to
the second group (uvpić6es àirAaſ), and so on,
so that a certain simplicity of description was
gained; e.g. 1,0001,0001 would be described as a
of the third group + a of the second + a of
the first (cf. Nesselm. p. 127, and Papp. ii. 27).
But the invention seems, like that of Archi-
medes, to have been sportive chiefly, and is
certainly illustrated only by the multiplication
of the numbers symbolised by all the letters in
the two lines—
'Apréutôos k\etre ºpáros ééoxov, Švvéa koúpac
and
Mºviv ćevöe 6e& Amuirepos &yxaokápmov.
Eutocius, however (ad Arch. Circ. Dim. loc. cit.),
speaks of the ākutáktov of Apollonius (MSS.
concuráBoov: the emendation was originally
Halley's) as a great aid to multiplication. This
was possibly a “ready reckoner,” or table of
calculated products. It is difficult to see how,
as Cantor suggests (Worles. pp. 298, 387), it
can have been connected with the new classifi-
cation of numbers described by Pappus (cf.
Nesselmann, pp. 126–135).
No example of the division of whole numbers
occurs with the working-out in any Greek
author. It is obvious, however, from the ex-
pressions used and the mode in which remainders
are stated, that the practice was to take a
multiple of the divisor and subtract it from the
dividend; then take another multiple of the
divisor and subtract it from the first remainder,
and so on until the last remainder was less than
the divisor. The series of quotients was then
added together, and the fractional remainder,
if any, was separated into a series of “sub-
multiples” or fractions with unity for nume-
rator. Thus Heron (Geom. ed. Hultsch, p. 56),
dividing 25 by 13, sets out the quotient as
1 + š + 3 + 4 + \s. No name for “quotient’
is found. The customary Greek expression for
the result of a division was that the divisor”
part of the dividend was so and so (Friedlein,
p. 79). The theory of the extraction of square
roots is exhibited geometrically by Theon in his
commentary to the first book of the Almagest
(ed. Halma, 1821: vide also Cantor, Vorles.
p. 420; Nesselmann, pp. 108–110 ; Friedlein,
p. 84). The practice, however, as has been
said above under the article ARITHMETICA (q.v.),
was probably rough and empirical. The theory
of finding a G. C. M. or a L. C. M. is exhibited
in Euclid, vii. 2, 3, and 36, 38. Compound
divisions, in which the divisor and dividend
contain degrees, minutes and seconds, are given
by Theon in his commentary to Ptolemy before
mentioned. (Nesselmann, pp. 142–144.) The
following example is selected by Friedlein
(p. 83):—1515° 20' 15" is to be divided by 25°
12' 10". The first quotient 60 is found by
trial. Then 60 - 259–1500°. 15159 – 1500° =
15° = 900' : 900' + 20' = 920': 60 - 12' =
720' : 920' – 720 – 200' : 60 - 10” = 10'.
200' 15" – 10' = 190' 15". The next quotient
is 7". Then 25°.7’ = 175", 190 – 175' =
15' = 900" : 900' + 15” = 915” : 12'. 7’ =
84”. 915” – 84” – 831”: 10’’ ‘7' = 70’” —
1’’ 10”: 831” — 17’ 10” – 829° 50'". The
last quotient 33” is a little too high, but is
adopted by Theon as near enough for his
purpose. The mode of multiplication and sub-
traction need not be further exhibited. The
final quotient is 60° 7'33".
No method of extracting cube-roots is men-
tioned in any Greek writer, and such an
operation would, in any case, belong more to
àpiðumtik) than to Aoyiotikh.
(b.) Roman.—Of the methods of calculation
in use among the Romans even less is known
than the little which is discoverable of Greek
logistic. What is certain is that the Roman
abacus was adapted to higher needs than the
Greek, and that it was used in very complicated
calculations (cf. Columella, de Re Rust. . iii.
p. 115; Friedlein, Zahlz. pp. 88–90, and plate
21 shows the use of the abacus above described
for various purposes of elementary calculation).
The Calculus of Victorius, written in the 5th
century of our era, is a ready-reckoner of sums,
LOGOGRAPHI
LORICA 77
differences, products, quotients, and reductions
of extraordinary fulness (v. Friedlein, pp. 93 sqq.,
and Appendix). The existence of such a book,
which provides answers to questions of great
simplicity as well as to the more difficult,
seems to show that the Romans were not more
adept at arithmetic than the Greeks. The
passages of Roman writers which refer in-
cidentally to calculations, deal almost entirely
with fractions. We may guess from Horace
(A. P. 327–330) how long a time was spent in
schools in learning by heart the divisions of the
as and the differences between them. We may
gather from Pliny (H. N. vi. § 38) how inexact
the treatment of fractions was, and yet how
difficult were the problems attempted. This
latter passage is very neatly explained by
Friedlein (p. 90), whose note may be here given.
Europe, says Pliny, is rather less than 1% of
Asia and 2% of Africa. It follows that (“si
misceantur omnes summae’’) Europe is rather
more than 4 + š, Asia ; + # (reading sexta
decima for quarta decima), Africa # -- #, of the
whole earth. If T be the earth, E Europe, As
Asia, and Af Africa, then T = E + As + Af.
As = 3 E. Af - # E: therefore T = (1 + 3
+ #) E = (3 + #) E = }} E. Therefore E =
# T = }} = #3 + š, = almost + š, &c. It
will be observed that the mode of treating the
fractions is exactly similar to the Greek. The
treatment of divisions of the as and other
monetary fractions is, of course, far simpler,
because here both numerators and denominators
are strictly limited, and the terms themselves
suggest by their definition the mode of calcu-
lating with them. Similarly any English boy,
in dealing with pounds, shillings, and pence,
soon perceives that the admissible fractions of
a pound are limited to # or #3, of a shilling to
}}. The methods of arithmetic in use in the
Roman empire from the time of Boethius to
that of Planudes are exhaustively discussed by
Friedlein in the work Zahlzeichen, etc. der
Griechen whd Römer wmd des Christlichen Abend-
landes vom 7. bis 13. Jahrhundert, of which
frequent use has been made in this article.
But these methods cannot be said to belong to
classical antiquity; and, if they did, they could
not be conveniently summarised in this place.
We have attempted here no more than to give
such facts with regard to Greek and Roman
arithmetic as are of importance to the inter-
pretation of the authors most generally read,
to the criticism of inscriptions, or to a due
conception of ancient life and manners. [J. G.]
LOGO'GRAPHI (Aoyoypdqo) is a name
applied by the Greeks to two distinct classes of
persons.
1. To the earlier Greek historians previous to
Herodotus, though Thucydides (i. 21) applies the
name logographer to all historians previous to
himself, and thus includes Herodotus among
the number. The Ionians were the first of the
Greeks who cultivated history; and the first
logographer, who lived about Olymp. 60, was
Cadmus, a native of Miletus, who wrote a history
of the foundation of his native city. The charac-
teristic feature of all the logographers previous
to Herodotus is, that they seem to have aimed
more at amusing their hearers or readers than
at imparting accurate historical knowledge.
They wrote in the unperiodic style called Aé;is
elpouévn. They described in prose the mytho-
logical subjects and traditions which had pre-
viously been treated of by the epic and especially
by the cyclic poets. The omissions in the nar-
ratives of their predecessors were probably filled
up by traditions derived from other quarters, in
order to produce, at least in form, a connected
history. In many cases they were mere col-
lections of local and genealogical traditions.
(Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, ii. p. 127, &c.;
Müller, Hist. of Greek Lit. i. p. 206, &c.; Wachs-
muth, Hellen. Alterth. ii. 2, p. 443; Curtius,
Hist. of Greece, translated by Ward, ii. p. 499.)
2. To persons who wrote judicial speeches or
pleadings and sold them to those who were in
want of them. These persons were called A0-
ºyotrotol as well as Aoyo’ypáqol. Antiphon, the
orator, was the first who practised this art at
Athens, towards the close of the Peloponne-
sian war (Plut. Wit. Dec. Orat. p. 832; Aristot.
Rhet. i. 33). After this time the custom of
making and selling speeches became very gene-
ral; and though the persons who practised it
were not very highly thought of and regarded
as pedants (Demosth. de Fals. Leg. pp. 417,420,
where see Shilleto's note; Plat. Phaedr. p. 257 C;
Anaxim. Rhet. xxxvi. 22 and 24; compare Plat.
Euthydem. p. 272 A, 289 D, 305 A), yet we find
that orators of great merit did not scruple to
write speeches of various kinds for other persons.
Thus Lysias wrote for others numerous Aéryovs
eis Sukaa’rīpid re kai BovXàs kal trpos ékkxmoſas
eij9érows, and besides travnyvpulcots, épwtucows,
and étrio'Toxikoús. (Dionys. Hal. Lys. i. 3;
compare Att. Proc. p. 707 =919 Lipsius; Jebb's
Attic Orators, i. 3.) L. S.]
LOIDO'RIAS DIKE (Aotöoptas Šikm).
[KAKEGORIAs DIKá.
LONCHE (Adyxm). [HASTA.]
LOPHOS (A640s). [GALEA.]
LORA'RII. [FLAGRUM.]
LORI’CA (0&paş), a cuirass. The epithet
Alvo06pmè applied to two light-armed warriors
in the Iliad (ii. 529, 830), although it occurs in
the comparatively late catalogue of the Ships,
indicates the early use of the linen cuirass. But
with the exception of the passages quoted, all
allusions to the cuirass in Homer imply a defence
of rigid metal; for it is certainly wrong to
suppose that the orpetros xvr&v of the Iliad
(v. 113, xxi. 31) is a hauberk of twisted mail,
or that XaAkoxtrov is more than a poetical
epithet. The Homeric cuirass was usually of
bronze (but cf. Il. xi. 19–28; xxiii. 561). As
regards the parts of the body protected, it
covered the yagrépa pearamy (Il. xiii. 371, 397,
506), but there is no proof that it reached lower
than this. It consisted of the two yüaxa, viz.
the breastplate (pectorale), which covered the
breast and abdomen, and the corresponding plate
which covered the back (Paus. x. 26, 2; Il. v.
99, xv. 530). In Homeric times the yüaña.
cannot have been made to fit very closely to the
body, for a warrior might have his cuirass
pierced and yet escape unwounded (Il. iii. 360;
vii. 254). The Homeric body-armour consisted
of the 66pağ, Koothp, Köpia, and uttpm. There is
some uncertainty as to the respective functions
of these different pieces. It seems probable that
the annexed woodcut of a bronze statuette of a
Greek warrior found at Dodona (Arch. Zeit.
1882, pl. 1) shows the form of the thorax. It
78 LORICA
LORICA
is clear that at the point of junction the ſworhp
was upon the thorax, and the thorax upon the
Ancient Lorica as worn by a Greek warrior. (From
bronze statuette found at Dodona.)
witpm (Il. iv. 132, 185). Probably the (worthp
was a girdle round the lower part of the thorax,
helping to keep the two yúaxa together, and
itself kept in position by the projecting rim at
the bottom of the thorax, which was the @pua.
It is plain from a comparison of Il. iv. 136 and
187 that the @pa was a part of the thorax.
The uttpm was perhaps a metal band, protecting
the lower part of the abdomen, its upper edges
lying beneath the projecting rim of the thorax.
Such bands have been found in very early tombs
in Euboea and Italy (Helbig, Das Homerische
Epos aws dem Denkmälern erläutert, p. 199,
fig. 67). Specimens are in the British Museum.
(On the whole question of Homeric body-
armour, see Helbig, loc. cit. p. 197; W. Leaf,
Journ, of Hellen. Studies, iv. p. 73; and Leaf's
Płomer, Il. iv. 137). A remarkable fragment of
a thorax, apparently of the early form, has
incised designs of an archaic character, with
human figures, animals, and conventional
patterns (Bull. de Correspondance hellénique,
vii. pll. i.-iii.).
In historical times the rigid thorax (0%pa;
ordótos or orarás, so called because, when
placed upon the ground on its lower edge, it
stood erect) was developed as follows. The
projecting rim at the bottom of the thorax
disappeared. The lower part was prolonged in
the middle to protect the abdomen. (For an
early example of such a prolongation, see
Froehner, Choix de Vases Grecs, pl. iii. See
also below the woodcut of a Roman emperor.)
Round the lower edges of the thorax a series of
flaps was attached, consisting of leather or felt
covered with metal, and serving to protect the
hips and groin, while not interfering with the
wearer’s freedom of movement. They are well
shown in the following woodcut of a figure
of a young warrior from one of Mr. Hope's
fictile vases (Costumes of the Ancients. i. 102).
Instead of the straps here described, which
the Greeks called trépwyes (Xen. de Re Equest.
xii. 4), the Chalybes, who were encountered
by Xenophon on his retreat (Anab. iv. 7, $45),
had in the same situation a kind of cordage.
|
}
ſ|[N
§ w
&
!” º º
A* yº
ºrºrº
§§§
º: 83:32&
º sº º
º: © º º **
§
;
Lorica as worn by a Greek warrior. (From a vase.)
Appendages of a similar kind were sometimes
fastened by hinges to the lorica at the right
shoulder, for the purpose of protecting the
part of the body which was exposed by lifting
up the arm in throwing the spear or using
the sword. (Xen. de Re Equest. xii. 6.) Other
straps were sometimes attached round the
holes for the arms, thus serving as short
sleeves (cf. Alt. von Pergamon, ii., Atlas, pl.
xlvii. fig. 2).
The yūaxa were modelled so as to fit ac-
curately to the form of the body, as may be
seen in the representations of them in the
woodcuts at Vol. I. pp. 189, 284. It appears
(Xen. Memorabilia, iii. 10) that great pains were
taken to secure that the thorax should fit the
individual wearer. The two plates were united
on the right side of the body by two hinges, as
seen in the equestrian statue of the younger
Balbus at Naples, and in various portions of
bronze cuirasses still in existence. On the other
side, and sometimes on both sides, they were
fastened by means of buckles (trepôval, Paus.
l. c.). [FIBULA.] In Roman statues we often
observe a band surrounding the waist and tied
before. The breast-plate and the back-plate
were further connected together by leathern
straps passing over the shoulders, and fastened
in front by means of buttons or of ribands tied
in a bow. In the above woodcut both of the
connecting ribands are tied to a ring over the
navel. The breast-plate of Caligula (see wood-
cut below) has a ring over each breast, designed
to fulfil the same purpose.
Bands of metal often supplied the place of
the leathern straps, or else covered them so as
to become very ornamental, being terminated by
a lion's head, or some other suitable figure ap-











LORICA
LORICA 79
pearing on each side of the breast. The most
beautiful specimens of enriched bronze shoulder-
bands now in existence are those which are re-
ported to have been found A.D. 1820, near the
river Siris in S. Italy, and which are preserved
in the British Museum. They were originally
gilt, and represent in very salient relief two
Greek heroes combating two Amazons. They
are seven inches in length, and belong to the
description of bronzes called épya org.upſiAara,
having been beaten into form with wonderful
skill by the hammer. Bröndsted (Bronzes of
Siris, London, 1836) has illustrated the purpose
which they served, by showing them in con-
nexion with a portion of another lorica, which
lay upon the shoulders behind the neck. This
fragment was found in Greece. Its hinges are
sufficiently preserved to show most distinctly
the manner in which the shoulder-bands were
fastened to them (see woodcut).
Lorica. (British Museum.)
The form and appearance of the thorax as
worn by Roman generals and emperors is shown
in the annexed woodcut, which is taken from a
marble statue
C- of Caligula
º § found at Gabii
W §: ; (V is conti,
Mon. Gab. No.
38). The gor-
gon's head
Over the
reast, and
the two grif-
fins under-
neath it, il-
lustrate the
style of orna-
ment which
WàS COIn IY, OI).
in the same
circumstances
(Mart. vii. 1,
1–4. A clas-
sified table of
the designs
that occur on
imperial cui-
- rasses is given
by Wroth,
Journal of
Bellen. Stu-
dies, vii. p.
128). [AEGIS.] The execution of these orna-
ments in relief was more especially the work
of the Corinthians (Cic. Verr. iv. 44, 132). .
Lorica as worn by a Roman emperor.
(Statue of Caligula found at Gabii.)
Of Grecian cuirasses the Attic were accounted
the best and most beautiful (Aelian, V. H. iii.
24). The cuirass was worn by the heavy-armed
infantry and by the horsemen, except that
Alexander the Great is reported to have given
to the less brave of his soldiers breast-plates
only, in order that the defenceless state of their
backs might diminish their propensity to flight
(Polyaen. iv. 3, 13). These were called half-
cuirasses (hutflapákia).
The rigid cuirasses which have now been
described were sometimes found to be very
oppressive and cumbersome (cf. Tac. Ann. i. 64),
and various forms of flexible cuirasses were
devised, which could adapt themselves better to
the movements of the body.
In Homer (vide supra) the only indication of
a flexible cuirass is contained in the epithet
Atvo06pmè applied to two light-armed warriors,
the Locrian Ajax and the Mysian Amphios.
In later times the linen cuirass continued to
be worn, principally amongst the Oriental
nations, especially the Persians (Xen. Cyrop. vi.
4, § 2; Plut. Alex. p. 1254, ed. Steph.), the
Egyptians (Herod. ii. 182, iii. 47,-description
of the famous linen cuirasses of Amasis), the
jº Phoenicians (Paus. vi. 19, § 4), and the Chalybes
(Xen. Anab. iv. 7, § 15). One of the inventories
"j of the Parthenon contains the (conjecturally
§l restored) entry of thirteen 0&pakes Atwo? kg)
qoxtöwrot (C. I. A. ii. 731, 1.25). Iphicrates
endeavoured to restore the use of it among the
Greeks (Nepos, Iphicr. i. 4), and it was occasion-
ally adopted by the Romans, though considered
a much less effectual defence than a cuirass of
metal (Sueton. Galba, 19; Arrian, Tact. p. 14,
ed. Blancardi).
A much stronger material for cuirasses was
horn, which was applied to this use more
especially by the Sarmatae and Quadi, being
cut into small pieces, which were planed and
polished and fastened, like feathers, upon linen
shirts (Amm. Marcell. xvii. 12, ed. Wagner).
Hoofs were employed for the same purpose.
Pausanias (i. 21, § 8) having made mention of a
thorax preserved in the temple of Aesculapius
at Athens, gives the following account of the
Sarmatians: Having vast herds of horses, which
they sometimes kill for food or for sacrifice,
they collect their hoofs, cleanse and divide
them, and shape them like the scales (poxtóes)
of a serpent, or the petals of a fir-cone. They
then bore holes in the scales and sew them to-
gether, so as to produce a cuirass, inferior
neither in elegance nor in strength to those of
Greek workmanship. This author adds that the
loricae made of these horny scales are superior
to linen cuirasses, which are useful to hunters,
as a protection against the bites of wild beasts,
but are not adapted for fighting. The woodcut
on page 80, taken from Meyrick's Critical Inquiry
into Ancient Armour (plate iii.), exhibits, an
Asiatic cuirass exactly corresponding to this
description. It consists of slices of some animal's
hoof, which are stitched together, overlapping
each other in perpendicular rows, without being
fastened to any under-garment. . The projection
nearest the middle must be supposed to have
been worn over the breast, and the other over
the back, so as to leave two vacant spaces for
the arms.
This invention no doubt preceded the metallic



80 LORICA
LORICA
scale armour. The Rhoxalani, a tribe allied to
the Sarmatians, defended themselves by wearing
O'S 25.35To ºf
C TTTT)
Tº --~~~~
eſcºtc. Sfo offe cycoſo o ostoc tºti.
sº *
# Ny-f-e
ğ
Sºtº
Ú ~~
S^^_^k-
ë
N-S-S- *
lº
.* Nº
Sºtº
-NASA-F.-
#####:
tfit *
––––
Lorica of horn. (Meyrick.)
a dress consisting of thin plates of iron and hard
leather (Tac. Hist. i. 79). The Persians wore a
tunic of the same description, the scales being
sometimes of gold (Herod. vii. 61; 6%pmka
xptoreov Aertöwróv, ix. 22); but they were
commonly of bronze (thoraca indutus aénis
squamis, Verg. Aen. xi. 487). The basis of the
cuirass was sometimes a skin, or a piece of
strong linen to which the metallic scales, or
“feathers,” as they are also called, were sewed
(Verg. Aen. xi. 770; Serv. in loc.; Justin,
xli. 2, 10).
The New Museum at Oxford contains a
remarkable specimen from Kerteh of a piece of
a 6%pağ Aertàotós : the scales of bronze are
fastened by leather thongs to a lining of hide.
(See woodcut from Journ. of Hellen. Studies,
pl. xvli, fig. 3.)
- º
2_º $
~ *
SSW WM - th º:
\lºº &w º ;
º º º º \\ **. * &\s N § § º-
*\\\\\\\\
(2
* -
A wº
66p38 Aetričorós. (From Kertch.)
An armed horseman, on the frieze of the west
side of the Parthenon, wears an interesting
combination of a 0%pač a réðios and Aertãorós.
On the breast and on the back are metal plates
(handsomely ornamented), which are joined
together at the sides by scale armour.
The epithet Aetričorós, as applied to a thorax,
is opposed to the epithet poxiēorðs (Arrian,
Tact. p. 13, 14). The former denotes a simili-
tude to the scales of fish (Aetríðes), the latter to
the scales of serpents (poxiàes). The resem-
blance to the scales of serpents, which are long
and narrow, is exhibited on the shoulders of the
Roman soldier in the woodcut at Vol. I. p. 190.
These scales were imitated by long flexible
bands of metal, made to fold one over another
according to the contraction of the body. There
is a specimen in the New Museum at Oxford of
this armour in bronze, from Kertch. The bands
6épaś a rā8tos and Aertötorós, combined. (From the
Parthenon.)
are riveted together by bronze wire, and
fastened upon a lining of tough hide, which is
still in a wonderfully good state of preservation.
(Journ. of Hellen. Studies, pl. xlvi. fig. 1: cf.
Compte-rendu de la Comm. Imp. Arch. 1876,
pl. ii. figs. 11, 12, 20.) They appear very
frequently on the Roman monuments of the
times of the emperors, and the following wood-
cut places in immediate contrast a 0%pač
Aeriöwrös on the right and poxiówros on the
left, both taken from Bartoli's Arcºs Trium-
phales.
º
;
Ü
º
g
N
\
sº-
Sº-
R-
[-.
j
-
W.
É
#
E-º-
§
:-
4 *.
6%paś (boxtborós. 6&paş Aerwöorós.
(Bartoli, Arcus Triumphales.)
-
+:- F - **** º
-*-*- -
à.
A lighter and more inexpensive thorax of
leather without metal additions was introduced
at an early period (cf. e.g. the archers on the
pediments of the temple at Aegina), and was
known as the otroAds (Poll. vii. 70).
The hauberk or habergeon of chain-mail
(äAvorišarovs 6%pakas, Polyb. vi. 21; Athen.
v. 22; Arrian, l.c.), which was worn by the
Roman hastati, was also a characteristic weapon
of the Gauls (Warro, L. L. v. 116; Poseidonius
ap. Diod. v. 30). Examples occur on the reliefs
of Gaulish trophies from the temple of Athena
Polias at Pergamon (Alt. von Pergamon, ii.









LORICA, LORICATIO
IUCERNA 81
Atlas, pl. xliv. fig. 1, pl. xlvi. fig. 2, pl. xlix.
= woodcut).
fig. The cuirass of chain-mail
Lorica of chain-mail. (Temple of Athena Polias at
Pergamon.)
appears to have been nearly the same shape as
that of horn, engraved above. The two sides
are joined, and the projecting pieces are brought
one over each shoulder, and are fastened by the
bar upon the breast. The whole is made of
thick wire twisted in an elaborate pattern.
Virgil several times mentions hauberks in which
the rings, linked or hooked into one another,
were of gold (“loricam consertam hamis,
auroque trilicem,” Verg. Aen. iii. 467; v. 259;
vii. 639). According to Val. Flaccus (Argon. vi.
232), the Sarmatae covered both themselves and
their horses with chain-mail. [J. Y.] [A. H. S.]
LORI’CA, LORICA'TIO, in architecture.
[MURUs; TECTORIUM OPUs.]
LOUTRON (Aovrpáv). [BALNEAE.]
LUCAR was the money paid from the state
treasury to those who presided over the ludi
scenici, as the state contribution towards the ex-
penses (Tö rexotuevov eis 6éas, Plut. Q. R. 88).
It seems originally to have been the money
derived from luci, or sacred groves (Fest. s. v.v.
lucar and pecunia ; Plut. l. c.); but, being paid
into the public treasury and devoted to the ex-
penses of the ludi, it bears regularly this acquired
meaning of money devoted to payment of actors
especially and other expenses of the games. In
Tac. Ann. i. 77, it is stated that decrees were
made under Tiberius to remove certain abuses
relating to theatrical shows, and among them to
limit the payments from the treasury (“demodo
lucaris”); with which corresponds Suet. Tib. 34,
“Ludorum ac munerum impensas arripuit mer-
cedibus scenicorum recisis.” The holder of the
games (e.g. the praetor, Plut. Brut. 21; Juv.
vi. 379) paid the mercedes to actors and the
other expenses which were incurred; but towards
this he received the lucar from the state. As a
mark of liberality he might forego this aid.
Thus in the inscription Orell. 3882 a certain
Marius Lupercianus “in ludos cum accepisset
publice lucari misso de suo erogationem fecit.”
Aceording to a regulation of Servius Tullius at
each death (partly with the object of securing
a register of deaths), a piece of money had to be
presented to the goddess Libitina (Dionys. iv.
15). This money was called lucar Libitinae
(Orell. 3349). Hence in Horace, Sat. ii. 5, 19,
autumn is called “Libitinae quaestus:” so in
Suet. Ner. 39, “pestilentia unius autumni quo
triginta funerum millia in rationem Libitinae
venerunt.” (Preller, Röm. Myth. 387; Mar-
WOL. II.
quardt, Staatscerw. iii. 488; Mommsen, Staats-
recht, ii. 61.) [LUDI, p. 87.] [G. E. M.]
LU'CERES.. [PATRICII.]
LUCERNA (Affyvos), an oil lamp. The Greeks
and Romans originally used candles; but in later
times candles were chiefly confined to the houses
of the lower classes. [CANDELA.] A great
number of ancient lamps has come down to us;
the greater part of which are made of terra-cotta
(Tpox{Aarot, Aristoph. Eccl. 1), but also a con-
siderable number of bronze. Most of the lamps
are of an oval form, and flat upon the top, on
which there are frequently figures in relief. (See
the woodcuts, Vol. I. pp. 211, 619.) In the lamps
there are one or more round holes according to the
number of wicks (ellychnia) burnt in it; and as
these holes were called from an obvious analogy,
plvkräpes or utiéal, literally nostrils or nozzles,
the lamp was also called Monomyzos, Dimyzos or
bilychnis, Trimyaos, or Polymyaos, according as
it contained one, two, three, or a greater number
of nozzles or holes for the wicks; and there is
besides the central hole for pouring in the oil,
usually covered with a lid. The following
example of a dimyzos lucerna, upon which there
is a winged boy with a goose, is taken from the
JMuseo Borbonico, vol. iv. pl. 14.
Lucerna. (Mus. Borb. iv. pl. 14.)
For the polymyxos cf. Mart. xiv. 41 :
“Illustrem cum tota mels convivia flammis,
Totgue geram myxas, una lucerna vocor ; ”
and see the woodcut Vol. I. p. 331.
The next woodcut, taken from the same work
(vol. i. pl. 10), represents one of the most beautiful
bronze lamps which has yet been found. Upon it
is the figure of a standing Silenus.
Lucerna.
(Mus. Borb. i. pl. 10.)
The lamps sometimes hung in chains from the
ceiling of the room (Verg. Aen. i. 726; Petron.
30; Stat. Theb. i. 521), but generally stood upon
Wºr



82 LUCTA, LUCTATIO
LUCTA, LUCTATIO
a stand. [CANDELABRUM.] Sometimes a figure
holds the lamp, as in the annexed woodcut (Museo
Borbon. vol. vii. pl. 15),
which also exhibits the
needle or instrument
which served to trim
the wick, and is at-
tached to the figure
by means of a chain.
(Comp. Verg. Moret.
11, “Et producit acu
stupas humore caren-
tes.”)
We read of lucernae
cubiculares, balneares,
tricliniares, sepulcrales,
&c.; but these names
were only given to the
lamps on account of
the purposes to which
they were applied, and
not on account of a
difference in shape.
The lucernae cubiculares
were burnt in bed-
chambers all night.
(Mart. xiv. 39, x. 38.)
Perfumed oil was sometimes burnt in the lamps
(Petron. 70; Mart. x. 38, 9). The sepulchral
lamps were not merely placed and left, but were
lighted as a pious duty. So in the following
condition of freedom : “Saccus servus meus et
Eutychia ancilla mea sub hac conditione liberi
Sunto, ut monumento med altermis mensibus
lucernam accendant et solemnia mortis pera-
gant ’’ (Dig. 40, 4, 44).
(Passeri, Lucernae fictiles; Birch, Ancient
Pottery, ii. 277; Marquardt, Privatleben, 645;
Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 86; Gallus, ii. 390.)
[W. S.] [G. E. M.]
LUCTA, LUCTA'TIO (tréAm, TráAatorua,
traXalapoorvum, or kağ8&Auch), wrestling. The
word ráam is sometimes used in a wider sense,
embracing all gymnastic exercises with the
exception of dancing, whence the schools of the
athletae were called palaestrae ; that is, schools
in which the ºrdàm in its widest sense was
taught (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 795). [PALAESTRA.]
There are also many passages in ancient writers
in which tréam and taxateuv are used to designate
any particular species of athletic games besides
wrestling, or a combination of several games.
(See 5*. Gymnastik und Agonistik, p. 400,
note 2.
The Greeks ascribed the invention of wrestling
to mythical personages, such as Palaestra, the
daughter of Hermes (Apollod. ii. 4, §9), Antaeus
and Cercyon (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 796), Phorbas
of Athens, or Theseus (Schol. ad Pind. Nem. v.
49). Hermes, the god of all gymnastic exercises,
also presided over the Trdam. Theseus is said by
Pausanias (i. 39, § 3) to have been the first who
reduced the game of wrestling to certain rules,
and to have thus raised it to the rank of an art;
whereas before his time it was a rude fight, in
which bodily size and strength alone decided the
victory. The most celebrated wrestler in the
heroic age was Heracles. In the Homeric age
wrestling was much practised, and a description
of a wrestling match is given in the Iliad (xxiii.
710, &c.; , compare 0d. viii. 103, 126, 246).
Lucerna. (Mus. Borb.
vii. pl. 15.)
During. this period wrestlers contended naked,
with the exception of the loins, which were
covered with the trepigoua (Paus. i. 44, 1) or
Şū.
&T-cº
2%—s
N--
Wrestlers with trepiºpia. (Krause.)
Côpia (Il. xxiii. 683), and this custom remained
throughout Greece until Ol. 15 (= 720 B.C.),
from which time the perizoma was no longer
used, and wrestlers fought entirely naked.
(Thucyd. i. 6, with the Schol. and Boeckh's note
to C. J. G. i. p. 554, who shows that from the
time of Orsippus (Paus. l. c.), i.e. 720 B.C. or
632, runners put off the trept ſoua, but that it
was only a short time before the age of Thucy-
dides that those who contended in other depart-
ments of athletics put it off.) In the Homeric
age the custom of anointing the body for the
purpose of wrestling does not appear to have
been known, but in the time of Solon it was
quite general, and was said to have been adopted
by the Cretans and Lacedaemonians at a very
early period (Thucyd. l. c.; Plat. de Re Publ. v.
p. 452). At the festival of the Sthenia in Argos
the ardàm was accompanied by flute-music.
[STHENIA.]
The contest in wrestling was divided by the
ancients into two parts, viz. the tróAm épô% or
àpóta (àp600tdömv Traxateuv); that is, the fight
of the athletae as long as they stood upright,
and the āAtvömoris or icóAugus (lucta volutatoria),
in which the athletae struggled with each other
while lying on the ground. Unless they con-
trived to rise again, the &Alvömoris was the last
stage of the contest, which continued until one
of them acknowledged himself to be conquered
(ätrayopsieiv, &reitreºv). The tróAm épôh appears
to have been the only one which was fought in
the times of Homer, as well as afterwards in the
great national games of the Greeks; and as soon
as one athlete fell, the other allowed him to rise
and continue the contest if he still felt inclined
(Senec. Ep. 13, 2; Lucian, Leaviph. 5). But if
the same athlete fell thrice, the victory was
decided, and he was not allowed to go on
(Senec. de Benef. v. 3; Aeschyl. Eum. 589;
Anthol. Gr. vol. ii. p. 406, ed. Jacobs). As the
winner of three falls, the victor was called
Tpiakthp (Aesch. Ag. 171); similarly one who
is not conquerable is &rpíakros (Choeph. 338).
The &Atvömous was only fought in later times, at
the smaller games, and especially in the pan-
cratium. The place where the wrestlers con-
tended was generally soft ground, and covered
with sand (Xen. Anal. iv. 8, § 23; Lucian,
Anach. 2). Each of the various tribes of the

LUCTA, LUCTATIO
LUCTA, LUCTATIO 33
Greeks seem to have shown its peculiar and
national character in the game of wrestling in
some particular trick or stratagem, by which it
excelled the others.
Wrestlers—&Aivömarus. (Krause.)
There were certain rules for wrestling (Plat.
Legg. viii. 833 E.; cf. Lucian, Demon. 49), e.g.
that striking was not allowed, though pushing
was quite fair (Plut. Symposiac. ii. 5; Lucian,
Anach. 24; yet cf. Ocyp. 86). But within
these laws all kinds of feints and tricks were
practised; hence wrestling is called by Plutarch
(op. cit. ii. 4) Texuikótarov Kal travoup'yáratov
Töv &6Amudrav (cf. Xen. Cyr. i. 6, 32). Well-
trained wrestlers were not satisfied with merely
effecting the defeat of their adversary, but
always strove to display grace and elegance in
their performances (Cic. Orat. 68,228). Prior
to the contest each combatant used to anoint
, the other, and rub him over with fine dust or
sand (Ov. Met. ix. 35; Lucian, Anach. 1). The
oil was useful to make the wrestlers more
flexible and agile (eitová'repa, ib. 24), and the
dust to allow the adversary to get a grip, besides
being advantageous to the wrestler himself in
that it prevented him from perspiring too
diffusely and from catching cold, as one is likely
to do if exposed to the wind with one's pores
open, and also in that it enabled the dirt to be
more easily scraped off after the contest was
over (ib. 29). There are a great many technical
terms applied to different kinds of wrestling
(Poll. iii. 155), which are set forth by Krause
(Gymnastik und Agonistik der Hellenen, i. 400–
439, also in his art. Gymnastica, §viii. in Pauly's
Realencylopädie, iii. 1006–1009) and Grasberger
(Erziehung und. Unterricht, i. 331–373), such
3S-
1. &rpoxeiptorpiós. This consisted in one of
the wrestlers, if he had very powerful hands,
seizing the fingers of the other, and sometimes
breaking them, thus compelling his adversary
to give up (Artemid. Oneir. i. 60; cf. Aristot.
Eth. N. iii. 1, 17). One athlete, Sostratus of
Sicyon, from his success in this, was called
&kpoxetplatfis (Paus. vi. 4, 1). This feature,
however, as well as breaking the toes (Paus.
viii. 40, 2), belongs mostly to the Pancratium
[PANCRATIUM). -
2. Späagew or öpāoraegôat—a word for grasp-
ing, getting the “grip” (Aagh, ēuaa). The
ordinary method appears to have been this:—
The wrestlers used to approach one another with
upraised and extended arms, and take up a
firm position of attack with the right leg
advanced and the upper part of the body drawn
somewhat back. Then each advanced his left
leg till they were close together (cum pede pes
junctus, Ov. Met. ix. 45, a position called by
Plutarch, l. c., oºo-raqis or rapá0eoris), arched
his neck and shoulders, contracted (a pnk&oras)
his body as much as possible, and thus standing
each tried to get his grip (Heliod. Aeth. x. 31;
Ov. Met. ix. 33 ff.: Stat. Theb. vi. 850 f. See
also cut in Guhl and Koner, p. 267). The efforts
to get the grip are vividly described by Statius
in his account of the wrestling match between
Agylleus and Tydeus (ib. 860): “Et jam
alterna manus frontemque humerosque latusque
Collaque pectoraque et vitantia crura lacessit
Inter dum que
diu pendent per
mutua fulti
Bracchia,” &c.
In making these
efforts to grasp
one another, as
each kept his
body back as
much as pos-
sible while he
bent forward
his head, the
wrestlers often
necessarily
knocked their heads together (avvapátrew rô.
puérotra, Lucian, Anach. 1; “et frontem fronte
premebam,” Ov. Met. ix. 45). Cf. illustration
No. 1589 in Baumeister’s Denkmäler : but such
“butting” was only incidental, and not, as
Guhl and Koner say, a regular feature of the
wrestling. Frequently both wrestlers took
“body-grips” (6taXauðdveuv), as in the wrest-
ling-match in the Iliad, xxiii. 711. In that case,
if one fell, the other did too, he who was upper-
most being considered the victor in that fall.
This is the meaning of tr{rrel 5’ &a paxes oiâ’
étrº vérºp in Aesch. Suppl. 90. We have several
illustrations of wrestlers grasping just above the
waist, so as, either by extreme pressure or by
dragging his adversary about, to force him to
surrender (Krause in Pauly, p. 1006); or some-
times an arm and a shoulder are grasped.
3. §yxelv, &rotruſyev,
choking. This was done
either by throwing both
arms round the neck,
generally from behind
(Theocr. xxv. 268; Phil-
ostr. Imag. i. 6, p. 384,
Kayser) or by a very tight
pressure in the middle of
the body, as Hercules
strangled Antaeus (āpā-
pºevos rov 'Avrafov weré-
opov Šuplagiu ‘Hpakxis
kada as &mércrewe, Schol.
to Plat. Legg. 796 A ;
Stat. Theb. vi. 897), or
by the elbow pressed up
under the chin (Lucian,
Anach. 1), a method of strangling which is
perhaps meant by &ykovićeiv.
4. Avyſſelv is a general term for the bending
and twisting which is seen in all wrestling: cf.
Hesiod, Scut. 302, uáxeorga, Akmööv, which
refers to wrestling. -
5. &ykupićeiv was some trick of “hooking”
(#ykupa, “a hook?”) the leg round the leg of the
adversary. It differs according to *
Gł
Wrestlers getting the “grip"
(ópáorarovres). (Krause.)
* ~ * \, .
*-
&#}.
Wrestler—&yxov. (Her-
cules and Antaeus.)
(Krause.)




84 LUCTA, LUCTATIO
LUDI.
(ap. Grasberger, op. cit. i. 355) from Örookewigetv
in this respect, that in the latter the tripping
foot is not taken off the ground, while in
&ykupſſelv it is. But more probably irooke-
Atgetv is a generic term.
6. £ugáNAelv, trapeu8áNAelv (Plut. Symposiac.
ii. 4; Lucian, Ocyp. 60) was probably making a
charge in front or on the side of the opponent:
for we know that pushing was allowed. Cf.
páoro'eiv &págoeuv. -
7. Trapakpoiſelv, to make a feint of grasping:
cf. Stat. Theb. vi. 876, “fictumque in colla
minatus Crura subit.” The word is derived,
according to Etym. Magnum, s. v. trapakpoietal
(652, 48), &tratº, ätrö uérapopas Tov trañatorów
où katağaxAóvrov &AA’ &v &pg trapakpovávrov #
Troöl # Xelp) kal of pittávrov. -
8. §rookeNigetv, supplantare. This is a
general term for “tripping up" or “taking the
legs from under” one’s opponent : cf. §qeX&v T&
Tööe (Lucian, Dial. Deor. vii. 3), štréaupe rô.
orkéAm (Diod. xvii. 100). A special form of this
occurs in the wrestling-match in the Iliad
(xxiii. 726), when Ulysses strikes Ajax, pro-
bably with his heel, behind at the hollow of the
knee (kóxm). This appears to have been also
called trepv{{elv (cf. LXX. Gen. xxvii. 36).
Another form consisted perhaps in pressing the
right leg of the opponent inwards év Šē yóvu
ºyväuyev (Hom. Il. xxiii. 731). This the
Scholiast calls trapakarayayā.
9. &varpéretv, the general word for “upset-
ting,” which was the result of ŠiroakeXt(eiv (cf.
Plat. Euthyd. 278 B). Plutarch (l. c. 5) speaks
of reputpotraſ. The methods were various, e.g.
grasping the opponent's leg and suddenly pulling
Wrestlers—&varpétrov. (Krause.)
it, lifting him clean off the ground (Lucian,
Anach. 24).
10. atpépetv. This consisted in one wrestler
turning his adversary right round by suddenly
springing on him. After the turn was effected,
he generally leaped on his adversary's back (Ov.
Met. ix. 52 ft.), twisting his legs tightly round
his thighs (Hesych. s. v. TAſyua); or grasped his
adversary's sides low down round the stomach,
raising him off the earth and crushing him with
a violent pressure at the same time; or drove
his elbow up under his chin to choke him
(Lucian, Andch. 31). In Statius (l.c. 898), when
Tydeus gets his adversary well raised up off the
ground, he turned him obliquely (as in the cut
under PANGRATIUM), let him fall, and falling
along with him had an &Aivömous on the ground
(cf. Lucian, Anach. 1). The Argives were
celebrated for this kind of sudden twist in order
to get on the opponent's back, and were called
by Theocritus (xxiv. 109) éðpoorpāq'ot - “cross-
buttock men.” Cf. thv čápav orpé pelv, Theophr.
Char. x. (xxvii.).
11. IcAlpiakiſelv appears to mean that, after sud-
denly turning his opponent round, the wrestler
clambered up his back, as it were up a ladder.
This is Hermann's not very satisfactory explana-
tion of &pſpiraektol katuakes in Soph. Trach. 520.
Krause (in Pauly, 996) says it is a rapid move-
ment of the thigh, whereby the adversary was
thrown down. But this is far from definite, and
does not explain the origin of the term. The
Schol. explains it as étravagdaeis, trapā āva, Te
kal kāra, airobs atpéper6al év tá uáxp. If
this “being turned upside down " means being
rolled over and over, the k\ſuaş will be a species
of &Atvömous. For further conjectures, see Gras-
berger, op. cit. i. 367–369.
12. 6ta\au6&velv, to seize round the middle
(Aristoph. Eq. 262; Plut. Ant. 33); Staxau-
Bávov Tows veaviorkous érpaxãAtaev (cf. Gras-
berger, op. cit. iii. 465).
13. Tpaxm?\{{elv, to bend the neck back,
Theophr. Char. x. (xxvii.) : hence in the passive
metaphorically used for “to be conquered,”
Plut. de Curios. 521, 6.
In a diaetetic point of view the &Atvömoris was
considered beneficial to the interior parts of the
body, the loins, and the lower parts in general,
but injurious to the head; whereas the trøAm
ôpół, was believed to act beneficially upon the
upper parts of the body. It was owing to these
salutary effects that wrestling was practised in
all the gymnasia as well as in the palaestrae,
and that in Ol. 37 (= 632 B.C.) wrestling for boys
was introduced at the Olympic games, and soon
after in the other great games, and at Athens
in the Eleusinia and Thesea also. (Paus. v. 8,
§ 9; Pind. Ol. viii. 68; Gell. xv. 20; Plut.
Symposiac. ii. 5.) The most renowned of all the
Greek wrestlers in the historical age was Milo
of Croton, whose name was known throughout
the ancient world (Herod. iii. 137; Strab. vi.
p. 263, &c.; Diod. xii. 9). Other distinguished
wrestlers are enumerated by Krause (Gymn. i.
434 f.). (To the works of Krause and Gras-
berger referred to, add Hermann-Blümner,
Griech. Privatalterthümer,” pp. 344, 345, and
Iwan Müller’s Handbuch, vol. iv. Die Griech.
Privatalterthümer, $97, p. 451 c, where a copious
bibliography is to be found.) [L. S.] [L. C. P.]
LUDI is a general term comprising the -
various spectacles and contests of the circus
and amphitheatre (ludi circenses), and those of
the theatre (ludi scenici) and stadium. . .
1. Kinds of games.—In their legal aspect we
may divide the games into public and private.
(a) Public. Originally the games were re-
ligious ceremonies, the two oldest being the
Equirria [EQUIRRIA] and Consualia [Consualia],
held in honour of Mars and Consus. But
games were frequently vowed (ludi votivi) on
the eve of or during times of war (for a long
list see Friedländer, ap. Marquardt, Staatsv.
iii., 476, note 7), especially to Jupiter (hence
called ludi magni, maazimi : Festus, s. v. Magnos
Ludos), which gradually came by custom to be
solemnised every year, and afterwards estab-
lished by law as annual (Liv. i. 35, 9) [LUDI
ROMANI]. During the time of the Republic
there were seven such games, the ludi Ro-
mani, Plebeii, Ceriales, Apollinares, Megalenses, -

LUKOI
LUDI 85
Horales, Victoriae Sullanae. The first two
were called sacri, because they had an epulum
connected with them (Dio Cass. li. 1). These
two, as well as the Apollinares, had also a day
set apart for the equorum probatio. During im-
perial times many new games were added. The
birthday feasts and games (ludi natalicit), cele-
brated in honour of the reigning emperors
(called rà. Yevé0Ata, whereas rà yewéoria were
those celebrated in honour of dead emperors),
were allowed by even the most modest of the
Caesars, e.g. Antoninus Pius (see Capit. Ant.
Pius, 5); but they seem to have been retained
after death only for those emperors who were
consecrated (ib. 13). Mommsen (in C. J. L. i.
p. 380) derives from the Calendar of Philocalus
(constructed 354 A.D.) a list of nineteen such
birthday games as were celebrated at that date.
These games were nearly always circensian, as
were also those celebrated in honour of the day
the emperor ascended the throne (ludi natalis
imperii). Only in the case of Sept. Severus (Dio
Cass. lxxviii. 8) were the latter games retained
beyond the time of the reigning emperor (cf.
Capit. Pertinaa:, 15). Ludi votivi, too, were often
instituted after a war, e.g. the ludi Parthici
(perhaps on Sept. 18, Trajan's birthday), insti-
tuted by Hadrian in celebration of Trajan's
Parthian war (Dio Cass. lxix. 2, and Reimar
ad loc.); and such are frequent in the Constan-
tinian period, e.g. Ludi Alemannici (Oct. 5–10),
Gottici (Feb. 4-9), Sarmatici (Nov. 25–Dec.
1), &c.; see a list in C. J. L. i. p. 376.
(b) Private. Besides these ludi publici, there
were ludi privati, especially ludi funebres.
Though the whole people took part in them,
still they are private games, as being given by
private individuals and not by the state. The
ludi funebres were celebrated on the ninth day
after death, hence sometimes called ludi no-
vendiales (Serv. ad Verg. Aen. v. 64). Gladia-
torial exhibitions in the Forum were frequent
at these games (indeed were not given elsewhere
during republican times), in accordance with
the old belief that human blood should flow
over the grave of a dead man (Serv. ad Verg.
Aen. iii. 67; v. 78). The beginning at Rome
of gladiatorial contests, which came from
Etruria and Campania, dates from the funeral
games of D. Junius Brutus in 264 (Liv. Epit.
xvi. ; Mommsen, R. H. ii. 412). Exhibitions
of gladiators were often ordered by will to be
given at the funeral of the testator (Cic. Vat.
15, 37; Sulla, 19, 54; Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 84).
Dramatic representations were also held at
funeral games: e.g. the Adelphi was acted at
the funeral games of Aemilius Paullus in 160
B.C. Generally the games only lasted one day,
and only a few pairs of gladiators fought; but
at the funeral of M. Aemilius Lepidus (Liv. xxiii.
30, 15), in 216 B.C., the games lasted three
days, and twenty-two pairs of gladiators
fought; at those of M. Valerius Laevinus, in
200 B.C., the games lasted four days, and
£wenty-five pairs fought (Liv. xxxi. 50, 4);
while at those of P. Licinius in 183 B.C. the
games lasted three days, and 120 gladiators
fought (Liv. xxxix. 46, 2), a very large exhi-
bition indeed (cf. Liv. xli. 28, 11). It was
thought disgraceful for women to be present at
ludi funebres, and P. Sempronius Sophus, consul
in 268 B.C., sent a divorce to his wife because
she attended funeral games (Val. Max. vi. 3,
12; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 267). Another kind
of ludi privati were those given by people of
high rank voluntarily, on occasions of great
public rejoicing, such as Stella's games in
93 A.D. (Mart. viii. 78 : cf. Pers. vi. 48). For
giving such games, non-senators had to get
permission from the senate (Dio Cass, lx. 23).
These games were perhaps the ludi honorarii
referred to by Suet. Aug. 32, for which thirty
days in the year had been set apart. Augustus
reconstituted these as working days. Ludi
honorarii appear to have been most constantly
given at the Liberalia (Fest. p. 102, and
Müller's note). Private exhibitions, to which
Special invitations were issued, were often given
by the emperors; such as the LUDI PALATINI,
the JUVENALES. Such also, too, were given
by Caligula (Suet. Cal. 54), Nero (Tac. Ann.
xiv. 44), Commodus (Lampr. Comm. 8), Cara-
calla (Dio Cass. lxxix. 10), Elagabalus (Lampr.
Elag. 23), &c.
In the Calendar of Philocalus (354 A.D.)
several other public games are mentioned,
devoted to gods, but they are of little impor-
tance. The principal are on Jan. 7 to Janus;
April 1, to Venus Verticordia (Macrob. Sat. i.
12, 15); April 5, to Quirinus; April 8, to
Castor and Pollux; May 29-June 1, Fabarici to
the goddess Carna (Macrob. Sat. i. 12, 31; Ov.
Fast. vi. 101 ff.); July 23–24, to Neptune (Ter-
tull. Spect. 6); Aug. 5 (Cic. Att. iv. 1, 4), to
Salus; Sept. 29–30, to the Fates; Oct. 19–22,
to the Sun; Nov. 1, to Osiris and Isis (C. I. L.
i. 405).
According to their intrinsic nature, the
games may be divided (cf. Cic. de Leg. ii. 15,
38) into (1) ludi circenses [CIRCUs], which in-
clude both the races in the circus and the
gladiatorial shows [GLADIATOR), and baitings
of beasts [VENATIOJ in the amphitheatre
[AMPHITHEATRUM); (2) the ludi scenici, or
dramatic and spectacular shows in the theatre.
[COMOEDIA ; TRAGOEDIA ; THEATRUM ; HIS-
TRIO; MIMUs; PANTOMIMUS.] To these are to
be added (3) the Greek contests of musicians
and athletes, strictly called Agones. The per-
formances and performers of the first two kinds
are sufficiently treated in the articles referred
to. Here we must say a word on the Agones.
These contests were first introduced into Rome
by M. Fulvius Nobilior in 186 B.C. (Liv. xxxix.
22, 2). In 169 B.C. we are told that Aemilius
Paullus gave similar shows at Amphipolis, in
which the Romans were quite unversed (Liv.
xlv. 32, 9–10). And at the triumph of L.
Anicius Gallus in 167 B.C. it was attempted to
give a musical exhibition, but the people made
the performers box instead of playing the
music: that was the only sort of &yöv they
understood (Polyb. xxx. 13). In the last cen-
tury of the Republic we hear of Sulla (App.
B. C. i. 29), Scaurus (Val. Max. ii. 4, 7), Pom-
peius (Dio Cass. xxxix. 38), Curio (Plin. H. N.
xxxvi. § 120), and Caesar (Plut. Caes. 39) giving
exhibitions of athletes. Such contests were not
appointed to occur at regular intervals till im-
perial times. Then there were three principal
agones: (1) the Actia ; (2) the Agon Neroneus;
(3) the Agon Capitolinus. The first two are
described in the articles LUDI ACTIACI and
QUINQUENNALIA. The Agon Capitolinus was
86 LUDI
LUDI
established in 86 A.D. by Domitian (Suet. Dom.
4), and celebrated every fourth year in early
summer (Herodian, vii. 8, 3 ; and Clinton, Fasti
Rom. p. 252). It lasted till the end of an-
tiquity (Friedländer, S. G. ii.” 620–1), and even
into modern times: for it was on Easter Sunday
1341, on the Capitoline hill, that Petrarch was
crowned (Gregorovius, Gesch. der Stadt Rom, vi.
207-216; Gibbon, viii. 227, ed. Smith). It com-
prised contests in Greek and Latin poetry, Greek
and Latin oratory (the subjects being the praises
of Jupiter Capitolinus and Domitian, Quintil. iii.
7, 4; Suet. Dom. 4), and music, for which Do-
mitian built a covered theatre (the Odeum) in
the Campus Martius (Preller, Regionen, 169),
and in the same place he built a stadium for
the athletes who contended in boxing, wrestling,
and the pancratium (Friedländer, op. cit. 616–
620, an important collection of evidence).
Originally there was a foot-race for girls (Suet.
A. c.). The victors were crowned with oak-
leaves (Mart. iv. 1, 6). For the other agones,
which were mostly gymnastic, such as the Agon
Minervae of Gordian, and the Agon Solis of
Aurelian, see Friedländer, op. cit. 467.
2. The Length of the Games.—They originally
lasted each only the portion of one day (Liv.
xlv. 9, 4; Mommsen, R. H. i. 472). From one
day they gradually increased during the Re-
public,+the Ludi Romani to 15, and after
Caesar's death to 16, the Ludi Plebeii to 14, the
Ceriales to 8, the Apollinares to 8, the Mega-
lenses to 7, the Florales to 6, and the Ludi
Victoriae Sullanae to 7: i.e. 66 in all. Of
these the Ludi Romani had 5 dies circenses, the
Ludi Plebeii 3, and the rest one each : i.e. 13 in
all. (See the Calendar in C. J. L. i. and p. 377.)
Various games were added during the Empire :
in the time of M. Aurelius there were 135, and
in 354 A.D., when the Calendar of Philocalus
was drawn up, there were 175 (C. I. L. i.
p. 378). Gradually, too, the whole of each
day came to be filled up with events, begin-
ning from early morning (Cic. Fam. vii. 1, 1 ;
Nat. Deor. i. 28, 78; Suet. Cal. 26, Claud. 34),
and continued on into the night (Suet. Cal.
18, Dom. 4; Tac. Ann. xiv. 20, xvi. 5) on a
memorable occasion with living torches (Tac.
Ann. xv. 44). Night festivals probably began
with the Floralia (Ov. Fast. v. 361 ff.); and
the part of the secular games celebrated at
night was the most important. After 61 B.C.
there was a pause in the middle of the day
for the audience to get their dinner (Dio Cass.
xxxvii. 46); and this period was filled up, at
least in the case of the circenses, with the ex-
hibition of inferior gladiators, the meridiani.
It was during this pause for dinner, on one
of the days that the giver of the games feasted
the people, if he did feast them ; though some-
times the epulum lasted for more than one day
(Vell. ii. 56). But we hear of viands being
also brought into the circus and the theatre
(Stat. Silv. i. 6, 28 f.; Mart. v. 49, 9; cf.
Suet. Dom. 4).
3. Instauratio (Macrob. St. i. 11, 5).-The
anxious scrupulousness with which the Romans
observed ritual is often insisted on (for ex-
amples, see Liv. v. 17, 2; xxxii. 1, 9; xli. 16,
1). So in the case of the games Cicero tells
us (de Harušp. resp. 11, 23): “Si ludius
constitit aut tibicen repente conticuit aut puer
ille patrimus et matrimus si tensam non tenuit
aut lorum omisit aut si aedilis aut verbo aut
simpulo aberravit, ludi non sunt rite facti
eague errata expiantur et mentes deorum im-
mortalium ludorum instauratione placantur.”
That is, that in any such case when the
games were performed non rite, non recte,
minus diligenter, they had to be held over
again, either entirely or the ceremonies of
certain days were performed again. The strict
phrase for the repetition of the games in their
entirety was ludi toti instaurati sunt ; that for
the repetition of the ceremonies of certain
days was ludi (semel, ter, quinquies, or per
wnwm, diem, per triduum, per quinque dies) in-
staurati Sunt. See a long list of examples in
Weissenborn on Liv. xxiii. 30, 16. Games so
repeated were called instaurativi (Cic. de Div.
i. 26, 55). Sometimes the games were re-
peated as often as ten times, owing to faults
purposely committed by the performers who
were interested. This was put a stop to by
the Emperor Claudius, who forbade the Cir-
censes to be renewed for more than one day,
with the most salutary results (Dio Cass. lx. 6).
For further details on instauratio, see Ritschl,
Parerga zu Plautus w. Terenz, p. 311 ff.
4. The Givers of the Public Games.— (a)
Consuls. In order that they might be binding on
the people, ludi votivi had to be administered by a
magistrate with the imperium, usually then by
the consul (Liv. xxx. 2, 8; 27, 11; Cic. pro Sest.
55, 117; Dio Cass. xlviii. 32, lvi.1, lx. 23). The
Ludi Romani were administered by the consuls
till the appointment of the curule aediles in
366 B.C. After that the consuls had only the
presidency in these games (Liv. viii. 40, 2, xlv. 1,
6; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i.” 397). The fact was,
the giving of the games held out too great oppor-
tunities of bribery for the higher magistrates
(Mommsen, op. cit. ii.” 129). But in imperial
times the consuls were appointed to administer
the Ludi Actiaci on Sept. 2 (Dio Cass. lix. 20),
the birthday of Augustus on Sept. 23 (ib. lvi.
49; cf. C. I. L. i. pp. 401–2), and probably
many others (ib. p. 377). The shows of
gladiators given by consuls elect date from the
beginning of the second century A.D. (Dig. 35,
1, 36, pr.). The first evidence of the games
given by the consuls on their entry into office,
which became so important in the fourth
century (C. I. L. i. p. 382), appears to be
Fronto ad Marcum, ii. 1. But in the early
Empire the consuls were expected some time
or other during their year of office to give
shows (cf. Epictet. Diss. iv. 10, 21); and
though even in the time of Claudius this was
considered a great burden (Dio Cass. lx. 27),
the custom continued (ib. lxi. 6; Wopisc.
Aurel. 12, 12). Alexander Severus lessened the
expense of the consuls and defrayed part of it
himself (Lamp. Alear. Sev. 43; Dio Cass. lxxx.
5). (b) Aediles. From the time of their
appointment in 366 B.C., they were given the
administration of the Ludi Romani (cf. Liv. vi.
42, 13), and gradually they had entrusted to
them the administration of all the other games
except the Ludi Apollinares, which were
administered by the praetor urbanus (Liv. xxv.
12, 10), as were also the Ludi Piscatorii (Festus,
s. v.). The Ludi Plebeii were held by the
plebeian aediles, and so too were the Ludi
LUDI
LUDI 87.
Ceriales. Cicero (Verr. v. 14, 36) indeed
implies that the latter were celebrated by the
curule aediles; but the Cerialia was the plebeian
counter-feast to the Megalensia of the patricians
(Gell. xviii. 2, 11 ; Mommsen, Staatsr. ii.” 509).
After 44 B.C. the administration of the Ludi
Ceriales was most probably transferred from the
curule aediles to the newly-appointed (Dio
Cass. xlvii. 40) plebeian aediles Ceriales. The
Ludi Megalenses and Florales were held by the
curule aediles (Cic. Verr. l. c.; Mur. 19, 40;
Liv. xxxiv. 54, 3; Dio Cass. xliii. 48). In
22 B.C. Augustus took the cura ludorum from
the aediles and gave it to the praetors (Dio Cass.
liv. 2), after which time any games given by
the aediles were voluntary (ib. liv. 8; Capitol.
Gord. 3). (c) Praetors. They had the charge
of the Ludi Apollinares and Piscatorii during
the Republic. But in imperial times we find
the urban praetors (this is probably the mean-
ing of Tov ortparnyàv Tów ardvv in Dio Cass.
lxxviii. 22) administering the Ludi Megalenses
(Juv. xi. 193, and Mayor's note), Florales (Suet.
Galb. 6), and gladiatorial shows (Dio Cass. lv.
31). The Augustalia were administered by the
praetor peregrinus (Tac. Ann. i. 15). A special
praetor Parthicarius (Wilm. 1167) was ap-
pointed to superintend the Ludi Parthici of
Trajan (Dio Cass. lxix. 2). Lots seem to have
been cast as to which praetor should give the
games (ib. lix. 14). The son of Symmachus
was praetor urbanus when he gave his cele-
brated games (Symm. Epist. iv. 69). For the
praetorian games of the post-Constantinian
period at Constantinople, see Gothofred. Para-
titlon to Cod. Theod. vi. 4, init. (d) Quaestors.
Gladiatorial exhibitions during the Republic
were confined to the private funeral games.
In imperial times they were given as public
games, and are strictly called munera, not ludi.
In 47 A.D. we find the duty of giving these
munera imposed on the quaestors in lieu of
paving the streets (Suet. Claud. 24; Tac. Ann.
xi. 22, xiii. 5). This was discontinued in 54 A.D.,
from which time till the age of Domitian (Suet.
Dom. 4) it was only occasionally and voluntarily
that the quaestors gave such shows. From the
time of Domitian the munera, though fewer than
the ludi, became, however, regular entertain-
ments (Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsgeschichte, p. 177).
In the time of Alexander Severus it was only
the quaestores candidat: principis who had to
give the games at their own expense, and as a
reward they were advanced at once to the
praetorship (Lampr. Alex. Sev. 43). The rest
got a subsidy from the treasury and were
called quaestores arcarii (Lampr. l.c.; Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii.” 518, 522). (e) Curatores. The
emperor in virtue of his consular power (Dio
Cass. lx. 23)—for it was the consuls who gave
extraordinary games (cf. Hirschfeld, l.c.)—often
gave very brilliant games, which were ad-
ministered by curatores ludorum or curatores
munerum. The procuratores munerum (Wilm.
1285, cf. 1243), according to Mommsen (op. cit.
ii.” 911, notes 1, 2), were permanent officials, the
curatores those appointed for a special occasion
(Suet. Cal. 27; Tac. Ann. xiii. 31; Plin. H. N.
xxxvii. § 45). For further, see Hirschfeld, op.
cit. pp. 175–8.
5. The Cost of the Games (see especially Mar-
quardt, Staatsu. ii.” 85–87).-The cost of the
games was defrayed partly by the state and
partly by the giver of the games. The state part
was called lucar [LUCAR], because it was origin-
ally the revenue from the produce of the sacred
groves (luci), which was devoted to the games
(Festus, s. v.; Plut. Quaest. Rom. 88, p. 285).
For the ludi votivi a definite sum (pecunia certa)
was voted (in Liv. xxxi. 9, 7, the sum is
indefinite, and that is mentioned as an excep-
tional circumstance), usually 200,000 asses (cf.
Mommsen in Rhein. Mus. xiv. p. 87), as it was
also for the Ludi Romani till the Punic Wars
(Dionys. vii. 71 ; Ascon. p. 142, Or.). In
217 B.C. the sum voted was 333,333; asses (Liv.
xxii. 10, 7). For the Ludi Apollinares in 212 B.C.
the state gave 12,000 asses (Liv. xxv. 12, 12);
in 51 B.C., for the Ludi Romani, 760,000 ses-
terces, for the Ludi Plebeii 600,000, and for the
Apollinares 380,000 (see the Fasti Antiates in
C. J. L. i. 328, 329), sums which fell so far
short of the actual amount expended that the
magistrates who gave the games had to resort
to the help of their friends and to extortions
from the provincials to supply what was con-
sidered necessary (Liv. xl. 44, 11 : Cic. Q. Fr.
i. 9, 26). The people sometimes made sub-
scriptions among themselves towards the
expenses of the games: e.g. in 186 B.C. for the
games of Scipio Asiaticus (Plin. H. N. xxxiii.
§ 138), in 37 and in 27 B.C. (Dio Cass. xlviii. 53,
liii. 24); but such were unusual and did not go
far. We know that Scaurus expended vast
sums on the games he gave in 58 B.C. (Plin.
H. N. xxxvi. § 113), and that Milo expended
three patrimonies (Cic. Mil. 35,95) in giving his
extra-splendid games (ad Q. Fr. iii. 8, 6). The
expense in fact was so enormous that in 28 B.C.
no senator could take the aedileship (Dio Cass, liii.
2). Augustus did not allow one praetor to give
more than another to the games (ib.); in 17 B.C.
we find him allowing them to give three times
the grant of the state (ib. liv.17); in 7 A.D.
the money paid to them for gladiatorial shows
was withheld by the state (ib. lv. 31); but in the
Ludi Augustales the tribunes were not allowed
to defray the whole expense themselves (Dio Cass.
lvi. 47; Tac. Ann. i. 15). The state always con-
tinued to make grants (cf. Spart. Hadr. 3), and
sometimes advances to be repaid (Fronto, Ep. ad
Verum, 6, 9); while in a somewhat opposite
direction it tried to limit the expenses of the
games (Suet. Tib. 34; Dio Cass. lxviii. 2;
Capitol. Ant. Pius, 12). But the enormous
sums expended on the games may be seen from
what has been said about the games of Scaurus
and Milo, from what Martial (v. 25, 10) tells us
that the chariot-races sometimes cost 400,000
sesterces (4,000l. nearly), from the case of
Symmachus, who though not one of the richest
senators expended 2,000 pounds of gold
(= 80,000l. about), and Justinian's games,
which cost 288,000 solidi (= 220,000l. about).
For further details, see Friedländer, Sittengesch.
ii.3 276–278. -
The games accordingly were splendid. As a
sample, take those which are elaborately de-
scribed by Calpurnius, Ecl. vii., and commented
on by Gibbon, ii. 58–60, ed. Smith; those given
by Trajan, and described in Dio Cass. lxviii. 15;
and the games of Symmachus, by Friedländer,
op. cit. ii.” 319 ft. For enactments on the games
in the post-Constantinian period, see Cod. Theod,
88. LUDI
LUDI
xv. titles 5, 6, 7, 9, especially the latter on the
expenses of the games.
6. The Audience.—In early times slaves were
not allowed to attend the games (Cic. Har. Resp.
12, 26); nor were any strangers present except
state-guests. But in later times slaves certainly
as a matter of fact used to frequent the games
(Columella, R. R. i. 8, 2.; Dig. 21, 1; 65, pr. ;
i0, 3, 1–5; Juv. vi. 353), and also strangers
(Ov. A. A. i. 173; Mart. Spect. 3). Apparently
by law reserved seats were retained for the
magistrates, e.g. consuls (Cic. Att. ii. 1, 4), prae-
tors (Suet. Nero, 12), tribunes (Dio Cass. xliv. 4),
priests and vestals (Arnob, adv. Gentes, iv. 35,
an important passage), some of the public
apparitors (Tac. Ann. xvi. 12), and many of the
officially recognised collegia (Hübner, ap. Mar-
quardt, iii. 471, note 7). The emperor had a
regular closed-in box (cubiculum), which Trajan
opened, so that he could be seen like any other
spectator (Plin. Panegyr. 51; Suet. Nero, 12).
The actual seats were doubtless corresponding
to the rank of each individual; e.g. the curule
magistrates had a Sella curulis, the tribunes a
subsellium, &c. It was a custom frequently
practised to give a free seat in perpetuity to a
distinguished man and to his descendants (Val.
Max. iv. 4, 8; Cic. Phil. ix. 7, 16); this we
find as early as 494 B.C. in the case of M.
Valerius Maximus (C. J. L. i. p. 284; cp. Liv.
ii. 31); and occasionally a curule seat was
dedicated in memory of a great man after his
death (Dio Cass. xliv. 6, liii. 30; Tac. Ann. ii.
83; C. I. L. vi. 912). Those who had reserved
seats could transfer them to another for the
performance (Cic. Mur. 35, 73), and in the time
of C. Gracchus, on the occasion of a show of
gladiators, we read that several of the magis-
trates erected seats which they tried to sell,
encroaching on the space which the people ought
to have enjoyed (Plut. C. Gracch. 12). If we
may judge from the initials of names on the
seats in the amphitheatre at Syracuse, it appears
that seats could be sold for lengthened periods
(Friedl. ap. Marq. iii. 473, note 1). Of course
occasionally games were given by speculators to
make money out of them, though such a course
was looked on as sordid (Tac. Ann. iv. 62): in
that case, nearly, if not all, the places were
sold. But at the ordinary games there appears
to have been three kinds of seats (Mommsen, ap.
Friedl. op. cit. 472): (1) those reserved by the
exhibitor to give to his friends or to those who
had legal right to reserved seats; (2) the seats
which he reserved to sell to such as wished to
avoid the long waiting and severe crush (cf. Suet.
Cal. 26) attendant upon trying to secure them ;
(3) the seats or rather places (for the mass of
the spectators stood) which were open gratis to
the public. The traffic in the second kind of
seats was pretty considerable, and box-officers
(locarii, Mart. v.24, 9) doubtless derived a large
income from buying up the reserved seats and
selling them at a raised price. A noticeable
feature about the audience at the games was the
way the exhibitor thought it advisable often to
give them presents. This he did by throwing
them among the spectators to be scrambled for,
such being called missilia: see Stat. Silv. i. 6,
10 ft. Fruits (Mart. xi. 31, 10), vegetables
(Pers. v. 180; Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 182), and other
eatables (Joseph. Ant. xix. 1, 3) were often
thrown, but generally tesserae, which admitted
to the most various kinds of pleasures (see
Friedländer on Martial, viii. 78, 9). One of
these tesserae which we have is marked pran-
dium (Friedl. ap. Marquardt, iii. p. 476, note 3).
Occasionally the presents were fastened to a
string (linea dives), which was jerked up and
down (Mart. viii. 78, 7). For the variety of
articles scrambled for, see Suet. Nero, 11. We
may well believe that the crush and violence
were very great (Herodian, v. 6), and wise
people left before the scrambling began (Suet.
Epist. 74, 7; cf. Friedländer, op. cit. ii.” 286–7).
Another point to be noticed was the oppor-
tunity the people took of giving free expression
to their opinions in the theatre (“et, ubi
plurima vulgi licentia, in circum ac theatra
effusi seditiosis vocibus strepere,” as Tacitus
says, Hist. i. 72). In republican times much
importance was attached to the manner in which
public men were greeted in the theatre by the
people (Cic. Att. ii. 19, 3; Sest. 54, 115). In
imperial times we hear of the audience. rising
up when the emperor or a distinguished man
entered, clapping (Suet. Aug. 56) or waving
handkerchiefs (oraria, Vopisc. Aurel. 48) and
vociferously addressing complimentary titles
or good wishes (Suet. Dom. 13), often in a kind
of song (Tac. Ann. xvi. 4; Dio Cass. lxxiii. 2).
Of course there was the most clamorous out-
cry for the liberation of slaves or criminals who
had made a good exhibition in the contests
(Dig. 40, 9, 17, pr.), for the discharge of distin-
guished gladiators (Mart. Spect. 29, 3); and
many a gibe was directed at unpopular people
(Juv. v. 3, and Mayor's note ; Tac. Ann. xi. 13),
and even the emperor himself (Capitol. Macrin.
12; Tertull. Spect. 16). The people also made
use of these occasions (as it was very difficult to
refuse requests made in this way, Joseph. Ant.
xix. 1, 4) to declare against laws (Dio Cass. lvi.
1; Joseph. l. c.), against detested ministers, e.g.
Tigellinus (Plut. Galb. 17), Cleander (Herodian,
i. 12, 5), Plautianus (Dio Cass. lxxvi. 2), and
make many other appeals (cf. Tac. Ann. vi. 13;
Plin. H. N. xxxiv. § 62; Suet. Dom. 13) and
demonstrations (Cic. Att. xiii. 44, 1 ; Dio Cass.
lxxv. 4). Indeed, these were pretty much the
only occasions on which the feelings of the
people could be expressed or gauged under the
Empire; and the importance which was attached
to this expression of the popular will may
be seen from the fact that Titus, in order to
carry out certain executions which he considered
advisable, put people throughout the theatre to
demand them (Suet. Tit. 6). See further in
Friedl. Sittengesch. ii.” 266–274. For the frantic
excitement of the audience during the actual
games, especially the chariot-races, see the pas-
sages quoted by Mayor on Juv. xi. 197, and Tert.
Spect. 16; and for the tumults occasioned by
the partisans of rival performers, see Fried-
länder, S. G. ii.” 457 ff. -
The spectators who were Roman citizens had
to wear their toga at the games, and the higher
ranks and magistrates appeared in official dress
(Suet. Aug. 40). Augustus allowed the spec-
tators to come in slippers, without boots, in
summer, a permission revoked by Tiberius, but
granted again by Caligula (Dio, Cass, lix.7).
Cloaks (lacernae), which had by order of Domitian
to be white (Mart. xiv. 137), could be worn over
LUDI ACTLACI
LUDI APOLLINARES 89
the toga in bad weather, but they were (at least
in the reign of Claudius) laid aside on the entry
of the emperor (Suet. Claud. 6). We are told
that Caligula also allowed, besides cushions for
the senators, the broad-brimmed Thessalian or
Macedonian causia [CAUSIA] as a protection
against the sun (Dio Cass. l.c.; Mart. xiv: 89),
so that it seems the audience before 37 A.D.
used not to wear anything on their heads.
Domitian revived the old customs of theatrical
etiquette, and compelled the audience to appear
in white, forbidding coloured costumes (Mart.
v. 8; 23, 1), though we still hear that the
favourers of the different factions wore their
colours (cf. Mart. xiv. 131). When owing to
wind the awning (velarium) could not be used,
the spectators were allowed to hold up umbrellas
(Mart. xiv. 28). The dissignator (Plaut. Poen.
prol. 18) was the official who directly saw that
these regulations were observed, and he was
responsible to the aediles (cf. Suet. Aug. 40).
7. The Performers and the Performances.—
See the special articles referred to above, p. 85 b.
For the political and social aspects of the
games, how in regard to them idleness took the
place of strenuousness till the people were con-
tent to give up their rights and assemblies in
return for panem et circenses; and the demora-
lisation spread among the community in various
ways by the passion for these shows, as such
subjects lie outside the sphere of Antiquities,
we must be content to refer to Friedländer,
Sittengesch. i.” 468 f., ii.” 263 ff., 288, 391 ff. ;
and H. Schiller, Geschichte der Röm. Kaiserzeit,
244, 433 ff.
(Further, on the games generally, see Fried-
länder in Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, iii.
462–475; also in his Darstellungen aus der
Sittengeschichte Roms, ii.” 263–289 (abbreviated
S. G.); Mommsen in Corpus Inscript. Lat. i.
pp. 293–412, esp. 375–381.) [L. C. P.]
LUDI ACTI’ACI or A'CTIA ("Arria).
Games celebrated to the Actian Apollo.
1. At Rome.—Though under this actual name
there were not any games celebrated at Rome,
still there were games in honour of the Actian
Apollo. These were decreed at Actium by
Augustus in 31 B.C. after his victory, and first
held at Rome in 28 (Dio Cass. liii. 1). They
consisted of horse-races among the patrician
youths and men, gymnastic contests, and some-
times gladiatorial exhibitions. They were held
every fourth year (Dio Cass. li. 19), and ad-
ministered generally by one of the four chief
colleges of priests in succession (ib. liii. 1),
though sometimes by the consuls (Mommsen, Res
gestaed. Aug. p. 42). Thus the first exhibition
was held by the consuls, or rather by Agrippa
alone (Dio Cass. liii. 2); but in 16 B.C. we find
them celebrated by the Quindecimviri (ib. liv.
19). We are to suppose the celebration of 24
B.C. was held by the Pontiffs, that of 20 B.C. by
the Augurs, that of 16 B.C. by the Septemviri
Epulones, and so on in rotation till 13 A.D.,
when they were probably held for the last time
(Mommsen, l.c.). The last recorded celebration
is 9 A.D. (Plin. H. N. vii. § 158), and we do not
hear of them again till 62 A.D., when they had
been a considerable time discontinued (Tac. Ann.
xv. 23). We find these games sometimes
alluded to as pro salute (or valetudine) Caesaris
(G. I. L. vi. 877); cf. §rêp rās ºuijs
xlviii. 20).
oarnpfas (Res gest, d. Aug. v. 8–11, Greek) and
Plin. l.c.; also ludi pontificales (Suet. Aug. 44),
i.e. when they were held by the Pontiffs. That
these games were celebrated to the Actian
Apollo may be proved from the coin of C.
Antistius Vetus of 16 B.C. (Eckhel, vi. 104;
Mommsen, Röm. Münzwesen, p. 742). On one
side is a sacrificing priest, with the inscription
pro valetudine Caesaris S. P. Q. R. ; on the
other, Apollo sacrificing, with the inscription
Apollini Actio. In Suet. Tib. 6 Actiaci is a
mistake for astici (Mommsen, Res gest. p. 43).
2. At Actium. [See ACTIA.]
3. In the Provinces.—Similar quinquennial
games seem to have been held in many provincial
towns (Suet. Aug. 59): e.g. at Caesarea by
Herod (Joseph. Ant. xv. 11, xvi. 9; B. J. i. 21,
8); also at Antioch and Alexandria (C. I. G.
5804). [L. C. P.]
LUDI APOLLINA'RES. These games
were established in the year 212 B.C., in accord-
ance with a prophecy of the old seer Marcius
(carmina Marciana, Liv. xxv. 12, 2), and after
an inspection of the Sibylline books (Macrob,
Sat. i. 17, 27–29), on the motion of the praetor
and decemvir Sacris faciundis, P. Cornelius
Rufus, to the god who warded off evil, Apollo.
As nothing was yet decreed about their conti-
nuance, they were, for this first year at least,
ordinary ludi votivi. They were at first, and
continued to be, celebrated by the praetor
urbanus (Liv. l. c. § 10; Cic. Phil. ii. 13, 31);
thus we find them held by the praetor Lentulus
in 60 B.C. (Plin. H. W. xix. § 23), Brutus in 44
B.C. (Cic. l.c.), Agrippa (Dio Cass. xlviii. 20).
They were to a large degree a Greek festival.
The decemviri s. f. sacrificed with victims after
the Greek fashion; the state supplied the
victims, and also gave 12,000 asses to recoup
the expenses of the games, and the people aided
with a small subscription (Liv. xxv. 12, 12–14).
The next year the praetor L. Calpurnius Piso
proposed that the games should be vowed each
year (Liv. xxvi. 23, 3), and hence the Calpurnii
have the head of Apollo on their denarii
(Mommsen, Röm. Münzwesen, pp. 580, 626).
After this they were celebrated every year, but
till 208 B.C. on no definite day (Liv. xxvii. 23,
5–7). In consequence of a pestilence in that
year, the praetor P. Licinius Varus voted that
they should be held every year on a fixed day.
That day was not “a. d. iii. Non. Quint.” as
Livy (l.c.) says, but “a. d. iii. Id. Quint,” i.e.
July 13 (Weissenborn ad loc.). This day always
continued to be the last day on which these
games were held. The number of days gradually
increased from one till it finally reached eight,
or perhaps nine. In 190 B.C. we find July 11
one of the days (Liv. xxxvii. 4, 4), and in 44 B.C.
July 7 (Cic. Att. xvi. 1, 1; 4, 1). They were for
the most part theatrical exhibitions from the very
beginning (see the interesting story in Festus,
s. v. Thymelici, p. 326 M.); it was at these
games that the Thyestes of Ennius was acted
(Cic. Brut. 20, 78); but sometimes there was a
venatio (Plin. H. N. viii. § 53; Cic. Att. xvi. 4, 1),
and Dio Cassius (xlviii. 33) speaks of ii Tây
'AtroAAwwetov introëpoputa. In the Apollinarian
games held by Agrippa in 40 B.C., two days were
given to the games of the circus, during one of
which the Ludus Trojae was exhibited (Dio Cass.
In all the calendars these games
90 LUDI AUGUSTALES
LUDI PLEBEII
are entered as beginning on July 6, except in
that of Philocalus (354 A.D.), according to which
they are given as beginning on the 5th : per-
haps an additional day was added in the fourth
century. (See generally Preller, Röm. Mºtho-
logie, 269-271.) [L. C. P.]
LUDI AUGUSTA'LES. [AUGUSTALES.]
LUDI CAPITOLI'NI. Livy (v. 50, 4) tells
us that in the year 390 B.C., after the defeat of
the Gauls, on the motion of Camillus a decree of
the senate was passed that Ludi Capitolini should
be instituted, inasmuch as Jupiter, the best and
greatest, had preserved his settlement and cita-
del in a serious crisis, and that the dictator
M. Furius should appoint for that purpose a
collegium, consisting of those who dwelt in the
Capitol and citadel (cf. Liv. v. 52, 11). As being
administered by a collegium, the Capitoline
games were like the Circensian games of the
Fratres Arvales (cf. Henzen, Acta Fr. Arv. p.
36 ft.). After 384 B.C., when Marius Capitolinus
was condemned, a motion was brought before
the people that no patrician should dwell in
the citadel or the Capitol (Liv. vi. 20, 3), so that
from this time only plebeians could be members
of this collegium.
For the guild of the Capitolini, cf. Cic. Q. Fr.
ii. 5, 2. They had magistri of their own (Henz.
6010, where as well as in the passage of Cicero
they are found associated with the Mercuriales:
cf. 6011). Preller (Röm. Myth. 202) thinks this
is a very old festival in honour of Jupiter
Capitolinus, so old that it was attributed to
Romulus (cf. Tert. Spect. 5). Mommsen (on
C. I. L. i. 805 = Henz. 6011) shows that these
collegia of Capitolini and Mercuriales were pag:
within the city, both having a substantive and
independent constitution for religious purposes.
A curious ceremony was performed at these
Capitoline games, from a supposed connexion of
the Capitoline games with a triumph of Romulus
over Weii; or, as Mommsen (R. H. i. 340) holds,
with the capture of Veii by Camillus in 396 B.C.
An old man who was considered to represent the
King of Veii was led through the Forum to the
Capitol, dressed in regal attire and wearing a
bulla suspended from his neck; and a herald
accompanying him proclaimed the “sale of the
Sardians,” because the Veientimes being Etruscans
were supposed to have come from Sardis in
Lydia (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 53 = p. 227; Festus,
s. v. Sardi venales). Hence was supposed to be
derived the proverb Sardi venales, alius alio
nequior (Cic. Fam. vii. 24, 2), but that is more
correctly referred to the great number of slaves
acquired by the Romans when Tiberius Grac-
chus conquered Sardinia in 177 B.C. (Liv. xli.
17; Aurel. Vict. 57; Mommsen, R. H. ii.
199). [L. C. P.]
LUDI CERLA'LES. [CERIALIA.] -
LUDICOMPITALI'CII. [CoMPITALIA.]
LUDI FLORA'LES. [FLORALIA.]
LUDI FUNEBRES.. [LUDI, p. 85a]
LUDI HONORATII. TLUDI, p. 855.
LUDI JUVENA'LES. [JuvenalEs...] ...
IUDI LIBERA'LES. [BAccHANALIA.]
(These must not be confounded with the LIBER-
LUDI MAGNI. [LUDI, p. 84b] . . . .
LUDI. MARTIALES or rather MARTIS
ULTO'RIS. The temple to Mars. Ultor was
dedicated on Aug. 1, 2 B.C., in the Forum
Augusti (Dio Cass. lx. 5). The dedication of
the temple and celebration of games to Mars
Ultor held on May 12 (Fasti Maffeiani in C. I. L.
i. p. 305; Ov. Fast. v. 597) refer to the temple
provisionally erected in the Capitol in 20 B.C.
(Dio Cass. liv. 8): cf. Mommsen in C. I. L. i.
393. These games were celebrated annually
(Dio Cass. lx. 5) by the consuls (ib. lvi. 46).
Senators had the privilege of contracting for the
horses used in these games (ib. lv. 10). A nau-
machia was given on the occasion of the dedica-
tion of the temple (Well. ii. 100); also lud;
Sevirales, i.e. evolutions of the six turmae of
cavalry, each with its sevir at its head (Dio
Cass. l. c.). There appears to have been occa-
sionally a venatio (ib. lvi. 27). [L. C. P.]
LUDI MEGALENSES. [MEGALESIA.]
LUDINATALI'CII. [LUDI, p. 85 a.]
LUDI PALATI’NI. After Augustus died,
Livia and Tiberius had dedicated an altar to
the Numen of Augustus (Plin. H. N. xii. § 94).
We know from the Fasti Praenestini (in G. I.
L. i. p. 312; cf. p. 385) that on January 17
the Pontiffs, Augurs, Quindecimviri, and Sep-
temviri sacrificed victims on this altar. On
Jan. 21, 22, and 23, theatrical exhibitions were
held in a private theatre erected in front of
the palace. These exhibitions were strictly
private, and only the highest nobles and their
families invited (Dio Cass. lvi. 46, lix. 16;
Joseph. Ant. xix. 1, 11 ; Tac. Ann. i. 73). In
the year Caligula was murdered there was just
for that year an extra day added, viz. Jan. 24
(ix. Kal. Febr.): cf. Suet. Cal. 56, 58; Dio Cass.
lix. 29; Joseph. l. c. In the Calendar of Philo-
calus (354 A.D.) the 23rd was removed and the
17th to 19th added (C. I. L. i. pp. 334 and
385). [L. C. P.]
LUDI PISCATO'RII. We know that the
fishermen and the divers of the whole bed of the
Tiber formed a corporation (Wilmanns, 1737).
To them probably refer the ludi piscatorii held
each year on the 7th of June across the Tiber by
the praetor urbanus (Festus, s. v. ; Ov. Fast.
vi. 235–240). [L. C. P.]
LUDI PLEBE'II. These were certainly
held in the Circus Flaminius (Val. Max. i. 7, 4),
and are mentioned as early as 216 B.C. (Liv.
xxiii. 30, 17). Now as the Circus Flaminius
was built in 220 B.C. (Liv. Epit. xx.), we may
assign the establishment of the Ludi Plebeii to
the same date, and also the Jovis epulum on the
ldes (for all Ides are sacred to Jupiter)
which is connected with these games (Liv. xxv.
2, 10; xxvii. 3, 9). This is a more probable
view than that of Cicero, who (de Orat. iii. 19,73)
makes the Epulum Jovis to exist in the time of
Numa, or that of the Pseudo-Asconius (p. 143,
12), who supposes the Ludi Plebeii to have been
established either after the expulsion of the
kings, or after the secession of the plebs. (See
Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 349.) We find from
the Calendar of Philocalus (354 A.D.) that the
Ludi Plebeii lasted till the fourth century;
cf. also Lampr. Alex. Sev. 37. The date of them
was originally Nov. 15 (the, Equorum probatio
being on the 14th), just as that of the Ludi
Romani was Sept. 15 (C. I. L. i. 401). They
were celebrated by the plebeian aediles; and
already in 207 B.C. they lasted for more than
one day (Liv. xxviii. 10, 7). In some early
calendars, e.g. the Fasti Maffeiani; they are put
LUDI PONTIFICALES
LUDI ROMANI 91
down as lasting from Nov. 4 to Nov. 17: in the
Calendar of Philocalus, from Nov. 12 to 16
(C. I. L. l.c.). That plays were acted at the
Ludi Plebeii is proved from the didascalia to
the Stichus of Plautus (Ritschl, Parerga zw
Plaut. p. 261). [L. C. P.]
LUDIPONTIFICA'LES. [LUDI ACTIACI.]
LUDI ROMA’NI. These games (the chief
Roman festival) were in honour of Jupiter
(Festus, s. v. Magnos Ludos), and are said to
have been established by Tarquinius Priscus on
the occasion of his conquest of the Latin
Apiolae (Liv. i. 35, 9); though Dionysius
(vii. 71) and Cicero (de Div. i. 26, 55) refer the
establishment to the victory over the Latins at
Lake Regillus. At first they lasted for one day
only; a second day was added on the expulsion
of the kings in 509 B.C. (Dionys. vi. 95), a third
after the first secession, 494 B.C. (Liv. vi. 42, 12).
From the year 191 to 171 they lasted ten days
(Liv. xxxvi. 2, xxxix. 22, 1; Mommsen, Röm.
Forsch. ii. 54), and shortly before Caesar's
death they appear to have been a fifteen-day
festival (Cic. Verr. i. 10, 31), Sept. 5 to 19.
After Caesar's death a day was added (Cic.
Phil. ii. 43, 110): this day must have been
Sept. 4. For Cicero says (Verr. ii. 52, 130)
that there was an interval of 45 days from the
Ludi Romani to the Ludi Victoriae Sullanae on
Oct. 26. Accordingly, Sept. 19 in the time the
Werrines were composed must have been the
last day of the Ludi Romani (C. ſ. L. i. 401);
and so it appears in the Calendars of the
Augustan time, the days of the games being
Sept. 4 to 19. There was the Epulum Jovis
on the 13th, and the Equorum probatio on the
14th. The games in the circus lasted from the
15th to the 19th. In the Calendar of Philo-
calus (354 A.D.) they run from Sept. 12 to 15.
The celebration was in the hands at first of the
consuls, afterwards of the curule aediles.
But we must not suppose that these games
were regularly established as annual from the
beginning. Games, as we have seen, in many
cases began from a vow made by the commander,
and were celebrated as a special festival after
his triumphal procession. As the army, how-
ever, used to go forth as a general rule each
summer, it became customary when it returned
in autumn to celebrate such games, though
connected with no triumph, and though no
signal victory had been gained. But still in
all cases they were celebrated as extraordinary
games, and not as games regularly established by
law. They were sollemmes, “customary,” but
had not yet become annui (“Sollemnes, deinde
annui mansere ludi Romani magnique varie
appellati,” Liv. i. 35, 9); for we must remember
that Sollemmes need not mean anything more
than “customary.” Livy indeed in the passage
quoted identifies the two kinds, the ludi magni
and the ludi Romani, and so do Cicero (Repub.
ii. 20, 35), Festus (l. c.), and Pseudo-Asconius
(pp. 142-3, Or.); but in all his other books
Livy observes a distinction which has been
pointed out by Ritschl (Parerga zu Plautus,
&c., p. 290), that ludi magni is the term applied
to extraordinary games originating in a vow
(ludi votivi), while ludi Romani is that applied
to the games when they were regularly
established as annual (ludi stati). The latter
term, i.e. ludi Romani, is first used by Livy
in viii. 40, 2 (see Weissenborn ad loc.); and
after that the terms varied according as the
games are stati (e.g. x. 47, 7; xxv. 2, 8) or
votivi (xxii. 9, 10; 10, 7; xxvii. 33, 8; xxxvi.
2, 2; xxxix. 22, 2, &c.; Suet. Aug. 23). The
distinction drawn by Ritschl is to be considered
proved. But when was the fixed festival, the
ludi Romani, definitely established as annual 2
Most probably, says Mommsen (Röm. Forsch.
ii. 53; cf. R. H. i. 472), on the occasion of the
first appointment of the curule aediles in
367 B.C., who were to be the curatores ludorum.
Sollemnium (Cic. Leg. iii. 3, 7). For in the
oldest Roman calendars which date from
the time of the Decemvirs (cf. Mommsen, Die
röm. Chronologie, &c. p. 30) these festivals are
not engraved in capitals but in small characters,
therefore are additions (C. I. L. i. 361) made
after 449 B.C.; also in 322 B.C. the ludi Romani
are mentioned as a regular annual festival
(Liv. viii. 40, 2): accordingly the final
establishment of these games must lie between
these dates; and the year 367 B.C., when so
many changes were effected, and when we are
told a day was added to these games and
curule aediles appointed to superintend them,
seems the most reasonable to assume.
Yet Livy and the other authors who identify
the ludi magni and Romani are not altogether
in error: for the arrangement of the two kinds
of games was similar. An incidental proof of
this is that when Pompeius established ludi
votivi in 70 B.C., they lasted for fifteen days
(Cic. Verr. i. 10, 31), like the ludi Romani; and
we find similar sums, viz. 200,000 asses,
bestowed for both ludi magni and ludi Romani
(Pseud.-Ascon. p. 142; Dionys. vii. 71). The
actual ludi Romani consisted of first a solemn
procession, pompa [CIRCUS]: then a chariot-
race, in which each chariot in Homeric fashion
carried a driver and a warrior, the latter at the
end of the race leaping out and running on foot
(Dionys. vii. 72; and cf. Orelli, 2593, where a
charioteer is spoken of as pedibus ad quadrigam).
This is a practice confined to the ludi Romani. In
the exhibitions of riding, each rider had a
second horse led by the hand (Festus, s. v.
Paribus Equis), as it appears the Roman horse-
men in early times were in the habit of using
two horses in battle (cf. Gran. Licinian. lib.
xxvi.), like the Tarentini in Greek warfare
(Liv. xxxv. 28, 8). Such riders were called
desultores (Liv. xxiii. 29, 5). Originally, in all
probability, there was only one contest of each
kind, and only two competitors in each contest
(Liv. xliv. 9, 4), as “may be inferred from the
circumstance that at all periods in the Roman
chariot-race only as many chariots competed as
there were so-called factions; and of these
there were originally only two, the white and
the red” (Mommsen, R. H. i. 236, note). These
few events allowed further minor exhibitions,
such as boxers, dancers, competition in youthfu.
horsemanship (ludus Trojae), &c. It was
allowed that the wreath the victor won (for
this in Greek style was the meed of victory)
should be put on his bier when dead (Twelve
Tables, 10, 7, and Mommsen's remarks, Staats-
recht, i.” 411, note 2). During the festival,
too, the successful warrior in real warfare wore
the spoils he had won from the enemy, and was
crowned with a chaplet. After the introduction
92 LUDI SAECULARES
LUDI SAECULARES
of the drama in 364, plays were acted at the
ludi Romani, and in 214 B.C. we know that
ludi scenici took up four days of the festival
(Liv. xxiv. 43, 7). In 161 B.C. the Phormio of
Terence was acted at these games.
(The chief work on the ludi Romani is
Mommsen's article Die ludi magni und Romani
in his Römische Forschungen, ii. 42–57 = Rhein-
isches Museum, xiv. 79–87. Compare also his
Roman History, i. 235–237 (where the Greek
influences on the Roman games are traced),
472, 473; and Friedländer in Marquardt's
Staatsverwaltung, iii. 477, 478.) [L. C. P.]
LUDI SAECULA'RES. Saeculum, like so
many words expressing time in Latin (annus,
mensis, dies, Censorin. De die natali, 19, 22, 23),
has a twofold meaning. There is the saeculum
civile and the saeculum naturale. In the years
363 B.C. and 263 we find a recognition of the
saeculum civile in the appointment of a dictator
clavi figendi causa—a custom which originated
probably in 463 B.C., when a grievous plague
attacked Rome (Liv. iii. 6, 2; Dionys. ix. 67,68),
and a testimony to the irresistible force of fate
was made by driving a nail (clavus), the symbol
of Destiny, into the wall of the cella of
Minerva on the Capitol on the Ides of September
“Liv. vii. 3, 6; Mommsen, Röm. Chron. 175).
The saeculum naturale was not, says Censorinus
(238 A.D.) in his locus classicus on the meaning
of the word (op. cit. chap. 17), ever established
by the Romans, though they fixed the saeculum
civile at 100 years. But its significance can be
gathered from the celebration of certain games,
which in later times indeed were called Ludi
saeculares, but in early times Ludi Terentiná.
This Terentum (from terere) was a volcanic cleft
in the Campus Martius, at which even under
the monarchy the gens Valeria sacrificed dark
victims to Dis and Proserpina (cf. Mart. x. 63, 3,
“Romano Terento”). Valerius Maximus (ii.
5, 2: cf. Zosimus, ii. 1) tells a story of a certain
Walesius who got his sons cured of a serious
illness by giving them water from the Tiber
boiled over this cleft; and these sons saw in the
sleep that restored them to health a vision
which ordered the sacrifice of dark-coloured
victims to Dis and Proserpina on an altar to be
found in the Terentum, and the celebration of
lectisternia and nocturnal games for three nights
in their honour. The altar was found deep buried,
the sacrifice was offered, and from this sacrifice
date the Ludi Terentini. We are told that P. Vale-
rius Poplicola, first consul, in a case of pestilence
offered the same sacrifice and held the same
games, and thereby saved the state (Val. Max.
3. c.). But this latter is a very old mistake, due
to the confusion of the first consul with the
L. Valerius Poplicola, consul in 449 B.C. For
though we cannot be certain of any celebration
of these games in 349 B.C., we have the most
distinct evidence for their being held in 249 B.C.
Varro (ap. Censorinus, op. cit. 17, 8) says of
this year: “Cum multa portenta fierent, et
murus ac turris, quae sunt inter portam Collinam
et Esquilinam, de coelo tacta essent et ideo
libros Sibyllinos xvviri adissent, renuntiarunt,
ut Diti patri et Proserpinae ludi Terentini in
campo Martio fierent tribus noctibus et hostiae
furvae immolarentur, utique ludi centesimo
quoque anno fierent.” (Here, too, we should
notice what St. Augustin, de Civ. Dei, iii. 18,
says of these games, deriving his knowledge
probably from Varro: “Jam vero Punicis bellis
instaurati sunt ex auctoritate librorum Sibyl-
linorum ludi saeculares quorum celebritas inter
centum annos fuerat instituta. Renovarunt
etiam pontifices ludos sacros inferis et ipsos
abolitos annis retrorsum melioribus.”) The
next celebration was not in 149 B.C. but in 146
(Censor. op. cit. 17, 11, who quotes contem-
porary authorities, Piso, Gellius, and Hemina).
In the year 49 B.C. religion was silent amid the
turmoil of the civil war; and the games were
not solemnised till the well-known celebration
of Augustus in 17 B.C. But why in this year?
There were many Greek myths (Lobeck,
Aglaoph. 791 ff) of certain ages of the world—
the golden age, the silver age, &c.—mixed up
with astronomical theories of the whole order of
the universe beginning anew when the planets
returned to their original positions after what
was called a magnus annus. The same series of
people would reappear on earth and repeat again
the various exploits of their lives (cf. Verg. Ecl.
4, 34 ft.). Among these myths was one that
the cycle began anew after four periods of 110
years each. (Cf. Probus ad Verg. l. c.; and
Varro, ap. St. Augustin, de Civ. 1)ei, xxii. 28:
“Genethliaci quidam scripserunt esse in 1enas-
cendis hominibus quam appellant traxty-yeveatav
Graeci: hanc scripserunt confici in annis numero
quadringentis quadraginta ut idem corpus et
eadem anima quae fuerint conjuncta in homine
aliquando eandem rursus redeant in conjunc-
tionem.”) Again, there was an influence from
Etruria. Just as at Rome at the end of every
five years there was a propitiatory offering made
to the gods for the people, so in Etruria a
similar sacrifice was made at the beginning of
what they considered a saeculum, i.e. that space
of time which embraced even the longest life.
The propitiatory offering was made for all alive
at the time: when that whole race had passed
away, the gods signified that the cycle was over
by sending prodigies, and a new sacrifice had to
be offered (Censorin. op. cit. 17, 5). The first
four saecula of the Etruscans lasted 100 years
each, the fifth 123, the sixth and seventh 119
(Varro, ap. Censorin. l.c.): so that something
over 100 years was the average saeculum. The
definite Greek theory that the saeculum lasted
110 years was taken up by the Quindecimviri
(Censor. op. cit. 17, 9: cf. “undenos decies per
annos,” Hor. Carm. Saec. 21), and in the in-
terests of Augustus they proceeded to invent
celebrations for 456 B.C., 346, 236, 126, Augus-
tus's games being celebrated in the last year of
the saeculum, 17 B.C. (cf. Mommsen, op. cit., note
363, p. 185). The contemporaries of Augustus,
however, Livy (cxxxvi. ap. Censor. op. cit. 17, 9)
and Verrius Flaccus in Festus (s. v. Saeculares
Ludos), adopt the theory of the saeculum being
100 years. The successórs of Augustus cele-
brated the secular-games according to different
kinds of computation. Claudius, says Gibbon,
did not treat the oracle with implicit respect.
He celebrated the games, “which none had ever
seen before,” in the 800th year of the city
(47 A.D.), with an actor who had taken part in
the secular games of Augustus (Plin. H. N. vii.
§ 159). Domitian celebrated them in 841 of
the city (=87 A.D.), six years too early if they
were to be 110 years after those of Augustus.
LUDI SAECULARES
(For this somewhat famous celebration, see Fast.
Capitol. in C. I. L. i. p. 442; Suet. Dom. 4;
Tac. Ann. xi. 11; Mart. iv. 1, 7, x. 63, 3; Stat.
Süv. i. 4, 17, iv. 1, 37; Eckhel, vi. 383.)
Antoninus Pius in the year 900 of the city
(147 A.D.) celebrated them (Aurel. Vict. Caes.
15, 4), while Sept. Severus held them 220 years
after Augustus in 204 A.D. The last celebration
was in the 1000th year of the city (247 A.D.) by
the Emperor Philip (Eutrop. 9, 3; Eckhel, vii.
323–4). It may be that Gallienus in 257 A.D.
(Eckhel, vii. 409, viii. 22) held them as an ex-
traordinary solemnity in a period of great
trouble (Trebell. Pollio, Gall. 5), and Maximian
in 304 A.D. certainly intended to hold them
(ib. viii. 20), but does not appear to have carried
out his intention: so from Philip's time we may
say that the secular games disappear till they
were revived in the Middle Ages as the Popish
Jubilees instituted by Pope Boniface VIII. in
1300 (Gibbon, i. 327, 328; viii. 217, ed. Smith).
The Ludi Terentini, then, and their continua-
tion, the Ludi Saeculares, are not a really
genuine Roman ceremony. They rest on refer-
ence to the Sibylline books (Zosim. ii. 4; Varro,
ap. Censor, op. cit. 17, 8; Hor. Carm. Saec. 5),
are celebrated by the Quindecimviri (Hor. Carm.
Saec. 70; Tac. Ann. xi. 11) outside the pomoe-
rium (that the gods of the lower world might
not be brought inside the city), the gods honoured
are not Roman, and the Roman antiquarians
considered the solemnities to be derived from
Etruria (Censorin. l. c.: “Dein quod Etrusci
quorum primasaecula centenum fuerant annorum
etiam hic ut in aliis plerumque imitari volue-
runt Romani ’). It was as Magister of the
College of Quindecimviri that Augustus cele-
brated the games with M. Agrippa as his
colleague (Mommsen, Res gestae d. Aug. pp. 91–
93; Eckhel, vi. 102).
The rites of the celebration are given by
Zosimus (ii. 5), who also quotes verbatim the
Sibylline oracle ordering the celebration. His
account is in many points confirmed by coins,
and is as follows: Heralds summoned the people
to the spectacle they had never seen before and
never would see again (cf. Herodian, iii. 8, 10).
Then in the Capitoline temple of Jupiter and
the Palatine temple of Apollo the Quindecim-
viri gave to all present (slaves were excluded)
purificatories (ka94porta, suffimenta), consisting
of torches, sulphur, and bitumen; and in the
same temples, and that of Diana on the Aventine,
wheat, barley, and beans were given to the
people to make an offering with (cf. Eckhel, vi.
387, for medals with the inscriptions Suf(fi-
menta) p(opulo) d(ata) and A Pop(ulo) Frug(es)
ac(ceptae), &c.), though Zosimus says these were
to be given to the actors in the games. Then
began the feast, which lasted three nights and
three days. Offerings were made to Jupiter,
Juno Lucina, Apollo, Latona and Diana, the
Fates, Demeter (Tellus, Hor. Carm. Saec. 29),
Pluto and Proserpina. On the first night at the
second hour the emperor, with the assistance of
the Quindecimviri, sacrificed to the Fates, at
the Terentum, on the border of the Tiber, three
rams on three altars, letting the blood flow all
over the altars. and then thoroughly burned the
victims. A stage is then erected, the people
light torches, a newly-composed hymn is sung,
and splendid shows are exhibited: for the oracle
LUDI VICTORIAE CAESARIS 93
said (l. 34) that the grave was to be mingled
with the gay. On the next day a sacrifice was
made on the Capitol of white bulls to Jupiter
and a white cow to Juno, in accordance with
the oracle (ll. 12, 15), and then in the theatre
there were dramatic representations in honour of
Apollo. On the second night a white pig and a
white sow were sacrificed to Tellus, in accordance
with the oracle (l. 11), and dark victims offered
to Dis and Proserpina (Varro, ap. Censor. op. cit.
17, 8; Festus, s. v. Saeculares Ludos). On the
second day the matrons offered supplications
and sang hymns to Juno on the Capitol; and on
the third day in the Palatine temple of Apollo
there was a sacrifice of white oxen (Hor. Carm.
Saec. 49), and thrice nine noble boys and
maidens whose parents were still alive (àpºpu-
6axeſs, patrimi ac matrimi) sang hymns in Greek
and Latin for the preservation and prosperity
of the Roman empire. Such a hymn was called
Carmen Saeculare, and we still possess the hymn
which Horace wrote for the celebration of the
games by Augustus.
On the secular games generally, consult
Mommsen, Die rômische Chronologie bis auf
Căsar, pp. 172–194 (chapter on the Saecula);
K. L. Roth, in the Rheinisches Museum, viii.
(1853), pp. 365–376; Preller, Römische Mytho-
logie, 469–478; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung,
iii. 370–378. [L. C. P.]
LUDI SEVIRATES. [LUDI MARTIALEs.]
LUDI TAU’RII were of a similar nature,
and due to a somewhat similar origin as the
Ludi Saeculares. They were instituted to the
gods of the lower world, according to Festus
(s. v. Taurii, p. 350 M. The absurd interpreta-
tion given by Varro on p. 351 may be discarded),
in the reign of Tarquinius Superbus, when a
great pestilence fell on pregnant women, owing
to the sale of bulls' flesh among the people.
Other interpretations of the name are that it is
from taura or taurea, a barren cow, which was
sacrificed to Proserpina, or that the games were
instituted by the Sabines that a pestilence which
had attacked them might be turned on the
bulls which they sacrificed (Serv. on Werg.
Aen. ii. 140). At these games there was a
chariot-race in the circus (Varro, L. L. v. 154).
We hear of their being celebrated religionis
causa for two days in 186 B.C. (Liv. xxxix.
22, 1). [L. C. P.]
LUDITERENTINI. [LUDI SAECULARES..]
LUDI VICTO'RIAE CAE’SARIS or WE'-
NERIS (; ENETRI'CIS. These were first
celebrated in 46 B.C. by Julius Caesar on the
dedication of the temple of Venus Genetrix,
voted at the battle of Pharsalia, which took
place on Sept. 24 (C. I. L. i. 397); but they
appear in the Calendars as being celebrated in
July, from the 20th to the 30th. This is due
to the introduction of the Julian Calendar,
according to which July 23, 24 would corre-
spond to Sept. 24, 25 (C. I. L. l.c.). They are
called Ludi Victoriae Caesaris by the Fasti
Maffeiani and Amiternini, by Matius Calvena in
Cicero, Fam. xi. 28, 6, and Suet. Aug. 10; but
Ludi Veneris Genetricis by App. B. C. iii. 28,
Plin. H. W. ii. § 93, Senec. Quaest. Nat. vii. 17,
Dio Cass. xlix. 42. But Victoria was identified
with Venus Genetrix (Varro, L. L. v. 62; Gell.
x. 1, 7 ; Preller, Röm. Myth. 389, 707; Momm-
sen in C. I. L. i. 397). These games were
94 LUDI WICTORIAE SULLANAE
LUDUS LITTERARIUS
administered by a special collegium (Suet, l.c.;
Plin. l.c.; Jul. Obseq., 68 [128]). . . [L. C. P.]
LUHDI VICTO'RIAE SULLA’NAE were
established by Sulla in 82 B.C. The original
day was the Kalends of November, the date of
the victory at the Colline Gate; but afterwards
the games lasted from Oct. 26 to Nov. 1 inclu-
sive. They were called Ludi Victoriae Sullanae
by Welleius (ii. 27) and the Fasti Sabini (G. I. L.
i. p. 302), to distinguish them from the Ludi
Victoriae Caesaris. They do not appear in the
Calendar of Philocalus (354 A.D.). [L. C. P.]
LUDI VOLCANA'LICI. The coins of 20
B.C., stamped Mars Ultor and Volkanus wiltor
(Eckhel, vi. 96), would seem to point to these
games being established after the recovery of
the standards from the Parthians; but the Fasti
of the Augustan age do not mention them.
These games were abolished by Macrinus, but
soon renewed, owing to a religious feeling
among the people that they ought to be re-
stored, which was confirmed by the burning of
the amphitheatre (Dio Cass. lxxviii. 25). They
were celebrated in the temple of Vulcan outside
the city (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 47 = p. 276) on the
23rd of August (C. I. L. i. 400). [L. C. P.]
LUDUS LITTERA'RIUS (Stöaakaxeſov),
a school.
1. IN GREECE.—The education of children in
Homeric times is not definite enough to come
under our subject: it may, however, be noted
that the sons of princes are represented in
Homer as being trained under some instructor,
not only in martial exercises, which would cor-
respond to the palaestric course in later times,
but (to take the instance of Achilles) also in
something answering to rhetoric, under Phoenix
(I. ix. 414), whom Plutarch (de Educ. Lib. 12)
calls traičaywyös 'AxiXAéas, and in music and
medicine under Chiron. The latter being repre-
sented to us as an instructor of boys away from
their homes, may be said to give the earliest
hint of anything like school teaching. Passing
to historical times, we must draw a general dis-
tinction between Doric and Ionic races. In
Doric states (for instance, Sparta and Crete)
there was much gymnastic and little mental
training. A boy at Sparta was taken from his
parents’ control at seven, and his subsequent
training was supervised by the Bidiaei, under
whom (with the real management) was the
Paedonomus [BIDIAEI; PAEDONOMI]. This re-
ferred, however, only to bodily exercises and
chorus-singing. The state took no heed of
literary education, and, if any was to be gained,
it was a private concern of the parents. Many
no doubt learned to read and write, and acquired
some amount of simple arithmetic; but even
this was far from being universal. In the
Bippias Major, p. 285 C, it is said that few
Spartans knew any arithmetic. Music, how-
ever, all learnt, the cithara and flute, and espe-
cially singing in chorus.
In Ionic states more attention was paid to
literary culture. It is a question how far even
among Ionians literary schools were ordered or
controlled by the state, and it is still more
doubtful whether they received state payment,
or rather it is tolerably certain that the cases in
which they did so may be regarded as excep-
tional. There is, however, abundant evidence of
$he importance attached to schools in Ionian
states, even in early times. Herodotus (vi. 27)
mentions a school of 120 boys at Chios in the
year 500 B.C.; and so important was school
education regarded, that, when the Athenians
went to Troezen during the occupation of Athens
by Xerxes, special provision was made to supply
teachers there (Plut. Themist. 10). That educa-
tion was regarded as a necessity appears even
more clearly in the decree of the Mitylenaeans,
given by Aelian (vii. 15), that the punishment
of disobedient allies should consist in the pro-
hibition of schools. Diodorus (xii. 12) tells us
that Charondas (between 600 and 500 B.C.) passed
laws for Thurii to the effect that all boys should
have literary teaching at the public expense
(xopmyotorms rms tróAeos roës puorðoys toſs Stöa-
orkââous, Štréaa8e y&p rows &tópous &rootepff-
oreo 6al rôv ka?Atarov čtrurmöevudºrov). This is
important testimony as to state regulation and
state payment, if it can be accepted as authentic
history. Most scholars deny that these laws
are genuine, though others (as Göll) do not alto-
gether reject them. It is to be feared that their
date must be regarded as uncertain. As regards
later times in Greece, it is clear from Polybius
xxxi. 17 that there was state payment for educa-
tion at Rhodes, since the Rhodians devoted a
gratuity of Eumenes, king of Pergamus, to that
purpose; and we learn from an inscription at
Teos that in the last century B.C. there was in
that island a payment for three ypauparoët-
§dorica?ot to teach boys and girls fixed at 600,
550, and 500 drachmas, two for the gymnastic
school at 500 and a musical teacher at 700 : a
rich man of the place, Polythrus, had given the
state 34,000 dr. to further the education of the
poor (Hirschfeld, Hermes, ix. 501; Fränkel’s
note on Boeckh, Staatshaush. ii. 35*). We may
pass from Greece in general to Athenian educa-
tion, as the most important branch of the sub-
ject, and that on which we have most informa-
tion. It does not appear that there was any
state payment of schools at Athens before the
Roman Imperial age, when Hadrian endowed
chairs of rhetoric and philosophy (Gibbon, v. 91,
ed. Smith). As regards state control, there was
certainly a law of Solon fixing an obligation on
parents and guardians to provide for the educa-
tion of boys (Plat. Crit. 50 D). The neglect of
this duty was noticed by the Areopagus, and
brought at least some public stigma. There is
no evidence of any penalty, and Becker thinks
that it was merely an injunction, and that the
only consequence of neglect was that the parents
lost the right of claiming support from their
children (cf. Aeschin. Timarch. § 13). The pas-
sage in Plato, Legg. vii. p. 804 C, is a Utopian
scheme, not a statement of existing institutions.
On the other hand, there is the question whether
the public officers, the Sophronistae and Epi-
meletae, exercised any functions of inspection
which would give the state a control. It is
usual to think that they had nothing to do with
schools (616&arkaxeſa), though something with
the gymnasium (see Göll on Becker's Charikles, ii.
56). And this agrees with Aristot. Pol. v. (or viii.)
1 (= p. 1336), where Aristotle desiderates public
superintendence of education rather than leaving
it in private hands, “as it is now”: but Curtius
(Hist. of Greece, ii. 385) believes the Sophro-
mistae to have been appointed about 459 B.C. (at
the same time as the Nomophylaces), to take
LUDUs LITTERARIUS
LUDUS LITTERARIUS 95
over that part of the Areopagitic duties which
related to orderly public life, and especially to
the education of the young. And Fränkel, in
the note mentioned above, cites a decree of
Eleusis, which praises Dercylus for his efforts as
otpatmyos in the cause of education; and this
seems to imply some kind of state interference.
Whether, however, state officials controlled and
inspected schools or not, there is no doubt that
feeling and custom made some considerable
amount of literary education universal for boys
at Athens. For girls there were no schools;
what they did learn was from their mothers
or from female slaves, and consisted chiefly in
useful works, such as spinning : that sometimes
at any rate they learnt to read and write may
be gathered from Dem. c. Spud. pp. 1030, § 9, and
1034, § 21.
School period.—At the age of six, when the
boy was strong enough to do without a woman's
care, he was entrusted to a paedagogus [PAEDA-
GOGUs], who conducted him everywhere, to
school, to the palaestra, &c., carrying his books
and other school requisites. (Cf. Plat. de Leg.
vii. 808 D, who says that, if animals have care-
takers, of course the boy must, “being the
most unmanageable of all animals.”) There is
a kindlier notice of the genus schoolboy and his
progress to school in Lucian, Am. 44, which is
worth quoting : épôptos &vao ràs éic rms &@yov
Kottºms row étrº rāv Šppºdrov črt Aourov širvov
&moviţáuevos ūčari Auró kal Xtrovío kov kal
xAavíða rats à tropious trepôvals orvé5ápas &to
Tâs trarpgas €ortas ÉÉépxerat kāra, kekvpès
ical pumöéva Töv &ravrávrov šč évavrtov ºrpoo-
BAétrov, &kóAov6ot be kal traičaywyot, . . .
carrying tablets, books or lyre.” It is true that
in the same author we find oricv6poros &otrep of
eis StöaokaAeta pottövres, and of the severe dis-
cipline of cane and rod we have evidence from
Arist. Nub. 972, Xen. Anab. ii. 6, 12, &c. The
school began early in the morning and ended at
sunset, according to Solon’s law (Aesch. Tºmarch.
§ 12; cf. Plat. Legg. vii. 808 B; Thuc. vii. 29);
but there was an interval for the éptorov at
mid-day (Lucian, de Parasit. 61). In grammar
schools the Musea was a school festival (see
Theophrast. 26 and Jebb's note). And there
were holidays at great festivals, so much so that
in the month Anthesterion there was compara-
tively little school-time (Theophrast. 22).
Subjects.-The regular school course (éºyki-
k}\tos trauðeſa) was intended to convey, besides
mere reading and writing, a knowledge of the
poets, and proficiency in music and gymnastics.
In the Socratic age some mathematical training
was added, and at least a knowledge of simple
arithmetic was universally imparted (Hippias
Maj. 285 B; Plat. Legg. vii. 819 C). This
mere reckoning, however, was taught mainly at
home by means of a calculating table [ABACUS;
LOGISTICA]; and accordingly Aristotle (Pol. v.
or viii. 1) speaks of three usual subjects, ypdu-
Mara, yupivaaruch, and uovovich. (In Plato uov-
orukh would include ypáupata.) The elementary
reading lesson was sometimes made easy and
attractive by methods like those of the modern
Kindergarten, the use of ivory letters, &c. (Cf.
Plat. Legg. vii. 819 D.) Grasberger cites from
Philostratus (Vit. Soph. ii. p. 240) a device of
Herodes, who gives to a weak pupil twenty-four
companions named from the letters of the
alphabet, iva èv roſs rôv traíðav čváuaori rà
Typduuata aúró aexeróro. For the method of
teaching writing, see Plat. Protag. 326 D. The
literary course consisted of reading and explain-
ing the best poets (Plat. Protag. l.c.), such as
Homer, Hesiod, Theognis, Phocyllides; but of
these especially Homer. In Xen. Symp. 3, 5,
Niceratus says, “My father, to make me a good
man, compelled me to learn all the poems of
Homer, and now I could say by heart the whole
Iliad and Odyssey.” (Cf. Dio Chrysost. Or. xi. 4.)
This poetical training was intended to impart a
knowledge of mythology and philosophy (espe-
cially through the yuáual), as well as taste and
power of expression. Of course time was freer,
since there was no language, natural science, or
history to be learnt.
To this literary course was sometimes added
special teaching in tactics and strategy for those
who looked to a military career (Plat. Euthy-
dem. 273 C; Xen. Mem. iii. 1), and drawing
was taught before the time of Aristotle (Pol.
l. c.), having been, according to Pliny, intro-
duced by Pamphilus (the teacher of Apelles)
first at Sicyon, whence it spread over Greece,
and was regarded for all sons of citizens a most
important branch of education—slaves might
not learn it (Plin. H. N. xxxv. §77). It was
chiefly correct outline drawing without colour,
on boxwood tablets. The musical teaching
began at 12 or 13, and was so ordered that the
pupils might appreciate and accompany lyric
poetry. Aristotle, in the book cited above, says
that, while the literary education and the
drawing are useful for the mind, music is to be
maintained on the ground that, though of no
practical use, it provides a noble and liberal
employment of leisure. It should be observed
that the instrument taught was the lyre: the
flute, a favourite instrument at Thebes, and
once commonly learnt at Athens, was tabooed,
except for professionals, about the time of the
Peloponnesian war. Aristotle (l. c.) gives
reasons for this. The 616aoka Aeta lasted till
#8m, i.e. till 16; and afterwards for those of
the richer classes, who wished for advanced
learning, came the schools of the rhetoricians
and Sophists, who taught various departments
of knowledge. Curtius (Hist. of Greece, ii. 414)
remarks that “the training was for life in
general : the palaestra lessons fitted them for
military exercises: power of judgment and
readiness of speech came from their poetic
studies: the music learnt at school was useful
in social meetings, where the lyre passed from
hand to hand.” And it is easy to see that the
literary course above described qualified the
Athenians to take an intelligent and critical
interest in their great dramas, and indeed in
literature and art generally, such as was
possible for no other nation as a whole in
ancient or modern times; though there is some
justice in the remark of Professor Mahaffy, that
the development of the system led to elegant
trifling and intellectual idleness (Social Life
in Greece, 335). Such questions, however, need
not be enlarged on here. They belong rather to
Greek history.
Place of Education.—The schoolroom itself
was called Stögorkaxeſov or traibaya, yetov (Dem.
de Cor. p. 313, § 258; Pollux, iv. 19, 41); also
qwMeáv, or poxeds. Hesychius gives curtly the
96
LUDUS LITTERARIUS
LUDUS LITTERARIUS
combination of meanings poxe6v Štěaokaxeſov h
où ré, 6mpſa kouárat. Some indeed maintain that
the mat3ayaryeſov was only an ante-room, where
the paedagogi sat and waited; but Grasberger
(vol. ii. 207) remarks that it was unlikely that
so poor a school as that of Elpias would have an
ante-room, and cites Philostr. Wit. Soph. ii. 263,
to show that the paedagogi sat with their
charges. In Roman times certainly we have
Remmius Palaemon, as paedagogus, learning
more than the schoolboys from the lesson (Suet.
Gr. 23). Some schools had not even one room,
but were held in the open air, as by Dionysius
the younger (Gell. xxi. 5); cf. Anth. Gr. xi.
p. 437:
aidºo Atóriptov 6s év trérpmoſt rā6mrat
Tapyapéov travariv 8m to kai &Apa Aéyov.
But this is only in the case of the very
poor : even the father of Aeschines is described
by Demosthenes as in a schoolroom, and De-
mosthenes contrasts that establishment with the
respectable (irporákovra) schools to which he
went himself. The boys sat on benches (840pa),
the master on a chair (0póvos). See the rather
unattractive picture in Liban. iv. p. 868, where we
are told that the master “sits aloft, like a dicast,
with an awful frown and an expression of implac-
able wrath, before which the pupil must tremble
and cringe.” In the vase-picture given below, we
ºf YS
2% §§
Athenian School. (From the Duris Wase.)
see the various departments, each group repre-
senting a class: (1) repetition of poetry;
(2) music lesson on the lyre (where both teacher
and pupil sit, and both have laid aside the
himation to give free play to the arms); (3) the
writing master with a tablet (or possibly a
master correcting an exercise); (4) a singing
lesson, where the master is not teaching the for-
bidden flute (see above), but giving a note from
it. On the walls are articles of the school
apparatus-book-roll, tablets, lyre, geometrical
instrument (?), drinking vessel, basket for books.
It is a disputed question whether the seated
spectators are government inspectors, paedagogi
or parents, and the question is so impossible to
decide, that the picture unfortunately cannot
be made an argument for the presence of any
one of the three at the lesson.
Payment.—The poor status of the Athenian
schoolmaster (ypaſſpatio rhs), is sufficiently in-
dicated by the line #rot Téðvmkev # 616&arket
7.pdupata (Meinek. Fr. Incert. 453 = Zenob.
Cent. iv. 17). He was ill-paid, and often did not
receive his payment at all (Dem. c. Aphob. i.
p. 828, § 46; cf. Theophrast. 22). This does
not apply to the Sophists in the more advanced
school, who were able to charge as much as 100
minae for their complete course to each pupil
(see Boeckh, Staatshaus. i. 154); and the chairs
founded in later times by Hadrian had a
stipend of 100 minae a year attached to them.
2. ROMAN.—At Rome, education, though not
made obligatory by any law, was always, so far
as our knowledge extends, considered of im-
portance. In early days, however, the father
himself generally taught his son. (“Erat
autem antiquitus institutum ut a majoribus
disceremus . . . suus cuique parens pro magistro
erat.” Plin. Ep. viii. 14: cf. Plaut. Most. i. 2,
42.) So Servius Tullius is said to have been
taught by king Tarquin (Cic. de Rep. ii. 21,
37); and of Cato the elder it is said, as part of
his conservatism, airbs uèv ºv ypaupatioths,
aútbs 68 vouchtāakths, airbs 6& yupwaorºs to
his own son (Plut. Cat. Maj. 20). This old
training no doubt consisted much in living with
the father and learning his business of public
life; but there was also direct instruction in
reading, writing, and arithmetic (i.e. reckon-
ing), and in saying by heart the twelve tables.
which formed a sort of catechism to the Roman
of the old school. Thus Cicero says, “disceba-
mus pueri xii tabulas ut carmen necessarium ;”
though he adds with regret, “quas jam nemo
discit.” But it of course often happened that.
the father wanted either the ability or the in-
clination to teach his son, and so arose the
custom of wealthy parents employing educated
slaves or freedmen as private tutors at home.
Livius Andronicus, late in the 3rd century B.C.,
was so employed by Livius Salinator: Augustus
so employed the freedman Verrius Flaccus to
teach his grandsons; and in some cases, when
the teacher was a slave, his master let him
teach a class of outsiders and so made a profit.
(Plut. Cat. Maj. 20). For this private tuition
in early times, see also Plaut. Bacch. iii. 1, 27.
It is probable, however, that even in the earliest
times there were schools to which those who
could neither teach themselves nor provide com-
petent slaves as teachers, sent their children,
boys and girls alike. Plutarch (Rom. 6) re-
presents Romulus and Remus as learning at
a school at Gabii śaa Xph roës e8 yeyováras,
and, in less purely legendary times, there is no
reason to discredit the account of Virginia going
to school (Liv. iii. 44), or of the schools at.
Falerii (Liv. v. 44) and Tusculum (Liv. vi. 25)
early in the 4th century B.C.
Against this has by some been adduced the
passage of Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. 59), which
states that Spurius Carvilius was the first
person who opened a school (ypauparoštěa-
akaxeſov) at Rome, B.C. 231: but Plutarch
probably only means that Carvilius was the
first grammaticus or teacher of the more ad-
vanced literary schools, which came in along
with the influence of Greek literature, and he






LUDUS LITTERARIUS
LUDUS LITTERARIUS 97
does not thereby negative the elementary
schools mentioned by Livy (and indeed by him-
self elsewhere) as existing much earlier. It is
necessary therefore to distinguish (1) litterator,
or magister litterarius (=ypaupariatfis), the
elementary schoolmaster; (2) grammaticus (also
Jitteratus), a more advanced teacher; (3) rhetor.
This distinction explains Apul. Flor. 20:
“prima cratera litteratoris ruditatem eximit,
secunda grammatici doctrina instruit, tertia
3rhetoris eloquentia armat.” So Augustin.
Confess. i. 13, 1: “adamaveram litteras, non
quas primi magistri, sed quas docent qui gram-
matici vocantur.” Private teachers were em-
ployed in later as in older times, by many men
of high station, but still, except the imperial
family, it was common for those of the highest
rank to send their sons to schools. Thus we
find Sulla sending his son Faustus to the school
in which Cassius also was being educated (Plut.
Brut. 9); and Ausonius, a man of the highest
rank in the state, recommends school education
in a passage cited below. The question whether
Home or school education is to be preferred is
discussed by Quintilian (Inst. Or. i. 2), with a
result in favour of the latter, and the arguments
on either side have a striking resemblance to
those which are used at the present day.
Place.—The elementary schools and those of
the grammatici were usually in a verandah partly
open to the street, and the schoolroom is
accordingly called pergula (see Marquardt,
Privatleben, 93, note), taberna, or porticus (Suet.
Gr. 18; Juv. xi. 137; Liv. iii. 44, vi. 25 ;
Eumen. pro Inst. Schol. 20). Hence the noise
of teaching and of punishing was audible
through the street and annoying to the
neighbours (Mart. xii. 57, &c.). Boys and girls
were taught in the same school, as is shown
alike by passages such as Mart. viii. 3, ix. 68;
Ovid. Trist. ii. 369, and by old paintings which
have been discovered.
School-time.—The school began early, even
before dawn, when “nondum cristati rupere
silentia galli” (Mart. ix. 68); so that the boys
brought lamps with them (Juv. vii. 226):
there was a break for the prandium (Lucian, de
Paras. 61), after which the school was con-
tinued. Each boy was accompanied from his
home by his paedagogus, or slave (who acted
as a sort of private tutor, both in regard to
control and not unfrequently in teaching), also
called custos (Juv. vii. 218; cf. Hor. Sat. i. 6,
86), and by an inferior slave called capsarius,
carrying the books and tablets, the “custos
angustae vernula capsae" of Juv. x. 17, who is
to be distinguished from the paedagogus. (Cf.
Suet. Ner. 36, and Mayor's note on Juv. l.c.)
Juvenal in Sat. vii. 222 f describes for us the
schoolroom (which was, as was said above,
generally in a sort of verandah); the busts of
the poets blackened by smoke from the scholars'
lamps, the master seated on his chair (cathedra),
while his class stood before him or sat on
benches (subsellia). We hear also of wall-maps
in a remarkable passage of Eumenius, a teacher
at Autun at the end of the 3rd century:
“The boys should have daily before their eyes
on the walls all lands and seas, all cities and
peoples, comprehended under our empire: for
the name and position of places, the distances
between them, the source and outflow of rivers,
WOL. II. . -
the coast-line with all its seaboard, its gulfs and
its straits, are better taken in by eye than ear”
(pro Instaur. Schol. 20; cf. Propert. v. 3, 37).
There were also tables of authors and of dates
hung up (see Marquardt, Privatleben, 109).
Discipline.—That this was generally severe
may be seen from the line of Juvenal (i. 15),
“et nos ergo manum ferulae subduximus,” and
from the abundant illustration given by Pro-
fessor Mayor on that passage. Zonaras mentions
that the prince Arcadius was flogged by
Arsenius without apparently any objection from
the Emperor Theodosius. Arsenius, however,
seems to have been a private tutor, teaching
only the emperor's children. Quintilian (i. 3,
14) argues against corporal punishment
altogether. On the other hand, prizes were
given to encourage the industrious — some
valuable or prettily got-up book: “praeposito
praemio quod virtus auferret. . . . Is erat liber
aliquis antiquus, pulcher aut rarior” (Suet. Gr.
17). Grasberger (ii. 335) cites an inscription
found near the Porta Salaria about Q. Sulpicius
Maximus, who at the age of 113 won a prize
against fifty-two competitors for Greek verses
about Phaethon. Prizes are mentioned also at
Athens in the Roman period for the best éykó-
puov or essay. Few passages will better give an
idea of a Roman school than Idyll iv. which
Ausonius (once tutor to Valentinian’s sons, but
afterwards a count of the empire and consul)
addresses to his grandson, just going to school
(line 27):
“Tu quoque ne metuas, quamvis schola verbere multo
Increpet, et truculenta Senex gerat ora magister.
Nec matutinis agitet formido sub horis,
Quod sceptrum vibrat ferulae, quod multa Supellex
Virgea, quod fallax scuticam praetexit aluta,
Quod fervent trepido subsellia vestra tumultu.
Haec olim genitorque tuus, genetrixque secuti
Securam placido mihi permulsere senectam.”
Schooltime and Holidays.-The Roman school
year began on March 24th, after the Quin-
quatria, when the new boy brought his entrance-
fee (Minerval, see Tertull. de Idol. 10; Juv. x.
116, and Mayor's note). Sometimes the money
for the whole previous year was brought then
(Juv. vii. 242), but (as appears from Hor. Sat. i.
6, 72) it was usually paid each month ; and this
is prescribed by an edict of Diocletian (C. I. L.
iii. 831). The regular holidays or vacation
were the week at the Saturnalia in December
and the five days at the Quinquatria in March,
but there was also a holiday on each nundinae
(Warr. ap. Non. 133; Suet. Gr. 7), and at the
time of the important games. This is indeed a
very much shorter estimate of holidays than
that which Marquardt gives (Privatl. 43), of
four months' continuous holidays in the summer!
But his view cannot be accepted. He bases it
on two well-known passages: (1) Hor. Sat. i. 6,
75, from the reading, “Ibant octonis referentes
Idibus aera ;” (2) Mart. x. 62, “ferulae . . .
cessent et idus dormiant in Octobris.” As
regards the first passage, there is little doubt
that we should read octonos, aeris, which must
have been the reading of Schol. Cruqu., “Hoc est
singulis idibus referebant octonos asses aeris,”
and of Acron, “Octonis (-os?) numos pro mercede,
octonos asses aeris, quia ante Idus mercedes
dabantur.” For the expression we may compare
Cic. pro Rosc. Com. 10, 28, “duodecim aeris,”
- H
98 LUDUS LITTERARIUS
LUDUS LITTERARIUS
and Plin. H. N. xiv. § 16, “octonis aeris
vendere.” Horace is contrasting with Rome the
countrified school where boys carried their own
books instead of having a capsarius, and paid a
very small sum. Martial, even if the passage
were taken to convey a fact, would not convey
what Marquardt postulates, since the poet
represents the schools as going on at any rate in
July, and therefore expressly excludes the four
months. But in truth Martial makes no state-
ment: bored by the noise of a neighbouring
school, doubly tiresome in hot weather, he is
expressing a wish, which he never expects to be
fulfilled. There is therefore nothing in these
passages to discredit the plain inference to be
drawn from the manner in which the Quin-
quatria and Saturnalia are spoken of as the
principal holiday-times for schoolboys, though
neither lasted more than a week.
Subjects.-The school life began usually at
seven years of age (Quint. i. 1, 15); but no
doubt in most cases there was some earlier home
instruction. Tacitus (Dial. 29) mentions, with
no approval, the custom of having a Greek
maid, like a bonne, for children to give them an
early familiarity with the Greek language. In
the elementary schools the course consisted of
reading, writing, and simple arithmetic. (Cf.
Augustin. Conf. i. 13, “illas primas ubi legere
et scribere et numerare discimus.”) Quin-
tilian (i. 1, 26) mentions the system of making
the reading lesson attractive by using ivory
letters, as above in Greek schools. The writing
lesson was on a wax tablet, with lines or furrows
(sulci) to guide the hand (Quint. i. 1, 27).
Arithmetic (as we know from Horace, A. P.
325) was of great importance in the Roman
judgment, and we find from an edict of Dio-
cletian that the arithmetic master (calculator)
was paid more highly than the teacher of read-
ing and writing. (For the method, see
LOGISTICA.) In the schools of the grammarians
(which we may assume, according to the
passage quoted from Pliny, to have been started
by Sp. Carvilius) came the study of poets. This
school differed from the elementary school,
because that was training merely for the bare
necessities of practical life, while the grammar
school (if we may so term it) was nearer the
ideal Greek training, an eruditio liberalis or
“liberal education” (Cic. Tusc. ii. 11, 27). The
central point was to read with full explanation
Greek and Latin poets (these were sometimes
distinct under grammatici Graeci and Latini):
the boy must first learn to read the poet with
understanding and with correct emphasis. It is
clear that the Romans, like the Greeks, laid the
greatest stress on elocution. Eloquence under
the Republic was the only avenue to power
(Tac. Dial. 37; Friedländer, vol. iv. 7); and
the school was intended to train the utterance
as well as to supply a flow of words, “os
tenerum puero balbumque poeta figurat.” This
is abundantly shown in Cicero and Quintilian
passim, and perhaps better than elsewhere in
Ausonius, Id. iv. 45:
“Perlege quodcunque est memorabile: priva monebo
Conditor Iliados, et amabilis orsa Menandri
Evolvenda tibi: tu flexu et acumine vocis
Innumeros numeros doctis accentibus effer,
Adfectusque impone legens: distinctio sensum
Auget, et ignavis dant intervalla vigorem.”
With this object the master read over the
passage and made the class repeat it, as we see
from the frequent reddere dictata, i.e. to repeat
passages after the master (Hor. Ep. i. 1, 55;
i. 18, 13). This is expressed also by the word
praelegere (Mart. i. 36; Quint. i. 8, 8). Besides
this, however, the passage was thoroughly
threshed out as to its meaning, its metre, the
questions of geography, history, mythology, and
ethics connected with it (Quint. i. 4, 4: Cic.
Verr. i. 18, 47; Tac. Dial. 30). Hence Cicero
says of these schools of grammatici, “In gram-
maticis poetarum pertractatio, historiarum cog-
nitio, verborum interpretatio” (de Orat. i. 42,
187; cf. Juv. vii. 23i). The questions raised
were, however, often extremely trivial, “the
name of Anchises' nurse,” &c. (Juv. vii. 235:
see the instances in Mayor's note in loc.). There
were also learning by heart and practice in verse
composition: prose belonged to the rhetoric
school, when that was established as separate
from the grammatical. As regards the authors
read, Homer universally held the first place
(Hor. Ep. ii. 2, 42; Quint. i. 5, 8; Plin. Ep. ii.
14), and next perhaps the favourite was
Menander (Ov. Trist. ii. 23; Auson. l.c.), and
then the great tragedians. We have an account
in Stat. Silv. v. 3 of the books read in the school
kept by the father of Statius at Naples; and the
list comprises Homer, Hesiod, Theocritus, Pindar,
Ibycus, Stesichorus, Sappho, Corinna, Calli-
machus. It is possible, as Friedländer remarks,
that at Naples, as a town preserving Greek life
and habits, Greek literature might be more
deeply studied than elsewhere. The Latin
authors most read in the 1st century were
Virgil, Horace, and Lucan; Statius lived to see
his own works read in schools (Theb. xii. 810).
A reaction took place as to the literature in
vogue about 100 A.D. (see Grasberger, vol. ii.
p. 204; Friedländer, vol. iv. p. 20), and, in
place of the authors of the Augustan age, the
older prose writers and the poets of the 3rd
cent. B.C.—Gracchus, Naevius, Ennius, Plautus,
Accius, and Lucilius—were adopted as school-
books. This was at the time when Hadrian pre-
ferred Cato to Cicero, Ennius to Virgil (Wit.
Hadr. 16). Fronto, the teacher of Marcus
Aurelius, was a leader in the depreciation of the
Augustan writers (see Teuffel, Hist. of Roman
Lit. § 351 ff.). Music began to be studied
towards the end of the 1st century—a mark of
Greek influence (Sen. Ep. 88, 9; Suet. Tit. 3);
and the above course, with the addition of
geometry, formed what Quintilian (i., 10, 1)
calls the éºykökAtos trauðeta with which the
majority were content. Many, however, pro-
ceeded to the school of the rhetor. Like the
school of the grammaticus, this was originally
formed after the Greek pattern. The early
Latin rhetors, Plotius, &c. were not approved,
and the censors in B.C. 92 closed the Latin
schools of rhetoric, because, as they alleged, they
were a pretence for idleness. (Suet. Rhet, 1 ;
Gell. xv. 11). Cicero (ap. Suet. Rhet. 2) testifies
to the superior teaching of the Greek rhetores.
In these schools prose authors took the place of
poets: but the principal part was the prose
exercise, which, for the beginner a mere prose
narrative, passed on to the declamatio. The
easier kind of declamatio was suasoria, on some
historical and mythological subject, adopting
LUDUS TROJAE
LUPERCALIA 99
some view on this or that story or point of
history and arguing it (see Juv. i. 16). They
advanced to controversiae or declamations on
some legal point. (See Friedländer, vol. iv.
p. 23, French translation.) Pliny (Ep. ii. 3) may
be referred to for a description of a celebrated
whetor—the Isaeus alluded to in Juv. iii. 74.
The status and emoluments of the school-
masters, grammatistae and grammatici alike,
were low. Ovid calls them “turba censu
fraudata:” compare the poverty of the famous
Orbilius, described in Suet. Gr. 9, and especially
Juv. Sat. vii. 228–243. What their ordinary
fee was, cannot, however, be determined. In
Diocletian's time (when their position was
probably better than when Juvenal wrote), the
maximum fee for the grammatistes from each
pupil was 50 denarii a month, and for the
grammaticus 200 (C. I. L. iii. 831).” The rhetor
seems to have received twice as much as the
grammaticus, and his emoluments were increased
by the state endowments begun by Vespasian
(Suet. Vesp. 18). Remmius Palaemon is cited as
an instance of a wealthy grammaticus, and by a
'rhetor wealth was more often acquired. There
were, besides, the turns of fortune, of which Ju-
venal speaks (vii. 197), and of which the Emperor
Pertinax (once a grammaticus) and Ausonius
afford instances. (See Mayor's note on Juv. l.c.)
For the literature on this subject, the most
important Latin and Greek authors have been
cited in this article: a long additional list will
be found in Grasberger, vol. ii. p. 12, whose
work, Erziehung und Unterricht in classischen
Alterthum, forms the most complete modern
authority. See also Becker-Göll, Charikles, ii.
19 ft. ; Göll's excursus on Becker's Gallus,
vol. ii. pp. 61-114; an excellent popular work
of Blümmer, Leben und Sitten der Gr. ; Mar-
quardt, Privatleben, p. 80 ft. [G. E. M.]
LUDUS TROJA.E. [TROJAE LUDUS.]
LU'MINA. [SERVITUTEs.]
LUPA'NAR. [CAUPONA, Vol. I. p. 388b.]
LUPA'TUM. [FRENUM.]
LUPERCALIA, probably the most ancient
of the Roman festivals, was held every year on
the 15th of February, in honour of a deity who
is described as Faunus or Pan by Ovid (Fasti, ii.
268 foll.), Inuus by Livy (i. 5), Lupercus by
Justin (xliii. 1, 7). The later Romans had lost
the secret of the god's real name, and their
scholars merely made guesses about it, which
are represented in the names above given;
Faunus being brought in through his supposed
connexion with the Palatine hill, Inuus being
an obscure deity of the same character as Faunus,
and Lupercus probably a mere invention, based on
the name of the festival. Remembering the great
multiplicity and fluidity of the names of Roman
deities, and the tendency to avoid fixing a god's
name in ritual, we may hesitate to form a con-
clusion where the Romans themselves were un-
certain. (Liber is suggested by Servius on Aen.
viii. 343, who also says that others held the
divinity in question to be a deus bellicosus.) The
general character of the rites suggests an extreme,
possibly even a pre-Roman, antiquity; and though
their meaning can be in part explained, they do
* Diocletian's pretia are all in the copper denarius =
(according to Hultsch) about # of a penny. Hence the
yearly fee of 600 den. = 15 shillings. (See Marquardt,
Staatsverw. ii. 34.) .
:
:
© tº
not suggest any particular deity as specially
concerned in them.
These rites were as follows:—On the day in
question the members of the two colleges of
Luperci (see LUPERCI) met at the cave of the
Lupercal, under the Palatine, where Romulus
and Remus were said to have been nurtured by
the she-wolf, where (according to Justin, l.c.)
there was a temple and an image of the deity
girt with a goat-skin—most probably of com-
paratively late origin. Here they sacrificed
goats and young dogs (Plutarch, Quaest. Rom.
68; Rom. 21), and at the same time were offered
the sacred cakes made by the Westal Virgins
from the first ears of the previous harvest (Serv.
Ecl. 8, 82). Then two young men of birth,
themselves perhaps members of the Luperci,
were brought forward: these had their foreheads
smeared with the knife still bloody from the
victims, and then wiped with wool dipped in
milk, after which they were obliged to laugh.
They then, or other Luperci, girt themselves
with the skins of the slaughtered goats, and
feasted luxuriously; after which they ran round
the Palatine hill, striking at all the women who
came near them with strips of skin cut from the
hides of the victims. These strips bore the
name of februa, a word applied by the Romans
to many kinds of instruments of purification.
(For the above details, see Plut. Rom. 21,
Caesar 61 ; Dion. Hal. i. 79, 80; Wal. Max. ii.
2, 9; Ov. Fasti, ii. 267; Juv. Sat. ii. 142.)
The immediate object of this striking was
believed to be that of rendering the women
fertile—and this is confirmed by a considerable
number of parallels in classical antiquity (see
Mannhardt, Mythologische Forschungen, 113
foll.)—and at the same time was regarded as a
purificatory rite, or as a lustratio of the Palatine
city round which they ran (Tac. Ann. xii. 24).
This is a combination of ideas which is not hard
to explain, if we recollect that other processional
ceremonies of the Romans (see LUSTRATIO) had
the combined objects of purifying, averting evil,
and fertilising land, people, or city. Other
parts of the festival are, however, extremely
difficult to explain. In the smearing of the
young men's foreheads with blood, we may
see a relic of human sacrifice, which actually
occurred in the somewhat similar worship of
the Lycaean Zeus in Arcadia; or this may have
been a symbolic or quasi-dramatic act, signifying:
that the young men had died, like the victims,
but had gained a new life with the wiping off
of the blood—a resuscitation which may have.
been marked by the rule that they should laugh
at this point in the rite. If this latter explana-.
tion were true, the thing symbolised would be.
the revival of the powers of fertilisation with the .
return of spring (Mannhardt, op. cit. p. 91 foll.).
The girding on of the goatskins may possibly
be partially explained by certain similar usaget
in which the priest wears the skin of the victim
he has slain. By some this is referred to totem--
worship—the god himself (cf. Justin, l.c.) and
his priests wearing the skin of the sacred totem
(Lang, Myth Ritual and Religion, ii. 177 and 213;
Robertson Smith, s. v. Sacrifice, in Encycl. Brit.).
The victim should, in these totem sacrifices,
be the animal which represents the deity, and so.
far the popular conception of Faunus bears out
the view above given, when we see the * of
H
:
tº º
$ g
gº Q e tº .
tº & Cº.
º
• *
t
º
g
e
º
:
100 LUPERCI
LUPERCI
the goat-footed deity clothed in the skin of the
sacrificed goat. (Compare the clothing of the
ram-faced god Ammon in the skin of a sacrificed
ram, Herod. ii. 42.) As to the sacrifice of the
dog, it is perhaps simplest to connect this also
with the pastoral use of that animal as protector
of the flocks, rather than to refer it, as Preller
does, to a worship of infernal powers. (He cites
the case of Hecate.) While, however, there is
much to be said for the probability of these
views, they are at best conjectural. Thus much
seems at any rate clear, that the rites are those
of a primitive pastoral tribe occupying at first
the Palatine, and that they were understood to
bring fertility and security not merely of flocks,
but of the whole people: for the running round
the pomoerium is clearly meant to include the
whole existing state.
While (probably) the most ancient festival of
Rome, it was also the festival which lasted
longest. We find it celebrated in the 5th century,
apparently with the approbation of the Emperor
Anthemius (Gibbon, vol. iv. p. 281), and finally
prohibited, A.D. 496, by Pope Gelasius, who is
thought by some to have ordered the Christian
festival now held on February 2 (originally
February 14), in order to make the populace
forget the pagan rites of purification connected
with that month. The date, however, at which
this Christian festival was first instituted is
not quite certain. It is worth noticing, as
bearing on the significance of the Lupercalia,
that in these later times popular superstition
valued them as piacular rites which were a safe-
guard against pestilence. This seems clear
from the arguments against them which are
used in the letter of Gelasius (see Fleury,
Bistoire Eccles. xxx. 41). In addition to the
authors cited in the article, reference may be
made to Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 442; Preller,
Röm. Mythol. 342 ft. [W. W. F.]
LUPERCI were the members of a very
ancient, perhaps the most ancient, corporation
of priests at Rome, which also outlived the other
institutions of the old Roman religion. An
account of the rites which they superintended
will be found in the preceding article [LUPER-
CALIA]. As regards their institution there
are two separate legends; one ascribing their
foundation to the Arcadian Evander (Liv. i. 5;
Ov. Fast. ii. 423; Plut. Rom. 21), the other to
Romulus and Remus (Ov. Fast. ii. 361; Plut.
l. c.). It is probable that both are untrue. It
seems that the idea of a Greek institution is only
an attempt of later times to connect this priest-
hood with the worship of the Greek pastoral god
Pan. They were said to be priests of Faunus, the
Italian deity of flocks and herds, and Evander is
perhaps merely a translation of Faunus, “the
favourer” (see Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, iii.
439). It is probable, as Marquardt points out,
that the connexion with the legends of Romulus,
though much older than the Grecising legends, is
more recent than the institution of the priesthood,
and arose from the fact that the neighbourhood
of the Lupercal was connected with many tradi-
tions about Romulus, the Ficus Ruminalis, Casa
Romuli, &c., and also from the compound lupus
in the word itself, just as those who adopted
Greek tradition found an argument in the word
Aükata. The name of Faustulus, it is to be
noticed, in the Romulean legends, has the same
:
:
.
:
& *
:
meaning as that of Faunus. We can have little
doubt that the priesthood belongs to the oldest
tribal settlement on the Palatine, and derives
its name from neither of the above-mentioned
legends. Rejecting many improbable deriva-
tions, such as luere-capra (Servius), lupa-parcere
(Arnobius), lues-parcere (Unger), lupus-hircus
(Schwegler), we may adopt as the most likely
origin of the name Luperci, that which
Mommsen (Hist, of Rome, i. 176) and Marquardt
prefer, lupus-arceo; i.e. “the protectors of the
flock from wolves.” The priesthood was in
the hands of two collegia, of which the sodales
were called respectively Luperci Quinctiliani
(or Quinctiales?) and Luperci Fabiani, or some-
times Quinctilii and Fabii. In other words,
originally it was a gentile sacred rite, and was
in very ancient times under the exclusive charge
of these two gentes, although that attachment
to a particular gens lasted only in the name,
and was retained neither in respect of the
members nor the organisation. So far as regards
the second collegium, there is no difficulty in
understanding it of the gens Fabia (cf. Propert.
v. 1, 26), though Unger (Rhein. Mus. 1881,
pp. 50 ft.) seeks to connect the name with
februare ; but there is more doubt about as-
signing the other collegium to the gens Quinc-
tilia. It may be assumed that these Luperci
ranked before the Fabian; for this priority
of rank will explain the legends which attri-
bute the Quinctilii to Romulus and the Fabii
to Remus (Ov. Fast. ii. 373; Vict. de Orig.
22), and the name might be regarded as
fairly settled, if we could satisfy ourselves
whether the Quinctii or the Quinctilii were the
older. Mommsen (Hist. of Rome, i. 51 ; and
Staatsrecht, i. 560, note) and Marquardt (op. cit.)
take the Quinctii to be the old gens, the
Quinctilii a later introduction from Alba (for
which the authority is Dionys. iii. 29); and
they cite also an inscription (Orelli, 2253 =
C. J. L. vi. 1932), “lupercus Quinctialis vetus,”
and the coincidence of the praenomen Kaeso
belonging to the Quinctii and Fabii alone, and
possibly derived from the thongs with which
the Luperci strike (caedunt), as proving that
the name should be Quinctianus or Quinctiolis
from the Quinctii, not Quinctilianus, as though
from the Quinctilii. We have, however, on the
other hand, the fact that Livy (i. 30) gives just
the opposite account to Dionysius, and makes
the Quinctii come from Alba; and that all
ancient authorities, except the inscription above,
give the name Quinctilii or Quinctiliani to this
priesthood. We can hardly therefore take
Mommsen's view as proved beyond a doubt.
We shall be on more certain ground in assuming
that this gens, whether the Quinctii or the
Quinctilii, exercised the priesthood in this wor-
ship on the Palatine for the Montani, and with
them, when the tribal communities amalga-
mated, were joined the Fabii for the same
rites on behalf of the Collini. (That the Fabian
gens belonged to the Collini is shown by their
having their sacra gentilicia on the Quirinal:
Liv. v. 46, 52.) Possibly the Fabii used origin-
ally their separate sanctuary on this hill for the
Lupercalia, but there can be no doubt that the
associated worship of the two collegia of Luperci
(as afterwards of the third also) was in the
Lupercal on the Palatine—the only Lupercal
:
LUPUS FERREUS
LUSTRATIO 101
mentioned—a cave in the western angle of the
Palatine, the site of which cannot be positively
identified, where the rites in the festival were
begun. It was in later times adorned with some
masonry, perhaps a portico at the entrance ; for
it is stated in the inscription of Ancyra that
Augustus rebuilt it. (See Middleton's Rome,
p. 57; Burn's Rome and Campagna, p. 156.)
Julius Caesar, in the beginning of the year 44,
added a third corporation of priests called the
Luperci Julii (Dio Cass. xliv. 6; Suet. Jul. 76),
and assigned to them revenues which the senate
after his death took away (Cic. Phil. xiii. 15, 32),
and of this collegium Antonius was magister.
The assumption from this is that each of the
collegia had its own magister, though in in-
scriptions we find only “magister lupercorum ”
without distinction. The word vetus applied to
a lupercus (as in the inscription given above)
means no doubt that he belonged to one of the
two older corporations. The members (sodales,
&raſpot) were ordinarily of the equestrian rank,
rarely senators (cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, l.c.).
Under the Republic they were probably (like the
Fratres Arvales) coopted into the body, but
Mommsen thinks that under the Empire they
were appointed by the emperor. Some have
asserted the office to be terminable, on the
authority of two inscriptions, which seem to
give “lupercus iterum,” “lupercus ter” (C. J. L.
vi. 496; 2610), but the wording and significance
of these are by no means certain, and Marquardt
believes the office to have been for life (as was
also the office of the Fratres Arvales). It is
also questionable whether this priesthood existed
in any Italian town except Rome. The in-
scriptions found in various municipia perhaps
record merely the names of men who belonged
to one of the three collegia at Rome, and who
kept the title in their new domicile. At any
rate, we have no mention of the festival being
held anywhere but at Rome. Of the manner in
which the functions were partitioned among
the different collegia we have no record. For
an account of the rites which they celebrated,
see LUPERCALIA. (In addition to the works
cited above, reference may be made to Preller,
Röm. Myth. 111.) [G. E. M.]
LUPUS FE'RREUS, the grappling-iron used
by the besieged in repelling the attacks of the
besiegers, and especially in seizing the battering-
ram and diverting its blows. [ARIES.] (Liv.
xxxiii. 3; Veget. de Re Mil. ii. 25, iv. 23.) [J. Y.]
LUSTRATIO (luo, to purify), called by the
Greeks kā0aporis, is a term which covers a great
variety of ceremonies in the religious usage of
the ancients: of these only the most remarkable
and best attested can be referred to in this
article. It should be remarked at the outset,
that ceremonial purification, which is found in
some shape among peoples of all stages of
development, may be traced to an origin in
the necessities of bodily ablution, especially in
connexion with certain well-marked events in
human life, such as birth, marriage, bloodshed,
and burial. There gradually follows a transi-
tion “from practical to symbolic cleansing, from
removal of bodily impurity to deliverance from
invisible, spiritual, and at last moral evil.”
(Tylor, Primitive Culture, ii. 388).
This transition was complete by the time at
which Greek and Roman literature enables us to
become acquainted with the rites of this kind
practised by the two peoples; but the primitive
idea may be often noted underlying usages which
had lost their original meaning. Cicero reflects
this idea in the following remarkable passage:–
“Caste jubet lex adire ad deos, animo videlicet,
in quo sunt omnia; nec tollit castimoniam
corporis, sed hoc oportet intelligi, quum multum
animus corpori praestet observeturque, ut casta
corpora adhibeantur, multo esse in animis id
servandum magis; nam illud vel aspersione aquae
vel dierum numero tollitur; animi labes nec
diuturnitate evanescere nec amnibus ullis elui
potest * (de Legibus, ii. 10, 24).
The various usages of lustration may con-
veniently be grouped under the following heads:
—1, purification necessary before entering holy
places; 2, purification from blood-guiltiness;
3, purification at birth, marriage, and death;
4, purification of house, land, city, or people, on
certain stated occasions, or with some special
temporary object.
1. Both in Greece and Italy we have sufficient
evidence that worshippers could not enter a
temple without a previous symbolic act of wash-
ing. Even before engaging in ordinary prayer
this was proper, as may be seen from Homer,
Od. iv. 750 (cf. Il. xvi. 228 f.); but in temple-
worship it was indispensable. At the entrance
of temples were placed vessels holding pure
water (trepuppavripta), in which the worshippers
dipped their hands; or the water was sprinkled
over them by a whisk, frequently a laurel-
branch (Bötticher, Baumkultus der Hellenen,
p. 353; Lucian, Sacrif. 13; Pollux, i. 8). Sea-
water or spring-water was preferred; and salt
was sometimes added to fresh water (Theocr. 24,
95). Temples were usually placed near running
water, for convenience (Bötticher, Tektonik der
Hellenen, ii. 485). In Latium the word delu-
brum signified the space before the temple where
this purification was performed (Serv. ad Aen.
ii. 225); and it was as indispensable as in Greece,
as may be clearly seen from Livy (xlv. 5, 4):
“Cum omnis praefatio sacrorum eos, quibus
non sint purae manus, arceat '' (cf. i. 45, 6,
where the priest of the temple of Diana, on the
Aventine, requests a Sabine who wished to sacri-
fice there, to bathe in the Tiber in the valley
below). The temples themselves were no doubt
kept pure from defilement in the same manner
as the worshippers; for we find that the Vestal
Virgins daily sprinkled that of Vesta with some
kind of mop (which is represented on coins) and
with water brought from the holy springs of
Egeria or the Camenae (cf. Eur. Jon, 101). For
further information about this kind of lustration,
see K. F. Hermann, Griech. Alterthümer, vol. ii.
sects. 19 and 23, ed. 2; Marquardt, Staatsverwal-
tung, vol. iii. (ed. 2), pp. 154 and 175.
2. The notion that blood-guiltiness could be
removed by symbolic purification was not appa-
rently indigenous in Greece, for it is not found in
Homer (Grote, Hist. of Greece, i. 21). Müller
(Eumen. § 53) takes a different view. In later
times, whether the murder had been voluntary
or not, it was indispensable (see Lobeck, Aglaoph.
968, where passages are collected); and is fami-
liar to us in the story of Orestes, both from the
Eumenides of Aeschylus and from numerous
painted vases. Herodotus (i. 35) tells us that
the kä0aports of the Greeks was identical with
102 LUSTRATIO
LUSTRATIO .
that used by the Lydians, whence it has been
inferred that the Greeks borrowed the idea from
Lydia; and considering the strong negative evi-
dence of the Homeric poems on the point, it is
not unlikely that the practice of expiation from
blood-guiltiness may have been of later date,
and suggested by Eastern influences. There is
no certain sign of it in Roman antiquity; the
so-called lex regia of Numa, quoted in Festus
(221, s. v. parricida), makes no mention of it;
and it would seem that a murderer was totally
and permanently excluded from temple-worship
(Liv. xlv. 5, 3), though this cannot be regarded
as fully proved by the evidence. When Ovid,
in the well-known lines, “A nimium faciles
qui tristia crimina caedis Fluminea tolli posse
putetis aqua" (Fasti, ii. 45), refers to the Greek
belief and practice as based on a delusion, he is
perhaps reflecting not only the opinions of edu-
cated scepticism, but also the view which was
natural to the Roman mind.
3. Purification was necessary after the birth
of an infant, as is shown by the Roman expres-
sion dies lustricus for the day (the ninth after
birth for a boy, the eighth for a girl) on which
the child received its name (Macrob. i. 16, 36:
“Est autem lustricus dies quo infantes lustrantur
et nomen accipiunt”). In the corresponding
Athenian rite of the Amphidromia, we are not
informed of any such lustration, except that the
women who had attended at the birth then
washed their hands (Suidas, s.v. &piqtāpāula); but
the practice of some form of baptism is so uni-
versal (Tylor, Prim. Culture, ii. 389 f.) that we
may be justified in assuming it. At marriage the
practice of lustration is clearly seen in Greece:
both bride and bridegroom bathed, on the day
Before the wedding, in water brought from
a holy spring (e.g. Callirrhoe, at Athens), to
signify that they entered the married state in
purity (Pollux, iii. 43; Schol. Eur. Phaen. 349).
So at Rome, the bride, on arriving at her hus-
band's house, was sprinkled with lustral water
(Festus, p. 87), and her feet were washed (Serv.
ad Aen. iv. 167). In Greece, after a death, all
who were in the house, and all who subsequently
came in contact with the corpse, were contami-
nated and in need of purification (Odyss. x. 481;
Eurº Iph. Taur. 380), and a cask of water, called
äpäävlov, was placed outside the house with this
object (Pollux, viii. 65). Among the Romans we
find the same ideas prevailing in funeral rites: a
day was fixed on which, by sacrifices and other
ceremonies, the polluted household was cleansed.
This was called “feriae denicales” (Festus, p. 70;
cf. Cic. de Leg. ii. 22, 25); a pig had been pre-
viously sacrificed at the grave (Cic. l.c.) to render
it holy ground.
4. From the illustrations given in the three
preceding paragraphs it will have been seen
that the idea of the necessity of purification, in
the simple and ordinary sense of the word, and
as symbolised chiefly by some act of ablution,
was one which pervaded the whole life of the
individual and the family, both in Italy and
Greece. The words kaffaipeiv and lustrare, how-
ever, were applied to a great number of other
purificatory rites on a larger scale, and occur-
ring either on days fixed in the calendar of
religious operations, or on peculiar occasions,
which concerned certain portions of land, cities,
or a whole community of individuals. It is by
no means clear in all these rites, how far the
leading idea is simple purification, or expiation
for some crime or other taint, or even a kind
of dedication to a divinity for the purpose of
procuring good fortune, e.g. in agriculture or
in war. Doubtless these ideas ran into each
other, and were not clearly distinguished in the
minds of those who took part in the rites at
the time when we first become acquainted with
them. A few examples, of which the most
instructive are the Italian, will serve to show
the nature of the rites, and to give some idea
of their object or objects.
Of extraordinary purifications of this kind,
the most famous in Greece were : 1. The work
done by Epimenides at Athens after the Cylonian
massacre, described by Plutarch in his Life of
Solon (ch. 12; cf. Diog. Laert. i. 10, 3); the
details are uncertain, but the general character
seems to have resembled that combination of
actual and moral purification which was
wrought on the worshippers in the Greek
mysteries. 2. The purification of Delos by the
Athenians in the year 426 B.C., with the object
of releasing their own city from the plague and .
the wrath of Apollo. All dead bodies were
then removed from the island, and it was
decreed that neither birth nor death should
take place there in future (Thuc. iii. 104).
With these examples may be compared the
Roman amburbium, which, unlike other rites of
the kind at Rome, seems only to have been
celebrated on occasions of great distress, as,
for example, after the battle of the Trebia
(Liv. xxi. 62, 7). Victims were led round the
city wall and sacrificed, accompanied by the
Pontifices, Vestal Virgins, and members of the
other priestly colleges. (Lucan, i. 592 f.;
Festus, p. 5.)
Of regularly recurring lustrations we find
the best examples in Italy; but they also took
place at Athens. Every meeting of the Ecclesia
was preceded by a lustration (reptorua), when the
Treptotſapxos sacrificed young pigs, which were
afterwards thrown into the sea. [ECCLESIA,
Vol. I. p. 699 b.] Of the great Athenian fes-
tivals, some at least had the object of puri-
fication: such for example was the harvest
festival of the Thargelia (3re ka9aipovoiv
'A6mvaſot r}v tróAuv, Diog. Laert. ii. 5, 23), on
which occasion two men called pappakol were
driven out of the city as ka0dporta (Harpocrat.
S. v. papuakós).
Of parallel rites at Rome we have more
certain information. Sometimes it was the
land that was the object of lustration, whether
the land of a private owner or the land of the
state; sometimes it was the people, whether
brought together in the form of a public
assembly, or in the form of an army or fleet.
Of the lustration of a farm we have an account
preserved in Cato's treatise de Re Rustica (§ 41).
The suovetaurilia (offering of pig, sheep, and ox)
were driven round the farm, libations offered to
Janus and Jupiter, and a fixed form of prayer
used to propitiate Mars, the special deity of the
agriculturist. This was doubtless the original
and simplest form of this kind of lustratio, for
we find exactly the same ritual applied to the
land of the state on the 29th of May each year,
in the Ambarvalia [AMBARVALIA], of which
the best description will be found in Verg.
LUSTRATIO
LUSTRUM 103
Georg. i. 345. The great inscription from
Iguvium in Umbria, which consists of exact
regulations and formulae to be observed in a
procession round the land of that city, offers a
parallel case of lustration from North Italy,
and a more minute description of the kind of
ritual in use than we possess from any other
source. (See Bréal, Tables Eugubines, p.
xxi. ff.)
A complete lustration of the whole Roman
people took place at the end of every lustrum,
when the censor had finished his census and
before he laid down his office. This took place
ifi the Campus Martius, where the people were
assembled for the purpose. The sacrifices were
carried three times round the assembled multi-
tude, as in the Ambarvalia they were carried
round the land (Dionys. Hal. iv. 22). All
Roman armies before they took the field were
lustrated (Dio Cass. xlvii. 38; App. Hist. 19,
and B. C. iv. 89); and as this solemnity was
probably always connected with a review of the
troops, the word lustratio is also used in the
sense of the modern review (Cic. Att. v. 20, 2).
The rites customary on such occasions are not
mentioned, but they probably resembled those
with which a fleet was lustrated before it set
sail, and which are described by Appian (B. C.
v. 96). Altars were erected on the shore, and
the vessels manned with their troops assembled
close at hand. Silence was kept, while the
priests carried the purifying sacrifices (ka9áporia)
in boats three times round the fleet; these
sacrifices were then divided into two parts, one
of which was thrown into the sea, and the other
burnt on the altars, while the multitude prayed
to the gods. (Cf. Liv. xxxvi. 42 and xxix. 27,
where also a prayer is recorded such as generals
used on these occasions.)
The examples given in the foregoing account
are to be taken only as selected illustrations of
a very large and widespread series of purifica-
tory rites. There were indeed few religious
ceremonies either in Greece or Italy of which
some kind of lustration did not form a part; for
as the simple idea of purification became con-
nected with other ideas, such as fertilisation, as
in rites of spring and summer, or the averting
of evil from a community and its property, the
field over which its influence extended became
continually enlarged. It may be studied in the
Greek Mysteries, which had as their chief object
the removal of moral evil from the minds of the
worshippers, and were accompanied by pre-
liminary rites of a purely lustral character; in
the Bacchic rites, where fire, sulphur, and air
were used as means of purgation, besides water
(Serv. ad Aen. vi. 741); in the Palilia of the
Romans, where the flocks and herds were made
to pass through the fire, as a means both of
purification and fertilising; in the Lupercalia in
the month of February, which was the special
season of purification (februum=an instrument
of purifying); in the singular ceremony of the
ARGEI on the Ides of May, called by Plutarch
“the greatest of the purifications” (Quaest.
Rom. 86), and in many other rites.
The articles on the festivals above mentioned
may be referred to for further information: and
on the general subject of lustration, for Greece,
Hermann, Griech. Alterthümer, vol. ii. sects. 19,
23 and 24; for Rome, Marquardt, Staatsverwal-
|
tung, vol. iii. (2nd edit.), pp. 200 f. and Preller,
Röm. Mythol. (3rd edit.), vol. i. 419 ft. [W. W. F.]
LUSTRICUS DIES. [LUSTRATIO, p. 102 b.]
LUSTRUM. The term lustrum primarily
meant a purification by sacrifice. Varro (L.L. vi.
2) explains it thus: “lustrum nominatur tempus
quinquennale a luendo, id est solvendo, quod
quinto quoque anno vectigalia et ultrotributa
per censores persolvebantur.” The derivation is
probably right, but the explanation is wrong.
Paul. D. 120 says, “Cum ejusdem vocabuli
prima syllaba producitur, significat nunc tempus
quinquennale, nunc populi lustrationem.” In
the regal period this sacrifice without doubt
had been one of the duties performed by the
king in his capacity of priest. Thus Livy
(iv. 44) represents king Servius Tullius as cele-
brating the first lustrum in 566 B.C. when he
had completed the census. (“Censu perfecto
edixit, ut omnes cives Romani in campo prima
luce adessent. Ibi omnem exercitum suovetau-
rilibus lustravit: idque conditum lustrum ap-
pellatum, quia is censendo finis factus est.”)
Under the early Republic it was naturally per-
formed by the consuls, who represented the king
of the previous epoch. When with the growth
of the state the duties of the consuls had largely
increased, and it was found necessary to establish
the censorship in 443 B.C. (or 435 B.C., according
to Mommsen), the duty of performing this rite
devolved on the censors. The latter held office
not from lustrum to lustrum, but were appointed
at intervals of five years [CENSOR). They
entered on their office in April, and by May of the
following year they had completed the census
and their other duties. They then celebrated
the lustrum, without which, according to some,
their official acts were devoid of authority
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 322). . The lustration
[LUSTRATIO] took place in the Campus Martius.
All the men of military age were assembled
there; thrice round them were borne on spears
a boar, a ram, and a bull (swovetaurilia), which
were sacrificed by the censors to Mars for the
fulfilment of the vows made by the preceding
censors. One censor at the same time offered
fresh vows for the coming years. They then led
the whole host to the city gate, and as a mark
of the completion of the lustrum drove a nail into
the wall of a temple (that of Mars Ultor since
the 2nd century B.C.), and then deposited the
new register of the citizens in the treasury.
After this the censors immediately laid down
office. From the fact that the lustrum took
place (as a rule) every fifth year, the term was
likewise applied to the period of five years pre-
ceding. The solemn rite was thus regarded as
completing this quinquennium, and hence the
term condere lustrum was used to describe it.
But though it was usual to hold it every five
years, its celebration was by no means invaria-
ble. Sometimes the rite was omitted on religious
grounds, as we learn from Livy, iii.22 : “Census
actus eo anno, lustrum propter Capitolium cap:
tum, consulem occisum, condi religiosum fuit *
(cf. Livy, xxiv. 43), and probably from other
causes likewise; for the Fasti Capitolini, in
which are entered the censors, and the letters
L F attached to the names of those who com-
pleted this rite, show that, although the cus-
tomary interval was five years, not unfrequently
six and seven years elapse, or sometimes only
104 LYCAEA
LYRA
four between each celebration. According to
Livy (x. 47), in the period between the first
appointment of censors (443 or 435 B.C.) and
294 B.C., there had only been twenty-six pairs
of censors, and only twenty-one lustra. In later
times the ceremony was probably simplified.
Cicero (de Or. ii. 66,268) says, “lustrum condidit
et taurum immolavit.” The last celebration of
a lustrum took place under Vespasian, 74 A.D.
From the interval between the lustra being
usually five years, the term lustrum came
gradually to be used as a general expression for
a period of five years. But, according to the
Roman method of computation, the phrase quinto
quoque anno might mean every four years. Thus
Cicero (de Or. iii. 32, 127) calls the Olympic
festival “maxima illa quinquennalis celebritas
ludorum.” Thus likewise the Roman priests in-
terpreted the quarto quoque anno of the Julian
Calendar as meaning every three years (Macrob.
i. 14, 1). Hence from the earliest times there
would be a vagueness in the use of the term. In
the writers of the Augustan age, who commonly
use lustrum in its general sense, we find its use
fluctuating. Ovid, for instance, uses it for a
period of five years (Amor. iii. 6, 27: “nondum
Troia fuit lustris obsessa duobus ”). In Fasti,
iii. 119, he uses it in the same sense when
describing the year of Romulus (“mensibus
egerunt lustra minora decem”), but in the same
poem (l. 165) where he is explaining the Julian
year and the intercalation of the dies bissertus
(“hic anni modus est: in lustrum accedere
debet quae consummatur partibus una dies "),
lustrum must mean a period of four years.
Again, from Trist. iv. 10, 96, and Epp. ea Pont.
iv. 6, 5, we find that he identifies the Roman
lustrum whih the Greek Olympiad (“in Scythia
nobis quinquennis Olympias acta est: jam
tempus lustri transit in alterius”), just as
Polybius (vi.13) uses revraermply to translate
the Latin lustrum. The later writers seem to
use it only as a period of four years. Pliny
(H. W. ii. § 47) twice uses it of the four-year
Julian cycle. We also find on inscriptions the
intervals of four years between the Capitoline
games instituted by Domitian described as lus-
tra; and Censorinus (18), when defining the
lustrum or annus magnus, seems unaware that it
ever differed from the Olympiad, or denoted any
other period than four years. W. R.]
LYCAEA (A&icata), a festival celebrated by
the Arcadians in honour of Zebs Awkaios on
Mount Lycaeus. The account given by Pau-
sanias (viii. 38) is that it was founded by
Lycaon, son of Pelasgus, and that besides the
games (of which we have no particular account)
there was a sacrifice tº Zeus of a child, whose
blood was poured over the altar, after which
Lycaon himself was turned into a wolf, and he
records the tradition that ever after at the annual
festival a man was turned into a wolf for a
period of ten years, or, if he tasted human flesh,
for life. (Paus. viii. 2; cf. Augustin. de Civ. Dei,
xviii. 17.) It is not improbable that these wehr-
wolf stories, however ancient, are a perversion
of something older still from a false connexion of
the name with Atſkos, and similarly that the
references to the sacrifice as a rite of the pastoral
Arcadians as a protection against wolves, like the
Roman Lupercalia (cf. Plut. Caes. 61), &c., are
equally illusory. It is more likely that the
name of the mountain belongs to the roof. Aviz,
“light,” as in the Attic hill Avká8mrtos, with
which we may compare many mountain names
of other countries, such as the Strahlhorn. These
names come from the fact of the mountain peak
catching the sunlight first and retaining it last.
It is a remarkable coincidence that Pausanias,
speaking of Lycosura, the town founded by Lycaon
on the Lycaean mountain, which he calls the
most ancient in Greece, uses the phrase kal taſtnu
elöev 6 #Atos trpºrny. In accordance with this
origin of the name, the worship was the earliest
Pelasgian worship of Zeus, represented by no
statue, but dwelling in light on the summit of
the Lycaean mountain, where was the altar of
human sacrifice on the highest point, with two
pillars standing eastward of it surmounted in
later times by two golden eagles. Below the
altar was a grove, which no man might enter,
where it was believed that no shadow could fall,
and in the grove the holy spring “A yua, in
which the priest in time of drought dipped an
oak-bough after sacrifice. (Paus. viii. 38.)
The sacrifice was particularly connected with
prayers for rain; and it is probable that human
sacrifices were retained to a late period. Pau-
sanias does not mention their discontinuance,
and says, étri roštov roo Bouot tº Avkatº All
650woriv čv &toppírq. troAvrpayuovāorat 6% of
pot rà és rhv 6voltav #8i ºv, exéro & &s éxel
kal &s éorxev é: &px?is. The contests seem to
have included horse-races and foot-races; for
Pausanias mentions in front of the grove of
Pan on the same mountain intróðpopuos kai
orráStov, where at one time the Lycaean festival
was held. [G. E. M.]
LYCEUM. [GYMNASIUM.]
LYRA (Lat. fides), a lyre, the chief stringed
instrument used in Greek music. Two main
varieties are known to us from ancient art and
literature, viz. the lyre (Ašpa) properly so
called, and the cithara (k10ápa).
The distinctness of the lyre and the cithara
may be shown from 5
Plato (Rep. iii. p.
399 D, Aſpa 6%
orot, jv 5’ yaº,
kal kiödpa Aeſtretat
karū tróAlv xpſi-
orua), and from
Aristotle, who ex-
cludes the cithara
from education
(Pol. viii. 6 = p.
1341, 18, otºre yop
aixot's eis traibstav
&kréov oër’ &AAo
texvuòu äpyavov,
ofov kibäpav köv et 2-&ºts
rt rotoorov :* •. Ş6
éo ruv). Mytho- » V
tº generally —$
taught that the —ſ
cithara was in-
vented by Apollo,
the lyre by Hermes
(Paus. v. 14, 8).
The difference be-
tween the two in-
struments seems
to be sufficiently
ascertained from the representations of them
Lyra. (Blanchini)

LYRA
LYRA 105
found on ancient monuments, especially painted
vases, on which two well-marked types can
be traced. One of these answers
closely to the description which
the author of the Homeric hymn
to Hermes gives of the lyre
invented by the youthful god
(H. Merc. 41 ff.). The lower part
or body of the instrument consists
of a tortoise-shell, or of a wooden
case in which the original tortoise-
shell is more or less faithfully
reflected. In this shell are fixed
two curved arms (trážeus) or horns,
joined at the upper end by a cross-
bar (Čvyāv). The strings pass from the shell,
over a bridge or fret of reeds (6óvakes), to the
Guyóv. The instruments of the other type are
larger, and show a decided advance in point of
construction. The shell is replaced by a wooden
case, usually square or angular, and instead
of “horns” we find the sides of the case pro-
longed upwards, so that the whole frame-
work acts as a resonance box of considerable
power. Now, it is clear from the evidence of
the monuments that the first of these was the
instrument of education and of every-day life;
while the second was the “technical instru-
ment,” seen in the hands of professional players
(k10apçãoſ), who wear the long robe proper to
musical contests and other festivals. The first,
therefore, must be the lyre, and the second the
cithara.
The early history of the lyre and cithara is
obscure. In Homer we find a stringed instru-
ment called the póppuyè, used especially to
accompany singing or epic recitation (&otöff).
We also hear, somewhat less frequently, of
the kíðapus : but there is no trace of a difference
between them. The verb Abopuſo is used of the
kíðapis (Od. i. 153–155); and conversely we
find the phrase (póppuy'y, któapfgely (Il. xviii.
569). The word Aūpa is post-Homeric: it oc-
curs once in the Hymn-to-Hermes (l.423), but
does not seem to have been in common use
before the time of Pindar. It is worth noticing,
as a consequence of the comparatively late date
of the word, that the derivatives Avpíga,
Aupuarás, &c., are unknown in good Greek,
kiðapígo and kibaptorrhs being always used of
the lyre and cithara alike; just as XaAkets,
“bronze-Smith,” was applied to workers in iron
as well as in the older metal. It would be rash,
however, to infer that the Homeric instrument
resembled the cithara rather than the lyre.
We may suppose that the later form of the
cithara was developed gradually, retaining the
original name, which therefore , included all
varieties, until the new word Aūpa came into
vogue for the commoner and more primitive
kind. The author of the Hymn to Hermes
recognises only one form, that of the lyre, to
which he applies the terms kíðapts and ºpópply:
as well. The identity of the kiðapis and the
lyre is also maintained by Aristoxenus, the pupil
of Aristotle (Ammon. de diff. Voc. p. 82, kíðapis
kal kiödpa 6tapépet, pngly 'Aptotóševos év tá,
trept åpyávov kíðapis ydp &otiv h Aiſpa k. T. A.).
Cithara. (Guhl
and Koner.)
Regarding the original number and tuning
of the strings, contradictory accounts were cur-
rent. According to one statement in Diodorus
(i. 16), Hermes was the author of harmony
of sound, and in that character invented a
lyre with three strings, answering to the three
seasons. The same author elsewhere (v. 75)
says that Hermes invented his lyre in place
of the cithara, which Apollo had laid aside in
remorse for his cruelty to Marsyas. According
to the Hymn to Hermes (l. 51) the primitive
lyre was one of seven strings:
g * * 2 * * º * &
étrö 8& ovuºtovovs 6twov ćraviſororaro xopóós.
On the other hand, the increase of the number
of strings from four to seven appears to be
claimed by Terpander, in two lines attributed to
him :
oroi 6' hueis retpáympvv àmoorrépěavres àow8āv
étrfaróvº báppliyya véovs keadºffo'ouev iſ uvovs.
A different account, however, is given by
Aristotle (Probl. xix. 32), where he touches on
the question why the interval of an Octave is
not called 61' 3rté (as a Fourth is 61& regardpov,
a Fifth 51& Trévre). He suggests by way of
answer that the scale was formerly one of seven
notes only, saying that Terpander left out the
note called Tp(r), and added the virn at the
upper end of the scale (the octave of the Örörm,
or lowest note). If this account is the true one,
what Terpander did was to raise the scale to the
compass of an Octave, but without increasing
the traditional number of strings. However
this may be, the comparative antiquity of a
scale of at least seven notes is proved by their
names. The following are the notes of the
central octave in the later system, with the
modern notes which show the intervals on the
diatonic scale :-
e irárm, lit. “uppermost,” our “lowest” note.
f f
f trapurárm, “next to irárm.” *
g Auxavós, “forefinger” note.
a pºéorm, “middle" note.
b trapapuéorm.
c rpírm, third, viz. from the vºrm.
d trapavārm.
e virm, for vedºrm, “lowest,” our “highest.”
Of these names there is only one that is
admittedly later than the rest, viz. trapapuéorm,
which probably dates from the time when the
heptachord of Terpander acquired an eighth.
string, and consequently a complete diatonic scale
of the compass of an Octave. If we may trust
a passage quoted from Philolaus (Nicom. p. 17),
the gap then filled up was not that between
pléorm and rpírm. Philolaus gives the name
Tpſta (he writes in Doric) to the later trapapuéorm,
the note which was a tone above the puéorm-
The change, therefore, consisted in inserting a
note half a tone above the Tp(r) of Philolaus,
which new note then became the “third,” and
made it necessary to find a new name—trapapuéorm
—for the old rpírm. But the language of
Aristotle himself (Probl. xix. 7, 32, 47) shows
that the exact steps of this progress were no
longer known. According to Nicomachus, the
eighth string of the scale was added by Pytha-
goras. Probably, however, this is a mere
inference from the Pythagorean discovery of the
numerical ratios on which the musical intervals
—the Octave, Fifth, Fourth, and Tone—are
based. Another notice (Boeth. de Mus. i. 20).
attributes the improvement to a certain Lycaon
of Samos.
The lyre was originally played without the
*—

106 LYRA
MACELLUM
aid of a plectrum; and each string seems to
have been sounded by a particular finger.
Thus the Atxavos or “forefinger” was so called,
according to Nicomachus (p. 22), because it was
sounded by the forefinger of the left hand. It
follows, as has been pointed out by Gevaert
(ii. p. 354), that the left hand was used for the
lower tetrachord, and that the little finger was
not used to touch the strings. When the
plectrum came into use, it was held in the right
hand, and perhaps was specially employed for
the air, while the softer tones produced by the
fingers of the left hand served for the accompani-
ment. This is suggested (though by no means
proved) by the epigram of Agathias (Anth. Pal.
xi. 352) quoted by Gevaert : ,’
Töv arodov čv kv6ápm, Töv Pºovorukov’Avôpotiowa,
eiperó Tus rotmy kpovulatukºv aroqênv’
Sečvréphy birármv 6tróte trajktpouot Sövmaras,
# Aath vijrm trăAAétat airropóros.
The phenomenon here referred to is the “sym-
pathy” by which a sounding body excites the
vibration of another whose note is in unison with
it, or with one of its harmonics.
The seven-stringed
lyre was still in use
in the time of Pindar,
unless we suppose
that the epithets #1-
Táictvros (Pyth. 2,
70) and étr+dyAwaroos
(Nem. 5, 24) are due
to mere poetical tra-
dition. On the other
hand, we are told that
Lasus of Hermione,
who was an older
contemporary of Pin-
dar, introduced new
notes, by which he
broke up (Stéppilyev)
the existing scale
(Plut. Mus. cc. 29,
30). A passage quoted
by Plutarch (l. c.)
from the comic poet
Pherecrates denounces a series of similar inno-
vators—Melanippides, Phrynis, Cinesias, and
finally Timotheus of
Anacreon playing the Lyre.
Şāº; in the
ritish Museum.)
4 *š. Miletus, who “out-
ºw % § raged music with his
twelve strings.” The
object of the addi-
tional strings seems
much to obtain
greater compass as
to make it possible
to combine different
modes or keys, per-
haps also different
genera (see the art.
MUSICA), on the same
instrument, and to
pass easily from one
to another. It is the
“multiplicity of keys
or scales" (toxvap-
wovía) which is al-
Ways associated with
“ multiplicity of
Citharista with Lyre.
(Dennis's Etruria.)
to have been not so
strings” (troAvXopóta) in the minds of those
who, like Plato, regarded such changes as
dangerous and corrupting.
It is characteristic of the lyre and the cithara
that the strings are all of the same length, so
that the difference of pitch is entirely due to
different thickness. In this respect they differed
from instruments such as the harp, which have
strings of different length, and again from those
in which the length of the string is varied by
the player, as in the case of the violin. The
woodcuts above show the method of holding
the lyre, in playing with the right hand only
or with both. It was also played sitting, and
supported on the knees. The cithara was
held in the same manner. The harp type was
represented in Greek music by the Tpſywwow or
triangular harp, a Phrygian instrument, with
which we find associated the Lydian Tºktis.
Both are condemned by Plato (Rep. iii. p. 399),
for the excessive number of their strings. They
are also mentioned together in a fragment of
Sophocles, fr. 361 :
wroxys 83 ppi; Tptywovos &vria traorrá re
Avôſis pupiveſ armkriðos avyxopôta.
The udºyabis, which was closely akin to the
Trnkrís, was so called from the bridge or fret
(uayds), by which a string could be divided by
the player, so as to yield a higher note. It had
twenty strings, and admitted of playing the
same tones simultaneously in different octaves
(hence called uayačígetv). This is also attri-
buted by Aristotle (Probl. xix. 14) to an
instrument called the pouvíkuov or Phoenician
lyre. The most perfect of all these instruments
seems to have been the étriyovetov, called after
its inventor, Epigonus of Ambracia, which had
forty strings. Besides these, we hear of the
Báp8itos, which is thought to have been nearly
related to the lyre, also the vö8Aa and the
orapºkm (Strab. x. p. 471). Several of these
names are confessedly barbarous, and all the
instruments now in question lay under the
imputation of being more or less alien to
genuine Greek art. They evidently enjoyed
much popularity, but were never regarded as of
equal dignity with the lyre and cithara.
(Compare Carl von Jan, De fidibus Graecorum,
Berolini, 1859; Westphal, Geschichte der alten
wnd mittelalterlichen Musik, Breslau, 1864;
Gevaert, Histoire et Théorie de la Musique de
l’Antiquité, Gand, 1875–81.) [D. B. M.] .
M.
MACELLUM (3./orwāta, ājoira/Neſov, kpeo-
Trackeſov), a provision market for butchers, fish-
mongers, poulterers, fruiterers, and confec-
tioners: see Ter. Eun. ii. 2, 24, “ad macellum
ubi advenimus concurrunt . . . cuppedinarii
omnes, cetarii, lanii, coqui, fastores, piscatores”
(cf. Plaut. Aul. ii. 8, 3; Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 229;
Epist. i. 15, 31). These provisions were formerly
found at Rome in their separate markets—the
forum boarium, piscatorium, olitorium : but for
convenience the market was brought together





MACHAERA
MACHINAE 107
in the macellum, built B.C. 179 to the north
of the Forum (Fest. s. v. macellum). Varro
(L. L. iv. 32) and Festus speak of a robber
Romanius Macellus, whose house was demolished
that a market might be established on the site;
but it must be confessed that the story has a
suspicious appearance of growing out of the
name macellum Romanum, and either Curtius’
reference to macto (Greek Etym. 338), or the
identification with the Greek udrceXoy or ºld-
rexxov (which Varro himself suggests as the
alternative), may be accepted in preference.
The latter, which seems the more probable, is
connected with the word maceria, a roughly
built wall, and thus macellum may be assumed
to have got its name from being an enclosed
space. With this agrees Varro's expression
“aedificatus locus appellatus macellum ; ” and it
had booths in its colonnade (macellariae tabernae,
Val. Max. iii. 4, 4). To this earliest macellum
we refer Cic. pro Quint. 6, 25, “ab atriis Liciniis
et faucibus macelli.” The atria Licinia seem to
have been auction rooms (cf. de Leg. Agr. i. 3,
7) near the forum. The Macellum magnum
was in the second region on the Cispian hill, and
is placed by some at S. Stefano Rotondo, it being
suggested that the circular construction, with
pillars, is planned upon the old market buildings
(Burn, Rome and Compagna, p. 221). This is
purely conjectural. A similar rotunda is found
on a coin of Nero, with the inscription “macel-
lum Augusti” (Eckel, vi. 273). The Macellum
Livianum was near the Porta Esquilina and the
Arch of Gallienus. It is probable that the
macellum of B.C. 179 was destroyed to make
room for the forum Augusti, and that Augustus
built, instead of it, the macellum which he
named after Livia. (See Richter, ap. Baumeister,
Denkm. p. 1534.) To the macella the cooks would
go to buy, and the less wealthy marketed there
for themselves (Juv. xi. 10). The salesmen in it
were called macellarii (Suet. Jul. 26; Vesp. 19).
Julius Caesar tried to check extravagance by
putting the macella under police control, and
the same control through the aediles was at-
tempted by Tiberius, moved apparently by the
tale of mullets at 10,000 sesterces apiece (Suet.
Jul. 43; Tib. 34).
The Athenian provision market was called,
as a general term, Ö/orwāta (Athen. p. 6 a.);
but more frequently we find the different depart-
ments ai ix60s, to 5 pov, rà &Aqura, &c., which
were in divisions in the market-place called
kūkāo. [AGORA.] The signal for a sale was
given by a bell ringing, when marketers, cooks,
&c., flocked there (see Mahaffy, Social Life in
Greece, ch. 10). [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
Macnama (uſixalpa). [CULTER; PU-
GIO.
MA’CHINAE (unxavaſ) and O'RGANA
(§pyava). The object of this article is to give a
brief general account of those contrivances for
the concentration and application of force which
are known by the names of instruments, mechani-
cal powers, machines, engines, and so forth, as
they were in use among the Greeks and Romans,
especially in the time of Vitruvius, to whose
tenth book the reader is referred for the details
of the subject.
The general but loose definition which Vitru-
vius gives of a machine (x. 1, § 1), is a wooden
structure, having the virtue of moving very great
weights. A machina differs from an organon,
inasmuch as the former is more complex and
produces greater effects of power than the latter:
perhaps the distinction may be best expressed
by translating the terms respectively machine or
engine and instrument. Under the latter class,
besides common tools and simple instruments, as
the plough for example, Vitruvius appears to
include the simple mechanical powers, which,
however, when used in combination, as in the
crane and other machines, become machinae.
Thus Horace uses the word for the machines
used to launch vessels (Carm. i. 4, 2), which
appears to have been effected by the joint force
of ropes and pulleys drawing the ship, and
a screw pushing it forwards, aided by rollers
(pāāayyes) beneath it. The word organon was
also used in its modern sense of a musical instru-
ment. [See HYDRAULA.]
The Greek writers, whom Vitruvius followed,
divided machines into three classes, the (genus)
scansorium or &kpo8aruków, the spiritale or Twev-
patików [HYDRAULA], and the tractorium or
Rapovakov, according to the most probable
reading, for moving heavy weights. Some
explanation is needed for the genus scansorium or
&kpoSarıköv, which has been much discussed by
commentators. Witruvius clearly describes the
machina which he thus classes. It is a scaffold-
ing formed of upright poles, fixed in the ground
with cross planks tied to them, and the “catena-
tiones et erismatum fulturae,” which he men-
tions afterwards, are no less obviously the ties
of sloping supports for these upright poles. It
is in fact such a scaffolding as may be seen any
day for building purposes, and is the machine
below (No. V.) on which Isidore says the work-
men stand “propter altitudinem parietum.” It
is somewhat of a puzzle, when Vitruvius says
that it differs from the other machinae in
respect of having audacia rather than ars; but
he probably means only this: that a very high
scaffolding may cause wonder at its boldness;
but there is no scientific principle in it, as in
the other classes of machinae, which are
mechanical powers. It must be confessed
however that his account of its purpose, “ut ad
altitudinem sine periculo scandatur ad apparatus
spectationem” (unless some such alteration as
“ad parietum structionem" is adopted) cannot
be explained in a wholly satisfactory manner.
If it is for workmen to stand on, it is hard to
see why the word spectatio is used, but the only
explanations offered by commentators—(1) for
seeing theatrical shows, or (2) for viewing the
enemy's works within the walls—cannot satisfy
us. The theatre had its own tiers of seats: the
words sine periculo would be wholly out of
place, and moreover it is impossible that he
should have so used apparatus when there is
nothing in the context to explain its meaning,
as is the case in Cic. ad Fam. vii. 1, 1. The
same objection must prevent us from adopting
the second view, for there is nothing whatever
to indicate that Vitruvius is speaking of military
affairs. We may be content to say that this
class of machina is not what we should call a
machine at all, i.e. it had no mechanical power,
but was used as we use a scaffolding. The in-
formation which Vitruvius gives us may per-
haps, however, be exhibited better under another
classification.
108 MACHINAE
MACHINAE
I. Mechanical Engines. -
1. The Simple Mechanical Powers were known
to the Greek mechanicians from a period earlier
than can be assigned, and their theories were
completely demonstrated by Archi-
which again the weight, which is to be raised,
is attached by iron grapnels (forfices). In this
case the sheaves in each block are double (duplices
ordines orbiculorum). The two portions of the
medes. Witruvius (x. 3, S. 8) dis-
cusses the two modes of raising
heavy weights, by rectilinear (ei-
6eſav) and circular (kvkåwt?iv)
motion. He explains the action of
the lever (ferreus vectis), and its
three different sorts, according to
the position of the fulcrum (§tropić-
XAtov), and some of its applications,
as in the steelyard [STATERA], and
the oars and rudder-oars of a ship;
and alludes to the principle of
virtual velocities. The inclined plane
is not spoken of by Vitruvius as a
machina, but its properties as an
aid in the elevation of weights are
often referred to by him and other
writers; and in early times it was,
doubtless, the sole means by which
the great blocks of stone in the
upper parts of buildings could be
raised to their places.
Under the head of circular mo-
tion, Vitruvius makes a passing allusion to
the various forms of wheels and screws, –
plaustra, redae, tympana, rotae, 00cleae, scor-
piones, balistae, prela, about which see the
respective articles. It is worth while, also, to
notice the methods adopted by Chersiphron
and his son Metagenes, the architects of the
temple of Artemis at Ephesus, and by later
architects, to convey large blocks of marble
from the quarries, by supporting them in a
cradle between wheels, or enclosing them in
a cylindrical framework of wood (Vitruv. x. 6,
s. 2; cf. Bliimner, Technologie, iii. 129 ft.); and
also the account which Vitruvius gives of the
mode of measuring the distance passed over by
a carriage or a ship, by an instrument attached
to the wheel of the former, or to a sort of
paddle-wheel projecting from the side of the
latter (c. 9, s. 14). What he says of the pulley
will be more conveniently stated under the next
head.
2. Compound Mechanical Powers, or Machines
for raising heavy weights (machinae tractoriae).
Of these Vitruvius (x. 2–5) describes three
principal sorts, all of them consisting of a proper
erect framework, from which hang pulleys. He
describes the different kinds of pulleys, according
to the number of sheaves (orbiculi) in each block
(troclea or rechamus), whence also the machine
received special names, such as trispastos, when
there were three sheaves (as in the explanatory
drawing), one in the lower block and two in the
upper; and pentaspastos, when there were five
sheaves, two in the lower block and three in
the upper. The Greek name for the axis (axi-
culus, Vitruv.) was pºdºy'yavov.
In the explanatory drawing by which Blümmer
illustrates Vitruvius, we see (a) the two upright
beams (tigma) supported in place by (h) forestays
(antarif funes) and (i) backstays (retinacula),
tied at the top by (b) a fibula. From the top
hangs (6) a fixed pulley-block (troclea, rpoxiata,
Aristoph. Lys. 722): to this the funis ductarius
(d) passes from the lower movable block (c), to
Drawing of a Machina Tractoria. (Bltimner, Techn. iii. fig. 10.)
funis ductarius are then fastened to an axle (0),
with (p) a wheel (tympanum or rota, reputpá-
xtov) upon it. The sockets on the beam which
receive the pivots of the axle are called chelonia:
(xe?A&veta). A separate rope passing round the
tympanum is taken back to a capstan (ergata,
épyaroköAtvöpos), which is worked round by
levers (vectes). This well explains Lucret. iv.
&-
“Multaque per trocleas et tympana pondere magno
Commovet atque levi sustollit machina nisu.”
Sometimes, however, the tympanum is of
larger size, and is moved as a treadwheel
without any capstan by treaders inside it.
Machina Tractoria, from a relief at Capua. (Blümmer.)
The woodcut above is from a relief found in
the amphitheatre at Capua, where it had been
placed by the redemptor of the work. It repre-
sents the raising of a pillar. Blümmer thinks
that the attachment of the pulling-rope to the
axle of the treadwheel is left to the imagina-
tion, and that the two ropes which go in that
direction must be the supports of the beam : but
perhaps we should rather take the lower rope
to be a single rope from the pulley to the
axle, and the upper rope to be a stay of the
beam. Vitruvius describes also a crane of less
power which has single sheaves in each block,


MACHINAE
MAGISTER 109
and in which, instead of the tympanum and
ergata, there is, fixed by chelonia to the beam,
simply a windlass (sucula, śwy or övos), round
which the pulling-rope is wound; and a crane
of a single beam, where triple funes duc-
tarii pass from the pulley-blocks down to a
fixed horizontal pulley (artemo, Éráywu) at the
base of the beam, and are pulled horizontally
by three rows of men without windlass. The
machine is then called a polyspastos. This crane,
he says, having a single beam, is more easily
transferable. It may be noticed that Pollux,
x. 140, speaks of a kapkſvos for raising stones;
but it is probable that the kapktvos was strictly
that part of the machine above described, which
held the stone = Lat. forfices : yépavos (crane)
is the name which Pollux (iv. 130) gives to the
machine for raising actors in the theatre. (For
further description, see Blumner, Technologie, iii.
pp. 111–128.) -
II. Military Engines. (Vitruv. x. 15–22;
Vegetius and the other writers de Re Militari ;
ARIES ; HELEPOLIS; TESTUDO; TORMENTUM ;
TURRIs, &c.)
III. Theatrical Machines. [THEATRUM.]
IV. Hydraulic Engines. - -
1. Conveyance and delivery of water through
pipes and channels. [AQUAEDUCTUS ; EMIS-
SARIUM ; FISTULA; Fons.] It has been shown,
under the articles referred to, that the ancients
well knew, and that they applied in practice, the
hydrostatic law, that water enclosed in a bent
pipe rises to the same level in both arms. It
also appears, from the work of Frontinus, that
they were acquainted with the law of hydraulics,
that the quantity of water delivered by an
orifice in a given time depends on the size of the
orifice and on the height of the water in the
reservoir; and also, that it is delivered faster
through a short pipe than through a mere orifice
of equal diameter.
2. Machines for raising water. The ancients
did not know enough of the laws of atmospheric
pressure to be acquainted with the common
sucking pump; but they had a sort of forcing
pump. [CTESIBICA MACHINA.] For raising
water a small height only they had the well-
known screw of Archimedes, an instrument
which, for this particular purpose, has never
been surpassed. (Vitruv. x. 11; COCLEA.)
But their pumps were chiefly on the principle of
those in which the water is lifted in buckets,
placed either at the extremity of a lever, or on
the rim of a wheel, or on a chain working
between two wheels. (Vitruv. x. 9; ANTLIA ;
TYMPANUM.)
3. Machines in which water is the moving
power. (Vitruv. x. 10; MoDA.)
4. Other applications of water, as to the mea-
surement of time, and the production of musical
sounds, in the clepsydra and the hydraulic organ.
(Vitruv. ix. 5, 6, x. 13; HoRoloGIUM ; HY-
DRAULA.) .
V. The word machina in Latin also signifies
the scaffolding on which plasterers or masons
work (Plin. xxxv. § 120; Dig. 13, 6, 5 and 7).
Hence machio is used for the workman (Isid.
Or. xix. 8, 2), whence the modern words maçon,
“mason.” -
WI. In Plin. H. N. xxxv. § 81, machina is a
painter's three-legged easel = 3kpíðas or kix-
Afflas. [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
MAENIA'NUM signified, originally, a pro-
jecting balcony, which was erected above the
arcades of shops on the south-west of the
Roman forum and overhanging the street,
in order to give more accommodation to the
spectators of the gladiatorial combats, by the
censor C. Maenius, B.C. 318 (Festus, s. v. p. 135,
ed. Müller; Isidor. Orig. xv. 3, § 11); and hence
balconies in general came to be called maeniana.
The front panels of the balconies were painted
by Serapion (Plin. H. W. xxxv. § 113). Many
allusions to such structures, and to the regula-
tions which were found necessary to keep them
within due bounds, are found in the ancient
writers (Cic. Acad. ii. 22, 70; Non. p. 83, s. 65,
Müll. ; Sueton. Calig. 18; Vitruv. v. 1; Val.
Max. ix. 12, § 7; Cod. Just. viii. 2, 20, 10, 11,
xliii. 8, 2, § 6; l. 16, 242, § 1 ; Amm. Marc.
xxvii. 9, 10). From these passages it appears
that as they were inconvenient in narrow streets,
the praefectus urbis in 368 A.D. enforced older
laws against their construction, and the
emperors Theodosius and Honorius extended
the prohibition so as to include provincial towns
as well as Rome, unless there was a space of at
least ten clear feet between the opposite
maeniana. (See also AMPHITHEATRUM, Wol. I.
p. 112; CANCELLI; and, for a drawing of a
maenianum, DOMUS, Vol. I. p. 666; Burn's
Rome and Campagna, p. 90; Becker-Göll, Gallus,
ii. 288.) [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
MAGADIS. [LYRA, p. 106.]
MAGISTER, which contains the same root
as mag-is and mag-nus, was applied at Rome
to persons possessing various kinds of offices,
and is thus explained by Festus (s. v. Magiste-
rare):—“Magisterare, moderari. Unde magistri
non solum doctores artium, sed etiam pagorum,
societatum, vicorum, collegiorum, equitum di-
cuntur; quia omnes hi magis ceteris possunt.”
Paulus (Dig. 50, tit. 16, s. 57) thus defines the
word: “Quibus praecipua cura rerum incumbit,
et qui magis quam ceteri diligentiam et solli-
eitudinem rebus, quibus praesunt, debent, hi
magistri appellantur.” The following is a list
of the principal magistri:—
MAGISTER ADMISSIONUM. [ADMISSIONALES.]
MAGISTER ARMORUM appears to have been
the same officer as the Magister Militum.
(Amm. Marc. xvi. 7, xx. 9.)
MAGISTER AUCTIONIS or BONORUM. [BO-
NoruM EMPTIO.]
MAGISTRI AUGUSTALES or LARUM AUGUS-
ToruM. [AUGUSTALES.]
MAGISTER BIBENDI. [SYMPOSIUM.]
*MAGISTER A CENSIBUS (or praepositus a
censibus) was an official who examined the
qualifications of persons who applied to be
enrolled among the knights. He is sometimes
* It should be noticed that these private offices in
the imperial household were in the earlier Empire dis-
charged by slaves or by freedmen (some of whom, Nar-
cissus and Parthenius, had exceptional official rank);
in the later Empire they gradually assumed a higher
public standing. Witellius thus employed men of
equestrian rank (Tac. Hist. i. 58), and therefore the
statement that Hadrian “ab epistulis et a libellis
primus equites Romanos habuit” (Spart. Hadr. 22) is
not correct; but it probably marks the date from which
this became the rule. The three chief departments were
a rationibus, a libellis, ab epistolis. (See for a full
account, Friedländer, Sittengeschichte, i. pp. 51 ff.)
110 MAGISTER
MAGISTRATUS
connected with the a libellis, who received the
application in the first instance. [EQUITES.]
MAGISTER COLLEGII was the president of a
collegium or corporation. [COLLEGIUM.]
*MAGISTER EPISTOLARUM (or AB EPISTOLIS),
a private secretary, answered letters on behalf
of the emperor. (Orelli, Inscr. 2352.)
MAGISTER EQUITUM. [DICTATOR, Vol. I.
p. 633 b.]
MAGISTER FANI in coloniae and municipia
was appointed each year by the duumviri of the
town (one for each temple or shrine), to arrange
the ceremonies, sacrificia, pulvinaria, &c. (Lex
Col. Genet. c. 128, Orelli, 2218.) They were
equivalent to the Roman aeditwws, who was also
called magister fani. (Marquardt, Staatsver-
waltung, iii. 215.)
*MAGISTER LIBELLORUM (or A LIBELLIS) was
an officer or secretary who read and answered
petitions addressed to the emperors. [LIBELLUS,
p. 57 a.] He is called in an inscription “Magister
Libellorum et Cognitionum Sacrarum.” (Orelli,
l. c.)
*MAGISTER MEMORIAE, an officer whose duty
it was to receive the decision of the emperor on
any subject and communicate it to the public
or the persons concerned. (Amm. Marc. xv. 5,
xxvii. 6.)
MAGISTER MILITUM, the title of the two
officers to whom Constantine entrusted the
command of all the armies of the Empire. One
was placed over the cavalry, and the other over
the infantry. On the divisions of the Empire
their number was increased, and each of them
had both cavalry and infantry under his com-
mand. In addition to the title of Magistri
militum, we find them called Magistri armorum,
equitum et peditum, utriusque militiae (Zosim.
ii. 33, iv. 27; Wales. ad Amm. Marc. xvi. 7).
In the 5th century, there were in the Eastern
empire two of these officers at court and three
in the provinces; in the Western empire, two at
court and one in Gaul. Under Justinian, a new
magister militum was appointed for Armenia
and Pontus. (Walter, Geschichte des rômischen
Rechts, $342, 2nd ed.)
MAGISTER NAVIS. [ExERCITORIA ACTIO.]
*MAGISTER OFFICIORUM was an officer of
high rank at the imperial court, who had the
superintendence of all audiences with the emperor,
and also had extensive jurisdiction over both
civil and military officers. They originally
took part of the duty of the court cubicularius;
the other part went to the praefectus sacri
cubiculi. [See also ADMISSIO.] (Cod. 1, tit. 31;
12, tit. 16;-Cod. Theod. 1, tit. 9; 6, tit. 9;-
Amm. Marc. xv. 5, xx. 2, xxii. 3; Cassiod.
Variar. vi. 6)
MAGISTER PAGI. [PAGUS.]
MAGISTER PoPULI. [DICTATOR.]
*MAGISTER A RATIONIBUs, more usually
called procurator, had the charge of the
emperor's private expenses [see FISCUs].
*MAGISTER SCRINIORUM had the care of all the
papers and documents belonging to the emperor.
(Cod. 12, tit. 9; Spartian. Ael. Ver. 4; Lamprid.
Alex. Sev. 26.)
MAGISTER SOCIETATIS. The equites, who
farmed the taxes at Rome, were divided into
companies or partnerships; and he who presided
* See note in preceding page.
in such a company was called Magister Socie-
tatis. (Cic. Verr. ii. 74, 182; ad Fam. xiii. 9;
pro Plancio, 13, 32.) [SOCIETAS.]
MAGISTRI WICORUM. These officials had
existed under the Republic, and we have no
account of their beginning. Livy (xxxiv. 7)
introduces them into a speech of the year
195 B.C. as officials of an inferior class, but
allowed to have the magisterial insignia—no
doubt at the festivals which were under their
charge. The magistri vicorum were, however,
entirely re-organised by Augustus in the year
B.C. 7, when he divided the city into 14 regions
and 265 vici, and assigned 4 magistri vicorum
to each vicus (the number may be gathered
from inscriptions, C. I. L. vi. 445, 975), who
were elected annually by the inhabitants of the
vicus (Suet. Aug. 30). The first so appointed
entered upon their office on August 1, B.C. 7,
and accordingly in several inscriptions we find
mentioned magistri anni secundi, tertii, &c.,
equivalent to the years B.C. 6, 5, &c. (C. I. L.
vi. 764, 282). Those of the year B.C. 7 are
“magistri qui primi Kal. Aug. magisterium
inierunt.” The total number of magistrivicorum
remained 1060 till the beginning of the 4th
century, when it was reduced to 672, and 48
were assigned to each region: the title magistri
vicorum was, however, retained. Their functions
were partly civil, partly religious. When
Augusti appointed them, they had (with servi
publici under them) especially to guard against.
fires. This had been a function of the old
magistri vicorum, who accordingly were in
charge of the worship of Stata Mater, the
protectress against fire (see Fest. p. 317;
Preller, Röm. Myth. 531; Mommsen, Staats-
recht, i. 328). They had other duties, as to the
limits of which we have not very clear informa-
tion, regarding the maintenance of order within
their district. The duty of watching against
fire was in A.D. 6 transferred to the newly
constituted cohortes vigilum.
As regards their religious duties (their most
characteristic function), they presided over the
Compitalia in honour of the Lares Compitales
[COMPITALIA], besides the worship of Stata
Mater mentioned above, and these offices were
continued to the newly constituted magistri
vicorum under Augustus, with increased im-
portance when the Genius Augusti was included
in the same worship. They had also to
superintend the building or repairs of the
Sacella of the Lares, as churchwardens, so to
speak, of their vicus: but in this they had
to obtain the approval of the praetor or of the
official over the region who was appointed by
lot from the aediles, tribunes, and praetors (see
Suet. Aug. 30; Dio Cass. lv. 8; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii. 516). In the exercise of their
religious office they wore the toga praetexta,
and had two lictors assigned to them. (Dio
Cass. l.c.; Liv. xxxiv. 7; Marquardt, Staats-
verwaltung, iii. 203.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MAGISTRATUS. Magistratus is properly
the abstract form of the concrete magister, but
it comes to be used indifferently to indicate the
office and the person who holds it. In the S. C.
de Bacchanalibus we find magistratus side by
side with magister, denoting the governor of a
religious guild. In the later practice, however,
only the word magister applies to lesser corpora-
MAGISTRATUS
MAGISTRATUS 111
tions; magistratus is commonly restricted to the
person or office of the governors of the Populus
Romanus, of the Plebs, and of the municipia
and colonies. The powers of the municipal
magistrates are discussed elsewhere [see COLO-
NIA]; the following remarks apply to the
magistrates of the populus and of the plebs.
Every such magistrate has coercitio, the power
within his proper sphere of duty to compel the
citizens by force of punishment to obey him,
and to avenge any act which argues contempt
of his magisterial authority (in ordinem cogere
magistratum). He has likewise the power of
addressing the people by word of mouth (jus
contionis) and by written proclamation (jus
edicendi).
The magistrates are grouped in colleges;
there are two consuls, ten tribunes, and so forth.
But these colleges do not, with very rare excep-
tions (see Liv. ix. 46, 7), act as boards deciding
by a majority of votes. Each individual magis-
trate is invested with the full powers of his
college, and is qualified, if not interrupted by
his colleagues, to act in all matters alone. A
particular subdivision of duties (provinciae)
may, however, be prescribed by the senate or
people for the individual members of a college.
This division is specially important in the case
of the praetors at home and of the governors of
the transmarine possessions of Rome. The first
have particular departments of business assigned
to them; the latter have particular localities in
which they are to exercise their functions.
When it may be a matter of dispute which of
the equally qualified persons is to perform a
particular act or series of acts, the question has
to be settled by arrangement, by taking turns,
or by the lot.
Magistratus Populi Romani.-Though the
word seems never to be applied directly to the
king, our authorities trace all magistracy back
to the regal power. Pomponius, for instance
(Dig. i. 2, 2, 14), begins his discussion with
the words, “Quod ad magistratus attinet, initio
civitatis hujus constat reges omnem potestatem
habuisse.” At the institution of the consulship
this power was put in commission. “Regio im-
perio duo sunto,” is Cicero's description of the
office (de Leg. iii. 3, 8); and Livy (ii. 1, 7) com-
ments—“libertatis originem inde magis quia
annuum imperium consulare factum est, quam
quod deminutum quicquam sit ex regia potestate,
numeres. Omnia jura, omnia insignia primi
consules tenuere.”
The college representing the kingly power
was modified by various additions and altera-
tions; as, for instance, when a dictator was
co-opted into it as a superior colleague, or
praetors were created as inferior colleagues to
the consuls, or when their place was filled by
an interrex or by tribunes with consular power.
Each one of these officials had the imperium: he
possessed, like the kings, the right to command
the individual citizen in peace and war [see
IMPERIUM), and to be the president and mouth-
piece of the sovereign corporation, the Populus
Romanus. Further certain specialised functions
were committed to assistants not invested with
these plenary powers: such were the censors,
curule aediles, and quaestors, besides the lesser
officials, who collectively made up the viginti-
virate. The more specific name for power
(imperium) being denied to these, the generic
term potestas serves as descriptive of their
authority. Thus we may say at pleasure
“consularis potestas” or “consulare imperium,”
but only “censoria potestas.” To both classes
belong the auspicia patriciorum, and all holders
of these offices are magistratus patricii, whether
they be personally members of the patrician
order or not. * -
Messalla (Aul. Gell. xiii. 14) divides these
auspicia patriciorum into greater and lesser, and
the magistrates in like manner into majores and
minores. The censor, from the practical im-
portance of his office, ranks among the majores
magistratus; but with this exception Messalla's
division of greater and lesser answers to the
division between those magistrates who have and
those who have not the imperium. The greater
magistrates receive their office from the populus
assembled by centuries, the lesser magistrates
from the populus assembled by tribes. What
Messalla says is confirmed by Cicero's account
(ad Fam. vii. 30) of the proceedings of Caesar.
When assembling the populus, for the election
of quaestors, he was “tributis comitiis auspica-
tus”; when in the course of the day he wished
to elect a consul instead, “centuriata habuit.”
Messalla proceeds to point out, however, that
the powers of magistracy are more formally and
regularly (justius) entrusted by the subsequent
passing of a Lex Curiata. All the magistrates
with imperium are colleagues, and so their
auspices may collide (turbant, retinent, vitiant,
obtinent), in which case those of the superior
override those of the inferior. In illustration .
of this we find that a praetor acting in the field
in conjunction with a consul could not, though
he had an imperium of his own, claim a triumph,
because his imperium and his auspices were
overborne by those of the consul (Val. Max.
ii. 8, 2). It is certain that any of the magis-
trates cum imperio could in the same way
overbear any of the minor magistrates. On the
other hand, Messalla tells us that a magistrate
may be “non ejusdem potestatis,” “non eodem
rogatus auspicio” with another. In this case
the two have not merely different provinciae or
spheres for the exercise of their authority, but
the authority itself is different; they are not
colleagues, and no collision of their auspices is
possible. Such was the censor in relation to
the consul or praetor, and such by parity of
reasoning would be the curule aedile in relation
to the quaestor. The same principle obtains in
the matter of intercessio. It is summed up in
the words of Cicero (de Leg. iii. 3, 6): “ni par
majorve potestas prohibessit.” Magistrates non
ejusdem potestatis cannot veto each other's
actions.
The magistrates cum imperio alone had the
jus agend; cum populo. The voice of the Roman
people could be uttered only in answer to a
question (rogatio) put to it by such a magistrate.
This power could not be delegated in case of
elections or of legislation; but when the people
met to hear an appeal from the sentence of
a magistrate in a criminal case, the consul or
praetor might lend his auspices to an inferior
(as, for instance, the quaestor), who could then
preside and put the question. [See Warro, L. L.
vi. 91, “ad praetorem aut ad consulem mittas
auspicium petitum;” and 93, “alia de causa hic
112 MAGISTRATUS
MAGISTRATUS
magistratus (quaestor) non potest exercitum
'urbanum convocare.”]
As all magisterial power is derived from the
people, it follows that those magistrates who
have the jus agendi cum populo must provide for
the succession, not only in their own college,
but in all the other magistracies. The censor or
the curule aedile cannot submit the question of
the choice of their successors to the people, but
this must be done by the consul or praetor.
The presiding officer is said rogare or creare the
newly elected magistrate. Most modern writers
(including Mommsen) hold that this is a relic of
an ancient power of nomination or selection on
the part of the magistrate, that the obligation
to consult the people on the choice is of later
origin, and that the primary notion of magis-
tracy is that of a power passing from hand to
hand through successive generations of officers.
This opinion is, however, in direct contradiction
to the belief of the Romans themselves, who
represented the higher magistrates, including the
king, as chosen from the first by the people;
and the cases adduced in favour of the modern
hypothesis seems inconclusive. The co-optation
of the dictator is an exception, which is prob-
ably to be explained on the ground that he was
to be appointed in emergencies when the delay
necessary for a popular election might be
dangerous. Nor is it safe to draw any conclu-
sion from the fact that neither the Rex Sacri-
ficulus nor the Pontifex Maximus was elected
by the people. The Romans were evidently
uneasy lest by abolishing the kingship they
should have offended the gods, and it was not
unnatural that, when severing the oversight of
religion from the chief magistracy, they should
have emphasised the partition of functions by
committing the transmission of religious power
to the Sacred College itself. Mommsen's theory
necessarily leads him to believe that the interrex
who reigned for only five days was entrusted
with the enormous responsibility of imposing on
the people a ruler for life. There is no need to
accept the premises which lead to so improbable
a conclusion. The unanimous evidence of the
ancients justifies us in regarding the people as
the fount of power, and in limiting the part
of the magistrate in the creation of his suc-
cessor to those sufficiently ample powers which
belonged to him as the necessary convener
and regulator of the assembly which had to
elect. -
Jurisdictio, the power of administering justice
between the citizens, belongs in its full extent
only to the magistrate cum imperio. The formal
competence of every such magistrate to ad-
minister justice is recognised in the fictitious
lawsuits necessary for manumissions, adoptions,
and transfers of property (in jure cessio). The
consul or even the pro-consul at the gates of the
city may hold a court for such purposes. But
all serious litigation at Rome is specially
reserved as the provincia of one or other of the
praetors. After the conquest of Sicily, that
island was made the province of a special
praetor, who exercised therein the fullest juris-
dictio, and similar functions were assigned to
the governors of districts subsequently annexed.
Besides the full jurisdiction which goes with
imperium, a limited jurisdiction in special cases
belongs to the curule aediles, the decemviri liti-
bus judicandis, and to the municipal magistrates.
[See JURISDICTIo.]
Criminal justice—that is, the punishment of
heinous offences, supposed to endanger the state
—falls likewise under the imperium. But the
action of the magistrate in this sphere is early
limited by the right of appeal to the people,
when the punishment to be inflicted is serious.
This right subjects the magistrate to the
necessity of defending his sentence and to the
possibility of having it reversed; it practically
reduces him from a judge to an accuser. Such
a situation was felt to be beneath the dignity of
the superior magistrate; and accordingly we
find that he habitually refrained from the
exercise of any such powers, and allowed the
task of condemning or accusing to devolve on
his inferiors (at first probably his delegates) the
duoviri perduellionis and the quaestors. By a
curious combination of constitutional exigencies,
the tribune may find himself with regard to the
centuriate trial in the same position as the
quaestor. If he has condemned a citizen to
death, and is appealed against, his own
(plebeian) assembly is, by the law of the
Twelve Tables, incapable of hearing the case;
he must therefore ask one of the magistrates
cum imperio for a day of the Comitia Centuriata:
see Liv. xliii. 16, 11, “Utrique censori per-
duellionem se judicare pronuntiavit (tribunus),
diemque comitiis a C. Sulpicio praetore urbano
petiit.” Whenever provocatio is suspended, as
on the appointment of a dictator or on the
decree of senate or people to constitute a special
quaestio, the superior magistrate is seen as
criminal judge, and inflicts death by virtue of
his imperium. The most notable case is the
proceeding against the Bacchanalians in B.C. 186,
of which a full account is given by Livy (xxxix.
14-19).
A relic of the criminal jurisdiction of the
consuls and praetors survived in their power to
sharpen their coercitio by throwing citizens into
prison. This was a consequence of their right
of summons and seizure (vocatio et prensio) as a
preliminary to trial. This right was not
possessed by the inferior magistrates, who could
only enforce their orders by seizing pledges or
inflicting a small fine.
The senate is the consilium or authorised body
of advisers attached to the chief magistrate.
Accordingly only those magistrates of the
Roman people who as possessors of the imperium
represent the kingly office, can summon and
consult the senate. This power is absent from
the censor, the curule aedile, and the quaestor.
These magistrates appear, however, no less than
those cum imperio, to have been relieved during
their term of office from the duty of giving
advice as senators (suo loco sententiam dicere) to
the presiding magistrate. On the other hand,
they could, any of them, address an official
statement to the senate (verba facere) regarding
the matter in hand.
The office of the magistrate ceases imme-
diately on the expiry of the period for which he
has been elected. If he is present in the city
(domi), his powers lapse with his office; but if
he is absent on service (militiae), he is to con-
tinue at his post and exercise all powers until
he is relieved by a successor. Meanwhile he is
acting pro consule, pro praetore, or pro quaestore,
MAGISTRATUS
MAGISTRATUS 113
as the case may be. Such a necessity could
hardly arise, while a campaign lasted only for a
single summer. When in B.C. 326, during the
Samnite War, it became desirable for the consul
Q. Publilius Philo to remain at the head of his
army for a second year, a special decree of the
people to extend his command, though not
strictly necessary, was held to be proper, and
for some time this precedent appears to have
been followed. By the time of the Second Punic
War, however, it is recognised that a simple
decree of the senate is sufficient for the proro-
gation of an existing command. It is otherwise
of course when a command pro consule is con-
ferred on a private man—as for instance on
P. Scipio, when he went to Spain in B.C. 211.
For this a law of the populus or the plebs is
always necessary.
It may perhaps be counted as an exception to
the rule of purely local division, that the pro-
magistrate cannot preside at the meetings
either of senate or people, even when these are
held outside the walls. These are the exclusive
prerogatives of the actual magistrates. The
pro-magistrate is commonly confined, even more
strictly than the magistrate in his year of office,
to a special district as his provincia. The Lex
Majestatis of Sulla particularly forbids him to
overstep the bounds of that district. When he
has handed over his province to a successor, his
power is therefore in abeyance, but it is not
extinguished till he enters the city gates. He
still keeps his official title, and wears his official
dress: he is still attended by lictors and axes,
and exercises formal acts of jurisdiction. At a
word from the senate he is authorised to stir up
again his dormant imperium; and when the
state is in danger, “those who are present with
pro-consular command near the city” are in-
cluded in the mandate which arms the magis-
trates against the enemy: see Caesar, Bell. Civ.
i. 5, “dent operam consules, praetores, tribuni
plebis, quique pro consulibus sint ad urbem, ne
quid respublica detrimenti capiat.”
Magistratus plebis.--When the non-patrician
Romans formed themselves into an exclusive
corporation on the Mons Sacer in B.C. 449, their
first act was to elect magistrates of their own ;
and these officers, the tribunes and aediles of the
plebs, existed from thenceforth side by side with
the magistrates of the Roman people. The re-
semblances and differences between the functions
of the two kinds of magistrate produce some of the
most curious complexities known to any consti-
tution. The authority of the plebeian magis-
trates was from the first acknowledged (though
somewhat grudgingly) by the whole community,
inasmuch as the law of the state accorded to
them the right absolutely to protect the private
citizen against any action of the patrician magis-
trate. As the corporation of the plebs gradually
assumed to itself the right to legislate on matters
concerning the whole community, its officers
became necessarily more and more magistrates
of the Roman state. When by the Hortensian
Law (B.C. 287) the decree of the plebs was for-
mally placed on an equal footing of power with
the decree of the sovereign populus, the reason
for any distinction between the magistrates of
the two corporations really disappeared. In the
case of the plebeian aediles this distinction was
practically abolished. Originally the subordi-
WOL. II.
nate assistants of the tribune and his instru-
ments in giving effect to his duty of protection,
the aediles of the later Republic were assimi-
lated to the minor magistrates of the Roman
people. Though still necessarily plebeians, and
elected by the plebs, their powers and duties
bore no relation to their original functions, but
were precisely similar to those of their curule
namesakes. This identity is best illustrated by the
fact that Caesar divided the city into wards, each
in charge of a single aedile, without any distinc-
tion between the two kinds. The plebeian (like
the curule) aedileship gave the opportunity for
conciliating the people by gifts and shows, and
so paving the way of the candidate to the higher
posts. In the ordinary career of a Roman states-
man the office was a step in advance, after a
man had served the tribunate and before he pro-
ceeded to the praetorship.
The position of the tribune in the later Re-
public is much more anomalous. As the ruling
magistrate of his corporation he has the jus
agend: cum plebe, which confers on him precisely
the same powers of initiative in legislation as
are possessed by the consul who puts the ques-
tion to the populus. The senate likewise is
assigned as a consilium of advisers to him as well
as to the consul, and he has the same right of
summoning it and eliciting its decrees. So far
we have only a multiplication of the chief
magistracy. But here the identity ceases. The
tribune had not the essential attribute of the
chief magistrates of the Populus Romanus, the
imperium. He could neither command in war
nor administer justice between the citizens. On
the other hand, certain eminent prerogatives
derived from the historical nature of his office
survived. The “word of might that guards
the weak from wrong * had been made effective
by investing the person of the tribune with
sacrosanctitas, and this sacrosanctitas could be
used in attack as well as in defence. The coer-
citio of him whom it is death to resist must
necessarily overbear all other authority. If the
tribune thinks fit to throw the consul into prison
or to drag the censor to the Tarpeian rock for
execution (Pliny, H. W. vii. § 143), no one
but another tribune can hinder him. In like
manner the intercessio of the tribune transcends
the rule that magistrates non ejusdem potestatis
cannot interfere with one another. The veto of
the tribune is absolute over the actions of consul,
of praetor, and of censor, while these have no
corresponding power over him. In case of col-
lision the patrician magistrate must always
yield to the sacrosancta potestas. Such powers
would be nothing short of a legalised tyranny,
were they placed in a single hand. As a matter
of fact the great number of the tribunes, and
the principle that each of them could hinder the
action of his colleague, rendered these enormous
powers practically harmless. In ordinary times
the college of tribunes, divided against itself,
excluded from military command, and incapable
of action outside the city walls, possessed little
influence or dignity, and was commonly the
humble instrument of the senate, and a conve-
nient check on any vagaries of the superior
magistrates. (See Liv. xxviii. 45; xlv. 21.)
The survival, however, of so irrational an in-
stitution became eminently dangerous in times
of revolution. In the hands of the Gracchi the
I
114 MAJESTAS
MAJESTAS
tribunician power proved strong enough to over-
bear the other elements of the constitution, and
could be resisted only by violence and bloodshed.
Under the control of Marius, of Pompey, and of
Caesar, the same office afforded an effective sup-
port to the military chiefs against the senatorial
government. After serving for a century the
purpose of party strife or of individual ambi-
tion, the power of the plebeian magistrate,
united at last with military and provincial com-
mand, became the basis of the despotism of the
emperors. For their appointment, see NOMI-
NATIO.
(This article is in the main a summary of the
first volume of Mommsen's Staatsrecht, to which
the reader is referred for more detailed informa-
tion.) [J. L. S. D.]
MAJESTAS. The only term for treason in
early Roman law was perduellio, a word made
up of per, para = “very,” and duellum, “war ”
(Charisius, ii. 14, 159). Perduellis, a person
guilty of this crime, originally signified a pro-
nounced public enemy of the state, and then
came to mean one who assisted a public enemy
by his treachery (Varro, L. L. v. 1, 3; Cic. de
Off. i. 12, 37; Dig. 50, 16, 234: cf. L. Lange,
de duelli vocabuli origine et fatis). According to
the Twelve Tables, a citizen was perduellis who
showed a hostile disposition against his country,
either by stirring up an enemy against it
(hostem conciere) or by surrendering a Roman
citizen to an enemy (civem host; tradere) (Voigt,
MII. Tafeln, ii. § 172); but the offence, like
that of treason in early English law, was not
clearly defined, as is shown by the fact that the
crime of Horatius in killing his sister was
included, according to Livy (i. 26), under the
head of perduellio, and not under that of parri-
cidium, to which it seems legally to belong.
(Festus, s. v. Sororium ; cf. Mommsen, Staats-
recht, ii.” p. 615; Clark, Early Roman Law,
. 73.)
p The earliest trial and form of procedure is
that which is given by Livy (i. 26) in respect of
this case (cf. Liv. vi. 20). In the regal period
the jurisdiction over this and other capital
offences belonged to the king, who might dele-
gate his power to commissioners, called duoviri
perduellion; judicandae. Under the Republic the
jurisdiction was given directly to duoviri, who
were appointed for each particular occasion by
the Comitia. There was always an appeal (pro-
vocatio) from the duoviri to the populus. The
perduellionis judicium existed at least in theory
to the later times of the Republic (Cic. Orat.
46, 156); but the name seems almost to have
fallen into disuse. (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii.
pp. 542, 615–618.)
. . Perduellio was regarded as a religious offence
in early times, the tutelary god being propi-
tiated by the death of the offender (deo necari),
who was put to death by flogging and hanging
(“infelici arbori reste suspendi ... verberatum,”
Cic. pro Rabir. perd, 4, 13; Liv. i. 26, 6). In
$ourse of time the punishment was aquae et
ignis interdictio.
Vºigt gives the following as cases of per-
duelko by stirring up an enemy against the
state :-1: The case of Vitruvius Vaccus, 426
A.U.C., who was tried before a quaestio extra-
ordinaria and convicted (Liv. viii. 19, 4; 20, 6).
2. The case of the Tusculans, in 431 A.U.C., who
were prosecuted by the tribunes and acquitted
(Liv. viii. 37, 8–11). 3. The case of Sempronius
Gracchus, in 631 A.U.C., who was acquitted.
The case of C. Popilius Laenas, in 647 A.U.C., is
given as one of perduellio by surrendering a
Roman citizen to an enemy (Auct, ad Herenn.
iv. 24, 34; Cic. de Leg. iii. 16, 36; Liv. Ep. 65).
It should be added that Cn. Fulvius was charged
with the offence of treason for losing a Roman
army (Liv. xxvi. 1, 3).
The term perduellio was still used under the
Empire and is found in Justinian's legislation,
but it is a question whether it was not merged
for all legal purposes in the crimen majestatis.
Ulpian, as cited in Dig. 48, 4, 11, distinguishes
between the legal consequences of majestas
which is perduellio and majestas which is not, so
that we should perhaps regard perduellio at this
time as a species of majestas.
The word majestas consistently with its rela-
tion to magſnus] signifies the magnitude or
greatness of a thing. “Majestas,” says Cicero
(Part. Orat. 30, 105), “est quaedam magnitudo
Populi Romani; ” “Majestas est in Imperii
atque in nominis Populi Romani dignitate.”
Accordingly the phrases majestas Populi Romani,
Imperii majestas (Hor. Carm. iv. 15), signify
the whole of that which constituted the Roman
state; in other words, the sovereign power of
the Roman state. The expression minuere
majestatem consequently signifies any act by
which this majestas was impaired; and it is
thus defined by Cicero (de Invent. ii. 17, 53):
“Majestatem minuere est de dignitate, aut
amplitudine, aut potestate Populi aut eorum
quibus Populus potestatem dedit, aliquid dero-
gare.” (See Cic. ad Fam. iii. 11: “Majestatem
auxisti.”) The phrase majestas Publica in the
Digest is equivalent to the majestas Popul;
Romani. The crimen majestatis, or, to use the
complete expression, crimen laesae, imminutae,
deminutae, minutae, majestatis, is the offence of
injuring or attempting to injure the sovereign
power of the Roman people. Accordingly it is
defined by Ulpian (Dig. 48, 4, 1) to be “crimen
illud quod adversus Populum Romanum vel
adversus securitatem ejus committitur.” Thus
the conception of the crimen majestatis is more
abstract and wider in scope than perduellio or
than that of treason in English law.
Various leges were passed for the purpose of
determining more accurately what should be
majestas. These leges were a Lex Apuleia, pro-
bably passed in the fifth consulship of Marius,
the exact contents of which are unknown (Cic.
de Or. ii. 25, 49); a Lex Varia, B.C. 91 (Appian,
Bell. Civ. 1, 37; Cic. Brut. 89, 304; Waler.
Maxim. viii. 6, § 4; Cic. pro Scaur. 1, 3; Tus-
cul. ii. 24, 57); a Lex Cornelia, passed by L.
Cornelius Sulla, which appears to have consoli-
dated and made considerable additions to the
law of majestas, bringing under it a number of
acts of usurpation on the part of provincial
governors and of magistrates. Sigonius has
attempted to collect its capita. By this law
majestas became the subject of a quaestio per-
petua (Cic, in Pis. 21, 50; pro Cluent. 35, 97.3
ad Fam. iii. 11: cf. Zachariá, Corn. Sulla, ii.
129–131; Volkerstaert, de L. Cornelio Sulla
legislatore, pp. 154–160). Lastly, there was the
Lex Julia de majestate, which continued under
the Empire to be the fundamental enactment on
MAJESTAS
IMAJESTAS 115
the subject. This Lex Julia is by some attri-
buted to C. Julius, and assigned to the year B.C.
48, and this may be the lex referred to in the
Digest and Code. That a Lex de majestate was
passed in Caesar's time appears from Cicero
(Philipp. i. 9, 23). But more probably the Lex
Julia de majestate was one of the Leges Juliae
of Augustus. Like many other leges, the Lex
Julia was modified by senatusconsulta and
imperial constitutions; and we must not con-
clude from the title in the Digest (48, 4), ad
Legem Juliam majestatis, that all the provisions
enumerated under that title were comprehended
in the original Lex Julia.
The offences comprised under the head of
crimen majestatis may be divided into two
heads: (1) Attacks against the public security
generally; and (2), treason specially directed
against the person of the emperor.
(1.) Under this head we may include acts of
the following kind:—Bearing arms against the
state, adhering to the public enemy in various
ways, sedition directed against the state, inciting
to mutiny, making war or levying troops with-
out authority to do so, killing a Roman magis-
trate, the refusal of a governor to leave his pro-
vince after he had been superseded, and other
unlawful acts of officials, the forgery of public
instruments, &c. (Dig. 48, 4, 1, 2; Paul. 5,
29, 1.)
(2.) Under the Empire the term majestas
was applied to the person of the reigning Caesar,
and we find the phrases majestas Augusta, impera-
£oria, and regia. It was, however, nothing new
to apply the term to the emperor, considered in
some of his capacities, for it was applied to the
magistratus under the Republic, as to the consul
and praetor (Cic. Philipp. xiii. 9, 20; in Pisonem,
11, 24). Horace even addresses Augustus (Ep.
ii. 1, 258) in the term “majestas tua,” but this
can hardly be viewed otherwise than as a per-
sonal compliment, and not as said with refer-
ence to any of the offices which he held. It was
by the extension of the crime of majestas that
the emperors first raised themselves above the
ordinary law. They were not content with the
protection which the Lex Cornelia had given to
magistrates by making it treason to kill, or
perhaps even to attempt to kill them; but the
most trivial acts of disrespect to the emperor's
person or authority became treasonable in course
of time. Augustus availed himself of the Lex
Julia for prosecuting the authors of famos;
libelli (“cognitionem de famosis libellis, specie
legis ejus, tractavit,” Tac. Ann. i. 72; Dio Cass.
lvi. 27; Sueton. Aug. 55). The proper inference
from the passage of Tacitus is that the Lex Julia
did not properly apply to words or writings, for
these were punishable otherwise. [LIBELLUs, 2.]
The passage of Cicero (ad Fam. iii. 11) is mani-
festly corrupt, and, as it stands, inconsistent
with the context ; it cannot be taken as evidence
that the Lex Majestatis contained any express
provisions as to libellous words, as to which
there were other sufficient provisions [INJURIA].
Under Tiberius the offence of majestas was
extended to all acts and words which might
seem to be disrespectful to the Princeps, as
appears from various passages in Tacitus (Ann.
i. 73, 74; ii. 50; iii. 38, 66, 67).
It was treason to do anything which could
possibly be construed as disrespectful to the
statues of the emperor. It is stated by Mar-
cianus, as cited in the Digest, that it was not
majestas to repair the statues of the Caesar
which were going to decay; and a rescript of
Severus and his son Antoninus Caracalla declared
that, if a stone was thrown and accidentally
struck a statue of the emperor, that also was
not majestés; and they also graciously declared
that it was not majestas to sell the statues of
the Caesar before they were consecrated. In
the time of Tiberius it was a matter of charge
against a man that in selling a garden he had
included a statue of Augustus; which Tiberius
declared to be no offence (Tac. Ann. i. 73).
There is also an extract from Saturninus, de
Judiciis, who says that if a person melted down
the statues or imagines of the emperor, which
were already consecrated, or did any similar
act, he was liable to the penalties of the Lex
Julia majestatis. Augustus wished to treat an
act of adultery with a female member of the
imperial family as treason; but it was declared
by Tiberius that this was not the law (Tac.
Ann. ii. 50; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 754).
The violation of an oath which a person had
sworn by the Genius or Salus of the emperor
was included in the crimen majestatis. " The
assumption by a private person of a divine as
well as of a regal title of honour made him sub-
ject to the law of treason (Mommsen, op. cit.
ii. 755, 817). It was sufficient to constitute
treason that a treasonable act should have been
begun, but a mere intention to commit the
offence without any overt act was not treason.
(For the mode of procedure in trials on account
of laesa majestas, see CRIMEN, QUAESTIO.)
An inquiry might be made into an act of
treason against the Imperator even after the
death of the offender (Cod. 8, 9, 6); a rule
which was established (as we are informed by
Paulus) by M. Aurelius in the case of Druncianus
or Druncanius, a senator who had taken part in
the outbreak of Cassius, and whose property
was claimed by the fiscus after his death. Per-
haps the account of Capitolinus (M. Ant. Phil.
c. 26) and of Vulcatius Gallicanus (Avidius
Cassius, c.9) is not inconsistent with the state-
ment of Paulus. On the case of Druncanius,
see Tillemont, Histoire des Empereurs, vol. ii.
p. 382. Women were admitted as evidence in a
case of laesa majestas, and the case of Fulvia is
cited as an instance.
The torture was only applicable generally to
slaves and not to freemen, but it is provided
that, in case of treason against the emperor, all
persons should be in the same position as slaves
in respect of liability to torture. (Dio Cass.
lx. 15; Paul. 5, 29, 2; Tac. Ann. xv. 56; Dig.
48, 18, 10, § 1.) Tiberius sold a man's slaves
to the actor publicus (Ann. iii. 67) in order that
they might not fear to give evidence against
their master, who was accused of repetundae and
also of majestas.
The crime of majestas was punished with
increasing severity under the Empire. The old
punishment was perpetual interdiction from fire
and water; but now, says Paulus (S. R. v. 29,
1), writing at or about the close of Caracalla's
reign, persons of low condition are thrown to
wild beasts, or burnt alive; persons of better
condition are simply put to death. The property
of the offender was confiscated and his femory
I
116 MAJOREs
MANCEPS
was infamous (damnatio memoriae). A constitu-
tion of S. Severus and Antoninus Caracalla de-
clared that from the time that an act of majestas
was committed a man could not alienate his
property or manumit a slave, to which the
great (magnus) Antoninus (probably Caracalla
is still meant) added that a debtor could not
after that time lawfully make a payment to
him. (Dig. 48, 4; Cod. 9, 8; Walter, Römische
Rechtsgeschichte, § 803; Rein, Crim. Recht,
p. 493; Dieck, Geschichte des Röm. Majest. ver-
brechen ; J. Weiske, Das Crimen Majestatis der
Römer; Brugmans, de Perduell. et Majest.
rim.) [G. L.] [E. A.W.]
MAJO'RES.. [INFANs.]
MALACENSIS LEX or MALACITA’NA
I.EX, a statute regulating the municipal con-
stitution of Malaga in Spain, of which chapters
51-69 were discovered on a bronze tablet in five
columns near that city in 1851. No doubt the
law was no enactment of the Roman comitia, but
was bestowed on Malaga by Domitian, between
the years A.D. 81–84. Along with the Lex
Salpensana, which was excavated at the same
time and place, it throws considerable light on
the institutions and organisation of the Latin
municipia, and on some purely legal topics, such
as the “cautio praedibus praediisque.” [Printed
in the C. J. L. 2, No. 1964, and in Bruns, Fontes
juris Romani Antiqui. First published by
R. de Berlanga at Malaga in 1853. See par-
ticularly Mommsen's monograph, Die Städt-
Techte der lateinischen Gemeinden Salpensa und
Malaca in der Provinz Baetica, Leipzig, 1855.
They have also been written on by Laboulaye,
Paris, 1856; Asher, Paris and Heidelberg, 1868;
Giraud, Paris, 1856–8, 1866–8; Van Lier, 1865;
and Van Schwinderen, 1866.] [J. B. M.]
MA'LLEUS, dim. MALLE'olus, (1) a ham-
mer, a mallet, was used much for the same
purposes in ancient as in modern times. In
Greek the general term is orgüpa; the large
Smith's hammer, such as that used by He-
phaestus, is specially called pairráp (also
kéo Tpa); the word kporaqis is used for a ham-
mer with one end sharpened, like a coal-pick.
In Latin, while malleus is the general term,
imarcus is specially used for the heavy smith's
hammer, and marcellus, marculus for smaller
varieties (Isid. Orig. xix. 7). When several
The forge of Vulcan. (From a bas-relief.)
men were striking with their hammers on the
same anvil, it was a matter of necessity that
they should strike in time, and Virgil accord-
ingly says of the Cyclopes, “Inter se brachia
tollunt in numerum ” (Georg. iv. 174; Aen. viii.
452). The scene which he describes is repre-
sented in the above woodcut, taken from an
ancient bas-relief, in which Vulcan, Brontes,
and Steropes are seen forging the metal, while
the third Cyclops, Pyracmon, blows the bellows
(Aen. viii. 425). Beside the anvil-stand [INCUS]
is seen the vessel of water in which the hot
iron or bronze was immersed (ib. v. 450, 451).
[LACUS.] -
But, besides the employment of the hammer
upon the anvil for making all ordinary utensils,
the smith (xaxiceiºs) wrought with this instru-
ment figures called épya orºupſiAara (or 6Ao-
orqºpmra, Brunck, Anal. ii. 222), which were
either small and fine, some of their parts being
beaten as thin as paper and being in very high
relief, as in the bronzes of Siris [LORICA], or of
colossal proportions, being composed of separate
plates, riveted together: of this the most re-
markable example was the statue of the sun of
wrought bronze (orqupiñAaros coxoo.orás, Theocrit-
xxii. 47; Éatormpokotría, Philo de 7 Spectac. 4,
p. 14, ed. Orell.), seventy cubits high, which
was erected in Rhodes. Another remarkable
production of the same kind was the golden
statue of Jupiter (Strabo, viii. p. 378; Plat.
Phaedr. p. 236 B), which was erected at Olym-
pia by the sons of Cypselus.
By other artificers the hammer was used in
conjunction with the chisel [DOLABRA], as by
the carpenter (pulsans malleus, Coripp. de Laud.
Justini, iv. 47; woodcut, Vol. I. p. 126) and the
sculptor.
Several drawings of ancient hammers may be
seen in Blümner, Technologie, ii. 196, every one
of which might be matched by a pattern now in
llSee -
2. To be distinguished from the above is
malleolus, a sort of rocket, having lighted tow
and pitch attached to one end, which was thrown
in sieges and in naval warfare. Its name is
probably derived from malleolus, the shoot of a
plant, or else because the head with the tow
attached was compared to a hammer. (See Cic.
Cat. i. 13, 32; Liv. xlii. 64; Amm. Marcell. xxiii.
4, 14; Veget. iv. 18.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MALUS. [NAVIs.] -
MALUS O'CULUS. [FASCINUM.]
MANCEPS has the same relation to man-
cipium that auspea, has to auspicium, and in its
original sense = is qui manu capit or qui man-
cipat; that is, it means an acquirer or purchaser
of a thing by the form of conveyance called
mancipium or mancipatio (mancipio accipiens, see
MANCIPIUM ; cf. Tertull. Apolog. 11). But at
an early time the word was also used to signify
a party conveying by mancipation (mancipio
dans), in which sense it is equivalent to emanceps
(Plaut. Curc. 4, 2, 29).
From its original meaning manceps derived
several special significations. It frequently
means a person who purchases or hires a thing
at a public auction. Mancipes were they who
bid at the public lettings of the censors for the
purpose of farming any part of the public pro-
perty (Festus, s. v. Manceps: “Manceps dicitur
qui quid a populo emit conducitve quia,” &c.).
Sometimes the chief of the Publicani generally
are meant by this term, as they were the
bidders for the public revenue and gave the

MANCIPATIO
MANCIPIUM 117
security, and then they shared the undertaking
with others or underlet it (Ascon. ad Div. in
Caecil. 10, 33). These mancipes would accord-
ingly have distinctive names, according to the
kind of revenue which they took on lease, as Decu-
mani, Portitores, Pecuarii. Suetonius (Vesp. 1)
says that the father of Petro was a manceps
of labourers (operae), who went yearly from
Umbria to Sabinum to cultivate the land; that
is, he hired them from their masters and paid so
much for the use of them, as has been often
done in slave countries. Conductores Therma-
rum et Salinarum are called mancipes in the
Theodosian Code (14, 5, 1). The word is also
aused in the Theodosian Code to denote a class of
public officials (8, 5, 53; 60, 24, 65, mancipes
locorum). In one place of this Code (14, 16, 2)
manceps means a manager or mauciple of a
public bakery. (See Forcellini, Lea. , Dirksen,
Manuale, s. v. ; and Voigt, XII. Tafeln, ii. § 84,
in. 4.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
MANCIPA'TIO. [MANCIPIUM.]
MANCI'PII CAUSA. The three expressions
by which the Romans distinguished the different
species of power (manus or potestas) to which a
free person might be subject in the hands of
another, were in potestate, in manu, and in man-
cipio ejus esse (Gaius, i. 138). This last kind of
power arose when a paterfamilias transferred a
filiusfamilias to another person by process of
mancipation [MANCIPIUM), as he had a right to
do. The legal effect of such mancipation was
that the filiusfamilias who was the object of it
ceased to be in the power of his paterfamilias,
and came into the mancipium, or power, of the
person to whom he was given in mancipation:
thereby he was degraded to a servile state,
undergoing a capitis deminutio. A husband
had the same power over a wife in manu, for she
was filiae loco. The mancipation was in form a
conveyance by sale, and it cannot be doubted
that at one time the right of selling children in
this way was freely exercised, children being
hardly distinguished from slaves and other
property. In course of time, however, the
effect of the mancipation of free persons became
considerably modified by custom. Generally
speaking, such mancipation was mere matter of
form (dicis gratia) in the classical period of
Roman law, and probably from a much earlier
time; the form being used in order to free a
filiusfamilias from patria potestas [EMANCI-
PATIO; ADOPTIO, and was not intended to give
the person to whom the transfer was made any
real power, though for the moment until manu-
mission the person mancipated was nominally in
onancipit causa, and thus suffered capitis deminutio
(Gaius, i. 141). The mancipation came only to
be used for the purpose of creating a real and
lasting causa mancipii when a filiusfamilias
was surrendered by his paterfamilias to some
one on account of a delict which the filius-
familias had committed against the surrenderee.
The power exercised over persons in mancipii
causa resembled that of a master over his slaves
(mancipia). Thus Cicero compares the position
of a person in mancipio with that of a criminal
condemned to slavery (pro Caecin. 34, 98).
Being like slaves to the person to whom they
were transferred, they had no agnatic rights in
his family, and they were manumitted in the
same way as slaves, the person manumitting
them acquiring thereby a kind of patronal
relation to them. Still such persons were not
exactly in the relation of slaves to the persons
to whom they were mancipated; thus they were
to some extent protected from the ill-treatment
of the latter by the actio injuriarum which they
might maintain (Gaius, i. 141): their children
were not in mancipio, according to Gaius (Gaius,
i. 135); they were not possessed as property
(Gaius, ii. 90), and though they were necessarii
heredes, if instituted by their master, they had
the beneficium abstinendi like sui heredes (Gaius,
ii. 160). [HEREs.]
But the great distinction between a person in
nancipio and a mancipium or slave was that
whereas a slave had no rights, a person in
mancipio was only in a servile condition in
respect to the person to whom he was manci-
pated, not losing his general status as a freeman.
The semi-servile position of persons in mancipio
is expressed by the phrase causa mancipii.
In respect of property, the same rule applied
to persons in mancipio as to other persons who
were alieni juris: all that they had or acquired
belonged to the person in whose mancipium
they were. Mancipium was put an end to
by manumission vindicta, censu, or testamento.
According to Gaius (i. 140), manumission
censu of a person in mancipio might take
place without the consent of the person whose
mancipium was taken away; but this was
not applicable to a person mancipated on
condition of remancipation to his father, or to a
person mancipated ex nowali causa; that is, on
account of his delict (Gaius, i. 140). When,
however, a person surrendered ex nowali causa
(noxae datus), had made satisfaction for the
injury he had committed, the person nowae
accipiens might be compelled to make a reman-
cipation or manumission by order of the praetor.
(Collat. ii. 3, 1 ; Inst. Just. 4, 8, 3: cf. Theoph.
ad loc.) The limitations of the Lex Aelia Sentia
and Fufia Canidia in respect to the manumission
of slaves did not apply to this kind of manu-
II] ISSIOI).
The mancipium was put an end to by reman-
cipation to the father; it did not terminate
ipso jure, but always required some act of re-
mancipation or manumission. Justinian put an
end to the noacae dutio in the case of children,
which indeed before his time had fallen into
disuse. (Inst. Just. 4, 8, 7; Gaius, i. 116–123,
138–141 ; A. Schmidt, Die Persönlichkeit d.
Sklaven ; Danz, Geschichte des römischen Rechts;
Walter, Geschichte d, röm. Rechts; Böcking,
Pand. Inst. i. § 48; Kuntze, Cursus d. R. R.
§§ 796, 797.) [E. A. W.]
MA'NCIPI RES. [DominiUM.]
MANCI’PIUM, or according to an earlier
form mancupium, is the formal legal proceeding
per aes et libram, by which power and dominion
over persons and over things was transferred by
one person to another. The word in this sense
is of ancient origin, and occurs in the Twelve
Tables (Dicksen, Uebersicht, &c., p. 395; Voigt,
MII. Tafeln, ii. § 84). Cicero only uses manci-
pium, but Gaius and other writers express this
act of transfer by the more modern word manci-
patio, which is in its conception the act of trans-
fer regarded from the side of the purchaser or
person qui mancipat [MANCEPs], as emancipatio,
emancipare, which sometimes mean generally a
118 MANCIPIUM
MANCIPIUM
conveyance or to convey per aes et libram (Quin-
til. vi. 3; Plin. Ep. ad Traj. 4, 3; Gell. xv. 27,
3), refer to the side of the transferor; manci-
pium is the conveyance regarded as an act both
of transferor and transferee (Voigt, l.c.). The
etymology of the word mancipium is the same
as that of the word mancipatio, of which Gaius
(i. 121) says, “Mancipatio dicitur quia manu
res capitur.” The term mancipium, then, is
derived from the act of corporeal apprehension
of the thing to be conveyed, which took place
in this process of transfer. This explanation of
the origin of the word, which is adopted by
most modern writers, is rejected by Mr. Muir-
head (Introduction to the Law of Rome, p. 61),
who maintains that the notion of mancipium is
not manu capere, but manum capere, to take or
acquire by transfer power or dominion over per-
sons and things. He urges as an objection to the
common etymology that there was no taking
with the hand when land or a house was being
conveyed, for the parties did not require to be
near them; and there could be none in the man-
cipation of a praedial servitude, for it was
intangible. This criticism is based on the
assumption, that the law on the subject of man-
cipation, as it is described by Gaius, was also the
law of earlier times, when the word mancipium
was first formed; it seems probable, however,
that a taking of the thing or of some part of it
by the hand was at first required in every rei
ymancipatio, as well as in every rei vindicatio, and
that it was subsequently dispensed with in the
case of land on account of its inconvenience.
There is also reason to suppose, that praedial
rustic servitudes were not one of the original
objects of an independent mancipation.
The party who made a transfer pursuant to
the form of mancipation was said mancipio dare;
he to whom the transfer was made was said
mancipio accipere (Plaut. Trin. ii. 4, 18). The
verb mancipare is sometimes used as equivalent
to mancipio accipere (cf. Schol. Crug. ad Hor.
Ep. ii. 159; “mancipat: mancipio accipit,”
Voigt, l.c.). Horace uses the phrase “manci-
pat usus,” which is not an unreasonable licence;
he means to say that wsus or usucapion has the
same effect as mancipation, which is true ; but
the effect in case of usucapion is produced by
possession for a certain time, when the possessor
has not already acquired ownership by mancipa-
tion or other title.
Some Latin writers who lived towards the
close of the Republic appear to have considered
ºmancipium to be a species of neaum, the term
newum being used by them in a more general
sense than had attached to it in earlier times.
According to Aelius Gallus, as cited by Festus
(s. v. newum), everything was newum, “quod-
cunque per aes et libram geritur; ” and as manci-
patio was effected per aes et libram, it was conse-
quently a newum. M. Manilius, as cited by
Varro (L. L. vii. 105), attaches the same com-
prehensive sense to the term nearum. Cicero
(Top. 5, 28) says that the alienation of a res
mancipi was effected either by traditio neau or
by in jure cessio. These two modes correspond
to the mancipatio and in jure cessio of Gaius (ii.
41), and accordingly mancipatio (or the older
term mancupium) is equivalent to traditio neau.
But, as we see from a passage of Varro which
contains a definition of newum by C. Mucius
pens.
Scaevola, the term neaum was, properly speak-
ing, only applicable to proceedings per aes et
libram, in so far as obligations resulted from
them, and so would not include the notion of
conveyance, which attaches to mancipium. (Varr.
L. L. vii. 5, 105: “(Q. Mucius) nexum (est),
quae per aes et libram fiant, ut obligentur,
praeterquam quae mancipio dentur (Warr.):
hoc verius esse ipsum verbum ostendit, de quo
quaerit: nam id est, quod obligatur per libram
neque suum fit; inde nexum dictum.”) A
newum was, however, contained in a reč manci-
patio, since the latter proceeding, besides trans-
ferring ownership, which was its main object,
also gave rise to subsidiary obligations. Thus
the mancipio dans was bound to warrant the
title to the thing conveyed against eviction, and
the mancipio accipiens might be bound by a
fiducia attached to the mancipation to reconvey
the thing on the happening of some condition.
Hence a res was said to be newa or obligata which
was mancipated subject to a pledge or mortgage.
Cicero (de Harusp. Resp. 7, 14) includes in the
same sentence both the jus mancipi; and the
jus newi, where he is speaking of various titles
to property. He may mean here to speak of the
jus mancipii in the sense of title by absolute
conveyance as contrasted with the jus near; or
title by mortgage. (Cf. Cic. de Orat. i. 38, 173;
ad Fam. iv. 30.)
The forms of mancipations are described by
Gaius (i. 119): “Mancipatio is effected in the
presence of not less than five witnesses, who
must be Roman citizens and of the age of
puberty (puberes), and also in the presence of
another person of the same condition, who holds
a pair of brazen scales, and hence is called libri-
The purchaser (qui mancipio accipit)
taking hold of the thing says: I affirm that this
slave (homo) is mine ea jure Quiritium, and he is
purchased by me with this piece of money (aes),
and he gives it to the seller (ei a quo mancipio
accipit) as a symbol of the price (quasi preti;
loco).” The same account of the matter is
given more briefly by Ulpian (Frag. xix.).
Mancipation was instituted at a time when
only copper money was in use, as we learn,
Gaius says, from the Twelve Tables; and it also
dates from a time when money was weighed in
scales, there being no coined money (Gaius, i.
122), though subsequently the scales were
struck with a coin. Mancipation, like all early
conveyances, is of a public or semi-public nature.
It was not, indeed, as was injure cessio, executed
in the presence of a magistratus, but the five
Roman citizens who were required to attest it
probably stood in the place of the community,
and their number may have been originally
intended to correspond with the five classes into
which the populus was divided by Servius.
The libripens was supposed to be an impartial
third person, and was perhaps at one time desig-
nated by some public authority. We do not
know whether the scales used in the sale were
public or private; but it is probable that there
were public scales in the market to enable per-
sons to mancipate slaves and cattle. Mr. Muir-
head (Introd., &c., p. 58, n. 10) refers to a state-
ment of Varro (L. L. v. 183) that scales were
still preserved in his time in the temple of
Saturn. º
An act of calling the attention of the wit-
MANCIPIUM
MANCIPIUM 119
nesses to the execution of the mancipation
(antestarī) is mentioned (cf. Huschke, Jurisprud.
antéjust, C. Aelius Gallus, $ 6); but whether it
was performed by a person exclusively employed
for the purpose, or by one of the parties to the
mancipation, is uncertain. The terms antestari,
antestatus, do not occur in Gaius and Ulpian,
and it is clear that when they wrote there was
no special person in the proceeding known as
antestatus. -
The description which Gaius gives of manci-
pation shows that the proceeding consisted of
an assertion of title to the thing on the part of
the purchaser, as well as of the purchase itself
per aes et libram. This assertion of title, which
varied in its terms according to the character of
the mancipation, corresponded to some extent
with the claim made by a person acquiring a
thing by in jure cessio (Gaius, ii. 24), though it
was made before witnesses, and not to the prae-
tor. The sale per aes et libram was no doubt at
first a real one, but the mancipation was con-
verted into a general form of transfer by the
formal payment of a small piece of copper (aes,
raudus, raudusculum), the adequacy of the price
paid being legally immaterial. Thus Gaius
calls mancipatio “imaginaria quaedam vendi-
tio:” for though the law required the sale, the
real cause of the transaction was outside the
mancipation, and might just as well be gift or
dowry as actual sale. The cause would, how-
ever, appear in the instrument, which was gene-
rally drawn up as a record of title (see inscrip-
tions cited by Voigt, ii. § 84, n. 9).
The essential parts of the formula of manci-
pation might be accompanied by qualifications
called leges mancipii (Cic. de Or. i. 39, 178),
which would be obligatory on the parties. Thus
mancipations might be made subject to a trust
(fiducia) of remancipation, and servitudes might
be reserved (deductio) by this means. Effect
was given to such additional terms by the clause
of the Twelve Tables, “Cum nexum faciet man-
cipiumque, utilinguà nuncupassit, ita jus esto.”
The nuncupatio was the declaration of the terms
of the mancipation by the parties to the con-
veyance. In Roman law of the classical period
it was more usual to make independent cove-
nants concerning accessory terms, instead of
incorporating them in the mancipation itself.
Mancipation was a general form of transfer, and
was not only used in the conveyance of property,
but in other transactions, as in emancipation,
adoption, co-emption. As to the application of
mancipatio to wills, see TESTAMENTUM.
Mangipatio and in jure cessio (a conveyance
probably of later origin than mancipation) were
the only means of transferring ownership recog-
nised by the law of the Twelve Tables. After a
time, however, only certain kinds of things,
called res mancipi, were required to be con-
veyed by mancipatio, other res (nec mancipi)
being allowed to pass by mere informal delivery
of possession (traditio). It is not to be supposed
that the effect of this change was to prevent res
nec mancip; being transferred by mancipation,
should the parties to a conveyance wish to use
this form ; Inancipation seems, in fact, to have
been sometimes used for conveying important
ºres nec mancipi (e.g. Plin. H. W. ix. § 117), pro-
bably on account of its evidentiary value and
the warranty of title which attached to it.
The following res were res mancipi :-Lands
and houses in Italico Solo, praedial rustic servi-
tudes, slaves, oxen, horses, mules, and asses.
(Gaius, i. 120; ii. 15, 17.) [DOMINIUM.]
Lands (praedia) might be transferred by man-
cipation, though the parties to the mancipation
were not on the land; but all other things
which were mancipated were only transferable
in the presence of the parties. The purchaser
or person to whom the mancipatio was made did
not in the time of the classical jurists acquire
possession by the act of mancipation, but only
ownership, the acquisition of possession being a
separate act (Gaius, iv. 131) [PossEssio], though
as a matter of fact the transfer of ownership
and possession would generally take place at the
same time, at least in the case of movables.
The conveyance of a res mancipi, by informal
delivery only, had no legal effect in respect of
transfer of ownership according to Jus Civile,
but in course of time the praetor protected a
person to whom a res mancipi had been conveyed
by traditio, giving him the same security as if
he had acquired a civil title by mancipation (in
bonis rem habere, Gaius, ii. 40). The establish-
ment of a praetorian title in such a case was a
great step towards the abolition of mancipium as
a conveyance. When things were transferred by
mancipatio under a contract of sale, the vendor
was bound to warranty in double of the amount
of the thing sold (Paul. S. R. ii. 17). A vendor
therefore who had a doubtful title would not
sell by mancipium, but would merely transfer by
delivery, and leave the purchaser to acquire the
Quiritarian ownership of the thing by usucapion
(Plaut. Curc. iv. 2, 9; Persa, iv. 3, 55). Ac-
cordingly Varro observes (R. R. ii. 10) that if a
slave was not transferred by mancipium, the
seller entered into a stipulatio dupli to be en-
forced by the buyer in the case of eviction;
when the transfer was by mancipium, the stipu-
lation was not necessary.
Mancipation, an institution of the Jus Civile,
was not suited to the customs of non-Italian
people, and came to be regarded as an incon-
venient form ; hence it gradually lost its im-
portance, and in Justinian’s legislation was
entirely superseded by the informal conveyance
traditio, which was derived from the Jus Gen-
tium (Cod. Just. 1, 31: “ de sublata differentia
rerum mancipi et nec mancipi.” In passages of
the Corpus Juris, where the jurists speak of
mancipatio, the compilers substitute traditio.
The last mention of the conveyance occurs in
Vat. Frag. § 313; Hermog. Cod. 7, 1; Theod.
Cod. 8, 12, 4, 5). Mancipatio ceased also to be
a formality in adoption and emancipation.
The word mancipium is used in a cognate
sense to the above as equivalent to complete
ownership, and may thus be opposed to usus, as
in a passage of Lucretius, that has often been
quoted (iii. 971), and to Fructus (Cic. ad Fam.
vii. 29, 30). Sometimes the word mancipium
means the thing mancipated, and hence it fre-
quently signifies a slave, as being a most impor-
tant res mancipi. This is probably the sense of
the word in Cicero (Top. 5, 27) and certainly in
Horace (Ep. i. 6, 39). (Brisson, Antiq. i. 7 ;
Giraud, Recherches sur le droit de propriété chez
les Rom. i. 217, &c.; Leist, Mancipation wrºd
Eigenthumstradition, rev. by Degenkolb, Krit.
Vierteljahrschrift, vol. xx. p. 481 ; Deiters, de
120 MANDATUM
MANICA
mancipat. indole et ambitu ; Bechmann, Kauf, i.
47, &c.; Kuntze, Excurse, 167,. &c.; Voigt,
xi I. Tafeln, ii. §§ 84–88; Ihering, Geist. ii.
§ 46; Maine's Ancient Law, p. 318.) [E.A. W.]
MANDATUM. 1. Mandatum, “a com-
mission,” is the name of a contract which arises
from consent; i.e. it requires no special form of
words, no entry in a ledger, no passing of
property or of the possession of property from
one party to the other: as soon as the two
parties have mutually agreed, the one to employ
the other, and the other to be so employed, the
legal relation exists, subject however to two
conditions. The employment must be one which
is not merely for the benefit of the person
employed, and payment for the service must not
be part of the agreement. If payment is in-
tended, the contract is hiring (locatio, conductio),
not mandate: if A suggests to B to do something
in B's own interest solely, A's instructions are
held to amount merely to advice (consilium), on
which no legal responsibility is incurred (Dig.
17, 1, 2, 6). On the other hand, if B does some
act for A and in A's interest, without previous
instructions, B may have an action to recover
his expenses, but this action is a special one
founded simply on the business done (negotiorum
gestorum : cf. Dig. 3, 5, 2, &c.). The person
who gives a commission is called mandator or
mandans; the person who undertakes the com-
mission is called is qui suscipit, or recipit,
mandatum, cui mandatum est, &c. (in modern
Latin, mandatarius, “mandatee”). The man-
datee is bound to execute the commission dili-
gently and faithfully, or else to renounce it in
time to prevent loss to the mandator (Dig. 17,
1, 22, 11). He is to account to him for all
profit arising from it. For any expense or loss
properly incurred, or strictly incidental, the
mandator is liable. The mandator's right of
action to enforce fulfilment of the mandatee's
obligations to him is actio mandati; the man-
datee's action to obtain reimbursement is actio
mandati contraria. As a rule the mandate is
extinguished by the death of either party, at
least if the event be known to the other party
and the commission be yet unexecuted. But
rights arising from a commission may be enforced
by or against the heirs of either party (Dig. 17,
1, 58, pr.). This rule, however, seems in early
times to have been doubtful; M. Drusus, the
city praetor (under what circumstances we know
not), refusing the right of action and Sex. Julius
(a successor º) granting it (Auct. ad Heren. ii. 13,
§ 19). Either party adjudged guilty of breach
of good faith became thereby disgraced, igno-
miniosus (Gaius, iv. 182), infamia notatur (Edict.
ap. Dig. 3, 2, 1 ; ib. 6, 5). So Cicero says,
“mandati constitutum est indicium non minus
turpe quam furti” (Rosc. Am. 38, 111 sqq.);
and the heir was eventually held responsible
* on the part of his predecessor (Dig. 44,
3. ſº
A special case of mandate, called by modern
lawyers mandatum qualificatum, is a request
from A to B to lend C money. A was taken to
guarantee payment, and B (the creditor) had, if
the debtor failed to pay, an action on the
mandate (act. m. contraria) against A to recover
the money, and then in return ceded to him the
creditor's right of action on the loan. A surety
proper (fidejussor), on the other hand, was
regarded as assuming the responsibility at the
instance of the debtor, and, if forced to pay the
debt of his principal, had an action of mandate
against him (Gaius, iii. 127). Hence mandatores
and fidejussores are often discussed together,
though their legal positions were different in
gºal respects (e.g. Dig. 17, 1, 28; 37; 46, 1,
c.).
The principal authorities are Cic. Rosc. Am.
l. c. ; Gaius, iii. 155 sqq.; Dig. 17, 1; 46, 1 ;
Cod. iv. 35, 36; Inst. iii. 26.
2. Mandata is technically used of the “com-
mission ” or instructions given, especially to
provincial governors, by the emperor. These
were very various and related to their own
conduct (e.g. Dig. 1, 16, 6, 3; 32, 1, 4), or to
their administration (e.g. Dig. 37, 14, 7, 1; 47,
11, 6; 22, 1), or even established new rules of
private law : e.g. the validity of a soldier’s will,
though not in due form (Dig. 29, 1, 1). These
instructions, like the Edicts, appear by frequent
repetition to have assumed the character of
standing orders (cf. Dig. 29, 4); and Justinian
A.D. 535 further consolidated some such in-
structions into what is now called the 17th
Novel. Pliny in his letters to Trajan refers to
them (Ep. 97, § 7; 111, 112). Cicero applies
the term to a legate's instructions (de Leg. iii. 8,
18); and Frontinus (Aquaed. 110, 111) quotes
from a chapter of the Instructions (ex: capite
mandatorum) rules for the use of water from the
Italian aqueducts (cf. Cod. i. 85; Rudorff, R. G.
i. 56). [H. J. R.]
MANDRAE. [LATRUNCULI.]
MA'NDYAS (uavöðas). [LACERNA.]
MANES. See Dict. of Greek and Rom. Bio-
graphy and Mythology.
MANGO'NES. [SERVUs]
MA'NICA, a sleeve, regarded as effeminate
until the later Empire. Verg. Aen. ix. 616,
“Et tunicae manicas et habent redimicula mitrae
O vere Phrygiae,” and Gell. vi. 12, “Tunicis
uti virum prolixis ultra brachia et usque in
primores manus ac prope digitos Romae atque
omni in Latio indecorum fuit.” But the fashion
changed, “Talares et manicatas tunicas habere
apud Romanos veteres flagitium erat nunc autem
honesto loco natis, cum tunicati sunt non eas
habere flagitium est.” (Augustin. de doct.
Christ. iii. 20.) Besides the use of sleeves
sewed to the tunic, which, when so manu-
factured, was called chiridota or manicata tunica
(Curt. iii. 7, p. 12, ed. Zumpt), sleeves were also
worn as a separate part of the dress. Palladius
(de Re Rust. i. 43) mentions the propriety of
providing ocreas manicasque de pellibus, i.e.
leggings and sleeves made of hides, as useful
both to the huntsman and to the agricultural
labourer. The Roman gladiators wore, together
with greaves, a sleeve of an appropriate kind on
the right arm and hand (Juv. vi. 255), as is
exhibited in the woodcuts under GLADIATOR.
These parts of dress are mentioned together
even as early as the Homeric age (see Od. xxiv.
228, 229). In this passage the manicae (xeipt-
ães) seem to be fingerless gloves, worn on the
hands to protect them from briars and thorns;
and Eustathius, in his commentary on the other
passage, distinguishes between these and gloves,
which he calls xeiptóes Sakºruxoraí (p. 1960,
init.). The xeipis irača àpyvptov was probably
not (as in Liddell and Scott) a sleeve, but a
MANIPULUS
MANSIO 12I
leathern glove, like that in the Odyssey, used as
a purse.
Gloves with fingers (digitalia, Varro, de Re
Rust. i. 55) were worn among the Romans for
the performance of certain manual operations.
Pliny the younger refers also to the use of
manicae in winter to protect the hands from
cold (Epist. iii. 5). Those used by the Persians
were probably made of fur, perhaps resembling
muffs: the Persians also wore gloves in winter
(ÖakrvXà6pal, Xen. Cyrop. viii. 3, § 17). In an
enumeration of the instruments of torture used
in the fourth century of the Christian era we
observe “the glove" (Synes. Epist. 58); pro-
bably an iron glove for crushing the hand, as
the “boot” did the leg.
Handcuffs were called manicae. (Verg. Georg.
iv. 439; Aen. ii. 146;-Plaut. Asin. ii. 2, 38;
Capt. iii. 5, 1 ; Most. v. 1, 17;-Non. Marcellus,
S. v. Manicae.)
In Lucan. iii. 565, manica is used as equivalent
to MANUS FERREA. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
MANI'PULUS; MANIPULA'RES; MA-
NIPULA'RII. [ExERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 783.]
MA'NSIO (orraðuás). When the kings of
Persia, and afterwards the Romans, constructed
the great roads through their empires, there
naturally sprung up certain resting-places,
where travellers stayed for the night, or re-
freshed themselves. The term graduds, which
F.". meant a lonely habitation for shep-
erds and their flocks, was applied by the
Greeks to these stations. Herodotus (v. 52)
gives a full account of the royal road which
ran from Sardes to Susa (and from Sardes
to Ephesus, id. v. 54). There were stations
and halting-places (orraðuol Baorixáčot kal kara-
Aöories) all along it, 20 within the limits of
Phrygia and Lydia, a distance of 94% parasangs
(about 320 English miles); in Cappadocia, a
distance of 104 parasangs, there were 28
stations; in Cilicia, a distance of 15% parasangs,
there were 3; in Armenia, in a space of 56%
parasangs, there were 15, and so on, making 111
orra.0aol in all. The whole distance is estimated
at 13,500 stades, so that the average number of
stades in each stathmus was about 121, or just
4 parasangs (less than 14 English miles). But
as Herodotus (loc. cit.) puts the average day's
journey at 150 stades, it is evident that the
stathmi were frequently a less distance apart
than a usual day's Journey. As a matter of
fact the day's journey varied in different regions,
for Herodotus, when discussing the extent of
Scythia (iv. 101), makes the day’s journey
amount to 200 stades. It is plain from Hero-
dotus (loc. cit.) and Xenophon (Anab. i. 2) that
the stathmi were situated at very irregular
intervals. The term a raðubs naturally came
to be used of the distance or stage between the
halting-places. Hence Herodotus, to distinguish
the halting-places themselves, uses in one place
the phrase kataywyal oraðuðv, in another
orraðuol karaywyéov. Xenophon, who employs
orraðubs as a measure of distance, finds it
necessary, on account of the varying distances
between the stopping-places, to specify the
number of parasangs in every case. These
halting-places, which were naturally situated at
fertile and well-watered spots, would be more
numerous in the more fertile regions: cf.
Polyaenus (vii. 40, 1), Tâs IIeport80s, #v0a kåpa,
troXAal kal Aeës troAvs ical otafluol troAAoſ.
There would be in those places inns for the
accommodation of travellers (karáAvua, travö0-
ketov). As the great ancient roads of Asia still
form the main highways for caravans, there
is every probability that the modern Khan or
Caravanserai represents the ancient kard Avua.
The Khan is usually a square building, enclosing
a large open court, surrounded by balconies
with a series of doors, entering into plain un-
furnished apartments, and often with a fountain
in the middle of the court. The Great King
seems sometimes to have settled conquered
peoples in these stations; for instance, Darius
planted the captive Eretrians at Ardericca (Täs
Kiggins xopſis karotkiae év a raðuá čovroſſ, rô
of volué &otiv 'Apôépucka, Herod. vi. 119).
Treatises, or handbooks to these arraðuot, were
composed, one by Baeto (Athenaeus, x. 442 b,
Baſtøv ć 'AAeëdvöpov 8muario rhs év tá, étriypa-
‘popév4 ×taðuol ris 'AAečávöpov tropetas), and
another by Amyntas, called simply of >Taôuot
(id. ib.) or Xtafluoſ IIeporikoſ (id. ii. 67 a), or of
Tàs 'Aoſtas oraðuol (id. xi. 500 d). Arrian
(Anab. i. 2, 1) uses oraðubs as a definite
measure of distance without any reference to
parasangs or stades (ätréxel Sé oiros &mb roi,
*Iorpov, &s étrº Töv Aiuov ióvri oraépio's rpets).
From this it would appear that some average
day’s journey was taken as a orabads. Hero-
dotus (viii. 98), speaking of the Persian couriers
(&yyapoi), tells us that the road was divided
into portions, corresponding to the distance that
a man and horse could traverse in a day (at a
high rate of speed), and Xenophon (Cyrop.
viii. 6, 17) ascribes this institution to Cyrus,
who, having found out what distance a horse
could do in a day, divided the roads into
corresponding stages, built stables (itraróves),
placed couriers and horses, and a man in charge
at each station.
When Augustus organised the Roman empire,
he established an Imperial Postal System (Suet.
Aug. 49), which conveyed despatches from
station to station by means of couriers, who
were called under the Empire Speculatores,
corresponding to the tabellarii of the Republican
period. (Tac. Hist. ii. 73; Suet. Cal. 44; cf.
Liv. xxxi. 24.) For this purpose the stations
(stationes) were divided into mansiones and muta-
tiones. The former were places where travellers
rested for the night (cf. Hor. Sat. i. 5, 9, mansuri
oppidulo, for this use of manere), and where
there were inns (deversorium, caupona, hospitium,
taberna), or stopped for refreshment; there were
often likewise houses (palatia) for the accommo-
dation of the provincial governors, or the
emperor himself, in case he passed that way.
The mutationes (cf. the late Greek &AAayat)
were mere posting-houses for the changing of
horses. The word mansio, from meaning a
stopping-place at the end of a day's journey,
came to be used like graflubs as a measure of
distance (Suet. Tib. 10, “deinde ad primam
statim mansionem febrim nactus; ” Plin. H. N.
xii. § 52, “a quo [monte) octo mansionibus
distat regio”). There were usually four or five
mutationes to one mansio. The Itinerarium dº
Burdigala Hierusalem usque, a guide-book com-
posed about the time of Constantine the Great,
mentions in order the mansiones from Bordeaux
to Jerusalem, with the intervening mutationes,
122 MANTELE
MANUMISSIO
and the more considerable places near the road,
which are called either civitates, vici, or castella,
and the distances are given in leagues (leugae)
or miles (milia). [Compare CURSUS PUBLI-
CDS.] [W. R.I.]
MANTETE, in the imperial times, was a
table-cloth, but originally, as its etymology
shows, was a towel or napkin used by priests at
sacrifices (Serv. ad Aen. i. 701; Ovid, Fast. iv.
933) and by guests at a banquet. It is natural
that the antique use of the word should be found
in accounts of sacrifices, and in Virgil (Georg.
iv. 377; Aen. i. 701), where we find the woollen
mantele, with soft and even nap (tonsis mantelia
villis), used to wipe the hands when water was
poured over them before the feast [see MAPPA]:
so Isidore, Or. 19, 26, 6, says, “Mantelia nunc
pro operiendis mensis sunt, quae, ut nomen ipsum
indicat, olim tergendis manibus praebebantur.”
For the newer fashion of using a table-cloth
(mantele), see Martial, xii. 29, 12; xiv. 138.
After Hadrian's time it was the custom to use
table-cloths of costly material and embroidery
(Lamprid. Heliog. 27; Alew. Sev. 37). We may
gather from Horace (Sat. ii. 8, 10) that no table-
cloth was used in his time, and no doubt the
fashion of giving extravagant prices for dining-
tables of a beautiful grain arose at a time when
the table was fully shown. In fact, there is no
mention of the covering of the table earlier than
the passage cited from Martial, and, when this
custom arose, the name of the larger or sacrificial
napkin was adopted for the table-cloth (see Mar-
quardt, Privatleben, 312). [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MA'NTICA (rhpa, 95Aakos), properly a
hand-bag, a wallet or travelling bag, in which a
few necessaries could be carried. It was carried
in the hand or slung over the shoulder (Appul.
Met. i. 60; Catull. 22, 21; Pers. 4, 24), or
strapped on behind the saddle of the horse,
“mantica cui lumbos onere ulceret " (Hor. Sat.
i. 6, 106). The later word averta was a larger
sort of saddle-bag, usually of leather. Either
would suffice to carry, besides provisions, what-
ever change of clothes the poorer traveller
needed. The rich entrusted their luggage to
the attendant slaves, who packed it up in
bundles. Thus the Greek orpdºuara (Arist.
4v. 616; Ran. 12), carried on a journey by
the slave, means a roll of clothes as well as
bedding; and these were also more methodi-
cally packed in a orpouaréðeguos, or large
bag. (Plat. Theaet. p. 175 E; Aesch. Fals. Leg.
§ 99; Poll. vii. 79; Rutherford, New Phryn.
p. 487.) [G. E. M.]
MANTIKE (uavrich). [DIVINATIO.]
MANU'BIAE. [SpoLIA.]
MANUM, CONVENTIO IN. [MATRI-
MONIUM, p. 138.]
MANUMISSIO was a legal act by which
slaves and persons in mancipii causa were re-
leased from the manus or power of their masters,
thereby acquiring, freedom (Dig. 1, 1, 4, pr. ;
Inst. 1, 5, prº). Accordingly the word manu.
ºmissio is equivalent to e or de manu missio (cf.
Voigt, XII. Tafeln, ii. § 77, n. 2). There were
three modes of effecting a legal manumission
according to Jus Civile (justa et legitima manu-
missio), -namely, vindicta, census, and testa-
mentum, which are enumerated both by Gaius
(i. 17) and Ulpian (Frag. 1) as necessary in order
to free a slave and make him civis (cf. Cic. Top:
2, 10; and Plaut. Cas. ii. 8, 68). Of these the
manumissio vindicta was probably the oldest and,
at one time, the only mode of manumission.
It is mentioned by Livy (ii. 5) as in use at an
early period, and indeed he states that some
persons refer the origin of the vindicta to the
event there related, and derive its name from
vindicius: the latter part at least of this suppo-
sition is of no value.
Manumissio by the vindicta was originally an
action between a third person, who vindicated
the freedom of the slave to be manumitted be-
fore the praetor, and the master of the slave,
who was in the position of defendant. The
form of the vindicta supposes, not that the
person manumitted was a slave, but that he
was a person whose freedom (libertas) was the
matter in issue. Thus it had for its professed
object the maintenance of a previously acquired
status, and not the conversion of a slave into a
freeman. The proceeding before the magis-
tratus was in form an assertion of the slave’s
freedom (manu asserere liberal; causa, Plaut.
Poen. iv. 2, 83), to which the owner made no
defence, but allowed the slave to be declared by
the magistratus a freeman.
The proceeding then was a species of in jure
cessio, and was in fact a collusive action, which
was based on the fiction of the slave's freedom.
When the magistratus had pronounced in favour
of freedom eaſ jure quiritium, there could be no
further dispute about the libertas or about the
civitas which was attached to libertas. The
slave had been manumitted with the consent of
the master by the act of the magistratus. The
ceremony of the manumissio by the vindicta
was as follows:—The master brought his slave
before the praetor, since it was his province to
exercise jurisdiction in civil causes. The
praetor's lictor, who came to be used as ad-
Sertor libertatis, in order to save the trouble of
bringing a person to take this part, holding a
rod (vindicta or festuca) with one hand, and
with the other laying hold of the slave, said,
“Hunc ego hominem ex jure quiritium liberum
esse aio,” at the same time touching him with
the rod; the master then using the same for-
malities, and turning the slave round, and re-
leasing his hold of him, as seems to have been
the custom (“momento turbinis exit Marcus
Dama,” Pers. Sat. v. 78), admitted his freedom,
either expressly or by his silence, which was
followed by the pronuntiatio of the magis-
tratus, “Quandoque Numerius Negidius non
contra vindicat, hunc ego, hominem ex jure
quiritium liberum esse dico.”
Addicere is the technical term to express this
act of a magistratus by which he pronounced in
favour of a right, in this case a right to free-
dom; it is so used by Cicero in respect of manu-
mission (ad Att. vii. 2; cf. Gaius, ii. 24). This
form of manumission derived its name from the
vindicta or rod, otherwise called festuca, which
was used in the proceeding (Plaut. Mil. iv. 1, 15;
Hor. Sat. ii. 7, 76; Pers. v. 125; Gaius, iv. 16).
In course of time the formalities of manumissio
per vindictam were very much curtailed. The
master ceased to act as if he were party to an
action (Dig. 40, 2, 23), and the presence of the
lictor became unnecessary. All that seems to
have been required in the time of Justinian was
that the master should take his slave before the
MANUMISSIO
MANUMISSIO 123
magistratus, wherever the latter was to be
found,-it might be in the public road (in
transitw), as when the praetor or proconsul was
going to the bath or to the theatre, and that
he should declare to the magistratus his desire
to have the slave manumitted (Gaius, i.20; Dig.
40, 2, 8).
The manumission by the census is thus briefly
described by Ulpian (1, 8): “Slaves were for-
merly manumitted by census, when at the
lustral census (lustrali censu) at Rome they gave
in their census at the bidding of their masters.”
The slave must of course have had a sufficient
peculium, or the master must have given him
property, so that he might become a taxpayer.
Manumissio per censum, like manumissio per
vindictam, was not in form a manumission, but
supposed the slave to be already free. It was
the act of the censor in enrolling the slave on
the list of citizens, which gave validity to the
manumission, just as manumissio per vindictam
was effected by the addictio of the praetor.
Cicero tells us that there was a question of law
whether a slave should be considered free im-
mediately on being entered on the censor's roll,
or not until the lustrum was celebrated (Cic. de
Or. i. 40, 183; see CENSUS); and this was a
matter of some importance, for his acquisi-
tions were only his own from the time when he
became a freeman.
Manumissio per cenSum seems to have been a
common mode of manumitting persons in man-
cipio, who had been surrendered on account of
their offences (nowae dediti), and this form of
manumission may have been first used for the
purpose of manumitting such persons (Gaius, i.
140; cf. Voigt, XII. Tafeln, ii. § 143, n. 15;
MANCIPII CAUSA). The republican institution
of the census became obsolete under the Empire,
and with it this mode of manumission; the last
lustrum was under Vespasian, A.D. 74, up to
which time since the beginning of the Christian
era only two had taken place.
The law of the Twelve Tables confirmed free-
dom which was given by will. The earliest
wills were made in the Comitia, and so testa-
mentary manumission may at first have implied
a legislative act, but the testamentum per aes et
libram, which was recognised by the Twelve
Tables, and which gradually superseded the
testamentum calatis comitiis, was not executed
before any public authority, though the wit-
nesses required for its validity may have been
regarded as representatives of the populus.
[TESTAMENTUM.]
There came to be three kinds of testamentary
manumission:-1. Where a master by his will
made a slave free and appointed him heres.
2. Where a master gave his slave a direct legacy
of his freedom. 3. Where a person requested
his heir or legatee to manumit a slave.
1. A testator might declare in his will that
his slave should be free and heres, in which case
on the death of the testator the 'slave became
both free and heres, whether he wished to
undertake the liabilities of the succession or not
(necessarius heres, Gaius, ii. 153; Ulp. Frag. 22,
11); it was common to manumit a slave and
appoint him heres in a substitutional clause, in
order to make intestacy impossible.
According to the law of Justinian, the ap-
pointment of a slave as heres by his master was
sufficient to show an intention to manumit,
without any express declaration of freedom,
since a slave could not become heres.
2. Where freedom was given to a slave as a
legatum, the slave acquired his freedom by the
act of the testator, and this from the moment
that the will took effect, if the bequest was
absolute. A testamentary manumission might,
however, be made subject to a suspensive
condition, in this respect differing from manu-
mission per vindictam or per censum. A slave who
was made conditionally free by testament was
called statu liber (Festus, 314, 67; Ulp. Fragm.
2, 1 ; Dig. 40, 7, 1); until the condition was ful-
filled, he was the slave of the heres. If a statu
Öer was sold by the heres, or if the ownership of
him passed to some one else by usucapion, he
had still the benefit of the condition; a condition
to this effect being contained in the law of the
Twelve Tables. Although the statu liber was
legally a slave, the peculium which he possessed
at the death of the testator and all subsequent
acquisitions derived from it could not be taken
from him by the heres, and might be used by
him in order to fulfil the condition of his
freedom, if this consisted, as was not un-
frequently the case, in the payment of a sum
of money to the heres. A slave who was made
free directo was called orcinus libertus, because
he had been made free by a person who was
dead. (Cf. the application by Suetonius,
Aug. 35, of the term orcini to certain senators
of a low class.)
3. Where a slave was manumitted by an
heir or legatee at the request of the testator,
the will of the deceased only operated indirectly;
the slave did not become libertus orcinus on
manumission, but was the libertus of the heir
or legatee who manumitted him. If the
person who was requested to manumit refused,
he might be compelled to manumit on applica-
tion to the praetor. A man might request his
heres or legatee not only to manumit his own
slaves, but also slaves belonging to the heres or
legatee or to any other person. In case of
libertas being thus given to the slave of any
other person, the gift of libertas was ex-
tinguished, if the owner would not sell the
slave at a fair price.
The legal act of manumission was often
followed by a religious ceremony in the temple
of Feronia, where the freedman appeared clad
in the toga or dress of a Roman citizen, and
with a pileus, or particular kind of cap, on his
shaven head. This last circumstance explains
the expression “servos ad pileum vocare”
(Liv. xxiv. 32), which means to promise slaves
their liberty in order to induce them to join
in some civil disturbance (cf. Plaut. Amph.
iii. 4, 16; Poen. v. 2, 2; Serv. ad Aen. viii. 564).
The pileus was still worn in the time of
Justinian, since he declares that slaves who
attend the funeral of their master with the cap
of freedom on their heads (pileati) become
Roman citizens (Cod. 7, 6, 1, § 5).
Manumission according to the forms recognised
by the civil law not only made a slave free, but
also civis. Besides the due observance of the
legal forms, however, it was required that the
manumissor should have quiritarian ownership
of the slave, and that he should be of legal
capacity to perform the act of manumission.
124 MANUMISSIO.
MANUS INJECTIO
If a slave belonged to a person, but only under
a praetorian title, he became Latinus and not
civis on manumission. [LATINITAS.] If several
persons were joint owners of a slave, and one
of them manumitted him in such form as
would have effected complete manumission, if
the slave had been the sole property of the
manumissor, such manumissor lost his share
in him, which accrued to the other joint
owner or joint owners. Justinian enacted that,
if only one joint owner was willing to manumit
a slave, the others might be compelled to manu-
mit on receiving the price fixed by law for their
shares. If one person had the usufructus and
another the ownership (proprietas) of a slave,
and the slave was manumitted by the proprie-
tarius, he did not become free till the wsu-
fructus had expired: in the meantime there
was no legal owner (dominus).
The modes of manumission above described
were of a formal and public character, but in
course of time other ways of giving freedom to
a slave of an informal and private kind came
to be recognised. Thus a form of manumission
inter amicos is referred to by Gaius and Ulpian
CGaius, i. 41, 44; Ulp. Fragm. 1, 10, 18),
which was a declaration of a slave's freedom
made by his master in the presence of friends,
or it might be done by inviting the slave to
table, or by writing a letter to an absent slave.
These were not manumissions recognised by the
Jus Civile, and so originally had no legal effect;
but after a time the praetor protected the
liberty of slaves who had been made free in
this manner, so that they were free in fact (in
libertate esse), though they had not the legal
status of freemen (liberos esse). The Lex Junia
Norbana gave then the status called Latinitas
[LEx JUNIA NoFBANA; LATINITAS]; finally
under Justinian these manumissions were given
the same effect as those belonging to Jus Civile,
but it was required that they should be attested
by five witnesses (Cod. 7, 6, 1, § 1). A new
form of manumission—manumissio in ecclesiis—
was established by the Church, and first
recognised by a constitution of Constantine,
A.D. 316 (Cod. 1, 13): this manumission was
carried out before the bishop in the presence of
the congregation.
A manumissio sacrorum causa is sometimes
mentioned as a kind of manumission, whereas
the words sacrorum causa point to the cause
and not to the mode of manumission. (Festus,
s. v.v. Manumitti, Puri; Savigny, Zeitschrift,
vol. iii. p. 402.) A manumission by adoption
is spoken of (Gell. v., 19; Inst. 1, 11, 12);
the form of adoption required the intervention
of a magistratus.
Laws were passed under the early emperors
for the purpose of preventing the degradation
of civitas by an incautious exercise of the right
of manumission. The Lex Aelia Sentia laid
various restrictions on manumission [LEx AELIA
SENTIA], particularly as to the age of the
person manumitting, which was raised from
fourteen to twenty, and as to the age of the
slave, which was required to be thirty, as a
general rule, in order to qualify him to become
civis. Moreover it prevented slaves who had
suffered an infamous punishment from becoming
cives, and declared manumissions in fraud of
creditors void. The lex was almost entirely
repealed by Justinian, who abolished the division
of freedmen into cives, Latini, and dediticii,
making all freedmen cives. The Lex Fufia
Caninia fixed limits to the number of slaves
who could be manumitted by will; the funerals
of the wealthy being often attended by a large
number of freedmen, who had been manumitted
by the deceased to the injury of their inherit-
ance. The number allowed to be manumitted
in this way was a half, one-third, one-fourth,
and one-fifth of the whole number that the
testator possessed, according to a scale fixed by
the lex. As its provisions only applied to cases
where a man had more than two slaves, the
owner of one slave or two slaves was not
affected by this lex. The exact date of the law
is doubtful, but there is some evidence to show
that it was passed A.D. 8; several Senatus-
consulta were passed to prevent evasions of it
(Sueton. Aug. 40; Gaius, i. 42–46). This lex
was repealed by Justinian (Cod. 5, 3). A tax
was levied on manumission by a Lex Manlia,
B.C. 357; it consisted of the twentieth part of
the value of the slave, hence called vicesima
(Liv. vii. 16, xxvii. 10; Cic. ad Att. ii.16).
Manumission was as a rule optional on the
part of a master, but in some cases it was
obligatory, as in the case of a master treating
his slave with extreme cruelty, according to a
constitution of Antoninus Pius (Gaius, i. 53).
The act of manumission, which made the slave
a new man, established the relation of patronus
and libertus between the manumissor and manu-
mitted, which was a quasi-parental relation
[LIBERTUs; PATRONUs]. When manumitted by
a citizen, the libertus took the praenomen and
the gentile name of the manumissor, and became
in a sense a member of the gens of his patron.
Freedmen who became cives enjoyed public
as well as private rights, but subject to various
drawbacks. They had not the jus honorum, and
they could only vote in one of the four tribus
wrbanae, not in the tribus rusticae, though
various attempts were made to give them a
better suffrage. [LIBERTUS; CIVITAS.] (Dig.
40, 1, 4; Holtzman, de Emanc. Jur. Rom. et
Hod. ; Becker, Alt. ii. 1, 65; Unterholzner in
Zeitschr. f. Gesch. Rechtswiss. ii. 1391; Keller,
Inst. 211, &c.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
MANUS FE'RREA.. [HARPAGo.]
MANUS INJE'CTIO is a kind of legalised
self-help, which consists in a claimant laying
hands on and arresting the person subject to his
claim, according to the forms of early procedure.
Manus injectio is used to signify either (1) an
arrest of this kind made out of court, and
(2) an arrest carried out in court before the
magistratus, which is the strict sense of the
term.
1. The seizure of a slave by his master is
called manus injectio; e.g. the act of Claudius
in seizing Virginia is so described (Liv. iii. 44).
A plaintiff might bring a defendant into court
by manus injectio, if the latter refused to obey
his in jus vocatio or summons; and in the case
of a judgment debtor or person in the position
of a judgment debtor, he could do this without
any in jus vocatio.
2. Manus injectio, carried out in court before
the magistratus, is the process of execution for
debt according to the law of the Twelve Tables;
it is one of the five forms of legis actio, and as
MANUS INJECTIO
MAPPA 125
such is described by Gaius (iv. 12). The law of
the Twelve Tables relating to it is cited and
explained in a well-known passage of Gellius
(xx. 1). It appears from these sources that a
debtor who had formally acknowledged his debt
and a judgment debtor had thirty days allowed
them to make payment, and after that time
were liable to arrest at the hands of their
creditor and to be brought into court (“aeris
confessi rebusque jure judicatis triginta dies
justi sunto. Post deinde manus injectio esto.
Injus ducito,” Gell. l.c.). Both parties being
before the magistratus, the creditor addressed
the debtor as follows: “Quod tu mihi judicatus
(sive damnatus) es sestertium decem milia,
quandoque non solvisti, ob eam rem ego tibi
sestertium decem milium judicati manum
injicio” (Gaius, l.c.); and he at the same time
laid hold of some part of the debtor's body,
which was the act of manus injectio. The debtor
was not allowed to resist the arrest and main-
tain an action (manum sibi depellere et pro se
lege agere): all he could do was to provide a
responsible substitute called vindea! (qui vim
dicit), who could resist (manum depellere or
vindicare) and carry on an action as defendant.
The debtor was released, it seems, by such inter-
vention on his behalf, and the vindex liable if
his defence was unsuccessful (cf. Liv. vi. 14).
In default of a vindex, the creditor might carry
the debtor to his house (domum ducere), and
keep him in confinement for sixty days, during
which time the debtor's name and the amount
of his debt were proclaimed at three successive
markets (nundinae). This domum ductio prob-
ably required an order of the magistratus, which
would be given as a matter of course, supposing
the judgment or acknowledgment to have been
proved (Lex Rubr. cc. 21, 22). During this
period of sixty days, the debtor was not a slave,
but he was kept in chains, which could not be
above a certain weight (“ quindecim pondo, ne
majore, aut si volet, minore, vincito"); the
creditor being bound to supply him with a bare
maintenance, if he did not keep himself. (“Si
volet, suo vivito. Ni suo wivit, qui eom vinctum
habebit, libras farris endo dies dato. Si volet.
plus dato.”) If there was no arrangement
between the parties, and the debtor did not pay
his debt or anyone on his behalf, he suffered a
maſcima capitis deminutio, and might be put to
death or sold as a slave beyond the Tiber, all
his property passing to his creditor, and when
there were several joint creditors being divided
amongst them (as to the different interpreta-
tions of the words partis secanto, see NEXUM).
According to some writers, there was an addictio
or magisterial assignment of the debtor to the
creditor at the end of the sixty days; but there
is no mention in our authorities of any reappear-
ance of the parties in court, and it is perhaps
better to suppose that a conditional assignment
was contained in the original order of the magis-
tratus. Persons who contracted a money debt
by neaum, which was a formal proceeding per
aes et libram in the presence of witnesses, were
probably considered to have made a sufficiently
public acknowledgment of their debt, and so may
have been liable at once to manus injectio on
default; but the opinion of some writers that no
execution or proceedings in court were necessary
in this case cannot be supported, nor can it be
shown that any part of the ordinary process was
omitted.
Manus injectio was not applicable for the
enforcement of any but a liquidated money
claim ; and was confined under the Twelve
Tables to judicati, damnati, and confessi. In
course of time, however, some other debtors
were put either wholly or partly on the same
footing as judicati (Gaius, iv. 22–25). The Lex
Publilia, evidently following the analogy of the
Twelve Tables, allowed the manus injectio in the
case of money paid by a sponsor, if the sponsor
was not repaid in six months. The Lex Furia
de sponsu allowed it against him who had
exacted from a sponsor more than his just pro-
portion (virilis pars). These and other leges
allowed the manus injectio pro judicato; that is,
treated the debt as if it were a res judicata.
Other leges granted the manus injectio pura ;
that is, non pro judicato, as the Lex Furia testa-
mentaria and the Lex Marcia adversus fenera-
tores. But in these cases the defendant might
resist the manus injectio (manum sibi depellere),
and defend his cause; but it would appear that
he could only relieve himself from the manus
injectio, by actually undertaking to defend him-
self by legal means. Accordingly it was in
these cases an execution, if the defendant chose
to let it be so ; if he did not, it was the same as
serving him with process to appear before the
praetor. In course of time a law was passed
called the Lex Wallia, by which every manus
injectio was made pura, except in the cases of
judicatus and of a person whose debt had been
paid by his sponsor (is pro quo depenSum est);
and consequently in the two latter cases, even
after the passing of this lex, an insolvent
person could only escape arrest by finding a
vindex. The Lex Poetelia had previously put
an end to manus injectio on account of measurn.
This form of execution for debt was however
put an end to by the Lex Aebutia, which partly
abolished the legis actio procedure. A dramatic
scene of manus injectio is portrayed on a sarco-
phagus at Rome (Voigt, i. 63, n. 3.; Helbig,
Bullet. dell' Inst. 1866, 90, &c.). (Keller, Der
röm. Civilprocess, $$, 19, 83; Bethmann-Holl-
weg, Der römische Civilprocess, vol. i. § 45;
Bekker, Die Aktionen d, röm. Privatrechts,
vol. i.; Karlowa, Der röm. Civilprocess z. Zeit.
d. legis actionis; Huschke, Newum, p. 79, &c.;
Savigny, Das Alt-Röm. Schuldrecht, Verm. Schr.
vol. ii. p. 369; Voigt, XII. Tafeln, 1, §§ 63–65;
Muirhead, Roman Law, § 36.) [E. A. W.]
MAPPA (xeipówakrpov, Škuayetov), a linen
napkin. Among Greeks and Romans alike,
before the meal began and after it was over,
means were provided for washing the hands of
the guests. A slave carried round a basia
(malluvium, trulleum, polubrum; in Greek, Aé8ms,
xépvil, Xeipóvirtpov), which he held under the
hands to receive the water poured over them
from a jug (urceolus, trpáxovs); and the slave
who poured the water carried also a napkin or
towel to wipe the hands dry : karð yelpös iſãwp,
trapátreptre to xeipóuakrpov (Arist. ap. Athen.
ix. p. 410. See Hom. Il. xxiv. 304; Od. i. 136;
Plat. Symp. p. 175 A, &c.). But, besides this, as
forks are a modern invention of the 14th century,
it was necessary that the guests should often
wipe their fingers during the meal: for this pur-
pose the Greeks used, not napkins, but pieces of
126 MARCUS
MARTYRIA
bread, called &nduaybaxiaſ (Poll. vi. 93; Eustath.
ad Od. xix. 92). Herodotus (iv. 64) mentions a
ghastly practice of the Scythians, who used the
scalps of their enemies as ārouayåaxial : and
Pliny (H. N. vii. § 12) says that the Scythian
Anthropophagi, besides making drinking cups
from the skulls of their slain enemies (compare
the story of the Lombard Alboin, Gibbon, vol.
v.” 339), also used the scalps pro mantelibus
(= mappis) ante pectora. From “antepectora”
it may be seen that the napkin was sometimes
tucked under the chin, like a bib, according to
a fashion still lingering in some countries.
The mappa in Horace's time was provided
by the host (Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 81; Warr. L. L.
ix. 47); but, as far as we have evidence, it
was the custom in Martial's time for the
guests to bring their own napkins (see Mart.
xii. 29); and the same is implied by the
fact that persons whose rank entitled them to
the latus clavus had it embroidered as a border
to the mappa (Mart. iv. 46), and also by what
we are told of mean-spirited guests carrying off
food from the dinner table wrapped in their
napkin (Mart. ii. 37; Petron. 66). We hear
of napkins in the time of Heliogabalus em-
broidered with gold (Lamprid. Heliog. 27; Alex.
Sev. 37, 40). Athenaeus (ix. p. 479) speaks of
gaily-coloured napkins worn by women as a
head-dress, like a handkerchief. In the circus
the signal for starting a race was given by the
presiding consul or praetor dropping a white
napkin (hence “cretata mappa"). From this
the Megalesian games are called spectacula
Megalesiacae mappae (Juv. xi. 193): compare
Tertullian (Spect. 16), “mappam missam pu-
tant, sedest diaboli ab alto praecipitati figura.”
(Cf. also Mart. xii. 29; Suet. Ner. 22.)
(Compare above MANTELE; and see Marquardt,
Privatleben, p. 313; Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii.
389.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MARCUS. [MALLEUS.]
MARIS (udpus, udpms, Hesych. Audpucºrov), a
Greek measure of capacity, which, according to
Pollux (x. 184) and Aristotle (Hist. An. viii. 9),
contained 6 cotylae (or nearly 3 pints). Poly-
aenus (iv. 3, § 32) mentions a much larger
measure of the same name containing 10 congii,
or nearly 8 gallons. [COTYLA.] [P. S.
MARRA was apparently a sort of single-
headed pick-axe, perhaps heavier and with a
broader head than the ligo, for Columella (x. 72)
applies the epithet lata to the marra: its use
for breaking up the hard ground in preparation
for lighter digging and hoeing is sufficiently
shown by Col. x. 88 (quoted by Mayor on
Juvenal, xv. 166), “mox bene cum glaebis viva-
cem cespitis herbam contundat marrae vel fracti
dente ligonis . . . tune quoque trita solo splen-
dentia sarcula Sumat angustosque foros adverso
limite ducens rursus in obliquum distinguat
tramite parvo.” In Plin. xviii. § 147, it is pre-
scribed for cleaning the ground of weeds too
strong and obstinate to be got out by the hoe,
ploughing being the last resource, if the weeds
beat even the marra. The contrast of the marra
with the dens fracti ligonis in the passage quoted
from Columella suggests that its head had a
smooth blade, not indented or split into two
rongs. [G. E. M.]
MARSU'PIUM (ugpoºrtov, Baxávrov), "a
purse. (Non, Marcellus, s. v.; Varro, de Re
Rust. iii. 17;--Plaut. Men. ii. 1, 29; ii. 3, 33,
35; v. 7, 47; Poen. iii. 5, 37; Rud. v. 2, 26;~
Xen. Conviv. iv. 2.) The word is a diminutive
of Aldportros, a bag, which occurs in Xen. Anab.
iv. 3, 11, as a clothes-bag, equivalent to orpwua-
Tööeguos. Marsupium, therefore, is strictly a
small bag or pouch.
The purse used by the
ancients was commonly asmall
leathern bag, and was often
closed by being drawn to-
gether at the mouth (oria-
traora Baxduria, Plat. Symp.
p. 190 D). Mercury is com-
monly represented holding
one in his hand, of which the
annexed woodcut from an in-
taglio in the Stosch Collection
at Berlin presents an example.
For journeys and campaigns, the safer girdle-
purse (zona) was used. (See also CRUMENA,
ZONA.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
MA'RSYAS. [ColonLA, Vol. I. p. 481 a.]
MARTIA'LES LUDI. [LUDI MARTIALEs.]
MARTIA'LIS FLAMEN. [FLAMEN.]
MARTY'RIA (uaprupta) signifies strictly
the deposition of a witness in a court of justice,
though the word is applied metaphorically to
all kinds of testimony. We shall here explain—
1, what persons were competent to be witnesses
at Athens; 2, what was the nature of their
obligation; 3, in what manner their evidence
was given; 4, what was the punishment for
giving false evidence.
The capacity to give evidence was regarded
more as a privilege of the witness than as a
right of justice. Hence it was limited to free-
men, males, and adults. The incapacity of
women and minors may be inferred from the
general policy of the Athenian law: thus a
woman or a child could make no contracts
beyond the value of a bushel (uéâuplvos) of
barley, i.e. for the barest necessaries of life
(Isae. Or. 10 [Aristarch.], § 10; Schol. Aristoph.
Eccles. 1025; Harpocr., Phot., Suid., s. v. §rt
tratēl kal yuvaikſ). A woman could, however,
take an oath if tendered to her by challenge
(irpákAmaris); and this oath had an evidentiary
value, being in fact a substitute for evidence.
It differed, however, because the consent of the
adversary was required before it could be taken.
For an example of this kind of oath tendered
and refused, see Dem. c. Aphob. iii. p. 852, § 26;
tendered and taken, c. Boeot. de Dot. p. 995, § 3,
de Nom. p. 1011, §10. (Cf. DIAETETAE, p. 623 ai
Thalheim, Rechtsalterth. p. 8; Lipsius, Att.
Process, pp. 876, 900.)
Slaves were not allowed to give evidence,
unless upon examination by torture (8&oravos):
nor were female slaves exempted (Dem. c. Aphob.
iii. p. 852, § 25). There appears to have been
one exception to this rule: a slave might be a
witness against a freeman in cases of murder
(Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 48). The suggestion
of Platner (Process und Klagen, p. 215) that
paprupeſv is here equivalent to pumváeiv, “lay an
information,” is rejected both by Schömann and
by Lipsius (Att. Process, p. 876 n.). The party
who wished to obtain the evidence of a slave
belonging to his opponent challenged him to
give up the slave to be examined (§§ret row
600Aov). The challenge was called trpáramous.
Mercury holding a
Marsupium.

MARTYRLA.
MARTYRIA 127
The owner, if he gave him up, was said €kö00val
or trapadowval. But he was not obliged so to
do, and the general practice was to refuse to
give up slaves, which perhaps arose from
humanity, though the opponent always ascribed
it to a fear lest the truth should be elicited.
The orators affected to consider the evidence
of slaves wrung from them by torture more
valuable and trustworthy than that of freemen;
but it must be observed, they always use this
argument when the slave had not been examined.
(Demosth. c. Aphob. iii. p. 848, § 13; c. Onet. i.
p. 874, § 37; Hudtwalcker, Ueber die Diäteten,
p. 44 f.)
Citizens who had been disfranchised (httpuo-
Auévoi) could not appear as witnesses (any more
than as jurors or plaintiffs) in a court of justice;
for they had lost all honourable rights and
privileges (Dem. C. Mid. p. 545, § 95; c. Neaer.
p. 1353, §§ 26, 27). State debtors were not
allowed to bring actions (Isae. Or. 10 [Aristarch.],
§ 20; Dem. c. Mid. p. 542, § 87; perhaps also
c. Nicostr. p. 1251, § 14 ft.), but had apparently
sometimes a locus Standi in their own defence;
the plaintiff against Phaenippus is a state-debtor,
p. 1049, § 32 (Thalheim, op. cit. p. 16). But
there was no objection to alien freemen (Dem.
c. Lacr. p. 927, § 14, p. 929, § 20; Aeschin. de
F. L. § 155). We learn from Harpocration (s. v.
6tapaptupía) that in actions against freedmen
for neglect of duty to their patrons (ātrooraartov
6íkai) foreigners were not allowed to put in an
affidavit that the action was not maintainable
(uh eioraydºyluov eival). But this can hardly be
considered an exception, for such affidavits gave
an undue advantage to the party for whom they
were made.
Neither of the parties to a cause was com-
petent to give evidence for himself, though each
was compelled to answer the questions put by
the other. The law declared roſv &vrièſkow
érávaykes eival &trokpívao 6at &AA#Aois to éportó-
prevov, paptupefy 6% uí. ([Dem.] c. Steph. ii.
p. 1131, § 10.) That the friends of the party,
who pleaded for him (called ovväyopoi), were
not incompetent to give evidence, appears from
the fragment of Isaeus pro Euphil., and also
from Aeschines, who, on his trial for misconduct
on the embassy, calls Phocion to assist him both
as a witness and an advocate (de F. L. §§ 170,
184).
The obligation to attend as a witness, both in
civil and criminal proceedings, and to give such
evidence as he is able to give, arises out of the
duty which every man owes to the state; and
there is no reason to believe that any persons
(except the parties themselves) were exempted
from this obligation. The passages cited in
support of the contrary view (Isae. Or. 2
[Menécl.], § 33; [Dem.] c. Timoth. p. 1195,
§ 38; Att. Process, p. 880 Lips.) prove nothing
more than that the near relations of a party
were reluctant to give evidence against him;
whereas the fact that they were bound by law
to give evidence may be inferred from Demo-
sthenes (c. Aphob. iii. p. 849, § 15; p. 850, § 20;
p. 855, § 36). At Athens, however, it was less
easy than it is now in England to keep men to
their legal obligations: hence the defiant tone
of the friends of a powerful defendant (c.
Timoth. l. c.).
The party who desired the evidence of a
witness summoned him to attend for that
purpose. The summons was called trpóorkAmarus.
(Plat. Legg. xi. p. 936 E.; Dem. c. Aphob. iii.
p. 850, § 20; c. Timoth. p. 1190, § 19; c.
Theocrin. p. 1324, § 8. In the two former
passages Tpokaxeſoróat is an unsound correction;
cf. Att. Process, p. 884 Lips.) If the witness
promised to attend and failed to do so, he was
liable, to an action called bikm Auropapruptov.
Whether he promised or not, he was bound to
attend; and if his absence caused injury to the
party, he was liable to an action (Strºm 3A48ms).
This is the probable distinction between these
forms of action, as to which there has been
much doubt. (Meier and Schömann, Att. Proc.
p. 672=881 Lips. ; Platner, Att. Proc. p. 221;
Schömann, Antiq. i. 487 n., E.T.).
The attendance of the witness was first re-
quired at the āvákpions, where he was to make
his deposition before the superintending magis-
trate (hysubu Sukaatmptov). The party in
whose favour he appeared, generally wrote the
deposition at home upon a whitened board or
tablet (AeAevicopévov Ypapparetov), which he
brought with him to the magistrate’s office,
and, when the witness had deposed thereto, put
into the box (éxivos) in which all the documents
in the cause were deposited. If the deposition
were not prepared beforehand, as must always
have been the case when the party was not
exactly aware what evidence would be given,
or when anything took place before the magis-
trate which could not be foreseen, as for in-
stance a challenge, or question and answer by
the parties; in such a case it was usual to
write down the evidence upon a waxen tablet.
The difference between these methods was much
the same as between writing with a pen on
paper, and with a pencil on a slate; the latter
could easily be rubbed out and written over
again if necessary (Demosth. c. Steph. ii. p.
1132, § 11). If the witness did not attend, his
evidence was nevertheless put into the box; that
is, such evidence as the party intended him to
give, or thought he might give, at the trial.
For all testimonial evidence was required to be
in writing, in order that there might be no
mistake about the terms, and the witness might
leave no subterfuge for himself when convicted
of falsehood. (Demosth. c. Steph. i. p. 1115,
§ 44; ii. p. 1130, § 6.) The āvākptoſis might
last several days, and, so long as it lasted, fresh
evidence might be brought, but none could be
brought after the last day, when the box was
sealed by the magistrate, and kept so by him
till the day of trial. (Demosth. c. Aphob. i.
p. 836, § 1; c. Boeot, de Nom. p. 999, § 17;
c. Everg. et Mnes. p. 1143, § 16; c. Conon.
p. 1265, § 27.)
The form of a deposition was simple. The
following example is from Demosthenes (c. Lacr.
p. 927, § 14):—“Archenomides son of Arche-
damas of Anagyrus testifies, that articles of
agreement were deposited with him by Androcles
of Sphettus, Nausicrates of Carystus, Artemon
and Apollodorus both of Phaselus, and that the
agreement is still in his hands.” Here we must
observe that whenever a document was put in
evidence at the trial, as an agreement, a will,
the evidence of a slave, a challenge, or an
answer given by either party at the évékpigs,
it was certified by a witness, whose deposition
128 MARTYRIA
MARTYRIA
was at the same time produced and read.
(Demosth. pro Phorm. pp. 946, 949, 957; c.
Phaenipp. p. 1046; c. Steph. p. 1120.)
The witness, whether he had attended before
the magistrate or not, was obliged to be present
at the trial, in order to confirm his testimony.
The only exception was, when he was ill or out
of the country, in which case a commission
might be sent to examine him. [ECMARTYRIA.]
All evidence was produced by the party during
his own speech, the RAeyööpa being stopped for
that purpose. (Lys. c. Pancl. §§ 4, 8, 11, 14,
15; Isae. Or. 3 [Pyrrh..], §§ 12, 76; Dem. c.
Eubul. p. 1305, § 21.) The witness was called
by an officer of the court, and mounted on the
raised platform (87ua) of the speaker, while his
deposition was read over to him by the clerk;
he then signified his assent, either by express
words, or bowing his head in silence. (Lys. de
caed. Eratosth. § 29; Aeschin. de F. L. § 156;
Dem. c. Mid. p. 560, § 139; c. Phorm. p. 913,
§ 19 ; c. Steph. i. p. 1109, § 25; c. Eubul.
p. 1305, § 22.) In one passage an āripos, whose
mouth is shut, is directed to stand up in silence
in order to excite compassion (Dem. C. Mid.
p. 545, $95). In the editions that we have of
the orators we see sometimes Maptupta written
(when evidence is produced) and sometimes
Máprupes. The student must not be deceived
by this, and suppose that sometimes the deposi-
tion only was read, sometimes the witnesses
themselves were present. The old editors merely
followed the language of the orators, who said
“call the witnesses,” or “mount up witnesses,”
or “the clerk shall read you the evidence,” or
something to the same effect, varying the ex-
pression according to their fancy. (See Lys.
pro Mantith. § 8; Isae. Or. 3 [Pyrrh..], §§ 76,80;
; c. Callipp. p. 1238, § 7; c. Neaer. p. 1352,
23).
If the witness was hostile, he was required by
a solemn summons (k\mrečeiv) either to depose
to the statement read over to him, or to take
an oath that he knew nothing about it (uapru-
pelv # éðuvvoróal). One or the other he was
compelled to do, or, if he refused, he had to pay
a fine of a thousand drachmas to the state, which
sentence was immediately proclaimed by the
officer of the court, who was commanded
ékkâmtetetv airóv, i.e. to give him notice that
he was in contempt and had incurred the fine.
The distinction between kAmrečeiv, of the party
summoning the witness, and ékkâmrečeuv, of the
herald or crier, has been wrongly denied by
some authorities, and is not noticed in L. and S.
ed. 7; but it is established by Aeschin. c.
Timarch. § 46, de F. L. § 68, compared with
Lycurg. c. Leocr. § 20, Dem. c. Zenoth. p. 890,
§ 30, c. Neaer. p. 1354, § 28. For the com-
pulsion of an unwilling witness (like the English
subpoena), see also Isae. Or. 2 [Astyph.], § 18;
Dem. de F. L. p. 396, § 176=194, p. 403,
§ 193=220; c. Aphob. iii. p. 850, § 20; c.
Theocrin. p. 1324, § 7 (Lipsius, Att. Process,
p. 882 n.). The éâwpoorta was not a safe way
of getting off giving evidence; it was liable to
the penalties of perjury (Dem. de F. L. § 176;
c. Steph. i. p. 1119, § 58).
An oath was usually taken by the witness at
the āvákptoris, where he was sworn by the
opposite party at an altar (irpos rov Bouèv
éopktorón). If he had not attended at the
$
&várpurus, he might be sworn afterwards in
court; as was always the case when a witness
took the oath of denial (Étépoore). In the
passage just cited from Lycurgus, the expression
AaBávras rà ispá means nothing more than
touching the altar or its appurtenances, and
has no reference to victims. (Valckenaer, Opuse.
Philol. vol. i. pp. 37–39.) Whether the witness
was always bound to take an oath, is a doubtful
point. Schömann formally retracts (Antiq. i.
485 m., E.T.) his earlier opinion, that evidence
was usually unsworn (cf. Att. Process, pp. 885-6
Lipsius). It seems certain, however, that the
other side could put a witness on his oath
(éčopkotºv, Dem. c. Steph. i. p. 1119, § 58;
ěšopkićeiv, c. Conon. p. 1265, § 26, with Sandys
on both passages). See also c. Eubul. p. 1305,
§ 22; Aeschin. de F. L. § 156.
The oath of the witness (the ordinary vöulptos
Špicos) must not be confounded with the oath
taken by one of the parties, or by some friend or
other person out of court, with a view to decide
the cause or some particular point in dispute.
This was taken by the consent of the adversary,
upon a challenge (rpókxmoris, [Dem.] c. Timoth.
p. 1203, § 65) given and accepted; it was an
oath of a more solemn kind, sworn by (or upon
the heads of) the children of the party swearing
(karð Töv traíðav, Dem. c. Aphob. iii. p. 852,
§ 26; c. Conon. p. 1269, § 40), or by perfect or
full-grown victims (ka9 iepāv rexelov, [Dem.]
c. Neaer. p. 1365, § 60), and often with curses
upon himself or his family (kar’ ºw}\etas, e.
Eubul. l. c.), and sometimes was accompanied
with peculiar rites, such as passing through
fire (ölö, too trupós, c. Conon. l.c. and Sandys
ad loc.). The mother or other female relation
of the party (who could not be a witness) was
at liberty to take this oath. (Dem. c. Aphob.
l. c.; c. Boeot. de Dot. p. 1011, § 10: it is
tendered to the father, c. Callipp. p. 1240, § 15;
cf. Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterth. ii. 1, p. 335;
Hudtwalcker, Diät. pp. 52–57.)
With respect to hearsay evidence, see AKOEN
MARTYREIN ; and for the affidavit called Staplap-
Tupta, ANAKRISIS, p. 122 a.
The question whether freemen were put to
the torture is reserved for fuller discussion
under ToRMENTUM. We may here briefly say
that (1) the torture of citizens was forbidden
by a decree in the archonship of Scamandrius,
of unknown date; that (2) the “omnipotent”
people claimed a power of suspending this law
by psephisma on extraordinary occasions [ECCLE-
sIA, p. 702 bl; that (3) this suspension of the law,
though demanded in times of excitement, seems
never to have been really acted upon. The
leading case which proves all these points is
that of the mutilation of the Hermae (Andoc-
de Myst. § 43 f, and Grote's remarks thereon,
ch. 58, v. 175; see also the speech repl
ovvráčeos, p. 170, § 14, and Plut. Phoc. 35).
It is not too much to say, with Thalheim
(Rechtsalterth. p. 29, n. 2) and Lipsius (Att.
Process, p. 896, n. 372), that we have no example
of the torture of an Athenian citizen. About
aliens they were less scrupulous; but (as a
general rule) it is certain that freemen could
not be tortured in courts of justice, and even
an emancipated slave, Demosthenes says, it
would be an act of impiety (oiâ’ 30 top) to give
up for such a purpose (Dem. c. 4phob. iii.
MARTYRIA
MASTIGOPHORI 129
p. 856, § 39; c. Timoth. p. 1200, § 55). The
recorded exceptions are mostly in the cases of
foreign spies, especially when the Athenians
were alarmed for the safety of their dockyards
(Dem. de Cor. p. 271, § 133; Lys. c. Agorat.
§ 59).
The above remarks apply equally to causes
which came before the dicasteries in the ordinary
way, and those which were decided by the
public arbitrators. The Stavrmths discharged
the duties of the magistrate at the āvākpua is as
well as those of the 6th aorral at the trial. He
heard the witnesses and received the depositions
from day to day as long as he sat, and kept the
éxivos open until the last day (kvptav huépav).
(Cf. Dem. c. Mid. p. 541, § 84; c. Timoth. p.
1199, § 50; Att. Process, p. 886 Lips. ; DIAE-
TETAE.)
If the witness in a cause gave false evidence,
the injured party was at liberty to bring an
action against him (6trºm ſevöopapruptów) to
recover compensation. The proceeding was
sometimes called émíokmyus, and the plaintiff
was said €triarchTreat at rſ, uaprupíg or rô
Adprupt (Isae. Or. 3 [Pyrrh..], § 11; Or. 5
[Dicaeog.], § 17; Dem. c. Aphob. iii. p. 846, § 7,
p. 856, § 41; Harpocrat. s. v. čtreakāyato). This
cause was probably tried before the same pre-
siding magistrate as the one in which the
evidence was given (Att. Process, p. 59 Lips.).
The form of the plaintiff’s bill, and of the
defendant’s plea in denial, will be found in
Demosthemes (c. Steph. i. p. 1115, § 46). From
the same passage we also learn that the action
for false testimony was a ripamros &yāv, in which
the plaintiff laid his own damages in the bill;
and from Demosthenes (c. Aphob. p. 849, § 16;
p. 859, § 50), it appears that the dicasts had
power not only to give damages to the plaintiff,
but also to inflict the penalty of &ripita by a
Trpoo ripamats (Isae. Or. 5 [Dicaeog.], § 19 ; Dem.
c. Aphob. iii. p. 849, § 16; [Aristot.] Rhet. ad
Alex. p. 1431 b, 30). A witness who had been
a third time convicted of giving false testimony
was ipso jure disfranchised (Andoc. de Myst.
§ 74; cf. Att. Process, p. 485 fl. Lips. ; Thal-
heim, Rechtsalterth. p. 119 n.). The main
question to be tried in the cause against the
witness was, whether his evidence was true or
false; but another question commonly raised
was, whether his evidence was material to the
decision of the previous cause (Dem. c. Everg. et
Mnes. p. 1139, § 1, p. 1161, § 74; c. Aphob.
pp. 853–856; c. Steph. i. p. 1117, § 51; Platner,
Process w. Klagen, vol. i. p. 400, &c.).
When a witness, by giving false evidence
against a man upon a criminal trial, had pro-
cured his conviction, and the convict was
sentenced to such a punishment (for instance,
death or banishment) as rendered it impossible
for him to bring an action, any other person was
allowed to institute a public prosecution against
the witness, either by a ypaſph, or perhaps by
an eio'ayyeata or rpoSoxh. (Andoc. de Mysł.
§ 7; Platner, op. cit. p. 411; Att. Process,
p. 488 Lips.)
After the conviction of the witness, an action
might be maintained against the party who
suborned him to give false evidence, called 6tcm
Kakorexvióv (Dem. c. Timoth. p. 1201, § 56;
c. Everg. et Mnes. l. c.). And it is not im-
probable that a similar action might be brought
WOL. II. - -
against a person who had procured false evidence
to be given of a defendant having been sum-
moned, after the conviction of the witness in
a ypaſp? §evöokam retas (Meier, Att. Process,
p. 977 Lips.).
It appears that in certain cases a man who
had lost a cause was enabled to obtain a reversal
of the judgment (5them āvdāukos), by convicting
a certain number of the adverse witnesses of
false testimony. Thus in inheritance causes
the law enacted €&v àA@ ris rôv Jevāouapruptów,
tráNiv šč &pxis sival trepi airów Täs Ahºeis
(Isae. Or.11 [Hagn.], $46; Or. 5 [Dicaeog.], §§ 8,
14 ; see, however, some doubts of Lipsius, Att.
Process, p. 982 n.). This was the more neces-
sary, on account of the facility afforded to the
parties to stop the progress of these causes by
affidavits, and also because no money could
compensate an Athenian for the loss of an in-
heritance. The same remedy was given by the
law to those who had been convicted in a 6them
yevöopaptupiðv or in a ypaſp? §evtas. In the
last case the convicted person, who proceeded
against the witness, was compelled to remain in
prison until the determination of his suit (Dem.
c. Timocr. p. 741, § 131). We are informed
that these are the only cases in which a judg-
ment was allowed to be reversed in this way;
the Scholiast on Plato (Legg. xi. p. 937 C) adds
a third, cases of inheritance (k\#pov); but see
Att. Process, p. 612 n. 350, p. 979 n. 609, Lips.
From the words of Isaeus quoted above, é&v
âAó ris róv Jevöopapruptów, it has been inferred
that the conviction of a single witness sufficed
for the granting of a new trial ; this is surely
making too much of the indefinite rus, and the
Scholiast on Plato says expressly that it was
necessary to convict more than half the number
of witnesses. The Athenians, as we know, were
very chary of granting an āvaēurcía (Att.
Process, p. 982 n. ; APPELLATIO).
We conclude by noticing a few expressions.
Maprupely ruvi is to testify in favour of a man,
karapuaprupeſv Tuvos to testify against. Mapriſ-
pegºal to call to witness (a word used poetically);
Stauapripeg 6al and sometimes étriuapri peo:6al
Toys trapóvras, to call upon those who are
present to take notice of what passes, with a
view to give evidence. (Dem. c. Everg. et Mnes.
p. 1150, § 38.) Yevöopaprupelv and étriopkeſv
are never used indifferently, which affords some
proof that testimony was not necessarily on oath.
The adºptus (witness in the cause) is to be
distinguished from the kanthp or RAhrop, who
merely gave evidence of the summons to
appear. [C. R. K.] [W. W.]
MASTE’RES (uadripes). [ZETETAE.]
MASTI'GLA.. [FLAGRUM.]
MASTIGO'PHORI or MASTIGO’NOMI
(uadºriyoqêpot or uaatiyováuot), the name of the
lower police-officers in the Greek states, who
carried into execution the corporal punishments
inflicted by the higher magistrates. Thus
Lycurgus assigned mastigophori to the Paedo-
nomus at Sparta, who had the general superin-
tendence of the education of the boys (Xen. Rep.
Lac. ii. 2, iv. 6; Hellen. iii. 11; Plut. Lyc. 17).
In the theatre the mastigophori preserved order,
and were stationed for this purpose in the
orchestra, near the thymele (Schol. ad Plat.
p. 99, Ruhnken; Lucian, Pisc. 33). In the
Olympic games the pagö00xot performed the
JK
130 MATARA
MATRIMONIUM
same duties. At Athens they were discharged
by the public slaves, called bowmen (rošára), or
Scythians (31.50a). [DEMOSII.] [W. S.]
MATARA. [HASTA.]
MATERFAMI'LIAS. [MATRIMONIUM.]
MATHEMA'TICI. [ASTROLOGIA.]
MATRA'LIA, a festival celebrated at Rome
every year on the 11th of June, in honour of the
goddess Mater Matuta, whose temple stood in
the Forum Boarium from the time of Servius
Tullius (Liv. v. 19; xxxiii. 27). It was cele-
brated only by Roman matrons, and the sacrifices
offered to the goddess consisted of cakes, baked
in pots of earthenware (Varro, L. L. v. 106;
Ovid. Fast. vi. 475, &c.). Slaves were not
allowed to take part in the solemnities, or to
enter the temple of the goddess. One slave,
however, was admitted by the matrons, but only
to be exposed to a humiliating treatment, for
one of the matrons gave her a blow on the cheek
and then sent her away from the temple. The
matrons on this occasion took with them the
children of their sisters, but not their own, held
them in their arms, and prayed for their welfare
(Plut. Camil. 5; Quaest. Rom. p. 267). The
statue of the goddess was then crowned with a
garland, by one of the matrons who had not yet
lost a husband (Tertull. Monogam. c. 17). There
can be little doubt that the peculiar ordinances
in this festival arose from an identification of
Mater Matuta with Leucothea, also a goddess of
the Dawn. The story of Ino will explain the
sisters' children, the punishment of the slaves
and the honour of the once-married, and it is
difficult to find any other satisfactory explana-
tion. At the same time it is not improbable
that the rites connected with the Greek myth
are mingled with a simpler Roman festival
of Mothers, in which the goddess of lawful
marriage and of the birth of children (as of
the birth of light) was honoured. (Com-
pare Preller, Röm. Myth. p. 286, and Dict. of
Greek and Roman Biography, arts. Ino and
Matuta.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
MATRIMO'NIUM, NU'PTIAE (yūgos),
marriage. I. GREEK. The history of the mar-
riage relation among the Greeks takes us back to
some of the very earliest forms of the connexion
between the sexes. In many of the wild tribes
that surrounded the Greek world we are told
that the sexes mingled promiscuously—e.g. the
Massagetae (Herod. i. 126), the Nasamones
(Herod. iv. 172), the Ausenses (Herod. iv. 180,
&c.); and legends recount the same of the
earliest times in Athens itself. “At Athens,
Cecrops was the first person who married a man
to one wife only, whereas before his time con-
nexions had taken place at random, and men had
had their wives in common ’’ (Clearchus of Soli,
ap. Athen. xiii. 2). Absurd as it would be to
treat such a tradition as authentic history, it is
possible that it embodies a true reminiscence of
an early development; and it is curious to find
that according to a quite separate legend (quoted
from Varro by St. Augustine, de Civit. Dei,
xviii. 9) the exclusion of women from public
assemblies at Athens, and therewith their definite
political subordination, is placed' in the time of
Cecrops. And indeed there are other reasons
which lead us to believe that the institutions of
Athens were, from the first, singularly averse to
feminine predominance, Athenian mythology has
no Antigone, not even a Helen; Athenian history
has no Sappho, no Corinna. Aspasia herself was
a Milesian.
In the rest of Greece, the marital tie de-
veloped more slowly, and with somewhat differ-
ent results. The fierce stories of the Lemnian
women, the Danaides, the Amazons, indicate
that in the primeval times, amidst the frail
organisations that then constituted society,
women were occasionally capable of successfully
contending against the stronger sex. Taking a
step downwards in history, we come to the
Homeric period; but before speaking of this, it
will be expedient to notice a form of society
which, though we meet with it at a later date,
bears the mark of an earlier stage in the process
of growth. This is the custom, which Herodotus
(i. 173) and other authorities attribute to the
Lycians, of reckoning families according to de-
scent on the mother's side, and of giving to the
wife and daughter much of that predominance
(especially as to the inheritance of property)
which is generally given to the father and son.
It is clear that this custom was a survival from
those times when paternity was uncertain, and
when the only known relationships were through
the mother; but it continued, in some few in-
stances, among peoples who, we have every reason
to believe, were monogamists, according to the
ordinary Greek acceptation of that term. Besides
the Lycians, the Epizephyrian Locrians are stated
by Polybius (xii. 5) to have reckoned descent
through the mothers; and Nicolaus Damascenus
(p. 160) says of the Sarmatians (to whom
Herodotus in bk. iv. 110–114 attributes a descent.
on the mother's side from the Amazons) that
they obeyed their wives in everything (raſs 6&
ºyvvaiśl travta Teiðovrai Ös àeatroſvais). Those
who wish to know more on this curious develop-
ment of the conjugal bond may consult the
learned and eloquent work of Bachofen (Das
Mutterrecht), whose enthusiasm on behalf of
the “government by women’’ transcends sober
bounds ; or the more moderate theories of
McLennan (Studies in Ancient History, 1876).
It will be worth while remarking, in pass-
ing, that polygamy just touches the confines of
Greece, in Thrace (Herod. v. 5, 16; Eurip.
Androm. 215); as indeed the court of Priam,
though Hecuba alone appears to have enjoyed
the title of his wife, bore much resemblance to
that of a polygamous monarch. We now come
to the Greek society described in Homer.
The Iliad and Odyssey describe a society in
which monogamy, and on the whole a pure
monogamy, is the rule. No doubt “concubines”
are mentioned, as well as “wedded wives” (e.g.
Odyss. xiv. 203); yet Laertes is said to have
abstained from the bed of his favourite maid-
servant, “fearing the anger of his wife’” (xóAov
3’ &Aéelve yuvaikás, Odyss. i. 433): Agamemnon
refrains from Briseis, even though he had taken
her from Achilles (Il. ix. 133); and the beauti-
ful lines 340–343 of the same book assume
monogamy as the natural condition. The strict
ideas of modern times would not permit us to
describe Ulysses as wholly faithful to Penelope;
but he would seem to have had little choice in
the hands of Circe and Calypso, and he was
clearly faithful at heart. No queen could have
more royal offices assigned to her than Arete,
the queen of king Alcinous (Odyss. vi. 310; vii.
MLATRIMONIUM
IMATRIMONIUM 131
69–74, 142). Moreover, though women as well
as men suffered from the roughness of the times,
women were under no peculiar disadvantages;
they were not forbidden to appear in the open
streets. McLennan (op. cit.) gives reason to think
that the relationship through mothers, already
noticed as of predominant importance in Lycia
in a later age, was in the Homeric period es-
teemed as superior to the relationship through
fathers over the whole of Greece; and this
would account for the comparatively high posi-
tion attributed to women in Homer. (See Il.
xxi. 95, where the epithet Öuoydorptos is
pointedly used to express a closer tie than
brotherhood on the father's side.) In itself,
the fact that the Homeric chiefs bought their
wives, instead of receiving a dowry with them,
might suggest a lower state of society. But
the absence of any mention of divorce in Homer
is in favour of the view here taken. [DOS.]
In reference to these early states of society,
two remarks of Aristotle, interesting in their
connexion, should be borne in mind: first, that
“among the barbarians, the female element and
the servile element are in the same rank"
(Pol. i. 2); secondly, that “the greater number
of military and warlike races are governed by
their women’’ (Pol. ii. 9). In the Homeric
society the latter or chivalrous condition is pre-
dominant; but it is difficult to be sure that the
“barbarian’” estimate of women was nowhere
prevalent in early times in Greece; and it may
be a part explanation of the decline in the posi-
tion of women which took place over so large a
portion of Greece afterwards.
In the main, however, this decline was due to
other causes. In treating of it, the topic of the
“wife’” must for a short space be merged in the
broader topic of the “woman.” The great dis-
tinction between the Homeric age and the his-
toric period of Greece is the importance to which
the “city” had attained in the latter period;
the city being a community governed by laws
(even though it might sometimes fall under the
sway of a tyrant), self-centred, and priding itself
on its independent existence. It seems certain
that this city life, with its public deliberations,
its collections of laws, and the large intellectual
element which these demanded, was one to which
women in that stage of the world's history were
unequal. They fell still more behind than they
had done in the merely warlike Homeric society.
And other causes co-operated. Athens was from
the first the type of this city life; now it was
from Athens that the Ionian cities in Asia (and
in many of the Aegean islands) were founded; and
we are told (Herod. i. 146) that these colonists
did not take their wives with them, but married
Carian women, so that from the first their wives
started as on an inferior footing, and with
antagonistic feelings to their husbands, which
Herodotus implies continued more or less in
subsequent generations. Further, these Ionian
colonies were in direct contact with the Asiatic
monarchies, in which women occupied a very
inferior position. And as a final point, it must
be noted that both in Athens and Ionia (as else-
where) the city life, implying as it did a body of
citizens, required a clear means of discrimination
as to who was and who was not a citizen; and as
citizenship was mainly handed on from father
to son, purity of race assumed an importance
unknown before. Achilles might marry his
Phrygian captive Briseis with no complaint on
the part of his Myrmidons; but the son of
Pericles by the Milesian Aspasia could not be
accounted a citizen of Athens without a special
vote of the people. If then in a large city, such
as Athens or Miletus, swarming with traders
from all parts of Greece, an accurate distinction
was to be kept up between citizens and aliens,
it was necessary that the matrons of the city
should be clearly severed off from all others, and
also that they should be preserved from tempta-
tion; both of which ends were crudely but to a
certain extent effectively secured by their com-
parative seclusion. From all these causes (and
probably from other deep veins of character hard
to trace), across that middle belt of the Greek
world which extended from Athens to Ionia, a
belt containing the most advanced and cultivated
cities of Greece,—the female sex was lowered
from the position which it held in the time of
Homer, and regulated by customs approximating
to those which have always existed in the East.
It was impossible that other parts of Greece
should be uninfluenced by such a result; and
besides, some of the causes which acted in
Attica and Ionia would be forcible elsewhere.
Thus, though about 500 B.C. Corinna and other
poetesses enjoyed an honourable publicity at
Thebes, yet in 379 B.C. we find it a breach of
etiquette for Theban women to walk freely
about the streets (Plut. de Genio Socr. 32). The
Aeolian colonies of Lesbos and the adjacent
coast of Asia Minor resisted the tendency for a
time; and Sappho and her brilliant compeers,
about the beginning of the 6th century B.C.,
raised the female sex to the highest glory in
respect of imaginative power, and perhaps
attempted Social changes as well. But the
phenomenon was a transitory one; perhaps,
even, not a favourable one for steady develop-
ment: the Mytilenaeans had an honourable
history after this, but we hear no more of their
women. Argos, half-way between Athens and
Sparta, shows also an intermediate character
as regards its female population. We can
hardly wholly reject the story of its heroic
deſence by Telesilla the poetess and the other
women against the Spartans, about 510 B.C.,
after the slaughter of the Argive army by
Cleomenes (Plut. de Mulierum Virtutibus; Paus.
ii. 20, § 7); but in the succeeding century the
city lost to a great degree its Dorian character,
and of its women too we scarcely hear anything
In Ol'é.
We may assume then that, by the middle of
the 5th century B.C., the restriction of the
liberty of free-born citizen women, which had
begun some centuries earlier, attained its fuli
development in Northern Greece. The most
celebrated of the Greek colonies in Asia, most
of the islands of the Aegean, and the northern
part of the Peloponnesus itself, were subject to
the same influence.
But there were parts of Greece that never in
the smallest degree succumbed to this influence.
In Sparta, from the first moment of its history
down to the death of king Cleomenes in B.C. 220
(if not later), women enjoyed an authority, a
distinction, rarely accorded to them even in
modern times. With Sparta, Crete and Cyrene
may, though in a minor degree, be *:
R
132 MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM
and here, too, the population was Dorian. But
Cyrene and Crete will only enter into a small
portion of the following observations.
As to the original cause of this lofty position
of women among the Dorian race—and the
observation is true of Argos also, down to about
500 B.C.–Müller conjectures (Dorians, i. 4, § 9)
that it arose from the fact that the Dorians took
their wives and children with them in their
original emigration from the north to the south
of the Corinthian gulf. Such a cause is cer-
tainly adequate, implying, as it does, association
in perilous adventure; and it is difficult to
conjecture another equally strong. The causes,
moreover, which depressed the position of
women elsewhere, existed very sparingly at
Sparta. There was not there, as at Athens, any
great influx of strangers; Sparta was not a
commercial city; and those who came were at
any time liable to be expelled by the authorities.
[XENELASIA.] Hence the strain of citizenship
was easily kept pure at Sparta, without the
seclusion of the wives. And Spartan husbands
were the reverse of jealous; of which more
presently. And since Spartan men were unable
under the institutions of Lycurgus to make free
use of wealth, the dowries of wives were large,
and there were many heiresses. Aristotle tells
us (Pol. ii. 9) that two-fifths of the soil of
Laconia was possessed by women. Hence ensued
a condition of which the concise answer of
Gorgo, wife of Leonidas, is the proud expression :
“Why,” she was asked by a foreign lady, “do
you Lacedaemonian wives, unlike all others,
govern the men 2° “Because we alone are the
mothers of men.” (Plut. Lac. Apophtheg.)
Exaggeration, however, must be avoided, both
as to the extent of liberty allowed to wives at
Sparta, and as to the goodness of the result.
The laws of Sparta bound women as well as
men: perhaps, because they bound men more
than elsewhere, they bound women less; but
with the detailed accounts of Xenophon and
Plutarch before us, we cannot believe, with
Aristotle (l.c.), that Lycurgus tried to legislate
for women, and failed. Undoubtedly, however,
there was much singularity in the legislation.
Before marriage, the Spartan girl passed an
open-air life of continuous exercise; she wrestled,
she raced with her equals (Xen. de Rep. Lac.
i. 4); intercourse with young men was not
forbidden to her, and she was present at the
public games. All this was allowed with a view
to marriage; the girl would as a matter of
course be given in marriage by her parent or
köpuos (guardian); the youth who did not marry
was liable to severe penalties (Pollux, viii. 40;
Plut. Lycurg. 15). The form of marriage was
a mock capture, a reminiscence of the time
when wives were really captured with the
strong hand; after marriage the bridegroom did
not at once take his bride home, lest they should
be soon tired of each other, but visited her in
her parents’ house clandestinely, and this secret
intercourse sometimes continued till children
were born to them (Plut. l. c.). When at last
the husband took his wife home, he often took
her mother with her (cf. Müller's Dorians, iv.
4, § 2). The married woman was forbidden to
attend gymnastic contests (Paus. v. 6, § 5); and
when she went out of doors, wore a veil (Plut.
£ac. Apophthegm., anecdote of Charillus). The
custom of the newly-wedded wife remaining in
her parents’ house prevailed in Crete also
(Strabo, x. p. 482); and the object there is
stated to have been that she might learn house-
keeping. Müller (l.c.) after Hesychius explains
the word trap66wios as meaning a son born
during this period of quasi-secret marriage
(cf. Hom. Il. xvi. 180).
More singular than the method of wooing
among the Spartans was the regulation that
permitted polyandry. The production of chil-
dren was so far regarded by the legislator as the
main end of marriage, that if a woman had no
children by her husband, it was common for
her, with full consent of her husband, to admit
another man to her bed; and this might take
place even if she had children by her husband,
so that a wife might be the mother of two
separate families (Plut. Lycurg. ; Xen. Rep. Lac.
i. 9). It would appear, too, that several brothers
might share one wiſe (Polyb. xii. 6). Yet we
know no specific case of this last; and as far as
our information goes, the husband was always
recognised as such, whatever intercourse with
his wife he permitted on the part of others.
Once, and only once in the history of Sparta,
was bigamy permitted on the part of the man:
this is the case of king Anaxandridas (Herod. vi.
39, 40), who for love of his first wife refused to
put her away, but was obliged by the ephors to
take a second for the sake of posterity. (One
other case of bigamy is recorded among genuine
Greeks, that of Dionysius of Syracuse, according
to Aelian, W. H. xiii. 10.) It may be inferred
from the case of Anaxandridas, and from the
narrative in Herod. vi. 61, that the divorce of a
wife on the ground of barrenness was sanctioned
by Spartan law.
While connexions which we consider irregular
were thus legalised at Sparta, illicit vice was
very rare, and affection between husband and
wife was often very tender. (See the lives of
Agis and Cleomenes in Plutarch, especially the
beautiful story of Chelonis, the wife of Cleom-
brotus.) The Spartan women were by far the
finest and handsomest in Greece (Aristoph. Lys.
78–84); and their sayings and deeds recorded
in Plutarch (especially in the Apophthegmata),
though sometimes stern, are always striking.
(One of them anticipated the celebrated speech
of Cornelia, mother of the Gracchi.) The
Athenians, as was natural, criticised their free-
dom (e.g. Eurip. Androm. 595 ft.); and we can
hardly refuse to admit, on the joint authority of
Plato (Legg. i. p. 637) and Aristotle (Pol. ii. 9),
that after the great successes of Sparta in the
Peloponnesian wars, they, as well as the Spartan
men, lost some of their virtue. But noble women
are found among them even then: it is harsh to
blame them severely for the single occasion on
which they lost their nerve and showed timidity,
when Epaminondas with his great army of
40,000 or 70,000 men was threatening the
unwalled city of Sparta; and when Aristotle
alleges (Pol. ii. 9) that they caused the depo-
pulation of Laconia by keeping the extensive
tracts, of which they were the mistresses, un-
inhabited, we cannot but remember that the
incessant military exercise of the Spartans and
the practice of infanticide (which all the Greeks
sanctioned) were much more probable causes of
diminution of the population than that which
TMATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM 133
Aristotle suggests. (He says that Sparta fell
through her öAryavôpatría : an interesting, and
in itself doubtless a true, observation.)
But it is necessary to hasten to that Greek
state of which, after all, we know very far the
most ; the antipodes of Sparta—Athens. At
Athens, as has been stated, both the unmarried
girl and the wife lay under restrictions greater
than anywhere else in Greece. It must be
admitted, that even as regards Athens, there is
a great deal which we do not know ; and one of
the problems of the case is to reconcile the
recurring statements of the obscurity and
weakness of women, as well as the unfeeling
tone in which they are treated by the orators
(but see, for an exception, and in a very unlikely
place, [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1364, § 56), with the
striking and elevated female characters that so
often appear in the pages of the Greek trage-
dians. Scme experience, one would think,
Sophocles must have had of a free and noble
maiden, when he drew Antigone; and Euripides
of a noble wife, when he drew Alcestis. Even
in Aristophanes, Lysistrata, in spite of the
indecency of the play named after her, acts an
essentially honourable part. Haemon, in So-
phocles, is a lover of the high chivalrous type.
And it is justly remarked by Becker, that we
do know of one actual case in which a wealthy
Athenian married for love—Callias, who married
Elpinice, Cimon's sister (Plut. Cimon, 4). But
the balance of evidence is on the unfavourable
side. Perhaps the Andria of Terence will give
us the best idea of the possibilities and actualities
of Athenian marriage. The plot of that play is
romantic : each of the lovers marries his beloved.
But the éthos of the play is totally against such
a successful result, which happens by pure
accident. Evidently, the father's will, and not
the lover's passion, is the real animating cause
which produces marriage in any ordinary case.
“All lovers,” says Simo, one of the fathers,
“feel it a sad grievance that a wife should be
assigned to them ’” (Act i. scene 2). The wife,
then, was not generally the beloved. And the
unlimited obedience professed by Pamphilus,
Simo's son (v. 3), leaves him wholly in his
father's power, at the risk of unspeakable
misery to the object of his affections. Not less
absolute is the obedience promised by the profi-
gate son in the Trinummus of Plautus (v. 3, 8):
“Ego ducam, pater, etiam si quam aliam ju-
bebis.” Evidently these are meant to be moral
sentiments; but to us it is repellent, that a
man's individuality should have no rights
assigned to it in such a matter, and that duty
should be held to consist in mere external
obedience to another. The plain prose of the
matter is expressed by the author of the speech
against Neaera (p. 1386, § 122): “We have
female companions (étatpas) for our pleasure,
concubines for daily attendance on our per-
sons, but wives in order that we may beget
legitimate children and that we may have
a faithful guardian of our households.” The
low morality of such a remark is the more
palpable when we remember that it is in part
intended to be the acknowledgment of a certain
duty to the state.
Strictly speaking, the Athenians did not think
meanly of marriage ; but they did think meanly
of the wife. The most honourable side of their
conception of it was that which concerned the
family; the necessity that a man should pre-
vent his “heritage being desolate, and his
name being cut off” (ätra's wh ééepmuda'oval
Tobs argetépov airóv oftcovs); that some one
should make offerings at his grave (&AA’ oral
Tus kal 6 ávayuáv, Isaeus, de Apoll. Hered. § 30):
a feeling which is eloquently expressed by Plato
in the Laws (vi. p. 773 B), “We must take
hold of the eternal nature by providing to God
ministers to stand before him in our stead, the
descendants whom we leave behind us.” Even
this very praiseworthy sentiment was sometimes
abused through the practice of unlimited adop-
tion (for instances of which, see the speech of
Demosthenes against Leochares).
Of the three most celebrated Greek writers
who have treated of the subject of marriage—
Plato, Aristotle, and Xenophon—Plato is the
one who comes nearest to touching the real
error of Athenian sentiment respecting mar-
riage. In the beginning of the speech in the
Laws just referred to, he clearly shows that
reciprocation of vital influences is the root of
the beneficent effects of marriage. Had he
seen that this reciprocation lies in the inter-
change of noble thought and feeling between
husband and wife personally, he would have
penetrated to the secret of the whole. And he
cannot have been far from seeing it: for he
thought better of the capacities of women than
any of his contemporaries. But he falls short,
partly because the reciprocation which he
commends is contemplated by him in too physical
a manner, and partly because, when he does
regard it spiritually, it is the wife's family in
its entirety that he looks upon as influencing
the husband. His faith in womanhood is imper-
fect: hence there is a vagueness in his concep-
tion, though it is a noble one. A similar defect
appears in his lofty sentiment that marriage
should be entered into for the good of the com-
munity, and not for the pleasure of the indivi-
dual; he is not aware that there are moments
when personal sentiment has supreme rights.
Aristotle (Eth. Nic. viii. 14) gives a picture of
marriage, beautiful of its kind; he insists on
the elements of affection, and of a common
interest, which it involves: but the idea of a
reciprocal influence in it is not present to him
in any considerable degree. He is aware indeed
that there is a sphere in which the wife ought
to rule the husband (Pol. i. 12); but he clearly
regards that sphere as a superficial one. Xeno-
phon, in the quaintly tender narrative of the
Oeconomicus, shows a somewhat similar appre-
ciation of the wife; she comes to her husband's
house as an untamed creature, who has to be
made pliable and taught the duties of house-
keeping; beyond the household her sphere does
not extend; she is recommended, though not
absolutely enjoined, to keep indoors. Yet he
assigns to her a share in the education of the
children (vii. 12); she is to be a friend to the
whole household ; and what is still more valua-
ble, Xenophon has a deep sense that the hus-
band should esteem her, may possibly look up to
her. Akin to this is the reverence for a mother
inculcated by Socrates in the Memorabilia
(ii. 2). It is the universal assumption that
the husband will be considerably older than the
wife: Plato puts the age of marriage for the
134 MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM
man at from 25 or 30 to 35, for the wife at
from 16 to 20 (Legg. iv. p. 721; vi. pp. 772, 785),
and he affixes penalties for the man who does
not marry before the highest age mentioned;
Aristotle recommends 35 as the best age of
marriage for the husband, 18 for the wife (Pol.
vii. 16).
Let us now consider what is laid down in the
Athenian law concerning marriage. Monogamy
is, of course, assumed. Marriage, we are told,
was made compulsory by Solon (Plut. de Amore
Prol. 2); but if so, the law fell into disuse; and
in later days bachelors were subject to no dis-
advantages in Athenian territory (cf., e.g.,
Demosth. c. Leoch. p. 1083, § 10). A youthful
citizen was not allowed to marry until his name
was entered in the tribal register (Ančuapxukov
ºypaupware?ov). The restrictions as to whom he
might marry differed from those imposed in
modern times, being in part looser, in part more
severe. Prohibitions on the ground of consan-
guinity were less numerous than with us. A
man might not marry a direct ancestor or
descendant ; nor might he marry stepmother or
stepdaughter, mother-in-law or daughter-in-
law; nor, with an exception to be noticed, his
sister. It may be difficult to prove the exist-
ence of these prohibitions in every single case;
but compare Eurip. Androm. 174–177, Lysias
in Alcib. i. § 28; also the list of allowed rela-
tionships in Plato, Legg. xi. p. 925 C.; and with
respect to the mother-in-law, Andocid. de Myst.
§ 124, may be referred to, though not absolutely
demonstrative. It is worth also referring to
the well-known passage in St. Paul (1 Cor. v. 1),
though of so late a date. The marriage of
Oedipus was looked on with horror, and the
fact that it was accidental was not regarded as
an alleviation. On the other hand, the mar-
riage of a brother with a half-sister on the
father's side did sometimes occur (Dem. c.
Eubul. p. 1304, § 20; Plut. Themist. 32). Mar-
riage with a niece was common; with an aunt
naturally less so, but there was nothing to
forbid it.
The prohibition of marriage between a citizen
and an alien belongs to a different class from
the prohibition by reason of relationship. It
would hardly seem to have existed in the early
period of Athenian history; Megacles (Herod.
vi. 130), and Miltiades (Herod. vi. 39) both
married foreigners; the mother of Themistocles
was a foreigner (Plut. Themist. 1). The influx
of foreigners into Athens in the time of Pericles
was doubtless the cause that necessitated a
more stringent law; namely, that both the
parents of a citizen must be citizens; whence it
resulted that marriage with an alien was for-
bidden (Plut. Pericl, 37; Schol. ad Arist. Vesp.
717). Infringement of this law took place;
hence it was re-enacted in the archonship of
Eucleides (B.C. 403), with the reserve that the
re-enacted law was not to be retrospective (Dem.
c. Eubul. 1307, § 34). Timotheus, son of Conon,
whose mother is said to have been a Thracian
woman (Athen. xiii. p. 577 b), may probably
have owed his citizenship to this saving clause.
According to the Scholiast to Aeschines (c.
Tºmarch. § 39), the law had to be re-enacted
yet a third time. Clearly then the application
of it was irregular; and we may infer this on
other grounds. The speech against Neaera
shows that it was not a dead letter; and
the penalties for the breach of it there stated
([Dem.]c. Neaer. pp. 1350, 1363) are very severe.
So, too, the plot of the Andria of Terence
largely turns upon this law. Yet on the other
hand we find such a singular case as that of
Phormion, the freedman and afterwards the
successor of the banker Pasion, who while still
an alien married Pasion’s widow, a female
citizen; and though Apollodorus, Pasion's son,
was vehemently incensed at the marriage, and
brought divers actions at law to prove that
Pasion’s will, under which the marriage was
sanctioned, was a forgery, yet he did not, until
more than ten years had elapsed, allege this
ground, which would so greatly have helped his
case, that the marriage was intrinsically illegal.
At last he did put forward this ground (Dem.
c. Steph. ii. p. 1132, § 13), but by that time
Phormion had received the citizenship by a vote
of the people. By way of important exception
to the law, it should be noted that the right of
intermarriage was granted by the Athenians
at various times to other peoples : to the
Thebans shortly before the battle of Chaeronea
(Dem. de Cor. p. 291, § 187), to the Plataeans
(Isocrates, Plat. § 51), to the Euboeans (Lysias,
âtrép ris troxtºreſas, $3).
Marriage at Athens took place in two ways;
either by éyyúmo is or by étubulcaorfa. 'Eºyūm-
orus was the ordinary method, and meant the act
of the father or guardian (köpios) of a maiden
in giving her in betrothal to her future husband.
The act was a solemn one, the relatives of either
side being witnesses. Whenever any woman
had a köptos, marriage could take place by no
other method than this. If, however, a woman
were left an heiress (érſky, mpos) without having
a cºpios (and according to the law given in
Dem. c. Steph. p. 1134, § 18, only the father, the
brother born of the same father, and the grand-
father on the father's side, could discharge this
office by virtue of natural relationship), then
the next of kin might claim her in marriage
(Isaeus, de Pyrrh.. hered. § 78), preference being
given to kindred on the father's side; such a
claim was called étributaota, and was brought
in the first instance before the archon. [EPI-
CLERUS.] The public interest in such a claim
being allowed lay in the danger of dissensions
being caused by rival suitors, of which Aristotle
(Pol. v. 4) gives instances. If the heiress were
poor (0%aro'a), it was likely that no claimant
would come forward ; in this case the archon
was bound to compel the next of kin either him-
self to marry the heiress or to portion her and give
her in marriage (Dem. c. Macart. p. 1067, § 51).
It is to be inferred that the next of kin was
regarded as köptos of the heiress in such a case
as this. Legitimate children at Athens were
invariably the offspring of a marriage ratified
according to one of these forms.
At the time of the betrothal the dowry of
the bride was settled; and this indeed was a
most important point for her future welfare.
For—and, among the many points which show
that Athenian law looked upon the wife as a
sort of foreigner in the family, this is one of the
most remarkable — the wife was reckoned to
have no claim at all on her husband's property.
Supposing her husband died, even the most dis-
tant cousin might inherit from him; but the
MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM 135
wife, never. N ay, she might not even continue
to reside in his house after his death, unless she
pleaded pregnancy; in that case she would come
under the protection of the archon, and would
remain undisturbed until the child was born (Dem.
c. Macart. p. 1076, § 75). Thus in Dem. c.
Boeot. p. 1010, § 6, the wife of Cleomedon leaves
her husband’s house, and is portioned out again by
her brothers. If in Dem. c. Phaenipp. p. 1047,
§ 27, this does not happen, the reason is that the
two women there mentioned are the wards of their
own sons, who maintained them out of their
dowries. Neither could a mother inherit from
her own children (Isaeus, de Hagn. hered. § 12).
Hence the dowry was the only security to the
wife against extreme poverty, in the event of
her husband’s death, or if she were divorced ;
the husband therefore had to give a guarantee
for its return in the shape of some piece of
landed property. [DOS.] We find that wealthy
men would sometimes portion the daughters of
their poorer neighbours (Lysias, debonis Aristoph.
§ 17). It would, however, be incorrect to
suppose that the dowry would ever become the
wife's absolute property; it would in the case
supposed revert to her kūptos, who would either
support her from it, or give her in marriage
again. But as against her husband or his
creditors, it was absolutely hers. The dowry,
as has been said, did not exist in Homer's time,
and was a gradual growth ; Plato disapproved
of it (Legg. vi. 774 A) as tending to produce
avarice; in early times it was small. The law
which Plutarch attributes to Solon (Plut. Solon,
c. 20) restricting the amount of dowry to three
garments and some household utensils (for
dowry is what Plutarch clearly means, though
he uses the word pepv) and not the more usual
Tpotē) is a highly probable one; and highly
probable also is it that it should have fallen
into desuetude. Attempts to legislate against
the unavoidable tendencies of society are a very
familiar feature of history; and there seems no
reason for depriving Plutarch's statement of all
its meaning by supposing the pepv) to mean
simply wedding presents. Even in later times
the dowry was not an absolute necessity (Plaut.
Trinummus, ii. 2, 97–102): though the want of
it might entail difficulty and discredit. -
It is again very notable that, in spite of the
formal betrothal and marriage, the husband was
no more küpuos over his own wife than before.
The father, or whoever had been the previous
protector, retained his office. Thus in Dem.
c. Spud. p. 1029, we find the father taking
away his daughter from the husband to whom
he had given her in marriage, and marrying her
to another husband. This would not have
been sanctioned by Roman law. Nay, even if
the father died, the husband did not become
Acúpios, unless he had been adopted by the
father: as we see from the case of the daughter
of Aristarchus (Isaeus, de Arist. her. § 27),
whose husband dared not claim the property
which was due to his wife, because the next
of kin threatened to take away his wife if he
raised difficulties. Isaeus (de Pyrrh.. hered. § 78)
tells us that many husbands had been deprived
of their wives in this way. If, however, the
father had left his daughter by will in marriage
to anyone, the husband so constituted became
scópios over his wife. In default of any special
provision either in this way or by the husband
being adopted into the house of his father-in-
law, the protectorship over the wife, after her
father's death, would belong to her brother, or
perhaps grandfather; and whoever was köptos,
had the entire disposal of the wife, just as if
she had been unmarried. (Cf. Dem. c. Eubul.
p. 1311, § 40.) Supposing, however, the husband
was köpios over his wife, he had then rights
as anomalous, to our thinking, as his want of
rights was in the other case; in his office of
kūptos he could give her in marriage to an-
other person just as if he had not been her
husband (Dem. pro Phorm. p. 953, § 28; Isaeus,
de Memecl. hered. §§ 7, 8). And, as a matter of
course, he could direct by his will that she
should be married to another person. In short,
a woman, whether maiden, wife, or widow, was
always under guardianship, always at the dis-
posal of another. Her own sons, if two years
past the age of manhood, would be her
guardians, supposing she were left a widow
without any other kūpuas. .
Those who regard the catalogue of wrongs
(if it is fair to say that the absence of rights
constitutes a wrong) suffered by women at
Athens, as recapitulated in the last two para-
graphs, will not think that the Athenians had
any reason for pluming themselves over the
Spartans as respects their treatment of the
weaker sex. The plaintive lament in the
Tereus of Sophocles, “We women are nothing :
happy indeed in our childhood, for then we are
thoughtless; but when we arrive at maiden-
hood, driven away from our homes, sold as
merchandise, compelled to marry and to say,
“All’s well’: ” and the more vigorous invective
of Medea against the oppression of her sex
(Eurip. Med. 230–266), doubtless had their
prototypes in some, at any rate, of the suffering
Athenian women. It is curious, however, to
find that Medea complains of the dowry as a
wrong. “We have to buy ourselves a husband,”
she says. With much more reason does she
complain of the terrible risk to which women
are subjected, without any choice when a
husband is forced upon them; of the tedium of
the life indoors, debarred from that general
society which the husband enjoyed; and still
more of the worst possible injury, if that
happened, when the husband left her and
sought the bed of another. The poets, like the
philosophers, had sympathies in which the
legislators and orators of Athens were wanting;
and Euripides (who was very unjustly, as far
as we can tell, termed a woman-hater) seems
even to have thought that a woman should not
marry a second time (Troad. 656–671), and
therefore of course that she should not be com-
pelled so to marry. If it cannot be inferred
from Alcestis, 328–331, that he disapproved of
a man marrying a second time, the lines are at
any rate remarkable.
The provision for heiresses marrying their
next of kin, mentioned above, was a single
example of a customary practice; to marry
within the family was common; whether it
was equaily salutary may be doubted. . It had
its points of convenience, of course. (Compare
the Hebrew law, Numbers xxvii. 1–11, and the
example of it in Ruth iv.) But there were
professional matchmakers called ºrpouvnoºrpióes
136 MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM
or irpopwmgºrpta (Xen. Mem. ii. 6, 36; Pollux,
iii. 31), who, however, did not stand in high
esteem (Plato, Theaet. p. 150 B).
The marriage ceremonial at Athens, among
the higher classes, was more elaborate than
with us. The consecration of all girls to Ar-
temis, when they were ten years old, at the
festival Brauronia, stood in intimate relation
with it. [BRAURONIA.] When the marriage
itself drew near, the sacrifice to the tutelar
gods of marriage (6eol yaufixto) took place.
This was performed by the father, and might
take place some days before the marriage (Eur.
Iph. in Aul. 718), or on the day itself (Achill.
Tat. ii. 12). As to who the tutelary deities
were, custom appears to have varied. Diodorus
Siculus (v. 73) names Zeus and Hera; but
Pollux names Hera, Artemis, and the Fates (iii.
38): Artemis is also mentioned in relation to
Boeotia and Locris in Plut. Aristid. 20; and the
Nymphs are mentioned in Plut. Amat. Narr. 1.
The sacrifice itself was called trporéAeta yd wov,
or Tpoydºeia, and it was regarded as a dedi-
cation of the bride to the deities named, some
locks of the bride's hair (&tapxal) being offered
as a symbol of the dedication (Pollux, l.c.). On
the wedding day itself, bride and bridegroom
bathed in water drawn from a particular foun-
tain of running water : at Athens this was the
fountain Callirrhoë, also called évvedicpovvos
(Thucyd. ii. 15). The water from this fountain
was carried either by a boy (Harpocration) or a
girl (Pollux, iii. 43); from which custom was
probably derived that other custom of placing
over the tombs of those who died unmarried
the image of a girl carrying water (Dem. c.
Leoch. pp. 1086, 1089). Sometimes the pitchel
of water alone was carved (Eustath. ad Îliad.
xxiii. 141). Late in the evening of the wedding
day, the bridegroom fetched his bride from her
parents’ house, on a car (Śwača) drawn by
horses, mules, or oxen; on either side of her
sat the bridegroom and his “best man” (trapd-
vvuqos or ºrdpoxos, Arist. Av. 1735). In front
of the car went the torch-bearing procession
(835es vuuqukaſ), the nuptial torch having
been lit by the mother of the bride (Eurip. Iph.
in Aul. 732) or of the bridegroom (Eurip. Med.
1027; Phoeniss. 344); bride and bridegroom
were crowned with chaplets, and clothed in
festal attire, as also were the attendants, the
bride being covered with a long veil ; congratu-
lations were poured out by relations, friends,
and well-wishers, and the cry "Twhv “ruévai’ & re-
sounded to the sweet playing of flutes (Aristoph.
Paz, 1316–1356; Hom. Il. xviii. 490, Odyss. vi.
27; Plut. Amat. 26; Harpocration). On their
reaching the bridegroom's house, a peculiar
custom prevailed in Boeotia: the axle of the
car was burnt, to symbolise the irreversible step
taken. Yet be it observed, that the bride-
groom who had been married before could not
bring his bride home in this exultant way; a
friend (vvuqaywyās) in that case brought the
bride to him from her house. At the entrance
to the bridegroom's house, sweetmeats (kara-
Xàguara) were poured upon the wedded pair
(Schol. ad Arist. Plut. 768): the doors of the
house were covered with garlands, as were those
of the bride's house. Then followed the
wedding-feast (90tvm ºyapuká), usually in the
house of the bridegroom, one of the most im-
the third day; and this may be correct :
purpose.
portant parts of the entire ceremonial; for the
guests were in fact witnesses to the marriage,
and their testimony was the final and single
proof that it had taken place, since documentary
evidence was not looked for or provided (Dem.
c. Onet. p. 869, § 20; Athen. v. p. 185 a). At
the wedding-feast women were allowed to be
present, though at different tables from the
men (Lucian, Conviv. 8; Athen. xiv. p. 644 a ;
Eurip. Iph. in Aul. 722). Sesame-cakes, sym-
bolical of a fertile marriage, formed a part of
the feast (Schol. ad Arist. Paz, 869). At the
conclusion of the feast, the bride was conducted
veiled into the bridal chamber; the bridegroom
closed the door; and a law of Solon enjoined
that the bride and bridegroom should eat a
quince together, to symbolise the sweetness
of their conversation (Plut. Solon. 20). The
epithalamium was then sung before the door of
the bridal chamber by a chorus of maidens,
and the song was accompanied with dancing
(Theocr. Idyll. xviii.). But the Scholiast on
this passage tells us that some epithalamia
were sung in the early morning to wake the
wedded pair, the two kinds being called kara-
icolpºntucó and 6tmyeprukö respectively. -
On the day after the marriage (according
to Harpocration) the bride for the first time
showed herself without a veil, and the gifts
which she on that day received from her rela-
tives were thence called āvakaxvirtàpia or
Öirthpia. Hesychius, however, says that these
presents were made not on the second but on
for
Pollux (iii. 39) mentions that the gifts made
on the day after the marriage were called &tat-
Ata, and that among them was a garment
(ātavXiarmpta) presented by the bride to the
bridegroom, who on the succeeding night did
not sleep with his bride, but in his father-in-
law's house, the bride being unveiled, and the
āvakaAvºrràpia presented the day after.
An offering to Aphrodite was made by the
wedded pair, either on the wedding-day (Plut.
Amator. 26) or on the day after (Aeschin. Ep.
10, p. 681). Another ceremony observed after
marriage was the sacrifice which the husband
offered up on the occasion of his bride being
registered among his own phrateres (Dem. c.
Eubul. pp. 1312, § 54, 1320, § 84; Isaeus, de
Pyrrh.. hered. § 45).
Marriages generally took place in the winter
(Arist. I'olit. vii. 16); and the month Ga-
melion (our January) derived its name from
the favour in which it was held for this
The fourth day of the month, ac-
cording to Hesiod (Op. 800), was the most
favourable day; and as in a lunar month this
would be the day on which the first crescent
of the new moon appeared, the interpretation
of Proclus seems correct, that the day when sum
and moon met in the same quarter of the
heavens was the day when man and woman
might best meet in wedlock. Pindar, however
(Isthm. vii. 44), and Euripides (Iph. in Aul.
717) prefer the full moon.
After marriage the wife lived with the other
female inmates of the house in the yuvaikovºrus,
or women's apartments: in a large house these
would be a separate building, connected by a
passage with the men's rooms; but in the little
house mentioned in Lysias (de caed. Erastosth.
MATRIMONIUM.
MATRIMONIUM 137
p. 92) the women's rooms were on the upper
floor, the men's rooms below: for the convenience
and safety of the wife, however, the two sets
were changed, and the husband lived upstairs.
The wife then had the superintendence of the
entire household : she had charge of the educa-
tion of the boys till they were put under a
master, of the girls till they were married; she
tended the sick, whether free or slave; the
kitchen, the furniture, the stores, came under
her ; and last, not least, the Taxdata épya (Xen.
Oecon. vii. 6), all that related to the spinning
and weaving of wool, and the making of clothes
—for it must be remembered that the clothes of
an ancient household were mostly made within
the house itself. If the establishment were a
large one, the wife would have a housekeeper
(rapita) to assist her. If the husband were alone,
the wife would dine with him, and familiar
jesting would pass between them (Lysias, l.c.),
or perhaps even serious conversation on the
doings of the Assembly (Dem. c. Neaera, p. 1382,
§ 142); but if the husband had other male
friends with him, it was thought indecorous for
the wife to appear.
It will be seen that the wife had no lack of
duties, but they were duties that would naturally
be felt to be monotonous; and it is curious to find
that religious exercises were then, as in later
times, one of the chief resources to which she
betook herself. Thus the husband in Menander’s
Misogynist (fragm. 3 and 4) complains:
én'ttpiflovoruv huàs oi 6eoi
p.d. Atara toûs yiuavras &ei Yap riva
&yetv čopriv čart’ &váykm
What amount of liberty had the wife? The
young maiden had practically none; 6xupotori
trap6evóat ppovpoſſivtal Kaxds, says Euripides of
them (Iph. in Aul. 738). But the wives were
on a somewhat different footing; and the ques-
tion divides itself into two parts: Whom might
they converse with ? and, Where might they
go? The clearest answer to the first of these
questions is supplied by Euripides, Iph. in Aul.
819–852. In that scene Clytemnestra meets
Achilles, having been informed that her daughter,
Iphigenia, was about to be married to that hero;
and though she had never met him before, treats
him familiarly on the ground of that supposed
connexion, and offers to greet him by clasping
his hand. Achilles, however, knowing nothing
of any such alliance (which was a fiction imposed
on Clytemnestra by Agamemnon), declares that
he is ashamed to converse with a woman, tries
to get away, and rejects her proffered hand. An
explanation then takes place, and Clytemnestra,
quite overcome, declares that now for her part
she is ashamed to look at him. This passage
proves clearly, that a woman might in the time
and country of Euripides hold familiar con-
versation with any near male relative, but not
with any other male person. A similar con-
clusion on the positive side appears to be
deducible from Dem. c. Spud. p. 1033, § 17,
where we find Spudias commissioning his wife
to represent him on the occasion of her father
making his will, when clearly other male re-
latives were present ; a commission which,
it may be remarked in passing, shows that
an Athenian woman might and probably
would be able to read and write, and was
sometimes by no means incapable in business
matters.
But how far had an Athenian matron freedom
of locomotion—how far might she go out of
doors ? This is by no means so simple a question
as the former. Nevertheless, as far as the latter
period of the Athenian commonwealth, and as
far as the city of Athens, are concerned, a very
clear and exact answer seems to be given by
Hypereides (ap. Stob. lxxiv. 33): “The woman
who goes out of her own house ought to be in
that time of life when the men who meet her
will ask, not, Whose wife is she 2 but, Whose
mother is she 2° We may fairly suppose them
that a woman of fifty (or perhaps one still
younger) might without censure walk about
Athens in the middle of the 4th century B.C.,
provided she were accompanied by an at-
tendant. This would apply to women in
the highest rank (though these, it is likely,
would not wish to leave their homes much); in
lower ranks there would be greater freedom,
and really poor women, as Aristotle expressly
tells us (Pol. iv. 15, vi. 8), were obliged to go
out to purchase necessaries. Thus, too, we
find citizen women selling in the market (e.g.
Aristoph. TheSmoph. 448), and in Dem. c. Eubul.
p. 1308, § 30, a law is referred to which made
it an offence to reproach them for so doing.
There is, however, some reason to think that
this law was annulled or forgotten afterwards;
for in [Dem.] c. Neaera, p. 1367, § 67, another
law is quoted which certainly casts a slur on
such occupation. On the whole, the passages
bearing on the question do not favour the idea
that Athenian wives acquired greater liberty as
time went on. Solon, it should be observed, laid
down a law that a woman must not go out at
night except in a vehicle and with a lantern in
front of her (Plut. Solon, 21), from which we
gather that a woman might go out at night
under these conditions, and might sometimes go
out in the day-time without complying with
these conditions. This gives a very different
idea of the liberty of women from that implied
in the well-known passage of the orator Lycurgus
(c. Leocrat. § 40), in which, after the defeat at
Chaeronea, the Athenian women are described
as cowering in a panic at their house-doors,
inquiring after the safety of those dear to them,
“being gazed upon in a manner unworthy of
themselves and of the city.” It is true, how-
ever, that the comparative smallness of Athens
in the time of Solon may have made it less
dangerous for a woman to be seen in the public
ways then. It may be inferred from some ex-
pressions in Xenophon's Oeconomicus, that women
enjoyed more liberty in the country than in the
town, as would indeed be expected. When in
Athens, they would leave their houses to join in
processions at the festivals, and also to witness
the tragedies at the theatres (see the evidence on
this point in the excursus on theatre-going in
Becker’s Charikles); on other occasions seldom,
except for causes of real necessity. And in a
similar way, for a man to intrude into the yuval-
Kavirus was a very unseemly act (Lysias, c.
Simon. § 6); nay, a friend of the family might
not enter the house in the absence of its
master, even for the sake of helping the family
against assailants (Dem. c. Euerg. p. 1157,
§ 60). Numerous other passages might be
138 MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM.
quoted bearing on this question, but these will
be sufficient. [See also GYNAECONOMI.] The
subjects of divorce and adultery are treated
under the articles DIVORTIUM, ADULTERIUM.
Athenian law did not concern itself, as far as
we know, about the marriage of the puéroucot
(resident aliens). Slaves, of course, were in-
capable of marriage; but we find the author of
the Oeconomicus, attributed to Aristotle (i. 5),
recommending that they should be allowed to
\
beget children, as they will thus be more faith-
ful to their masters. It is then to be inferred
that they would be allowed generally to retain
their children as their own.
Besides the works of Bachofen and McLennan,
referred to in an early part of this article, the
following works may be referred to on the sub-
ject treated of: — Müller's Dorians, for the
Spartan customs. Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii.
pp. 308 f. (the excursus on the Women contains
more general information on the subject than
any other modern work). Van den Es (de Jure
Familiarum apud Athenienses, 1864); the fullest
book on the law of the subject. For the philo-
sophy, Newman's Aristotle, vol. i. pp. 168–198
(Oxford, 1887). For the Homeric period, Lenz's
Geschichte der Weiber im heroischen Zeitalter,
may be consulted. Mahaffy (Social Life in
Greece, pp. 170–194) has some interesting re-
marks on the relation of the poets to the ques-
tion, especially as regards Euripides. [J. R. M.]
II. ROMAN. Marriage, an institution regu-
lated by law, but to a great extent beyond the
domain of law, was among the Romans a com-
plete union for life between a man and one
woman, an intercommunion of sacred and human
law (Dig. 23, 2, 1), which had for its main
object the procreation of children (liberum quae-
sundum gratia). To marry and beget children,
who could keep up the sacra familiaria, was a
religious duty of a Roman (Fustel de Coulanges,
La Cité Antique, pp. 41–54), and also a duty to
the commonwealth. [LEX JULIA ET PAPIA
POPPAEA..] .
On account of its religious and social import-
ance, marriage was attended with many rites
and observances, which were not necessary for
its legal formation. In the first part of this
article it is proposed to confine the reader's
attention for the most part to the legal aspect
of marriage as regards its formation and con-
sequences, and in the latter part to describe the
nature of marriage rites and observances.
The only marriage recognised in early Roman
law was that which was conformable to the Jus
Civile, and which was called Justae Nuptiae, in
later times also Justum Matrimonium. (Ulpian,
v. 1, 2.) To this marriage of Jus Civile the
ºnatrimonium juris gentium, or marriage accord-
ing to gentile law, came to be opposed (Gaius,
i. 87). The word matrimonium seems to have
been used originally to signify a marriage which
was not a civil marriage, the child of such mar-
riage following the condition of his mother
instead.of that of his father, as would have been
the case if he had been born from justae nuptiae.
A Roman civil marriage was either cum con-
ventione waxoris in manum viri, or it was sine in
manum conventione (Ulpian, xxvi. 7). The mar-
riage cum conventione in manum differed from
that sine conventione, in the effect which it had
on the condition of the wife.
By the marriage cum conventione, the wife
came into the power (manus) of her husband, or,
if he were a filiusfamilias, of his paterfamilias:
leaving her own familia, she passed into the
familia of her husband, and was to him in the
relation of a filiafamilias (Cic. Top. 3, 14; “filiae
loco est,” Gaius, ii. 159). In marriage sine con-
ventione the wife did not pass into the power of
her husband; she was, as it were, a stranger
(eartranea) in his household, her relation to her
own family remaining as before the marriage;
she did not share in the familiaria sacra of her
husband, and was no civil relation to her own
children.
A marriage cum conventione was a necessary
condition to make a woman a materfamilias in
the strict sense of the word. In the marriage
sine conventione the wife was merely uror; that
is, a wife and nothing more. Thus Cicero (l.c.)
says: “Uxor is a genus of which there are two
species (‘duae formae,” Quintil. x. 62): one is
materfamilias, ‘quae in manum convenit; ” the
other is uxor only.”
The term “materfamilias” would only be ap-
plicable to a woman “quae in manum convenit,”
when her husband was sui juris, not if he were
a filiusfamilias. Gellius (xviii. 6) also states
that the above was the old meaning of mater-
familias. Matrona was properly a wife not in
nanu, and equivalent to Cicero's tantummodo
wavor (Gellius, xviii. 6, 8). But these words are
not always used in their original and proper mean-
ings (cf. Voigt, XII. Tafeln, ii. § 158, n. 4). As
an ua or sine conventione was not a member of a
patriarchal family, but a stranger in her husband's
household, it seems probable that in the most
ancient Roman family law such a wife was not
recognised, and that manus was a necessary con-
sequence of marriage; from an early time, how-
ever, justae nuptiae could exist without manus
being attached to them, and this freer kind of
marriage being preferred by women and their
families gradually supplanted marriage with
nanus, and came into general use. In the time
of Gaius marital manus, which had long ceased
to be common, was almost obsolete, and soon
afterwards it altogether disappeared from the
law.
A Roman civil marriage may be viewed, first,
with reference to the capacity for entering into
it; secondly, with reference to the mode in
which it was contracted; thirdly, with reference
to its legal consequences.
The right of entering into a valid civil mar-
riage, waoris jure ducendae facultas (Ulp. Frag.
5, 3), is called the Jus Conubii. The Jus Conubii
belonged only to Roman citizens; the cases in
which it at any time existed between parties
not both Roman citizens, were exceptions to the
general rule. “Roman men citizens,” says
Ulpian (Fragm. 5, 4, 11), “have conubium with
Roman women citizens (Romanae cives), but
with Latinae and Peregrinae only in those cases
where it has been permitted. With slaves there
is no conubium.”
Originally there was no conubium between the
patricians and plebeians, and it is a question
whether previous to the Servian reforms ple-
beians could enter into justae nuptiae among
themselves, since they first became cives under
the Servian constitution (cf. Liv. iv. 2), and civitas
was a condition of justae nuptiae. But though
MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM 139
before this change patricians may not have re-
cognised plebeian marriage by purchase as being
on the same footing with their own marriage by
confarreation, marriage had long been established
by the plebeians, and had been a means of ac-
quiring patria potestas.
By the Lex Canuleia, conubium between the
patricians and plebeians was declared. A female
gentilis could not, as a rule, marry anyone out-
side her gens—ecnuptio gentis—by which the
number of gentiles would be diminished, unless
with the consent of the gens. (Mommsen, Röm.
Forsch. i. p. 10: see Muirhead, Roman Law,
iii. 26, n. 3.) ".
The division of the inhabitants of the Roman
empire into Cives, Latini, and Peregrini, which
existed in the time of the classical jurists,
though without any ethnological significance,
and the rule, which was subject to various
exceptions, that justae nuptiae could only be
contracted between cives, made the law of
status, as it is described by Gaius and Ulpian,
extremely complicated. We may see by a com-
parison of the first book of Gaius with Justinian's
Institutes how much the liberal extension of
civitas in the interval between these works sim-
plified the law.
The Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea placed certain
restrictions on marriage as to the parties be-
tween whom it could take place. [LEX JULIA ET
PAPIA PoppAEA ; INFAMIA.] Thus certain
marriages were prohibited on account of dis-
paragement, as marriages between a senator and
freed women (Dig. 23, 2, 31). The lex allowed
freeborn persons (ingenui) to marry freedwomen
(libertinae) (Dig. 23, 2, 23). Persons within
certain prohibited degrees of relationship could
not intermarry. A union of persons within the
prohibited degrees was an incestuous one. Re-
lations who had the jus osculi, or right of kiss
with one another, could not marry one another.
(Klenze, Das Familienricht der Cognaten und
Affinen nach Röm. u. verwandten Rechten, p. 16.
See Muirhead, Roman Law, iii. p. 26.)
In early times there could be no marriage
between cognates within the seventh degree,
but subsequently the prohibited circle was made
less wide. There could be no marriage between
ascendants and descendants, whether the rela-
tion was natural or by adoption; and a man
could not marry an adopted daughter or grand-
daughter, even after he had emancipated her.
Brothers and sisters, whether of the whole or
half blood, could not marry, but a man might
marry a sister by adoption after her emancipa-
tion, or after his own emancipation. It became
legal to marry a brother's daughter after
Claudius had set the example by marrying
Agrippina; but the rule was not carried further
than the example, and in the time of Gaius it
remained unlawful for a man to marry his sister's
daughter (Gaius, i. 62; Tac. Ann. xii. 5; Sueton.
Claud. 26). Constantine prohibited a marriage
between a man and his brother's daughter.
Marriages between first cousins were recognised,
but Ulpian (v. 6) says that at one time the
impediment to marriage between collaterals
reached the fourth degree—that is, first cousins
—but it had receded to the third.
The marriage of Domitius, afterwards the
Emperor Nero, with Octavia, the daughter of
Claudius, seems at first sight somewhat irre-
gular. Nero was adopted by Claudius by a Lex
Curiata (Tac. Ann. xii. 26), but he was already
his son-in-law; at least the fact of his being so
is mentioned before the adoption (Tac. Ann.
xii. 9). There seems to be no rule of law which
would prevent a man from adopting his son-in-
law; though if the adoption took place before
and existed at the time of marriage, the marriage
would be illegal, as stated by Gaius. There
was also no right of intermarriage between
persons within certain relations of affinity, as
between a man and his socrus, nurus, privigna,
and noverca. [AFFINITAs.]
When marriage was dissolved, the parties to
it might marry again, but public opinion made
it improper for a woman to marry again, a
second marriage being regarded as showing a
want of pudicitia. (Fest. 242, 31; Liv. x. 23,
5, 9; Val. Max. ii. 1, 3; Quint. Decl. 306.) A
woman was required by religious usage to wait
ten months, and subsequently a year, which was
her period of mourning, before she contracted a
second marriage; otherwise she incurred a reli-
gious penalty and also infamia. -
There were some absolute impediments to
marriage. Thus, as the procreation of children
was a main object of marriage, physical in-
capacity prevented a person from contracting a
valid marriage. Hence impuberes and persons
who had certain bodily imperfections, as eunuchs
and others, who from any cause could never
attain to puberty, could not marry. But the
law did not inquire whether persons were past
the age of begetting or bearing children: per-
sons of any age above puberty might marry,
though if they had reached a certain age they
did not by their marriage escape the disabilities
of the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea. (Ulp.
Fragm. xvi. 4.) Insanity was a bar to mar-
riage. - -
Betrothal (sponsalia) was the proper and
usual preliminary of marriage, though it was
not legally necessary. “Sponsalia,” according
to Florentinus (Dig. 23, 1, 1) “sunt mentio et
repromissio nuptiarum futurarum.” In spon-
salia a maiden was promised in solemn form to
a man as his bride. Such promise was not made
by the maiden herself, but by her paterfamilias,
or if she was not under patrias potestas by her
tutor, who were said spondere, the betrothed
becoming sponsa (Plaut. Aul. ii. 2, 79 f.; Poen.
v. 3, 38; Ter. And, i. 1, 72 f.; Liv. xxxviii. 57,
6: cf. Voigt, XII. Tafeln, ii. 682); the pro-
mise was accepted by the man, or by his pater-
familias if he were under potestas, who in so
doing were said despondere, according to the
strict sense of this word. (Donat. in Ter.
And. v. 6, 16; Serv. in Aen. x. 79: cf.
Voigt sup.) It is to be noticed that there
was no reciprocal promise on the part of the
man to the person who promised the bride, as
there seems to have been according to Latin
custom. Gellius has preserved (iv. 4) an ex-
tract from the work of Servius Sulpicius Rufus
de Dotibus, which defines the Latin as distin-
guished from the Roman custom on this subject.
(Compare Varro, L. L. vi. 70.) In that part of
Italy called Latium sponsalia, according to
Servius, was a contract by stipulationes and
sponsiones, the former on the part of the future
husband, the latter on the part of him who gave
the woman in marriage. The woman who was
l
140 MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM
promised in marriage was accordingly called
sponsa, which is equivalent to promissa ; the
man who engaged to marry was called sponsus.
The sponsalia then , was an agreement to
marry, made in such form as to give each party
a right of action in case of non-performance,
and the offending party was condemned in such
damages as to the judex seemed just. This
was the law (jus) of sponsalia, adds Servius, to
the time when the Lex Julia gave the civitas to
all Latium.
But according to Roman usage, corresponding
in this respect to Greek, the sponsalia consisted
simply in a unilateral promise on the side of
the woman, and did not create any legal obliga-
tion, neither party to the sponsalia having a
right of action in the event of a refusal to
marry. It was always possible for the person
who had entered into the sponsio on account of
the maiden to renounce it—repudium renuntiare,
renunţiare (Plaut. Aul. iv. 10, 53, 69; Ter.
Phorm. iv. 3, 72; Dig. 23, 1, 10). The re-
nunciation was generally made by means of a
nuntius (Brisson, de v. s. nunţius). If a man
made a gift to his betrothed with a view to
future marriage (propter nuptias donatio), and
he broke off the match, he lost the right of
recovering what he had given (Cod. 5, 3, 15).
If a person entered into double sponsalia at the
same time, he was liable to infamia. [INFAMIA.]
Persons might be betrothed who were below the
age of puberty, if they were not under seven
years of age. By a regulation of Augustus,
comprised in the Lex Julia et Papia, it was
declared that no sponsalia should be valid if the
marriage did not follow within two years, but
this rule was subject to various exceptions.
(Sueton. Aug. 34; Dio Cass. liv.16, and the
note of Reimarus; Gaius, Dig. 23, 1, 17.)
Voigt suggests the following as the form of
the sponsalia:-‘‘Spondesne Gaiam tuam filiam
(or, if she were pupilla), Gaii, Lucii filiam filio
meo, (or) mihi, uxorem dari?
“Dii bene vortant Spondeo.
“Dii bene vortant.”
Marriage carried into effect the object of be-
trothal. The essence of marriage was consent,
and the consent, says Ulpian, “both of those
who come together and of those in whose power
they are *; and “marriage is not effected by
sexual union, but by consent.” The consent of
the man and woman was necessary, and was com-
monly shown at the time of the marriage by
the acts of the parties, as by deatrarum junctio,
and in later times by the subsignatio tabularum,
but the subject members of a family were bound
to marry at the bidding (jussus) of their pater-
familias (Gell. ii. 7, 18), and without his consent
they could not marry. Thus a filiusfamilias
was given a wife by his paterfamilias (aliquam
filio waorem dare: cf. Ter. Phorm. v. 8, 32 f.; Liv.
xlii, 24, 3), and a bride was given in marriage
by her paterfamilias, or if not in patria potes-
tate she may possibly have been given away at
one time by her agnatic tutor, but in later
times persons sui juris, women as well as men,
married of their own accord. If a paterfamilias
refused his consent to the marriage of those
subject to him without proper ground, he might
be compelled to allow their marriage by order
of a magistrate.
The marriage cum conventione in manum
differed from that sine conventione, in that the
ordinary mode of entering into it was formal,
whereas marriage without manus only required
consent, however informally expressed.
A marriage cum conventione might be effected
by confarreatio, coemptio, or usus. Confarreatio
was a form of marriage peculiar to the patri-
cians, while coemptio seems to have been ori-
ginally confined to the plebeians; but when
conubium was extended to the plebeians, co-
emptio became a common form of intermarriage
between the two orders. Confarreatio or
farreum was a religious form of marriage,
which principally consisted in an offering, with
solemn words, of panis farreus to Jupiter
Farreus, in the presence of ten witnesses, the
Pontifex Maximus and Flamen Dialis taking
part in the ceremony. Its formalities are de-
scribed in the latter part of this article. (Gaius,
i. 112; Ulp. ix. 1.) The form seems to have
been in use among other Latin races.
Patrician women were unwilling to marry in
this way, because its effect was to give their
husbands manus over them, and hence this form
of marriage fell into disuse. It was necessary,
however, to maintain it to some extent, because
certain priestly offices, viz. those of flamines
majores and reges sacrorum, could only be held
by those who were born of parents who had
been married by this ceremony (confarreati
parentes), and the holders of these offices had
themselves to be married by confarreatio (Gaius,
i. 112). In order to induce persons to enter
into confarreate marriages, so that these
priestly offices might be filled up, a change in
the law was instituted by Augustus, and fully
carried out by Tiberius, to the effect that manus
should no longer be a consequence of con-
farreatio except quoad sacra. (Gaius, i. 136; see
note in Muirhead’s ed. Tac. Ann. iv. 16; Suet.
Aug. 31.) Gaius informs us that this form of
marriage was in use in his time, as required for
the above religious offices.
Coemptio was a form of mancipation (manci-
pium) or conveyance by fictitious sale; and was
probably a survival of the early form of
marriage by sale or purchase (McLennan, Primi-
tive Marriage; Rossbach, Ehe, p. 198). The
woman was mancipated in marriage to the man
by her paterfamilias, or, if she were a filia-
familias, possibly by her tutor. According to
some ancient authorities, there was not only a
mancipation of the woman to the man in a
coemptio, but also a mancipation of the man to
the woman (Servius in Aen. iv. 103, in Georg. i.
31 ; Boethius, in Cic. Top. ii. 3, 14; Isid. Or. v.
24, 26: cf. Muirhead, Roman Law, Appendix B);
and accordingly several modern writers of
repute maintain that there must have been
such a double mancipation. It is objected to
this view of the nature of coemptio, that it
supposes a person could mancipate himself to
another, whereas it is clear from the nature of
mancipium, and especially from the description
given of it by Gaius, that besides the object of
sale a vendor (coemptionator) and a purchaser
were necessary as parties to the conveyance.
Gaius in i. 113 says, “emit is mulierem, cujus
in manum convenit,” but there is no direct legal
authority in support of the view that there was
a purchase of the man, though Boethius cites
Ulpian as having asserted it. It is also to be
MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM 141
noticed that the authorities for a double manci-
pation wrote long after coemptio had become
obsolete. The coemptio seems to have comprised,
besides the mancipation, a reciprocal form of
question and answer, in which the consent of
the parties to the marriage was expressed.
(Boeth. in Cic. Top. 3, 14; Serv. in Aen. iv.
214; Isid. Or. v. 24, 26; cf. Voigt, XII. Tafeln,
§ 159, n. 24.) The coemptio was the only sur-
viving way of acquiring manus over a wife
when Gaius wrote ; but it had probably become
obsolete in practice. Coemptio was either
matrimonii causa or fiduciae causa. This latter
kind of coemptio, which was the mancipation of
a woman to a man not her husband, is con-
sidered under TESTAMENTUM and TUTELA.
Manus could also be acquired according to the
law of the Twelve Tables by usus. If a woman
lived with a man continuously for a whole year
as his wife, she came in manum viri by virtue of
this matrimonial cohabitation, just as ownership
of a movable thing was acquired by a year's
possession [USUCAPIO). The law of the Twelve
Tables provided that a woman should not come
into the manus of her husband in this manner,
if she absented herself from him annually for
three nights (trinoctivim), and so interrupted the
period of usus (Gellius, iii. 2; Gaius, i. 111).
Married women generally availed themselves of
this means of escaping manus, and after a time
wsus fell into desuetude (Gaius, i. 111). It was
obsolete when Gaius wrote.
It is probable that in the time of Cicero mar-
riage without the manus had become the usual
marriage of Roman law. No forms were requi-
site in marriage: the consent of two persons
eapable of marrying to live together matrimonii
causa, i.e. as husband and wife, being alone suffi-
cient to constitute marriage, cohabitation was
not necessary to complete it, but the best evi-
dence of marriage was cohabitation matrimonii
causa. The fact that the parties had cohabited
with affectio maritalis, or as husband and wife,
and not with the intention of living in concu-
binatus, which was a union recognised to some
extent by the law, might be proved by various
kinds of evidence, e.g. by production of the
dotal instruments, commonly executed at the
time of marriage [DOS]. But though consent
was the only condition required for marriage,
some act of personal union between the parties
was necessary for the expression of such con-
sent, or, in other words, marriage could not be
entered into simply by letter or by means of a
messenger (nuntius).
The bringing of the bride (uzorem ducere,
ºyvvažica &yeuv) from her father's house to her
husband's house (in domum deductio) was cus-
tomary among the Romans, as among the Greeks
and others: if this was done, it was sufficient
to constitute marriage, although the bride-
groom might be absent. Thus, according to
Pomponius in Dig. 23, 2, 5, a woman might
marry a man, who was absent, by letter or
through a messenger, if she was brought to his
house (in domum ejus deduceretur), but a man
could not marry an absent woman in a corre-
sponding way, because it was not required by
custom to bring the man to the house of the
woman—“ deductione enim opus esse in mariti,
non in uxoris domum, quasi in domicilium matri-
monii.” A marriage required consent for its
continuance as well as for its formation, and so
might be put an end to at any time by the
renunciation (repudium) of either party. [DI-
voRTIUM.]
As regards the consequences of marriage,
the position of a wife married cum conventione
differed materially from that of one married
sine conventione. In the first kind of marriage,
as already observed, the wife ceased to belong to
her family [CAPUT, Vol. I. p. 360 b, and
became a subject member of her husband's
family, being in the position of a daughter to
her husband; or if her husband was in the
power of his father, she became to her husband’s
father in the relation of a granddaughter. All
her property passed to her husband or to his
father by a universal succession (Gaius, ii. 96,
98); and whatever she acquired during the
marriage, she acquired for the person into
whose manus she had come. The succession did
not carry with it any liability for the ante-
nuptial debts of the wife, and the wife herself
could not be sued on them, according to civil
law, but the praetor gave the creditors rights
of action against her, and ordered execution
against the property acquired by the succession,
putting the creditors into possession of it
(Gaius, iii. 84; iv. 38, 80).
Manus, though a consequence of certain
modes of marriage, belonged to its acquirer as
paterfamilias and not as husband. But though
the conceptions of manus and of marriage are
distinct, manus could not, it seems, be put an
end to during marriage by emancipation. A
husband might, however, put an end to his
manus by a fiduciary coemption of his wife to
some third person, in which case their marriage
would continue as if it had been entered into
sine conventione. If a woman was married cum
conventione to a filiusfamilias, and he was
emancipated or given in adoption, she would
remain subject to the manus of his father as
before, and would not on the death of the latter
come into the manus of her husband, since he
would belong to a different familia. A woman
married by confarreatio could only be divorced
by diffarreatio, and this put an end to manus as
well as to marriage. A woman married by
coemptio might be divorced by simple renuncia-
tion, but the manus over her could only be put
an end to by a remancipation, which required
the same formalities as the original coemption.
Thus manus might continue after marriage had
come to an end. In the time of Gaius a woman
was entitled to a remancipation and manumission
if there had been a renunciation of the marriage
(Gaius, i. 137). When marriage was without
imanus, as it came to be in all cases, a married
woman enjoyed a remarkable degree of inde-
pendence in respect of her husband. The
woman remained a member of her own family,
her legal status continuing as it was before ; if
she was not in the power of her father, she was
capable of acquiring and holding property, and
of bringing actions as if she were a single
woman ; she had for all purposes a legal
personal existence independently of her husband,
and consequently her property was distinct
from his; between husband and wife there was
no community of property in Roman law. The
husband acquired no right by marriage to the
property of his wife: the dos which his wife
142 MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM
usually brought to him he acquired not by act
of law, but under the dotal instrument, and
during the marriage he was sole owner of the
dos. Under the edict of the praetor and
imperial legislation husbands and wives had
certain rights of inheritance to each other's
property. The relations of husband and wife
with respect to property belong to the heads of
Dos, DONATIO PROPTER NUPTIAS, DONATIO
INTER WIRUM ET UxOREM, HEREs.
A husband was bound to provide a mainte-
nance for his wife. The husband might inflict
slight chastisement on the wife for violating the
respect (reverentia) which she owed him. Each
party to a marriage had a right to the society
of the other while the marriage continued. For
the liabilities of either of the parties to the
punishments affixed to the violation of the
marriage union, see ADULTERIUM and DIVOR-
TIUM. Justae nuptiae had an important effect
on the position of the children of the marriage,
since only those who were born from such
marriage were cives, and subject to the patria
potestas. [CIVITAs; PATRIA POTESTAs.] At
Rome, the justae nuptiae was originally the only
marriage. But under the influence of the Jus
Gentium, a cohabitation between Peregrini, or
between Latini, or between Peregrini and
Latini and Romani, which in its essentials was
a marriage, a consortium omnis vitae with the
affectio maritalis, was recognised as such ; and,
though such marriage had not all the effects of
justae nuptiae, it had its general effect in this,
that the children of such marriage had a father,
and so were legitimate. The wife of such a
marriage could bring an action for the recovery
of her dos (Cic. Top. 4, 20; Muirhead, Roman
Law, § 42); and she was liable on account of
adultery. In the system of Justinian, the dis-
tinction between a civil and gentile marriage
ceased to have any importance, on account of
the division of free persons into Cives, Latini,
and Peregrini having been abolished [CIVITAS].
(Dig. 23, 1, de Sponsalibus; 23, 2, de Ritu
Nuptiarum ;-Gaius, i. 56–65; Inst. Just. 1, 10,
de Nuptiis; Cod. 5, 4 ; Fr. Hotman, de Ritu
Nupt. et Jure Matrimon. i. 490 f.; A. Rossbach,
Untersuch. iiber die rômische Ehe ; O. Karlowa,
Die Formen der röm. Ehe und Manus; E. Hölder,
Die rôm. Ehe ; Voigt, XII. Tafeln, ii. 321 ff.,
680 ft.) [E. A. W.]
It remains to describe the actual ceremonies
of Roman marriage: and it must be premised
(1) that there was some difference according to
the precise, form of marriage adopted, though
this distinction gradually disappeared (see
above); (2) that, as was said above, the greater
part of marriage formality was voluntary, and
that then, as in our own day, there might be
weddings of a far simpler character. When
therefore the complete ceremony of the most
elaborate kind is described, it must be under-
stood that a great deal of it was often omitted,
and the marriage rites narrowed to little
Nºyond the deductio in domum. In the choice
"the wedding-day superstition played a large
part. May (as by many even now) and the first
half of June were unlucky for marriages (Ov.
Fast. v. 487; vi. 225). The reason was that
the month of May took its general character
from the festivals of the Lemuria [LEMURIA],
and also from the Argean offering: in the early
part of June came dies religiosi connected with
the worship of Vesta. Besides these periods, it
was necessary to avoid the dies parentales, Feb.
13–21 (Ov. Fast. ii. 555); the first half of
March (Ov. Fast. iii. 393); the three days of
the opening of the lower world (mundus patet),
viz. Aug. 24, Oct. 5, Nov. 8; and also the days
of Kalends, Ides, and Nones.
At the sponsalia (see above), besides the formal
words of the parent or guardian, “Spondesne 2
spondeo” (Plaut. Aul. ii. 2, 78), the bridegroom
gave the bride a present, as an earnest or pledge
(arra, pignus, Capitol. Maxim. jun. i. 3 Juv. vi.
27), which was often a ring (Plin. H. W. xxxiii.
§ 12; Tertull. Apol. 6), placed on the fourthfinger
of the left hand (our “ring finger’’), which
Gellius (x. 10) states to be connected by a nerve
with the heart.
On the day before the marriage the bride put
aside her toga praetexta (Propert. v. 11, 33),
which, with other belongings of childhood, was
laid before the Lares (Varro, ap. Non. p. 538),
and put on the tunica recta, or regilla (Fest.
p. 286), which was woven in one piece in the
old-fashioned way at the upright loom [TELA].
(See also Blümner, Technologie, i. p. 122.) The
bride wore this dress also at the marriage, and
a flame-coloured veil (flammeum, Lucan. ii. 361 ;
Plin. H. N. xxi. § 46), with which she was said
nubere caput. The dress was fastened by a
woollen girdle (cingulum) in the nodus Herculeus,
as to the significance of which there is some
difference of opinion. It has been explained by
some as intended to secure a fruitful marriage,
because Hercules had many children (Fest. Ep.
p. 63): Marquardt (Privatleben, p. 44) and Göll
take it to be an amulet against the evil eye
(fascinum). But may we not be nearer the
truth in taking it to be the symbol of a stable
marriage, and perhaps the original of the “true
lovers’ knot ”? Hercules (in his own name
the god of the enclosed homestead) was un-
doubtedly identified with the Sabine deity
Semo Sancus (= Dius Fidius), the protector of
matrons in their married life, as well as the
deity of good faith and stable treaties (see
Preller, Röm. Myth. pp. 655 ft.). Pliny, on
Vario's authority, * us (H. W. viii. º
that the spindle and distaff of Tanaquil (or Gaia
Caecilia), who was regarded as the ideal of a
Roman wife, were kept in the temple of Semo
Sancus, and the bridal dress (tunica recta) is in
the same passage traced back to her. From
these considerations we may be justified in
taking the “Herculean knot ” to have been so
called because of an ancient belief that Hercules
(or Semo) was the guardian of the married life.
The hair was arranged in six locks (sex crines)
parted by the point of a spear (hasta caelibaris),
and held in place by vittae or bands (Fest. p. 62;
Ov. Fast. ii. 558). Hence the words crines and
vitta are used by poets as a synonym for
marriage. (Plaut. Mostell. i. 3, 69; Mil. Glor.
iii. 1, 195; Ov. Trist. ii. 252; Propert. v. 3, 15.)
The custom of parting it with a spear is perhaps
a relic of the old marriage by capture, and may
convey the idea of the word 6optAmirros. The
bride had also a wreath of flowers and sacred
herbs (verbenae) gathered by herself, and the
bridegroom wore a similar wreath (Plut. Pomp.
55). As an account of the dressing of the bride,
the passage in Claudian, WI. Cons. Hon. 523–
1MATRIMONIUM
MATRIMONIUM 143
528, is worth reading, as well as for its own
merit.
In the house of the bride, which was decked
with garlands (Juv. vi. 227; Stat. Silv. i. 2,
230), were assembled the relations, friends, and
clients, as an officium (Juv. ii. 132). Then the
omens were taken and announced by the auspices
(Cic. pro Cluent. 4, 14; Juv. x. 336), with the
sacrifice of a sheep (cf. Verg. Aen. iv. 56). It
had always been the custom to begin the sacred
ceremony of confarreatio by consulting the omens,
and the practice probably was as a rule extended
to all marriages (Cic. de Div. i. 16, 28 ; Plaut.
Cas. Prol. 85 ; Plin. H. N. x. $ 21). Valerius
Maximus (ii. 1, 1) says that in his time the
auspices formed in name part of the attendance,
though no auspicia for marriage were taken any
longer. After these preliminaries, the omens
being favourable, the marriage ceremonies began.
They were in four main parts: (1) the contract;
(2) the giving away of the bride, with whatever
sacred rites were used ; (3) the conducting
(deductio) to her husband’s house (the only in-
variable part); (4) her reception there. First
the marriage tablets (tabulae nuptiales or dotales)
were signed before witnesses (signatores), though
the marriage was valid without this formality
(see above ; and Quintil. v. 11, 32). When the
form of marriage called coemptio was adopted
(when either or both were plebeians), the
formalities of an imaginary sale were gone
through before not less than five witnesses,
and a libripens (who held the scales at a sale):
questions and answers as to the willingness on
both sides followed, and with that ended this
distinctive part of the nuptiae per coemptionem ;
the other ceremonies followed which were usual
in all marriages. On the legal significance and
origin of the marriage by coemptio and its
gradual disuse, see above. After the coemptio,
or, where that was not used, after the signing of
the tabulae nuptiales, a married woman (who
must have been married only once, Serv. ad Aen.
iv. 166) acting as pronuba led the bride up to
the bridegroom and joined their right hands.
It seems probable that there was always some
formal expression of willingness to marry; in the
old patrician rite of confarreatio the set form of
response from the bride was “quando tu Gaius,
ego Gaia,” which form of words was used also in
the coemptio (Cic. pro Muren. 12, 27). When
the rite of confarreatio was followed, the blood-
less offering was made: a cake of spelt (farreum
libum) was offered by the Pontifex Maximus
and the Flamen Dialis to Jupiter: ten wit-
nesses were present (Gaius, i. 109–112; Serv.
ad Georg. i. 31). Marquardt thinks that this
form of marriage was originally performed not
in the house of the bride's father, but in the
sacellum of the Curia, and that the ten wit-
messes originally represented the ten gentes of
the Curia. This is a probable explanation of the
number ten, but as regards the place we lack
evidence that the marriage was ever anywhere
but in the bride's home. There is no mention
of any passing from the house before the deductio
to her new home. With the offering to Jupiter,
a prayer was recited by the Flamen, to Juno as
the goddess of marriage, and the deities of the
country and its fruits, Tellus, Picumnus, and
Pilumnus (cf. Verg. Aen. iv. 166, and Serv.
ad loc.; Non. p. 528). During this ceremony
the bride and bridegroom sat together upon two
seats which were placed side by side and covered
with the skin of the sheep sacrificed before for
the auspices (Serv. ad Aen. iv. 374): they
Sat to the left of the altar in the Atrium and
looked towards it : meanwhile a camillus, i.e. an
attendant boy who was patrimus et matrimus
[CAMILLUS], held (perhaps) all that was re-
quired by the priest for the offering in a
covered basket called cumerus (Warr. L. L. vii.
31 ; Fest. Ep. p. 63). The latter authority has
rather complicated the question by saying that
the cumerus contained “nubentis utensilia,” and
what that means it is impossible to say: that
the basket held materials for spinning, as Becker
thinks, seems improbable. We may leave the
matter with Varro, who says that he does not
know what the contents were. In Ovid, Fast.
ii. 650, the boy in an ordinary sacrifice holds a
canistra with fruges for the mola salsa [CA-
MILLUS). The legal aspect of the confarreatio
and its history is given in the first part of this
article. Sir John Lubbock suggests that the
wedding-cake cut by the bride is a survival of
the farreum in this rite; but the original for
that will be found, if anywhere in the Roman
matrimonium, in the mustaceum. The rite of
confarreatio suggests rather the sacramental
view of marriage.
In all that follows, marriages in general
of all forms are described. The prayer where
there was no confarreatio (and therefore no
Flamen Dialis) was pronounced by the auspex,
and, according to Plutarch (Q. R. 2), was
addressed to five deities, Jupiter, Juno, Venus,
Suadela, and Diana. It would seem that, some-
times at least, a victim was here offered (besides
that offered for the auspicia); for Varro (R. R.
ii. 4, 9) speaks of a pig offered by the newly
married pair, and Tac. Ann. xi. 27 seems to
point the same way (cf. Sen. Oct. 700). There
was next a formal congratulation from the
wedding-guests in the word “feliciter’ (which,
if there was no sacred rite, came directly after
the contract ; so Juv. ii. 119, “Signatae tabulae,
dictum feliciter”). Then (as in Juv. l.c.) came
the cena nuptialis, which was certainly, as a
rule, given by the bride's father, and therefore
before the procession (Catull. 62, 3; Dio Cass.
xlviii. 44; Capitol. Ant. Pius, 10; and, by impli-
cation, Plaut. Aul. ii. 4, 15). But, as in modern
weddings, the place of the wedding-feast might
be altered from considerations of space, economy,
&c., and it seems sometimes to have been in the
bridegroom’s house (Cic. ad Q. Fr. ii. 3, 7; Juv.
vi. 200). The wedding-cake (mustaceum), which
was made of meal steeped in must and placed
on bay-leaves (Plin. xv. § 127), was cut up and
distributed to the guests (Juv. l. c.). After-
wards came the procession (deductio), the
invariable part of the matrimonium (see above,
page 141). This took place usually at dusk,
whence arose the custom of having torches
(Catull. 62, 1; Serv. ad Ecl. 8, 29). The bride
was taken with simulated force from her mother’s
arms (Fest. p. 289; Catull. 61, 3; Macrob. i
15, 21): clearly a survival of the marriage by
capture; or, as the Romans themselves put it,
a reminiscence of the Sabine marriage (cf.
Lubbock, Origin of Civilization, pp. 82 f ; and,
for the similar Greek usage, supr. p. 132).
Flute-players and torch-bearers went in front
144 MATRIMONIUM
MAUSOLEUM
(Ter. Adelph. v. 7, 5; Fest. p. 245). The bride
was conducted by three boys patrimi et matrimi,
two leading her by the hand, the third carrying
a torch of whitethorn for luck (Plin. H. N. xvi.
§ 75; cf. Ov. Fast. vi. 129). In the procession,
besides the general crowd, there came also the
camillus with his cumerus; and the bride's
spindle and distaff were carried after her (Plin.
A. N. viii. § 194). Plutarch (Q. R. 31) makes
her carry them herself. Fescennine songs were
} sung during the procession (Catull. 61, 126),
with interjections of Talassé (Mart. xii. 42;
Catull. 61, 134, &c.). As to this deity of the
marriage day, reference may be made to Mar-
quardt, Privatl. p. 54; Preller, Röm, Myth.
p. 584 ft. He appears as Talasius, Talasio,
Talassus, Thalassius, Thalassio. Livy (i. 9) gives
us as bearing that name a companion of Romulus
prominent in the rape of the Sabines, and
derives the cry Talasse from him : but Talus
(Fest. p. 359) is an old Sabine name, and
Talassius may have been a Sabine deity of
marriage: Varro connects him with td.Xapos, a
work-basket: 6axáororios as equivalent to Consus
is suggested, which at first sight has something
plausible about it ; but it seems doubtful if
Consus had really any connexion with Neptune
or the sea, and moreover it is unlikely that the
word should be borrowed from Greek. On the
whole a Sabine origin is most probable. The
part of the bridegroom in the procession was to
scatter nuts for the boys in the crowd (Verg.
Eel. 8, 30; Catull. 61, 131). Though Catullus
says that it shows the putting away of child-
hood, it is much more likely that the nuts
symbolised fruitfulness of marriage and plenty
(cf. Plin. W. H. xv. § 86). The custom, which
may be compared with the Greek ſcataxiopiata
(supra, p. 136 a), has its representative in the
throwing of rice at the present day. When the
bridal train reached the bridegroom's house,
the bride bound the doorposts with wool, pro-
bably as dedicating her work to it; and anointed
them with oil or fat to signify health and
plenty (Pliny, xxviii. § 148, says wolf's fat,
which in the Roman nation has a totem appear-
ance). All these actions were, so to speak,
personified in a Dea Iterduca, Domiduca, and
Unxia (Martian. 2, 149). The bride was lifted
over the threshold (Plaut. Cas. iv. 4, 1: Catull.
61, 166; Lucan. ii. 359 f.), which, according to
some, symbolises the marriage by capture:
others (as Preller) suppose the object to be the
prevention of the bad omen which would be
caused by her stumbling on it. Sir John
Lubbock (op. cit. p. 97) adopts the former view,
and finds a similar custom among such widely
divided races, as the American Indians, the
Chinese, and the Abyssinians. At the entrance
\ she repeated the formula “ubi tu Gaius, ego
Gaia; ” and the husband met her bearing fire
and water, to signify that he admitted her to a
share in the family hearth and the family lustral
rites (Varro, ap. Serv. ad Aen. iv. 104; Dionys.
ii. 30): the bride on her part brought three
coins; one she gave as symbol of the dos to her
husband, another to the Lares of the house, a
third was dropped in the neighbouring street as
an offering for the Lares compitales. The torch
of whitethorn seems to have been scrambled for
by the guests as a lucky possession (Serv, ad
Ecl. viii. 29), and the ceremonies were over.
The lectis genialis had been prepared by the
pronuba in the atrium [LECTUS, p. 19 a.] On
the following day the second wedding-feast
called repotia was given to the friends and
relations in the new home (Hor. Sat. ii. 2, 60 ;
Gell. ii. 24, 14, where it is said that Augustus
tried to limit the expense), and the bride as a
matrona offered at the family shrine (Macrob. i.
15, 22). See further Marquardt, Privatleben, pp.
42–57; Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. pp. 25–49; Preller,
l. c.; Rossbach, Röm. Hochzeits- u. Ehedenk.,
Leip. 1871. - [G. E. M.]
MATRONA'LIA, also called MATRO-
NA'LES FERIAE, a festival celebrated by
the Roman matrons on the 1st of March, ori-
ginally the beginning of the year, in honour of
Juno Lucina. It represented the purity of old
Roman life and the sanctity of the marriage tie :
hence it is celebrated only by married women
and maidens, and by a law of Numa, “pellex
aram Junonis ne tangito ” (Gell. iv. 3). It
commemorated the dedication of the temple to
Juno Lucina on the Esquiline, B.C. 375, soon
after the Gallic occupation (Plin. H. W. xvi.
§ 236). It kept in memory, too, the first Roman
marriages with the Sabine women and the
peace which they brought about (Ov. Fast. iii.
229). An offering was made in the houses of
married people with prayers that the married
life might prosper, in which the caelebs could
have no part (Hor. Od. iii. 8, 1). At this festi-
val wives received presents from their husbands
(Suet. Vesp. 19; cf. Plaut. Mil. Glor. iii. 1, 97),
and they gave a feast to female slaves, as their
husbands did to male slaves on the Saturnalia
(Macrob. i. 12, 7). Hence it is called the
Saturnalia of women (Mart. v. 84), and femineae
kalendae (Juv. 3, 53). Girls also received, at
least in later times, presents from their lovers
(Tibull. iii. 1, 1 ; Mart. l. c.), which is perhaps
the reason why Martial (ix. 90, 13) speaks of the
day as though it were sacred to Venus. (Compare
Marquardt, Staatsver waltung, iii. p. 571; Preller,
Röm. Myth. p. 244.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MAUSOLE'UM. The tomb of Mausolus
or Maussolus, ruler of Caria under the Persian
king, is usually known to us as the Mausoleum,
and this name was in later times applied to
other tombs remarkable for greatness of scale,
beauty of design, or exceeding sumptuousness.
Greek writers sometimes call Mausolus prince
or dynast of Caria, but he was in reality a
satrap under the King of Persia, and ruled in
Caria from B.C. 377 to B.C. 353, succeeding his
father Hecatomnus in a dominion which under
the feeble rule of the Great King became here-
ditary in his family, till the victories of
Alexander put an end to the dynasty. The seat
of government of these princes had up to the
time of Mausolus been at Mylasa, in the
interior of Caria, but was transferred by him to
Halicarnassus (now Budrum), on the coast. This
city, the birthplace of Herodotus, was greatly
enlarged and embellished by Mausolus, who re-
built it on a plan the symmetry and beauty of
which is described by Vitruvius. The successor
of Mausolus in his dominions was his sister and
consort, Artemisia, who during her short
reign (B.C. 353–351) erected the magnificent
tomb which commemorated for all time the
fame of her husband and her own sorrow. For
the construction and decoration of this tomb
$
MAUSOLEUM
MAUSOLEUM 145
the most renowned architects and sculptors of
her time were employed by Artemisia. The
architects, as we learn from Vitruvius, were
Satyrus and Pythius; the sculptures which
adorned the sides of the monument were the
work of four artists of the later Athenian
School—Scopas, Leochares, Bryaxis, and Timo-
theus. The sculptor of the chariot group which
crowned the pyramid of the Mausoleum is called
Pythis by Pliny, but this name is probably a
mistake for Pythius, one of the two architects
mentioned by Vitruvius. The sculpture and
architecture were executed in Parian marble of
the finest quality, and the exceeding costliness
of the material employed and the perfection of
the execution contributed not a little to the
world - wide fame of the monument. (Paus.
viii. 16, 4 ; Lucian, Infer. Dialog. xxiv.;
Witruv. ii. 8.)
In searching for the site of the Mausoleum,
our first guide is the following well-known
passage in Vitruvius (ii. 8): “Mausolus per-
ceiving that Halicarnassus was a place naturally
fortified, favourable for trade and with a con-
venient harbour, made it the seat of his govern-
ment. As the form of the site was curved, like
that of a theatre, on the shore near the port
was placed the forum. Along the curve, about
half-way up its height, was made a broad street,
—as it were, a praecinctio. In the centre of this
street stood the Mausoleum, constructed with
such wonderful works, that it is considered one
of the seven wonders of the world.” Vitruvius
goes on to notice the temple of Mars in the
centre of the fortified heights above, and the
temple of Venus and Mercury on the extremity
of the right-hand curve, and on the left the
palace of Mausolus himself.
On turning to the plan (Plate 1 of Newton’s
History of Discoveries), it will be seen that the
shore of the harbour at Budrum bends round in a
curve, terminating in two horns, on one of which,
the ancient Salmacis, stands the Turkish arsenal,
on the other the Castle of St. Peter. On the
site of this castle the foundations of an ancient
citadel may still be traced. On examining the
ground overlooking the harbour, many frag-
ments of shafts of columns, volutes, and other
ornaments of an Ionic edifice in white marble,
rivalling in beauty and finish the finest examples
of Athenian architecture, were remarked by
Professor T. L. Donaldson many years ago; and
in a memoir on the Mausoleum (Classical
Museum, v. pp. 170–201) Mr. (now Sir C. T.)
Newton stated that these fragments were prob-
ably those of the Mausoleum lying in situ, as
the position of this spot corresponded with the
description in Vitruvius already mentioned. In
1856 an expedition to Budrum was dispatched
from England under the auspices of the British
Government, the direction of which was en-
trusted to Sir C. T. Newton, who has embodied
the results in his History of Discoveries at
Budrum, Cnidus, and Branchidae.
The exploration of the site already referred to
presented peculiar difficulties, because it was
encumbered with Turkish houses and gardens,
the owners of which had to be separately dealt
with before possession of the ground could be
obtained. Fragments of the architecture and
sculpture found, some in the soil, others in the
rubble walls of the houses and gardens, soon
WOL. II.
enabled the explorers to identify the ground as
the site of the Mausoleum, though of the ancient
structure not a single stone remained above
ground in its original position. The whole of
the edifice had been removed except a few
courses of the lowest foundations: these were
laid in a rectangular cutting sunk in the native
rock, and varying in depth from 15 feet on the
west to 4 feet on the east. (Newton, Hist. Disc.
pll. ii.-iv.) In this sunken area and in the soil
above- and around it were found drums and
capitals of columns, pieces of cornice and archi-
trave, stones from lacunaria, and steps of a
pyramid. The sculpture comprised fragments
of a colossal chariot group, of an equestrian
group, of statues of colossal or heroic dimen-
sions, and of many lions and other animals;
there were four pieces of a frieze suitable in
dimensions for the Ionic order, and many frag-
ments of at least two other friezes. (See
Newton, Guide to Mausoleum Room in British
Museum.) All the remains of sculpture and
the more important of the architectural marbles
were sent to the British Museum in 1858–9, and
after their arrival in England were carefully
examined and arranged, with a view to the resto-
ration of the original design. Many restorations
had been attempted before the discovery of the
remains in situ ; but as the only data for these
were the scanty notices in Pliny and other
ancient authors, they may be put aside now.
Since the arrival of the marbles in the British
Museum three restorations have been published:
that by the late Mr. R. P. Pullan, the architect
sent to Budrum to assist Sir C. T. Newton in
the expedition (see History of Discoveries); that
by the late Mr. James Fergusson, and a more
recent one by Mr. Petersen (Das Mausoleum,
Hamburg, 1867. See also the memoir on
Scopas by Urlichs).
What we know of the original design of the
Mausoleum is derived in the first instance from
certain scanty notices in Pliny, Vitruvius, and
other ancient authors. With these have to be
combined the remains discovered in situ. Ac-
cording to a much-discussed statement in Pliny,
H. N. xxxvi. § 30, the tomb itself measured
63 feet from north to south, being shorter on
the fronts; its entire circuit was 411 feet, or,
according to the Codex Bambergensis, 440; its
height 25 cubits, equal to 37% feet. Round it
were 36 columns. This peristyle was called the
Pteron. Above this Pteron a pyramid equalled
the lower part, contracting by 24 steps to an
apex like that of a meta. On the summit was a
marble chariot with four horses, the work of
Pythis. The addition of this made the height of
the entire structure 140 feet. From this de-
scription we may assume that there was a
Pteron or peristyle edifice surmounted by a
pyramid, which in turn was crowned by a
marble chariot group.
When we confront Pliny’s statement with the
architectural marbles found in situ, we obtain
an order 37% feet in height, equivalent to Pliny’s
25 cubits for the height of the Pteron, and the
remains of a chariot group of which the height
may be calculated at from 13 to 14 feet. Again,
from the measurement of the steps of the pyra-
mid found in situ, we obtain for its whole height
24 ft. 6 in. if we assume that all, the 24 steps
were exactly of the same height. The pyramid,
L *
146 MAUSOLEUM
MAUSOLEUM
according to Pliny, equalled in height the lower
elevation. As the text stands, the words are
altitudine inferiorem aequabat, so that the sub-
stantive with which inferiorem should agree is
wanting. According to ordinary rules, the word
to be supplied would be pyramidem, but that is
inadmissible, as there is no evidence to show
that there was a lower pyramid. If we leave
the text as it stands, we must either supply
altitudinem or partem after inferiorem: “Above
the Pteron was a pyramid equalling in height
the lower height, i.e. the Pteron; ” or read altitu-
dinem, “equalling in height the lower altitudo.”
By this lower altitude Pliny can hardly have
meant any other part of the elevation than the
Pteron. But this, as has been already stated,
was 37% feet in height ; the pyramid, according
to actual measurement of the steps, was only
24% feet. To make it equal to the Pteron, we
must add 13 feet either to its base or to its apex,
or partly to the one and partly to the other.
Mr. Fergusson, in his restoration, brings the
height of the pyramid to 37% feet by adding
11 feet 9 inches for a pedestal under the chariot
group (Pliny’s meta), and 2 feet for a plinth in-
tervening between the lowest step and the cornice.
In Mr. Pullan’s arrangement the entire chariot
group is reckoned in with the pyramid as 37 feet
9% inches. The main objection to this was
pointed out by Mr. Fergusson : the group itself
would not be sufficiently raised above the
pyramid to be properly visible from below
except at some distance. Further, it would be
necessary, in order to complete Pliny’s sum of
140 feet, to allow 65 feet for the basement under
the Pteron, which in Mr. Pullan's restoration
seems out of all proportion to the rest of the
design. Moreover, the words of Pliny do not
justify us in reckoning the 37% feet of the
pyramid as inclusive of the chariot group.
Pliny’s words, haec adjecta, show clearly that
this was to be added in order to make up the
whole height of the monument to 140 feet.
Mr. Fergusson allows 11 feet 9 inches for the
height of the meta, and 14 feet for that of the
quadriga.
The next question is, what was the spread of
the pyramid laterally. On examining the steps
of the pyramid, of which from 40 to 50 were
found in situ, we find that with the exception of
a few blocks (A 17–23 of the Guide), they have
a tread of either 1 foot 9 inches or 1 foot
5 inches; or, in the case of corner stones, a
tread of 1 foot 9 inches on one side and 1 foot
5 inches on the other. The number of these
steps, according to Pliny, was 24. If we assume
with Mr. Pullan that 22 of these had a tread of
the dimension already stated, and add a step of
10% inches and one of 9 inches below the plat-
form on which the chariot group stood, we
obtain 39 feet 11% inches for the spread of the
pyramid on one side and 32 feet 6 inches for its
spread on the other. But it is not proved that
all Pliny’s steps had exactly the same tread, or
that the two stones with the exceptional treads
of 10% and 9 inches formed the uppermost course
of the pyramid, as Mr. Pullan assumed, though
they may have belonged to the upper part which
Pliny describes as “in metae cacumen se contra-
hens,” tapering like a meta.
The dimensions of the platform on which the
chariot group stood are still more uncertain.
Mr. Pullan calculates it at 25 ft. 6 in. by 20 ft.
5 in., but Mr. Fergusson is probably nearer the
mark in reckoning it as 20 by 16 Greek feet.
It follows that Mr. Pullan’s calculation of
105 ft. 5 in. for the length of the base of the
pyramid and 85 ft. 5 in. for its breadth cannot
be relied on. Mr. Fergusson makes the lowest
step of the pyramid 100 by 80 Greek feet.
lf we turn from the pyramid to the Order
below it, we get on surer grounds. Mr. Pullan
gives 100 feet English for the length of the
peristyle from centre to centre of the columns,
and 80 feet for its breadth. He arranges nine
columns on the front and eleven on the flank,
and allows an intercolumniation of 10 feet from
centre to centre of the columns. But to this
arrangement there is a grave objection. The
lions’ heads of the cornice cannot be so disposed
that one may range over each column, accord-
ing to the usual rule in Ionic architecture.
Mr. Fergusson calculates the measurement of
the lower step of the pyramid 100 by 80 Greek
feet. He arranges the 36 columns of the peri-
style so as to have eleven columns on the longer
sides and nine at the ends, counting the angle
columns twice. He reckons the intercolumnia-
tion at 10 ft. 6 in. except at the angles, where he
supposes the columns coupled, so as to have
half an intercolumniation, viz. 5 ft. 3 in. The
longer sides of the peristyle would thus measure
94 ft. 6 in. Greek; the shorter sides, 73 ft. 6 in.
if we add 2 ft. 9 in. for the projection of the
cornice. In order to make this arrangement fit
in with the general scheme of his restoration,
he is obliged to allow only half an intercolum-
niation (5 ft. 3 in.) for the distance of the angle
column from the one next it on either side. But
for such a coupling of the columns in an Ionic
edifice he can adduce no other example.
Petersen concurs with Fergusson in allowing
10% feet for the intercolumniation, which, with
eight columns on the front and eleven on the flank,
yields ten intercolumniations on the longer and
eight on the shorter side. If we add to this half
the thickness of the base of the two angle
columns, we may calculate the dimensions of
the stylobate as 109 × 88. He thus obtains for
the circumference of the building 394 feet, and
there is room for two lions’ heads between each
pair of columns.
Pliny says that the tomb itself—meaning, it is
to be presumed, the cella within the peristyle
—was 63 Greek feet in length, but shorter in
width. How much shorter he does not state.
According to Mr. Pullan's scheme, the space
between the cella wall and the peristyle would
on the fronts be 17 feet. In his Plate XXI. figs.
1 and 2, he shows how by the use of through
stones this space can be corbelled out, the beams
acting as ties, and in the lowest course of the
corbelling the stones being of sufficient length to
extend from beam to beam.
Mr. Fergusson, having diminished the length
of the Pteron by the expedient of coupling the
angle columns, reduces the space between the
cella wall and the Pteron to 14 feet in the
fronts; 2 ft. 8 in. less Mr. Pullan makes it.
Petersen supposes that the Pteron had an
inner row of columns, and that Pliny’s cingitur
only applies to the outer row. This no doubt
would solve several difficulties, but the text of
Pliny will not bear such a forced interpretation.
MAUSOLEUM
MLAUSOLEUM 147
The size and plan of the basement or podium
have lastly to be considered. According to the
Codex Bambergensis, which ranks as the most
reliable MS. of Pliny, the whole circuit of the
tomb was not 411 but 440 feet: other MSS.
read 411. Messrs. Pullan and Fergusson adopt
the lower dimension, but Mr. Petersen follows
the Codex Bambergensis.
Mr. Pullan makes the measurement of the
podium 119 ft. by 88 ft. 6 in., which gives 415
feet for the circumference. Mr. Fergusson,
measuring it on its lowest step, makes the
podium 126 Greek feet by 105 Greek feet; so that
it would extend on each side as far as the sides
of the quadrangular cutting, and its total circum-
ference would be 462 feet, in which dimension
he includes piers projecting all round the base-
ment at the height of 17 feet from the ground.
In the recesses formed by these piers he
places statues: above these piers a cornice and
frieze connect the podium with the stylobate
of the Pteron, and below it is a wall of plain
masonry.
Mr. Petersen substitutes for recesses be-
tween the piers arched niches for statues,
which give the podium a very Roman look, and
neither his designs for the podium nor Mr.
Fergusson's have been generally accepted by
architectural authorities. On the other hand,
Mr. Pullan’s basement, besides being too tall, is
too bald, and its mouldings are deficient in
boldness. The one thing that we may assume
is that the basement was crowned with a cornice,
below which may have been one or more friezes.
The remains in relief, of which a description is
given (Guide to Mausoleum Room, Nos. 26, 28),
and which represent a centauromachia, are pro-
bably from the podium. The height of this
frieze is 2 feet 10% inches. It probably orna-
mented the podium.
Mr. Fergusson reduces the height of the base-
ment to 51 feet 6 inches, in which dimension he
includes an entablature of 14 feet. Mr. Petersen
assigns 44 feet as the height of the basement.
Whatever the height of the basement may
have been, we may assume that it was not
less than 40 feet above ground. It has been
already stated that the quadrangular cutting
below the natural level of the ground, in which
the foundations of the Mausoleum had been
laid, was cut in the native rock, in various
depths, the lowest part of the area being on the
west side, where the cutting was 15 feet below
the natural level of the rock, while on the east
side the bed rises within 4 feet of it. The whole
of this area had been originally filled up with
the courses of the foundation stones, consisting
of blocks of a green ragstone strongly bound
together with iron clamps, and generally mea-
suring about 4 feet square by 1 foot thick. In
some places all the foundation courses had been
removed, and the original bed of the rock laid
bare. On the west side of the quadrangle was
discovered a staircase of twelve steps, 29 feet
wide and cut in the solid rock. On the north
this staircase was flanked by a wall of good
isodomous masonry, built of large blocks of
native rock. A few feet to the east of the stair
were found some alabaster jars, such as were
used by the ancients for precious ointments. On
one of these jars were two inscriptions, one in
hieroglyphics, the other in the cuneiform cha-
racter. These inscriptions contained the name
of the Persian king Xerxes, written in four
languages. Immediately to the east of the spot
where these jars were found was a block of
green ragstone, 7 ft. high by 4% ft. square,
and weighing about 10 tons. It rested on two
slabs of white marble, in which were bronze
sockets, adjusted to receive dowels, fixed at the
bottom of the stone, but by some accident in the
original process of fixing the stone these dowels
had never descended from their collars into their
sockets.
It may be inferred from the position of the
remnant of marble pavement under the great
stone, that a passage paved with marble led
from it into the royal sepulchral chamber,
which may have been nearly in the centre of
the basement, where the eutting in the rock is
deepest. After the body of the personage in-
terred had been carried down the steps to its
final resting-place in the heart of the basement,
the great stone was let down into its place, like
a portcullis, and wedged in on either side by
Smaller stones. The alabaster vases, found
between the great stone and the foot of the
staircase, must have been deposited there shortly
after the interment, as an offering to the dead.
There, too, were found bones of oxen from a
sacrifice, and small terra-cotta figures. The
staircase must have been then filled in with
earth to the level of the upper surface, and the
soil to the east of the stair was supported by a
wall running from flank to flank, which was more
than a yard broad, and constructed of massive
blocks of native rock carelessly thrown together
without bond. The great stone, the remnant of
marble pavement under it, and the alabastra
and other sepulchral offerings found between
the great stone and the foot of the stair, are all
that the exploration of the site yielded to indi-
cate the arrangement of the interior of the base-
ment. Mr. Pullan, adopting a suggestion pre-
viously made by Sir Robert M. Smith, R.E., the
engineer officer attached to the Budrum expedi-
tion, supposes that in the interior of the base-
ment there was a circular chamber, covered with
a vault similar in structure to that of the lion
tomb at Cnidus, the so-called Treasury of Atreus
at Mycenae, and many other ancient tombs.
Mr. Fergusson, rejecting this arrangement, pro-
poses an elaborate plan of the basement which
is mainly grounded upon a narrative in Guichard
(Funerailles des Grecs et Romains, Lyon, 1581,
pp. 378–81). That author states that in 1522
some of the Knights of St. John were sent from
Rhodes to Budrum to repair the castle there,
then threatened by the Sultan Solyman. These
knights, on their arrival at Budrum, at once
began to strengthen the fortifications of the
castle, which had been built rather more than
a century before by a German knight, called
Henry Schlegelholt, who, as we are told by his
contemporary Fontana, used as materials the
ruins of the Mausoleum then lying above ground.
The materials first used would naturally be the
marbles from the upper part of the edifice,
which were lying in situ detached by their fall,
such as the steps of the pyramid, the architrave,
the fragments of the frieze of the Order and
cornice, the drums, capitals, and bases of the
columns. As the ruins were thus gradually
cleared away, the stylobate and marble iºns of
L &
148 MAUSOLEUM
MAUSOLEUM
the basement would be stripped off till nothing
was left but the inner core of the masonry,
composed of large blocks of green rag, such as
were found in position in the quadrangular
cutting. Between 1402 and 1522 the fortifica-
tions of the castle were repaired by the Knights
at intervals; through all this time the ruins of
the Mausoleum must have supplied both stone
and lime to the building.
The Knights employed in 1522 found still in
position certain steps of white marble, which
Guichard compares to a perron. “These they
made into lime, and, having cleared them away
above ground, proceeded to search by excavation
for more marbles of the same quality. As they
proceeded deeper, the base of the structure was
enlarged, and they found not only marble for
the limekiln, but good building stone. After
working downwards for four or five days, they
came upon an opening like that of a cellar.
Descending through this, they found themselves
in a large square apartment, ornamented all
round with columns of marble, with their bases,
capitals, architrave, frieze, and cornices en-
graved and sculptured in half relief. The space
between the columns was lined with slabs and
bands of marble, ornamented with mouldings
and sculptures in harmony with the rest of the
work, and inserted in the white ground of the
wall, where battle-scenes were represented
sculptured in relief.”
All this sculpture, according to Guichard, was
broken up and destroyed by the Knights. He
goes on to narrate how, “besides this apart-
ment, they found afterwards a very low door,
which led into another apartment serving as an
antechamber, where was a sepulchre with its
vase and helmet (tymbre) of white marble, very
beautiful, of marvellous lustre.” They deferred
opening this till the next day, retiring to the
castle for the night. On returning the next
morning, they found the tomb opened and the
earth all round strewn with fragments of cloth
of gold and spangles of the same metal. It was
supposed that pirates had plundered the tomb in
the night. Guichard had this story from Dale-
champs, a learned contemporary, who, we may
presume, was the editor of Pliny, and to whom
it was narrated by the Commander La Tourette,
a Lyonnese knight, who was sent to Budrum
with other Knights and was present at the siege
of Rhodes in the same year.
There seems to be no reasonable ground for
rejecting this story in its general outline, but it
must be borne in mind that it is based on hear-
say evidence, and we are hardly justified in
insisting on the accuracy of its details as
strongly as more than one recent writer has
done.
It may be assumed that the perron men-
tioned by Guichard was the remnant of the
steps on which the stylobate of the Pteron had
rested, the ruins above which had been gradually
cleared away by the Knights in the course of
the fifteenth century. If we accept the narra-
tive of Guichard literally, we must suppose a
square apartment ornamented all round with a
frieze and other sculptures. It is not likely,
however, that marbles of different colours
would have been used, but the frieze may have
been painted, as was certainly the case with the
fragments of the frieze of the Order, found in
the excavations above ground. Mr. Fergusson
supposes in his restoration a sepulchral chamber
52 feet 6 inches by 42 feet. It would thus have
been identical in dimensions with the interior of
the cella in his restoration. -
In the walls of the castle were formerly to
be seen a number of lions broken off behind the
shoulder, and pieces of frieze from the Mauso-
leum, which the knights had inserted at inter-
vals in the walls, and which attracted the notice
of travellers from Thevenot down to our own
time. All these sculptures are now in the
British Museum, having been presented by suc-
cessive Sultans. Other forehands, heads, and
fragments of lions were found on the site of the
Mausoleum. From the evidence of these frag-
ments, it is clear that they stood on detached
rocky bases, which average in thickness 6 inches.
These bases appear to have been inserted in a
lower plinth at an average depth of 2 inches
from the upper surface. The proportions of the
lions are adjusted to three different scales. The
largest measure 4 ft. 6 in. from the point of the
shoulder to the hind quarter, and the second in
scale about 3 inches less. Their height probably
did not exceed 5 ft. One head measured across
the forehead in a line with the eyes was 2 inches
less in width than the largest head. A paw was
found smaller than any of the others, which
seemed to correspond in scale with this head.
On the north of the quadrangular cutting
was a wall of white marble blocks, beautifully
jointed with isodomous masonry. Behind this
wall on the north was a mass of white marble
blocks, which on examination were recognised to
be steps from the pyramids. From forty to
fifty of these steps were found. Intermixed
with these steps were fragments of the chariot
group, of which the most important were the
anterior half of a colossal horse (the harness of
which showed that it was from a chariot, the
bronze bit and bridle still remaining attached
to the head) and the hinder half of a horse,
similar in style and scale: this extended from
the middle of the body to the root of the tail,
and measured in length rather more than 6 feet.
There were various fragments of feet and legs
of horses; also pieces of one of the wheels of
the chariot, from which its diameter has been
ascertained, and the remains of a colossal male
figure, which has been made up of seventy-
four fragments collected in situ. This figure is
generally held to be the portrait of Mausolus
himself (Guide, No. 34). There was a draped
female figure of colossal size, probably repre-
senting a goddess acting as charioteer in the
quadriga (Guide, No. 35). Both these statues
are remarkable for the breadth and grandeur
of effect in the drapery, and the refined delicacy
in the execution.
For further details of the sculptures which
were found, see Sir C. Newton's Guide to the
Mausoleum Room, especially Nos. 8–11, 17, 26,
29, 38–49.
Mr. Pullan and the others who have attempted
restorations of the Mausoleum differ widely in
their disposition of the sculptures in the round.
It is generally accepted that the two colossal
figures found among the ruins of the pyramid
steps belong to the chariot group, and represent
Mausolus and the Goddess who acted as his
charioteer. The lions must have been arranged
MAUSOLEUM
MAUSOLEUM 149
round the tomb as its watchful guardians, some
stationed at its doors, others perhaps at the base
of the pyramid: the equestrian torso was pro-
bably one of four groups from the angles, but
beyond this we are left entirely to conjecture.
Statues were probably placed between the
columns, as in the Xanthian monument, but of
the torsoes preserved most are on a scale too
small to stand by the side of the columns for
support of the roof of both apartments.
Where the remaining statues were placed is
at present a matter on which we have no more
evidence than we have as to the arrangement of
the columns, the area of the basement or of the
platform on the top of the pyramid, or the cir-
cumference of the building as expressed by
Pliny’s totus circuitus. As the author of the
Guide remarks, “The problem of the restoration
of the Mausoleum will probably remain un-
solved, unless some unexpected discovery at
Budrum or elsewhere in the Hellenic world con-
tributes fresh evidence. As we know that the
Castle of St. Peter was built by the Knights out
of the ruins of the Mausoleum, it may be
assumed that many fragments of architecture
and sculptures are still imbedded in its walls.”
The native rock of the platform is pierced at
two different levels by subterranean galleries,
with which shafts communicate at intervals.
The lower of these galleries runs all round the
quadrangle, and must have served for the drain-
age of the Mausoleum. It is cut throughout in
the solid rock to a height ranging from 6 to 8
feet, except in front of the stair on the west
side, where it passes between the stair and the
big stone, where it is only 2 ft. 10 in, in height.
It is evident that, before the foundations of the
Mausoleum had been laid in the quadrangle, the
rock had been quarried out to various depths,
and had also been used as a place of interment
in early times, before the city had been enlarged
and embellished by Mausolus. The centre of
his new city was probably selected as the most
appropriate site for his tomb, because he con-
sidered himself the new founder of Halicarnassus.
Hyginus, a Latin writer of uncertain date under
the Roman Empire, states (in the Fabulae) that
the Mausoleum was surrounded by a peribolos
1340 ft. in circumference. Supposing Greek feet
to have been used in this measurement, one-fourth
of the peribolos would be 335 Greek feet (equal
to 339 English). On the north side of the
Mausoleum a wall constructed of marble blocks
of fine masonry (Hist. Disc. pl. vi.) was traced east
and west for a distance of 337 English feet. A
similar wall was traced under the soil for 260
English feet on the east side. We may assume
that the four sides of the peribolos formed a
rectangle. No trace was found of the western
wall, but on the southern side Mr. Biliotti, ex-
ploring the ground in 1865, traced a cutting in
the Tock running east and west, which he be-
lieved to be the bed prepared to receive the
foundation of the southern wall. It is probable
that the platform on which the Mausoleum
stood was connected with the Agora on the
shore by a series of terraces, with intervening
flights of steps, so disposed as to set off the
elevation to advantage when viewed from
below. [C. T. N.]
Though none of the proposed restorations of
the Mausoleum can be accepted with certainty,
as the preceding writer has remarked, still the
ingenious restoration by the late Mr. Fergusson
is not without value. (See cut on following
page.) The principles on which he constructed
it, and the objections that may be taken to it,
have been already fully stated.
Of the other magnificent sepulchral edifices
to which the name of Mausoleum was given the
two most important are:—
1. The MAUSOLEUM OF AUGUSTUS, which
was erected by Augustus, during his lifetime
and in his sixth consulship (B.C. 28), in the
northern part of the Campus Martius, between
the Via Flaminia and the Tiber (Suet. Aug. 100).
It was a magnificent circular building (called by
Dio Cass. lviii. 22, Baoruńukov uvmuelov), erected
on foundations of white marble, covered to the
summit with plantations of evergreen, and sur-
mounted with a bronze statue of Augustus: in
£he interior were sepulchral chambers, con-
taining his ashes and those of his family. The
ground round the Mausoleum was laid out in
groves and public walks. (Strab. v. p. 236.)
Several members of the family of Augustus
were entombed in the Mausoleum before the
ashes of the emperor were deposited in it, as
Marcellus, Agrippa, Octavia, and Drusus, the
brother of Tiberius (Verg. Aen. vi. 873 seq.;
Dio Cass, liii. 30, liv. 28, lv. 2; Ov. Cons. ad
Liv. 37; Pedo, Eleg. i. 69: for the burial of
Augustus himself, see Dio Cass. lvi. 43; Suet.
Aug. 101). The ashes of Livia, the mother of
Tiberius, were also deposited there (Dio Cass.
*
lviii. 2), and it was the regular tomb of the
imperial family, whence it is called by Tacitus
(Ann. iii. 9) tumulus Caesarum. Caligula had
the ashes of his mother Agrippina and his
brother Nero interred here with great pomp
(Suet. Cal. 15; Dio Cass. lix. 3). By the time
of Hadrian this Mausoleum was completely
filled, which caused him to build a new one on
the opposite side of the river (Dio Cass. lxix.
23: see below). Martial alludes to the Mauso-
leum of Augustus under the name of Mausolea
(v. 64, 3), as the deos in the following line
clearly refer to the Caesars. (See Friedländer's
note.) There are still considerable remains of
this Mausoleum; but “it is now so completely
ruined,” remarks Mr. Fergusson, “that it is
extremely difficult to make out its plan; it
appears however to have consisted of a circular
basement about 300 feet in diameter, and about
60 feet in height, adorned with twelve large
niches. Above this rose a cone of earth as in
the Etruscan tombs, not smooth like those, but
divided into terraces, which were planted with
trees.” (Fergusson, Hist. of Arch. i. p. 343.) It
was converted into an amphitheatre for bull-
fights till the time of Pius VI., and is now used
as a theatre for the display of fireworks and
other spectacles of the lowest description.
2. The MAUSOLEUM OF HADRIAN, also called
the Moles Hadriani, now the Castle of S.
Angelo, a much more splendid building than the
Mausoleum of Augustus, was erected, as we
have already seen, by the Emperor Hadrian on
the right bank of the Tiber, near the Aelian
bridge in the gardens of Domitia (Dio Cass.
150 MAUSOLEUM
MAUSOLEUM
lxix. 23; Spart. Hadr. 19). Hadrian died at
Baiae, and his remains were first deposited in
a temporary tomb at Puteoli, from , which
they were removed to the Mausoleum at Rome
by Antoninus Pius, who probably completed
the building (Spart. Hadr, 25; Capitol. Ant.
Pius, 5, 8). This Mausoleum was the sepulchre
of the subsequent emperors and their families
down to Commodus and perhaps to Caracalla,
but not beyond. It is expressly mentioned as
the sepulchre of Antoninus Pius (Capit. Ant.
Phil. 7), of Lucius Verus (Capit. Ver., 11),
of Commodus (Lamprid. Commod. 17). As to
the other emperors, see Becker, Röm. Alterth.
Hiß
Tº
tº-2
º º, d 2
º M– # *::: Hº º º
} #-i. #ºr
Hº-Hääriä HºHEE
- #F#-Hi
vol. i. p. 661, where the subject is fully
discussed.
The Mausoleum is described by Procopius
(B. G. i. 22) on the occasion of the siege of Rome
by the Goths, A.D. 537. He says that it had been
converted into a fortress considerably before
his time (“by the men of old, oi Taxatol
#v0patrol), and was joined to the line of fortifi-
cations by two walls. This was probably done
when the walls were repaired by Honorius
about A.D. 423. Procopius (l.c.) describes it as
a memorable sight (9égua Aéryov troAA00 éétou),
outside the Porta Aurelia, distant from the
walls about a bow-shot. “It is made,” he says,
º
|
iſſ
ſ
The Mausoleum of Artemisia restored by Mr. Fergusson.
“of Parian marble, and the stones fit closely
into one another with no other fastening. It
has four equal sides, each about a stone’s throw
in length, and in height rising above the walls
of the city. Above are statues of men and
horses made of the same Parian marble and
wonderful to behold.” Many of these precious
works of art were hurled down from the Tomb
on the Gothic besiegers. The Barberini Faun
at Munich and the Dancing Faun at Florence
were found in the ditch below the Tomb. The
subsequent history of the Mausoleum will be
found in all the guide-books. (See Murray's
Handbook of Rome, p. 73 seq.)
From the existing remains, and the descrip-
tion of writers in the Middle Ages, the Mauso-
leum has been restored by modern archaeologists.
“A quadrangular structure of dazzling white
marble, each side 300 Roman feet long and
85 feet high, it had upon its sides inscriptions
to the various emperors from Trajan to Severus
who were buried within its walls. At the
corners of this structure were equestrian
statues of four emperors. Above, two circular
buildings, one over the other, were surrounded
with colonnades and peopled with marble
statues. Over all rose a conical cupola whose
summit was 300 feet above the ground. Visi-
tors to the gardens of the Vatican may still see
there a bronze fir-cone, 8 feet high, which ac-
cording to tradition once surmounted the cupola
of Hadrian’s tomb.” (Hodgkin, Italy and her
Invaders, iv. p. 202; Dante, Inf. Xxxi. 59; cf.
Fergusson, Hist, of Arch. i. p. 344.) [W. S.]

MAZONOMUS
MEDIASTINI 151
MAZO'NOMUS (wagovópos, dim. uaſovápuov,
Athen. v. 149 a), from uáça, a loaf, or a cake;
properly a dish for distributing bread: but the
term is applied also to any large dish used for
bringing meat to table (Varro, de Re Rust.
iii. 4). These dishes were made either of wood
(Pollux, vii. 87), of bronze (Athen. iv. 136 c),
or of gold (Athen. v. 197 f). In the most
familiar passage (Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 86) we have
the mazonomus as a large dish, on which
portions of meat sprinkled with meal and salt
are brought to table (the theory of pastry is
unfounded). There is no ground for assigning
the word a special significance as a sacred vessel,
though, no doubt, like lana, &c., it might be
used to express a large dish used for sacred
as well as for profane purposes.
[J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
Mausoleum of Hadrian restored.
MEDDIX TUTICUS (= “community
manager’’) was the chief magistrate among
Oscan or Sabellian communities. Hence we find
the title at Capua after the Samnites wrested
the dominion of that city from the Greeks. The
word appears as Medix in the MSS. of Liv.
xxiii. 35, varied by Maedix xxiv. 19 and Media
xxvi. 6. The double consonant, however, appears
in Festus and in most inscriptions, as meddies,
Azebósté, metdiss. Mommsen (Unterit. Dial.
p. 278) considers that the first syllable is natu-
rally short (as evidenced by the Greek e), and
derives it from the same root as mederi : Curtius
suggests, but on the whole rejects, uéöw, to
which however there would be no objection if
there is merely a doubled d. It was clearly the
Oscan name for a magistrate who might be alone
in office or one of many. So Ennius gives us
“Summus ibi capitur meddix occiditur alter,”
but that does not prove that the title Meddix
belongs only or specially to a dual magistracy.
The inscriptions give us two meddices at Mes-
Sana (Mommsen, l. c.), but in most Sabellian
communities, as far as we can gather, there was
only one: possibly, as Mommsen (Staatsrecht,
iii. 581) suggests, the dual constitution at Mes-
sana was owing to Roman influence. We have
the qualifying word Tuticus added at Capua
(Livy), at Pompeii, Herculaneum, and Bovianum
(see the inscriptions cited by Mommsen), and
this word is probably connected with Umbrian
and Oscan words for town, tauta, tota, touta
(Curtius, Gr. Etym. p. 225): so that the title
means chief magistrate of the town, and seems
to imply that the word meddix alone might be
used of other magistrates. We have no means
of ascertaining the precise limits of his jurisdic-
tion, which, moreover, may have varied in
different towns, but a good deal may be gathered
from the accounts of Capua preserved in Livy.
This town became subject to Rome B.C. 329 with
caerite rights, i.e. civitas sine suffragio (Liv. viii.
14), and consequently had not autonomy, but kept
its own senate and magistrates (see Mommsen,
Hist. of Rome, i. 369; Staatsrecht, iii. 581), per-
haps with some coordinate jurisdiction of Roman
officials. We learn from Livy that the meddix
was annually elected, as summus magistratus
Campanis, and, like sole periodical magistrates in
more modern and larger states, had the reproach
of seeking by all means the popular vote; he
summoned the senate, presided at religious rites,
and (during the revolt) appointed commanders
of troops and acted himself as general (probably
one of his original functions): the office ceased
with the Second Punic War. (Liv. xxiii. 4 ;
xxiv. 19; xxvi. 6. See also Mommsen, Hist. of
Rome, i. 255; Staatsrecht, iii. 581, and index;
Unterital. Dialecte, p. 277 f.; Marquardt, Staats-
verwalt. i. 30 ft.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MEDIASTI'NI, the name given to slaves
of all work either in town or country, who are
said by the Scholiast on Horace, Ep. i. 14, 14, to
be those “qui in medio stant ad quaevis impe-
rata parati.” They would therefore be those of
whom Cicero speaks (Par. v. 2, 37), “qui tergunt,
qui ungunt, qui verrunt, qui spargunt.” In
Ulpian they are spoken of as equivalent to
vulgares servi. In Pliny (H. N. xxix. § 4)
the slaves of an apothecary used for general
purposes are so called to distinguish them
from skilled slaves employed as rubbers, &c.

152 MEDICINA
MEDICINA
But although Horace (l.c.) seems to distinguish
the mediastinus from the country slave, the dis-
tinction is only found in the context, not in
the word itself; for Columella (ii. 13) gives the
allowance of field labour for 200 jugera as two
yoke of oxen, two bubulci and six mediastini :
he separates them from the special labourers,
vinitores and aratores (i. 9), saying that, while
the arator should be tall, the mediastinus might
be any height provided he was industrious. To
be precise therefore, the low class general slaves
would be distinguished as mediastini urbani and
mediastini rustici (which is a disputed reading
in Cic. Cat. ii. 3, 5). [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MEDICI'NA (iarpukh), the name of that
science which, as Celsus says (de Medic. lib. i.
Praef.), promises health to the sick, and whose
object is defined in one of the Hippocratic
treatises (de Arte, vol. i. p. 7, ed. Kühn) to be
“the delivering sick persons from their suffer-
ings, and the diminishing the violence of diseases,
and the not undertaking the treatment of those
who are quite overcome by sickness, as we know
that medicine is here of no avail.” This and
other definitions of the art and science of Medi-
cine are critically examined in Pseudo-Galen
(Introduct. c. 6, vol. xiv. pp. 686–8, ed. Kühn).
The invention of medicine was almost universally
attributed by the ancients to the gods. (Hippoc.
de Prisca Medic. vol. i. p. 39; Pseudo-Galen,
Introd. c. i. p. 674; Cic. Tusc. Dis. iii. 1; Plin.
H. N. xxix. § 2.) So also in Aeschylus (Pr. 478)
we have the claim advanced for Prometheus,
that he first taught men the art of medicine
both externally applied and as potions, and
there is a remarkable passage in Pindar (Nem.
iii. 45) where Aesculapius is taught by Chiron
the triple art of healing by drugs, incantations,
and surgical operations. Another source of in-
formation too was observing the means resorted
to by animals when labouring under disease.
Pliny (H. N. viii. § 97) gives many instances in
which these instinctive efforts taught mankind.
the properties of various plants, and the more
simple surgical operations. The wild goats of
Crete pointed out the use of the dictamnus and
vulnerary herbs; dogs when indisposed sought
the triticum repens, and the same animal taught
the Egyptians the use of purgatives, constitut-
ing the treatment called syrmaism. The hippo-
potamus introduced the practice of bleeding,
and it is affirmed that the employment of clysters
was shown by the ibis. (Compare Pseudo-Galen,
Introd. c. i. p. 675.) Sheep with worms in their
liver were seen seeking saline substances, and
cattle affected with dropsy anxiously looked for
chalybeate waters. We are told (Herod. i. 197;
Strabo, xvi. p. 348), that the Babylonians and
Chaldaeans had no physicians, and that in cases
of sickness the patient was carried out and
exposed on the highway, in order that any of
the passers-by, who had been affected in a
similar manner, might give some information
respecting the means that had afforded them
relief. (Comp. Plut. de occulte vivendo, § 21.)
Shortly afterwards, these observations of cures
were suspended in the temples of the gods, and
we find that in Egypt the walls of their sanc-
tuaries were covered with records of this de-
scription. The priests of Greece adopted the
same practice, and some of the curious tablets
suspended in their temples will illustrate the
custom. The following votive memorials are
given by Hieron. Mercurialis (de Arte Gymnast.
Amstel. 4to. 1672, pp. 2, 3):—“Some days back
a certain Caius, who was blind, was ordered by
an oracle that he should repair to the sacred
altar and kneel in prayer, then cross from right
to left, place his five fingers on the altar, then
raise his hand and cover his eyes. [He obeyed,
and his sight was restored in the presence of the
multitude, who congratulated each other that
such signs [of the omnipotence of the gods] were
shown in the reign of our emperor Antoninus.”
“A blind soldier named Valerius Aper was
ordered by the oracle to mix the blood of a
white cock with honey, to make up an ointment
to be applied to his eyes, for three consecutive
days: he received his sight, and came and
returned public thanks to the god.” “Julian
appeared lost beyond all hope from a spitting of
blood. The god ordered him to take from the
altar some seeds of the pine, and to mix them
with honey, of which mixture he was to eat for
three days. He was saved, and gave thanks in
presence of the people.”
With regard to the medical literature of the
ancients: “When " (says Littré, CEuvres com-
plétes d’Hippocrate, tome i. Introd. p. 3) “we
search into the history of medicine and the
commencement of science, the first body of doc-
trine that we meet with is the collection of
writings known under the name of the works of
Hippocrates. Science mounts up directly to
that origin, and there stops. Not that it had
not been cultivated earlier, and had not given
rise to even numerous productions; but every-
thing that had been made before the physician
of Cos has perished. We have only scattered
and unconnected fragments remaining of them ;
the works of Hippocrates have alone escaped
destruction; and by a singular circumstance
there exists a great gap after them, as well as
before them. The medical works from Hippo-
crates to the establishment of the school of
Alexandria, and those of that school itself, are
completely lost, except some quotations and
passages preserved in the later writers; so that
the writings of Hippocrates remain isolated
amongst the ruins of ancient medical literature.”
The Asclepiadae, to which family Hippocrates
belonged, were the supposed descendants of
Aesculapius (’Aarxārios), and were in a manner
the hereditary physicians of Greece. They pro-
fessed to have among them certain secrets of the
medical art, which had been handed down to
them from their great progenitor, and founded
several medical schools in different parts of the
world. Galen mentions (de Meth. Med. i. 1,
vol. x. pp. 5, 6) three, viz. Rhodes, Cnidos, and
Cos. The first of these appears soon to have
become extinct, and has left no traces of its
existence behind. From the second proceeded
a collection of observations called Kví8tal Tvåſtal,
“Cnidian Sentences,” a work of much reputation
in early times, which is mentioned by Hippo-
crates (de Rat. Vict. in Morb. Acut. vol. ii.
p. 25), and which appears to have existed in the
time of Galen (Comment. in Hippocr. lib. cit.
vol. xv. p. 427). The school of Cos, however, is
by far the most celebrated, on account of the
greater number of eminent physicians that
sprang from it, among whom was the great
Hippocrates. We learn from Herodotus (iii.
IMEDICUS
MEDICUS 153
131) that there were also two celebrated medical
schools at Crotona in Magna Graecia, and at
Cyrene in Africa, of which he says that the
former was in his time more esteemed in Greece
than any other, and in the next place came that
of Cyrene. In subsequent times the medical
profession was divided into different sects; but
a detailed account of their opinions would be
out of place in the present work. The oldest
and perhaps the most influential of these sects
was that of the Dogmatici, founded about B.C.
400 by Thessalus, the son, and Polybus, the son-
in-law of Hippocrates, and thence called also
the Hippocratici. These retained their influence
till the rise of the Empirici, founded by Serapion
of Alexandria and Philinus of Cos, in the third
century B.C., and so called because they professed
to derive their knowledge from experience only.
After this time every member of the medical
profession during a long period ranged himself
under one of these two sects. In the first century
B.C., Themison founded the sect of the Methodici,
who held doctrines nearly intermediate between
those of the two sects already mentioned; and
who, about two centuries later, were subdivided
into numerous sects, as the doctrines of particu-
lar physicians became more generally received.
The chief of these sects were the Pneumatic; and
the Eclectici; the former founded by Athenaeus
about the middle or end of the first century
A.D.; the latter about the same time, either by
Agathinus of Sparta or his pupil Archigenes.
It only remains to mention the principal
medical authors after Hippocrates whose works
are still extant, referring for more particulars
respecting their writings to the articles in the
Dictionary of Biography. Celsus is supposed to
have lived in the Augustan age, and deserves to
be mentioned more for the elegance of his style,
and the neatness and judiciousness of his com-
pilation, than for any original contributions to
the science of Medicine. Dioscorides of Ana-
zarba, who lived in the first century after Christ,
was for many centuries the greatest authority
in Materia Medica, and was almost as much
esteemed as Galen in Medicine and Physiology,
or Aristotle in Philosophy. Aretaeus, who
probably lived in the time of Nero, is an interest-
ing and striking writer, both from the elegance
of his language and the originality of his
opinions. Caelius Aurelianus, whose matter is
excellent, but the style quite barbarous. The
next in chronological order, and perhaps the
most valuable, as he is certainly by far the most
voluminous, of all the medical writers of an-
tiquity, is Galen, who reigned supreme in all
matters relating to medical science from the
third century till the commencement of modern
times. . After him the only writers deserving
particular notice are Oribasius of Pergamus,
physician to the Emperor Julian in the fourth
century; Aëtius of Amida, who lived probably
in the sixth century; Alexander Trallia-
nus, who lived something later ; and Paulus
Aegineta, who belongs to the end of the
seventh. [W. A. G.]
MEDICUS (iarpás), the name given by the
ancients to every professor of the healing art,
whether physician or surgeon, and accordingly
both divisions of the medical profession will
here be included under that term. In Greece
and Asia Minor physicians seem to have been
held in high esteem; far more so than at Rome.
This was at least to some extent due to the
religious sense, iarpurch and uavrukh being re-
garded as akin (Eustath. ad Îl. i. 63), and to
the apotheosis of Aesculapius, of whom phy-
sicians speak as 5 huérepos ºrpóvovos (Plat.
Symp. p. 186 A). When we meet such expres-
sions, as that in Athen. xv. p. 666 b, ei uh
iatpol fiorav oiâév Šv fiv ráv Ypapparików popó-
Tepov, the allusion is to the pedantry of phy-
sicians after the type ridiculed by Molière, and
does not show a general depreciation of their
class. Aelian mentions one of the laws of
Zaleucus among the Epizephyrian Locrians, by
which it was ordered that if any one during his
illness should drink wine contrary to the orders
of his physician, even if he should recover, he tº
should be put to death for his disobedience
(War. Hist. ii. 37); and, according to Mead,
there are extant several medals struck by the
people of Smyrna in honour of different persons
belonging to the medical profession (Dissert.
de Nummis quibusdam a Smyrnaeis in Medicor.
Honor. percussis, 4to. Lond. 1724). According
to the Decree of the Athenians and the Life of
Hippocrates by Soranus (Hippocr. Opera, vol.
iii. pp. 829, 853, ed. Kühn), the same honours
were conferred upon that physician as had
before been given to Hercules; he was voted a
golden crown, publicly initiated into the Eleu-
sinian mysteries, and maintained in the Pryta-
neum at the state's expense. Both these pieces,
however, are more legendary than historical.
(Compare Plin. H. N. vii. § 123.) The phy-
sician made up his medicines himself, and either
sat in his iorpetov, which was both a consulting-
room and a dispensary (called also êpyao Tſiplov,
Aeschin. in Timarch. § 124), or went a round of
visits (Plat. Legg. iv. 720 C. For these iarpeta
cf. Poll. x. 46; Plat. Legg. i. p. 646 C). Here
he had also assistants and apprentices or pupils
(Plat. Legg. iv. l. c.; Aeschin. in Timarch. § 40).
In the former passage the assistant doctors are
slaves, on which point cf. Diog. Laert. vi. 30.
No doubt slaves only as a rule were attended
by slave doctors, and free men by free, but it is
noticeable that Plato, when he says this, qualifies
by lás étrº to traetorov. When Hyginus, Fab.
274, says that there was a law at Athens against
any slave practising, he must allude, if his
assertion is true at all, to the state physicians.
Though hospitals are mentioned in Roman
writers (Cels. de Medic. i. praef. Sub fin. ; Colum.
de Re Rust. xi. 1, 18; Sen. Epist. 27, § 1) after
the time of Augustus [see VALETUDINARIA],
they are never, with one single exception in
Aesculapius and a Sick Man. (Millin, Gal.
Myth., tav. 32, No. 105.)
Crates, mentioned by Greek writers before the
Roman period. The function, so far as it was

154 MEDICUS
MEDICUs
performed at all, was discharged by the temples of
Aesculapius, and accordingly the chief places of
study for medical pupils were the 'Aqicantleſa,
or temples of Aesculapius, where the votive
tablets furnished them with a collection of
cases. Hence we find in ancient works of art
Aesculapius represented as visiting the sick.
The Asclepiadae [MEDICINA] were very strict
in examining into and overlooking the cha-
racter and conduct of their pupils, and the
famous Hippocratic oath (which, if not drawn
up by Hippocrates himself, is certainly very
ancient) requires to be inserted here as being
the most curious medical monument of antiquity.
“I swear by Apollo the physician, and Aescu-
lapius, and Hygeia (Health), and Panaceia (All-
heal), and all the gods and goddesses, calling
them to witness that I wikl fulfil, according to
the best of my power and judgment, this oath
and written bond :—to honour as my parents
the master who has taught me this art, and to
share my substance with him, and to minister
to all his necessities; to consider his children as
my own brothers, and to teach them this art
should they desire to follow it, without remune-
ration or written bond; to admit to my lessons,
my discourses, and all my other teaching, my
own sons, and those of my tutor, and those who
have been inscribed as pupils and have taken
the medical oath ; but no one else. I will
prescribe such regimen as may be for the benefit
of my patients, according to the best of my
power and judgment, and preserve them from
anything hurtful and mischievous. I will never,
if asked, administer poison, nor be the author of
such advice ; neither will I give to a woman a
pessary to produce abortion. I will maintain
the purity and integrity both of my conduct
and of my art. I will not cut any one for
the stone, but will leave the operation to those
who cultivate it. Into whatever dwellings I
may go, I will enter them for the benefit of the
sick, abstaining from all mischief and corruption,
especially from any immodest action, towards
women or men, freemen or slaves. If during
my attendance, or even unprofessionally in
common life, I happen to see or hear of any-
thing which should not be revealed, I will con-
sider it a secret not to be divulged. May I, if
I observe this oath, and do not break it, enjoy
good success in life, and in [the practice of] my
art, and be esteemed for ever; should I trans-
gress and become a perjurer, may the reverse be
my lot.”
Some idea of the income of a physician in
those times may be formed from the fact men-
tioned by Herodotus (iii. 131) that the Aegine-
tans (about the year B.C. 532) paid Democedes
from the public treasury one talent per annum
for his services, i.e. (if we reckon the Aeginetan
drachma to be worth 1s.) not quite 304!. ; he
afterwards received from the Athenians one
hundred minae, i.e. (reckoning the Attic drachma
to be worth 9%d.) rather more than 4067., and
he was finally attracted to Samos by being
offered by Polycrates a salary of two talents, i.e.
(if the Attic standard be meant) about 4221.
Walckenaer doubts the accuracy of this state-
ment of Herodotus with respect to the Aeginetans
and Athenians, but we have no right to reject
it, and it is accepted as true by Boeckh (Staats-
haush. i.” 153). A physician, called by Pliny both
Erasistratus (H. N. xxix. § 5) and Cleombrotus
(H. N. vii. § 123), is said by him to have re-
ceived one hundred talents, i.e., considerably
over 20,000l., for curing king Antiochus.
State physicians were employed in Greece
(from Democedes downwards). They were
selected on the ground of knowledge evidenced
in their private practice (Xen. Mem. iv. 2, 5 ;
Plat. Gorg. 455 B, .514 D). In Plat. Polit.
p. 259 A we see them distinguished from those
who practised privately: their practice and
official status are described by the word 8muo-
orieſſelv specially applied to them, and in their
public capacity they received salary but took
no fees (Aristoph. Av. 587; Acharn.994); their
expenses, however, were paid besides their
salary, and they received public honours for
distinguished service (C. I. A. ii. 256, p. 424).
It appears from Diod. xii. 13 that they attended
gratis any one who applied to them, and it is at
least probable that they were bound to give
their services on military expeditions. From
Aristoph. Plut. 407 it appears that in that
period of depression at Athens the office was dis-
continued from motives of economy. [W. A. G.]
As regards the rise and progress of the
medical profession at Rome, we must distinguish
between the slaves skilled in medicine, who
were kept in the larger households, and the
physician in general practice. The former, no
doubt, came earlier in date, and those who
could afford skilled slaves for medical treatment
already employed them, when for the masses
there was no practising physician: but in the
yet earlier times for all alike, and for the
general public to a comparatively late period,
the treatment of sickness was by traditional
family recipes, partly founded on experience,
partly on superstition, the Romans being for the
most part, as late as the 600th year of the city
(according to Pliny, H. N. xix. § 11), “sine
medicis nec tamen sine medicina.” A little
earlier however than this (B.C. 219), says Pliny
on the authority of Cassius Hemina, the first
professed physician, the Greek Archagathus,
came to Rome. He was made a citizen and
started in a shop at the public expense (Plin.
xxix. § 12): but his treatment was unpopular
from its heroic method, “a saevitia secandi
urendique.” There was much opposition, for
the Romans regarded with suspicion the skill of
the foreigners, and shunned the calling them-
selves as a degradation. Cato, who still held to
the old custom, and used a family manual of
medicine (commentarium), “quo mederetur filio,
servis et familiaribus,” strongly opposed the
whole class of medici, against whom he warns
his son, as banded together to kill Roman
citizens. In Plautus (Menaechm. v. 1) we have
perhaps evidence of the same mistrust and con-
tempt; but it is never possible to assume that
the customs and sentiments described in Plautus
are Roman rather than Greek.
Gradually however, after the time of Archa-
gathus, the number of foreign physicians in
Rome increased, alike those in private houses,
who were either slaves (cf. Suet. Ner. 2) or
freedmen, and those who had general practice.
As a household physician of this kind we may
instance Strato from the Cluentius of Cicero (63,
176). We have the price of a slave physician
fixed at 60 solidi (Just. Cod. vii. 7, 1, 5). The
MEDICUS
MEGALESIA 155
practising physicians at Rome were nearly all
of the freedman class (see the inscriptions cited
by Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 772). . They had
booths (tabernae), where they practised with
slaves or freedmen as their assistants and pupils,
whom they took about with them in their visits
(Mart. v. 9). Few Romans took up the pro-
fession (though we hear of Vettius Valens, a
man of equestrian rank in the reign of Claudius);
and Julius Caesar, avowedly to encourage their
residence, gave the citizenship to foreign phy-
sicians (Suet. Jul. 42), with the result which
he desired.
Among physicians who seem to have risen to
greater repute we have Asclepiades of Prusa
(Cic. de Or. i. 14,62; cf. Plin. H. N. vii. § 124);
Asclapo of Patrae, whom Cicero treated as a
friend (Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 20); Alexio, for whom
he seems to have had even greater regard (ad
Att. xv. 1); Antonius Musa, the freedman and
trusted physician of Augustus (Suet. Aug. 59;
cf. Hor. Ep. i. 15, 3); M. Artorius (Well. Pat.
ii. 70, 1; Plut. Brut. 41); A. Cornelius Celsus,
who wrote a medical treatise under Tiberius;
Eudemus (Tac. Ann. iv. 3), &c.
The professional gains of physicians under the
Empire seem often to have been large : we are
told of Stertinius by private practice making
more than 5,000l. a year, and the surgeon
Alcon amassing a fortune of nearly 100,000l. by
a few years’ practice in Gaul (Plin. H. N. xxix.
§§ 7, 22; cf. Mart. xi. 84). Regular medical
posts were instituted with large appointments:
as court physicians with salaries varying from
250,000 to 500,000 H.S. (Plin. l. c.); as doctors
for the army, for gladiatorial schools (C. I. L.
vi. 10171), and for the poorer public [ARCHI-
ATER.]. Apart from these state appointments
the practice was entirely free from control or
training : as a rule probably the training was
gained by the sort of apprenticeship to some
medicus described above, but anyone was at
liberty to practise, and, in the words of Pliny,
“experimenta per mortes facere”; ignorance
was not, as in our country, penal, and hence
“medico hominem occidisse summa impunitas”
(Plin. xxix. § 18).
Besides the archiatri at Rome itself (one
for each region), there were by order of An-
toninus Pius in each city of Asia Minor state
physicians (paid by the state, with immunity
from taxes), in numbers varying from five to
ten according to the size of the town (Dig.
27, 1, 6, § 2; 59, 9, 1; see Friedländer, iii.
ch. 4). We can trace specialist physicians also,
such as the oculist (ocularius or ab oculis), the
aurist (aurarius). (Orelli, 4228, 2983; C. I. L.
vi. 6192; 8908.) The profession of dentist is
implied at a very early date by the remarkable
extract from the XII. Tables in Cic. de Leg. ii.
24, 60, relating to teeth stopped with gold.
(See further Mart. x. 56.) We may also notice
that female doctors (medicae) for attendance on
women, apparently distinct from midwives (ob-
stetrices), are found in many inscriptions (see
Marquardt, op. cit. 779).
As regards army doctors among the Greeks,
we find them in the heroic age when the inrpos
&vhp is troAAóv čvráčios &AAov. It would
appear from Homer, Il. xvi. 28, that there were
several; perhaps, as , some suggest, each con-
tingent had an imrpós. In historical times we
d
may learn something of their presence from
Xenophon, Anab. iii. 4, 30; Cyrop. i. 6, 16, iii. 2,
12, v. 4, 17. Perhaps, as Dr. Hager suggests
(Journ. of Philology, vol. viii. No. 15), the Ömpué-
oriot iatpol had to accompany the army, as was
the case in Egyptian armies (Diod. i. 82). [For
Roman army doctors, see ExERCITUS, Vol. I.
p. 802 b ; for quack doctors, PHARMACOPOLA;
for hospitals, WALETUDINARIA ; for surgeons,
CHIRURGIA ; and see also the articles ARCHIATER,
IATROSOPHISTA.]
(For this article and the preceding, reference
may be made, besides the ancient authorities, to
Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 48 ff.; Gallus, ii. 139
ff.; Marquardt, Privatleben, 772 f.; Mahaffy,
Social Life in Greece, 290; Daremberg, Hist. de
la Médecine, ch. i. ; Vercoutre, La Médecine
dans l'antiq., Revue Archéol., 1880; Friedländer,
Sittengeschichte, i.5 298 f.) [G. E. M.]
MEDIMNUS (ué6tuvos or pié6tuvos airmpés),
the principal dry measure of the Greeks. It
was used especially for measuring coin. It
contained 6 hectes, 12 hemiecta, 48 choenices, 96
aestae (Seatarii), 192 cotylae, and 1152 cyathi.
The Attic medimnus was equal to six Roman
modii, or two amphorae (Nepos, Att. 2; Cic. in
Verr. iii. 42, 110; 49, 116)=52-53 litres, and
therefore the Attic medimnus contained nearly
12 imperial gallons (11 556 gallons) or 1%
bushel. The Aeginetan and Ptolemaic were
about half as much again, or in the ratio of 3:2
to the Attic; the Aeginetan being = 72-7
litres, the Ptolemaic = 78°8 (Hultsch, p. 505).
The Sicilian was equal to the Attic. For the
values of the subdivisions of the medimnus, see
the Tables. (Hultsch, Metrologie, pp. 104, 503;
MENSURA.) The symbol in Greek MSS. for
medimnus was M*. (Hultsch, Metrol. Script. i.
170). [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
MEDITRINA'LIA, a festival on October
11th in honour of Meditrina, the old Roman
goddess of healing (cp. Varro, L. L. vi. 21;
Fest. s. v.). On this day, when the new wine
(mustum) was tasted, it was the custom to pour
a libation with the prayer that the wine might
have health-giving powers, “novum vetus vinum
bibo, novo veteri vino morbo medeor.” Accord-
ing to the Calendar of Amiternum it was “feriae
Jovi,” and perhaps a libation was poured to him
as the god of the prosperity (salus) of the state,
as well as to Meditrina, with whose healing
power the festival was identified. We may
compare the prayer used at the triboſyla,
“à8Aaß7, Kal orothpiov rod pappudkov xpāgiv
ºyevéoróat ;” and also the primitiae pomorum, Plin.
H. N. xxviii. § 23. (Preller, Rom. Myth.
pp. 175, 594; Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.
584.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
MEGALE'SIA, MEGALENSIA, or ME-
GALENSES LUDI. It is important to mark
the distinction between the celebration of this
festival under the Republic, and its later de-
velopment under the Empire. We find it early
in the 2nd century B.C. celebrated at Rome in
the month of April and in honour of the great
mother of the gods (Cybele, ueyd'Am 6eós, whence
the festival derived its name ; Cic. de Harusp.
Resp. 12, 24). The sacred stone representing
the goddess was brought to Rome from Pessinus
in the year 204 B.C., and the day of its arrival
was solemnised with a magnificent procession:
lectisternia, and games, and great numbers of
156
MEGALESIA
MEGALESIA
people carried presents to the goddess, whose
temporary resting-place was the temple of
Victory on the Palatine. (Varro, L. L. vi.15;
Liv. xxix. 14.) The celebration of the Mega-
lesia, however, did not begin till ten years later
(194 B.C.), and the temple which had been vowed
and ordered to be built in 204 B.C. was com-
pleted and dedicated by M. Junius Brutus (Liv.
xxxvi. 36) on April 10, B.C. 191, after which
time the celebration was annual. The temple
(Matris Magnae Idaeae) was on the Palatine, a
position within the pomoerium, which, as Mar-
quardt points out, shows that she was not re-
garded as a foreign deity: she came from Ida,
the home of their race. The rites were origin-
ally under the charge of a Phrygian priest and
priestess (Dionys. ii. 19); but the numbers were
afterwards greatly increased, and we find an
archigallus at their head, as chief priest, and a
Sacerdos maxima matris, as chief priestess, men-
tioned in numerous inscriptions. (See Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii. 368, note 6.) These archigalli
bear Roman names; but the ordinary galli were
foreigners. The priestly dress is a mitra (Pro-
pert. v. 7, 61), a veil, a necklace (occabus), and
a purple dress: a small image of the goddess
or of Attis in an aedicula was suspended at his
breast : in his hand he bore a basket of fruit,
cymbals, and flutes. The festival lasted for six
days, beginning on the 4th of April (reading
Prid. Non. in Liv. xxix. 14, according to the
Cal. Praen.). The season of this festival, like
that of the whole month in which it took place,
was full of general rejoicings and feasting. It
was customary for the Patricians on this occa-
sion to invite one another to their repasts
(mutitare), and the extravagance was such, that
a senatusconsultum was issued in 161 B.C., pre-
scribing that no one should go beyond a certain
extent of expenditure. (Gellius, ii. 24; com-
pare xviii. 2.)
The games which were held at the Megalesia
were scenic, but there is some indication that
they were also circenses (Mommsen, C. I. L. i. 391).
They were at first held on the Palatine in front
of the temple of the goddess, but afterwards also
in the theatres. (Cic. de Harusp. Resp. 11, &c.)
The day which was especially set apart for the
performance of scenic plays was the third of the
festival. (Ovid. Fast. iv. 377; Ael. Spartian.
Antonin. Carac. c. 6.) We know that four of
the extant plays of Terence were performed at
the Megalesia. Cicero (de Harusp. Resp. 12, 24),
probably contrasting the games of the Megalesia
with the more rude and barbarous games and
exhibitions of the circus, calls them maxime
casti, solemnes, religiosi : they were under the
superintendence of the curule aediles (Liv. xxxiv.
54), till in B.C. 22 Augustus took the cura
ludorum from the aediles and gave it to the
praetor. The procession of galli, which began
the festival (Ovid, Fast. iv. 179 f.), bore the
sacred image in a chariot through the city.
The priests sang Greek hymns and collected
coins from the people as they went (Cic. de Leg.
ii. 16, 40): the passage in Lucret. ii. 618 ft.
describes the procession.
Under the Empire there was a great increase
in the ceremonial, which took a new character,
more Eastern, and more elaborately symbolical.
In its first observance it was a thanksgiving for
the aid granted in the Second Punic War, and a
time of feasting and theatrical shows for the
patrician houses. In its later form Cybele re-
presents the earth and fruitfulness, and it is
recollected that the year of her entry was marked
by great plenty (Plin. N. H. xviii. § 16). Attis
represents the sun, and in this sun-myth it is
observed by Macrobius (i. 21, 7) that the day of
rejoicing (Hilaria) is that day when the sun
begins to make the day longer than the night.
The tendency to adopt the full Phrygian rites
instead of the simpler rites first introduced may
perhaps be beginning when Lucretius (l.c.) and
Catullus take up the subject, and it appears from
inscriptions that the Phrygian rites existed
earlier in South Italy (see Preller, Röm. Myth.
p. 736): but they were not fully celebrated
under the Republic, and perhaps not before the
time of Claudius. Preller notes that the first
mention of the March ceremonies is in Lucan, i.
599 (cf. Suet. Oth. 8). The festival so developed
began on March 15, which day stands in the
Calendar as canna intrat, because there was then
a procession of men and women bearing reeds,
which were sacred to Attis. There is some
allusion to Attis hiding himself among reeds,
and being there discovered by Cybele. There
were colleges of Cannophori or Cannofori in
several places, the heads of which are called
pater and mater. Inscriptions about them have
been found at Locri, Ostia, Milan, &c. (C. I. L.
x. 24; v. 5850). They have sometimes been
confused with Kavmſpópot. On March 22 was
the day of Arbor intrat, when the sacred pine
of Attis (Ovid. Met. x. 103) was borne to the
temple of Cybele on the Palatine. The pine
was hung with wool and with violet crowns
(Arnob. v. 16). For this service there was a
collegium dendrophororum Matris Magnae (C. I. L.
vi. 641). March 24 was Dies sanguinis, on
which, to commemorate the wounds of Attis, the
archigallus cut his arm with a knife; it was a
fast and a day of mourning (Mart. xi. 84; Arnob.
l. c.) : on March 25 was the day of rejoicing
(Hilaria), a great festival (Lamprid. Alex. Sev.
37; Macrob. l. c.); and, finally, on March 27
a procession of priests bore the sacred image on
a chariot down to the Almo (Mart. iii. 47; Sil.
Ital. viii. 365), to wash it in the place where the
Almo joins the Tiber near the Ostian road, half a
mile from the walls (Burn's Rome and Campagna,
p. 329). The image was the sacred black stone
(Preller suggests a meteorite), to which a female
head of silver was added. The ceremonies ended
with a general carnival. The Ludi Megalenses
of the original Megalesia, ludi scenici and ludi
circenses, were as before for seven days, from
April 4 to April 10. It should be noted
that the bathing of the goddess was not an
entirely new ceremony, since Ovid mentions it
as belonging to her first entry, and we hear also
of the image being bathed in the sea by order of
the Sibylline books in the year B.C. 38 (Dio Cass.
xlviii. 43); but this was an exceptional case, and
there is no trace of the annual March ceremonies
under the Republic. The ceremonies lasted till a
late period in various places. Marquardt cites a
passage from Gregory of Tours, who says that
Simplicius (in the 5th century) saw the proces-
sion of the image at Autun, with the attendants
singing and playing before it pro salvatione
agrorum ac vinearum. (See further on this
subject Preller, Röm. Myth. pp. 448 ft. and
MELITENSIS WESTIS
MENSA 157
735 ft., and Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung,
pp. 367–374, where a mass of authorities from
ancient writers and inscriptions is given in the
notes. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
MELITENSIS WESTIS, a specially fine
and soft material for dresses and the covering
of couches made at Malta, a relic probably of
the Phoenicians, who colonised it. Diodorus
(v. 12, 2) says that the inhabitants were good
in all industries, and particularly in manufac-
turing 3669ta Aertörmti kai pañakótmti Sua-
Trpetră (cf. Hesych. s. v. Mexitaia). Isidore (Orig.
xix. 22, 21) speaks of a teatrinum ad muliebrem
vestem conficiendam, and the same material is
spoken of as a luxury in Cic. Verr. ii. 72, 176;
74, 183. This gives probability to the reading
Melitensia in Lucret. iv. 1129. [G. E. M.]
MELLEIREN (ueAAetpmv). [EIREN.]
MEMBRA'NA. [LIBER, p. 58.]
MENELAEIA (wevexdela, Hesych. s. v.), a
festival celebrated at Therapnae in Laconia, in
honour of Menelaus and Helen, who were believed
to be buried there. (Paus. iii. 19, 9; Isocr.
Helen. Encom. §61.)
Though, however, Menelaus was associated in
this worship, and the festival connected with
the place as stated above sometimes bears his
name, it is a question whether the ‘EAéveta is
not the name under which the great festival of
Therapnae should be known. In divine honours
Helen was certainly the prominent figure, re-
garded as a goddess of dawn; and, further, as
the bestower of grace and beauty on children
(Herod. vi. 61). We have no description of the
separate rites for Menelaus ; but there is mention
of a procession of Spartan maidens to Therapnae
in honour of Helen. They drove in the carriages
with wicker tilts called kāvvaôpa or käva6pa
(Hesych. s. v.). [CANATHRON.] See also Preller,
Griechische Myth. ii. p. 109. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
MENSA (rpátreſa), a tâble. The simplest
kind of table was one with three legs, round,
called cilliba (Festus, s. v.; Warro, L. L. v. 118:
cf. Hor. Sat. i. 3, 13; Ovid. Met. viii. 662; Xen.
Anab. vii. 3, § 10). It is shown in the drinking-
scene painted on the wall of a wine-shop
at Pompeii.
(Gell’s Pom-
peiana, 1832,
vol. ii. p. 11.)
(See woodcut.)
It often had
legs carved to
represent the
feet of animals
(see woodcut
in Vol. I. p.
395). In Ho-
meric times,
beside the seat
(9póvos) of each guest a small table was
placed to receive his portion of food, which was
cut up on the large dresser (ěAeos). The table
was probably then, as in later times when the
same custom of small tables prevailed, lower
than the seat, as is seen in the vase-painting
below. (See also CENA, Vol. I. p. 394.) The
term rpátreſa, though commonly used in Greek
for a table of any kind, must, according to its ety-
mology, have denoted originally a four-legged
table. Accordingly, in paintings on vases, the
tables are usually represented with four legs, of
Table, from Gell's Pompeiana.
which an example is given in the cut beiow.
(Millin, Peintures de Vases Antiques, vol. i.
Table beside a dining-couch. (From an ancient vase.)
pl. 59.) Horace used at Rome a dining-table of
white marble, thus combining neatness with
economy (Sat. i. 6, 16). For the houses of
the opulent, tables were made of the most valua-
ble and beautiful kinds of wood, especially of
maple (orqevöauv{vn, Athen. ii. p. 47 d: acerna,
Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 10; Mart. xiv. 90), or of the
citrus of Africa, which was a species of cypress,
the Thuja articulata of the Atlas range. (Citrea,
Cic. Verr. iv. 17, 37; Mart. ii. 43, xiv. 89;
Plin. H. W. xiii. §§ 91–99.) For this purpose
the Romans made use of the roots and tubers of
the tree, which, when cut, displayed the greatest
variety of spots, beautiful waves, and curling
veins. These were called tigrinae or pantherinae,
according to the marks on them, or are compared
to a peacock’s tail (cf. lectus pavoninus, Mart.
xiv. 85). The finest specimens of tables so
adorned were sold for many thousand pounds.
Pliny (l.c.) mentions such prices as a table
bought by Cicero for 500,000 sesterces, by
Asinius Pollio for a million (= about 8,500!).
One of the principal improvements was the
invention of the monopodium, a round table
(orbis) supported by a single foot; this with
other kinds of expensive and elaborate furniture
was introduced into Rome from Asia Minor by
Cn. Manlius after the war with Antiochus, B.C.
187 (Plin. H. N. xxxiv. § 14; cf. Liv. xxxix. 6).
The value of these orbes, which were sections of
the trunk of the tree, depended on their size.
Pliny (xiii. § 93) mentions as remarkable the
table of Ptolemy, king of Mauretania, 4% feet in
diameter, but of two joined pieces; that of
Nomius, a freedman of Tiberius, 3 ft. 113 in. ;
and that of Tiberius, 4 ft. 2 in. in diameter.
These orbes were often supported on ivory feet
(Juv. xi. 122; Mart. ii. 43, ix. 22). Sometimes
the citrus or maple was only a veneering (Plin.
xxxiii. § 146). Tables were also made of metal,
bronze, silver (Petron. 73) or gold (Mart. iii. 31;
perhaps overlaid with plates of gold). From
the fashion of round tables came that of arrang-
ing the lecti so as to form a continuous crescent-
shaped couch called sigma, from the form c of
that letter (sigma was the couch, not the table),
also called stibadium and accubitum (Mart. x. 48;
xiv. 87). (For further description of the arrange-
ment of table and couches, see TRICLINIUM ; for
mensae Delphicae, see ABACUS.) The tables among
the Greeks, and until later times among the
Romans, were not covered by cloths, which only
came into use about Domitian's time [MANTELE].
They were cleansed by wet sponges (Hom. 0d. i.


158 MENSARII
MENSURA
111, xx. 151; cf. Mart. xiv. 144), for which
purpose the Romans also used a thick cloth with
a woolly nap (gausape, Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 11).
Among the Greeks the small tables described
above were removed bodily with their course of
dishes on them (Athen. ii. p. 60 b, v. p. 150 a),
whence the phrase Tpotat, bettepal Tpdaregal,
which answer to the Latin cena prima, &c. As
the board of the Greek table is sometimes called
by a distinct name, éttºmua (Athen. ii. p. 49 a ;
Pollux, x. 81), it appears that it was sometimes
separate from the tripod or other stand (kixAſ8as)
on which it was set. The Roman practice, how-
ever, was to bring in the courses (fercula or
missus) on trays (repositoria), which were set
down on the mensa. Such phrases as mensas
removere, &c. (Verg. Aen. i. 216, &c.) mean the
conclusion of the meal; and the phrase menSae
secundae means not “second course,” but dessert,
which was regarded as a break in the entertain-
ment, and came after the offering to the Lares,
which was the Roman grace after meat. [See
CENA, Vol. I. p. 396 b : LARARIUM.]
The name of rpátreſa or mensa was also given
to a flat tombstone (Cic. de Leg. ii. 26, 66). Of
mensae sacrae in the temples there were two
sorts: (i) a sort of subsidiary altar set before
the image in the cella, to receive offerings of
fruit, flowers, coins, &c., so that in inscriptions
we find dedication of “ara et mensa” (C. I. L.
x. 205); and (ii.) mensae anclabres, tables about
the temple upon which vessels, &c., required in
the sacred rites might be placed, like credence
tables (Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 165). Like
the former kind were the mensae curiales, for the
offerings (to Juno Curitis especially) by the
Flamen curialis in each curia. (For the mer-
cantile sense, see ARGENTARII; and, for further
description of mensae and ºrpätregal, Becker-Göll,
Charikles, iii. p. 81; Gallus, ii. 350; Marquardt,
Privatleben, p. 723; Mayor's notes on Juv. i.
137.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
MENSARII. [ARGENTARII.]
MENSIS. [CALENDARIUM.]
MENSO'RES, measurers or surveyors. This
name was applied to various classes of persons
whose occupation was the measurement of
things.
1. To land - surveyors who measured and
defined the extent of fields, apparently the
same as the agrimensores (Colum. v. 1, 2;
Ov. Met. i. 136; AGRIMENSOREs).
2. To military officers, who had a twofold
duty, as measurers of the ground for a camp,
and measurers of corn for the troops, unless
indeed they were two distinct classes of officers.
(i.) As measurers of the ground for the camp
(Veget. R. Mil. ii. 7) they were usually called
metatores (Cic. Phil. xi. 5, 12; xiv. 4, 10).
[CASTRA, Vol. I. p. 372 b.] They were a kind
of quartermaster-general, and thus provided
quarters for the soldiers in the towns through
which they passed, and where they made a
temporary stay (Cod. Theod. 6, 34, 1; 7, 8, 4.)
(ii.) In military inscriptions we find mensor
frument: (Orelli, Inscr. No. 3523), and some-
times simply mensor (Orelli, 3473; Henzen,
6820; Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverw. ii. p. 536;
Walter, Gesch. d. Röm. Rechts, $ 343).
3. Mensores frumentarii was the name of
officers who had to measure the corn which was
conveyed up the Tiber for the public granaries
(Dig. 27, 1, 26; mensores Portuenses," Cod.
Theod. 14, 4, 9; 14, 15, 1). They were stationed
in the port of Ostia, and were employed under
the praefectus annonae. Their title is men-
tioned in several ancient inscriptions (Corpus
mensorum frumentariorum Ostiensium, Henzen,
7194; mensores frumentarii Cereris Augustae,
Orelli, 4190).
4. Mensores aedificiorum, sometimes applied to
architects, or more especially to such architects
as conducted the erection of public buildings,
the plans of which had been drawn up by other
architects (Plin. Ep. x. 19 (28), 5; x. 20 (29),
3). [L. S.] [W. S.]
MENSTRUUM. [SERVUs]
MENSU'RA (uérpov). The simplest and pro-
bably most primitive measures are those derived
from the various parts of the human body. Such
was the view of the ancients themselves (cf.
Heron Alexandr. Tab., rà uérpa šešpmviral é:
ãv0patrívov plexów #70wy ŚaktüAov kováčkov
Traxalatoo att0auffs aráxedos 8%uaros àpyviºs
Kal Aoutrów ; Vitruv. iii. 1, 5, “mensurarum
rationes. . . ex corporis membris collegerunt,
uti digitum palmum pedem cubitum ”). Among
primitive and unmixed races, where all live
under the same conditions, idiosyncrasies of
stature are rare, and consequently the average
sized foot will give a standard sufficiently accu-
rate for all their purposes. When, however,
peoples of different stocks come into contact,
and different modes of life may cause differences
in stature among the various classes of a single
community, many variations of the foot or
cubit will naturally be found.
The growth of the arts of civilisation will
require greater accuracy in measurements of
various kinds: accordingly the interrelations of
various standards will be carefully ascertained
by the use of some small natural object of uni-
form size, such as the barleycorn of the English
system. Finally, with the advance of science,
efforts will be made to get some more general
units fixed with great accuracy, and probably to
bring those into relation with the measures of
capacity and standards of weight.
Measures of capacity are probably first ob-
tained from natural products of a uniform size.
The Hebrews and ancient Irish employed the
hen’s egg as their unit; at Zanzibar a small
gourd is now employed as a general unit; and
the Chinese use the joints of the bamboo in a
similar fashion. The Roman cochlear (from
cochlea, “a mussel”), their smallest measure of
capacity, and possibly the kūaôos of the Greeks
(which perhaps originally meant “a gourd”),
indicate a like origin for standards of capacity.
It is natural to expect many local variations in
such measures, and it is only a strong centralised
government which can introduce some universal
standards, such as those established in this coun-
try by the Act of 1824. Of such regulation of
standards in ancient times we have examples in
the case of Pheidon of Argos, who, according to
Herodotus, fixed the standard measures used by
the Peloponnesians (roi rā uérpa Trothoautos
IIexotovumatouri, vi. 127); in Solon, who fixed
the standards of weights and measures at Athens
(Decret. ap. Andocid. 11, 25, vöuois Xpºigbat
toſs 36Aovos kai uérpois ſcal orra.0aois), and in
Augustus at Rome. It is possible that at
such a time an effort may be made to fix certain
MENSURA
MENSURA 159
relations between the standards of length, capa-
city, and weight.
The Tables at the end of the volume give a
general view of the various systems of measures
of the ancients, setting forth as accurately as
possible their value, according to modern stan-
dards. The following pages give a more
detailed account of the different systems. A
large mass of valuable information has reached
us from the ancient metrologists, whose frag-
ments have been collected by Hultsgh (Metro-
Jogicorum Scriptorum reliquiae, Leipzig, 1864–6).
The tables named after Heron, an Alexandrine
mathematician, are of especial value, although
they are probably of various dates; whilst the
excerpts from the ancient lexicographers, such
as Pollux, afford much important information.
The German metrologists have assumed that
the Greeks and Romans, who derived theirs
from the Greeks, borrowed their standards from
the East : one school, that of Brandis and Hultsch,
deriving them from the Chaldaeans, whilst that
of Lepsius derives not merely the Greek, but also
the Chaldaean from Egypt, although both alike
admit the ultimate origin to be the parts of the
human body. It is therefore a question worth
considering how far like conditions of develop-
ment may not have produced the close general
approximation between the various systems.
Whilst admitting that measures of length
were based on the parts of the human body, the
German metrologists have sought outside Greece
for the standards there in use. One school—
that of Brandis and Hultsch — consider the
standards of measures and weights to have been
invented by the Chaldaeans: the other school—
that of Lepsius (Längen masse der Alten)—makes
the Greeks to have borrowed their systems
from the Egyptians. The latter had two
cubits, one based on the average length of the
fore-arm of a full-grown man, from the point
of the elbow to the tip of the middle finger.
. This was fixed at 0°450 metre. Beside it was
another cubit, evidently of later construction,
which was about one-sixth larger than the
natural cubit. The fact that it varies so much
from nature shows that it is later in point of
time. It may be fixed at 0.525 metre. This
cubit is found not only in Egypt and in Pales-
tine, but also in the regions of the Euphrates
and Persia, although in the latter cases some-
what raised, as it may be fixed at about 0.532
metre. In both Egypt and Mesopotamia it is
called the royal cubit, as we learn in the one
case from the inscriptions on the measuring-
rods, which have survived; in the other from
the testimony of Herodotus (i.178). Whilst the
natural cubit was used for the general purposes
of life, according to Lepsius the royal cubit was
exclusively used in building. It would seem,
however, that our data are not yet sufficient to
enable us to decide whether the Egyptians bor-
rowed the royal cubit from the peoples of the
Euphrates, or whether the latter borrowed it from
the Egyptians. If the Egyptians came from Asia
into the Nile Valley (as supposed by the best
modern authorities), there is no reason why they
should not have brought the royal ell with them
from their early home. The Egyptian cubit
was subdivided into six palms, each containing
four fingers. But at Babylon the sexagesimal
system influenced the subdivision of the cubit.
The Chaldaeans made the cubit consist of six
hands, each of which contained five fingers. The
royal cubit thus contained thirty fingers, accord-
ing to Lepsius. But there can be little doubt
that Lepsius is wrong. Dörpfeld (Mittheil. 1883,
p. 36) has shown from Herod. i. 178, vii.
117, that the uérpios trixvs there mentioned
is the common Greek cubit: but, as Herodotus
says that the royal cubit is three fingers longer
than the aérpios (Ó Sé Bagińhios trixus roſ,
perptov čari Tàxeos weſgow rpur, Sakrüxouri),
the royal cubit therefore = 27 63 cruxoi.
In Greece proper at least three different foot-
standards were employed,—Attic, Olympic, and
Aeginetan. Dörpfeld has shown from the mea-
surements of the cella of the Parthenon, called
the ‘Ekatópatročov, that the Attic foot was 295-7
mill. The measurement of the stadion at
Olympia has proved the Olympic foot to be
320.5 mill. Tradition said that this was the
size of Hercules’ foot. (Aul. Gell. i. 1.) The
mythical connexion of Hercules with Olympia
may indicate Oriental influence. The Aeginetan
foot, according to the temple measurements, =
333 mill. Other measures mentioned by the
ancient writers are the Philetaerean foot (rods
$1Aergipelos), which was probably so called
from Philetaerus, king of Pergamus, shown by
Dörpfeld to = 330 mill. ; the Samian cubit,
which Herodotus (ii. 168) regarded as the
same size as the Egyptian.
In Western Europe we find three foot-stan-
dards: the Italian, proved from the writings of
the Gromatici (Surveyors) and from buildings to
be about 275 mill. ; the Roman, known to us
from actual measures to be 296 mill. ; and the
pes Drusianus, used by the Surveyors in Gaul
and Germany = 333 mill.
It will be seen that the Attic and Roman
standards are practically identical ; that so also
the pes Drusianus, the trous fixeraípelos, the
Aeginetan foot, and Ionian foot are almost
identical; whilst the Italian foot is almost iden-
tical with the Phrygian foot of 277.5 mill.
Method. — It is of course of the greatest
importance that in metrological investigations
a strictly scientific method should be followed.
From the nature of the case it is necessary that
we should obtain by means of actual measures,
if they still survive, at least one of the units of
measure mentioned by the ancient writers. As
the tables of Heron and other writings give the
comparative values of various units and stan-
dards, it follows that if we can obtain with
accuracy one such unit, we can deduce from it
all the rest. Linear units are of course the
most important, as from them we can deduce
the itinerary and superficial measures, and the
most important of these is the Roman foot.
The Roman Foot.—There are five different
ways of determining the length of the Roman
foot. These are: (1) from ancient measures
still in existence, including feet laid down on
sepulchral monuments, and foot-rules found in
the ruins of various cities of the Roman empire;
(2) from measurements of known distances
along roads, both between milestones and
between places; (3) from measurements of
buildings and obelisks; (4) from contents of
certain measures of capacity; and (5) from
measurements of a degree on the earth's surface.
(1) It might appear at first thought that
160 MENSURA
MENSURA
ancient measures in actual existence would at
once give the required information. But these
measures are found to differ among themselves.
They are of two kinds,-foot measures cut upon
grave-stones, and brass or iron measures intended
in all probability for actual use. From the
nature of the case the latter would probably be
more exact than the former, and in fact the
measures on the gravestones are rudely cut, and
their subdivisions are of unequal length, so that
they have no pretensions to perfect accuracy,
but on the other hand it would be absurd to
suppose that they would have been made very
far wrong. We may safely conclude that they
would have about as much accuracy as a mea-
sure hastily cut on a stone by a mason from a
foot-rule used by him in working. Three such
measures are preserved in the Capitol at Rome,
and one in the Capponi collection. They are
called the Statilian, the Cossutian, the Aebutian,
the Capponian feet. They have been repeatedly
measured, but unfortunately the different mea-
surements gave different results. Besides these,
we have two models of feet cut on the rocks at
Terracina. The bronze and iron foot-rules, of
which several have been found at Pompeii, do
not precisely agree in length. There was
anciently a standard foot measure kept in the
Capitol, called the pes monetalis, which was
probably lost at the burning of the Capitol
under Vitellius or Titus.
(2) The itinerary measurements are of two
kinds, according as they are obtained by mea-
suring the distance from one place to another,
or the distance from one milestone to another
on a Roman road. Both methods have the
advantage of the diminution of error which
always results from determining a lesser magni-
tude from a greater, but both are subject to
uncertainties from turnings in the road, and
from the improbability of the milestones being
laid down with minute accuracy; and two
other serious objections apply to the former
mode, namely, the difficulty of determining the
points where the measurement began and ended,
and the changes which may have taken place in
the direction of the road. Both methods have
been tried: the former by Cassini, who mea-
sured the distance from Nîmes to Narbonne,
and Riccioli and Grimaldi, who measured that
between Modena and Bologna; and the latter by
Cassini, between Aix and Arles.
(3) The measurement of buildings is rather a
verification of the value of the foot as obtained
from other sources than an independent evidence.
(The method was first employed by Raper in his
Enquiry into the Measure of the Roman Foot,
Philosoph. Transact. 1760, who obtained a foot
= 295-7 mill.) It is very seldom that we
know the number of ancient feet contained in
the building measured. We have one such
example in the Parthenon, the cella of which
was called the Hecatompodon, the hundred-footed
(Plut. Pericl. 13; Cato, 5), but even in this case we
could not have told exactly, till we knew some-
thing of the length of the Greek foot, to what
part of the edifice this measurement applied.
Furthermore, the measurement of the stadion
at Olympia laid bare by the German excava-
tions has enabled us to ascertain with accuracy
the length of the Olympian foot; but in this
case likewise, it would have been impossible to
arrive at an accurate result had we not known
already that this stadion was 600 feet long.
Again, there are the obelisk in the Piazza del
Popolo at Rome, and the Flaminian obelisk, the
heights of which are given by Pliny (H. N.
xxxvi. § 71). But the actual heights of these
obelisks as compared with Pliny would give a
value for the foot altogether different from that
obtained from other sources. Indeed, the num-
bers in Pliny are undoubtedly corrupt, and as
they stand it is only the difference of height
between the two that can be of any service, and
even this gives a result by no means satisfac-
tory. An ingenious emendation from Stuart
would remove the difficulty, but it is obvious
that a passage which requires a conjectural
emendation cannot be taken as an independent
authority. There is another mode of deducing
the value of the foot from buildings of the
dimensions of which we have no information.
The building is measured, and the lengths thus
obtained are divided by the supposed value of
the ancient foot (as derived from other evidence),
and if a remainder be left the value of the foot
is corrected so that there may be no remainder.
It is assumed in this process that no fractions
were allowed in the dimensions of the building,
and also that the plans were worked out with
minute exactness, both of which assumptions
are not very probable. In fact these measure-
ments have given different values for the foot.
Thus some metrologists have found by this
method that two separate foot standards were
employed in the temple at Aegina, a supposi-
tion which can scarcely be credited. Modern
architects do not allow that such calculations
could be depended on in modern buildings for
determining the true length of the measures by
which they were planned. Nor are the dimen-
sions of the parts of mediaeval buildings in our
own country, as churches and cathedrals, found
to agree exactly, so as to give whole numbers of
the standard measure. On the other hand these
measurements, like those on roads, have the
advantage of involving in all probability very
small errors, and of the diminution of the error
by division. It must however be borne in mind
that buildings, like temples, were liable to have
their dimensions conditioned by the nature of
the site, and also that those which remain
to us have been built on the foundations of
older and smaller ones.
The results of these various methods are as
follows: (1) The Roman foot as obtained from
the measures varies between 295'6 and 296 mill.
(2) The foot obtained from itinerary measures
is 295'85 mill.; and (3) that obtained from the
measurements of buildings at Pompeii by
Nissen is 296 mill.
From these results we cannot be far from the
truth in setting the Roman foot at 296 mill., or
a little less than the English foot (301 mill.).
(4) Some have attempted to deduce the length
of the Roman foot from the solid content of the
congius of Vespasian. Since the congius was
§ amphora, and the content of the amphora was
a cubic foot [QUADRANTAL), the process is to
multiply the content of the congius by 8, and to
extract the cube root of the product. But this
method is very uncertain. Hultsch, for instance,
will not allow that the measures of capacity
were obtained from the linear unit, but rather
MENSURA
MENSURA 161
from a certain weight of water or wine. Fur-
ther, there is a doubt about the actual con-
tent of the congius; and even granting that
the congius had been adapted to the foot with
tolerable accuracy, there is a risk of error in
reversing the process.
(5) Some French geographers have supposed
that the ancient astronomers were acquainted
with the dimensions of a great circle of the
earth, and that they founded their whole system
of measures on the subdivisions of such a circle.
But we have no evidence of any sort to show
that the ancients were acquainted with any
such method.
The Greek Foot.—We have no ancient foot-rules
surviving, so therefore we fix the Greek (Attic)
foot from the testimony of ancient writers that
it was about the same as the Roman, confirming
this by the measurements of buildings, such as
the Parthenon, from which Dörpfeld has shown
the foot to be 295'7 mill. The Olympian foot
is derived similarly from the testimony of
ancient writers comparing it with other feet,
and from the actual measurement of the
stadium.
Greek Measures of Length.-In Homer the
following measures are mentioned: 6&pov (= the
later trañatorſ), troos (in compound €karðuro-
80s), trulyáv (in adjective truyoógios), āpyvia,
TAé6pov (in form réAe6pov). The rvy&v is a
short cubit, being the distance from the point of
the elbow to the knuckles (ei ovykáuipeias rows
ôaktúAovs, &t’ &ykóvos étrº airroès truyèv rô
uérpov, ei 6% ovykäeforeias, Trvyuh). It is to be
noted that the trºxvs does not occur as the
name of a measure in the poems. Homer makes
mention also of a long measure, called simply
Hérpov (&orr' àpºp' otpouri Sv' &vepe Smpiágarðov
Plérp év xepolv čxovres, Il. xii. 422). It is
impossible for us to say what was the length of
this measuring-rod—whether it was the length
of an āpyvia, or of the ākauva or kāAapos of
later date. Of course there are no data for
fixing the length of the Homeric troos, Špyvia, and
tréAe6pov.
Superficial Measure.—The unit of superficial
measure in Homer is the yūms (found only in
the compounds trevrmicoviró') vos and retpdyvos),
which probably meant the space traversed by
the plough in one day's work. It probably
derived its name from the ancient form of the
plough (called airó'yvov by Hesiod), and was
thus somewhat analogous to the English plough-
gate. The term was applied to the patches of
ground in the common field (étričávº v špoćpm,
Il. xii. 422), which were separated from each
other by land-marks (otpa) made of stones (Il.
xii. 421; xxi. 405), corresponding to Latin limes,
“balk.” In such common fields or early com-
munities the furrow was always of a customary
length, hence our fur-long (furrow-long), which
doubtless depended on the distance which a yoke
of oxen could drag, and a man could steer, the
plough without a rest. The breadth of the yūms
was the distance between the očpa, which
bounded each side. The Scholiast sets it at
about 10 fathoms = 60 feet. But we know
from Homer (Il. x. 351; Od. viii. 124) that the
distance between the otpa of mules—that is, the
breadth of the patch ploughed by mules—was
greater than that between those of oxen. Con-
sequently the breadth (TAé9pov) varied. Now
WOL. II.
the old name for the orrā8tov was aßAos, and
its double was called Stavkos, from which it is
probable that the stadion represented the furrow-
long (ağA0s being an old form of a SAaº). The
stadion being 600 feet, is therefore ten times the
breadth of the yūms, a ratio found to exist in
similar land systems elsewhere.
Measures of Capacity.—Homer has but the
word piérpov to express the unit of both Dry
and Liquid measure. Telemachus (Od. ii. 355)
takes 20 uérpa of barley-meal as provision for
his crew. Some have identified the uérpov both
in liquid and dry measure with the Hebrew
Sgton, but it is more probable that in the pérpov
of barley-meal we have the ué6tuvos of later
times. It is almost certain that the uérpov
used for liquids differed from that used for dry
measure. The uérpov of barley-meal is evidently
a considerable amount, from the passage quoted
above. But as the capacity of the various
vessels offered as prizes by Achilles is given in
Hérpa, it is not probable that the uérpov by
which their capacity is expressed is the same as
that used for the barley-meal. On the other
hand, it seems not improbable that the pérpov
used for wine was the same as the Séras or cup
of Od. ix. 208–10:
Töv 8" &re trivotev weatmöéa olvov ºpv6pöv,
ëv čátras utrajoras, #6aros &vå sixoat uérpa
xeve.
To suppose that the proportion was one cup
of wine to twenty puéðiplvot of water is absurd ;
whereas the proportion of one cup of wine to
twenty cups of water is sufficiently marvellous
to show the strength of the wine without falling
into grotesque exaggeration. The word koréxm
occurs occasionally in Homer (only in the
Odyssey) in the sense of cup. It probably is
the same as 6émas, and thus connects the
Homeric 6étras with the kort)\m of later times.
Greek and Roman Linear Measure. — The
finger - breadth (64ktvNos, digitus) was the
smallest measure employed in both systems, and
was regarded as the unit (uovás). Later writers,
e.g. Isidorus, mention the use of the barleycorn
as the unit, 5 barleycorns making a finger,
7 making a thumb (pollea).
The kóvövX0s, the middle joint of the finger,
= 2 fingers.
The traXatorſ (later traxalorrºſis, in strict Attic
traxagºrà), Sãºpov (Homer and Hesiod), or 60xu%
(according to some writers), palmws, handbreadth
= 4 fingers. This measure was in very common
use with both Greeks and Romans.
The Ötzás = 2 hands = 8 fingers, usually
called juttröölov.
The Atx4s, the space between the thumb
(āvrixelp) and forefinger (Atxavos), = 10
fingers.
*Opóóðwpov, space from the base of the hand
to the finger-tips, = 11 fingers.
Xtri0au%, span = 3 handbreadths = 12 fingers
= } cubit. This measure, much used by the
Greeks, was not employed by the Romans, who
used instead the dodrans = # pes.
IIows, pes, foot = 16 fingers. The Romans
also used their national uncial system in dividing
the pes, thus giving it 12 parts, which in later
times passed into general use.
IIvyáv (Homer, Herod. ii. 175, and some other
isolated passages), the distance from the elbow.
M
162 MENSURA
MENSURA
to the first joint of the fingers, = 20 fingers.
The Romans employed as its equivalent the
palmipes = palmus + pes.
IIñxus, cubitus, cubit or ell, distance from the
point of elbow to the point of the middle finger,
= 24 fingers. Roman writers employ cubitus
when following Greek sources; the native
Roman term is Sesquipes.
Băua, gradus, pace, - 2% feet.
Passus, double pace or stride, - 5 feet. The
later Greeks employed the Šutrexos as its equi-
valent.
*Opeyua (Heraclean Tables) = 4 feet (or,
according to others, 5 feet).
*Opyvić, fathom, the space which a man can
stretch with both arms, = 6 feet. The Romans
had no corresponding term (although tensum is
used in Low Latin), but occasionally used ulna
to express it, although usually employing this
term for the cubit.
*Akatva (in late writers &iceva) = 10 feet. It
probably means the goad used in driving the
plough oxen, which was finally fixed at 10 feet
and employed as the special land measure. To
it corresponds the Roman pertica, or decempeda
(ten-foot rod), the square of which formed the
basis of all land measures. Hence the Roman
agrimensores were sometimes called decempeda-
tores.
IIAéðpov (tréAeópov, Homer) probably was
originally the breadth of the yūms or acre-strip,
the space lying between the otpa or boundary
stones, which form the longer sides of the patch.
It = 100 feet; and its square became the regular
limit of land measure with the Greeks of his-
torical times. To it corresponds in size the
vorsus, used by the Oscans and Umbrians, which
properly means the “turning place” or head-
land (cf. ai o Tpopal sc. rôv 80öv, Hesych.).
The Roman actus, = 120 feet, properly meant
the “headland” (called actus minimus, 4 feet
broad). It then came in later times to mean
the distance which oxen can draw the plough
at a single draught (“sulcum autem ducere
longiorem quam pedum centum viginti contra-
rium pecori est, quoniam plus aequo fatigatur
ubi hunc modum excessit,” Colum. ii. 2, 27).
Itinerary Measures.—For the higher measures
of length, although the continuity of the system
was preserved by making them exact multiples
of a foot, it is obvious that convenience would
demand higher denominations, one of which
would be regarded as a new unit. Nay, these
higher measures may be viewed with respect to
their origin, as in a certain sense independent of
those smaller measures with which they were
afterwards made to agree. For just as we have
seen that the smaller measures of length are
taken from natural objects, so we shall find that
at an early period the larger measures were
not derived artificially from the smaller, but
from distances which occur in nature and in
ordinary life. Thus Homer expresses distances
by the cast of a stone (Il. iii. 12, §orov tº éml
Aãav imari), and so even too in later times
(Thuc. v. 65; Polybius, v. 6); of a quoit (Il.
xxiii. 431, 80 orate Storkov oſſpa... tréAovrat); of a
spear (Il. xv. 358, 6oupos époſi); by the distance
which a man can reach with a spear (Il. x. 357,
3ovpmvekés); and by the still more indefinite
expression, “as far as a man makes himself
heard distinctly when he shouts” (Od. v. 400,
vi. 294 et alib., §ogov 're yé yove Bohoras); and
again by standards derived from agriculture
(Il x. 352, §agov tº éirl of pa TéAovral ható-
vov), which from what we have seen above
represents the breadth of the acre piece or yºns,
the amount ploughed in one day: as mules
are superior to oxen, the breadth ploughed in
one day of a piece of ground of a fixed length
would be greater than the breadth (TAé9pov)
ploughed in the same time by a yoke oxen. (See
Ridgeway's article in Journal of Hellenic Studies,
1885.) Of the longest distances time was made
the measure, as in the case of the German
Stunden: the journey of a day by an active
traveller (eißwuos &vhp), or of a day and a night,
or on horseback, or with a merchant ship (vais
otpoyyvää, öAlcás), a method too frequently
employed now as well as in ancient times to need
illustration. (Comp. Ukert, Geograp. d. Griech.
w. Röm. vol. i. pt. 2, pp. 54-5.) The system of
measuring by stations or posts [MANSIO] should
probably be referred to this head, as it is most
likely that such distances would be fixed with
reference to the powers of endurance of man
and horse, before the trouble was taken actually
to measure them out. Another plan was that
which Herodotus several times adopts, and
which is also familiar to all ages, the description
of one distance by comparing it with another
which is well known. It is true that in many
cases the method is only general and indefinite,
as when Herodotus describes the length of the
Nile as equal to that of the Danube, but there
are other cases in which the method was
definite, and especially one case, in which it
actually formed the foundation of the common
system of itinerary measures in use among the
Greeks. We refer of course to the stadion.
Xrd.ölov (a tráðtov, Doric), stadium = 600 feet.
The Doric ordótov (from atráo) indicates that it
was the distance traversed in a single draught
by the plough. It thus was probably the length
of the yūms strip, just as the TAé6pov was its
breadth. It always contained 100 orgyiae or 600
feet, no matter what the size of the foot might
be. The Homeric yūms (vide supra) was in breadth
10 orgyiae : the stadion is thus ten times the
breadth of the yūms. A similar proportion is found
between the length (furlong) and breadth of
English and Irish acre strips. The Germans regard
the stadion as of Babylonian origin. Brandis
(Münz-, Mass-, und Gewichtswesen, p. 20) holds
that the Babylonians determined the length of
an hour of equinoctial time by the water-clock:
in one hour the sun traversed a portion of the
sky thirty times his own diameter; therefore
every two minutes a portion equal to his ap-
parent diameter. With this they equated the
distance which an active walker can traverse on
the earth in the same time : the stadion there-
fore is the distance traversed by an active
walker in two minutes. As the Greeks had
provided themselves with all the other measures
by purely empirical means, it is not likely that
they went to the East to borrow the stadion,
but derived it from their own system of agri-
culture, which was not borrowed from the East.
The Romans only employed the stadium in later
times, and that only for distances by sea, where
they simply followed the Greeks. The otóðtov
in historical times was the distance of the race-
course, and was the regular unit of road measure,
MENSURA
MENSURA 163
and was in later times the unit used by the
astronomers and geographers.
Aíavaos (or Sugróiov), so named from ağAos,
the old name of the ordöuov, probably meant
originally “double furrow,” and then came to
mean a course up and down the stadion.
‘Ittikáv, the course for the horse-race, - 4
stades, as they ran twice up and down the
ordőtov.
MíAtov, miliarum. The Romans measured all
long distances by milia passuum, or shortly
milia. Strabo is the first Greek to use the
borrowed pºtatov, and that only when speaking
of distances which he had derived from the
chorography of Agrippa. Miliarium is only a
late word, as the good writers use lapis or lapis
amiliarius.
IIapacáyyms, a Persian road measure, used by
Greek authors writing about Asia Minor, as
Herodotus and Xenophon. It contained 30
stades, or 4 Roman miles. Modern metrologists
assign it an origin similar to that of the otéötov
given above, regarding it as the distance tra-
versed by an active walker in an hour of equi-
noctial time. It may have been so adjusted in
a later and scientific age, but it is more probable
that it had its origin long before the beginnings
of scientific metrology.
Land Measures.—We have seen that a distinct
source of some of the greater measures of length
(e.g. the TAéðpov and gráðtov) arose out of the
measures of surface, which must of necessity be
employed from a very early period in every
civilized community for determining the boun-
daries of land. Herodotus (ii. 109) mentions a
tradition which assigns the invention of
geometry to such a necessity which arose in
Egypt in the reign of Sesostris. This tradition
is of course now only referred to as an illustra-
tion, not as an expression of an historical fact.
As in the other cases, the origin of the system
lies far back beyond the reach of history, and
all that can be done is to trace with some prob-
ability its successive steps as indicated by the
names of the measures and by the statements of
ancient writers. Here too, as in the itinerary
distance, the original unit of the system was
probably not a specific number of feet, but some
natural quantity which was afterwards brought
into accordance with the standard of the smaller
measures. Also it is to be observed that these
measures are from the nature of the case
measures of surface, although in practice often
used (as the stadium and plethrum) as measures
of length. The precise fact seems to be that
the first natural measure of the sort was a strip
of ground of considerable length and moderate
breadth, being the amount which could be
ploughed in one day’s work by a yoke of oxen.
(See Homeric yūms, supra.) This is borne out
by what we know of the Roman system. The
Roman settlers in Further Spain called the actus
quadratus by the name acnua, an old Latin term ;
the same people gave the name porca to a strip
of land = 180 x 30 feet. They had evidently
brought this customary unit from Italy, which
was 60 feet longer than the actus as finally
fixed by the land-surveyors. Now we know
that the actus was originally the headland,
where the plough was turned, and along which
the cattle were driven ; this was called by Varro
(L. L. v. 3, 10, § 22) actus minimus, being only
4 feet wide. It is not then unreasonable to
suppose that the length of the original furrow,
that is, of the patch ploughed in one day, was
shortened until the furrow became equal to the
breadth of the strip, that is, to the headland or
actus of 120 feet. This patch, the square of the
headland, became the basis of the Roman land
measure. The Gallic arepennis (French arpent),
which according to Columella corresponded in size
to the Roman actus, certainly meant originally
the headland. We may not unreasonably
assume a similar development for the Greek
unit of 100 feet square, the plethrum, and also
for the Oscan versus; namely, that it arose from
a land unit of larger extent and oblong in shape,
the breadth of which may have been originally
about 60 feet, corresponding to the measure
called clima (half of an actus) mentioned by
Columella, and the breadth of the Homeric yiſms.
The unit employed by the Greeks was the
square of the TAé6pov, which = 10,000 square
feet. The Italians used similarly the square
of the vorsus, which was of like size.
The yūms (or yūm) was the unit employed in
Homer (supra).
On the Heraclean Tables (found at Heraclea
in Lucania) the yūms probably represents a piece
of land 100 feet broad and 5000 feet long; that
is, 50 plethra. &
The oxoivos is another Heraclean measure =
120 feet square, corresponding to the actus.
Each axoivos was divided into 30 åpéyuara of
4 feet each.
Méðiplvos : in two parts of Hellas we find a
system which was common in many parts of the
ancient and mediaeval world. The piéðupuyos at
Cyrene and in Sicily means as much land as can
be sown by a medimnus of seed. In Sicily this
was equal to the Roman jugerum (Cic. Verr. ii.
3, 112).
The Roman system of the agrimensores repre-
sents a later stage of development. The square
foot (pes constratus or quadratus) was the unit
of the system (“modus omnis areae pedali men-
sura comprehenditur,” Colum. v. 1). The
system is partly decimal, partly duodecimal.
The scripulum = 1 decempeda quadrata (square
rod) = 100 sq. feet.
The clima = 36 sq. rods.
The actus quadratus = 144 sq. rods.
The jugerum = 288 sq. rods, being an oblong
piece of ground, consisting of two actus. It
means the amount ploughed by a yoke of oxen
in one day (“jugerum vocabatur quod uno jugo
boum in uno die exarari posset,” Plin. xviii. 9).
The heredium = 2 jugera. So called (accord-
ing to Varro) from two jugera being the birth-
right of every Roman citizen.
The centuria = 200 jugera generally, but
varied, at times containing 50, 210, 240, or 400
jugera. From its name it is not improbable
that it originally contained 100 jugera (“cen-
turia primo a centum jugeribus dicta est, post
duplicata retinuit nomen,” Varro, R. R. v. 34).
The saltus = 800 jugera.
The term jugum was used in Spain to denote
a day's work of a yoke of oxen (Varro, R. R. i.
10).
han was the Latin name for the Roman
actus quadratus (Varro, R. R. i. 10), likewise
used by the farmers of the province of Baetica
in Spain (Colum. v. 1, 5). 2
M
--> --> *-
164 MENSURA
MERCENARII
Porca was the name given in Baetica to a
piece of ground 180 × .30 feet.
Arepennis was a Gaulish unit of land measure,
corresponding in size, according to Columella
(v. 1), to the Roman actus quadratus. Hence
French arpent.
The Romans likewise applied the system of
the as to land measure; regarding the jugerum
as the as or unit, they carried out its sub-
division on the rigid duodecimal system (vide
Tables at the end of the volume).
Measures of Capacity.—The most important
products of ancient agriculture are, on the one
hand, wine and oil, on the other various kinds
of corn. Hence naturally arose two kinds of
measures, liquid and dry. The smaller units
are common to both systems (vide Tables).
Liquid and Dry. — The kūaôos,
(according to some connected with küAić, and
possibly originally meaning a kind of gourd),
was the unit in common use. It contained about
4 centilitres = 0.08 English pint. A smaller
measure = 4 cyathus, called ligula (spoon) or
cochlear (mussel-shell), was sometimes employed.
*OśćBaqov, acetabulum, vinegar bottle, = 1%
cyathi. -
Quartarius, so called from being + sextarius, =
3 cyathi, has no Greek equivalent.
Korčxm, at Athens, was a kind of bowl,
called TpſbAlov in other parts of Greece, and
the same as the Sicilian juſva (the half mina =
juipavalov), which, borrowed by the Romans,
= # Seatarius = 6 cyathi.
Féorms, sextarius = 12 cyathi. Eéorms is a
loan word from the Roman sea-tarius, so named
as the # of congius.
So far the measures are common to both
systems, but they now diverge as follows:—
Liquid.—Xows, congius (derived from köyxm)
= 12 kotóxai. Its half, the juixovs (plur.
hutxoa), also is found: #[uáupopov (or juikā-
6tov), wrna.
'Aubopečs, amphora (Āpºpupopets, Homer), the
large wine jar with handles on both sides, as it
was used for the storing of wine, was used as
the chief unit of liquid measure. It was also
called kú60s, cadus. The Roman amphora = 8
congii = 48 sectarii = 576 cyathi.
Metpmºths is commonly used as equivalent of
&#14 opets, but strictly was larger.
Culleus, tun, = 20 amphorae.
Dry.—The Greek (distinctively) dry measure
starts from the KorūAm, the Roman from the
Seactarius.
Xolvič (mentioned in Homer, Od. xix. 28), a
day's allowance for a man at Athens, - 4
korºńal.
'Hufektov, Semodius, the half of the following,
= 4 xotvikes.
‘Ektets, or uðötos, modius. The first name is
the Old Attic, but the second is already used by
Deinarchus. The former indicates that it is of
the chief unit, the medimnus.
Méðuvos at Athens = 8 modii. The Romans
did not employ this measure, but only modius or
its compounds, such as trimodium.
Ptolemaic.—To above we may add certain
measures in use in Egypt under Ptolemaic and
Roman rule, for which see also Tables,
EöAov = 3 royal cubits = 72 fingers.
>xoivos, an itinerary measure, usually
counted equal to the Persian Parasang (= 30
cyathus
stades), but actually containing 32 stades of the
common Greek standard. It was probably also
in use among the Hebrews. -
"Appa = 10 fathoms = 60 feet.
was used as a land measure.
>xolvíov was another name (probably the
Greek one) of the (Egyptian) &nua just described.
Xavicóptov, with the addition of 6ékačpyviov,
was another name applied to the square àpua,
being a name derived from the amount of seed
required to sow that amount of land.
*Apoupa was a piece of ground 100 cubits
square, and which formed the regular Egyptian
land unit from early times. (Herod. ii. 168, #
6é špoupa škarov trºxéov čari Aiyvirtſov travtm).
Bibliography. — F. Hultsch, Metrologicorum
Scriptorum Reliquiae, Lipsiae, 1864, 1866, and
Griechische und rômische Metrologie, 2nd ed.,
Berlin, 1882; J. Brandis, Das Münz-, Mass-
und Gewichtswesen in Vorder Asien, Berlin,
1866; Vasquez Queipo, Essai sur les Systèmes
metriques et monétaires des anciens Peuples,
Paris, 1859; A. Boeckh, Metrologische Unter-
suchungen über Gewichte, Münzfusse und Masse
des Alterthums in ihrem Zusammenhange, Berlin,
1838; Hussey, An Essay on the ancient Weights
and Money, and the Roman and Greek liquid
Measures, with an Appendia, on the Roman and
Greek foot, Oxford, 1836; W. M. Flinders Petrie,
Inductive Metrology; R. Lepsius, Längenmasse
der Alten, Berlin, 1884. [W. R.I.]
ME'NUSIS (whvva'is). [ECCLESIA, Vol. I.,
p. 702 a.]
MERCENA/RII (utorðaroſ, uto:604,6pot, more
commonly £évot or to £evików), mercenary troops.
At an early period there was no such thing as a
standing army, or mercenary force, in the Greek
republics. The former would have excited
jealousy, lest it should oppress the people, as
the chosen band did at Argos (Pausan. ii. 20, § 2;
Thuc. v. 81); and for the latter there was
rarely any occasion. The citizens of every state
formed a national militia for the defence of their
country, and were bound to serve for a certain
period at their own expense, the higher classes
usually serving in the cavalry or heavy-armed
infantry, the lower classes as light-armed troops.
Foreigners were rarely employed; the Carians,
Cretans, and Arcadians, who served as merce-
naries (Herod. i. 171; Pausan, iv. 8, § 3; 10, $1;
19, § 4; Wachsmuth, Hell. Alterth. vol. i. pt. i.
p. 30; Schömann, Ant. jur. pub. Gr. p. 159), are
an exception to the general rule. In the Persian
war we find a small number of Arcadians offer-
ing to serve under Xerxes (Herod. viii. 26); and
they seemed to have used themselves to such
employment down to a much latter period, much
as the somewhat similarly situated people of
Switzerland did in the 16th century. (Xenoph-
Hellen. vii. 1, § 23; Schömann, op. cit. p. 409.)
The practice of maintaining a standing force was
introduced by the tyrants, who kept guards and
soldiers in their pay (Öopvpópol, uto 604,6pot) to
prevent insurrections of the people, and preserve
their influence abroad. As it was unsafe to
trust arms in the hands of their own subjects,
they usually employed foreigners. (Thug. Vi.
55; Diod. xi. 67, 72; Ar. Pol. iii. 14, 7.) It
will be sufficient on this topic to refer to Jason
of Pherae and his successors, and the Siceliot
tyrants of Gela and Syracuse, as instances.
From their history the dangers of the system as
Its square
MERCENARII
MERCENARII 165
well as its use can be traced out (see Grote, Hist.
of Greece, x. 613 ff.; xi. 286 f.; xii. 540 ft.).
Hence, and because citizen soldiers used to fight
without pay, Éévot came to signify nercenaries.
(Harpoc. s. v. Eevatevouévows.) We must distin-
guish, however, between those who fought as
auxiliaries, whether for pay or otherwise, under
commission from their own country, and those
who did not. The former were étricoupol, not
£évol. (Herod. i. 64, iii. 45, v. 63; Thucyd. i.
60, 115, iii. 34, iv. 80.) The terms &évot and
Čevikov implied that the troops were independent
of, or severed from, their own country.
The first Grecian people who commenced the
employment of mercenaries on a large scale were
the Athenians. While the tribute which they
received from the allies placed a considerable
revenue at their disposal, the wars which their
ambition led them into compelled them to
maintain a large force, naval and military,
which their own population was unable to
supply. Hence they swelled their armies with
foreigners. Thucydides makes the Corinthian
ambassador at Sparta say, &vmt) # 'A6mvatov
5övauls (i. 121). They perceived also the ad-
vantage of employing men of different nations
in that service for which from habit they were
best qualified ; as, for instance, Cretan archers
and slingers, Thracian peltastae. (Thuc. vi.
25, vii. 27; Aristoph. Acharn. 159.) At the
same time the practice of paying the citizens
was introduced ; a measure of Pericles, which
was indeed both just and unavoidable (for no
man was bound by law, or could be expected, to
maintain himself for a long campaign); but
which tended to efface the distinction between
the native soldier and the foreigner. Other
Greek nations soon imitated the Athenians
(Thuc. iv. 76), and the appetite for pay was
greatly promoted by the distribution of Persian
money among the belligerents. (Thuc. viii. 5,
29, 45; Xenoph. Hellen. i. 5, § 3.) At the
close of the Peloponnesian war, large numbers of
men who had been accustomed to live by war
were thrown out of employment; many were in
exile or discontented with the state of things at
home (Isocr. Archid. § 68); all such persons
were eager to engage in a foreign service.
Hence there arose in Greece a body of men who
made arms their profession, and cared little on
which side they fought, provided there were a
suitable prospect of gaining distinction or
emolument. Conon engaged mercenaries with
Persian money. Agesilaus encouraged the
practice, and the Spartans allowed the members
of their confederacy to furnish money instead of
men for the same purpose. (Xenoph. Hell. iii.
4, § 15; iv. 3, § 15; v. 2, § 21.) The Greeks
who followed Cyrus in his expedition against
Artaxerxes, were mercenaries. (Xenoph. Anab.
i. 3, § 21.) So were the famous peltastae of
Chabrias and Iphicrates. (Harpocr. s. v. Eevikov
év Kopfv64 : Aristoph. Plut. 173.) The Phocians,
under Philomelus, Onomarchus, and Phayllus,
carried on the sacred war by the aid of merce-
naries, paid out of the treasures of the Delphian
temple. (Diod. xvi. 30, &c.) But higher pay
and richer plunder were in general to be found
in Asia, where the disturbed state of the empire
ereated continued occasions for the services of
Greek auxiliaries, whose superior discipline and
courage were felt and acknowledged by the
Barbarians. Even the Spartans sent their king
Agesilaus into Egypt, for the sake of obtaining
Persian gold. Afterwards we find a large body
of Greeks serving under Darius against Alex-
ander. It is proper here to notice the evil
consequences that resulted from this employment
of mercenaries, especially to Athens, which
employed them more than any other Greek state.
It might be expected that the facility of hiring
trained soldiers, whose experience gave them
great advantages, would lead to the disuse of
military service by the citizens. Such was the
case. The Athenian citizens stayed at home and
became enervated and corrupted by the love of
ease and pleasure; while the conduct of wars,
carried on for their benefit, was entrusted to
men over whom they had little control. Even
the general, though commonly an Athenian, was
compelled frequently to comply with the
humours, or follow the example of his troops.
To conciliate them, or to pay them their arrears,
he might be driven to commit acts of plunder
and outrage upon the friends and allies of Athens,
which thus found enemies where she least
expected. It was not unusual for the generals
to engage in enterprises foreign to the purposes
for which they were sent out, and unconnected
with the interests of their country, whose
resources they wasted, while they sought their
own advantage, like the condottieri of the 14th
and 15th centuries. The expeditions of Chabrias
and Iphicrates to Egypt are examples of this.
But the most signal example is the conduct of
the adventurer Charidemus. Upon all these
matters we may refer the reader more particu-
larly to Demosthenes, whose comments upon the
disastrous policy pursued by his countrymen
were no less just than they were wise and
statesmanlike. (Demosth. Philip. i. p. 46, § 27;
c. Aristocr. pp. 666, §§ 163–166; repl roi, or req.
ths rpump. p. 1232, &c.; Isocr. Paneg. § 195,
ad Philipp. § 112; Grote, Hist. of Greece,
vol. xi. pp. 390 ft.)
Among the Romans before the Empire the
non-Roman part of the army was composed of
auxiliary troops from states allied or subject,
which cannot strictly be called mercenaries.
(See however ExERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 785.) To
this it is true there is some exception in the
employment, even in the Punic and Jugurthine
wars, of mercenary light troops, as archers and
slingers, from Africa, Crete, Syria, &c. (Liv.
xxii. 37, xxiv. 20; Appian, Hisp. 89, &c.) But
this was very different from such a case as that
of Carthage, who was conspicuously and un-
fortunately prominent as the example of a state
depending for her protection on mercenary
troops. As the Roman empire grew, the fact
that legions were levied in various countries
out of Italy did not make them mercenaries in
the proper sense: but the system of donatives,
especially to the praetorian guards, gradually
gave to Roman troops the character and the danger
of a mercenary force. Moreover, whereas the
armies at first consisted of Roman citizens, and
the conquered provinces supplied tribute for
their support, when the provincials received the
civitas it followed that the poor became soldiers
and the rich supplied money. This tendency
was strengthened by the law that those who
paid the land tax should not bear arms (on
which point Gibbon iii. 65 seems to be in error),
166 MERENDA.
METALLUM
and accordingly under Constantine we find the
army recruited by slaves and barbarians, and
in great measure of a mercenary character. In
the wars of Justinian we find a twofold army :
(1) levied by conscription of citizens in various
provinces, and of barbarians who were allowed
to occupy certain lands on condition of military
service; and (2) another kind, and that too the
best and strongest portion, provided by princes
dwelling on the borders of the empire, such as
the Heruli and Gepidae, who received subsidies
and provided troops under their own leaders.
Instances of wholesale desertion by such alien
contingents (which may remind us of the Swiss
mercenaries of the age of Charles V.) occur even
under so great a general as Belisarius. It
would be out of place here to pursue the
question into greater detail: reference may be
made to Finlay, Hist. of Greece, i. 144, 204, ii.
27, &c. [C. R. K.] [G. E. M.]
MERENDA. [CENA, Vol. I. p. 395 a.]
MERGA. [AGRICULTURA, Vol. I. p. 64.]
MERIDIA'NI. [GLADIATORES..]
METAE. [CIRCUS, Vol. I. p. 435 a.
†A&EIºntíºvi.), º
celebrated by the Attic demos Melite, in honour
of Apollo Metageitnios. The chief solemnities
consisted in offering sacrifices, and the festival
was believed to commemorate the emigration
(yettviao is trpos étépous) of the inhabitants of
Melite to Diomis. (Plut. de Eaſil. § 6; comp.
Suidas and Harpocrat. s. v. Merayettvićv.) But
it seems not improbable that the institution of
this festival is connected with the extension of
the worship of Apollo so as to embrace all
classes, under the influence of Epimenides (cf.
Curtius, Hist. of Greece, i. 323). The idea of
migration in the worship of Apollo is indicated
in the story of Ion, and from that idea may
come the title Metageitnios given to Apollo and
thence to the Attic month. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
METALLUM (uéraxNov). The Greek word
bears only the meaning of mine; the Latin means
either a mine or its product, mineral or metal.
I. Metals in Antiquity. — Of the precious
metals—gold, silver, electrum, and copper—we
have spoken under AURUM, ARGENTUM, ELEC-
TRUM, and AES. It remains to speak briefly of
the commoner metals.
(a) Iron (ferrum, otömpos). Although iron
ore is common in all countries, yet the diſficulty
of smelting and manufacturing iron is so great
that it is one of the latest of metals to come
into use in the course of history. Of this fact
the Greeks were aware, and the knowledge
moulded the traditions recorded in Hesiod's
TWorks and Days, in which the heroic age is
represented as an age of bronze : roſs 6' ºv
xáAkea uku Teixea, x&Akeot 6é te oikoi,
xaxkó 5’ eipydgovro, uéâas 5’ obic *ake otömpos
(l. 150). The transition from this age of bronze
to an age when iron was commonly employed
was very gradual, and took place in various
countries at different times.
in progress in the Homeric age. In the Iliad
swords are often made of iron (xviii. 34, p.3,
Aaiuby &morphēete oričápºp), but it is specially in
use for ploughshares and other agricultural
implements (Il. xxiii. 826): the axle too of
Hera's chariot is of iron (Il. v. 722). But defen-.
sive armour, as well as the heads of axes and
points of spears and arrows, were in the Homeric
In Greece it was
age still made of bronze; and the epithet troXà-
kpıntos which is applied to iron shows that it
was still worked with difficulty. Many writers
have supposed that the word kúavos in Homer
stands for steel; but it has been proved by
Lepsius that this is incorrect, and that it
really means either lapis-lazuli or an artificial
imitation of that mineral, and the view of
Lepsius has been confirmed by the discovery of
a frieze of alabaster and glass (9puykös kvávoto)
in one of the rooms of the very early palace at
Tiryns (Schliemann, Tiryns, p. 287).
From this time the use of iron gradually
spreads. In one passage of the Odyssey (ix, 391)
knowledge is shown of the process of hardening
iron by repeated plunging when hot in water
[LACUs]; in Hesiod's Shield of Herakles, that
hero is represented as arming himself with a
helmet of steel, kuvém &öðuavros. In the age of
Croesus, Glaucus of Chios is said to have dis-
covered how to solder iron (oričápov kóNA mois).
After that, iron was used in Greece not only for
arms and utensils, but also for works of art.
But we must beware of supposing that the use
was at this time universal. Herodotus says.
that the Massagetae in his time used no iron,
and that the Aethiopians in the army of Xerxes
used arrows with points of stone, and lances
with points of horn. The general use of iron
passed slowly westward and northward, and took
several centuries to reach the Gauls, Britons,
and Germans, as is proved by the long-continued
prevalence of bronze as a material for weapons
in cemeteries, such as that of Hallstadt.
The nature of the process by which an iron
age succeeded in various countries an age of
bronze is well discussed by Mr. John Evans in
the Introduction to his work on Ancient Bronze
Implements.
Herodotus and Pausanias give us a clear
record of this process as regards Greece. In
the time of Croesus, during a war with Tegea.
the Spartans found bones supposed to belong to
Orestes under a smithy used for the manufacture
of iron weapons (Hdt. i. 67). Commenting on
this story, Pausanias (iii. 3, 6) remarks that
the arms of the heroic age preserved in Greek
temples, such as the spear of Achilles and the
sword of Memnon, were of bronze, but that by
the time of Croesus iron was generally used for
weapons.
We are told by Pliny (H. N. xiv. § 139) that
when Porsena had conquered the Romans, he
forbade them to use iron except for agricultural
purposes; which would indicate that they were
already accustomed to use arms of iron. In
their earlier encounters with the Gauls the
Romans are said to have had the advantage of
using swords of a superior quality to those of
their enemies, which bent at every stroke, and
had to be straightened by the foot. Mr. Evans,
however, considers that these inferior weapons
were made, not of bronze, but of soft iron. The
Cimbri who invaded Italy in the time of Marius
had, according to Plutarch, not only swords and
javelins, but even breastplates of iron. . . In
Caesar's time the Gauls were expert in working
iron, and even made chains of it for their ships
(B. G. iii. 13). -
In Greece the cities of Chalcis and Lacedaemon
were celebrated for their iron goods. The
sword-blades of Chalcis were praised in Aeschy-
METALLUM
METALLUM 167
lus (Plut. de Def. Orac., 43): weapons and
agricultural implements of steel were largely
made at Lacedaemon (Steph. Byzant. s. v.). Not
unfrequently iron was used as a material for
works of art: Alcon made an iron statue of
Herakles, and iron vessels were dedicated in the
temple of Mars Ultor at Rome (Plin. H. N. xxxiv.
§ 141). But as a rule the Greeks did not excel
in the working of iron, but imported goods in
this metal from nations at a lower level of
civilisation. Most noted were the Chalybes of
Pontus, known to Aeschylus (Prom. V. 714) as
otömporékroves XáAv8es: Xenophon (Anab. v.
5, 1) says they lived entirely by iron-work. The
manufacture of arms and armour was carried to
a high point of perfection by the people of
Cyprus, who furnished Alexander the Great
with a sword, and Demetrius Poliorcetes with a
cuirass of wonderful power of resistance. In the
time of Pliny (H. N. xxxiv. § 145) the best iron
came from China, the second best from Parthia.
Iron was found in large quantities in the island
of Elba (Aethalia), and thence exported to the
neighbouring Populonia, where it was worked.
Toletum in Spain was celebrated even in Roman
times for sword-blades, and the toreutic art was
applied to iron at Cibyra.
We are told that a currency of iron was in
use at Sparta in antiquity, and this story has
become more credible since the discovery of iron
coins of Argos and other Peloponnesian cities.
The people of Byzantium also used iron coins
(Pollux, ix. 78).
The extreme variation from place to place in
the value of metals may be shown from the
statement of the author of the Periplus R. M.
(p. 59), that on the Arabian shore of the Red
Sea gold passed as equivalent to three times its
weight of copper, half its weight in iron, and
one-tenth its weight in silver.
(8) Lead (Plumbum nigrum; p.6Av660s). An
account of the sources and uses of lead in
antiquity will be found in Pliny (H. N. xxxiv.
§§ 156 ft.). Its easiness to work and its im-
perishable nature made it useful for certain
purposes, as for coffins and pipes. Its great
value in medicine as a cooling remedy was also
fully recognised. But it was scarcely used for
purposes of art.
(y) Tin (Plumbum album). Few metals were
in antiquity more widely used or more indispen-
Sable than tin. The implements and arms of
the bronze age, the chief means of living during
many centuries, contain almost invariably a
proportion of tin. Tin (kaara'ſ repos) was in the
Homeric age largely used for the decoration of
arms. Yet tin is a rare metal, and not found in
the Levant. Herodotus (iii. 115) gives as its
source islands of the Western Sea, the Cassi-
terides, generally identified with the Scilly Isles,
where tin is abundant. Diodorus derives the
metal from the British coast. But Pliny (xxxiv.
§ 156) rejects these accounts as fabulous, and
says that it came from Gallaecia and Lusitania
in Spain. The likeness of the Greek word kaoot-
repos to the Sanskrit kastëra has induced some
moderns to think that the chief source of tin
was the coast of India. In any case it is
probable that the purveying of it to the peoples
of South Europe was an employment of the
Phoenicians, and one of the chief sources of
their wealth.
(6) Stannum. Pliny (xxxiv. § 159) says that
when mixed ores of silver and lead are melted
together, the first liquid product is stannum,
the second silver. Stannum was used for plating
bronze vessels, for mirrors, horse-trappings and
other purposes.
(e) Quicksilver (argentum vivum; 56pápyvpos,
&pyvpos xvrás). The use of quicksilver in gold
mining was known to the ancients (Pliny, H. N.
xxxiii. § 99). It was commonly produced arti-
ficially out of cinnabar (Dioscor. de M. M. v.
110).
(Q) Zinc, The metal zinc does not seem to be
mentioned by ancient writers, the word oročás
(Diosc. de M. M. v. 85) meaning only oxide of
zinc. But in the analysis of Roman coins zinc
is found in considerable proportions. It is
present in some of the pieces of aes grave found
at Vicarello; and in the large coins of yellow
brass, sestertii and dupondii, issued by Augustus
and his successors, the proportion of zinc to
copper is sometimes more than 1 to 3 (Momm-
sen, Röm. Münzwesen, p. 763).
(m) Nickel. This metal was used for coins by
some of the Greek kings in India in the 3rd
century B.C. (Numismatic Chronicle, 1868, p. 305).
The passages in ancient writers bearing on the
subject of metals and minerals are collected and
translated into German by Lenz in his Mineralog.
d. alten Griechen und Römer, 1861. [P. G.]
II. Working of Mines in Antiquity.—The sub-
ject of the working of mines in ancient times
is obscure and difficult. It is only with re-
ference to the silver and lead mines of Laurion
in Attica, and the gold and silver mines in Spain,
that we have any considerable data. Boeckh in
his Dissertation on the Silver Mines of Laurion
(printed as an appendix in the English transla-
tion of his Public Economy) discusses fully all
that is known about the former. Xenephon, de
Vectigalibus, 4, 2 (a chief source of information
on the subject), says that the mines had been
worked from time immemorial. The mines were
worked by means of shafts and adits, and by the
removal of whole masses, so that supports alone
(uegokplvets) were left standing. The processes
of fusion carried on in furnaces on the spot seem
on the whole to have been of the same imperfect
kind as those carried on in other ancient mines.
This is proved by the fact that at the present
time a very handsome revenue is obtained by a
French company from the working of the scoriae
of the mines of Laurion by modern processes.
The ores were smelted by means of charcoal
(āvépakes), the chief supply of which came from
Acharnae. The state was sole proprietor of the
mines; but they were never worked directly by
the state, nor did the state ever let them for a
term of years, like other landed property. Por-
tions of them were sold or demised to individuals,
with the reservation of a perpetual rent, and
these leases were transferred from one person to
another by inheritance, sale, and every kind of
legal conveyance. The sale of the mines (that
is, of the right of working them) was managed
by the Poletae (POLETAE); this right was pur-
chased at an appointed price, in addition to
which the possessor paid the twenty-fourth part
of the net produce as a perpetual tax. The
purchase-money was paid direct to the state;
the metal-rents were, in all probability, let to a
farmer-general. The income derived from the
168 METALLUM.
METOECUS.
mines of course depended on a variety of circum-
stances, and consequently the revenue fluctuated.
In the time of Socrates it was less than at the
time when Themistocles persuaded the Athenians
to build a fleet with the proceeds of the mines
instead of dividing them. Boeckh estimates the
annual revenue at that time as 33% talents.
Citizens and isoteleis could alone possess mines.
The number of owners was considerable. The
common price of a share in a mine was a talent,
or a little more. The labour was performed by
slaves either belonging to the mine-owners or
hired: great capitalists, such as Nicias, who
owned 1000, bought slaves and let them out to
the mine-owners at a drachm per diem. There
was a special mining law (ueraxxurbs véuos) and
a peculiar course of legal procedure in cases re-
lating to mines (6tral petaxAtkaſ), which in the
time of Demosthenes were annexed to the monthly
suits. [EMMENOI DIKAI.]
Herodotus (vi. 46) tells us that the gold mines
of Scapte Hyle brought the Thasians an annual
income of 80 talents, and the mines on Thasos
itself a sum not so great.
Diodorus Siculus (v. 36), Strabo (iii. p. 146 ft.),
and Pliny (H. N. xxxiii.) are our chief sources
of information for the working of mines in
Roman times. Diodorus (v. 36) describes the
elaborate system of shafts and galleries in the
mines in Spain, the methods of draining them by
cross drains and the use of the pump invented by
Archimedes, and the miseries of the workmen,
who were slaves and criminals (metallum was
one of the regular penalties for lesser offences).
Much gold was obtained in Lusitania and Gallicia
by washing the river-sands in wicker baskets or
cradles, just as placer gold is worked in modern
times. Strabo (iii. p. 146) describes the process
of refining the gold found in nuggets (irdAal,
800xol). The nuggets were first refined by means
of an astringent clay containing vitrol (a turrm-
pióms yi): the metal thus obtained was called.
electrum, a mixture of silver and gold. This was
again subjected to a refining process, the silver
was burnt away (&toicategºat) and the gold
remained. On account of its soft nature gold
was melted by means of a fire of chaff (&xupos),
the heat of coal (&v0pač) being considered too
strong and wasteful. Gold dust was obtained
by washing in pits dug in the beds of the streams
(év 8& petópoisotºpera kal traúveral év a kádais,
# àpúrrerai ºppéap, # 8& ãveyex9eſora 'yū TAt-
werai). They built tall furnaces for smelting
the silver, that the fumes, which were con-
sidered baleful, might be carried high into
the air.
Pliny (H. N. xxxiii. § 66) describes three
methods of gold mining, and the elaborate
method by which water for the washings was
brought in a series of pipes or troughs along
the precipitous sides of the mountains in Gallicia.
By this method of washing some authors said
that 20,000 lbs. of gold were obtained annually
in Asturia and Gallicia.
Under the Roman Empire, the mines, and
quarries of all kinds, whether in the imperial
or senatorial provinces, were worked for the
emperor, and formed part of the revenue for
the Fiscus, and also for the emperor's private
purse, although under the Republic mines of all
kinds belonged to private persons. Sometimes
even under the Empire private persons owned
saltworks and quarries. Thus Herodes Atticus
worked the quarries of Pentelic marble. Quarries
in some cases belonged not to the Fiscus, but to
the emperor's private purse (patrimonium).
There was no central organisation for working
the mines, but each mine or mining district was
worked separately under an overseer (procurator,
e.g. procurator awrariorum), probably himself a
slave; sometimes the emperor let out the mines
to a company of publicani. The revenue was
managed by departments, consisting of a com-
mentariensis, a dispensator, a tabularius, and an
arcarius. Officers such as a tribunus militum, a
centurion, or decurion, were detailed to superin-
tend the carrying on of the operations. Under
the Empire the workmen were slaves, free
labourers, soldiers, or criminals. In the latter
case there was a military station always near
the mines. (Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, ii. 252
seqq.). [VECTIGALIA.] [W. R.I.]
METATO'RES, TCASTRA, Vol. I. p. 372.]
METOECUS (uéroikos), a resident foreigner,
a permanent settler in an alien state. Resident
aliens were common in nearly all Greek cities,
especially centres of commerce, the sole known
exceptions being Sparta, whose £evmxaotai were
notorious (Thuc. i. 144, ii. 39; Xen. Resp. Lac.
xiv. 4), and possibly Apollonia (Ael. War. Hist.
xiii. 16). A list of thirty-one towns which are
known to have harboured uéroikoi is given by
Schenkl (Wiener Studien, 1880, ii. p. 163 f.),
the authorities being chiefly inscriptional. The
name appears with the variants trópoikot, tre54-
Foirot (Argos, C. I. G. 14, 19), and Évoukoi.
The uéroucot at Athens. 1. Institution of the
class.-Mention of resident foreigners at Athens
is made by Plutarch, Solon 24 (yevéorðat troAſ rais
où 8town [XóAwv] traživ roſs...traveortois A0%-
vage uétouriçowévois étri réxvn). Yet this can
hardly be taken to imply that all craftsmen
who migrated to Athens in Solon's time received
citizen rights, nor do we find in the fragments.
of Solon's laws any mention of a class inter-
mediate between the troAirai and £évol, between
whom a sharp line appears to have been drawn.
It seems more probable that Cleisthenes first
created the ordo. A very possible interpreta-
tion of the well-known passage Arist. Pol. iii.
p. 1275 (troXAobs yöp puxe revore [KAetor06cms]
$évous kal 805xovs weroírovs) is to take uerotkovs
in a non-technical sense, either with both sub-
stantives or with the latter only (see how-
ever DEMUs, Vol. I. p. 616 b). Now the
most ancient inscription in which the word
occurs as the designation of an ordo is in C. J. A.
i. 2, the date of which is not much after Clei-
sthenes. A large admission to citizenship, such
as Cleisthenes had carried, would necessitate
the definite regulation of what constituted non-
citizenship, in the case of those who did not
now become enfranchised, and of new arrivals
at Athens. Hence the “order” uéroucou, inter-
mediate between the fully enfranchised troAſrat
and the non-enfranchised £évol. -
2. Numbers.-Thuc. ii. 13, after mentioning
13,000 as the full hoplite citizen force, gives
16,000 as the number of those who manned the
battlements, consisting of trpeggūrarot kal veóra-
to kal uéroticol. In ii. 81 he distinctly tells us
that the full metoec hoplite force amounted to
3,000. Thus the whole number of troAºral
liable to military service between the ages of 18
METOECUS
METOECUS 169
and 60 (taking the trpeggiºrarol as from 50 to
60, and the veðrarol as from 18 to 20) was, at
that time, 13,000+(16,000–3000), i.e. 26,000.
This would give, taking 1:4% as the proportion
of grown males to the rest of the citizen body,
nearly 120,000. It would be rash to infer from
this the number of the uéroikot as a whole, for
we do not know that the hoplite status was the
same for uéroulcot as for troAirai : and as they,
as a rule, only manned the walls, they must
have been less exposed to loss. The number of
pléroticoi is obscured by the fact that special
draftings of uéroikot into the ranks of troAºral
are known to have taken place, when the
numbers of troAirai had been thinned by a
serious disaster. Such cases are related by
Diodorus Siculus, xiii. 97 (later years of Pelopon-
nesian war), and the pseudo-Plutarchian author
of the life of Hyperides, p. 9 (after Chaeronea,
B.C. 338, at which 1000 troAirai fell). There
is distinct testimony that in the time of Deme-
trius of Phalerum there were 21,000 troAirai,
10,000 p.éroikoi, and 400,000 600Aoi in Attica
(Athen. Deipn. vi. 272 b). Some regard these
numbers in the case of troAirai and uéroikoi as
referring only to able-bodied men. The puéroikoi
consisted of Lydians, Phrygians, Syrians, and
other barbarians (Xen. Vect. ii. 3), Syracusans,
e.g. Lysias the speech-writer, Corinthians, e.g.
Deinarchus, the orator.
3. Position.—Any stranger not a slave who
remained more than a certain time at Athens
was compelled to register himself as aérotkos.
During the days of grace he was termed trape-
tríðmuos (uéroikós éotiv, 6trótav ris &mb éévms
éA6&v čvouki, Tā tróAel, réAos TeXàv eis &to-
Terayuévas ruvâs xpetas rās tróAews • *ws pièv
offv troorów huepôv trapertönuos kaxeſ rat Kal
&reaſis éariv, &v Šč Štrepòf rov &piouévov
xpóvov, uétoucos #öm yíveral kal irorexhs.
Aristoph. Byz. in Herodian. Epimer. ed. Boisson.
p. 287). The civic disabilities of uéroulcot were
almost proverbial. Xenophon speaks of the
Corinthians after their fusion with Argos as év
ºrfi tróAet ueroíkov #Aartov Švváuevot (Hell. iv. 4,
6). Demosthenes (Callip. p. 1243, § 29) expresses
the same idea by the phrase puéroticos kal oščev
8vvápºevos.
Aristotle (Pol. iii. p. 1275 a) defines the
puéroucos as 6 rôv Tupiðv uh uetéxwv. These
Tipal were (a) &pxaſ, i.e. the right of serving as
magistrate and dicast, and of voting in elections.
(b) émiyapuía, marriage with troAſrat. (c) yńs
ical oiktas ɺyktmoris, acquisition of land or house
property. (d) ispoorium, right of performing
public sacrifice.
Each uéroikos was obliged to enrol himself
(ätroypdqeq 0al, étiypāqeoréal) under a patron
(irpoordºrms). This custom was no doubt
originally due to the fact that in the eye of
Greek law and religion the stranger was of the
same status as a woman or a minor. Thus the
rporrárms was at once a security for the good
behaviour of the uétoikos, and his representa-
tive to the 87/10s. (See Aristoph. Paz, 683;
Harpocrat. s. v. trpootdºrms; Suidas, s. v. véueiv
arpoorármy.) A uéroticos who failed to register
himself under a trpoor&rms incurred &mpoora-
orſov Sticn: one who deserted his trpoordºrms
incurred &mograortov Šíkm (Bekk. Anecd. p. 435;
Dem. Lacr. p. 940, § 61,48). The character of
the uéroikos might be inferred from that of his
trpoorrárms (Isocr. de Pace, § 53). Yet it seems
that a uéroucos could plead a case in person.
The speech of Demosthenes against Eubulides is
spoken by a man presumed to be a uétouros,
and no mention is made of a trpoordºrms in
Lysias v. and xxiii., both of which speeches are
made on behalf of uéroutcot.
His civic disabilities left the puéroikos free to
engage in pursuits for which the ordinary
citizen had little leisure. He was devoted to
trade and could undertake long journeys on
business. Hence piétoikoi were distinctly valua-
ble to the state and were encouraged to settle
there. (See Aristoph. Lys. 579; Isocr. de Pace,
§ 21; [Lys.] Andoc. § 49; Xen. Vect. iv. 40;
Grote, Greece, Part II. ch. xi. p. 336, large ed.)
Their close connexion with the troXºral is com-
pared by Aristophanes to the relation of bran
to flour, while Šēvoi are but the chaff, which is
winnowed away (Ach. 508). Their wealth often
made them an object of envy and oppression,
especially in matters of taxation (Dem. Androt.
p. 609, § 66; Timocr. 166). A special instance
of this is seen in their treatment under the
Thirty (Xen. Hell. ii. 3, 30; Lys. xii. § 6).
Each uéroticos paid an annual tax (ueroíkiov)
of twelve drachmae, widows paying six drachmae,
mothers whose sons paid already being exempt
(Harpocr. s. v. Heroíkuov). This tax, like all
others at Athens, was farmed out ([Dem.] Aristog.
i. p. 787, § 68; Harpocr. s. v. troxmirat).
4. Duties. – Of the public Aeºroup'yfat the
xopmyta alone is certainly known to have been
open to puéroukou. (See Dem. Lept. pp. 462, § 18,
476, § 70; Lys. xii. § 20; C. I. A. ii. 86.)
Méroucou were liable to eio qopaſ, which they
paid on a rating of one-sixth of their property,
a rating high in comparison to the troAirai
(Dem. Androt. p. 612, § 75). For this purpose
they were formed into we'rouctical ovuuopiat
(Hyperid. ap. Poll. viii. 144 ; see also Boeckh,
Staatshaus. ed. 3, vol. i. p. 624 ft.). With
regard to military service, Pericles (Thuc. ii.13)
appears to speak of the Méroucou as only man-
ning the walls. Yet they seem to have taken
part in some distant expeditions, both as hop-
lites and oarsmen, e.g. to Megara (Thuc. ii. 31),
coasts of Peloponnesus (id. iii. 16), Boeotia
(id. iv. 90). See also Thuc. i. 143, Dem. Phil.
A. 36, from which it would seem that the
employment of the puéroucou was usually regarded
as a last resource. They were not allowed to
serve as intreſs in any case (Xen. Vect. ii. 5;
Hipparch. ix. 6).
The difference between uéroukou and troXºral
is naturally most marked in religious matters.
Yet, as being an integral part of the state, they
had a claim to some share in the state's religion.
They took part in the Panathenaea, iva &s
eśvot &piðuðvrat pietéxovres róv 6vorióv, the
men (aka'pmºpópot) carrying skiff-shaped bowls,
the matrons (56plaqāpot) pitchers, the maidens
(orkiaëngëpoi) parasols (Hesych. s. v. orcáqai :
Ael. War. Hist. vi. 1; Poll. iii. 55; Harpocr.
S. v. ueroíkiov; Bekker, Anecd. pp. 214, 242).
Others, however, think that the males alone
took part in this orkaq.mqopta, and that the
orkiaënſpopta, Öpiaqopſa, and 5uq popopta were
quite distinct ceremonies.
5. Special privileges.—Individual uéroikot, as
a reward for distinguished state services, might
receive by vote of the ékkamata special privi-
170 METOPA.
METRONOMI
leges, such as ºrpošević (Dem. Dept., p. 475,
§ 68; C. I. A. ii. 91), &réAeta (C. I. A. ii. 27,
42, 91; Dem. l. citt.), ºykºngis Yās kal oiktas
(C. I. A. ii. 41, 70, 186, 380), trpóa'o60s trpos
#y govahy Kai roy bipov (C. I. A. ii. 41, 91).
A special class of Héroucot were termed icots\ets.
These had no trpoordtms, paid no pieroíkiov,
enjoyed (this is disputed) *yktmoris Yās Kal
oiktas, and were, as far as payment of taxes
and service as hoplites were concerned, on an
equality with troAirai. They were excluded
from office, ékkAmata, and 6th agriptov (Poll.
iii. 56; Harpocr. s. v. io'oteWeſs: C. I. A. ii. 54,
176).
Actions at law in which plárolicot were con-
cerned, either as plaintiff or defendant, were
heard before the Špxov troAéuapxos 8tral 3&
Tpos abrov Aayxávoviral uetoſkov io'otsºv
ºrpošévov (Poll. viii. 91). While liable Stöðval
6íkmv in all cases to which troAirai were sub-
ject, they were only able Aap Bávely 6trºmy in
actions arising out of matters in which Métoticoi
were specially concerned. Thus a uéroikos
could indict a troAfrns for non-fulfilment of
contract, but not for &géBeta. See Aristotle in
Harpocr. s. v. troXéuapxos: Dem. Lacr. 48; Isocr.
Trapez. (where Pasion the banker institutes a
6íkm 8A&Bms before the polemarch against a
nameless uéroikos); Lys. xxiii. 2, 3. [A. H. C.]
ME"TOPA (uerónim) is the name given to the
interval between the triglyphi in the frieze
of the Doric order [TRIGLYPHI], and also, ac-
cording to Vitruvius (iv. 2, 4), to the interval
between the denticuli in the Ionic order. The
word is derived from uerò, and &m, but it is
doubtful whether we should interpret it with
Vitruvius as “space between holes” (i.e. be-
tween the sockets made in the architrave to
hold the beams ending in triglyphs) or with
most modern authorities as “hole between *
triglyphs (Zwischenöffnung).
It is probable that the metopes were originally
open, as we hear of the possibility of passing
between the triglyphs (Eur. Iph. T. 113 c); but
this may be only a story invented to suit the
name. No trace of such an arrangement sur-
vives, the space being invariably filled with
plain or sculptured slabs. It is probable that
the use of painting, first in a plain colour, red
to contrast with the blue triglyphs, and after-
wards with figures, preceded the sculptural
ornamentation, and survived in conjunction
with it.
Metopes are of particular importance from
the use of sculpture to ornament them ; for of
this sculpture numerous examples have survived,
illustrating the various periods of Greek art.
From Selinus in Sicily there survive (in the
Museum at Palermo) sets of metopes from three
temples, belonging to the beginning of the sixth
and the beginning of the fifth century B.C. re-
spectively. The earlier are most important
examples of uncouth but powerful archaic art;
the later have white marble insertions for the
nude parts of female figures. From Athens we
have metopes of the finest period, those of the
Theseum and the Parthenon. The Parthenon
had sculptures in all its metopes; the Theseum
only upon the east front and the four eastern me-
topes of the north and south sides. At Olympia,
the great temple of Zeus, which is of a somewhat
earlier period, has all its external metopes plain,
the sculpture being confined to the Doric frieze
above the second row of columns upon the east
and west fronts. For examples, see the wood-
cuts under COLUMNA.
As in the case of all architectural sculpture,
the subjects and treatment are alike prescribed
by the conditions of the surroundings. A series
of square spaces with massive architectural
frames require high and massive relief, and are
especially adapted for scenes of violent action;
hence we find most commonly various contests
or battles, those of the Gods and Giants or the
Lapithi and Centaurs, or the labours of Heracles
or Theseus. Such subjects also must be chosen
as may readily be represented in a connected
series of small and concentrated groups; thus
while the whole set of metopes should have a
similarity or unity of subject, each ought also
to be complete in itself. This principle is, how-
ever, violated in one or two instances: e.g. The
fight of Heracles and Geryon is spread over two
metopes on the Theseum. A contemporary
description of the metopes of the temple at Del-
phi may be found in Euripides, Ion, 184 sqq.
(Vitruv. iv. 2, 4; Benndorff, Die Metopen von
Selinunt ; Feuger, Dorische Polychromie, p. 41 ;
Overbeck, Gesch. d. gr. Plastik, pp. 283–4,
&c.) [E. A. G.]
METRE'TES (aerpmrås), or AMPHORA
METRETES (&pºpope's perpmrås, the standard
amphora; it appears also as āpiq'opeds, the shorter
form of the old Homeric &nqiq'opečs, and as ká60s
[Herod. i. 51, iii. 20), was the principal Greek
liquid measure. It contained 12 choes, 72 aestae
(sextarii), 144 cotylae, 576 ÖéðBaqa, and 864
cyathi. It was 3-4ths of the medimnus, the chief
dry measure. The Attic metretes was half as
large again as the Roman amphora quadrantal,
and contained 39°39 litres=69°33 pints, or
slightly over 83 gallons=a water-weight of 1%
talents. (See Tables.) The Aeginetan metretes
contained 54° 56 lit. or a little over 12 gallons,
about the same content as the Persian artabe
(Herod. i. 192).
The Macedonian metretes is estimated by
Hultsch (p. 563) as equal to the Attic. (Hultsch,
Metrologie; MENSURA; PONDERA.)
[P. S.] [G. E. M.]
METRO'NOMI (uerpováuoi) were officers in
the Athenian police appointed by lot, whose
special duty was to see that proper weights and
measures were used in the market and to pro-
ceed against those who used false measure (cf.
Aristoph. Thesm. 348, et ris toū xobs # rāv
korvåøv to véutorua Staavuatveral). It is prob-
able that they also had charge of the standard
weights and measures, which were kept in the
shrine (hp?ov) of the hero Stephanephoros
(whom some take to be Theseus), just as those at
Rome were kept in the temple of Juno Moneta
(Boeckh, Staatshaush. ii.” p. 324 f.), and hence
we may conjecture that the metronomi also
supervised the coinage. They had as subordi-
nates in the market Prometretae (Boeckh,
i. p. 62). As to their number, there is a conflict.
between Harpocr., Suid., Phot. and Lew. Seg. s.v.,
as the texts now stand, but Fränkel in his
note on Boeckh (vol. ii. p. 14*) gives plausible
reasons for taking as the true reading a total
number of ten; five for the city and five
for Peiraeus. According to this view, one was
chosen by lot from each tribe. (Schömann,
METROON
MILLIARE 171
Antiq. of Greece, pp. 416, 420; Boeckh, op.
cit.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
METRO'ON (unrpgov). [ARCHEION.]
METRO'POLIS. [Colonia, Vol. I. p. 474 b.]
MICA’RE DI'GITIS, a favourite game in
ancient Italy, as the precisely similar morra is
among Italians of the present day. Though
not so common in Greece, it was known to the
Greeks, and Aristotle seems to speak of it as #
erdàAa£is Tów Śaktúxov (de Insomn. 2). The
game was played by two persons, who simulta-
neously held up their right hands, of which some
fingers, or all or none, were extended. At the
same moment each calls out a number which he
guesses to be the sum of the fingers extended by
himself and his opponent. If he is right, he
wins; or, according to one form of the game
now played, he opens one finger of the left hand
for each correct guess, and the winner is he who
first guesses right five times and so opens all
the fingers of the left hand. We get a fairly
clear description in Nonnus, xxxiii. 77:
Aaxvös émy Me6érov ćrepôtpotra ŚākrvXa xetpøv-
Kai rā uév bp6%aravres évéorxe6ov &AAa Śē kapnº
xeupos étrea pikoto ovviopa onjévy. Seapº.
It was sometimes the custom to play holding
each one end of a staff with the left hand, as a
security against that hand being used dishonestly,
or in the excitement of the game. (See woodcut
below.) The modern Italians often play with
the left hand behind the back for the same reason.
Game of Morra, from a vase-painting. (Baumeister,
Denkmäler, 997.)
The cut shows two women playing the game as
described, and Victory hovering above them. As
a proverbial expression for honesty, they spoke
of a man with whom it would be safe to play
morra in the dark (quicum in tenebris mices, Cic.
de Off. iii. 19, 77 ; cf. Petron. 44). It was used
also instead of casting lots for a chance decision.
So in Calpurnius, Ecl. ii. 20, it is decided
which singer shall begin by three turns of morra.
Probably in such a case the nearest guess won,
since it was possible that no correct guess might
be made. Similarly in Cic. de Off. iii. 23,90, we
find micando joined with sorte (cp. also Cic. de
Div. ii. 41, 85); and Suetonius (Aug. 13) men-
tions to the discredit of Octavianus, that after
the battle of Philippi he made a father and son
decide in this way which should be spared.
Modern Italians use it to decide which shall pay
the wine-bill. It was even used by tradesmen
to decide a bargain; a practice which was con-
demned by an edict of the praefectus urbi, A.D.
372, “ consuetudine micandi summota sub
exagio [i.e. by scales] potius pecora vendere
quam digitis concludentibus tradere” (C. I. L.
vi. 1770). It is clear that this form of barter
was not merely the habit which modern
Italians have of holding up so many fingers
when they bargain for anything, and was at best
gambling, at worst sheer dishonesty. (See also
Varro, ap. Non. 347, 30; Marquardt, Privat-
leben, 836; Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 479;
Charikles, iii. 377.) [G. E. M.]
MILLIA'RE, MILLIA'RIUM, or MILLE
PASSUUM (in Greek writers uſatov), the
Roman mile, consisted of 1000 paces (passus) of
5 ft. each, and was therefore=5000 ft. Taking
(with Hultsch) the Roman foot at 2957 met. =
*3234 yards, the Roman mile would be 1617
English yards, or 143 yards less than the English
statute mile. This = 1996 German geographi-
cal mile. [MENSURA.] The Roman mile con-
tained 8 Attic stadia. The most common term
for the mile is mille passuum, or only the initials
M. P.; sometimes the word passwum is omitted
(Cic. ad Att. iii. 4; Sallust, Jug. c. 114): less
frequently mille passus.
The mile-stones along the Roman roads were
called milliaria. They were also called lapides;
thus we have ad tertium lapidem (or without the
word lapidem) for 3 miles from Rome, for Rome
is to be understood as the starting-point when
no other place is mentioned. Sometimes we
have in full ab Urbe, or a Roma. (Plin. H. N.
xxxiii. § 159; Varro, R. R. iii. 2.) The laying
down of the mile-stones along the Roman roads
is commonly ascribed to C. Gracchus, on the
authority of a passage in Plutarch (Gracch. 6,
7). It is true that this only proves that
Gracchus erected mile-stones on the roads which
he made or repaired, without necessarily imply-
ing that the system had never been used before,
and there are passages in the historians where
mile-stones are spoken of as if they had existed
much earlier; but such passages are not deci-
sive; they may be anachronisms, in which lapis
simply expresses the distance. (Liv. v. 4; Flor.
ii. 6; comp. Justin. xxii. 6, § 9.) The passage
of Polybius (iii. 39), which states that, in his
time, that part of the high road from Spain to
Italy, which lay in Gaul, was provided with
mile-stones, is probably an interpolation.
The system was brought to perfection by
Augustus, probably in connexion with that.
measurement of the roads of the Empire which
was set on foot by Julius Caesar, and the results.
of which are recorded in the so-called Antonine
Itinerary (of the 4th century A.D., according to
Teuffel, Rom. Lit. § 406). Augustus set up a
marble pillar with a gilt tablet in the forum,
close to the flight of steps which lead up to the
temple of Saturn, to mark the central point from
which the great roads diverged to the several
gates of Rome (Dio Cass. liv. 8; Plut. Galb.
24). It was called the Milliarium Aureum ;
and its position is defined as being in capite
Romani Fori (Plin. H. N. iii. § 66), sub aedem.
Saturni (Tac. Hist. i. 97; Suet. Otho, 6). Some
remains still exist, close to the Arch of Septi-
mius Severus, consisting of a round brickwork

172 MIMUS
MIMUS
pedestal, which is by many assumed to have
been the base of the Milliarium Aureum : a
cylindrical piece of marble, found near it, may
have been part of the mile-stone. (Burn, Rome
and Campagna, p. 124.) Professor Middleton,
however (Rome, p. 167), takes these remains (a
cylinder of concrete faced with brick and lined
with slabs of marble) to be work of the third
century A.D., and believes them to be the base of
the Umbilicus Romae, a gilt column marking the
centre of Rome, which is mentioned in the
Motitia and also in the anonymous author of the
Einsiedeln Itinerary. This stands at the north end
of the supposed Graecostasis, and Professor Mid-
dleton places the Milliarium Aureum at the oppo-
site end. Mr. Burn and others make the Mil-
liarium and the Umbilicus different names for
the same thing, but against that is the evidence
of the Notitia, which mentions both. It seems
that the marble pillar was covered, on each of
its faces, with tablets of gilt bronze. These
tablets recorded the numbers of miles covered
by the various trunk roads from Rome and the
names of the chief stations. The stone is called
Umbilicus Romae in the anonymous Einsiedeln
Itinerary.
It must be observed that the miles on the
Roman roads were measured, not from the Mil-
liarium Aureum in the forum (which was set up
long after the regular mile-stones were placed),
but from the gates of the city. (Burn, op. cit.
p. 49.)
The Milliarium Aureum at Byzantium, erected
by Constantine in imitation of that of Augustus,
was a large building in the forum Augusteum,
near the Church of S. Sophia. (See Buchholz,
in the Zeitschrift für Alterthumswissenschaft,
1845, No. 100, &c.)
London also had its MilliariumAureum, a frag-
ment of which still -- mains; namely, the cele-
brated London Stone, which may be seen affixed
to the wall of St. Swithin's Church in Cannon
Street. •
From this example it may be inferred that
the chief city of each province of the Empire had
its Milliarium Aureum.
The ordinary milliaria along the roads were
short marble columns inscribed with some or all
of the following points of information :-(1) the
distance, which was expressed by a number,
with or without M. P. prefixed ; (2) the places
between which the road extended ; (3) the name
of the constructor of the road, and of the em-
peror to whose honour the work was dedicated.
Several of these inscriptions remain, and are col-
lected in the following works:— Gruter, C. I.
pp. cli. &c.; Muratori, Thes, vol. i. pp. 447, &c.;
Orelli, Inscr. Lat. Sel. Nos. 1067, 3330, 4877;
and especially Bergier, Hist, des grands Chemins
des Rom. vol. ii. pp. 757, &c., Bruxelles, 1728,
4to. An example may be seen in the first mile-
stone of the Appian road, which has been placed
in the Piazza of the Capitol, having been found
one Roman mile from the Porta Capena.
On some of these mile-stones, which have been
found in Gaul, the distances are marked, not
only in Roman miles, but also in Gallic leugae,
a measure of 1500 passus. [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
MIMUS (uſuos) properly signifies an imita-
tion or imitator of a situation or person.
1. GREEK. In Greek literature the word mime
is associated with the name of Sophron of
Syracuse (fifth century B.C.) and his son Xenar-
chus (Suid. s. v. Ömytvows). What we know
about Sophron is mainly derived from Suidas
(s. v. X64 pov) and the other lexicographers, the
Scholiasts on Nicander and Theocritus, and
Athenaeus (see Gaisford's Suidas). We are told
that he wrote uſuous &vöpetovs and pufuous
'yuvaiketovs in the Doric dialect, that they were
in prose and imitated by Plato, who used to
keep a copy of Sophron under his pillow. The
names of some of the mimes are &Yyeaos,
0uvvo9;ipas, yépovres àAleſs, and ākeatpfat,
vvuqorévos, revºépa, 'Iorguláçovaal. . The Second
Idyll of Theocritus is borrowed from the
'Akeorrptal (“The Women Quacks”), and the
Fifteenth from the 'Iorguud (ovarai. Mahaffy
(Hist. of Greek Literature, § 240) supposes
that Sophron's compositions were, like the so-
called poems of Walt Whitman, written in a
rhythmical prose (oiros yöp uévos, says an old
Scholiast, Tóv troumróv Šv6 uois riori kal kóXois
éxpñoraro trointikäs &vaAoyſas katappovăoras),
and were clever delinéations of ordinary charac-
ter, full of patois, wise saws and outspokenness.
He further considers that they may have been
performed in private society, like the marriage
of Dionysius and Ariadne at the end of Xeno-
phon's Symposium. Besides Plato, Persius was
also said to have imitated Sophron (Lyd.
de Magistr. i. 41). Botzon has collected the
fragments of Sophron in a Programm, 1867.
For further, see Fuhr, De Mimis Graecorum,
1860.
2. ROMAN. The Roman mimus (a term
applied to the piece as well as to the actor)
was, like the Atellan farce, an improvised
character play of ordinary life, but without the
stock character-masks and buskins; and it
was more concerned with the humorous side
of the low life of the town than of the country.
It was indigenous in Latium, and developed out of
the dances in character to the flute which were
performed in the pit of the theatre during the
intervals between the acts, and sometimes in
private circles to amuse the guests during
dinner (Mommsen, Rom. Hist. iv. 579). Later
it assumed a certain amount of stage wisdom
and wise saws from the works of the Greek
New Comedy, which are known chiefly from the
great number of Sententiae in Iambic verse
of Publilius Syrus. (See the list of over 500
certain instances in Ribbeck, Com. Lat. Reli-
quiae, 261 ff.) But the chief function of the
mime was to raise a laugh, and so the language
was that of the lower orders, coarse and vulgar.
Mimi and mimae first appear about the time of
Sulla (Auct. ad Herenn. i. 14, 24, ii. 13, 19;
Plin. H. W. vii. § 158; Plut. Sulla, 2, 36),
and in Cicero's time the mime was often given
as an afterpiece instead of the Atellana (Cic. Fam.
ix. 16, 7); hence a mimus may fairly be called
an exodium (cf. Suet. Dom. 10), though that
term is generally applied only to the Atellanae
(Liv. vii. 2, 11). They were played in front of
the stage before the siparium (Juv. viii. 185, and
Schol.; Senec. de Tranquill. An. 11). The actor
had no buskins (planipes, Juv. viii. 181; Gell.
i. 11, 12; excalceatus, Senec. Ep. 8, 8), and
no mask: he wore a sort of harlequin costume
(centunculus, Apul. Apol. 13), with the ricinium
(Festus, s. v.; Marquardt, Privatl. p. 558)
[RICINIUM), and the phallus (Schol. on Juv.
MIMUS
MISTHOSEOs PHASIS 173
vi. 66; Arnob. vii. 33). Along with the
principal character (minus or archimimus) was
a sort of pantaloon called parasitus or stupidus
(Wilmanns, 2635), got up with puffed cheeks and
shaved head, who used to have to stand a great
deal of noisy slapping (alapae) and abuse from
the principal actor (Mart. ii. 72, 4; Tert.
Spect. 23; Arnob. l.c.). This stupidus, as well
as the other actors of the secondary parts, had
as his rôle to imitate the chief actor . (Hor.
Epist. i. 18, 14; cf. Suet. Cal. 57). The female
parts were played by women: for example, Thy-
mele in Juv. i. 36, vi. 66; Arbuscula (Cic.
Att. iv. 15, 6), Dionysia (ib. Rosc. Com. 8, 23),
Cytheris (ib. Phil. ii. 8, 20), Claudia Hermione
(Orelli, 4760), Luria privata mima vicit annis
wia. (Wilm. 2634; cf. C. I. G. 6335, 6750), a
burial-ground sociarum mimarum in Wilm. 326.
Their performances, originally at the Floralia,
later at all the exhibitions, were decidedly loose
(ut mimae nudarentur postulare, Val. Max.
ii. 10, 8). The dancing in the mimus was of a
grotesque nature, accompanied by extravagant
grimaces and obscene gestures and jokes (Ov.
Trist. ii. 497 ff., 515), with plenty of ribald
abuse and blows (Mart. l.c.; Juv. viii. 192, and
see especially Mayor on Juv. v. 171).
The subjects were of the most varied kinds
(see the long list, with the fragments which are
preserved, in Ribbeck, Com. Lat. Reliquiae,
237 ff.), but they nearly always involved some
incident of an amorous nature in which ordinary
morality was set at defiance (Ov. l.c.; Juv. vi. 44;
Val. Max. ii. 6, 7). There were often sudden
changes of fortune introduced, beggars becoming
millionaires (Cic. Phil. ii. 27, 65) and vice
versä (Senec. Ep. 114, 6), mimicking and
parodies of people of the day, such as lawyers
for example (Wilm. 2627), general character
pieces (e.g. Augur, Colax, Ephebus, Hetaera,
Virgo), scenes from the life of tradesmen (e.g.
Restio, Fullo) or of foreigners (e.g. the Etruscan
Women, the Gauls), subjects with ghosts in
them (Descensus ad Inferos by Laberius,
Phasma by Catullus), description of popular
festivals (Compitalia, Parilia, Saturnalia, re-
minding one of Sophron’s mimes), representation
of careers that attracted the imagination of the
people (e.g. that of Laureolus, the Dick Turpin
of the ancients, Juv. viii. 187), mythological
caricatures (moechum Anubimet masculam Lunam,
Dianam flagellatam et Jovis mortui testamen-
tum recitatum et tres Hercules famelicos, Tert.
Apol. 25). In Imperial times they were some-
times intricate enough (Quint. iv. 2, 53):
Plutarch (de sollert. Anim. 19 = 973, 46) tells
us of a mime in which a dog took a prominent
part. There was always a great deal of
political criticism allowed in the mimes (Macrob.
Sat. ii. 7, 5; Cic. Att. xiv. 3, 2; Suet. Aug.
53, 68, Tib. 45; Friedländer, ii.” 420 f.).
The principal writers of mime under the late
Republic were Laberius and Publilius Syrus.
The mimographi under the Empire are numerous:
Catullus (Juv. viii. 186), Lentulus and Hostilius
(Tert. Apol. 15), Aemilius Severianus (C. I. L.
4092), Philistion (Suet. ed. Roth, p. 299, 3). As
the mimes were not so fashionable as the
pantomimes, we hear less about their performers.
Still we occasionally hear of them, e.g. Latinus
and Panniculus (Mart. l. c.), Alytyros (Joseph.
Vita, 3), &c.; and at times they were advanced to
great honours, e.g. a mimus Eutyches was made
a decurio at Bovillae, and he was so rich as to
be able to give a distribution of money to the
citizens (Wilm. 2624, cf. 2625). The epitaph of
the actor Vitalis says of his profession as mime,
Hinc mihi larga domus hinc mihi census erał
(Anthol. Lat. ii. p. 89, ed. Meyer).
For further, see Friedländer, Sittengeschichte
Roms, ii.” 416–422; Teuffel, Röm. Litteratur-
geschichte, § 8 (who however confuses mimes and
pantomimes); Patin, Etudes sur la Poésie latine,
ii. 346–365. [L. C. P.]
MINA. [TALENTUM.]
MINOR._[CURATOR; INFANs.]
MINUTIOCA'PITIS. [CAPUT.]
MISSIO. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 809 b.]
MISSIO. [GLADIATOREs.]
MISTHO'PHORI (utobogópol). [MERCE-
NARII.]
MISTHO'SEOS PHASIS (atabáreas
‘pdoris), also called uta:0égews oftcov påois, is
the action brought against a guardian for either
having neglected to make profitable use of the
property of his ward, or for having made no
use of it at all. Use might be made of such
property either by letting it, if it consisted of
lands or houses, or by putting it out to interest,
if it consisted of capital. Like the kindred
action Kakáorews Táv ćppavóv, it might be
brought against the guardian, during the
minority of his ward, by any person who took
an interest in the welfare of the orphan. After
the orphan came of age, the remedy lay in his
own hands by a 6th m étutpoiris: in the confused
notices of the grammarians we find also a ypap)
étritporis (Poll. viii. 35), but this is almost
certainly a mistake (Att. Process, p. 360 Lips.).
The question whether the action puorðdºorea's was
public or private, a ypaſp?l or a 6them, has been
discussed by Boeckh (P. E. p. 355 f = Sthh.* i.
425 f.) and the authors, of the Attische Process
(p. 294 f.) without coming to any very definite
conclusion. In reality, as the recent editors of
these two works have pointed out, the only
word used by good authorities is pdoris, a par-
ticular kind of public prosecution by way of
information (Fränkel on Boeckh, n. 566; Lip-
sius, A. P. p. 361; cf. Thalheim, Rechtsalterth.
pp. 14, n. 4, 84, n. 2; PHASIS). There is a
further doubt whether the pāris lay only
against a guardian who had not let the property
at all, or also against one who had not let it to
the best advantage. Most grammarians include
the latter case (kara Tův oë Seávra's pleutoga-
kórov, Harpocrat., Suid., s. v.; Lea. Rhet.
p. 667, 7; Etym. M. p. 788, 50); the Lea.
Seguer. mentions only the non-letting (pp. 312,
24; 315, 18). Complaints of this kind were
brought before the first archon. In cases where
the guardian would not or could not occupy
himself with the administration of the property
of his ward, he might request the archon to let
the whole substance of his ward's property to
the highest bidder, provided the testator had
not expressly forbidden this mode of acting in
his will. (Demosth. c. Aphob. ii. p. 837, § 5 ;
compare iii. p. 853, § 29, 857, § 42; Lys. c.
Diogeit. § 23.) The letting of such property
took place by auction, and probably in the
presence of a court of justice, for we read that
the court decided in cases where objections were
made against the terms of letting the property-
174 MITRA
MODULUS
(Isae. Or. 6 [Philoct.] §36 f.) The person who
took the property had to pay an annual per-
centage for the right of using it, and this per-
centage frequently amounted to more than 12
per cent. per annum. If one man alone was
unwilling to take the whole property on such
conditions, it might be divided and let to several
persons separately. (Isae. Or. 2, [Menecl.],
§ 28 ft.) The tenant or tenants of the property
of an orphan had to give security (&lrottumwa.)
for it, and to mortgage (&moripºv) his own es-
tate, and the archon sent especial persons, &tro-
•rium rat, to value his property, and to ascertain
whether it was equivalent to that of the
orphan. (Suidas, s. v. 'Atrorumtat.) The
technical term for letting the property of an
orphan, whether it was done by the guardian
himself or by the archon, was pug 600v, and
those who took it were said puo'6000:6al Tov
oikov (oikos here signifies the whole substance
of the property, Dem. c. Aph. i. p. 818, § 15;
826, § 40; 827, § 43; 831, § 58). The tenants
of the estate of an orphan had the right and
perhaps the obligation to protect it against any
other person. (Isae. Or. 7 [Hagn.], § 16.) It is
not clear what resource was open to an orphan
against a tenant who did not fulfil his obliga-
tions, but it is probable, that if any disputes
arose, the guardian or the archon alone were
answerable and had to procure justice to the
orphan.
(Boeckh, P. E. pp. 142, 355= Sthh.* i. 179,
425; Att. Process, pp. 294, 532 =361, 726 f.
Lips. ; Thalheim, wbi supra; cf. EPITROPUS,
p. 752 a.) [L. S.] [W. W.]
MITRA (uſrpa) means in its first sense a
band of any kind, and accordingly it was (1) the
Homeric patrpm, a band beneath the 64pmè over
the lower part of the abdomen [Lorica, p. 78 al,
and (2) is equivalent to the ſºvn trap6evich, the
maiden's girdle [CINGULUM, Vol. I. p. 427), so
that the word &purpos (Callim. Diom. 14) means
a young girl, not old enough for a girdle, not
yet of a marriageable age.
The word is then used for a band fastening
the hair; thence developing into a regular head-
dress for women, with lappets hanging over the
ears, apparently something like a kpíčepivov or
the CALAUTICA (Serv. ad Aen. ix. 616; see
º
*ºº sº. ººº-ºº:
Sºº-ºº: ºº:
3º:
º 3: : % l
łº ſº aº
º:*
Paris, ºn Phrygian mºre. (Aegina Marbles.)
CoMA, Wol. I. p. 449, and the woodcuts on that
page); but it does not seem to have been worn
either in Greece or at Rome by women of a
respectable class. (See Serv. l. c. and the
passages cited by Professor Mayor on Juv.
iii. 66.) Cicero speaks indignantly of the
mitella being worn by effeminate young men
(pro Rabir. Post. 10, 26).
As an Asiatic head-dress it was sometimes
shaped like a turban, as in the mosaic of the
battle of Issus, sometimes in a peaked form, as
in the woodcut from the Aeginetan sculptures
representing Paris; also with lappets (the
redimicula of Werg. l.c.), as is well shown in a
vase-painting ap. Baumeister, Denkm. fig. 1318 :
from this Asiatic head-dress the episcopal mitre
was a very late development. In the LXX.
in Ex. xxviii. 33 and some other passages the
word airpa renders the priestly cap which is
commonly called kíðapis. It is noticeable
that the ecclesiastical mitre of the Middle
Ages is by some ecclesiastical writers called a
Phrygium. (Marriott, Westiarium Christ, p. 220.)
TIARA. W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MIXTA ACTIO. [ACTIo.]
MNA (uvâ). [TALENTUM.]
MNE'MATA, MNEMEIA (uvâuara, uvm-
pieſa). [SEPULCRUM.]
MNOIA, MNOTAE (uvoſa, uvóra). [COS-
MI, Vol. I. p. 555.]
MOCHLUS (u0xAós). [JANUA..]
MODI'OLUS, the diminutive of MODIUS, is
used for various kinds of small vessels: for a
drinking-cup, Dig. 34, 2, 36; for the buckets
on the edge of the tympanum, by which water
was raised (Vitruv. x. 10), and generally for
any kind of bucket or small cistern in hydraulic
machinery (ib. 12, 13); and hence, from its
shape, it is also used for the box or nave (TAhu-
vm) of a wheel (Plin. H. N. ix. § 8; Vitruv.
x. 14), for the nave or socket into which the
axle of the crusher in an oil press fits (TRA-
PETUM), and for other kinds of sockets (Vitruv.
x. 18). [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
MO'DIUS, the principal dry measure of the
Romans, was equal to one-third of the amphora
(Volusius Maecianus, Festus, Priscian, ap. Wurm,
§ 67), and was therefore equal to nearly, two
gallons English. It contained 16 seatarii, 32
Heminae, 64 quartarii, 128 acetabula, and 192
cyathi. Compared with the Greek dry measure,
it was 1-6th of the MEDIMNUS. Its contents
weighed, according to Pliny, 20 pounds of Gallic
wheat, which was the lightest known at Rome.
Farmers made use of vessels holding 3 and 10
modii (Colum. xii. 18, § 5). As a land-measure
the third part of the jugerum was called grápi-
pos uáðios = Castrensis Modius. . The symbol in
Latin MSS. is Mº, in Greek Mö, wo. (Hultsch,
Metr. Script. i. 70.) P. S.
MO'DULUS (épéârms), the standard measure
used in determining the parts of an architec-
tural order. It was originally the lower diameter
of the column; but Vitruvius takes in the Doric
order the lower semi-diameter for the module,
retaining the whole diameter in the other
orders. Modern architects use the semi-dia-
meter in all the orders. The system of dividing
the module into minutes was not used by the .
ancient architects, who merely used such fºr .
tional parts of it as were convenient The
absolute length of the module depends of course
on the dimensions of the edifice: thus Vitruvius
directs that, in a Doric tetrastyle portico, #,
and in a hexastyle Î, of the whole width should





MOENIA
MOLA. 175
be taken as the module, if diastyle, or ; and #3
respectively, if systyle (Vitruv. i. 2; iv. 3;
v. 9). Instead of the accepted view, that the
bottom diameter of the column was taken as
the modulus, M. Aurés, in his Nouvelle Théorie
du Module (Nîmes, 1862), has tried to prove
from Vitruvius and extant examples, that both
for the column and for the intercolumnia the
measurement was taken at the middle height.
This seems improbable, as such a measurement
could not be obtained till the building was com-
plete; and the passages quoted hardly bear
such an interpretation. (See Reber, Philologus,
xxvii. pp. 185–191.) [P. S.] [E. A. G.]
MOENIA. [MURUS.]
MOICHELAS GRAPHE' (uoixetas ypaſp#).
[ADULTERIUM.]
MOLA (uğAn or ui/Aos), a mill. Curtius
(Gr. Etym. p. 339) remarks that all European
languages have the same word for these con-
trivances—a sufficient proof of their antiquity.
The Greeks and Romans of course identified the
process with certain deities or heroic beings,
such as Myles of Alesiae (Pausan. iii. 20),
MvXavreſol Osoſ (Hesych.): in Pliny, vii. § 191,
the invention is ascribed to Ceres: Varro (ap.
Plin. xxxvi. § 135) more practically derives the
Roman mills from Wolsinii in Etruria.
All mills no doubt started from a simple
process of grinding between two stones, and it
is impossible to say when the machines, properly
so called, for grinding began. The mention
of stones “like millstones” in Hom. Il. vii. 270,
xii. 161, proves that corn was ground between
stones of some particular size and shape, but
does not tell us more. The same may be said of
the passages in Od. vii. 104, xx. 105, though
perhaps in the latter passage the number of
mills in the palace (presumably six with two
female slaves at each) implies that they were
small and rude. Dr. Schliemann (Ilios, p. 234)
shows “saddle querns” of trachyte, found at
Hissarlik, flat on one side and convex on the
other, between which the corn was ground or
bruised. It is not quite clear why we need,
with him, assume that corn could not be ground
by such a method. The process may have been
such as Livingstone describes in Africa, where
the upper stone is moved round and round over
the lower by the hand. The process would be
more troublesome than the rudest quern
worked by a handle, but, given sufficient time,
the result would be the same.
All mills were anciently made of stone, the
kind used being a volcanic trachyte or porous
lava (pyrites, Plin. H. W. xxxvi. § 30; silices,
Verg. Moret. 23–27; pumiceas, Ovid. Fast. vi.
318), such as that which is now obtained for the
same purpose at Mayen and other parts of the
Eifel in Rhenish Prussia. They were obtained
especially from the volcanic island Nisyros
(Strabo, x. p. 488). Hence the complaint of the
horse in Anth. Pal. ix. 21, 5:
viv 8é Bápos Trérpms Nuorvpuríðos éykukAov čAko
Aerrúvov Amoos kapirov &m' &arraxſtov.
Hence also the epithet mola scabra in Ovid.
This species of stone is admirably adapted for
the purpose, because it is both hard and
cavernous, so that, as it gradually wears away,
it still presents an infinity of cutting surfaces.
Every mill consisted of two essential parts,
*—
| —the upper mill-stone, which was movable
(catillus, Švos, to étuºxtov, Deut. xxiv. 6), and
the lower (meta, aſſam), which was fixed and by
much the larger of the two. Hence a mill is
sometimes called molae in the plural. The
stones were kept rough by cutting or scratching
them when they wore smooth, which is the
sense of veókorros in Aristoph. Vesp. 648, and
lapis incusus in Verg. Georg. i. 274. There are
three kinds of mills mentioned by ancient
authors, the hand-mill, the mill worked by
animals, and the water-mill. Windmills are an
invention of the Middle Ages.
I. The hand-mill, or quern, called mola manu-
aria, versatilis, or trusatilis. (Plin. H. W. xxxvi.
§ 135; Gell. iii. 3; Cato, de Re Rust. 10.)
The islanders of the Archipelago use in the
present day a mill, which consists of two flat
round stones about two feet in diameter. The
upper stone is turned by a handle (kátm)
inserted at one side, and has a hole in the
middle into which the corn is poured. By the
process of grinding the corn makes its way from
the centre, and is poured out in the state of
flour at the rim. (Tournefort, Voyage, Lett. 9.)
The description of this machine exactly agrees
with that of the Scottish quern, formerly an
indispensable part of domestic furniture. (Pen-
nant, Tour in Scotland, 1769, p. 231; and
1772, p. 328.) There can be no doubt that this
is the flour-mill in its most ancient form. In a
very improved state it has been discovered at
Pompeii. The annexed woodcut shows two
which were found standing in the ruins of a
bakehouse. In the left-hand figure the lower
Mills at Pompeii.
millstone only is shown. The most essential
part of it is the cone, which is surmounted by a
projection containing originally a strong iron
pivot. The upper millstone, seen in its place on
the right hand of the woodcut, approaches the
form of an hour-glass, consistiug of two hollow
cones, jointed together at the apex, and pro-
vided at this point with a socket, by which the
upper stone was suspended upon the iron pivot,
at the same time touching on all sides the lower
stone, and with which it was intended to
revolve. The pivot could be made slightly
ionger if coarser meal was desired. The upper
stone was surrounded at its narrowest part with
a strong band of iron; and two bars of wood
were inserted into square holes, one of which
appears in the figure, and were used to turn the
upper stone. These bars or levers, whether

176 MOLA
MOLA
worked by hand or by an animal attached to them,
were called kötral, in Latin molilia. The upper-
most of the two hollow cones served the purpose
of a hopper. The corn with which it was filled
gradually fell through the neck of the upper
stone upon the summit of the lower, and, as it
proceeded down the cone, was ground into flour
by the friction of the two rough surfaces, and
fell on all sides of the base of the come into a
channel formed for its reception. The mill here
represented is five or six feet high.
The hand-mills were worked among the
Greeks and Romans by slaves. Their pistrinum
was consequently proverbial as a place of
punishment for refractory town slaves (see
Ramsay’s excursus on the Mostellaria): Smaller
hand-mills were however worked, especially in
the Homeric age, by women. (Hom. 0d. vii.
104; Exod. xi. 5; Matt. xxiv. 41.)
In every large establishment the hand-mills
were numerous in proportion to the extent of
the family. Thus in the palace of Ulysses there
were twelve, each turned by a separate female
slave, who was obliged to grind every day the
fixed quantity of corn before she was permitted
to cease from her labour. (Od. xx. 105–119;
compare Cato, de Re Rust. 56.) We have
special mention of the étripºxiot Göaſ, sung as
they worked in time. (Poll. iv. 53; Athen.
xiv. 618 d.) It seems also to have been called
imatov puéAos (Hesych. s. v.; Phot. s. v. iuaot-
56s). An instance is given in Plut. Conviv. vii.
Sap. p. 157 d: &Aet ußAa, &Aet kal yèp IIſtrakos
#Ael, ueyd Aas Mirvādvas Baoruńetww.
II. The mill worked by animals (mola jumen-
taria, mola asinaria : Lucian, Asin. 28; Ov.
Fast. xi. 318, &c.). The horses so used were old
and worn out (Juv. viii. 67; Apul. Met. ix. 11),
such as the worn-out racehorse of the fabulists
(Babr. 29; Phaedr. 19). The woodcut below
shows the horse attached under the cross-beam,
as in Babrius, l.c. : Ceux6els ötro pºxmv. The
animal was blinded by a bandage (3969 m) over
the eyes, by way of blinkers. The woodcut
gives an instance of something more like
ordinary blinkers. It was common also to
prevent the animals from eating the corn by a
contrivance called travoukáirm, which was a
rpoxoetóēs unxdumpia round the neck, which
made it impossible for an animal to lower its
mouth to the corn or for a man to bring his
hands up to his mouth, for slaves also were
sometimes so muzzled. (Poll. vii. 20; Eustath.
ad Il. xxii. 467; Phot. s. v. travorikáirm.) It
was also called kapāoretov (Poll. x. 112, who
quotes from Aristoph. Heroes; cf. Schol. ad
Aristoph. Paw, 14). These mills were larger
but of exactly the same construction as the
hand-mill described above, except so far as the
apparatus for attaching the animal was con-
cerned. In the woodcut, from a relief in the
Museo Chiaramonti, there is a cross-beam above
the catillus connected by two curved vertical
beams with another lower cross-beam. The
hopper for filling the mill appears above the
beam. It may be remarked that the lamp on
the bracket in the corner exactly illustrates
Werg. Moret. 19: “tabella quam fixam paries
illos servabat in usus lumina fida locat.” The
mill-driving animals had a holiday at the
festival of Westa. (Cf. the coronati aselli, Ov.
Fast. vi. 311; Prop. v. 1, 21.)
III. The water-mill (mola aquaria, 58paxérms,
ūāpāuvAos). The first water-mill of which any
record is preserved, was connected with the
| º § \\\\ §
. § \\ \ &
~NSº
KSº
bº -Eº-ºº:
N N
* * * * * #ji
as-
===
| Qi
T
2%
- gº
-4-----a-——º- Z%
Mill, from an ancient relief. (Blumner.)
palace of Mithridates in Pontus. (Strabo, xii.
p. 556; Pompon. ad Verg. Moret.) That water-
mills were used at Rome is manifest from the
description of them by Vitruvius (x. 10). A
cogged wheel, attached to the axis of the water-
wheel, turned another which was attached to
the axis of the upper mill-stone: the corn to
be ground fell between the stones out of a
hopper (infundibulum), which was fixed above
them. (See also Brunck, Anal. ii. 119 ; Pallad.
de Re Rust. i. 42.) Ausonius, as cited below,
mentions their existence on the Ruwer near
Treves; and Venantius Fortunatus, describing a
castle built in the sixth century on the banks of
the Moselle, makes distinct mention of a tail-
race, by which “the tortuous stream is con-
ducted in a straight channel.” (Poem. iii. 10.)
The following epigram of the time of Augustus
describes them as in use to save labour :—
toxete xetpa ºvaarov, &Aerpiðes, eúðere wakpá,
kāv Špºpov trpoxéym yńpus &Aektpwóvov-
Año yöp Núudator xeptov čmersi\aro Méx900s -
ai & kar’ &kporármv &AAóueva rooxviiv
ășova Swetſovartv 68’ &krivea'aw &Aukrats
orpobāral trianſpov kotAa Båpm uvAákov.
IV. The floating-mill. When Rome was
besieged by the Goths, A.D. 536, and when the
stoppage of the aqueducts rendered it impossible
to use the public corn-mills (of Tſis tróxeos
uţăwves) in the Janiculum, so that the citizens
were in danger of starvation, Belisarius supplied
their place by erecting floating-mills upon the
Tiber. Two boats being moored at the distance
of two feet from each other, a water-wheel,
suspended on its axis between them, was turned
by the force of the stream, and put in motion
the stones for grinding the corn. The invention
being found useful was retained, according to
Procopius, in later times. (Procop. de Bello
Gothico, i. 15.)
W. The saw-mill. Ausonius mentions mills
situated on some of the streams falling into the












MONARCHIA
MONETA 177
Moselle, and used for cutting marble into slabs.
(Idyll. x. 362, 363.)
WI. The pepper-mill. A mill for grinding
pepper, made of boxwood, is mentioned by Pe-
tronius (molea burea piper trivit, Sat. 74). For
the olive-mill (mola olearia), see TRAPETUM.
(Blümner, Technologie, i. pp. 23–49; Marquardt,
Privatleben, p. 421.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
MONA'RCHIA (uovapyta), a general name
for any form of government in which the
supreme functions of political administration
are in the hands of a single person. The term
plovapxta is applied to such governments, whe-
ther they are hereditary or elective, legal or
usurped. If all the officials and ministers of
the ruler are merely his deputies, appointed and
removable by him, then the term uovapxta
strictly applies. Aristotle (Pol. iii. 15, 2,-
p. 1287) calls this trapbaoixeta. This form of
monarchy did not belong to Greek states except
as a consequence of revolution, when some
citizen usurped this power for himself, and
sometimes transmitted it. Monarchy of the
more constitutional kind, as described in Homer,
probably existed throughout Greece at the time
of the Dorian conquest, and gradually dis-
appeared, as in each state the weak or violent
rule stirred up successful opposition of the
people. In Argos, however, it lasted to the
time of the invasion of Xerxes (Herod. vii. 149),
but disappeared before the Peloponnesian War.
In Sparta it remained in a peculiar form. In
its commonest application, it is equivalent to
gaaixeſa, whether absolute or limited. But the
rule of an aesymmetes or a tyrant would equally
be called a plovapxta. (Arist. Pol. iii. 16, iv. 8
= pp. 1286, 1294; — Plato, Polit. p. 291, C, E ;
p. 302, D, E.) Hence Plutarch uses it to express
the Latin dictatura. Aristotle defines four sorts
of Baoruńeta : “firstly, the kingship of the heroic
period, when the obedience was voluntary, but
the power of the kings strictly defined, the king
being general, judge, and supreme religious
functionary ; secondly, the non-Greek, which
was a hereditary despotic rule of a constitu-
tional character; thirdly, the Asymmeteia, as it
is called, an elective tyranny ; and, fourthly,
the Laconian, which may be broadly defined as a
hereditary generalship for life.” (Arist. Pol. iii.
14, Welldon's translation.) It is by a somewhat
rhetorical use of the word that it is applied
now and then to the Siaos. (Eurip. Suppl. 352;
Arist. Pol. iv. 4.) For a more detailed examina-
tion of the subject, the reader is referred to the
articles REX, ARCHON, TYRANNUs, PRYTANIs,
AESYMNETEs, TAGUs. [C. P. M.] [G. E. M.]
MONE"TA (äpyvpokoreſov), a mint. The mint
of Rome was a building on the Capitoline hill,
attached to the temple of Juno Moneta, which
was dedicated, in consequence of a vow, by L.
Furius Camillus when dictator. (Liv. vii. 28;
Ovid. Fasti, vi. 183.) Under this head should
come an account of the law in ancient coinage, of
rights of coinage, monetary magistrates, and the
organisation of mints. The fullest treatment of
these subjects will be found in the second and
third volumes of Lenormant's La Monnaie dans
l’Antiquité; but as regards Roman coinage,
Mommsen's Röm. Münzwesen is the soundest
authority. In this place a brief summary must
suffice.
(1) Rights of Coinage.—No privilege of power
WOL. II.
was in antiquity more highly regarded or more
Jealously preserved than that of issuing money.
In Asia the king of Persia appears from the first
to have claimed and reserved the sole right of
issuing gold money. The royal Daries or
Tošóra, thus constituted a sort of royal standard
coin; they circulated in vast quantities, and
thus controlled and kept within limits the issues
of Asiatic mints. But the Greek cities of the
coast seem to have enjoyed the privilege of
issuing silver and copper money at pleasure.
Even the issue of electrum coins by trading
cities, such as Phocaea and Cyzicus, does not
seem to have been regarded as a breach of the
monopoly of the Great King. Satraps also, at
least in the western provinces of Asia, were
allowed to issue silver money bearing their own
names: we possess many specimens bearing the
names of Pharnabazus, Tiribazus, Datames, and
other Persian satraps; though some numis-
matists suppose that this privilege was exercised
only on occasion of military expeditions. Hero-
dotus states (iv. 166) that Darius put to death
Aryandes, governor of Egypt, for issuing silver
coins of a finer quality than his own, but his
narrative clearly shows that the issue of silver
coins by satraps was usual; it was only the
innovation in the quality, and the ambitious
motives which prompted it, which amounted to
an act of rebellion. In Greece proper and in
the Greek colonies in Italy, Sicily, and Africa,
and the shores of the Euxine Sea, each separate
state or tróAts claimed and exercised the full
right of issuing such money as it chose, but in
the exercise of that right did not of course lose
sight of the reasons of commercial expediency.
As a result of perfectly free competition the
money circulating in each region acquired a cer-
tain general character, and to this character all
the coins issued in that region tended to con-
form, as regards material and weight. Subject
to such general control as this, the mint-cities
of Greece exercised the freest choice in all their
successive issues. Hence the condition of the
Hellenic world, while it was a congeries of small
independent states, is exactly reflected in the
great abundance and unlimited variety of the
issues of Greek coins, large numbers of which
enrich the museums of the present day, every
specimen evidencing civic independence, complete
political organisation, and local religious cults.
Already we know of some 2,000 mints which
issued coin of their own before the fall of
the Roman Empire, and fresh mints are dis-
covered every year. We have money of more
than fifty Greek cities of Sicily; and the little
island of Ceos, not ten miles across, had three
active mints. Colonies sent forth by the great
commercial cities had no sooner settled in their
new abodes than they began to issue coin, com-
monly of quite a different character from that
of the mother-city. There are of course certain
exceptions to this rule. Athenian cleruchies
appear to have used the coins of Athens; and
when the towns of any district in Greece formed
among themselves a close alliance for any politi-
cal or commercial purpose, greater uniformity
at once appeared in their monetary issues. Thus
the cities of Magna Graecia which were united
in the sixth century for mutual defence against
the semi-barbarous Italic races issued coins in
which a common character clearly appears: and
IN
178 MONETA
MONILE
the cities which belonged to the Aetolian and
Achaean Leagues used uniform weights and
types for their coins. In late Greek times those
cities of Greece which had lost their civic auto-
nomy and become dependent upon the Hellenistic
kings of Pergamon, Macedon, and Syria, appear
still to have preserved to a considerable extent
their right of issuing money : even when it be-
came necessary to place on it the effigy of their
regal protector, they retained the control of the
mint. In the Roman age the issues of Greek
silver money came to an end, except in the case
of a few favoured cities, like Antioch, Tarsus,
and Caesareia in Cappadocia; but the issue of
copper money was still permitted to hundreds of
towns, great and small, in Greece and the Asiatic
mainland.
Turning to Italy, we have to observe the pro-
cess by which the Roman state, acting without
pause or change in one direction, reduced the
number of mints and gradually introduced uni-
formity in the place of wide diversity. In the
fourth century B.C. the Italian, Greek, Etruscan
and Oscan coinages present the same variety
and autonomy as those of Greece. At that time
Rome issued only the heavy libral asses of
copper. But as soon as denarii in silver were
coined at Rome, in B.C. 269 [see As, Vol. I. p. 205],
the Senate awoke to the desirability of putting
down rival issues in cities which came under
Roman dominion; and from this policy the rulers
of Rome never swerved until in the reign of Dio-
cletian coinage was uniform through the length
and breadth of the Empire. Within the Roman
organisation, however, the right of coinage did
not always belong to the same functionaries.
In consular times it was exercised within the
city by regularly appointed officials, usually
three in number, iiiviri monetales, though their
number, as well as the conditions attached to
their duties, appears to have fluctuated. Abroad,
Roman Imperators exercised the right of issuing
such coins as suited their military necessities, and
placing upon it their name or even their image.
This accounts for the existence of money, espe-
cially in gold, belonging to the last century of
the Roman Republic, and bearing the names and
portraits of Sulla, Pompeius, and other generals.
Augustus, on his accession to power, having
such precedents to allege, took into his own
hands the issue of all Roman gold and silver
money, leaving to the Senate only the issues in
copper, each specimen of which bears thereafter
the letters S. C. to show that it was minted by
senatorial authority.
(2) Organisation of Mints.-On this subject
our information is very insufficient; and we are
confined in the main to the testimony of the
coins themselves, which is not exact or con-
clusive. Of the Athenian coin issued after
Alexander the Great, the type is an owl stand-
ing on an amphora : there are in the field three
names of magistrates, and detached letters, some
on the amphora and some below it. The first
two names are those of annual magistrates, no
doubt high officials and treasurers: these names
change but once a year. The third name changes
twelve times a year, and with it changes the
letter on the amphora (A to M), facts which
show that the third magistrate, probably the
man actually responsible for the goodness of the
coin, was elected in rotation for one month
from one of the twelve tribes. The letters in-
dicate the division of the year, first to twelfth,
during which the tribe represented by this
official prytanised. The letters below the am-
phora are supposed to indicate the particular
workshop of the mint where each of the coins
was manufactured. Thus every piece could be
traced back with certainty to those who were
actually responsible for its production, and the
possibility of forgery was almost destroyed. At
Rome we find no such elaborate scheme for
fixing responsibility, but on the other hand
great care in stating the authority by which
the coin was issued. The name of the person
who ordered the coin to be made, whether im-,
perator or monetalis, is after a certain time
never wanting. We meet on coins such in-
scriptions as IIIVIR AAAFF, i.e. “triumvir
auro argento aere flando feriundo” (Cic. ad Fam.
vii. 18; de Leg. iii. 3, 7); AED - CVR EXSC,
“aedilis curulis ex senatus consulto,” and the
like. Some of the Roman denarii also bear, in
addition to the name of the issuer, some device,
letter or numeral which seems to have reference
to the particular officina whence they issued.
See also As, Vol. I. pp. 206, 207.
The processes used in minting were of course
very simple compared with those of modern
times. One engraved die was let into an anvil,
another into the end of a metal bar. Between
the two was placed a blank, roughly cast in the
required shape and size and heated to redness.
A single blow from a heavy hammer on the
upper end of the metal bar would probably
usually suffice to finish the coin, which would
then be removed by the tongs and a fresh blank
substituted. Collars and milling were un-
known. Such a process would very soon wear
out any die; and as a consequence, the continual
engraving of new dies was one of the chief
occupations of the workmen of the mint. The
rapidity with which they could be prepared is
shown by the fact that the most ephemeral
pretenders to the throne of the Caesars seldom
failed to leave us coins bearing their name and
effigy. On this subject, see Gardner's Types of
Greek Coins, chap. iii. [P. G.]
MONILE (8puos), a necklace. . In Homer
the words āpuos and to 6Muov are both employed
for ornaments worn round the neck. It seems
probable that the meanings of the two words
are to be distinguished in the following
manner: — The to 6puov was an ornament.
fitting close round the neck in the manner
of a torc, and without any pendants: the épplos,
on the other hand, was sometimes of great
length (évvedºrmzus, Hymn. in Apoll. 105), and
hung loosely down, so as to be seen on the
breast (Hymn. in Venerem, 90). This distinction
is stated by the Scholiast on Hom. 0d. xviii. 300,
to 9atov of v Trepurpax#Alov kóopov trepitretraey-
pévov, où uévrot koguhuatá riva, kal &A^*s
. . . . Suaq,épet roi, Šppov. To uév yöp arpooré-
xeral rô rpax#A9, 6 & 8puos rexéAaorai.
The Homeric 8puos is described as made of
gold and amber (Od. xv. 460; xviii. 295); of
golden threads (Hymn. in Apoll. 104), and (ap-
parently) of gold inlaid work (kºol xpúaeto;
traumetrixoi, Hymn. in Ven. 88). Specimens of
work in gold and amber are quoted by Helbig
(Das homerische Epos aus den Denkmälern er-
iáutert, p. 183), who should be consulted on the
MONILE
MONILE 179
whole question of the Homeric ornament. The
British Museum possesses necklaces from Prae-
neste of gold and amber, or silver and amber.
The necklace was worn by both sexes, among
the most polished of those nations which the
Greeks called barbarous, especially the Indians,
the Egyptians, the Persians, and the Etruscans.
[ARMILLA.J. Among the Greeks and Romans, it
was worn by women, boys, and effeminate
persons (Anacreon, apud Athen. xii. p. 534;
Quintil. ii. 1; Ovid. Met, v. 52; Heroid. 9, 57).
It is particularly mentioned among the bridal
ornaments of Roman females (Lucan, ii. 361;
Claud. de VI. Cons. Honor. 527).
The simplest kind of necklace was the monile
baccatum, or bead necklace (Verg. Aen. i. 654;
Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 41), which consisted of
berries, small spheres of glass, gold, amber,
crystal, &c., strung together. This is very
commonly shown in ancient frescoes and vase-
paintings. (See cut under ARMILLA). The
head of Athene under GALEA exhibits a frequent
modification of the bead necklace, a row of drops
hanging below the beads. These drops, when
worn, arrange themselves upon the neck like
rays proceeding from a centre (monilia radiata).
The first figure in the cut on the next column
exhibits the central portion of an exquisitely
wrought necklace which was found at S. Agata
dei Goti (Saticola) near Naples, in the sepulchre
of a Greek lady. The necklace has seventy-one
pendants. Above them is a band consisting of
several rows of the close chain-work which we
now call Venetian. ICATENA.] The clasps, on
each of which is a frog in relief, were set with
rubies (see Mus. Borbonico, ii. pl. xiv.; Over-
beck, Pompej, p. 623).
We also give here the central portions, ex-
Necklace from Melos.
made in the form of a serpent coiled round the
neck of the wearer, a form not uncommon for
bracelets. This at least was the case with the
necklace which was given by Venus or by Cad-
mus to Harmonia as a nuptial present, and
which is described by Nonnus (Dionysiaca, v.
135–189) at a length of fifty lines. The same
necklace afterwards appears as the bribe with
| Les Bijoux anciens et modernes, p. 129.)
hibiting the patterns, of three gold necklaces
purchased from the Prince of Canino for the
F º
º
ºº:
Ancient Necklaces.
British Museum. These were found in Etrus-
can tombs. The ornaments consist of disks,
lozenges, rosettes, ivy-leaves, lotus buds, and
hippocampi.
Among the most masterly productions of the
Greek goldsmith, are certain necklaces from the
Castellani Collection, now in the British Mu-
seum. (Consult also Compte-rendu de la Comm.
Arch. Imp. 1865, pl. ii., 1869, pl. i.; Antiqui-
tes du Bosphore Cºmmérien, pl. ix–xii.; Fontenay,
The necklace appears sometimes to have been
(British Museum.)
which Polyneices induced Eriphyle to betray
her husband. (Apollod. iii. 4, 2; 6, 2–6;-
Diod. Sic, iv. 65; v. 49;-Serv. in Aen. vi.
445.)
The beauty and splendour as well as the value
of necklaces were enhanced by the addition of
pearls and precious stones. These were either
set in the gold necklace (“monilia, *. quibus
N












180 MONOPODIUM
MORTARIUM
gemmae et margaritae insunt,” Dig. 34, 2, 32,
§ 7; cf. ibidem, § 1) or suspended freely from
it (cf. Pollux, v. 98). For this purpose emeralds
(“smaragdi,” C. I. L. ii. 3386) or other stones
of a greenish hue (“virides gemmae,” Juv. vi.
363) were often employed. The necklace of
Harmonia, quoted above, was elaborately set
with precious stones. As stated above, the
necklace from Saticola was set with rubies. The
hooks or clasps for fastening the necklace be-
hind the neck (clusurae) were also various, and
sometimes neatly and ingeniously contrived.
Some account of the different kinds of links
employed is given in the article CATENA.
Besides a band encircling the neck, there was
sometimes a second or even a third row of orna-
ments, which hung lower down, passing over the
breast. Such objects on the vase-paintings are
usually worn by hetaerae. (Hom. Hymn. in
Ven. ii.; “longa monilia,” Ovid. Met. x. 264;
Böttiger, Sabina, ii. p. 129.)
Valuable necklaces were sometimes placed as
dedicated offerings upon the statues of Minerva,
Venus, and other goddesses. (Sueton. Galba,
18.) Necklaces and other ornaments were also
occasionally placed on the statues of deceased
women. For inventories of such dedications, see
C. I. L. ii. 2060,3386, and Henzen, 6141, dis-
cussed by Hübner, in Hermes, i. (1866), p. 345.
Horses and other favourite animals, such as
deer, were also adorned with splendid necklaces
(“aurea pectoribus demissa monilia,” Verg.
Aen. vii. 278; “gemmata monilia,” Ovid. Met.
x. 113; Claudian. Epig. xxxvi. 9; A. Gell. v. 5).
[TORQUES. [J. Y.] [A. H. S.]
MONOPO'DIUM. [MENSA.]
MONOPTEROS. [TEMPLUM.]
MONOXYLUM. [NAvis.]
MONUMENTUM. [SEPULCRUM.]
MORA. The mere fact of a legal duty not
being discharged at the time when it is due can
give rise to important legal consequences, which
either may depend on the terms of the contract
giving rise to the duty, or on rules of positive
law. After such delay the creditor is entitled
to use all legal means to obtain satisfaction for
his demand: thus he may be able to bring his
action against his debtor or against those who
have become sureties for him, and, in the case
of pledge, he may sell the thing and pay himself
out of the proceeds of the sale. For particular
cases there are particular provisions; for in-
stance, the purchaser of a thing after receiving
it must pay interest on the purchase-money, if
there is delay in paying it after the time fixed
for payment (Dig. 29, 1, 13, § 20). The rule is
the same as to debts due to the fiscus, if they are
not paid, when they are due. An emphyteutic
tenant could be ejected if he delayed the pay-
ment of his rent for three years.
A stipulation, similar in principle to our bond,
was frequently entered into, by which a party
was made subject to a penalty, if he did not
perform some act within the time agreed on.
The delay of which we have been speaking was
simply a non-fulfilment of a duty at the proper
time; and the term mora is sometimes applied
to such cases. But that which is properly Mora
is when the delay on the part of him who owes
a duty can be attributed to his fault (culpa).
Mora in this its technical sense presupposes
the existence of an obligation enforceable by
action and also knowledge of liability on the
part of the debtor. As a general rule a debtor
was not in mora, until he had received an inter-
pellatio or notice from his creditor demanding
satisfaction of his claim (“si interpellatus oppor-
tuno loco non solverit, quod apud judicem exa-
minabitur"). In delictal obligations, however,
and in case of the absence of the debtor, inter-
pellatio was not required. Where, too, a person
was bound to make some payment or perform-
ance by a fixed date, he was understood to have
sufficient notice of the wish of the creditor to
receive payment at this date without any special
interpellatio being necessary. (For references to
the modern literature relating to the maxim of
the glossators, dies adjectus interpellat pro homine,
see Windscheid, Pandekten, iii. § 278, n. 4.)
A debtor was not in mora who failed to per-
form his obligation, if there was a good excuse for
his non-performance. Some modern writers are
of opinion that all delay in a person discharging
an obligatio is Mora, unless there be some impe-
diment which is created by causes altogether
external to the debtor himself (impedimenta
naturalia), but there are many reasons for the
opinion that Mora in its proper sense always im-
plied some culpa on the part of the debtor
(Vangerow, Pandekten, § 588). In fact, the
special rules about eaccusationes a mora only have
a meaning on this supposition.
When Mora could be legally imputed to a
man, he was bound to make good to his creditor
all loss which was a consequence of it. Thus, in
cases where a man did not pay money or deliver
property of another when he ought, he was
liable after Mora had taken place, if not pre-
viously liable, for interest and mesme profits:
this rule, however, owing to technicalities of
procedure, only applied to obligationes bonae
fidei, not to obligationes strict; juris. Again, it
was a rule that a bailee of property was not
liable on account of its accidental loss or de-
terioration (casum memo praestat); but after
Mora, if a man was bound to deliver a thing to
another, and it was accidentally destroyed or
injured, he was to bear the loss (Dig. 12, 1, 5).
So, too, if a thing to be delivered declined in
value, the creditor could claim its highest value
since the date of Mora.
There might be Mora on the side of the cre-
ditor (nora accipiendi) as well as on the side of
the debtor (mora solvendi).
A creditor was in mora if he refused to accept
performance of what was due to him. The debt
was not extinguished by such refusal, but the
debtor was subsequently only liable for culpa
lata, and the creditor was bound to indemnify
him for any loss which was a consequence of the
mora accipiendi. (Dig. 22, 1, de Usuris et Fruc-
tibus ; Madai, Die Lehre von der Mora; Wolff, Zur
Lehre von der Mora; Fr. Mommsen, Beiträge zum
Obligationenrecht, 3 Abth. ; Vangerow, Pandek-
ten, iii. § 588; Windscheid, Pandekten, §§ 276,
281,345, 346; Id. im Rhein. Arch. xliv. 2; Knich,
Die Mora des Schuldners.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
MORA. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 769.]
MO'RIO. [NANUs.]
MORTA'RIUM, also called PILA, a mor-
tar: the Greek words to express it are 8Auos,
6veſa, and in old Attic työvs. (See Rutherford,
New Phryn. p. 252.)
Before the invention of mills [MoLA] corn
MORTARIUM
MURRHINA 181
was pounded and rubbed in mortars (pistum),
and hence the place for making bread, or the
bakehouse, was called pistrinum. (Serv. in
Verg. Aen. i. 179.) The ancient process, as
usual, is identified with a special deity in the
name Pilumnus. Also long after the introduc-
tion of mills this was an indispensable article of
domestic furniture. (Plaut. Aul. i. 2, 17; Cato,
de Re Rust. 74–76; Colum. de Re Rust. xii. 55.)
Pliny (H. N. xviii. § 97) says that it was still in
the imperial times used in many parts of Italy
for corn instead of a mill. The material was
sometimes wood, sometimes stone. (Hesiod. Op.
421), enumerating the wooden utensils necessary
to a farmer, directs him to cut a mortar three
feet, and a pestle (§repos, Šotövé, pilum, pistil-
lum) three cubits long. Both of these were
evidently to be made from straight portions of the
trunks or branches of trees, and the thicker and
shorter of them was to be hollowed (Hes. l.c.).
They might then be used in the manner repre-
sented in a painting on the tomb of Rameses III.
at Thebes (see woodcut, left-hand figure taken
from Wilkinson, vol. ii. p. 383); for there is no
reason to doubt that the Egyptians and the
Greeks fashioned and used their mortars in the
same manner. (See also Wilkinson, vol. iii.
p. 181, showing three stone mortars with metal
pestles). In these paintings we may observe
the thickening of the pestle at both ends, and
that two men pound in one mortar, raising their
pestles alternately as is still the practice in
Egypt. The expression “ruidum pilum ” (Plin.
H. W. xviii. § 97) merely implies the perpendi-
cular downward stroke (ruere) of the pestle.
Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. § 43) mentions the various
kinds of stone selected for making mortars,
according to the purposes to which they were
intended to serve. Those used in pharmacy
were sometimes made, as he says, “ of Egyptian
alabaster.” The annexed woodcut shows the
Egyptian Mortars.
forms of two preserved in the Egyptian Collec-
tion of the British Museum, which exactly
answer to this description, being made of that
material. They do not exceed three inches in
height: the dotted lines mark the cavity within
each. The woodcut also shows a mortar and
pestle, make of baked white clay, which were
discovered, A.D. 1831, among numerous speci-
mens of Roman pottery in making the northern
approaches to London Bridge. (Archaeologia,
vol. xxiv. p. 199, plate 44.)
Schliemann's Ilios, p. 235, figures an ancient
stone mortar and pestle found at Hissarlik.
Besides the old-fashioned use instead of corn-
mills, they were retained for all purposes for
which the mortar and pestle are now employed
in the kitchen or the laboratory. (For drugs,
Pausan. v. 18, 1 ; Plin. H. W. xxxiii. § 123,
xxxvi. § 176, for making mortar or plaster.)
Another sort of pila or mortarium is described
(rather obscurely) by Pliny (xviii. § 97) as used
in Etruria, where, instead of the ordinary shape,
there seems to have been a sort of tube of iron
notched inside and with star-shaped points or
teeth, through which the grain was forced by
the iron pestle, working probably inside with a
circular motion. . It is perhaps a similar kind of
mortar that Polybius is thinking of in his de-
scription of the battle of Mylae (i. 22, 7) when
he speaks of the corvus, with the grºxos orpáy-
yvX0s and the otömpoïv otov štrepov attached to
it, as in outward appearance resembling amxaval
oritoroukaſ. (See also Blümmer, Technologie, i.
15.) For the mortarium of the oil-press, see
TRAPETUM. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
MOS. [JUs.]
MOTHACES, MOTHO'NES (uá9akes,
pló6aves). . [CIVITAs, Vol. I. p. 446 b.]
MUCIA'NA CAUTIO. [CAUTIo.]
MU'LLEUS. [CALCEUs.]
MULSUM. [WINUM.)
MULTA. [PoENA.]
MUNERATOR. [GLADIATOREs.]
MU'NICEPS, MUNICIPIUM. [Colonia;
FoEDERATAE CIVITATES.]
MUNUS. [HoNoFEs; GLADIATOREs.]
MUNY’CHIA (uovvæxta), a festival cele-
brated in April in honour of Artemis Munychia,
as the goddess of the full moon shining alone by
night (uovvvyta for uovovvyta). Plutarch (de
Glor. Ath. p. 349 F) says that it was instituted
to commemorate the victory over the Persians
at Salamis, and that it was held every year on
the sixteenth of Munychion, near the port which
was named after the goddess. (Cf. tróryia
Movvvy in Alpewookótre, Callim. Dian. 259.) It
was believed that the goddess had helped the
Greeks with her light on the night before the
battle. (Compare Suidas and Harpocrat. s. v.
Movvvywów.) The sacrifices which were offered
to the goddess on this day consisted of cakes
called äuſpiqāvres, because these cakes were
adorned all round with burning candles. (Athen.
xiv. p. 645; Suidas, s. v. 'Avántarot: Hesych.
and Etym. M. s. v. 'Auquq6v.) Lysander
added insult to injury by ordering the long
walls to be demolished on the day of the Muny-
chia. (Plut. Lys. 15; Preller, Gr. Myth. i.
p. 236.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
MURA'LIS CORONA. [CoRoNA.]
MUREX. [TRIBULUs.]
MU'RIES. [VESTALEs.
MU'RRHINA or MU’RREA VASA were
first brought to Rome in 61 B.C. by Pompey,
who, after his triumph, dedicated cups of this
material to Jupiter Capitolinus (Plin. H. N.
xxxvii. § 18). Pliny (ibidem) states that the
price of these vases was continually increasing,
and that 70,000 sesterces were paid for a cup
holding three sextarii. He also speaks of a
trulla which cost 300,000 sesterces, and of a
drinking cup for which Nero paid a million
sesterces. The costliness of these objects may
also be inferred from Seneca, de Ben. vii. 9;
Martial, iii. 82, 25; Plin. H. N. xxxvii. § 20.




182 MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENIA
According to Pliny’s account (H. W. xxxvii.
§ 8), the material came from various little-
known regions in Parthia, the best specimens
being obtained from Carmania. . He states that
it was supposed to be a moist substance (humor),
solidified by subterranean heat; that the pieces
never exceeded the size of small tablets (abaci)
in breadth, and were rarely as thick as the
drinking cups above quoted. They were also
fragile, and the chief value lay in the variety
of the colours, which were purple and milky-
white, with subtle gradations and interchanges
between the two. Some connoisseurs chiefly ad-
mired an effect of iridescence; others admired
opaque fatty spots (pīngues), crystalline de-
posits (sales), and warts (verrucae non eminentes,
sed ... plerumque sessiles). The smell was also
approved.
There has been much discussion as to the
nature of the material thus described by Pliny,
and it has frequently been held that the mur-
rhina vasa were true Chinese porcelain. Con-
firmation is sought for this view in the words of
Propertius (iv. 5, 26), “Murreaque in Parthis
pocula cocta focis.”
It is also argued that the importation of
porcelain from the far East is proved by the
discovery of Chinese vases in Egypt. But
probably all such vases belong to a very late
date. One specimen, for example, which is now
in the Egyptian Collection of the British
Museum, is inscribed with a line from a Chinese
poet of the 11th century A.D. Moreover, the
ancient witnesses to the fact that the material
is a natural mineral are too numerous and too
clear in their testimony, to let this theory be
. admissible. In addition to Pliny’s account
above quoted, the following authorities may be
cited:—Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 5, xxxvii. § 204;
, Sidon. Apoll. Carm. 11, 20; Peripl. M. Erythr.
p. 27, c. 48; cf. also Dig. 34, 2, 19, § 19.
No mineral, however, has been suggested
which answers very exactly to Pliny’s descrip-
tion. The onyx has been proposed, but our
authorities plainly imply that the onyx was a
material akin to but yet distinct from that here
in question. (Cf. Lamprid. Heliogab. 32, and
Peripl. M. Erythr. p. 27, c. 48.) Jade, fluor-
spar, and a special kind of agate, the “Chinese
agate,” have also been advocated, but at present
the problem is unsolved. (King, Precious Stones,
Gems, and precious Metals, p. 237; Marquardt,
Privatleben d. Römer, p. 743; Blümmer, Techno-
Qogie, iii. p. 276.) [A. H. S.]
MURUS, MOENIA (reixos), a wall sur-
rounding an unroofed enclosure, in contradis-
tinction to PARIES (roixos), the wall of a roofed
building, such as a temple or a house. This
distinction appears to be the true differentia of
the words: the fact that the murus usually was
a wall of more massive construction is rather an
accidental than an essential difference. As far
as concerns construction, there is no difference
between them, and so the following remarks on
this point may be taken to refer equally to
Murus and Paries.
A third word, maceria, is often used by Latin
authors to denote a fence wall of a less massive
kind than the murus (see Cato, R. R. 15; and
Caes. B. G. vii. 69); and hence it is also used,
like the Greek udrexov or uſikexos, to denote
the space enclosed. .
Pre-Roman Methods of Construction.
I. Bricks,—It is only within recent years
that archaeologists have realised how very im-
portant and extensive the use of sun-dried
bricks was, not only in Egypt and the plains of
the Euphrates, but also in Greece and Rome,
even as late as the Christian era. The fact is
that, as long as a wall of unburnt bricks is pro-
tected from the weather, either by a facing of
stone or even by a coating of fine stucco, it is
almost as durable as stone or kiln-fired bricks.
When, however, it once begins to fall into ruin,
the process of decay is very rapid and complete,
and it is only in exceptional circumstances that
remains of this kind of wall have lasted to the
present day.
In Egypt, although carefully dressed blocks
of stone were used for the main walls of the
principal temples, yet unburnt brick was by far
the most common method of construction, not
only for ordinary domestic buildings, but also
very largely for the outer precinct walls of the
temples, and for such magnificent royal palaces
as that of Rameses the Great, which was dis-
covered a few years ago at Tel-el-Yahoudeh in
the Delta. In the Greek city of Naucratis, also
in the Egyptian Delta, unburnt clay was not
only used for all the houses of the colony [DOMUS,
Vol. I. p. 659 al, but was also employed for the
walls of the various temples, and for the great
Pan-hellenicon or commercial Guildhall of the
associated Greek states. In the account of the
pre-historic palace at Tiryns [DOMUS, Vol. I.
p. 655], a common early method of construction
is described; the lower part of the wall being of
stone to a height of about 3 feet, and the upper
part of sun-dried bricks covered with painted
stucco. --
The most remarkable examples of the use of
sun-dried bricks for the most massively built
and lofty structures of every kind were to be
found in ancient Assyria and Chaldaea, where
stone was scarce, and large quantities of the
finest clay had been deposited by the Tigris and
Euphrates. Great care was taken in the pre-
paration of these bricks: the clay was tempered
by long beating and turning over for complete
exposure to the weather, then mixed with straw
or rushes, and firmly pressed by hand into
wooden moulds; lastly, the bricks were tho-
roughly dried in the summer sun. The outer
faces of the more important walls, those of the
temples, palaces, and circuit walls of the cities,
were defended by casings of stone or of burnt
brick, built “battering” with offsets, so as to
be much thicker at the base than at the top.
An excellent natural cement was supplied by
the numerous springs of hot bitumen, applicable
both to fired and sun-dried bricks (see Herod. i.
179). Bond-courses, consisting of layers of
reeds, were built in at regular intervals: this
is mentioned by Herodotus (loc. cit.), and
examples of the practice have been found by
recent excavators. Great care was taken to
keep the masses of crude brick from suffering
from damp: ventilating pipes were arranged so
as to expose the inner parts of the walls to the
drying power of the wind, and also to allow the
escape of any enclosed moisture. This was
specially necessary, as in some cases no bitumen
or other mortar was used; instead of which the
MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENIA 183
bricks were set while still moist, so that each
adhered to the next course, and thus the whole
wall became one homogeneous mass of clay.
Kiln-fired bricks were also used from very early
times, not only as facings, but for vaults, domes,
arches, and other important constructional pur-
poses. The Tower of Babel, mentioned in Gen.
xi. 3, was of burnt bricks set in bitumen; and
the most magnificent kind of mural decoration
was produced by the use of bricks coated with
brilliant coloured enamels. (See Witruv. i. 5.
For further information, see Layard, Nineveh ;
Loftus, Travels in Assyria; Place, Ninive; and
Perrot and Chipiez, Chaldaea and Assyria, vol. i.;
and, by the same authors, Egypt.) [LATER.]
Among early examples of skilfully constructed
walls for purposes of defence, some of those
erected by people of the Phoenician race, in
various parts of the world, are perhaps the most
striking. Recent excavations at Thapsus, near
Carthage, have brought to light the elaborate
and massive character of the city wall, which
was about 21 feet thick, with square towers
projecting outwards at regular intervals, so as
sº- p
lill I dº
In ºn 11 m assas
* In 11||111 11. Ill
sº C-3
lillº tº
-º-º-º :-->
Sº-
£º
£3%
{ &º
gº % ºft
22 Wºź £%
Š% à%. sº
3. §§ & º % É
& % £%
&:
sº 2.% % º
#ºſéjº 㺠§ºğ
"Tº º
§§§ºğ%j
ŠE|||ſii; Nà |||ſi %$%\ $% s
Scale of Feet
*.*.*—e—º-*—“–*—º
to command the flank of an attacking army.
The lower part of this wall, above the ground-
level, was built of solid stone, roughly dressed,
so as to resist battering-rams. The upper part
was of sun-dried bricks coated with stucco, and
contained two tiers or stories of guard-chambers,
sufficient to give accommodation for a large
garrison of both men and horses. Access was
given to the lower story of chambers by inclined
planes for the use of the horses. Cisterns for
the storage of rain-water in case of siege were
constructed below the ground-level in the thick-
ness of the wall—a common arrangement in
early systems of fortification. (See Perrot and
Chipiez, Phoenicia, i. p. 354.)
§
In other places the Phoenicians appear to
have built wholly of stone. According to
Appian (Anabasis, ii. 21, 3), the walls of Tyre
were built of large stones set in lime (mortar).
Only scanty traces now exist of this once almost
impregnable city; but another Phoenician wall
near Banias (Syria) still exists in places to a tº
height of 35 feet, varying from 16 to 30 feet in
thickness. It is built of roughly-dressed blocks
of limestone, set on horizontal beds, but with
irregular butt joints filled up by the insertion
of small stones. The remains of the Punic
citadel at Eryx in N. Sicily are of similar cha-
racter, with massive stones roughly shaped and
coursed in an irregular manner.
It is interesting to compare with these Phoe-
Section of Wall of Thapsus.
rounded with a most massive wall, constructed
of blocks of such immense size that the Greeks
COUONNADE -
UPPER ROW
CHAMBERS º
Nºzº;
Tºº!º
- ºº
#$%
ð &N
*
ROCK wº
Tiryns. Section of outer Wall.
of the historic period attributed their erection
nician walls the famous citadel of Tiryns, sur- to the fabled "Cyclops, working for god-like




































184 MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENIA
heroes (see Paus. ii.25). The above cut shows
a probable restoration of the Tirynthian wall,
as ‘discovered by Dr. Dörpfeld (see Schliemann
and Dörpfeld, Tiryns, p. 318 seq.). The base of
the wall rests on a levelled surface cut for it in
the rock: its lower part is built of those
immense blocks which aroused the wonder of
Herodotus and other Greeks down to Pausanias.
Some are as much as 10 feet long, roughly
shaped, with smaller stones to fill up the inter-
stices, and the whole bedded carefully in clay,
used instead of mortar: another common early
method of construction. As in the walls of the
Punic Thapsus and Byrsa, the lower part is
solid, but above that rows of chambers are
formed, together with a covered passage into
which each room opens. The roofing is formed
by large blocks, set like corbels, each projecting
over the course below, a very usual primitive
method of obtaining the arch shape without the
principle of the arch. Above this, along part
of the circuit, was a second story of chambers,
built of sun-dried bricks; and above the
passage was an open colonnade, with wooden
pillars resting on stone blocks, and supporting
(probably) a flat wooden roof covered with
Cla.W.
. very interesting inscription (Cor. Insc. Att.
ii. 167), relating to a restoration in the 4th
century of the walls of Athens, shows that a
very similar arrangement existed there. It
mentions the upper portion of the Athenian
wall as being of brick, with, at the top, a
covered gallery supported on columns, and rows
of windows closed by wooden flap-shutters.
The roofing consisted of wooden beams or joists,
on which were burnt clay tiles bedded in moist
clay. This wall was destroyed by Sulla, and a
large number of fine tomb-reliefs were dis-
covered a few years ago safely buried in the
decomposed crude clay bricks of which the
upper part of the walls of Athens had been con-
structed. As appears to have been the general
custom, the walls of Tiryns, and those of Athens
nearly a thousand years later in date, were
strengthened by square towers set at intervals
along the circuit.
Another interesting example of this use of
crude brick and stone is still to be traced at
Mantineia, where almost the whole circuit of
the city wall still exists up to where the brick
began. The stone base, which is nearly 4 feet
high, is formed with a level bed at the top to
receive the upper clay part. Its thickness is
10 feet, made up thus—first an outer facing of
dressed stone 4 feet thick, a similar inner facing
2 feet thick, and an intermediate filling in
4 feet thick. The facing is of closely-jointed
blocks, set without mortar: the inner portion
is a sort of concrete made of small stones, lime
and gravel. The wall had ten gates and
closely-set towers, with a moat on the out-
side.
The use of crude brick for city walls led to a
curious system of attack being sometimes
adopted. Thus, when Agesipolis, king of Sparta,
besieged Mantineia, he directed the stream Ophis
along its walls, and so washed away the brick
at one place sufficiently to make a breach. The
same method of attack was employed by Cimon,
the son of Miltiades, against
the walls of Eion on the
Strymon.
Though kiln-fired bricks
were largely used in ancient
Egypt and still more in
Assyria, the Greeks appear
to have employed them very
sparingly, and no Roman
examples are known of
earlier date than the 1st
century B.C. According to
Pausanias (v. 20), the circular Philippeion
at Olympia was built of baked brick, but the
existing remains were found to be of stóñe
ashlar.
II. Stone Construction.—The most primitive
type of stone masonry is that in which large
blocks are used, very roughly dressed with an
axe or hammer; small stones being used to fill
up the open joints, and, as a rule, a bedding of
clay instead of a lime mortar. The above-
mentioned walls of Tiryns, dating probably not
less than 11 or 12 centuries before Christ, are
the most remarkable existing examples. This
method of building was not, however, employed,
even at so early a date as the construction of
the Tirynthian Acropolis, on account of want of
sufficient skill to work stone neatly; but simply
because such rough and massive masonry was
practically as good as the finest ashlar for the
outer walls of a fortification. Within the palace
Dr. Dörpfeld found ample evidence to show that.
the Tirynthian builders possessed tools of the
most varied kinds, fit for the most elaborately
finished stone-work. Not only chisels were
used, but even jewel-tipped drills, both solid
and tubular, and saws set with corundum, or
other hard crystals, such as were used as early
as 4000 B.C. in Egypt to work the refractory
granites and basalts of the ancient dynasties.
Any chronological arrangement of the various
kinds of masonry would be misleading. One of
the oldest existing buildings in the world, the
so-called “Temple of the Sphinx,” near the
Great Pyramid in Egypt, is built of the most
perfectly regular and neatly-fitted blocks of
stone; its inner walls being lined with great
slabs of beautiful translucent alabaster, 5 or 6
inches thick, so perfectly fitted that the joints
are hardly visible : this beautiful lining is now
rapidly being stolen. The walls of Mycenae,
certainly earlier than 1000 B.C., consist in most
places of large blocks very accurately squared,
with perfectly fitting beds and joints: enormous
monoliths are used for the jambs, lintel, and
threshold of the principal gate, over which still
exists the well-known relief of the pillar be-
tween the guardian lions. This is shown in the
annexed cut. The slab itself fills up the “re-
lieving” opening, which was of triangular shape,
as was usual at that date. The missing heads

MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENIA 185
of the lions appear to have been of bronze: holes
for their attachment still exist, with blue stains
of copper oxide.
–H–7,
ſ
r —ſº A Hº
AE Nº º -
%
%
%
º
%
ſº
º
§ ºš
}w
|
|
%
ſ
º
&=%.Szymrºze=ºsezºzºtº- º (º
W N %99%| - SS %
ſo, , , , § Q ſo 20Feet
Lion Gate of Mycenae.
The name Cyclopean or Pelasgic has been
popularly given to masonry constructed of poly-
gonal blocks, which in many cases are fitted
Polygonal Masonry.
together with great care and skill. Examples
of this exist at Signia (Segni), Norba, and many
other ancient sites in Etruria, Central Italy, }
and in Greece itself. This style of building
appears really to belong to no special race or
date. (See Bunbury, Cyclopean Remains, in
Museum of Class. Arch. ii. p. 147; and Dodwell,
Tour in Greece.) The latest dated example of
this polygonal masonry is the cella of the small
Temple of Themis in antis at Rhamnus, not
earlier than the 5th century B.C.: in this case
the blocks are smaller than those used in the
primitive fortifications of Central Italy. Though
more economical of material, the polygonal
method of construction would not require less,
but rather more skill on the part of its masons;
it being no easy matter to fit together such
irregular forms with the perfect accuracy that
in many cases had been attained: and it should
not therefore be taken as a proof of very early
date.
During the historic period of Greece, the more
important buildings, such as the temples, were
usually built of quadrangular blocks of stone,
each course having a level bed running from
end to end of the wall. The beds and joints
were worked to a much more accurately smooth
surface than the visible faces of the wall, because
whenever stone was used by the Greeks it
appears to have been the custom to cover it
with a thin skin of very fine white stucco,
made of lime and powdered marble or lime-
stone, mixed with some kind of size. (See
Vitruv. vii. 6.) This mixture set to the hard-
ness and durability of the best quality of stone;
it received, by working over while soft, a
pleasant, ivory-like texture, and its slightly
absorbent surface formed an excellent ground
for the application of the coloured ornament
which seems to have been always used on
Greek buildings. The modern word “stucco."
gives a very erroneous notion of this beautiful
material. The chief existing examples of this
fine stone masonry are those at Selinus and
Agrigentum in Sicily, and Paestum in Magna
Graecia. (See Serradifalco, Antichità di Sicilia,
and Wilkins, Magna Graecia.)
After the Persian war, in the first half of
the 5th century B.C., the Athenians began
to use marble for their finest buildings. The
walls, for example, of the Athenian Pro-
pylaea and the Parthenon are marvels of
perfect masonry. The blocks of marble are cut
in courses of regular depth; and, no cement
being used, each block was made to fit with
absolute precision to the adjacent blocks by
being moved back-
wards and forwards
over its bed, till
its surfaces were
rubbed perfectly
Smooth. So abso-
lutely air-tight
were these surfaces
that in many cases
age and pressure
have made adjacent
surfaces actually,
as it were, grow
together: this is
shown in a very
striking way by
the fact, that in certain places, where the wall is
broken, the fracture has gone through the solid
block rather than cause a separation of two
blocks at the joint or bed. Great labour was
also spent in clamping horizontally with iron or
bronze each block to the next one on the same
course; and vertical dowels were used to fix each
block to the next courses above and below. In
most cases the metal clamps were fixed by pour-
ing in fluid lead, the cavity in the marble being
cut a little larger than the actual clamp required
at its turned down ends. Even during the 5th
century the use of marble was as a rule limited
to places which, like Athens, had marble quarries
at hand; and such important buildings as the
Temple of Zeus at Olympia, and that of Apollo
at Bassae, had their walls constructed of local
stone. It was not till the 4th century, when
many of the great temples of Western Asia
Minor were reconstructed on so magnificent a
scale—as e.g. those at Didyme, Ephesus, Teos,
Magnesia, and the Smintheum in the Troad—
that the use of marble was considered necessary
for the construction of a magnificent building.
The fact is that, as long as they were not ruined,
the general effect of the stone temples coated











186 MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENIA
with their fine skin of marble dust gesso, en-
riched by brilliant coloured decoration, must
have been as beautiful as that of a building of
solid marble, and not distinguishable from it
except by the closest examination.
During the 5th to the 3rd century B.C. stone
masonry of almost equal beauty to that of the
temples was often used for the fortification
walls of Greek cities. The usual scheme of
defence was to have, on the outside, a deep foss,
either filled with water or, where that was not
possible, merely an empty trench. The wall
was from 10 to 15 feet in thickness, with, on
the top, a walk for sentinels and a parapet with
battlements all along. At regular intervals
were towers, usually square, but sometimes
rounded in plan, projecting on the outside like
those of the Phoenicians, two being placed to
flank each gateway. This general scheme was
%
%
%
zº
&º
&#4%
22%
Pi—º-É - =H.Lº.
ºś
O-º-Nºtº º º C & º Ö
Wall and Gateway of Posidonia.
adopted in the walls of the Greek city of Posi-
donia (Paestum) in Magna Graecia, which, like
Tiryns, had chambers for the garrison: they are
well illustrated in. the Museum of Classical
Antiquities, vol. i. p. 35. The walls of Messene,
on the slopes of Mt. Ithome, are among the
most perfect remains of Greek building in the
Peloponnese, and are a beautiful example of
Hellenic masonry during the best period. They
are wholly built of neatly-dressed blocks, regu-
larly bedded without mortar in horizontal
courses. Along the top of the wall is a levelled
walk defended by a battlemented parapet : in
each of the many projecting square towers is
a chamber with its floor at the level of the
top of the curtain wall, on to which access
is given from the towers by doorways with
flat lintels, so that the towers do not interrupt
the passage round the wall. Square battle-
ments crowned the summit of each tower, as a
defence to the soldiers posted on the roof of the
tower chamber.
In the finest sorts of masonry, both among
the Greeks and Romans, metal clamps instead of
cement were used, each block fitting with abso-
lute closeness to the next; but in the rougher
sort of walling the blocks were less carefully
dressed, and a fine lime mortar was used to bed
each course. The famous “Long Walls” from
Athens to Peiraeus were of this latter sort, as
Plutarch describes (Cim. 13), x&Auct toxx; ca.
Atôous Bapéal rôv éââv trieq 0évrov. Other
parts, perhaps the facing, of this wall described
by Thucydides (i. 93) appear to have been of
the finer kind of masonry, with blocks so large
that each was a cart-load (&plašiaioi), closely
fitted (év roufi éyydävlot) and secured by metal
clamps run with lead, like those used in the
Parthenon. -
Though as a rule the joints in fine masonry
must have been practically invisible, owing
either to the coating of stucco or to the perfect
grinding together of the surfaces, yet we read
of one case (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. § 98) in which
the joints were treated in a conspicuously deco-
rative way. This was a temple at Cyzicus, in
which the interior walls of the cella had a fine
thread of gold inserted in the joints of every
course. That this statement is probably true is
borne witness to by the discovery, among the
ruins of the Artemision at Ephesus, of certain
bases of the great Ionic columns, in which the
quirks between the astragals still contained bits
of a strip of pure gold fixed with lead into its
place: thus forming two or more rings of gold
ornament all round each of the main bases of
the order.
Pre-Roman Methods of Mural Decoration.
The earliest example of a decorated wall-
surface is the Temple of the Sphinx, c. 4000 B.C.,
mentioned above as being lined with slabs of
alabaster. Sculpture, in low relief, was used
in the most lavish way, during a space of
between three and four thousand years, to
decorate the tombs and temples of Egypt. This
sculpture is, as a rule, not cut on slabs affixed
to the wall, but on the coursed blocks of which
the wall consists: the joints, which, in the
present ruined state of the building, cut through
and disfigure the reliefs, were originally con-
cealed by a thin skin of fine stucco, like that
used by the Greeks, on which the colouring was
applied. In ancient Assyria and Chaldaea wall
reliefs were used in no less lavish a way;
but, as a rule, with this difference, that the
sculpture was carved on thin slabs, which were
fixed to the surface of the wall, not, as in Egypt,
cut on the solid wall itself.
Painting on stucco is perhaps the most widely
used method of wall decoration among all
classical races and at all periods [see PICTURA].
Another very costly and magnificent method of
wall decoration, largely used in early times, was
to cover the surface with plates of bronze,
beaten into relief, and usually gilt. Traces of
this method of enriching wall-surfaces have
been found in the palaces of Persepolis, the so-
called treasuries of Mycenae and Orchomenos,
and in the palace of the Tirynthian Acropolis.
The splendour of these delicately enriched metal
surfaces, gleaming with gold and broken into
points of light, varied with the half-shadows of
the reliefs, must have been of the most dazzling
kind. We know now that such descriptions as
Homer's golden house of Alcinous need not be
considered wholly the offspring of a poet's fancy.
The Treasury of Myron and the Shrine of Athene
Chalcioecus, mentioned by Pausanias (vi. 19 and
iii. 17), were probably examples of the same
method of decoration by bronze repoussé plates.
Reliefs moulded in clay, and then coloured
with brilliant enamel pigments, were used





MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENIA 187
for wall-decoration in Egypt, Assyria, and
Friezes, with lines of kings, soldiers,
and , processions of captives, in enamelled
relief, formed on tiles or plaques, were
found in Rameses the Great's palace at Tel-
el-Yahoudeh. Their execution is a marvel of
technical skill, in the minute use of the most
Persia.
delicate relief, and the most varied enamels of
jewel-like brilliancy. Recent excavations at
Susa have brought to light examples of this
kind of decoration on the most magnificent
scale. The walls of one room were lined with
life-sized figures, moulded, not on slabs but on
the ordinary coursed brickwork, so that each
figure is built up of about 20 courses of bricks,
all fitting together with great accuracy. The
whole of this magnificent procession is covered
with enamels of various colours—a combination
of the plastic and pictorial arts which gives
an effect of unrivalled splendour, and from its
vitreous surface has the advantage of being
almost imperishable. Some of these wonderful
reliefs were brought in 1887 to the Museum of
the Louvre, and give one a most vivid notion of
the skill and decorative taste of the Persian
craftsmen.
The decoration of wall-surfaces by thin marble
linings does not appear to have been much used
by the Greeks. According to Pliny (H. N.
xxxvi. $47), thin slabs (crustae) of Proconnesian
marble were used to decorate the Palace of
Maussolus at Halicarnassus, c. 360 B.C.; and
when the remains of Queen Artemisia's mauso-
leum were used by the Knights of
St. John, in the 15th and 16th cen-
turies, to build the castle of St. Peter
at Halicarnassus (Budrum), they are
said to have found the interior of the
Heroon lined with slabs of various
coloured marbles. (See Newton,
quoting Guichard, Travels in the
º
lºſſº Inlº
ſº
|
º
|
º
Levant, vol. ii. p. 126.) As a rule,
however, the use of coloured marbles
for wall-linings was not introduced º
till later times, and would have been |
rather displeasing to the severe taste
of the best period of Hellenic art,
though it was the favourite method
of mural decoration in the artisti-
cally inferior period of the Roman
empire. [See DOMUs.]
The Roman Period.
A great deal that is wholly mis-
leading has been written about the
methods of building used in the walls
of ancient Rome, partly because the
real methods of construction are frequently
hidden behind very deceptive modes of surface
decoration. The systems of wall-building in
Rome may be classified thus: — I. Sun-dried
bricks (lateres crudi), of which no example
now exists. II. Opus quadratum, solid walls of
squared stone. III. Concrete, opus coementitium.
(a) unfaced concrete; (b) faced with opus incer-
tum ; (c) faced with opus reticulatum ; (d) faced
with burnt brick (lateres cocti); (e) faced with
the so-called opus mixtum. The usual error has
been to class opus incertum, opus reticulatum,
&c., as separate constructional categories ;
whereas, in reality, they are merely different
methods of facing concrete walls.
|
|
|
º
ºš
tº:
º
| |
ſº
:
º
* i |[º] J| |Wºº jº:
ºlº
|S -º 3. *_l ſo
I. Sun-dried bricks in Rome, as in Greece,
appear to have been largely used for all except
the more important public buildings, till about
the 1st century B.C. The remarks of Vitruvius
(ii. 3) about the names and the sizes of bricks
appear to refer wholly to crude bricks; the
kiln-baked bricks used for wall-facing in Rome
being always triangular in shape, not rect-
angular, like those described by Vitruvius.
Care was taken to dig out the clay at the right
season, and also to keep the bricks for a long
time before being used—a precaution that would
have been useless in the case of kiln-fired bricks.
Careful directions are given in the same chapter
(Vitruv. ii. 3) as to the formation of good
“bond,” by alternate courses of “headers” and
“stretchers.” This, again, does not apply to
the burnt bricks of Rome, which are never used
to build a wall, but merely as facing.
II. Opus quadratum, masonry of solid ashlar.
The earliest existing example of this in Ronle is
the pre-historic fortification wall of Roma
Quadrata on the Palatine, popularly called the
“wall of Romulus.” This consists of blocks of
the local tufa, with very even beds, but less
careful vertical joints. The blocks run in fairly
even courses of nearly 2 Roman feet in depth,
but vary in length. The bond is imperfect:
joints are often allowed to come one over an-
other; and no mortar is used. The cut shows
a piece of the best preserved part at the west
|ſº §
| '' º
º:
| | t i.
i
|
t
|
|
|
angle of the Palatine. The Servian wall shows
|
the next stage ; harder stone is used, the courses
|| º
: : º | º -
sº
§
º #
ºº lº |#
º : #
ºffs
ºw-
N N
.N. S. º S §§ § -
NSN
Existing piece of the “Wall of Romulus.”
are more regular, the surfaces more truly dressed,
and the bond more workmanlike. Under the
later republic the harder peperino was usually
employed for external work, the soft tufa being
reserved in many cases for internal walls. The
most perfectly developed opus quadratum is to
be seen in the walls of the Capitoline Tabularium,
which, on the exterior, are built of perfectly
regular blocks of lapis Albanus (peperino), each
exactly 2 Roman feet x 2 ft. × 4 ft. long,
arranged in alternating courses of “headers ”
and “stretchers,” such as in modern language
is called technically “English bond.” So ac-
curately are the blocks worked and set, that
each series of joints comes exactly over those











188 MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENLA
below, up the whole height of the wall. These
blocks are bedded in a very thin layer of pure
lime, used, not as a binding cement, but as a
method of obtaining absolutely perfect con-
tact in all the adjacent surfaces—a very early
practice in Rome, which is to be seen even in
the primitive Tullianum or lower chamber of
the “Mamertine prison.”
In the 1st century B.C. the hard, cream-
coloured limestone, lapis Tiburtinus (Travertino),
came into use for the more costly buildings, but
the principal examples of its use date from the
1st and 2nd centuries A.D., as in the lower part
of the cella walls of the temples of Concord,
Vespasian, and Faustina. In these the blocks
are worked with courses of varying thickness,
and the beds and joints are rubbed to such a
perfect surface that absolutely close contact is
obtained without the use of the thin skin of
lime mortar. As among the Greeks, the blocks
of the finest masonry are fixed by iron clamps
run with lead (“ansis ferreis et plumbo,”
Vitruv. ii. 7), or, in some cases, by wooden
“dovetail dowels.” In the same chapter Vitru-
vius describes the methods of bonding derived,
as he says, from the Greeks. The best class of
masonry (êutraekrov) was formed by alternating
“headers” and “stretchers,” i.e. blocks laid
cross-wise or lengthways; and, in some cases,
“through stones’’ (6taróvoi) were introduced,
i.e. blocks set as “headers,” of sufficient length
to reach through the whole thickness of a wall
—a needless precaution, unless the wall were
rather thin.
Existing specimens of domestic architecture
in Rome, built with opus quadratum, are very
rare. One of the chief examples is the older
part of the Regia, or official house of the Ponti-
fex Maximus, in which remains still exist of
early tufa masonry, with accurately squared
blocks. Similar tufa blocks are also used for
the walls of the oldest houses in Pompeii,-
those, that is, which survived the earthquake
by which the town was mostly destroyed, a few
years before its final destruction in 79 A.D.
Some of these probably date from the 1st century
B.C., or even earlier.
In all cases in ancient Roman buildings,
whether tufa or peperino were used, it appears
to have been the custom to coat the stone with
the fine marble or limestone stucco (opus mar-
"moreum), such as was used in Greece, and is
described in great detail by Vitruvius (vii. 2,
3 and 6). Thin coatings of this beautiful hard
substance were used in some cases to cover
travertine, and even marble walls. With tufa,
as with unburnt brick, it was a constructional
necessity, the soft tufa being the worst possible
“weather stone;” but in other cases it appears
to have been applied for decorative purposes.
III. Concrete.—The use of concrete, both
among the Greeks and Romans, is really much
older than has usually been supposed. It
was largely used in the palace of Tiryns,
especially for floors; and in Rome still exists
as backing to part of the Servian wall on
the Aventine. Concrete in Rome was made
of broken stones, together with lime and pulvis
Puteolanus (pozzolana); or else, during the
Imperial period, broken pieces of burnt brick
frequently replaced the stone. The pozzolana,
great beds of which, showered down from long
extinct volcanoes, exist over most of the Roman
Campagna, forms, when mixed with lime, a
very strong hydraulic cement, applicable to
a great variety of purposes, such as concrete
walls, mortar, and stucco. In the older concrete
tufa is the stone usually employed, but under
the Empire other harder stones were used,
especially for foundations of walls which had to
carry a heavy weight. The best and most dur-
able kind of concrete was made with pieces of
lava, the silea of Pliny and Vitruvius, with
which the Roman roads were generally paved.
The method of forming concrete walls is
shown in the annexed cut. Upright posts,
i
i
Method of casting concrete Walls.
about 6 × 5 inches thick and 10 to 15 feet high,
were stuck at intervals of about 3 feet in the
ground along the line of both faces of the future
wall; and against these posts wooden planks,
10 to 12 inches wide, were nailed horizontally,
overlapping one another. Into the intermediate
space the semi-fluid concrete was poured, re-
ceiving on its surface the imprint of the posts
and boards. When the first layer of concrete
had set hard, the wooden framing was removed
and refixed on the top of the concrete wall.
The process was then repeated till the wall was
raised to the required height. Walls thus
formed, especially if the hard lava or travertine
were used, were stronger and more durable than
even the most solid masonry. Blocks of stone
could be removed, one by one, by the same force
that set them in place; but a concrete wall was
one perfectly solid and coherent mass, which
could only be destroyed by a laborious process,
like that of quarrying hard stone from its native
bed.
As a rule, except when used for foundations,
the Roman concrete was not left without some
facing. During the Republican period, the method
of facing was opus incertum, but it was nearly
obsolete in the reign of Augustus, as Vitruvius
(ii. 8) writes: “reticulatum, quo, nung, omnes
utuntur, et antiquum quod incertum dicitur.”
In this method irregularly shaped bits of tufa,
3 to 5 inches across, were cut smooth on one
face, and roughly pointed behind. The whole



MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENIA 189
face of the concrete wall was studded with these
stones, like a magnified mosaic, the points stick-
ing into the wall, and the smooth ends appear-
ing on the surface.
Opus reticulatum, universally used (as Vitru-
vius says) in his time, is very like opus incertum,
except that each little block of tufa is cut to a
true square at one end, and all are arranged to
run in regular diagonal lines, like a piece of net-
work, whence came its name. Though of no
2 :
4->
sºcºon"oºn
Concrete Wall faced with (A) Opus incertum and
(B) Opus reticulatum. C shows the section, similar
in both.
real constructional importance, it is very neat in
appearance, and it is rather strange to find that,
like the incertum, it was usually, if not always,
covered with stucco. It appears to have come
into use about the beginning of the 1st century
B.C., and continued in use, though becoming less
common, till the reign of Hadrian. Facing with
kiln-fired brick appears not to have been used
in Rome before the 1st century B.C. In fact, no
examples are known to exist earlier than the
wall of J. Caesar’s Rostra, rebuilt on a new site
in 44 B.C.
It is an important thing to observe that in
ancient Rome burnt brick was never used to
build walls, but merely as a thin facing. In
the true sense of the word, there is no such
thing as a brick wall among all the ruins of
<2_c^ sº.9 ° 93:99 & Sº
2.3 oºº- <> 2 o
O o,-\ Q cº Q 2
cº <>Gºº, bo O. F.Roeo
tº-º
Bº-º-º-º-º-
-
E-
H-I-D
sºsºs ºsmºº-
12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7.ft
Concrete Arch: half with its brick facing removed.
Rome; the actual wall being of concrete, with
merely a thin facing of triangular bricks,
t
!
|
arranged as is shown in the woodcut. Even
party-walls of small houses, sometimes only
7 inches thick, are not built of solid brick, but
§ºſºft
Y. º ſº 㺠sº
3.
23-gºº/,
ź
- " - - -
£º
º
** * * * * *
1
º ;: º ź. 3: - : *
ŻZ
* . . • - e “ ºr “... º. I * ~ * :##$º:SZ
:"...º.ºzºğ.
ãº
3% º fº
Concrete Wall faced with brick.
have an inner core of concrete faced with small
brick triangles. Thus, for example, such a
building as the Pantheon of Agrippa, which
appears to be built of brick, is found on exa-
mination to consist of walls with about 18 feet
in thickness of concrete, and a facing of brick
averaging only 3 or 4 inches in depth.
The advantages of this concrete construction,
both for walls and vaults, were very great :
each wall was like one solid slab of stone, any
part of which might be cut away without de-
stroying the rest. A striking example of this
is to be seen in the Thermae of Caracalla: in
one place the concrete wall originally rested on
two marble columns. The columns were stolen
some centuries ago, and the wall above still re-
mains hanging like a curtain from the concrete
vault.
It is not easy to explain why the Romans
were so fond of using this brick facing over
their concrete. It was not a constructional
necessity, as the many walls of unfaced concrete
which still exist clearly show. It was not for
the sake of its appearance, as, except in a very
few cases, such as the great aqueducts, the brick
facing was concealed by stucco or by marble
linings. The very smoothness of the brick was
practically a disadvantage, being unsuited to
the reception of stucco; and great cost and
labour were expended in studding the brick
facing with metal nails or plugs of marble in































190 MURUS, MOENIA
MURUS, MOENIA
order to form a “key’’ for the coating of stucco,
which adhered firmly, without any such help,
to the bare concrete of unfaced walls.
The character of brick facing, the thickness
of the bricks and the mortar joints, is often a
very valuable indication of the date of a build-
ing; the general tendency being for the bricks
to get thinner and the mortar joints thicker.
Thus the Pantheon, dated 27 B.C., has bricks
13, inches thick, with joints averaging # inch.
In the palace of Sept. Severus, 200 A.D., the
bricks are 1 inch and the joints # inch in thick-
ness. In the Aurelian walls of Rome, c. 270 A.D.,
bricks and joints average the same thickness,
both measuring about 1% inches.
The term opus mixtum, though not a classical
one, is now used to denote wall-facings of a late
period, with alternating courses of brick and
small rectangular blocks of tufa. The earliest
dated example is the Circus of Maxentius, c. 310
A.D. ; it continued in use till the time of Theo-
doric, c. 500 A.D.; after which destruction, not
construction, went on in the unhappy city of
Rome.
The above methods of Roman construction
are those which were employed in the greater
part of Italy; but in their distant provinces,
such as Britain or Gaul, the systems of building
were often modified to suit the nature of the
materials which the country supplied. Thus,
outside of Italy, owing to the lack of pozzolana
to make a strong hydraulic cement, concrete
was less extensively used for walls. In Britain
one of the favourite Roman methods was to
build the wall with more or less carefully
dressed stone for the facing, and an internal
filling in of rubble. At regular intervals
“lacing courses” of brick were built, extending
through the whole thickness of the wall; large
rectangular bricks (tegulae) being used instead
of the triangles of Rome itself. The Roman
fortification walls of London, Richborough, and
many other places are examples of this mixed
construction.
In all cases the mortar used in Roman walls
is of a very hard and durable character, owing
to the great care taken in preparing and mixing
the materials. Much of the Roman mortar
owes its strength to the lime being mixed with
finely-pounded brick or pottery, the opus e testis
tunsis of Vitruvius; a much better substance
for the purpose than such sand as is now com-
monly used. Vitruvius' chapters on sand (arena,
ii. 4), on lime (cala, ii. 5), and the preparation
of concrete, mortar, cements, and stucco of all
kinds, are of the highest practical value; and
modern builders would produce much better
work if they would follow Vitruvius' injunc-
tions. It is, however, useless to hope for that:
the chief secret of the immense superiority of
the Roman work to that of the 19th century is
due to the fact that in the old days the builder's
first object was to produce a strong and lasting
piece of work, not to erect his building at the
lowest possible cost, as is the case now.
Fortification Walls of the Romans.
Many different systems of fortification were
adopted, according to the varying natures of
the sites.
Quadrata, on the summit of the Palatine hill,
was arranged thus. The base of the circuit was
The pre-historic defence of Roma |
set neither at the foot of the cliff nor at its
summit, but on an artificially cut shelf, at an
average distance (along the Velabrum side) of
–
Section of the Wall of Roma Quadrata.
A. Original height of wall.
B. Upper part of cliff, now crumbled away.
C. Cistern cut in tufa rock.
D. Levelled platform to receive base of wall.
E E. Cliff made steeper by cutting.
M
about 40 feet from the top. The face of the
cliff above this shelf was cut back into an
almost perpendicular precipice, slightly sloping
back or “battering” inwards, as is shown in
the cut. Against this the wall was built, rising
to the top of the hill, and probably a little
above it, to shelter the garrison. The native
tufa at this point is very soft, and so it was
thought advisable to line the cliff with a wall
of harder tufa, which would not give foothold
to an enemy. In other places, as on the Capito-
line hill, the native rock is harder; and so the
place was made secure simply by scarping the
rock to a perpendicular surface, and then only
a low wall of defence was required at its sum-
mit. The above cut shows also one of the
cisterns for storing rain-water, which were cut
in the rock for use in time of siege.
Along one space of about 1400 yards, in the
circuit of the early or “Servian city,” the wall
had to cross a level piece of ground, and so the
defence got no help from the natural contour
of the rock, as it did in most other parts of the
circuit (see Dionys. ix. 68). For this reason a
more elaborate system of fortification was
adopted: a great fossa, 30 feet deep and 100
wide, was dug, and its earth heaped up on the
inside to form an agger, which was kept up by
a massive stone retaining wall, 9 feet thick and
about 30 feet or more in height. This wall, in
some places, is strengthened by great square
buttresses. A lava-paved road ran along the
outer edge of the fossa. (See Middleton, Ancient
Rome, pp. 69–74.)
The later fortification wall of Rome, which
encloses a very much larger area than the
Regiones of Servius, was planned and in great

MURUS, MOENIA
191
MUSCULUS •
part built by Aurelianus, in 270–5 A.D. It is
built of concrete faced with brick, and extends
along a circuit of about 12 miles. Like the
|
PLAN OF WALL. <-Iſe" x 96" x 11.6%-3-
AGGER .
tº. Io. 20. So. 40. 50. too. D - Sº
.5 CAL E OF SEC T | ON . & E
C. F. F.
* AR
!
A - - '#
Foss A. I
| 00 #A:
ST.3% % . º
+ #2,”: *4%%.2%
Section of Wall and Agger of Servius. The plan is double the scale of the section.
AA. Undisturbed earth of fossa. E. Back retaining wall of agger.
B. Earth excavated from fossa. F. Level to which the fossa was filled
C. Road at brink of fossa. up and built upon under the Empire.
The walls of Pompeii, which are in parts very
perfect, are an interesting example of the de-
fences of a smaller city. They, too, have towers,
square in plan, set at close
intervals, and near the
top a broad platform for
the defenders of the town.
In other cases—as, for
example, in the Roman
fort at Old Cairo (the
mediaeval Babylon) —
towers of circular plan
are used. (See A. J. But-
ler, Coptic Churches, i. p.
155.) This system is
recommended by Vitru-
vius, on the very reason-
able ground that the
angles of square towers
form weak points when
attacked by the battering-
ram. (See the whole of
Vitruv. i. 5)
Respecting the gates,
see PORTA.
ID. Wall and buttress.
early Greek walls, its lower part is solid, to
resist battering-rams, and the upper part con-
tains in its thickness a passage for the garrison,
extending all along its circuit. This passage
anched recess
ºf UNDER stairs.
THREE WINDOWS a
Literature. — Per r ot
and Chipiez's various works on Egypt, Assyria,
Phoenicia; Schliemann's works on Troy, Mycenae,
and Tiryns; Blümner, Technologie bei Griechen
wnd Römern ; Winckler, Die Wohnhäuser der
* Hellenen ; Helbig, Das
Homerische Epos; Adamy,
Architectonik der Hel-
lenen ; Middleton, Ancient
JRome in 1885, and an
article on “Roman Con-
struction ” in Archaeolo-
gia, vol. 51, for 1888;
Nissen, Pompeianische
Studien ; Overbeck, Pom-
pej, re-edited by Mau. See
also DOMUS. [J. H. M.]
MU'SCULUS was a
* * * * * * * * sagº
Six OF". "THESE. OPEN ARCHES; shelter for soldiers en-
BET W E EN EACH PAiR - s e tº
OF TOW E R S . gaged in undermining
9, 5, 10, 15. 20. 25. , 56. & O. Jo. Fºs the enemy’s walls or
Aurelian's Wall. Plan showing one of the towers and the passage in the
thickness of the wall.
opens on the interior with a series of tall arches,
something like those of an aqueduct, and is
vaulted overhead, forming a wide platform at
the top, guarded by battlements, for the soldiers.
At close intervals, only 45 feet apart, tall and
massive square towers were set, 383 in all, with
a guard-room below, and a sleeping-room for the
garrison above. The plan of one of these towers
and a bit of the sentinels’ passage is shown in
the woodcut. The passage, which continued
through the towers, formed a covered walk
along the whole 12 miles of the circuit. The
height of the wall varied according to the
contour of the ground: it probably averaged
nearly 50 feet; the towers rising about 20 feet
above the top of the intermediate wall. Except
where the wall skirted the river along the
Campus Martius, its circuit still exists, more
or less perfectly preserved. In some places, as
e.g. in the now destroyed Ludovisi gardens, it is
still in a very perfect, state, with the exception
of its battlements, almost all of which have
perished.
towers (Caes. B. C. ii.
10; Isid. Orig. xviii. 11,
4), or in filling up the
ditch so as to bring the battering-rams, &c. up
to the wall (Veget. iv. 16). As described by
Caesar (l. c.), in the siege of Marseilles it
was strongly made of wood, 60 feet long, 4 feet
wide, and 5 feet high, with a sloping roof. The
construction is as follows:—Two beams, 60 feet
long, were placed at the base, 4 feet apart: in
these were fixed upright posts (columellae), 5 feet
high and joined by gable beams (capreoli) meeting
in an angle, across which thick planks or beams
are laid lengthways, so as to form a roof sloping
both ways. These beams (bipedalia, 2 feet thick)
are nailed and clamped together; at the bottom
of the slope each side rises a ledge (regulae), .
4 digits high, so as to support the layers of
bricks, &c. The layers over the wooden roof are
bricks and earth ; over these, hides to prevent
the bricks being displaced by water; and over
the hides are cushions or mattresses (centones)
kept wet, so as at once to prevent fire and to
break the force of stones hurled from above.
The machine is constructed beneath the tower of
the besiegers, and then is moved on rollers up to










192 MUSEA
MUSICA
the wall. The besiegers throw down huge stones
and blazing tar barrels, which roll harmlessly
off the sloping roof. The difference between the
musculus and the vinea was that in the vinea
one of the long sides was open for working,
while the musculus was open at the ends, hence
giving a long sheltered gallery, the end of
which was against the city wall. It was, of
course, rolled lengthways to the wall. The
vinea was rolled broadside up to the wall. The
musculus also was more solidly built than the
vinea, and not so high. The testudo was some-
thing like the musculus, but squarer. (Lipsius,
Poliorcet. i. 9; Marquardt, Staatsverwalt. ii.
531.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
MUSE'A (Moſſgeia), a festival with contests
celebrated in a grove on the lower slopes of
Mount Helicon in Boeotia, not far from the
spring of Agamippe, in honour of the Muses.
It was held every fifth year and with great
splendour. (Plut. Amator. p. 748 F.) It was
first under the charge of the Ascraeans, having
been instituted according to tradition by the
Aloidae: afterwards it was superintended by
the inhabitants of Thespiae. (Paus. ix. 29, § 1 ;
31, § 3; C. I. 1585, 1586.) There was also a
festival called Museia, which was celebrated in
schools, with sacrifices, to which the pupils con-
tributed. (Aeschin. in Timarch. § 10; Theophrast.
25, 11; LUDUS, p. 95 a.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
MUSE'UM (Movoreſov) signified in general a
place dedicated to the Muses, but was specially
the name given to an institution at Alexandria
founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus, about B.C. 280,
or perhaps by his father and predecessor Ptolemy
Soter, for the promotion of learning and the
support of learned men. (Athen. v. p. 203.)
We learn from Strabo (xviii. p. 794) that the
museum formed part of the palace, and that it
contained cloisters or porticoes (trepſtratos), a
public theatre or lecture-room (éčéðpa), and a
large hall (oikos péyas), where the learned men
dined together. The museum was supported by
a common fund, supplied apparently from the
public treasury; and the whole institution was
under the superintendence of a priest, who was
appointed by the king, and, after Egypt became
a province of the Roman empire, by the emperor
(Strabo, l.c.). Botanical and zoological gardens
appear to have been attached to the museum
(Philostr. Apollon. vi. 24; Athen. xiv. p. 654).
The Emperor Claudius added another museum to
this institution (Suet. Claud. 42, with Casaubon's
Rote). The studies at the Alexandrian Museum
had been arranged by Ptolemy Philadelphus in
four faculties, – literature, mathematics, as-
tronomy, and medicine,—and it is said to have
received at one time as many as 14,000 students.
It should be observed that in all probability
the original of this institution was the museum
at Athens (similar in its object of encouraging
learning and art and like in form, though on a
smaller scale), which was founded or enlarged
in pursuance of the will of Theophrastus to
receive the statue of his great master Aristotle,
and to become a school of Aristotelian philosophy
(Diog. Laert. v. 51). The name was the more
appropriate because there was a Movoreſov at
Stagira (Plin. H. N. xvi. § 133). Baumstark
(ap. Pauly, Real Encycl.) argues for the founda-
tion of the Alexandrian Museum by Ptolemy I.
(Soter) from the well-known favour which
Ptolemy Soter showed to men of learning, and
especially his regard for Theophrastus (Diog.
Laert. v. 37), who founded or enlarged the
Museum at Athens, and for Demetrius Pha-
lereus, and from the fact that the manner in
which Athenaeus (l.c.) speaks of the Museum
at the beginning of Ptolemy II.'s reign we should
imagine that it had been developing for some
time. It is easy to understand how the word
Movoreſov, losing religious significance, came to
imply solely places of learning and art, so that
we find Athens itself called rb ris ‘EAAdãos
Movaeſov (Athen. iv. 187 d), and Longinus
himself spoken of as “a walking museum”
(éupuxov kal trepitraroßv uovaeſov, Porphyr.
16). [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MU'SICA. The term uovoruch signified the
art or circle of arts over which the Muses
presided, viz. poetry in its various kinds, with
the music, whether of voice or instrument,
required for its worthy presentation. The word
which most nearly denotes what we call the
science of Music is àppovich, but that word does
not include the subject of rhythm or “time”
(Év0auká). “Harmonic,” therefore, deals only
with sounds and their relations in respect of
tune: “Applovikº Čorriv ćriathum beapmtikh ſcal
Trpakriki tās roi, iipuoguévov påorews fipploo-
piévov 6é éart to ék p66))wy ral Staatmudraw
trol&v ráčºv čxávrov ovykeſpevov (Pseudo-Euclid.
Introd. Harm. p. 1). The ancient science of
rhythm dealt not only with musical sounds,
but with everything susceptible of rhythmical
division, including (in particular) spoken lan-
guage, and the movement of the dance. Accord-
ingly it has been made the subject of a separate
article [RHYTHMICA]. -
The Greek technical writers on “Harmonic” .
usually treat the subject under seven heads:—
I. Of Sounds (trepi (p66-yywy). II. Of Intervals
(trepi 6tadtmudrov). III. Of Genera (mepl
^evów). IV. Of Systems or Scales (repl orvorm-
uárov). W. Of Keys (trepl róvov”). WI. Of
Transition (repl uéragoNās). VII. Of Com-
position (repl pusXotrottas). This division will
be generally made use of in the present article.
A Sound is musical when it has a determinate
pitch (ºrdorus); that is té say, when it is pro-
duced by vibrations in which waves of a par-
ticular length sensibly predominate. The pitch
must also, of course, be maintained sufficiently
long to make a distinct impression on the
memory. When two musical sounds differ in
pitch, one is said to be more acute (öğüs), the
other more grave (Baptis): in common language,
one is called higher, the other lower. The
term épple?Afts, applied to a sound, signifies that
it is capable of being used in the same melody
with other sounds.
An Interval is the difference or distance in
respect of pitch between two musical sounds.
The interval between any pair of sounds can
be compared in point of magnitude with that
between any other pair, and the magnitude of
an interval can be measured with more or less
* The word révos, lit. “tension,” “pitch,” has two
distinct special senses. It is applied to the keys, as
being scales which differed in pitch. It is also the
name of an interval, a tone; perhaps as being the
interval through which the voice is most naturally
raised at one effort.
MUSICA.
MUSICA 193
accuracy by the ear. Further, certain intervals
—the Octave, the Fifth, &c.—are recognised as
possessing a definite pleasing character; and
thus become the foundation of systems of
In Ulsl C.
If two strings, similar in material, thickness
and tension, be made to vibrate, the rate of
vibration is inversely proportional to their
length: and the interval between the sounds
produced depends only on the ratio of the
lengths, i.e. of the numbers of vibrations. Thus:
If the ratio be 2:1, the interval is an Octave.
3 * • 2 3 : 2, 3 y 33 Fifth.
5 y 35 4 : 3, 33 33 Fourth.
39 3 * 9 : 8, 35 33 Major Tone.
The discovery of these ratios is attributed to
Pythagoras, and probably with truth, although
the details with which it is told by later
writers (Nicomachus, p. 10; Diog. Laert. viii.
12) are plainly false. According to these
writers, Pythagoras happened to be passing a
blacksmith’s workshop, and noticed that the
musical intervals were produced by four ham-
mers, whose weights he found to be in the
proportion of 12, 9, 8, and 6. He then stretched
four similar strings by weights which were in
the same proportion, and found that they gave
the Octave (12 : 6), the Fifth (12 : 8 or 9 : 6),
the Fourth (12:9 or 8 : 6), and the Tone
(9:8). But under these conditions the vibra-
tions would have been as the square roots of
these numbers. The discovery of Pythagoras
strongly impressed the imagination of Greek
thinkers, and had a great effect upon the general
course of speculation, but did not lead at once
to progress in musical theory. His followers
busied themselves with d priori combinations
of numbers, but neglected the observation of
new facts. This led to a reaction, and the rise
of a school which left the physical basis of
music out of sight, and adopted (in principle at
least) the method of “equal temperament.”
Thus Greek writers are divided, in their general
treatment of intervals, into (1) the Pythagorean
or mathematical (called by themselves kavovikoſ,
or épuovukoſ), who identified each interval with
a ratio, and (2) the “musical ’’ (uovorukot), who
measured all intervals as multiples or fractions of
the Tone. Of the former school were Archytas
(400 B.C.), Euclid the geometer, Eratosthenes,
and the later writers Thrasyllus, Didymus, and
Ptolemy: of the latter were Aristoxenus (pupil
of Aristotle) and his followers, the chief of
whom were Aristides Quinctilianus and the
author of the eiora'yo))) &pprovik) which bears
(quite wrongly) the name of Euclid.
Intervals were distinguished as consonant
(origſbava) or dissonant (Suáqova), according as
the two sounds could or could not be heard
together without offending the ear (Ps.-Eucl.
p. 8). The intervals reckoned as consonant
were the Octave (ölö, traorév), the Fifth (Stö.
Trévre), the Fourth (Stä reororópav), and any
interval produced by adding an octave to one
of these.* All other intervals (as the Third,
* Euclid considers no intervals consonant but such as
correspond to super-particular (étruidplot) or multiple
(toxAam Adaioi) ratios: the former being such as 3:2,
4: 3, &c., the latter such as 2 : 1, 3:1, &c. On this
theory the Octave and Fourth (8:3) would be dissonant,
but the Octave and Fifth (3 : 1) consonant.
WOL. II.
Sixth, Tenth) were considered as dissonant.
It is curious that this class should have included
the double tone (öſtovov) and the tone and half
(tpimultövlov), even after these intervals had
been identified with the natural Major Third
(5:4) and Minor Third (6 : 5). But the
distinction between consonant and dissonant is
a matter of degree, and doubtless the Pytha-
gorean tradition tended to keep up the notion of
a special character for the Octave, Fifth, and
Fourth.
Aristotle and other writers use the term
Öpopovía of unison, ävriq ovía of the consonance
of the Octave. Later writers (as Gaudentius)
distinguish a third relation, intermediate be-
tween consonance and dissonance, to which they
apply the term trapaqwuſa. The instances given
are the ditone and the tritone.
An aggregate of intervals, or rather of sounds
separated from one another by a particular
series of intervals, constituted a System, of
scale.
Every system capable of use in music (a ſo-
ºrmua Šuplexes) could be analysed as a combina-
tion of Tetrachords or systems of four notes,
either conjunct or disjunct. Tetrachords are
“conjunct ’’ (ovumpp va) when the highest note
of one is the same as the lowest note of the
other (as with the octaves of a modern scale).
They are “disjunct” (Stegevyuéva) when the
highest note of one is separated by a Major
Tone from the lowest note of the other. This
Tone is called révos Stagevktukós. In reality
the Octave scale had much the same place in
ancient as in modern music : but the tetrachord
was taken as the theoretical unit. Thus the
scale a b c de f g a would be regarded as com-
posed of the conjunct tetrachords b c d e and
e fg a, plus the tone a—b : and the scale
e f g a b c d e as composed of the disjunct tetra-
chords e fg a and b c d e. sº
The Genus of a system depended upon the
relation of the three intervals into which the
tetrachord composing it was divided. The
Greeks made use of three Genera,-the Diatonic,
the Chromatic, and the Enharmonic: and of the
two former of these there were certain varieties
called Colours (xpéal). It was allowed, more-
over, under certain restrictions, to combine the
intervals of one Genus or Colour with those of
another, so as to produce “mixed" divisions of
the tetrachord. The different forms of the
Chromatic and Enharmonic genera were broadly
distinguished from the Diatonic by the use of
two small intervals in succession—so small that
taken together they were less than the third.
Two such intervals were said to form a trukvöv,
or “crowding ” of notes, and the three notes
were sometimes called, from their position in
the group, Baptirvkvos, peogrwkvos, and Čšū-
Trvkvos. The Enharmonic again is distinguished
from every Colour of the Chromatic by the
8teoris or quarter-tone, the smallest interval
known to Greek music.
It is not easy to harmonise the different
accounts of the Genera and Colours, especially
as it is impossible to say how far these accounts
rest upon actual observation. The following
list includes the chief varieties mentioned or
recognised by writers of both schools:— . .
1. The “highly strung” Diatonic (Suárovov
gºvrovov). According to Aristoxenus, the in-
O
194 MUSICA
MUSICA.
tervals (in the ascending order) were semitone,
tone, tone (ef g a). The ratios given by the
Pythagoreans, such as Euclid and Eratosthenes,
are # x 3 × 3 (Aeluga, távos, távos). Didymus
(a contemporary of Nero) proposed the ratios
# x * x 3, thus introducing the Minor Tone
(10: 9), and with it the true Major Third
(? x 5 = 3). , Ptolemy inverted the order of
the tones, making the division # X # × 9, thus
obtaining also the true Minor Third (#x3 = }).
2. The Diatonic, called by Ptolemy “middle
soft " (Suárovov uéorov ua Aaków), or “Tonic *
(5. Tovuatov), formed by the ratios #x ; x 3.
These ratios were given for the ordinary Diatonic
by Archytas—apparently as a simplification of
the Pythagorean scheme. No corresponding
division appears among the Colours of the
Aristoxeneans: but Aristoxenus himself says
(p. 27, 9 Meib. ; cp. p. 52, 15) that a musically
correct system (orijatmua apexés) may be
formed by combining the Diatonic Atxavös
(second highest note) with the traputrārm (second
lowest note) of a Soft Chromatic. Such a tetra-
chord would correspond to the “middle soft
Diatonic * of Ptolemy and Diatonic of Archytas.
In the system of Ptolemy it is taken as the
standard division of the octave. We shall see
that its existence is confirmed by the notation.
3. The Soft Diatonic (5uárovov ua Aaków),
formed, according to Aristoxenus, of the in-
tervals semitone, three-quarters of a tone, tone
and a quarter. The ratios given by Ptolemy
are # x 9 × #. -
4. The standard or tonic Chromatic (xpówa
orévtovov or roviaſov). Aristoxenus gives the
intervals semitone, semitone, tone and a half:
Ptolemy the ratios #x # × 3. In this, and
also in the preceding Colour, if Ptolemy is right,
the highest interval is slightly over-estimated
by Aristoxenus.
5. The Soft Chromatic (xpópa piańaków), for
which Ptolemy gives the ratios 3}× 3 × 3.
It answers to two Colours in the scheme of
Aristoxenus, the xpówa ua Malcóv, in which the
two small intervals are each a third of a tone,
and the x. hutóAtov, in which they are each
three-eighths of a tone. The distinction between
these two Colours is rejected by Ptolemy; but
as he mentions that they were both obsolete in
his time, his opinion can only rest upon & priori
considerations.
The earliest analyses of the Chromatic scăle
agree partly with the standard kind, partly with
this “soft” variety. The following schemes
are mentioned :-
Chromatic of Archytas, # x #x #;
25 , Eratosthenes, #3 × # × $;
?? 3, Didymus, # X # × 3.
It will be seen that Eratosthenes was the first
to recognise the natural Minor Third, and (by
consequence) the Minor Tone.
6. The Enharmonic, in which the intervals,
according to Aristoxenus, were diesis, diesis,
ditone. The schemes proposed by Pythagorean
writers were:—
Enharmonic of Archytas, 3 x 35 x i:
9? , Eratosthenes, $3 × # X #;
95 }} Ptolemy, # X # X #.
The scheme of Archytas is interesting as the
earliest recognition of the natural Major Third.
Diatonic scale.
The 19:15 of Eratosthenes is almost exactly
the Pythagorean ditone 81 : 64, and is doubtless
meant as a simplification of it. It is to be
observed that the true Major and Minor Thirds
were admitted in the Enharmonic and Chromatic
genera long before they replaced the Pythago-
rean division in the Diatonic.
All these scales, except the first, are so unlike
anything now known, at least in European music,
that modern writers have great difficulty in
forming any idea of their real character and
effect. The most plausible view of the Enhar-
monic, and of the Chromatic “colours,” is that the
pair of small intervals which gives them their
peculiar character was due in each case to the
insertion of a note that stood in no harmonic
relation to the rest of the scale, and consequently
was not essential to the melody, but might be
used as a “passing” or ornamental note (appog-
giatura). At the same time, or more probably
as an earlier step, the large interval which
belongs to the Chromatic and Enharmonic scales
was created by the omission of a note from the
Thus the tetrachord e f g a, by
the omission of g, and the insertion of a dividing
note between e and f, would give the Enharmonic
e e” fa. Similarly, from the trichord e f a, by
inserting a passing fit, we obtain the Chromatic
e ffif a. In the case of the Enharmonic there
is direct evidence that this was the actual
process by which it was formed. Aristoxenus
(quoted by Plut. de Mus. p. 11) says that this
genus was discovered by the musician Olympus,
who observed that a peculiarly beautiful charac-
ter (#60s) was given to a melody by the omission
of the second highest note of the Diatonic tetra-
chord. Hence certain of his compositions, in
particular those called o'rov6eſa, employ only
the notes common to all three genera, viz. e f-
a 5 c-e (omitting g and d as peculiar to the
Diatonic). The Enharmonic rvicváv (Aristoxenus
goes on to say) does not appear to be due to
Olympus. Further, in the archaic style of
flute-playing the semitone is undivided: after-
wards it was divided (into quarter-tones), both in
the Lydian and the Phrygian music. On this
view the distinctive character of the Enharmonic
is given by the largeness of the highest interval
in the tetrachord rather than the smallness of
the two others.
This method of explanation evidently fails in
the case of genera in which the large interval
cannot have been obtained by the omission of a
note in a Diatonic scale. Such are the “Soft 'º'
Diatonic, in which the large interval is founded
on the ratio 8: 7, and the standard Chromatic,
in which (according to Ptolemy) it is founded
on 7 : 6. These intervals, however, may have
been obtained by direct observation. They exist
in the natural scales of the horn and trumpet,
and are in fact used instead of the Minor Third
and Tone (3× ) in the harmony of the dominant
Seventh, both by stringed instruments and
voices when unaccompanied by tempered instru-
ments. (See the instances quoted by Gevaert,
vol. i. p. 315.)
All that we know of the history of the non-
Diatonic scales tends to show that they were
used in combination with the Diatonic rather
than as an independent form of music. In the
time of Ptolemy only one division, that of the
“middle soft”. Diatonic, could be used for the
MUSICA
MUSICA 195
*
whole of a scale. The four others that were
still in ordinary use—the Pythagorean, the
àidºtovov oëvrovov, the 6. Maxaków, and the
standard Chromatic—could only be used in
combination with the “middle soft.” Thus
there were five varieties of the octave, one in
which the standard genus only was used, and
four in which it was “mixed” with a tetrachord
of a different kind. The curious rule is given
that the “highly strung” genera, the Pythago-
rean and the Sidºrovov gºvrovov, must be in the
upper tetrachord of the octave; the relaxed
genera, the “soft”. Diatonic and the Chromatic,
in the lower one. We cannot indeed extend such
rules to the earlier periods of Greek music; but
it would seem from the stress which all writers
lay on the subject of “mixture * (uſyua) of
genera—viz. the combination of the intervals of
different genera either within the same tetra-
chord, or in different tetrachords of the same
system—that this was the way in which some
at least of these strange varieties found their
way into practice.
All writers recognise the natural priority of
the Diatonic genus. Next to it Aristoxenus
places the Chromatic, the most difficult being
the Enharmonic: trpárov ačv ošw kal trpeg Büra-
Tov at Töv 6eréov to Suárovov, trpárov yāp airoſ,
# too &v6pétrov pāoris irpoorvyx4vet, 6ettepov Šē
to xpopuarików, rpſtov 8& kal &váratov (v. 1.
véóratov) to évapuáviov reasuraíq, yap airó
ſcal uáàis uérè toxAoû róvov orvueółgeral
º:
m
ałoºmoris (p. 19). Elsewhere he complains of
the tendency to depart from the severity of the
Enharmonic, and pass into the “sweeter” and
more emotional Chromatic. In the second
century A.D. (as we learn from Ptolemy) the
Enharmonic and the “Colours ” of the Chro-
matic had gone out of use.
Regarding the systems actually employed in
Greek music, something has already been said in
connexion with the instruments. [See LYRA,
p. 105 b.] At an early period we find evidence
of an octachord system or octave scale of eight
notes, named as follows:—
àràrm, lit. “highest,” in our terminology
the lowest (sc. xopää).
traputrārm, “next to Örárm.”
Atxavés, the “forefinger” note.
pléarm, the “middle * note.
trapauéam. -
Tpírm, the “third finger” note.
Trapavārm.
veðrm or whºrm, the “lowest,” our highest.
. The octave consisted of two disjunct tetrachords,
(1) from ērārm to uéorm, and (2) from trapauéorm
to viſitm. The names were the same for all the
genera; but the genus was specified if necessary
in the case of the “movable” notes (e.g. Atxavos
6tárovos, A, xpouarikh, A. vapuávios, and so
on). In the Diatonic genus it may be represented
in our notation by the octave e fg a b c de.
This scale was in ordinary use in the time of
Plato and Aristotle: see Plat. Rep. p. 443 D
(Évvappāoravra rpía évra ào rep Špovs rpets
āpuovſas &rexvös, vedºrms Te kal Strárms kai
wéorms, kai ei &AAa &rra aeraśī, tvyxávet ävra),
and Arist. Probl. xix. (especially $$ 3, 4, where
he discusses the difficulty of singing the trapw-
ºrd rm, though it is only separated by a 5teoris
from the Ötrárm). The technical writers de-
scribe two systems, obtained from this octave
by the addition of tetrachords at each end. One
of these consisted of two complete octaves, viz.:
-—— A
*-Tz l, T. JTT
1—I
Tº
This was called the greater perfect system. An-
other system, called the smaller perfect system,
was composed of three conjunct tetrachords,
called ūtratów, uégov, and ovvmuſiévav, with
TpooraaſuSavówevos, thus—
-e- -º-
and these two together constituted the immutable
system, i.e. system without “transition” or
modulation (orđatmua &pierd.60Xov), described by
all the writers later than Aristoxenus.
The sounds in these systems were named in
the way before described, the names of the
tetrachord only being added, except in the case
of uéon and trapauéon. Thus, taking the sounds
in the ascending order—
trpoo`Aaſabavópºevos.
§rdºrm Šmaróv.
trapvrárm Örarów
Atxavos ūtratów
ărărm uéowy
traputrārm uéorav
Atxavös uéowv
puéorm
So far the sounds are common to the greater and
smaller systems. Then follow, in the greater,
Terpáxophow
àtratów.
| T. Aléowv.
trapagéorm
Tptºrm 5te(evyuévov
trapavārm 5tegevyuévav
whitm Suegevyuévov
Tpſtm 5trepòoxaíov
trapavārn Örep80Aatav
vàrm Ötrepòoxatww.
T. Stegevyuévay.
i
| T. §trepòoAataev.
The interval between piéorm and trapauéorm is a
tone. But in the smaller system uéorm serves
also for the lowest sound of the tetrachord
avvmuſiévalv, which terminates the scale, thus—
A uéorm.
Bp rpírm ovvmauévay.
C trapavārn ovvmuſiévov.
D virm opiumpſuévov.
This system is “perfect” and “unmodulating,”
in the sense that any particular musical scale,
provided that modulation is excluded, must be
similar to some part of it. Let us now suppose
that a partial scale, of a certain number of
notes, is to be taken on the Perfect System. By
taking different notes as limits, the order of
the intervals in any such partial scale may be
varied, while the genus remains the same. The
varieties obtained in this way are called Species.
It is evident, further, that the number of species
of a scale of a given compass is the same as the
number of its intervals, Thus the Diatonic
tetrachord has three species, as the semitone
is first, second, or third :
1st. # 1 1, 2nd. 1 # 1, 3rd. 1 1 }
The Octachord has seven species, viz. in the Dia-
tonic genus— -



O 2
196 MUSICA.
MUSICA
1st. # 1 1 # 1 1 1 (6–5)
2nd. 1 1 # 1 1 1 # (C–C)
3rd. 1 # 1 1 1 # 1 (d—d)
and so on, the semitones changing their place
by successive steps. Similarly in the Enhar-
monic genus there were seven species, to which,
according to the statement of one writer (Ps.-
Eucl. p. 15), names were anciently given as
follows:—
1. Mixolydian } + 2 + 3 2 1
2. Lydian + 2 + + 2 1 }
3. Phrygian . 2 # # 2 1 + +
4. Dorian . # # 2 1 # # 2
5. Hypolydian . # 2 1 + + 2 +
6. Hypophrygian 2 1 + # 2 # #
7. Hypodorian . 1 # # 2 # # 2
A late writer, Aristides Quinctilianus (p. 21),
describes six very ancient divisions of the scale
(6taipéaels aſs kai of travu traxatóTarot trpos tés
&ppovías kéxpmvrat), which he tells us are the
six “Modes " (špuovíai) characterised by Plato
in the well-known passage of the Republic
(p. 398). He gives the order of the intervals
as follows (assuming that 5tea is may be repre-
sented by a quarter-tone):—
Lydian # 2 1 + + 2 +
Dorian 1 + + 2 1 } + 2
Phrygian 1 + + 2 1 } + 1
Ionian ... } + 2 1; 1
Mixolydian . 3 # 1 1 + # 3
Syntonolydian # 3 2 1%
No satisfactory attempt has been made to
reconcile this scheme with the Species of the
Octachord, but traces of a connexion may be
pointed out. The Lydian of Aristides agrees with
the Hypolydian species; and as Plato opposes his
Avôtorrſ, as a “slack ’’ or low-pitched scale, to
the avvrovoxvöuatí, we may regard it as the
“mode” elsewhere called Hypolydian. The
Mixolydian of Aristides is derived from the
corresponding species (b—b) by combining the
Diatonic with the Enharmonic in the lower
tetrachord, and omitting the second highest
note. The Dorian exhibits the central octave,
which is of the Dorian species, with an additional
tone at the lower end. The Phrygian is unlike
the Enharmonic Phrygian species, but may
be derived from the Diatonic by dividing the
semitones and omitting the diatonic Atxavós :
thus d e e” f(g) a b bº c d. The upper tetra-
chord is a “mixture" of Diatonic and Enhar-
monic. The Ionian (iaorſ) and Syntonolydian
present the greatest difficulties, since so many
notes are wanting. Westphal makes it proba-
ble that the names have been interchanged; if
so, the Ionian may be regarded as an octave of
the Diatonic g-species, with four notes omitted,
and the semitone divided enharmonically: (g a)
b b” c (d) e (f) g; and the Syntonolydian be-
comes a Diatonic a-species, with like omissions
and subdivision: (a) b bº c (d) e (f) g a. These
results, however, are of very doubtful value.
In particular, they are open to the serious
objection that they are partly obtained by con-
necting the Enharmonic scales of Aristides with
the species of the Diatonic genus: whereas the
writer who is our authority for the list of the
Species (Pseudo-Euclid) connects their names
only with the Enharmonic.” Nevertheless the
scales of Aristides are of interest, as confirming
the view that the Enharmonic divisions were
formed upon the basis of Diatonic or other
matural scales, and that the two genera were
practically employed in combination. It has
been noticed that the upper tetrachord of his
Phrygian, and the lower tetrachord of his
Mixolydian, are in fact Diatonic scales with the
Enharmonic notes added.
The fifth head of Greek musical science is that
which treats of the Keys or “pitch" of the
various scales (trepl rows róvous éq’ &v tubéueva
Tà ovathuata ue^wöeirai, Aristox. p. 37 Meib.).
The distinction of keys was of high antiquity;
but the arrangement and completion of the
system was first carried out by Aristoxenus,
who thus did for Greek music what was done
for that of the modern world by the Wohltem-
periertes Clavier of John Sebastian Bach. In the
important passage already quoted (p. 37) he
goes on to tell us that in his time there was a
great want of agreement as to the names and
relative pitch of the keys. Each part of Greece
had its own, as each had a different calendar,
with different names for the months. The most
generally recognised keys were :-
**t interval of a semitone.
Phrygian 3) ,, tone.
Dorian 2? 33 tone.
Hypodorian 33 , Semitone.
Some added a Hypophrygian below the Hypo-
dorian. Others, again, made an interval of
three quarters of a tone between the successive
keys, except between the Dorian and Phrygian,
which seem to have been always separated by a
tone.
To these six keys Aristoxenus, or some one in
his time, added a new Hypodorian, a tone lower
than the Hypophrygian: the old Hypodorian
was then called Hypolydian. Thus the con-
vention was arrived at by which the prefix
hypo- always denoted a key a Fourth lower than
the key to whose name it was prefixed. The
next step, expressly attributed to Aristoxenus
himself (Ps.-Eucl. p. 19), was the addition of
six new keys, thus giving one for every semi-
tone of a complete octave. At a later time two
more were invented, obviously for the sake of
symmetry, and the whole list was as follows:–
Hypolydian Lydian [Hyperlydian]
Hypo-aeolian Aeolian [Hyper-aeolian] .
Hypophrygian Phrygian Hyperphrygian
Hypo-ionian Ionian Hyper-ionian
Hypodorian Dorian Mixolydian
Each of these keys was a transposition of the
odormua &pierd BoAov: but we are told that
* It will be evident that a species of the Diatonic
genus and the similarly named species of the Enharmonic
are two utterly different scales. Compare (e.g.) the
Diatonic and Enharmonic Lydian, which can never have
belonged to the same “mode.” This is a difficulty
which the writers who maintain the practical importance
of the Species have not recognised.
+ The passage is unfortunately corrupt. It seems
clear from the context that Westphal is right in placing
the Mixolydian highest in pitch and in condemning the
Word at Aöv after röv Šmoppūytov,
MUSICA
MUSICA 197
only that part of each was used which was
within the compass of the human voice.
It will be seen that the order in pitch of the
seven oldest keys—Hypodorian, Hypophrygian,
Hypolydian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixo-
lydian—is exactly the reverse of that of the
seven species of the same names on the Perfect
System. This is the chief fact which a theory
of the Greek “modes’ has to explain.
The fifteen keys kept their ground, at least in
theory, until the time of Ptolemy, in whose
Harmonics a new scheme is set forth at great
length. In this scheme the keys are again
reduced to seven, and are brought into direct
relation to the species of the Octachord. The
use of different keys, according to Ptolemy, is
not that the pitch of a melody may be higher or
lower. That can be done by raising or lowering
the pitch of the whole instrument. The object
is that different successions of intervals may be
brought within the ordinary compass of the
voice: and that object will be fully attained if
every octave contains as many different scales
(successions of intervals) as possible. But the
number of possible scales is not greater, in any
one genus, than the number of species, viz.
seven. Let us take, then, as the part of the
scale most completely within the reach of all
voices, the old central octave, from Örárm uéorav
to virm Stegevypiévav, in the Dorian key. It is
also of the Dorian species (e—e). If now we
take an octave a tone lower on the scale (d—d),
we have the Phrygian species. But if we at the
same time raise the scale into the Phrygian key,
we obtain the Phrygian species in an octave of
the same pitch as the Dorian, viz. e fºg a b ch
d e. Similarly the Lydian species, taken on a
scale in the Lydian key, is eff: gi; a b ct; di; e.
Proceeding thus, we obtain what Ptolemy aims
at—an octave of fixed absolute pitch, furnish-
ing every possible succession of intervals or
species.
The octave scales obtained by this process are
of the same absolute pitch, but are relatively
different parts of the Perfect System. The notes
which compose them have therefore a double
character. They have a place in the Perfect
System, and a place in the new octave. Hence
a double nomenclature. The notes are called
ūrātm, trapvrárm, &c., from their place in the
new octave (rf 960'el); the old names which
belong to them as part of the Perfect System
are said to be car& Sövaulv.
These octaves, again, may be varied by the
use of different genera. Here Ptolemy aids us
very much by giving the scales actually used in
his time on the lyre and the cithara. Their
limited number is in curious contrast to the
immense theoretical variety which he sets
forth. The scales of the lyre were of two kinds,
called grepet, and ua Aakd. The former or
“hard ” scale was an octave of the standard
or Middle Soft Diatonic genus. In the latter
or “soft’ variety the lower tetrachord was
*Chromatic. Apparently there was no limitation
in respect of key or species.
The scales of the cithara were of at least six
kinds:—
(1) rptral, Middle Soft Diatonic, and of the
Hypodorian species: a b tº de eff ga.
(2) iréptpotra, the same genus, Phrygian
species (d—d).
(3) trapvrárai, “mixture” of Soft and Middle
Soft Diatonic, of the Dorian species:
* g # a # 5 # by ; d # e.
(4) rpétrol, mixture of Chromatic and Middle
Soft Diatonic, of the Hypodorian species:
a b ##c # cº # e # eſ: # g # a.
(5) iagruatoxiata, mixture of Pythagorean
and Middle Soft Diatonic, of the Hypophrygian
species:
g a $ b #3 c 3 d ; e 3; eit # g.
(6) Aööta, probably a mixture of Stérovov
orévtovov with Middle Soft Diatonic: but the
text of Ptolemy at this point (ii. 16) is defective.
In another place (i. 16) Ptolemy speaks of the
mixture in question as found “in the A$5ta and
iáotta.” Owing to the break in the text, it is
uncertain whether there were not more than
these six varieties.
From an incidental notice in Athenaeus (xiv.
p. 625) we learn that there was an ancient
Locrian key, with a distinct character. The
Locrian and Aeolian species are identified by
the Pseudo-Euclid with the Hypodorian. The
ancient Ionian (iaortſ) is generally identified
with the Hypophrygian (Boeckh, p. 225).
According to Aristotle (Pol. iv. 3), there are
two chief keys, Dorian and Phrygian, of which
the others may be regarded as varieties. Plato
opposes the Dorian as the true Hellenic key
to the Ionian, Phrygian, and Lydian (Lach.
p. 188 E). In the Republic he makes a three-
fold division: the “slack” keys, as Lydian and
Ionian, are soft and voluptuous (fit for drinking-
songs, &c.); the Mixolydian and “tense” Lydian
are plaintive and exciting; the Dorian and
Phrygian hold the middle place, and represent
the two aspects of a good ethos, the Dorian being
the key of calm endurance (āvöpeta), the Phry-
gian of sober enjoyment (arooq'pooróvm).
The nature of the Greek “modes” has been
investigated by Westphal with characteristic
ingenuity and learning ; and his conclusions,
which leave no part of the subject unexplained,
have been generally adopted by Gevaert. Accord-
ing to the view supported by this high authority,
there are three groups of “modes” (modalités
fondamentales, Gev.): the Dorian, based on the
octave a—a, the modern Minor scale (descending);
the Phrygian, based on g—g (the Major with a
flat seventh); and the Lydian, based on f-f
(the Major with a sharp fourth). Each of these,
again, has three possible varieties, distinguished
by the melody ending on the tonic, the dominant,
or the third. Thus we have—
Keynote a, ending on a, Hypodorian or Aeolian.
e, Dorian.
2, 9, 92 9, Hypophrygian.
yº 39 b, Mixolydian.
39 33 d, Phrygian.
39 J, 5 * J, Hypolydian.
a, Syntonolydian.
c, Lydian.
To discuss the combination of inferences upon
which this theory rests would take more space
than we can afford. It will be enough to
indicate the nature of the doubts that may be
felt on the subject. The chief difficulty is the
want of any direct statement regarding the
tonality of the ancient modes, or the note on
198 MUSICA
MUSICA.
which the melody ended. The locus classicus on
the first point is the passage of the Aristotelian
Problems, xix. 20, travra yöp Tú Xpmot& HéAm
troAAákis Tī Péon xpital, kal trèvres of &Yaffol
tountal rvkvå trpos Thu uéo mu &mavtågi, kāv
&méA600's taxi étavépxoviral, trpès 6* &AAmu
ošra's oiâeputav. The note here called uéorm,
Westphal maintains, can only be the uéam tă
9égel, or fourth note of the octave actually
used; for if it were the pléam of the Perfect
System (wéorm karū, Sāvauv), the keynote would
have the same relative pitch in all the modes,
and they would therefore be mere transpositions
of the same system. But (1) there is no trace
in the Problems of any octave except the old one
of the Dorian species (e—e), or of any notes
being named in more than one way. And (2)
Westphal’s argument only applies to those
“modes” in which, according to him, the uéorm
“by position” is the keynote, viz. the Dorian,
Phrygian, and Lydian. Still less evidence can
be shown for Westphal’s assumption that in
each mode the species of octave used is deter-
mined by the ending of the melody. There is no
certain trace in the ancient musical writers of a
rule about the end of the melody.
Other difficulties are suggested by the early
history of the keys. We are asked to believe
that the róvot of Aristoxenus were wholly dis-
tinct from the āppovial of the same names of
which we read so much in Plato and Aristotle.
Now up to the time of Aristoxenus, as he him-
self tells us (l.c.), the names of the keys, with
their relative pitch, were still unsettled. But
the names of the seven Species, as we have seen,
are directly dependent on the Aristoxenean
scheme of keys. Consequently these names
cannot have been given till the time of Ari-
stoxenus. It is true that Aristoxenus recognises
the difference of species, and indeed devotes
much pains to ascertaining the number of
admissible species of the Octachord (p. 6 and
p. 36 Meib.). But he never connects them with
his scheme of keys, or with any names such as
Dorian, Phrygian, and the rest. It surely
follows that the perplexing double application
ôf these ancient names is the work of a later
theorist.*
It may be said that the ethical character of a
scale is more likely to have depended upon its
“mode”—i.e. upon a difference such as distin-
guishes our Major and Minor scales—than upon
its pitch. But the writers who dwell most on
the ethical value of the āpplovíal connect it
expressly with the element of pitch. Plato
rejects one group of āpuovíai as too low-pitched
(xaxapat), another as too “highly strung ”
(Gºvtovot), and therefore emotional. If we
adopt the scheme of Ptolemy, in which trans-
position is only used to obtain different species,
the arguments of Plato have no meaning.
It should be considered, further, that along
with difference of Key the ancients had an im-
portant source of variety in the Genera, which
(as well as the Keys) were regarded as possessing
a distinct ethical or emotional character. It is
surely in the Genera, rather than in the Species
* It is true that according to the Pseudo-Euclid (p. 15)
these names were given to the species “by the ancients”
(Örö rôv &pxaíov). But the Romans and Byzantines
used this term of Greeks of the Alexandrian period.
of Ptolemy and Aristides, that we find the true
artistic analogue of the modern Modes. Perhaps
we may go further, and connect the loss of the
Chromatic and Enharmonic with the practical
importance of the Species in the time of Ptolemy.
Thus the system of the second century A.D.
would be midway between the classical Greek
music, with its Keys and Genera, and the Tones
of the mediaeval Church.
On the last two of the heads enumerated at
the beginning of the article, very little real
information can be obtained. In fact they could
not be intelligibly discussed without examples, a
method of illustration which unfortunately is
never employed by the ancient writers. Meta-
Box3) was the transition from one genus to
another, from one system to another (as from
disjunct to conjunct or vice versä), from one key
to another, or from one style of melody to
another (Ps.-Euclid. 20), and the change was
made in the same way as in modern modulation.
(to which uerafloxi) partly corresponds), viz. by
passing through an intermediate stage, or using
an element common to the two extremes be-,
tween which the transition was to take place.
(See Ps.-Euclid. 21.)
Mexorotia, or composition, was the applica-
tion or use of all that has been described under
the preceding heads. This subject, which ought
to have been the most interesting of all, is.
treated of in such a very unsatisfactory way
that one is almost forced to suspect that only an
eacoteric doctrine is contained in the works which
have come down to us. On composition properly
so called, there is nothing but an enumeration.
of different kinds of sequence of notes, viz.:-
1. &yoyh, in which the sounds followed one
another in a regular ascending or descending
order; 2. TAoich, in which intervals were taken
alternately ascending and descending; 3. Tretteſa,
or the repetition of the same sound several times.
successively; 4. rová, in which the same sound
was sustained continuously for a considerable
time. (Ps.-Eucl. 22.) Besides this division,
there are several classifications of melodies, made
on different principles. Thus they are divided,
according to genus, into Diatonic, &c.; according
to key, into Dorian, Phrygian, &c.; according to
system, into grave, acute, and intermediate
(śratoetóñs, vntoetóñs, uégoeußſis). This last
division seems to refer to the general pitch of
the melody; each of the three classes is said to
have a distinct turn (rpáros), the grave being
tragic, the acute nomic (voukás), and the
intermediate dithyrambic. Again, melody is .
distinguished by its character (#60s), of which
three principal kinds are mentioned, Öuaa tax-
Tuków, avoraxtucöv, and havXaorruków, and these
terms are respectively explained to mean apti-
tude for expressing a magnanimous and heroic,
or low and effeminate, or calm and refined
character of mind. Other subordinate classes.
are named, as the erotic, epithalamian, comic,
and encomiastic. (Ps.-Euclid. 21; Aristid. 29.)
No account is given of the formal peculiarities
of the melodies distinguished by these different
characters, so that what is said of them merely
excites our curiosity without tending in the
least to satisfy it. *
It has long been a matter of dispute whether
the ancients practised harmony, or music in
parts. The following are the facts usually
MUSICA
MUSICA 199
appealed to on each side of the question. In the
first place, the writers who professedly treat of
music make no mention whatever of such a
practice: this omission constitutes such a very
strong primá facie evidence against it, that it
must have settled the question at once but for
supposed positive evidence from other sources on
the other side. It is true that uexotrotta, which
might have been expected to hold a prominent
place in a theoretical work, is dismissed very
summarily ; but still, when the subjects which
ought to be explained are enumerated, uéAotrotta
is mentioned with as much respect as any other,
whilst harmony is entirely omitted. In fact
there seems to be no Greek word to express it;
for śpplovia signifies a well-ordered scale of
sounds, and orvuſpa via only implies the concord
between a single pair of sounds, without reference
to succession. There is, however, a passage in
the Aristotelic Problems (xix. 18) where succes-
sion of consonances is mentioned : 61& Tí || 61&
tragóv ovuſpovía éðeral uávn ; uayašićoval yèp
Taúrmv, &AAmv 3& obôeputav. The word uaya-
6t{ew signifies the singing or playing in two
parts at the interval of an octave—a practice
which would arise as soon as men and women or
boys attempted to sing the same melody at once.
The obvious meaning of the passage is that since
no interval except the octave was magadised (the
effect of a similar use of any other is known to
be intolerable), therefore no other was employed
at all in singing: implying that nothing of the
nature of counterpoint was thought of. And
this interpretation is borne out by the absence
of any other reference to singing in parts, or to
harmony in purely instrumental music.
On the other hand, there are several indica-
tions of the use of harmony in the kpoigis or
instrumental accompaniment. The most decisive
is a passage in the Laws of Plato (vii. p. 712).
Speaking of the musical education which is to
be common to all citizens, he says that the
pupils are to learn to sing to the accompani-
ment of the lyre, and that this is to be note for
note the same as the melody, eschewing all
divergence and variation in the instrumental
part, by which the strings are made to yield
a different melody from that which the poet
composed, combining “close * with “open."
intervals, quick time with slow, high with
low notes, consonant and in octaves. In the
rhythm, too, they are to abstain from intricacy
in the accompaniment, because the effort to
attend to opposites at the same time produces
only confusion and perplexity. It appears,
therefore, that a note of the air might be ac-
companied by a different note, or by two or
more successive notes, of the instrument; and
that an accompaniment with variations and
ornaments of this kind, though not a matter of
course, was familiar at least to professional
musicians. . In the Problems of Aristotle (xix.
12) the question is asked, “Why the lower of
two strings always takes the melody?” implying
that the accompaniment, in instrumental music
at least, was always higher than the air. In
another passage (xix. 39), Aristotle speaks of
the effect of an accompaniment which ends in
unison with the air, after having been different
from it: T& &AAa oi trpoo avaoüvres éðv eis'
y A. - 3. asº, *
Taitov karaotpéq woriv eiºpatvovori Aaxxov Tºp
w * * * - *
TéAet à Avrobot rats trpo roß réAovs Stagopaſs.
His language is exactly what we should use to
describe the pleasure given by the resolution of
a discord. The use of dissonant as well as con-
sonant intervals in ancient harmony is shown
by a passage in Plutarch's dialogue de Musica
(c. 19). Speaking of the use in the accompani-
ment (trpos rºv kpotaſiv) of notes which do not
occur in the air, a peculiarity of certain ancient
styles, he instances the rpírm which was found
as accompaniment to the traputrārm (the interval
being a fifth), and the virm ovvmuſiévov, found
with the trapavārm and the uéorm. The interval
between värm and trapavārm depends on the
genus, but in any case is reckoned by the ancients
as dissonant. The late writers Gaudentius and
Bacchius apply a special term, trapaq avia, to
intervals which they say “are intermediate be-
tween consonaut and dissonant, but appear con-
sonant in the accompaniment” (év rijkpoéore).
These notices make it clear that the Greeks
were acquainted with some at least of the effects
out of which systems of harmony are formed.
That their harmonies were of a simple kind,
and had a very subordinate place in their music,
is no less evident. There is no certain trace of
the use of chords or groups of more than two
notes. The art of harmony has no history; it
is nowhere connected with national forms of
music, or with the names of eminent musicians.
It never emerges from the stage of the singer
with the lyre in his hand.
The musical notation (a mugata) of the Greeks
consisted of two distinct systems of signs,—one
for the voice, the other for the instrument. The
vocal signs are taken from the common or
Ionic alphabet. The notes of the middle part
of the scale are denoted by the letters in their
usual order; those of the lower part by an
alphabet of inverted or otherwise altered letters;
the upper notes are distinguished by accents—
an accent signifying that the note is an octave
higher than that of the unaccented letter. The
nature of the instrumental notation was first
explained by Westphal, whose admirable in-
vestigation has thrown much light on the early
periods of Greek music, and even on the history
of the alphabet. The following is a brief
summary of his discoveries:— - :
1. The instrumental notation was derived
from the first fourteen letters of a Peloponnesian
alphabet, possessing digamma, F, the old form
of iota, 42, and two forms of lambda, ~ and H .
In a few cases the forms of the letters have
been modified : thus alpha (originally >4)
appears as M, beta as L, delta as T, theta as C,
my (originally M) as P, jota as H. By treating
the two forms of lambda as distinct characters
the number is raised to fifteen.
2. These characters are applied to denote a
scale of two octaves, as follows:—
H H E H T P F C K F1 - E N Z vſ 2
—a l w * fy
† s
The arrangement of the letters is worth notice.
The inventor began by taking alpha for the
highest note of his scale. Then he took the
other characters in pairs, L T, IT E, F Z,
H C, H K, 3 H., H2 N, and made each pair
stand for the extreme notes of an octave. This


200 MUSICA
MUSTAX
scale may be regarded as the framework of the
system of notation.
3. A character may be varied by being Te-
versed, i.e. written from right to left (&tre-
orpaupévov), or by being turned half round back-
wards (āverrpaugévov, Ürriou). When reversed,
it denotes a note half a tone higher : when half
reversed, it denotes a note a quarter of a tone
higher. The combination of the two varieties
evidently gives an Enharmonic rvkvöv, or group
obtained by dividing a semitone : e.g. if we take
the four “stable ’ notes of the central octave,
T C K C, we complete the scale in the En-
harmonic genus by inserting the varieties of T
and K, thus obtaining ſ L T C K Sé X D.
In some cases this method of varying the
letters is impracticable; e.g. H reversed does
not change, N half-reversed becomes Z, and
vice versä. Other modifications are accordingly
employed, and we have the groups M Y \,
ZX K, N / \, T 3 A, and H H R.
4. In the Diatonic genus the second lowest
note of a tetrachord is not represented, as we
should expect, by the reversed, letter, but by
the half-reversed one, the same character as
the second lowest Enharmonic note. Westphal
infers that the Diatomic for which the notation
was originally devised was a scale such as the
Middle Soft Diatonic of Ptolemy, or the Diatonic
of Archytas, in which the lowest interval was
less than a semitone.
5. In the Chromatic genus the characters
used are the same as in the Enharmonic, but
the reversed letter is distinguished by an accent.
Thus the Chromatic tetrachord e f f; a is
written T L T 'C or (in the upper octave)
D L II 'M. Here again the notation does not
answer to the standard form of the genus, but
is exactly suited to the Chromatic of Archytas,
in which the lowest interval is the same as in
the Enharmonic.
6. The system was enlarged by the addition
of two tones, each with the corresponding truk-
vöv, at the lower end of the scale, and an octave,
except the highest note, at the upper end. The
two groups were denoted by the characters
a £- T and E GO B, which are evidently in-
vented on the analogy of the letters already in
use. The new upper notes were denoted by
accented letters, K' to Z’, repeating the scale
from K to Z an octave higher. In this shape
the system contained the notes of the Greater
Perfect System in all the fifteen Keys, and in
the three Genera.
It is remarkable that we find no trace of a
distinction between Greek and Roman music.
The Latin writers—the chief of whom are Mar-
tianus Capella and Boethius — derive their
material from Greek sources.
The extant fragments of Greek music are as
follows (see Gevaert, i. pp. 141 ff.):—
Hymn to Calliope, by a certain Dionysius, of
unknown date.
Hymn to Apollo, ascribed to the same.
Hymn to Nemesis, probably by Mesomedes,
a musician of the second century A.D.
These three hymns are edited with a com-
mentary by Bellermann (Berlin, 1840).
The Anonymus, edited by the same scholar
(Berlin, 1841), contains some fragments in the
instrumental notation, given to illustrate the
technical terms of Headtrotta.
A melody for the first eight verses of the first
Pythian ode of Pindar was published by Kircher
in his Musurgia Vniversalis. He professed to
have taken it from a MS. of the monastery of
S. Salvatore at Messina; but the MS. has never
been found. It is given by Boeckh (De Metr.
Pind. iii. 12), who accepts it as genuine. It is
also admitted, though with grave doubt, by
Gevaert (i. p. 6).
A Hymn to Demeter, given in Greek notation
by the Venetian composer Marcello, is of still
more doubtful authenticity (Gevaert, ibid.).
The chief ancient authorities on the subject
of this article are, the “Antiquae Musicae
Auctores Septem”—viz. Aristoxenus, Euclid (in-
cluding the eiorayo-yº &ppovirch which bears his
name), Nicomachus, Alypius, Gaudentius, Bac-
chius, Aristides Quintilianus—and Martianus
Capella, edited by Meibomius, in two vols.
(Amsterdam, 1652); the Harmonics of Ptolemy
(in vol. iii. of Wallis, Op. Mathemat. Oxford,
1699); Theon Smyrnaeus, De Musica (ed. Bulli-
aldus, Paris, 1644); the Anonymus edited by
Bellermann (Berlin, 1841); the Dialogue of
Plutarch De Musica ; Aristotle, Probl. xix. ;
and several chapters of Athenaeus, book xiv.
The Harmonic of Aristoxenus has also been
edited by P. Marquardt (Berlin, 1868), and
translated with commentary by Ruelle (Paris,
1870) and by Westphal (Leipzig, 1883). There
is a new edition of Aristides Quintilianus by
Alb. Jahn (Berlin, 1882).
The chief modern sources of information are,
Boeckh, De Metris Pindari; Fortlage, Das mu-
sikalische System der Griechen (Leipzig, 1847);
the various writings of Westphal, of which
his book Die Musik des griechischen. Alterthums
(Leipzig, 1883) may be mentioned as an excel-
lent introduction to the subject in a compa-
ratively small compass; Gevaert, Histoire et
Théorie de la Musique dans l’Antiquité (Gand,
1875, 1881); Helmholtz, Die Lehre wonden Tonem-
pfindungen, §§ 13, 14. [W. F. D.] [D. B. M.]
MUSIVUM OPUS, [PICTURA.]
MUSTAX (ušorra;), moustaches. The
different parts of the beard [BARBA] had
different names, which also varied with its age
and appearance. The young beard, first appear-
ing on the upper lip, was called ūtrāvm or Śrāvm
Trpaërm (Diod. v. 28; Philostr. Sen. Imag. i. 30,
ii. 7, 9), and the youth just arrived at puberty,
who was graced with it, was trpárov štrºvärms.
(Hom. Il. xxiv. 348, Od. x. 279; Schol. in loc.;
Brunck, Anal. iii. 44; Aelian, W. H. x. 18.)
By its growth and development it produced
the moustaches, which the Greeks generally
cherished as a manly ornament. (Theocrit. xiv.
4; Antiphanes, ap. Athen. iv. 21 ; Pollux, ii.
80, x. 120; Aristoph. Lys. 1072; Vesp. 476.)
To this practice, however, there seems to have
been one exception. The Spartan EPHORI, when
they were inducted, made a proclamation re-
quiring the people “to shave their moustaches
and obey the laws.” (Plut. Cleom. 9.) For
what reason they gave the former command
does not appear, nor how it is to be reconciled
with the passages cited from Aristophanes and
Antiphanes, unless we understand it to refer to
the young only, which the succeeding sentence
seems to imply. (Proclus in Hes. Op. et Dies,
722; Müller, Dor. iii. 7, § 7, iv. 2, § 5 ; Becker-
Göll, Charikles, iii. p. 296.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
MUSTUM
MYRII 201
MUSTUM. [VINUM.)
MUTATIONES. [MANSIo.]
MUTULUS. [Column A, Vol. I. p. 491.]
MUTUUM. A mutui datio exists when
things “ quae pondere, numero, mensurave
constant,”—as coined money, wine, oil, corn,
bronze, silver, gold,—are conveyed by one man to
another, so as to become his property, but on
the understanding that an equal quantity of
things of the same kind shall be returned. The
obligatio thus arising belongs to the class of
those things “ quae re contrahuntur,” since,
besides informal agreement, delivery of the res
mutua was required in order to establish it. A
ºnutui datio was not contracted unless the
ownership of the thing delivered passed to the
borrower; hence it was necessary that the
lender should have a good title to the thing and
the power of alienating it. The contract would
also be void, if the borrower was incapable of
legally binding himself by his act. When, how-
ever, a mutui datio was invalid, as not comply-
ing with these conditions, the borrower was not
entitled to retain the benefit of the loan, but on
grounds apart from contract might be com-
pelled to restore the thing or its value to the
lender. -
In the mutui datio, inasmuch as the thing
became the property of the receiver, the Roman
jurists were led to the absurdity of saying that
mutuum was so called for this reason, “quod ex
meo tuum fit.” (Curtius, Gr. Etym. 301, de-
rives mutuum from movere, moviturus.) The
only obligation created by mutuum was the
undertaking of the borrower to return a thing
of exactly the same kind and quantity, though
not the same specific thing, as in the contract of
loan called commodatum. He was not excused
if the things were lost by any accident, as by
fire or shipwreck, since he had become owner of
them, and it was always possible to return an
equivalent. This contract was confined by its
nature to exchangeable things (res fungibiles),
and most commonly had for its object a loan of
money. The borrower could not be obliged to
pay interest on the debt except by means of an
independent stipulation. The action which the
Hender could maintain for the enforcement of his
claim was called condictio, and was the same
action as that of the formal contracts verbis and
&tteris. It was a strict; juris actio, not bonae
fidei, and hence the borrower could only be
condemned to pay what he had received without
interest. It is a peculiarity of mutui datio that
although it originated in the Jus Gentium, the
action belonging to it was stricti juris. The
fact that it belonged to the Jus Gentium shows
that it was not legally recognised till some time
subsequent to the Twelve Tables. Voigt sug-
gests 525-544 A.U.C. as the probable date of
its first establishment. (Cf. the following
passages cited by him —Plaut. Trin. iii. 2, 101,
iv. 3, 44; Bacch. ii. 3, 16; Liv. xxxii. 2, 1 ;
Cic. pro Rosc. Com. 4, 13; Gell. xvii. 6, 1.) It
was certainly older than the other contractus
ºre. The borrowing by way of mutuum and at
interest are sometimes opposed, as by Plautus
(Asin. i. 3, 95). The S. C. Macedonianum did
not allow a right of action to a lender against a
filiusfamilias to whom he had given money.
[SENATUSCONSULTUM MACEDONIANUM.]
(Dig. 12, 1 ; Cod. 4, 1 ; Heimbach, Die Lehre
vom Creditum, p. 131, &c.; Bekker, Aktionen, i.
27–29 ; Demelius, Zeitschrift für Rechtsgesch.
ii. 217; Ubbelohde, Zur Geschichte d. benannter
Realcontracte; Huschke, Die Lehre vom Dar-
lehn.) > [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
MYINDA (uvtvöa) was a game in which one
was blindfold, or was obliged to keep his
eyes shut (uſſelv). As may be seen from the
description in Pollux, there were other varieties
of the game besides our “blind-man’s buff” in-
cluded under this name. Pollux (ix. 113) says,
“Either one who is blinded (karapuãov) cries
‘pusdºrtov and compels any one whom he catches
to be blinded in his place, or searches for the
others, who hid themselves while he had his
eyes covered (ušoravros kpvp6évras), till he
finds them; or lastly, still blindfold, when any
one touches him, or if any one gives a sign (irpor-
betëm), guesses who it is until he gives a right
name.” . There seems no need for any alteration
in the last clause such as Grasberger's pºoras
Tobs tºpvQ,6évras (where the force of the concise
genitive absolute appears to be misunderstood),
or trpoo 6péčm for trpoorbeſºn, which means, pro-
bably, giving some clue to identity by laughing
or speaking. Clearly the second variety is our
“hide and seek” (much the same as āroötöpa-
orkſvöa); the first and third are two forms of
blind-man’s buff, differing in the point that the
third requires the “blind-man’” to guess the
name of any one who touches him or speaks.
(Becq de Fouquières seems to change the nomina-
tives ris into the objective case.) The guessing
by the blindfold occurs also in the game which
Pollux calls koWAafluorpiós (i.e. buffeting= koxa-
puapuás), to which, rather than to pavivāa, we
must refer Luke xxii. 64. It is a more difficult
question to decide the origin of the name XaXk?
wvia for another kind of blindman’s buff (Poll.
ix. 123; Eustath. ad Îl. xxi. 394). We are
told that the players blindfolded one of their
number (raivíg rö, Öq6axpač, trpoo pſyśavres),
who cried XaXkiv uviav 6mpdora', to which the
others answered 6mpdorets &AA’ of Añºel, and
struck him with whips of papyrus till he
caught one of them. It is clear that the
warning cry before the pursuit is like the pu-
Adºrrow in pavívča, and also that the pursued
are the “bronze flies.” From Eustathius we
gather that the XaXkā uvia was a sort of bronze-
coloured cockchafer, which boys let go in the
dark after they had tied a small lighted wax
taper to it (compare the umxoMávöm attached to
a thread, Poll. ix. 124; and Schol. ad Aristoph.
Vesp. 1322). It is said that the same, not very
creditable, amusement is known to Cretan boys
of the present day, and Grasberger (p. 75)
adopts this explanation of the difficult pas-
sage in Aristoph. Acharn. 920–924, ríqºm being
an insect treated in this manner. It is possible
that we may also find in this practice the ex-
planation of the name XaAkfi avia in the above
game, as derived from the general idea of chasing
something in the dark. (Becq de Fouquières,
Jeua, des Anciens, p. 84; Grasberger, Erziehung,
pp. 42 ft.) [G. E. M.]
MYRII (uvptol), the name given to the
popular assembly of the Arcadians, which was
established after the overthrow of the Spartan
supremacy by the battle of Leuctra, and which
used to meet at Megalopolis in order to deter-
mine upon matters affecting the whole people.
202 IMYRMILLONES
MYSTERIA
The name “Ten Thousand ” indicates merely a
large indefinite number, and it is probable that
every citizen of the confederate Arcadian cities
(i.e. all Arcadia except Orchomenus and Heraea)
had a right to attend. A body of troops called
Epariti were at their disposal, under a Panar-
cadian general. They received envoys, con-
cluded war and peace, and held state trials of
public offenders. We hear of Callistratus,
Demosthenes, and Aeschines arguing before
them (Corn. Nep. Epam. 6; Dem. de Fals.
Leg. p. 344, § 11; Aeschin. de Fals. Leg. § 49).
Pausanias saw the ruins of their house of
assembly. (Xen. Hell. vi. 5, § 6; vii. 1, § 38;
vii. 4, § 2;-Diod. xv. 59; Paus. viii. 32, § 1 ;
Harpocrat., Suid., Phot. s. v.; Grote, Hist, of
Greece, x. p. 318.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
MYRMILLONES. [GLADIATOREs.]
MY'SLA (uča ta), a festival celebrated by the
inhabitants of Pellene in Achaia, in honour of
Demeter Mysia. The worship of this goddess
was introduced at Pellene from a place called
Mysia in the neighbourhood of Argos. (Paus. ii.
18, § 3.) The festival of the Mysia near Pellene
lasted for seven days, and the religious solem-
Inities took place in a temple, called to piùoratov,
surrounded by a grove. The first two days men
and women took part in the celebration together;
on the third day the men left the sanctuary,
and the women remaining in it performed during
the night certain mysterious rites, during which
not even male dogs were allowed to remain
within the sacred precincts. On the fourth
day the men returned to the temple, and men
and women now received each other with shouts
of laughter and assailed each other with various
railleries. (Paus. vii. 27, § 9; Cornutus, de Nat.
Deor. 28.) [L. S.]
MYSTAE, MYSTAGO'GUS (ušoral, uva-
tayaºyás). [ELEUSINIA.]
MYSTERIA (uvorràpia). Though the term
pivothpia is that which has survived, still it was
only one and that a late one, and perhaps the
least common of the terms used by the Greeks to
express their mystic rites. The word āpyia is
found in the Homeric Hymn to Demeter, ll. 274,
476, derived from éopya (cf. Lat. operari),
which signifies “to perform * ritual, and it
was only in later times that it came to connote
ecstatic worship. The term pivorràpia is derived
from uſeuv, used of closing the lips or eyes;
aſſortms, according to Petersen (in Ersch and
Gruber, lxxxii. 228, note), means “with eyes
shut,”, as opposed to éirártms. Mugrópa is
applied both to the objects of secret worship
(Themist. Or. iv. 55) and also the secret ritual;
&Táppyrg is similarly used. According to
Lobeck (Aglaophamus, 85 ft.) uvaruköy is any-
thing recondite, enigmatical, indirect, allegorical;
in fact, what is purposely not simple, plain, and
straightforward. Again there is the term
Texerfi. It is used of an ordinary festival (Pind.
Wem..., x. 34); as applied to sacred worship, it
signifies the consummation of the votary's
progress in his religion. (Cf. such phrases as
Tévos Yéuoto, téan used for the magistrates of
the state, and teNet) taken by the philosophers
to express complete knowledge of the subject.)
“Diutius initiant quam consignant,” says Ter-
tullian (contra Valentin. 1), translating raetova
xpóvov uvodou fi rexodoſiv: compare org/payls
and teNetworis, used for baptism (Lobeck, 33).
The Latins used initia, which signified an ideal
beginning (“initia ut appellantur ita re vera
principia vitae cognovimus,” Cic. de Leg. ii. 14,
36), a sort of new birth, as Preller says. Thus
then we have terms signifying both the objective
secret nature of the ritual and the subjective
condition of the votary.
1. The Kinds of Mysteries.—We can hardly
consider under the head of mysteries those
mystic usages which occur here and there in
certain festivals, such as the marriage of the
Bagińets and Bao (Auoroa at the DIONYSIA ; nor
the multitude of purifications and sin-offerings
found in most religions, all with more or less of
a mystic meaning. Again the mystic worships
performed by private families are hardly to be
reckoned either, and do not come under our
notice except in some few cases, such as the
Orphic rites of the Lycomidae [ELEUSINIA].
But the mysteries properly so called, viz. those
which were recognised by the state and required
a regular initiation, may be divided into (1)
those performed by a special sex, e.g. the
THESMOPHORIA, celebrated by women only, as
was also the worship of Dionysus in Laconia
(Paus. ii. 20, 3), of Cora in Megalopolis (ib. viii.
31, 8), Rhea in Thaumasion (ib. 36, 3), Dionysus
on Parnassus (ib. x. 4, 3). Special mystic cere-
monies for men only are rarely found, such as
that to Demeter, Cora, and Dionysus at Sicyon
(ib. ii. 11, 3). (2) Those open to all Greeks,
such as the Eleusinian and Samothracian
mysteries. It is often stated that the only gods
who had a mystic worship were the Chthonian
ones; but this statement is not quite true,
though the Chthonian gods are the gods prin-
cipally worshipped in mysteries, as might be
inferred even a priori from their very nature.
But there are some Olympian gods to whom
mystic worship was performed, e.g. Zeus Idaeus
(Eur. Cretes, Frag. 2), a mixture of Phrygian
Cybele-worship and Cretan or Thracian Zagreus-
worship, in honour of Zeus, celebrated pavepājs,
according to Diod. v. 77, i.e. during the day, not
at night; the Argive Hera (Paus. ii. 38, 2), even
the Graces (ib. ix. 35, 3). For further discussion,
see Hermann, Die Gottesdienstlichen Alterthümer,
$32, 6. Foreign mystic worships are those of
Cybele, which were wild and enthusiastic, with
flutes, drums, and cymbals (Herod. iv. 76); the
trieteric worship of Dionysus [DIONYSIA]; of
Hecate at Aegina (Paus. ii. 30, 2) and in the
Zerynthian cave in Samothrace (Schol. on
Lycophr. 77). This goddess was especially
worshipped in the Roman Empire just before it
became Christian ; during which period too, and
indeed earlier also, the mysteries of Isis, Sabazius,
and Mithras were much in vogue. For these
the reader must be referred to the articles RHEA,
HECATE, ISIS, SABAZIUS in Dict, of Mythology.
There is a good article on MITHRAs in the Dict.
of Christian Biography. A remarkable Roman
mystery confined to women was that of the
celebrated Bona Dea, which Cicero (Att. vi. 1,
26) calls Romana mysteria. See Dict. of Myth.
S. v. BONA DEA.
As to the general character of the gods of the
mysteries, we cannot do better than quote
Lenormant (Contemp. Review, xxxvii. 414):
“Like all the worships of antiquity, the Eleu-
sinian mysteries were founded on the adoration
of Nature, its forces and its phenomena, con-
MYSTERIA
MYSTERIA 203
ceived rather than observed, interpreted by the
imagination rather than by the reason, trans-
ferred into divine figures and histories by a kind
of theological poetry, which went off into
pantheism on the one side and into anthro-
pomorphism on the other. The nature and
concatenation of their rites and plays were con-
nected with precise beliefs; which tended to
efface the distinction between the divine per-
sonages of the poetical and popular mythology,
in such a manner as to lead to what has been
called pivorukh 6eokpaata, and to reduce these
gods who were exoterically individuals to mere
general abstractions. But the form under which
these beliefs were presented was such that,
among the ancients themselves, some have been
able to find in it a kind of philosophy of nature
or physiologia, and others bring out of it
euhemerism and with it atheism.” So far we
will go, emphasising the fact, that this physio-
logia was of late growth in the mysteries; but
no further. However, to such students as do
not easily get dizzy and who may wish to pursue
the subject into its details, we recommend
Lenormant’s articles on Bacchus, Ceres, and the
Cabiri, in Daremberg and Saglio; also chapter vi.
of his Voie Sacrée, where his views issue in the
purest pantheism, which he supposes to be the
doctrine taught by the Hierophant at Eleusis
and to be the primitive Aryan dogma that lay
at the base of the mysteries.
2. The Origin of the Mysteries.—That they
were mostly old Pelasgian worships, which were
driven into the background by the conquering
races, and accordingly carried on as mysteries,
is a very reasonable view, and is supported by
what Herodotus says of the Thesmophoria (ii.
171) and the Cabiri (ii. 51). By the Pelasgians
we mean what Curtius means (Hist. of Greece, i.
35 ft.), viz. the first great body of emigrants
westward from among the Phrygians, that tribe
which forms the link by which the Aryans of
the West were connected with the Asiatics
proper. They are the primitive indigenous race
of Hellas, “the dark background of history,
children of the black earth (as the poets called
Pelasgus), who amidst all the changes of the
ruling generations calmly clave to the soil,
leading their life unobserved under unchanging
conditions, as husbandmen and herdsmen.” They
brought with them their Phrygian forms of
worship, as they passed through Thrace into
Hellas. Curtius (ib. p. 52) represents their
religion to have been of the purest and noblest
type—the worship of the Pelasgian Zeus upon
the mountain-tops, a god without images or
temples, a god unnamed except as the pure, the
great, the merciful, &c.—and that Greek poly-
theism was a development in decadence as far as
spirituality went. When the fascination of
Curtius's eloquence is passed, we are unable to
feel that the religion which the Pelasgians
brought from Phrygia was much better than that
of ordinary savages. Mr. Andrew Lang (Myth,
Ritual and Religion, i. 282 ft.) mentions several
points in which the Greek mysteries are in
harmony with Australian, American, and African
practice: the mystic dances (cf. tobs &#ayo-
pečovras r& uvorràpia èëopxeſoróat Aéyovoiv of
troAAof, Lucian, de Salt. 15), the fastings, the
elaborate and anxious purifications; the use of
the kāvos described by Lobeck (p. 700) as
{v}\dpiov of ééâtral rô a traptſov kal év rats
texeraſs 660Veſro iva flouſfi, similar to the
turndum of the Australians, to call the votaries
together; the plastering of initiates with clay
or dirt of some kind and washing it off to
symbolise purification (cf. Dem. de Cor. 313,
§ 259, and Soph. Frag. 32, orparoi, ka9apths
Káropaypºtov topus), and the purifications by
blood of swine mentioned in Aesch. Eum. 273
—an undoubted Savage custom, though not
immediately connected with the mysteries—the
use of serpents in the mysteries (Dem. l.c.), and
so forth.. Mr. Lang goes on to repeat again and
again in his gentle vein of satire how easy it is
to think anything as a symbol of anything, and
wonders why the allegory should choose the
practices of early savage tribes. Nor is it any
disgrace to the Greek race to allow this; rather
that the list of savage survivals is not many
times as large and very much more apparent.
Most of the savage elements disappeared soon,
and what remained became blended with purer
and later speculations.
This old religion was thrust into the back-
ground by the conquering tribes, the gods of
the latter becoming predominant and the state-
gods of the nation, while the old religion for the
most part gradually disappeared. But by some
families and tribes its ritual was in a large
measure retained, and they probably formed
themselves into brotherhoods, like those of the
Roman Church, and preserved their rites doubt-
less with great strictness. Surely they were
sodalities or confraternities that lived the
“Orphic life.” Now, the Greeks never perse-
cuted doctrine, unless indeed any doctrine was
much blazed abroad and seemed likely to involve
danger to the state-worship; and no danger
seemed to arise from the remnants of this
primitive worship. Indeed, they were some-
times adopted into the state-religion on occasions
of religious terror, when a feeling of sin and
need for purification laid hold of the people.
Thus it was that the mysteries of Eleusis and
Samothrace were adopted. The gradual develop-
ment of the Eleusinian worship (that mystic
ritual with which we are best acquainted),
from its original Phrygian-Pelasgian beginnings
to its adoption into the Athenian religion, we
have attempted to sketch in outline in ELEU-
SINIA, $ 1.
3. Silence enjoined on the Votaries.—This is
an important feature in the mysteries; the
votaries could not divulge the mysteries to non-
initiates. Its original reason doubtless lies in
the separatism of early worships, a fear lest any
outsider should learn how to get the favour of
the god; and the reason why it was retained
in later and more enlightened periods was to
enhance the solemnity of the ritual. Strabo
says x. 717, # kpóthis # uvaruk) rôv iepāov oreu-
votroteſ to 9eſov Pupovaévm rhv pāoriv airroo
ékºetryovorov Thy ato'6moiv. “Every expression,”
says Renan (Etudes d’Histoire religieuse, 70),
“is a limit, and the only language not unworthy
of things divine is silence.” It prevented fami-
liarity breeding contempt, as in the ordinary
religion. Chrysippus, Etym. Mag. 751, thinks
it was intended for an ethical purpose, viz. to
teach the government of the tongue, ris Wuxils
éxotorms #ppa kal trpos robs àpivfirovs oriatrów
§vvauévns.
204 MYSTERLA.
MYSTERIA
4. The Ceremony.—Whatever is to be said
specially about the initiated, the priests, and
the ceremony, we have endeavoured to set forth
in the particular articles, especially ELEUSINIA.
There will be found some description of the
“mystic drama,” such as it was in later times
when it was part of the state-religion and full
of foreign accretions. It was of a splendid,
solemn, vague nature, such as fettered the
imagination of the votary ; and, if it only put
the worshipper in a certain state and did not
teach anything (rows Terexecuévous oil uabeiv Tl
Seºw &AA& tra6eſu ka? 6tate07val, as Aristotle
says, ap. Synes. Orat. p. 48), yet it made a
man here and there think of things spiritual
and proceed on the task of working out his own
salvation. To such a man further progress was
possible and a higher and deeper knowledge
open, imparted by gradual stages, after due time
being given to allow the awakened thought and
imparted knowledge to germinate and fructify.
All this is very Eastern, but it is none the less
very rational. “Among the peasants who attend
a midnight mass, how many are there who
think of the mystery of the Incarnation?”
asks M. Renan (op. cit., p. 56). Yet, if a man
here and there does think about it, he can
learn more about it from his teachers. But to
the majority of the worshippers (and everyone
who spoke the Greek language and was not
stained with gross crime was welcome, no
previous karäxma is being required) the im-
pression of the whole, not the perception of each
particular, was the important part. We may
allow that the whole drama of Eleusis would
appear a miserable travesty to us, even its “fire-
works” (Lobeck, p. 107); but we answer in
the bold words of Renan, “You are not to ask
for reason from the religious feeling. The spirit
bloweth where it listeth ; and if it chooses to
attach the ideal to this or to that, what have
you to say ?”
But was there any reality at the back of it
all, any doctrine like the Incarnation, symbolised
'by the midnight ceremonies? There certainly
was in later times. The reality which the
priests then appear to have taught was some kind
of system of cosmogony : cf. Cic. de Nat. Deorum,
i. 42, 119 (of the Samothracian mysteries),
“quibus explicatis ad rationemgue revocatis
rerum magis natura cognoscitur quam deorum;”
Clem. Alex. Stromat. v. 689, rà. 88 peºya Aa
ſuvothpia] repl rôy ovumávrov oi, Pavôāvelv ºri
ãroxetteral, érotrºtećeiv 8& Kai treptuoetv táv re
ºptoſiv kal rà rpáyuara. But the true value of
the mysteries did not lie here, in this kind of
dogmatic teaching, but in the moral improve-
ment apparent in the votaries (Diod. v. 48), in
the comfort they gave in the present life and
the glad hopes for the world to come (Isocr.
Panegyr. § 28).
5. Monotheism and Immortality.—It is gene-
rally supposed that the mysteries were the
fountain from which Greek philosophy derived
the two great ideas of monotheism and immor-
tality. The mystic school of theological teaching
is the Orphic ; to it we must look for these ideas.
Now, as regards monotheism, we have attempted
to show in ORPHICA that the passages which
refer to monotheism in the Jewish or Christian
sense date from Alexandrine times, and in the
pantheistic sense are hardly much earlier : even
the celebrated Zeus kepaxh, Zebs uéorora, Atos 6’
ěk tróvra rérvictat, supposed to be alluded to by
Plato (Legg. iv. 715 E), as Zeller (Philosophie
der Griechen, i. 53 = i. 65 Eng. trans.) shows,
does not imply more than Homer's line that
Zeus is the father of gods and men, or Ter-
pander's (650 B.C.) address, Zei trčvrwv àpx&
trávrov &yhrop. The Greeks with their personi-
fying of everything in nature came to have a
feeling of the Divine pervading all nature,
“one and the same Nature-power,” as Petersen
puts it. “This unity of the Divine element
which polytheism presupposes was made concrete
in Zeus as king of the gods; and so far all that
exists and all that happens is ultimately referred
to Zeus, but it does not imply that Zeus is the
ideal complex (Inbegriff) of all things” (Zeller,
l. c.). Zeller goes on to contrast the polemic
of Xenophanes against polytheism, with the
syncretism of the Stoics and Alexandrines,
showing how the Greeks arrived at the idea of
the Divine unity less by way of syncretism than
of criticism. But if the idea of monotheism was
naturally developed into a distinct form by
Greek thought, and that only in comparatively
late times, it was thereaſter adopted into the
mysteries, and especially some of the Orphic ones,
and doubtless taught in them to those who had
gone through the various stages and shown
themselves naturally fitted to receive and under-
stand it.
As to immortality, the case is different. Mr.
Tylor has shown that the doctrine of Trans-
migration was universal among savage and bar-
barian races (Primitive Culture, ii. init.). This
doctrine the Aryans probably brought with them
into Europe. Herodotus thinks it came from
Egypt (ii. 123); but when we find similar
notions among the Indians from the earliest
times even to the present day, and among the
ancient Druids in Gaul (Caes. B. G. vi. 14;
Diod. v. 28; Amm. Marc. xv. 9 fin.), we may
infer that it was an original idea of the Aryan
race, which gradually developed into the purer
doctrine of what we call a Future Life ; we find
a strange example of this latter doctrine among
the Thracians (Herod. iv. 94, 95). For the
further discussion of immortality in the Orphic
doctrine, see ORPHICA.
6. The modern Critics of the Mysteries.—
Passing over such treatises as Warburton, On the
divine Legation of Moses (ii. 133—234), and
Sainte-Croix, Recherches sur les Mystères du
Paganisme (1784), the first really great work
on the mysteries was that by Creuzer, Symbolik
wnd Mythologie der alten Völker, 1810–1812,
written by a genuinely religious Doctor in
Theology of the Roman Church. The title is
certainly not a misnomer, for he finds symbolism
everywhere. He is in fact too symbolical. He
does not distinguish the ideas of different epochs,
does not weigh evidence nor take sufficient
thought of development in religious ideas. After
him followed J. H. Voss, a zealous Protestant,
who attacked Creuzer with unpardonable viru-
lence and little success, especially in his Anti-
Symbolik (1824). Abuse of priests occupies a
large portion of the work. In 1829, Lobeck's
great work, Aglaophamus, was published with
the view of crushing the symbolical school. Its
learning is portentous, its satire grim and savage.
But with all his great gifts Lobeck had one thing
MYSTILE
NASSITERNA - 205
wanting, the sense of things religious. Every-
thing is judged from the level of the intellect,
but religion is of another order. The whole book
bears the character of a violent reaction, and so
far is necessarily unfair; and Lobeck sometimes
quite forgets himself, as for example when he
says (p. 119) that the spectacles at Eleusis were
seen with the eyes of the mind, not with those
of the body. K. O. Müller (art. Eleusinia in
Ersch and Gruber), and after him Preller
(Demeter und Persephone, 1837; art. Mysteria
in Pauly), make accurate distinctions of times,
places, and races. They allow a mystic character
to the worship of the Pelasgi, who adored Nature
regarded as living and divine, especially in their
worship of the Chthonian divinities, the natu-
ralism of the Pelasgi being contrasted with the
anthropomorphism of the Hellenes, as exemplified
in the Homeric Age ; but hold that, when this
warrior age passed away at the time of Solon,
there was a reaction in favour of the ancient
cults. François Lenormant, in his Voie Sacrée
Eleusinienne (1864) and in the articles in Darem-
berg and Saglio mentioned above, is a strong
symbolist; cf. also his articles in the Con-
temporary Review for May, July, September
1881. Other works to be consulted with advan-
tage are Hermann, Die Gottesdienstlichen Alter-
thiimer, §§ 32, 55; Maury, Histoire des Religions
de la Grèce antique, ii. chap. xi.; Renan, Les
Religions de l’Antiquité, No. 1 of his Etudes
d’Histoire religieuse ; Ramsay, s. v. Mysteries, in
the Encyclopaedia Britannica. [L. C. P.]
MYSTI'LE (uvarríAm). [CENA, Vol. I.
p. 394.] -
MYSTRUM (ugarpov), a spoon (cf. Hvarlam),
a Greek liquid measure, strictly a spoonful,
of which there were two sizes, called the
large and small mystrum, and these again also of
various dimensions. The small, which was the
more common of the two, was # of the cotyla,
and , of the cyathus, and therefore contained
about 1-50th of an English pint. [CYATHUS.]
(Galen, Frag. c. 15.) Galen adds that the
smaller mystrum contained 2% drachms, that
the larger was is of the cotyla, and contained
3% drachms; but that the most exact mystrum
(ro Sukatóratov učarpov) held 8 scruples, that
is, 23 drachms. According to this, the small
mystrum would be 3 of the larger. But in the
13th chapter of the same fragment he makes
the large mystrum=} of the cotyla, and the
small mystrum # of the large. In c. 4 he makes
the large mystrum=3 oxybapha, and the small
=1#. Cleopatra makes the large=# of the
cotyla, the small=# (Hultsch, Metrologie,
p. 636 ft.) [P. S.]
N.
NABLA. [LYRA, p. 106 b.]
NAE'NLA. [FUNUS.J
NANI, dwarfs, kept as an amusement in rich
Roman houses. According to Gellius, xvi. 7,
xix. 13, the word nanus was an introduction of
Laberius, and the older word for dwarf was
pumilio : both words afterwards existed together
and in the same writers. The fashion of keep-
ing dwarfs may have come from Syria and
Egypt (cf. Stat. Silv. v. 5, 66); for they do not
seem to have been a feature in households of
Greece proper before the Roman conquest (cf.
Plut... de Curios., 10, €v ‘Páum rivés. ...), or it
may have started in Italy: they are mentioned
as kept at Sybaris (Athen. xii. p. 518 e), where
they were called a kotraſol and gríAravés. It is
probable that the former name is not, as Liddell
and Scott say, from a kátra, but rather from
akół, because of the misshapen head and short
neck, and the latter name from their baldness,
since their heads were shaven (see Lucian, Conviv.
18, and Mayor's note on Juv. v. 171). As to
their appearance in later Greek banquets, see
Lucian, l.c. At Rome great ladies especially
delighted in them, as Livia (Dio Cass. xlviii.
44), Seneca's wife (Sen. Ep. 50); and the pre-
valence of the fashion at Rome is marked by
Suetonius, when he mentions particularly
(Aug. 83) that Augustus did not care for them.
There is no clear distinction between manus or
pumilio or pumilus, “the dwarf,” and morio
(yeXatotroués), “the jester,” since the jesters
seem to have been selected for their absurd
appearance as well as for that power, often
found in the half-witted, of making comical
remarks, for which the mediaeval jesters were
in demand. So the morio in Mart. vi. 39 is
“acuto capite et auribus longis;” and in xiv.
212, “si solum spectes hominis caput, Hectora
credas, si stantem videas Astyanacta putes.”
The nanus at Tiberius's banquet is a privileged
jester (Suet. Tib. 61; cf. Dom. 4): that they
were half-witted if not absolute cretins is showu
by Mart. viii. 13, which passage also gives a
notion of their price, “morio dictus erat, viginti
milibus emi: redde mihi numos, Gargiliane,
sapit.” Misshapen limbs as well as small
stature added to their price (Plut. l. c.; Quintil.
Inst. ii. 5, 11; Decl. 298); and the most revolt-
ing part of the fashion was that the deformity
was sometimes caused by artificial means, the
children being kept in a case or frame (y\wt-
rókouov) which would stunt and distort their
growth (Longin. de Sublim. 44, 5). The Romans
kept female as well as male dwarfs and jesters
(manae, fatuae, Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 34; Sen.
Ep. 50). For more authorities, see Becker-
Göll, Gallus, ii. 148 f.; Marquardt, Privatleben,
152; Mayor on Juv. viii. 32. [G. E. M.]
NAOS. [TEMPLUM.]
NASSITERNA was some sort of vessel for
carrying water. From the description in Festus
(s. v.), that it is wide (patens), with a handle
(ansata), and is a vessel “quo equi perfundi
solent,” we may imagine something like a stable
bucket or pail, especially as no spout is men-
tioned. Wessels of this shape are figured by
Guhl and Koner (448) as kitchen utensils. In
Plaut. Stich. ii. 2, 28, the nassiterna is used like
a housemaid’s pail. There seems no good reason
for saying, with Rich, that the first part of the
word implies a vessel with a spout : still less
can we argue from the end of the word that it
had three spouts. The first syllable (mass, in
Festus; masc. in the MSS. of Plautus, but cor-
rected by Ritschl to mass.) is from the root of
words meaning “to flow * (váa, väua, vaguás,
&c.; German mass?), and has nothing to do
with nasus, though that word very likely comes
206 NATALIBUS RESTITUTIO
NAVARCHUS
from the same root: the termination may be
compared with lanterna, hesterna. . Its ety-
mology therefore merely proves that it is some-
thing from which water is poured. [G. E. M.]
NATALIBUS RESTITUTIO. [INGENUI.]
NATALI'CII LUDI. [LUDI, p. 85 a.]
NATA'TIO, NATATO'RIUM. [BALNEAE,
Vol. I. p. 275 b.
NATURA'LIS RA"TIO.
..]
NATU’RA,
[JUS.
NAVALES DUO VIRI. [DUo VIRI.]
NAVALES SO'CII. [ExERGITUS, Vol. I.
p. 786; SOCII.]
NAVA'LIA were dry docks where ships
were built, or drawn up (subductae) to be re-
paired or laid up till they were again needed.
Those at Rome were opposite the Prata Quinctia
in the upper bend of the Tiber (Liv. iii. 26,
viii. 15; Burn, Rome and Campagna, p. 51),
and so described as above the Aventine (Plut.
Cat. Min. 39). In Liv. xlv. 42 we are told of
navalia in the Campus Martius, where the ships
taken from Perseus were laid up. The use of
these Roman navalia for large ships was gene-
rally lessened under the Empire when the
mouth of the Tiber was much more silted up,
and Puteoli became the harbour where vessels
trading to Rome discharged their cargo and
were docked : others, however, still ran up to
Rome after they had been lightened by dis-
charging part of their cargo at Ostia, to be
taken up in smaller boats (naves codicariae).
(Strabo, v. p. 231; Sen. de brev. Wit. 13; cf.
Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 408.) The docks
(vetéoroukou or veðpia: see below) at Piraeus were
constructed by Pericles (Pausan. i. 29, 16) at a
cost of 1000 talents, according to Isocrates
(Areopag. § 66), and, having been destroyed
after the Peloponnesian War, were restored
in the administration of Lycurgus. For their
management, see EPIMELETAE (6), Vol. I.
p. 749 b. As to the distinction between veð-
oroucou and veðpta, Arnold rightly points out in
his note on Thuc. vii. 25 that vetépua are
strictly the dockyards, veðoroukou the large
covered sheds for the reception of ships laid up,
©n the roofs of which the Syracusans stand (cf.
Demosth. de Symm. p. 184, § 26). But there can
be no doubt that in Thuc. i. 108, when Tol-
mides burns to večplov at Gytheum, we are to
understand especially the veðoroucol, and con-
versely Isocrates (l.c.) uses veðaroukol for dock-
yard, sheds and all. . [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
Sºuls CORO'NA. [CoRONA, Vol. I.
p. 548 b.
NAVARCHUS (vačapxos) was a naval
commander whose rank varied in different
states. It cannot, for instance, be correctly
used as equivalent to our admiral in speaking
of the Athenian fleet, though it is rightly so
used by historians speaking of other states of
Greece or of the Persian fleet. As an official
title in Greece, it belongs particularly to the
Spartan head of naval affairs. How early this
office (vavapxta) existed at Sparta (as distinct
from the mere admiral of a fleet in commission)
is not quite certain. In Herod. vii. 42 Eury-
biades bears the title, but it means no more
than that he commanded the fleet there men-
tioned. It is probable that the office did not
begin until Sparta had greater naval operations
than in the Persian War. Her naval force at
Artemisium consisted of only 10 ships, at
Salamis of 16. But something more like an
admiralty was needed when the new phase of
the Peloponnesian War, after the campaigns at .
Syracuse, extended the sphere of Spartan naval
enterprise. The expression in Thuc. viii. 20
regarding Astyochus, &tep #yfyvero #öm trăga i
vavapxta, perhaps indicates, by the use of the
imperfect tense, that the office grew out of cir-
cumstances at that time. Henceforth the Spar-
tan army and navy were rarely (as happened in
the case of Agesilaus) subordinated to the same
commander. Hence Aristotle (Pol. ii. 9, 33)
finds fault with the vavapx{a as a cause of
disunion, “being a sort of second kingship set up
as a counterpoise to the kings, who are generals
for life.” The Spartan navarchus had the su-
preme direction of all naval affairs, whether he
was actually commanding in the fleet at sea or
not, and had under him an émigroAeës. There
seems no ground for Schömann's statement that
the vačapxos had riflárat “to advise him.”
No such meaning can be given to Thuc. viii. 61.
The marines of the fleet were taken from the
Perioeci; the Towers were Helots or £évol. Some
limitation of this power of the navarchus, of
which Aristotle complains, seems to be intended
by the rule that no one could hold the office
more than once (probably for a year); but this
could practically be evaded by appointing the
ex-navarchus as epistoleus with power only
nominally subordinate (cf. Xen. Hell. i. 2, 23;
ii. 1, 7; iv. 8, 11 ; v. 1, 5).
At Athens the word vaúapxos was applied as
an official title only to the commanders of the
sacred triremes [THEORIs], the naval adminis-
tration and command of fleets being under the
strategi [STRATEGI].
At Rome the title navarchus is not used of
supreme naval command or naval administra-
tion [for which see DUO WIRI NAVALES and
PRAEFECTUS CLASSIS]. The navarchus was the
captain of a ship. So far as the distinction
between navarchus and trierarchus in the Roman
fleet can be made out, it appears that the title
trierarchus was applied strictly to the captains
of triremes, the title navarchus to the captains
of ships with more banks of oars, quadriremes,
quinqueremes, &c. (C. I. L. x. 3361; Tac. Hist.
ii. 16); but it is not unlikely that the distinc-
tion was loosely kept, or at any rate that
the title navarchus might be applied to the
captain of any sort of ship (cf. Veget. iv. 32,
43). The liburnae being ships with various
numbers of banks were sometimes under navar-
chi, sometimes under trierarchi, as may be seen
from the passages cited above. Marquardt
(Staatsverwaltung, ii. 512) cites Polybius as
using vaúapxos in i. 53 and 54 for an ad-
miral, and i. 21 for a captain of a ship; but
it should be observed that in the former case he
is speaking of the Carthaginians, in the latter
of the Romans. When Livy (xlv. 25) speaks
of the admiral of Rhodes (called vaúapxos in
Polyb. xvii. 1), he calls him praefectus classis;
and though it would be too much to assert that
a Greek historian might not conversely translate
praefectus classis by vačapxos (the commoner
equivalent is ºrapzos orróñow), that is no
argument as to the significance of navarchus in
the Roman fleet. For correct expression it is
sufficient to compare IIóratos é tºv ‘Pauatov
NAUCRARIA
NAUCRARIA 207
arparmyós (Polyb. i. 50) with 6 rāv Kapxmöovíav
vaúapxos (Polyb. i. 53). It is true that the navar-
chus in Cic. Verr. v. 24, 60 seems to command
a fleet, but this is explained by the fact that he
was the admiral of a Siciliot town whose ad-
miral would rightly be called vačapxos, and
Cicero does not translate the title into its
Latin equivalent. The word has probably the
same meaning in Verr. v. 32, 84. It is neces-
sary, however, also to notice the title navarchus
princeps (C. I. L. x. 3440, 3448, 8215), who
seems to be the commander of a part of the
fleet or of a squadron of ships detached from the
main fleet, and is taken by Mommsen as =
archigybernes (C. J. L. x. 3349); with which
compare Diod. xx. 50, 4. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
NAUCRA'RIA (vavkpapía), a subdivision of
the inhabitants of Attica in early times, for
purposes of taxation as applied to military
equipment.
The institution of vavkpaptat and vačkpapot
has been for a long time a much-debated point:
see Schol. in Aristoph. Nub. 37, of Trpárepov
wańkpapot eſte §tro Xóñovos caragraffévres etre
kal trpárepov. That their establishment was
due to Solon is the view of Gilbert (Jahrb. Class.
Phil. cxi. 1875, p. 9 f.) and of Stein (on Herod.
v. 71). We have the testimony of a fragment
of Aristotle to this effect; see Photius, s. v.
wavkpapta: rö Tpérepov oi/ras ārāAovu vav-
Kpapta kal vačkpapos' vaukpapta pºév Štrołów 71 #
ovuuopta kal 667/10s, vačkpapos 6& Štroſóv ri à
6%uapxos, XóAwvos oira's Övoudaravros, &s ſcal
*ApuatoréAms pnot kal év toſs vóplois Aéyel, éév
tus vaukpapías &uqua Burfi kal robs vavkpápovs
toys karū vavkpaptav čarepov 8& &to KAelorøé-
vows 57plot eiouv kal Shuapxot encAh9morav ék Tös
”AparoréAous troAireſas by rpétrov 6téraše rhy
tróAtv 6 ×6Awy pvaal 3& Żorav réorgapes cé6amep
Tpórepov kal puxoSaorixeſs régorapes - ék 5* ris
©vAñs ékáorms forav vevepºmuéval rpurrúes aév
Tpets, vaukpapſal öé 646ska ka0° àkdarmv. From
this passage it has been held that Solon consti-
tuted, out of the members of each of the four
old Ionic tribes, three large divisions, called
Tpurrúes, subdividing each rpurrës into four
wavkpaptai. Thus there were in all (4 × 3 =)
12 rpurrães and (12 x 4 =) 48 vavkpaptai. So
also Pollux, viii. 108: vaukpapta 5’ ºv réa's
‘pu%fis 606ékarov aépos ºral vaúkpapot forav
866eka, rérrapes karð ‘rpurrow ékáorrmy:-and
Hesychius, s. v. vačkNapol: ruvès 5& à p’ £rd.orrms
‘pwańs 666eka. In the formation of the vavkpa-
pial, neighbouring members of the same tribe
would seem to have been grouped together in
such a way that a vavkpapta was practically a
local district or parish, and came to be so
regarded: this follows from its comparison
above to the Cleisthenean demos, and from the
fact that the single surviving name of a vav-
kpapía (Phot. s. v. Koxids, Bekker, Anecd.
275, 20) is clearly a local designation.
Schömann, however (Jahrb. Class. Phil. cxi.
1875, p. 454 f.), and Duncker (Gesch. Alt. v.
p. 120, ed. 5) contest the correctness of this
view, so far as the institution of vavkpaptat by
Solon is concerned. They hold that the words
of Aristotle quoted by Photius (see above) by
no means amount to an assertion that Solon
established the vaukpaptai, and they hold that
what he did was perhaps to re-organise a pre-
viously existing method of subdivision, and
modify it to suit his new constitution. The
well-known passage in Herod. v. 71 is of
cardinal importance in this question. In re-
lating the abortive attempt of Cylon to
make himself tyrant of Athens, Herodotus,
referring to the defeated revolutionists who had
taken refuge at the shrine of Athena, uses the
words rotºrovs &viorrāori uév of trpvráveis róv
vavkpápov, oirep Švepov ráre rês 'A6%ivas.
(Stein, in loc., very reasonably suggests the
emendation vavkpaptéov, “representatives of
the vavkpaptai,” i.e. the vačkpapol.) Unless
Herodotus is mistaken in his use of the words,
this passage is proof positive that the vavkpa-
pial existed some time before Solon, and probably
some time before Cylon also. It is not, how-
ever, easy to see in what sense the vačkpapot
could be said, at that period of time, véueiv, i.e.
to govern, T&s 'A9hvas. Stein and others there-
fore maintain that Herodotus, perhaps following
an account which sought to lessen the responsi-
bility of the Alcmaeonidae for the murder, has
erroneously attributed to the vačkpapot what
was really done by the nine &pxovires, and that
the account given by Thucydides of the Cylonian
revolution is specially intended to correct Hero-
dotus on this point. See Thuc. i. 126: xpóvov
8è étriyuyvouévov of ’A6mvaſot rpuxéuevot rſ,
trpoolečpetq àtrfiX60y of troAAot, €trutpéjavres roſs
évvéa &pxoval thv puxakhv kal to trav airokpd-
roport Staffeival fi &v Špiota Śwayvyvöorka'ot - Töre
8è rà troAA& róv troAvruków of évvéa &pxovires
ërpaoro ov.
The derivation of the word (vais and the root
Kap, by metathesis kpa, as seen in kpatva; ; see
G. Meyer, Curtius’ Stud. vii. p. 175 f., in
opposition to Wecklein, Bayr. Ak. 1873, p. 42 f.,
who connects vav- with vaſo, “to dwell’’)
suggests the object of the institution, which
was to provide Athens with a fleet. The
vavkpaptai were thus the predecessors of the
orvuuopiat (Bekk. Anecd. 283, 20: vačkpapot of
tàs vaús trapaakevägovres kal rpumpapxoßvres :
—Aristot. in Phot. s. v. vavkpapía vavkpapía
pºv Óroſóv ti ji ovuuopia).
Besides superintending the building of the
ships and acting as captains when built, the
waikpapot assessed the amount of taxation
annually due from each vavkpapía, and dealt
with the money thus collected (Poll. viii. 108,
Tås 6* eio qop&s r&s karð Shuous ālexeipotóvovv
oirot kal rà é; airáv čvaxáuara).
Each vavkpapta provided two horsemen and
one ship (Pollux, l.c.; vavkpapta Sé Érd atm 600
intréas trapsize kal vady atav, & p' is tows
&vówaorro). The whole organisation, as part of
the military force of Attica, was subject to the
troAéuapxos (Bekk. Anecd. l. c. : vačkpapot ...
ró troAeadpx4, itoretayuévoi).
With the institution of 37pot by Cleisthenes
the vaukpapſal probably ceased to exist, at all
events as a working part of the state organisa-
tion. One authority indeed (Cleidemus in Phot.
s. v. vavkpapía) tells us that they continued,
being raised from 48 to 50, five from each of the
new tribes, furnishing in all 100 it refs and
50 ships. Boeckh (Staatshaush. Ath. ed. 3, i.
pp. 323, 636, note c) sees a confirmation of this
in the fact that, according to Herodotus vi. 89,
the Athenians in the war against Aegina before
the Persian invasion could only muster 50 ships
of their own. [A. H. C.]
208 NAWIS
NAWIS
NAVIS (vaſs). Though the earliest efforts
of mankind in navigation are pre-historic, yet
the characteristics of these efforts, and many
stages in their development, are sufficiently
evident from the methods in vogue among
savage races in various parts of the globe at
the present day. (See article “Ship,” Encycl.
Britan. 1888.) There is sufficient evidence to
show that a point far in advance of the primi-
tive types of navigation and ship construction
had been reached by peoples inhabiting the
littoral of the Mediterranean at a very early,
period. (Chabas, L’Antiquite historique, p. 120.)
Dardanians, Mysians, Lycians, and Maeonians
figure on the wall-paintings of Egypt, as comi-
bined against Pharaoh in the 13th century B.C.,
and in the 12th century a still more powerful
league
of Pelasgians, Teucrians, Etruscans,
Daunians, and Oscans appears to have invaded
Egypt and to have suffered a crushing defeat at
the hands of Rameses III. The bas-relief of
Medinet Habou, which represents the great
victory of this Pharaoh over the marauding
“Northmen’’ of the Mediterranean, is the
earliest known representation of a naval battle.
In this bas-relief two distinct types of vessels.
&
4% 23-
ºs ºf w),
are apparent : first, the Egyptian, which have
stem and stern following the curved line of
the keel, the stem ornamented with a lion’s
head or some other device, the stern sharp-
pointed and rising somewhat higher than the
stem. At the bows is shown a kind of platform
or forecastle, and the bodies of the rowers,
whose heads are visible, are protected by a side-
planking, from under which the oars, the ports
of which are hidden, project. At the stern
there is a raised platform, from which archers
are discharging their arms, and the steersman is
there also seated, with his hand on the broad-
bladed steering paddle. A mast with a crow's-
nest and a look-out man, and a yard with the
Sail brailed up, are also shown. The number of
rowers indicated is usually ten on one side;
but, owing to want of space, the artist, limited
in this respect, has probably contented himself
with depicting a conventional number.
The vessels of the allies, which presumably
have crossed the
Mediterranean, pre-
// - Z
Naval battle of Rameses III. (Medinet Habou.)
1) • *
42)Yº.
| 3.
ing as a protection for the rowers. These details,
slight as they may appear to be, are valuable
as giving indications of maritime enterprise and
naval construction in the Mediterranean some
centuries before the Trojan War, of which the
ordinary date given is 1184 B.C.
(For the whole subject of Egyptian boats and
shipping, the student should consult the works
of Rosellini and Lepsius, in which he will find
numerous representations of ships and boats,
ranging from the time of the Fourth Dynasty,
or more than 3,000 years before Christ: and
besides these, Duemichen’s Historische Inschrif-
ten and Die Flotte einer Aegyptischen Königin,
and especially an essay by Bernhard Graser, Das
Seewesen der alten Aegypter, in Duemichen's
Resultate der auf Befehl S. R. Majestat des
Königs Wilhelm I. von Preussen in Sommer 1868
nach Aegypten entrendeten, &c., Berlin, 1869.)
In the fleet of an Egyptian queen, her Red
Sea fleet, several vessels exhibit apertures as if
sent a striking differ-
ence in type. They
show much less cam-
ber of keel, with stem
and stern post rising
abruptly, and at a
considerable height
above the water cur-
ving outwards, and
finishing (though
without any such
ornamentation as is
apparent in the
Egyptian ships) in a
|
rudely-shaped swan- …"
or goose-head. The
bow is in fact very similar to the orróAos of the
old Greek type, seen on the coins of Chios,
Megara, and Sinope. Their vessels have also
raised fighting decks fore and aft, and side plank-
Egyptian Ship. (Duemichen.)
for a second tier of oars, though no oars are
shown in them. If this be so, the invention of
the bireme must be referred to a very early
date (B.C. 1700). It is probable, however, that

-
NAVIS
the Red Sea fleet differed in many particulars
from the Mediterranean fleet, and of this latter
unfºrtunately we have no similar record. It
is, however, not unlikely that the fleets of
the Pharºons, at different times, swept the
northern sea and penetrated as far as Sardinia.
It is clear from the legend of Danaus that
intercourse between Egypt and Greece was
frequent at a very early period, and it is notice-
able that the marauding expeditions, such as
may have led to battles similar to that depicted
at Medinet Hallou, find an echo in the Homeric
poems. In the feigned narrative of Ulysses, a
raid upon Egypt is described as undertaken and
carried out, quite in the ordinary course of
things (0a, siv. 245 sqq.; xvii. 425):
Ayumrów 84 ue ºvuos ºvºyel wavrºegba.
ºnases arrelaavra win ºrºgous érºpolar,
Evvéa vºias a relaa boºs 3' ºrayeiparo Aads.
Five days bring them from Crete to one of the
mouths of the Nile, and the feigned tale presents
the typical behaviour of the buccaneers, with a
typical disaster to follow. It is worthy of
remark that the same story, a fictitious story, is
twice repeated, from which we may infer that
the narrative was such as would be readily ac-
cepted as true in the Homeric age, and founded
on an ultimate basis of fact.
A list with dates is given by Eusebius, “ex
Diodori libris breviter de temporibus maria
imperio tenentium,” in which Lydians, Pelas-
gians, Thracians, Rhodians, Phrygians, Cyprians,
Phoenicians, Egyptians, Milesians, Carians, are
named in order, extending from the date 1186
ºn to 731 B.C., or for a period of about 450
years, as exercising thalassocracy or mastery of
the seas. The names that follow—Lesbians,
Pºovaeans, Samians, Lacedaemonians, Naxians,
Eretrians, Aeginetans—bring the list down to
the year 485 B.C. But in these cases hardly
more than a local superiority can be intended.
The earlier names, however—Lydians, Pelas-
gians, Thracians—corroborate the evidence of
the Egyptian monuments, and point at any rate
to the maritime activity and seafaring habits of
these peoples at a very early period. (For
Lydians, cf. Herod. i. 94; Strabo, v. p. 219;
Dionys. i. 28, 27;-Pelasgians, Dionys. i. 22;
Strabo, ix. p. 401, xiii. p. 582; Herod, iv. 145,
vi. 137, 138; Apoll. Rhod. Arg, iv. 1760 —
confused with Tyrrhenians, Soph. Inach. Fr.
Tupamwoºl IIexagºyots; Thuc. iv. 109; Aesch.
Suppl. 237-246;-Thracians, Herod. vii. 75;
Strabo, xii. p. 541; Diod. v. 50:-Rhodians,
º xiv. pp. 552–654; Colonies, Diod. v. 53,
It is surprising, considering the fame and
activity of the Phoenicians, that we have so
little evidence regarding their vessels in early
time. Herodotus in his opening chapter speaks
of them as migrating from the Indian Ocean to
the Mediterranean coast, and at once venturing
on long voyages, carrying Egyptian and As-
syrian wares to Argos and elsewhere. To their
kidnapping propensities was ascribed the begin-
ning of troubles between Europe and Asia by
the Persian historians; and this statement
may be illustrated by the jealousy and dislike
with which they are mentioned in Homer (Od.
xv. 415 sq.; cf. Ezek. xxvii. 13). Their vessels
seem to have been only half-decked, if we may
Vol. II.
NAWIS 209
judge from 0d ºv. 479: these were probably
traders, poprºes epeia. And yet to the
Phoenicians in all probability, if not to the
Assyrian (? Phoenician) Bireme.
British Museum.)
Egyptians, must be ascribed the invention of
the bireme, and consequently of the system of
banked vessels. To them also probably belongs
the invention of the Ram. The representation of
the war-galley in motion (copied from a bas-relief
in the British Museum from Kouyunjik (?))
cannot be much earlier than 700 b.c. It is a
bireme, aphract, with fighting deck and fish-
like snout for ram, similar in construction to
those which are depicted upon the Graeco-
Etruscan vases of the following century, but
plain and without the ornamentation exhibited
in these latter. Some few representations of
Phoenician vessels are also given in Layard and
Rawlinson. These all have this drawback, that
the Assyrian conquerors, for whose glory the
representations were made, were not a maritime
people, and that therefore details and proportion
were not likely to be criticised, or accuracy to
be studied in their sea-pieces. Hence we can
learn but little from them as to any distinctive
features of the Phoenician marine.
Piracy, as Thucydides points out in the
opening chapters of his history, was the curse
of the Archipelago from very early times, the
antagonistic force opposed to all progress in
civilisation. Piracy implies the possession of
sea-going craft and familiarity with maritime
enterprise. It implies also, to a certain extent,
a contemporaneous commerce upon which it
may prey. And again, being antagonistic to
commerce, which strong rulers and organised
states are anxious to develop and protect for
their own use and benefit, it is naturally
followed by efforts on the part of such rulers
and states to put it down. Thus we have from
early times, corresponding to these influences,
three types of vessels:-
1. The trader, wide and roomy, trusting
Trading Ship.




for a hawse-hole.
210 NAWIS
mainly to sail for movement, 2. The pirate
vessel, sharper but still capable of stowing
Trading Ship.
plunder, and of using sail as well as oars.
3. The long ship, the ship of war (vais wakpá),
the business of which was not plundering, but
- - - - -
º -
sº *
Pirate Ship.
(The above are from vases in the British Museum.)
fighting. The development of the latter, which
was slow, finds its highest expression in the
swift and handy Attic trireme, and terminates
in the huge many-banked vessels of Demetrius
Poliorcetes. The trader, of which illustrations
from the early Graeco-Etruscan vases are
sufficiently clear, varied but little in type, and
the same type survives in the coasting vessels of
the Levant to this day.
The chief points noticeable are the height of
the hull above water as compared with the
pirate vessels of the same date, and the form of
the bow, which curves upwards and outwards.
terminatiº in a point, which, though not
fashioned into a figure-head, has immediately
behind it the eye of the vessel, serving probably
Strong bulwarks run the
whole length of the ship, which has two broad-
bladed paddles for steering purposes, and a
landing ladder fastened to a high prolongation ºf
the stern-post. The sail is attached to a yard,
which is secured by a number of braces; the
mast, which for the size of the vessel is shorter
than that of the pirate, is kept in its place by
two stays.
The figures on the vases, to which we shall
revert hereafter, may possibly give us the
representations of vessels of the 6th or 7th
century B.C. But for the description of the
early Greek vessel of the pirate type we must
turn to Homer, whose familiarity with the sea
and with ships is everywhere apparent in his
poems. Thucydides (i. 10), in his reflections
upon the relative magnitude of the Greek fleet
that went to Troy and the fleets employed in
the Peloponnesian War, touches the salient
points: “1200 ships, the largest holding 120,
NAWIS
the smallest 50 men, the warriors being the
oarsmen; no room for supernumeraries (re-
pºvea) except the kings and great chiefs, es-
pecially as they were to cross the open sea,
with arms, &c. for the war; the vessels un-
fenced (not karäppakra), and in the old fashion
fitted out more like pirate vessels."
And further he observes (i. 14) that even many
centuries later the triremes possessed by the
naval powers were few in number, and the greater
part of the vessels in use were pentecenters and
iong ships (; biremes), fitted in the same
way as in Homer's time. The Sicilian tyrants
and the Corcyraeanswere the first Greek powers
who possessed any large number of triremes.
Even the vessels built by the Athenians under
the advice of Themistocles, which ultimately
fought at Salamis, were not decked throughout.
Thus, if we take the Homeric ship to give the
type of the ancient Greek sea-going vessel of the
pirate class, as distinct from the trader (poptºs):
we shall not go astray.
In two points only are developments tº be
traced, which will be mentioned in their place,
viz. in the form of the bow and in the arrange-
ment of the oars.
we shall best obtain an idea of the Homeric
vessel by comparing Homer with himself, and
afterwards with what we are able to ascertain
of the epochs that followed. If it be a question
how far the ship-lore of Apollonius Rhodius,
and of the so-called Orphic Argonautica, is
drawn from early and trustworthy sources, yet
in many instances it is useful as throwing
light upon details.
In the Iliad and Odyssey we find certain epi-
thets of ships common to both, which may be
classified as follows:–
1. EPITHETs of Colourt.
Iliad. Odyssey. Total.
35 41 7t
nexatva - - - -
ruardrºpos - - - 11
*Aromºpmos . . . 1 1. 2.
2. Epithers of Shape and Quality.
bods . . . . . 41 48 89.
ºxeta . . . . . 1 º 3.
ºrvaxos . . . . . 2. 3.
ºxºmopos. - 7 º 10.
roºrºmopos - - - 13 5. 18.
yºupós. . . . 36 18 º-
kolaos. - . 19 19 º
kopovic - 14 2. lº
ºuplexºga. . . . . 12 19
stan . . . . . . 10 17
ºrdeauos - - - 12 12 24
evepºs : - 1 º 10.
roauxºts . . . 5 4. 9.
EPITHETs. Peculian To THE IL1AD.
rºads - - 1 roºvyos - 1
meyakºns - 2 Exaráçuyos - 1
ºpºpaupos 2 eiºpuuvos - 1
Epithers peculiar to the Opyssey.
repukaºs - 2 mpardrºoos - 1
ruawompſºpetos 1 Geºropos - 1
Boxºperuos 2 dowuxom gamos 2
ºmniperuos - 5 stºvyos - 2.
of these epithets we may observe that the
two which concern colour and shape as seen
from the outside preponderate, viz. uéxas and
leads (black and sharp); and next in frequency

NAWIS
NAWIS 211
are two which, as it were, regard the vessel
from within (koſ\os, y\aq'upós), hollow, hol-
lowed out, and so roomy. There can be no
doubt that the first two epithets give the main
characteristics seen from without. The black
sharp hull (like those of the Northmen in later
times) inspired thoughts of terror and swift-
ness; seen from within, it satisfied the mind of
the Greek buccaneer that the vessel was roomy,
one in which much plunder could be stowed.
(Cf. 0d. iv. 84; xiii. 20.)
Of the other epithets àuquéAtoora (which can-
not mean “rowed on both sides,” but might
possibly mean “rocking from side to side *)
presents probably the curvature of the ship's
side when seen either stem or stern on, from
in front or from behind; kopovís, on the other
hand, is of the curvature upwards of bow and
stern, such as we have seen in the bas-relief of
Medinet Habou (p. 208), and such as appears on
many of the early coins—that upward lift and
prolongation of stem or stern post (the highly
ornamented &KpooróAtov and the āq Āaortov of
later time) which makes apt the epithet àp06-
tºpaipos, strictly applicable to the horns of oxen.
(Cf. I. xviii. 3, 573, xix. 344; Od. xii. 348.)
In éform and éðagexplos we have probably epi-
thets that refer to material,—gallant, good,
well-timbered (not well-benched). The cross-
pieces, thwarts, that tied the vessel’s sides
together and fitted on them like yokes, were
too important, both structurally and as serving
as benches for the rowers, not to furnish de-
scriptive epithets (such as troAvkxhis, traºğv-
vos, etºvºyos, ékarógvyos), and yet they are not
frequent. Commonplace epithets are absent;
traßbs is only once used. It may also be
noticed that the epithets ulxrotrépnos (Il. ii.
638; 0d. ix.125) and polyukotráppos (Od. xxiii.
271, xi. 124) belong apparently to vessels of
or from the western isles of Greece. In the
Catalogue of the Ships it is the distinctive
epithet of the vessels of Ulysses.
With regard to the construction and parts of
the vessel, we have mention of the keel, Tpátris
(Od. xii. 420), which probably was first laid
upon the Spüoxot, short upright baulks of tim-
ber laid level at intervals, of sufficient height
to enable a man to work at the keel and its
fittings (Od. xix. 574), and the roixoi or walls
of the vessel attached to it (cf. 34p &to rotxous
Aüoe kNööwy Tpérios). The ribs are not men-
tioned, unless botpata, Šápv viſiov cover them.
Cf. also rivakes (0d. xii. 67) for planking.
From the keel sprung the arreſpa or stem-post,
carried upwards and finishing high in the ākpó.
köpupiða. Similarly, the stern-post must have
run up into the āq Āagºrov (Il. xv. 716) or stern
ornament. As yet no spur or ram seems to
have been attached to the bows of the vessel:
ăp{i 88 kūpa
orreipm tropºćpeov weyáA’ taxe vibs toſans.—Il. i. 483.
The sides (rotxo.) were tied together by the
thwarts (@ya, kamiães), which served as seats for
the rowers, and lengthways amidships there must
have been a gangway: for Ulysses (Od. xii.
228), while his crew are rowing to pass the
dreaded Scylla, arms himself and passes from
the stern to the forecastle. (Cf. Apoll. Rhod.
iv. 1661, where Jason gives his hand to Medea,
as she passes through the vessel, Ötö, kAm?60s
iodorav.) At the bows there was a raised plat-
form, or deck, the ticpia trp &pms, upon which
armed men could stand and fight; and similarly
there was a deck at the stern, upon which the
chiefs had their place, and laid their weapons
(Od. xiii. 72; xv. 282, 557), and under which
was room for stowage (Od. xv. 206).
In a remarkable passage (Il. xv. 680) we have
the description of a warrior (Ajax) passing
from vessel to vessel:
'Etra troXAá 606tov irpua vmäv
$oira Pakpā Buflás'
the ships evidently being hauled up quite close
to each other, and the height is in a measure
indicated, for the attacking warrior (Hector)
seizes hold of the stern of the ship (Il. xv. .
716):
trptſuvnéev met Aé8ev ovXi weóiet
āb)\aotov usrā xepariv exav -
while Ajax, forced to give way, being in an
exposed position,
2. a * Tº ºf a
&vexdgeto Tvrööv otópwevos 6avéeorðat
* * : c z z s ºf * *.x.
6pmvvv čb’étrTatróðmy Aitre 6' trpua vmös &iams.
This 6pmvus, in all probability, was the stretcher,
as we should call it, of the stroke oar. Some
interpret it of the steersman’s seat, but less
well, as 6p?ivvs in Homer is in all other passages
ūtrotröölov, something to rest the feet upon.
This would give us the normal beam of the
Homeric ship, nearly at the point where the
stern deck began ; while, allowing to Hector
heroic stature, the height of the āq Āaarov
would, we may fairly conjecture, be from 7 to
9 feet, and the ikpia themselves some 5 feet
from the ground, when the vessel was drawn
up on land. Taking the normal interspace for
the rowers (oxiwa Öttrmyaikov) at 2 cubits, the
rowing space of the penteconter gives a length
of 75 feet, to which must be added some 6 feet
for the bows and 9 or 10 for the stern, with
their respective decks. We should have thus a
long low galley, about 90 feet from stem to
stern, and from 10 to 12 feet broad amidships.
The length would of course be reduced if the
interspace between the rowers was less.
The Homeric galley was propelled by sail as
well as by oars. The mast could be raised and
lowered. It had a step (?io rotréðm : cf. Alcaeus,
Frag.) above the keel (cf. k 5% of iotov Špače
trot) rpátriv), and was raised so as to rest in
and against a “tabernacle” (ueodópum), fitted as
the name implies amidships. It was kept in its
place by fore-stays (trpátovot), by which also
it was lowered, and rested on a crutch (igro-
6ókm, Il. i. 434). A back-stay (êtrírovos) is
also mentioned as attached to it (Bobs Éivolo
rerevzós, Od. xii. 423).
The sail was hoisted upon a yard (étríkpiov,
Od. v. 254), which had braces (Örépal) and
halyards (kd. Aot) attached to it. The sails
were white, and square in shape. To the ends
(trööes) sheets were attached, which were either
fastened or held in the hand. The ropes with
which the sail was hoisted and the stays appear
to have been of plaited or twisted thong
(eiotpérroio. 80effort). Larger cables (&txa,
Tretopiata) were made of by blus (Od. xxii. 391).
“The twisted teaching of Egypt” (Eurip. Troad.
129, ràektöv Aiyêrrow traičeſav) seems º have
P
212 NAWIS NAWIS
come in later for smaller tackle. The orträpta
Large poles for pushing the ship (trepipfikea
mentioned in Il. ii. 135 may have been of hemp
Kovráv) were also in use; and the weight and
or rushes. bulk of the vessel receive illustration from the
NAO
f \ t? E N 2 rº *; $
‘EN .* º | § - //
º t §
} 2\\h ſº
§
4. - §
§
& §
Penteconter. (From the François vase at Florence.)
passage in which Ulysses single-handed pushes ing mast (Od. xii. 409) when the forestays
her off the shore with a pole (Od. ix. 487). snapped:—
There were also long poles or spears used for | toros 6’ briora, tréorev, 6trâa 8& travta.
fighting. Cf. Il. xv. 388, 677: sis àvt.Aov karéxvv6' 6 6' épa trpſuvm évi vät
TA$$e kugepwirew ke baxiv,
6 3’ &p’ &pveuript. §oukios
káirteo' &m' tºpioptv.
wakpotorv Švarrotorv rá šá ord,’ &mi vnvariv čketro
vaiſuaxa koaxiievra kará orópa etuáva XaXkó.
The ship was steered by paddles (m64A1a), e s &
*: as the º the º, vases º * º: * º T.
indicate, were of various patterns. ey were y: •
generally two in number, fastened to either side place for stowage was under the thwarts against
of the vessel. Some are merely broad-bladed the sides . the Yºº º: heognis, ;
... ." ... ." "... ..., "º"..."...º. º.º.)
e Inn O'Clé]. In ruldClel”. lev Cilffere(I 3 S 3 l’Ul 10 & - * * * * * s
from the oar in having the blade unequally may have been the landing ladder (k\tuaš),
divided, the front part being narrow, the hinder which is so cºnspicuous upon the vases (Gras-
part broad, so as to have more power. When hoff, sº. 22). 3. º
at rest, the steering paddles were kept parallel º O º º, i º d as inchors 3.
.*.*.*... ...; "...º."º",
end of the loom was a projecting nandle, owntov * * * Passº & ea-
(Od. xii. 218), by which the steersman could faring life as depicted in Homer ::preparº
turn the blade of one or both at an angle to the §.” * 's º º % xy. ;
vessel's course. etting Sall, 1 t. 1. , vil, ; . 11. e
The oars, épétud—of which the parts were sº 3. 625; º *... %
Kárm, the handle, and mööv, the blade—were | xiv. 295. Cºming into harbour, 4%; #33; 5,
made of fir (cf. Apoll. Rhod. Arg. i. 1188; £earfis § 10, sy. º A º i."...º.
&Aérnal, Qd. xii. 172). ... The breadth of the ºw grºple at not being a º: # and,
blade is illustrated by its comparison on the 0d. xii. 281. Arsenal, 9% Wi. 263. Housing
tºº."º"&"º"; ºl"Hººººººº... it tº
WIIllno W1D C SI), OWe • Xl. $º € O3]'S *-ºs t º *
amidship º probably the largest, to allow illustration from the early Greek or Graeco-
ºlº", ºr
VII OOl. 1. j\}{), WI) el'e the Iſll (ISI), 10 O3. I’S 31°é Te 3.
served for Hercules and A. àS being the regards details is hardly to be expected, yet the
strongest of the heroes). The result of breaking evidence they afford is extremely valuable, and
an oar while rowing hard seems to have been without º the, information º º the
ºr ºf Apºll tº lºº.º.º. º.º.
7"OL. 1. WIlê16. HerCUlleS i º . e
g 9 and Herodotus there is but little information to
be gathered. Hesiod disclaims all knowledge
of seafaring life (Op. 647), though his father
The oars were fastened to thowls (orkaxuo) by had been a merchant venturer. The Homeric
thongs (tporo, Bepp.drivol), and, when not in use, Hymn to Apollo and the story of Dionysus and
drawn in and fastened with the blade projecting the Pirates (if rightly ascribed to this period)
(Apoll. Rhod. Arg. i. 378; 0d. viii. 34). The cºntain a few interesting details (42, tróvres
rowers are described as taking their places, with 8& graxuo) greqāvows ºpépov). One valuable
their arms laid (Apoll. Rhod. i. 527) in order by fragment of Alcaeus preserves the vivid picture
them, which flash in the sunlight (l. c. 540 ft.) of a storm-tossed vessel, and a much-disputed
as the vessel speeds onward.... (Compare the line (Tap' usv, Y&p &vrxos is rotréâay exei). If
shields hung at the side of the Vikings' vessels.) igroréðn be the mast step, a solid block of
The kv8epvhrms had his place on the tºpia wood placed above the keel,--with a shallow
trpäuums, where he could handle both steering socket cut in it, wherein the foot of the mast
paddles and see over the heads of the crew. rested, then the progress of the water increasing
Hence there was nothing to intercept the fall- in the hold of the vessel would be marked
&
wearodøev čev špetuáv, drap rpijóos &AAo wºw airbs
âu Đo xepariv čxov, tréa's 86xptos.


NAWIS NAWIS 213
by its rising to the level of the top of the the vessel on shore, must not be lost sight of
mast step. when we come to consider the trireme. It is
one which apparently has been entirely over-
looked by those who wish to identify the pro-
blem involved in the construction of ancient
ships with those of the mediaeval galley and of
ocean-going wooden ships of comparatively
modern date, which were not subject to this
requirement.
The epoch of the vases introduces us to the
Bireme, and it is possible that in this depart-
ment of archaeology fresh discoveries await us,
which may contribute largely, after their kind,
to the knowledge of the subject. The bireme
of Phoenician type represented on the walls of
Kouyunjik (Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies, vol.
ii. 176) is possibly of an earlier date than the vase-
paintings. At any rate, we must, in all proba-
- || bility, refer the invention of the bireme to the
Dionysus Wessel. (Gerhardt, Vasenbilde.) shipwrights of Tyre and Sidon, if not to Egypt
(see above). And here it is necessary to
The unseaworthy, character of the early inquire intº the character of this invention,
Greek vessel is amply testified by the use and which gave a new power to early navigation
application of the word ávraos, &rAeº. and led the way to the trireme, and so on to
Baling, if the weather was at all rough, was the Polyeres (rowſpels), the many-banked
the constant and toilsome duty of the sailor, vessels, of later date.
and the term became expressive of labour and It is clear that the penteconter was the
sorrow. Sometimes the crew, from weariness typical vessel of the pirate type. The ºya.
or fright, refused to persevere (àvraev 6' oik (benches, thwarts), twenty-five in number,
édéaovº ºnepºet ºf 84*agga ºutporépez seated two men on either side. The longest
roixw, Theog. 673). The point is important, -
as illustrating one of the chief necessities of
construction in the early Greek vessel. It had
to be built as light as possible, because it was
necessary to draw it up on shore. It was fre-
quently subjected to the rack and strain which
this process implies. Hence it is not surprising
that it was liable to leak. There ensued
naturally the desire to run ashore as soon as || Lº
- - Fººº-
º . -
possible out of a seaway, an operation which º Nº
the numerous creeks and bays on the coastline - º
of the tideless sea facilitated. This lightness
º | War Ship of the pirate type. (From Tº vase.)
oars were wielded by those who sat amidships
(Apoll. Rhod. i. 395 ft.). We may take the
normal interscalmium, or measure of interval,
between thowl and thowl, to have been 2 cubits
(Vitruv. i. 2, “in navibus ex interscalmio quod
5umyaikh dicitur"). Efforts had been made to
increase speed by adding to the number of
rowers, but the increased number of benches
involved also an addition to the length and
weight of the vessel. The term *karðºyas
seems to point to the limit which this effort had
reached. Such a galley, even if we take the
epithet to mean simply 100 rowers, and there-
fore really only 50 benches, would have upwards
of 150 feet for its length, and presents difficul-
ties at once as to hauling on shore and turning
which can easily be imagined. Some clever
shipwright, when construction was thus con-
fronted with the difficulty of the additional
length and weight exceeding in disadvantage
* the advantage gained by increase of man-power,
conceived the design whereby the motive power
might be almost doubled without increasing
the length or beam of the vessel. Dividing the
stern of Bireme, with caſuas. (From Figaronic stay 3-foot space between the zyga, and perhaps
raising these a little, he placed a rower with
ºf construction, and the necessity (for so it a shorter oar, to work nearer the water-line,
*PPeared to the Greek sailor) of drawing up on a lower level than the men on the zyga.




214 NAWIS
NAWIS
In fact, he seated these lower oarsmen more in
the hold of the vessel (84xauos), whence they
got their name of thalamite. It would be
necessary to keep them in the same line verti-
cally, parallel to the axis of the vessel, as there
was no room to spare, and so the thalamite sat
immediately behind his zygite, with his head
just a little above the level of the latter's
seat (cf. Aristoph. Ran. 1074). The experi-
ment was tried and found feasible, and the thing
was done.”
Once approved and known, the principle was
sure to be widely adopted. The representations
of biremes are sufficiently numerous to indicate
that in the early vase period they were the
typical vessel. It is remarkable that on some
coasts they were never superseded. Of the
famous galleys that turned the scale at Actium
we read, “Ordine contentae gemino crevisse
Liburnae; " and it is also to be observed that
they outlived the larger rates far into
the Byzantine period, as is seen in the Tactica
of Emperor Leo. The invention of the bireme
was really a much greater step in the art
of naval construction than any of the sub-
sequent improvements, which increased the
numbers of banks, till the Polyeres in their
turn became “inhabilis prope magnitudinis.”
The motive power was doubled; the length and
bulk of the vessel hardly increased.
From the bireme to the trireme was but a
small step in advance. Where this was made is
not at all certain: probably in the dockyards of
Tyre or Sidon. But the Greeks were quick to
adopt the inventions of their Oriental rivals.
Wealthy Corinth was naturally the first place
in Greece to exhibit the new model, and to use
its superior powers for the purpose of clearing
out pirates and protecting its growing commerce
(Thuc. i. 13). The Corinthian shipbuilder
Ameinocles made a name and fame for himself,
and marked an epoch in the maritime history of
Greece, when, about the year 700 B.C., he con-
structed four of the new sea-going three-banked
type of galleys for the Samians.
Coin of Cydonia. 450 B.c.
Coin of Pharnabazus.
400 B.C.
Before proceeding to the description of the
trireme, it is necessary to insist on the fact
that, according to the evidence to be gathered
from ancient authorities, the principle of one
man to each oar was always observed. The
question of the arrangement of the rowers has
been complicated by the neglect of this prin-
ciple on the part of authors, who have sought
* The writer had a section of a trireme upon Graser's
measurements constructed, and placed in it six oarsmen,
two sets of three, to row, and the movements were not
only easy, but it was practically shown that the space
allowed was too much rather than too little.
for a solution of difficulties by reference to the
mediaeval galley with its long sweeps worked
by three or more oarsmen apiece. The ancients
knew nothing of such a system, nor has any
sufficient evidence been brought forward to
support it. When we reflect that to the early
shipwright sharpness and length (cf. epithets
Boº, wakpá) were the essential ideas in the con-
struction of the fighting galley, and that
increase of beam involved increase of bulk, it is
not surprising that the narrowness of the vessels
should ab initio have restricted the length of the
oar, and have, so to speak, prevented the idea
of double-banking the oars from entering into
their heads.
When in early mediaeval times the Parodus
was superseded by the Apostis, then the system
of long heavy oars, worked by two or more men,
came into vogue, but not before.
It should here also be observed that the terms
Aphract and Cataphract are of importance as de-
noting a difference and an improvement in the
construction both of biremes and triremes, a
difference which has not to do with the deck
(kardarpaua), but with the sides of the vessel.
In the Aphract vessel the upper tier of rowers
were unprotected and exposed to view, and
consequently to the enemy's missiles, though in
some of the earliest vessels we do see some
attempt at protection in the way of planking.
or (as commonly in the Vikings' ships) shields
set up round the bulwarks to afford a covering
to the crew. But in the Cataphract class, the
rowers of the upper tier were entirely under
cover, behind the wall of the Parodus, a pro-
jecting gangway, which screened them both
from the sight and from the missiles of the
enemy. The speciality of the construction was
sufficiently important to differentiate the two
classes, as Aphract and Cataphract.
In the detailed description of the trireme
which follows, amid a multitude of conflicting
opinions we have in the main followed Graser
and Cartault as the most trustworthy authori-
ties. The subject, as is well known, has a vast
and still accumulating literature of its own.
Since the discovery in 1834 of a number of
inscriptions which proved to be inventories of
galleys and their gear, belonging to the dock-
yard at the Piraeus, dating from a period
possibly not more than fifty years after the
Peloponnesian war, the whole question has been
placed upon a new basis by the labours of Boeckh
and Graser, and after them of Cartault and
Breusing. The evidence that we have to rely
upon as regards ancient ships of war consists—
(i) of passages from ancient authors, and (2) of
explanations of terms in the scholiasts and lexi-
cographers. Besides these, there are (for pente-
conters and biremes, but not for triremes) the
representations on vases. The representations
on coins, though numerous, are useful only as
regards types, the scale being too small to give
certainty as to details. But very few bas-reliefs
or marbles or frescoes have survived which
throw any light upon naval construction. As a
rule, in the representations the artist, anxious to
glorify the human figure, has treated all the ac-
cessories in a conventional manner, dwarfing the
rest out of all proportion. We are therefore
chiefly dependent for our information upon
ancient texts, and must accept with caution any














NAVIs
NAWIS 215
theories, however plausible, which cannot find
support in these, or in any way contradict their
evidence.
In the classification of ancient vessels we find
the termination-opos referring to number of oars
—e.g. Tptakóvropos, revrmkóvropos: whereas the
termination -àpms or -kporos refers to banks of
oars—e.g. plovápms, 6thpms, rpińpms, up to the
ékkatēekápms of Demetrius Poliorcetes and reo-
orepakovräpms of Ptolemy Philopator; uovákpo-
Tos, Šíkporos, Tpíkporos, K.T.A. It is this question
of the superposition of the banks of oars which is
the main problem to be solved. These banks or
ranks of oars were called a ríxot or tapo'6plata
(Poll. i. 93). In the trireme there were three,
called respectively 6paviral, Çüylot or Çvºyºral,
and taxduuou, 6ańaptºral or 6ańduakes. Of these
the thranites rowed with the longest oars, and
were the highest; the zygites occupied the
middle stage; the thalamite the lowest, and
these used the shortest oars, and earned least
pay because they rowed with short oars (613 ro
Koń08aſs Xpija 6al icórats, Schol. ad Thuc. vi.
31). That the rowers in three ranks in the
trireme cannot have been separated by decks, as
some authors have held, is sufficiently proved by
the passage in Aristophanes (Ran. 1074). The
thranite sat nearest the stern, the zygite next
behind him, and the thalamite nearest the prow
in each set of three, which was thus arranged
obliquely, probābly, though not certainly, in the
same vertical plane.
In the trireme the number of thranites was
62; of zygites, 58; thalamites, 54. This gives
on each side the series of 31, 29, 27; the
reduced number in the lower ranks being neces-
sitated by the contraction of the space nearer
the water-line, owing to the curvature of the
vessel's sides. Hence at each end of the vessel
we find in the éykarov, or rowing space, one
zygite and two thalamites less than the thra-
nites. The whole ordinary rowing strength of
the triremes was 174. Sometimes the super-
numeraries (treptwea) had to help with oars, the
length of which is given in the Attic tables:
these are supposed to have rowed from the
Parodus, and to have struck the water beyond
the thranite oars. Their length is given as
14% feet. We have said that the oarsmen sat
probably in the same vertical plane, disposed
obliquely one behind the other, the thranite of
each set of three being nearest the stern. It is
probable that the thranite oars were a little
shorter than those of the repfvea, mentioned
above. They would in fact be not very much
longer than the oars ordinarily in use in our
University eights.
Tºra-wºº,
§ {------
Lº-
(From Cartault.)
Complexus Remigum.
The horizontal space between two men of the
same bank was 3 feet. The zygite seat was
1 ft. behind the thranite; the thalamite the
same distance behind the zygite. The zygite
seats were 2 feet below the level of the thranite.
and the thalamite the same below the zygite.
This disposition of the rowers as illustrated by
the figure seems at first sight to be crowded, but
the practical experiment, tried as above men-
tioned, showed that the oarsmen had plenty of
room for the movement of their oars, and that
there was no danger of clashing with the oars
of separate banks. The motion of rowing was.
as shown in the bas-relief of the trireme figured
below, with very little forward inclination of
the body. The arms were well extended, and
then the weight of the body thrown on the Oar,
the course of the stroke following the ºr âr,
or the Évrrataí, with the incidence of the blade
in the water at the last sound (e.g. ºr marking
the recovery, bºr the stroke).
º
tº
sº
* -4.
Acropolis Trireme. (From Baumeister.)
In rowing the zygites fell back between the
knees of the thranites, and the thalamites
between those of the zygites; the two upper
banks having an appui for their feet on either
side of the man in front of them in the next
bank below. The port-holes for the thalamite
oars are placed by Graser at 3 feet above the
water-line (Cartault reduces this distance to
1 ft. 6 inches); and if we allow 1 foot above the
heads of the thranites (including the thickness
of the deck and the cross timbers supporting it),
we have the deck of the trireme 11 feet above
the water-line. The zygite port-holes were
vertically 2 feet above the thalamite, and the
thranite the same distance above the zygite; the
zygite port-hole was horizontally 1 foot nearer
the bows than that of the thranite of the set of
three to which he belonged, and the thalamite
port-hole 1 foot nearer the bows than that of
the zygite of his set. Taking the Vitruvian
interscalmium of 2 cubits as the normal scale,
we shall thus have 94 feet for the #ykarov or
rowing space of the trireme. “. . . "
Viewed from within, if we adopt Graser's
hypothesis, the trireme must have had, when
ready for sea, and before the crew had come on
board, the appearance of a long cloister, a cen-
tral space of 7 feet, and on either side uprights
corresponding to the vessel's ribs 3 feet apart
and forming the support of the deck. From
the foot of each of these uprights a strong piece
of timber, probably cut plank-wise, inclined at
an angle of about 62°, reached to the head of
the upright next to it nearer the stern. Be-
tween these and the vessel’s sides were attached
the zyga or rowers' seats. These seats were
part of the ship's furniture, and removable, as
is seen from the Attic tables. A vessel fitted
with them was said to be Suá(vº : not fitted,
àçvº. To the system of upright and inclined
timbers thus constituting the rowing quarters
of the crew, Graser attaches the term Staqpdy-
aara. (Boeckh, xiv. 6, 145; Inscr. 3144, 3271,
3124.)






216 NAWIS
NAVIs
*
starting.
The crew was so densely packed that, as we
learn from a passage in Cicero, there was not
room for one man more. They entered in a
regular order and took their places in accordance
with the strictest discipline, and similarly dis-
embarked. Each man had a cushion (Örmpégiov)
to put upon his bench. The oars appear to
have been graduated as regards length inboard,
so that those amidships were longer inboard,
though striking the water in the same line paral-
lel to the axis of the vessel with those of the
same bank. (Hence the comparison of Aristotle
and Galen to the fingers.)
opinion that the oarsmen in the trireme sat all
in the same vertical plane, or nearly so; the
thranite seat in the trireme being about 7 ft., the
zygite 5 ft., and the thalamite 3 ft. above the
water-line. This would give us 13 ft. 6 in., 10 ft.
6 in., 7 ft. 6 in. respectively for the average
length of the three banks; the midship oars
having somewhat more inboard, and possibly a
heavier blade than those fore and aft. The
Virgilian “triplici pubes quam Dardana versu
Impellit, terno consurgunt ordine remi’’ (Aen.
v. 120), gives an exact picture of the stroke
(versus), i.e. the work of the oar in the water,
and the recovery (consurgunt). In the trireme
the triple versus were 2 ft. 6 in. apart, on a
line at right angles to the vessel's side. The
recovery would exhibit the oars rising in three
banks. The rowing port-holes were protected
by leathern bags (&akógara), through which the
looms of the oars passed. These, if the sea was
at all rough, prevented the wash from coming
through the oarports. The oars were apparently,
if we may judge from the representation from
above (p. 215 b), rowed with the lower hand over
and the upper hand under the oar. This
implies a considerable angle to the water.
Perhaps the thalamite had both hands over. It
is a moot point whether they rowed against the
graxpés, the wooden pin or thowl, or against
the thong (Tporathp) by which the oar was
fastened to it. Looking at the weight to be
moved, it seems not improbable that the latter
was the case. At any rate, it is very frequently
so in the Levant at the present day. They would
certainly have been less liable to breakages at
The position of the oars, as shown
in the woodcut above (p. 212), would seem to
indicate that this was the case in the pente-
COInter.
According to Graser, the floor of the vessel
(éðapos) was 1 foot above the water in the Cata-
phract class. Below this was the hold, and
through the floor a hole through which the
buckets used in baling were passed. The keel
(rpátris) had considerable camber. Under it was
a strong false keel (xéAvoua), very necessary for
vessels which were frequently drawn up on
shore. Above the keel was the kelson (Spüoxov,
columba), under which the lower ends of the ribs,
probably 3 feet apart, were fastened. Above
the kelson lay an upper false keel (Sevrépa
Tpóris), into which the masts were stepped.
The stem-post (a reſpa) rose at an angle of
69° to the water from the keel; within was an
apron (páAkms), giving solidity to the bows,
which had to bear the weight of the beak and
of concussion. The stem was carried upwards
and curved sometimes forwards, but generally
back, terminating in an ornament called the
This confirms the
acrostolium (äkpogróAtov). Of this every variety
is to be seen upon the coins.
The stern-post was carried up at about the
same angle as the stem, curving upwards and
forwards, and terminating in an ornament called
&q'Aagrov, aplustre. Sometimes, as shown chiefly
in later instances, the stern-post was , orna-
mented by a swam or goose head (xmvíokos),
curving downwards behind the prolongation of
the stern-post, symbolising no doubt the floating
powers of the vessel. -
Round the hull of the vessel, horizontally at
about the level of the feet of each bank of
rowers, stretched waling-pieces (according to
Graser, voweſs: Cartault, (worripes), and in the
case of the Attic triremes the sides of the
vessel were again strengthened by long cables
(Öroſópata), which were bound round the ship
from stem to stern. These tightened by shrink-
ing when wet, and gave additional security to the
vessel, which from her length and narrow beam
and lightness of build was apt to strain in bad
weather.
On either side of the vessel, about the level
of the thranitic bench, projected the gangway
(irdpobos, fori), giving probably a passage of
about 3 ft. wide. The Parodus was supported
by brackets, the lower ends of which found a
footing in the waling-piece below, and probably
an attachment to the ribs. It was also fenced
in by an upright bulwark extending the whole
length of space occupied by the rowers. The
ribs from a point below the Parodus curved
upwards and inwards to a level 10 inches above
the heads of the thranites. Upon them at this
height were placed the cross-beams (otpatipes)
which supported the deck (katáortpapa). This
was a clear 3 feet above the tripobos, thus
allowing the marines (éirigéral) in action free
play for their weapons over the heads of the
supernumeraries (treptveg) and seamen whose
place was in the trapobos.
On either side the main deck rose an open
lattice-work (cancelli), seen as such in Aphract
vessels, but in the Cataphracts usually covered
with hides, or with goat's-hair curtains (cilicium),
such as St. Paul may have worked at with his
hands.
Beyond the space occupied by the rowers
there was the trapete peaſa of 11 feet at the
bows and 14 feet at the stern, which took the
place of the tºpia, noticed in the Homeric
vessels. In the bows there was an elevated
forecastle, serving to protect the vessel in a
seaway from the waves, and as a station for
fighting men in combat. On either side of the
bows was a hawse hole which figured as the eye
(ópôaxpads) of the vessel. Here also was the
trapdormuov or badge of the vessel. Behind
this projected the catheads (éraríðes) on either
side, which in the case of the earlier Attic
triremes seem to have been merely sufficient to
hold the anchor. They afforded, however, a
natural protection to the parodus. In the
Corinthian build these were greatly strength-
ened and backed with stays (āvrmptoes, Thuc.
vii. 36) within and without, so as to receive
the impact of the light Athenian trireme, and
to inflict the damage they were intended to
suffer.
In front of the stem the prolongation of the
two upper waling-pieces, meeting from either
NAWIS
NAWIS 217
side, projected one above the other and were
called "poeu80xts, ºpoeu86xion, respectively.
The purpose of these seems to have been to give
a vessel when pressed by the beak a racking
Prow of Trireme.
(From Greek terra-cotta vase in
British Museum.)
blow above, thus making her heel over and
easing her off, so that the attacking vessel might
more readily disentangle herself by backing
water. Underneath the prolongation of the
lower waling-pieces, and probably of the keel
itself, met and formed the ºuðoxov, rostrum, or
beak, at about the water-level (in the early
times a little above, later below): this was
generally cased with metal. In the earlier Attic
vessel it projected about 10 feet. The success
of the Corinthian build seems to have led to a
shorter form, and a division into three teeth,
which took the place of the long sharp spur.
The elevation of the spur was necessary in the
lighter vessels, which were frequently beached
and drawn upon the shore. In the larger rates,
with which this was no longer feasible, the
spur came to be depressed, and, when thus
shown in artistic representations, indicates a
later date.
Quarter-decks,—At the stern was a raised
quarter-deck on which the helmsman (kugep-
wºrms) and the trierarch or captain had their
place. The quarter-deck was the sacred part of
the ship. Here was the image of the patron
god or goddess (Eur, Iph. A. 209). Here also
near the stern rose the flagstaff, on which was
hoisted the pennant, and from which, in the case
of the admiral's ship, the red flag gave the
signal for action, and such other signals for
manoeuvring as were from time to time re-
quired.
Steering gear.—The trireme was steered by
two paddles, which worked in sockets attached
to either side of the vessel. These had tillers
(otaxes) in the upper part of the loom (atzºv),
by which the helmsman could turn the blades
at an angle to the vessel's course. In the larger
ships, quinqueremes and upwards, it is probable
that the steering was effected by means of a
rope (xantºs) attached to the tillers, and
passing over wheels (rpoxiata), which gave the
helmsman the power to turn both rudders by a
single effort simultaneously.
The trireme had at least two masts (ºrrºs
uéyas, forbs ºrateſos), but it is to be remembered
that the use of sails was auxiliary, and not its
normal mode of propulsion. When any fighting
had to be done, it was relieved, if possible, of
the weight of large mast and sails, which were
left ashore. Hence it is difficult to agree with
Graser in his restoration of a full-rigged trireme
with three masts, and enough canvas spread for
a modern man-of-war. -
The aegôum of the Homeric vessel had its
place taken by Tapaordral, uprights, which had
their footing on either side of the Amºs or
mast-hole, into which the heel or foot of the
mast (Trépya) was stepped. The rapaardra.
were attached to the mast by a collar (kaolás).
The aperture in the deck through which the
mast passed was sometimes called for roºkm.
Wedges (ºr pºwes) were driven in round the
mast so as to keep it tight (Ap. Rhod. i. 1204).
The mast when lowered rested upon a crutch
aft (igºročákm, kārnā). At the top of the mast
was the Aardrºm, which was encircled at its
base by the top (rapy.halov), itself surrounded
by a breastwork (Bæpäktov). Above was a small
mast (ºrparros), which carried the pennant
(érigetºw). The sail was carried on a yard
(êtrikpº, kepala), sometimes made of two
pieces (Athen. xi. p. 475). It does not appear
anywhere that more than one yard was carried
by any mast, though spare yards were supplied
to the Athenian navy. The yard was attached
to the mast by a collar (ºykowa, tºykowa Straſ):
and if we can take Servius (ad Aen. v. 489) as
an authority, the ancients were not unacquainted
with “parrels,” wooden balls, which enabled the
collar to be run up and down the mast without
sticking (“malus quibusdam malisligneiscingitur
quorum volubilitate vela facilius elevantur”).
The yard was hoisted by halyards (iudures),
which passed over Tpoxiaſat in the kapºorlov-
The terms ºdºxol, kāAwes, were generally applied
to all the cordage of the rigging, and specially
in larger vessels to the shrouds which served to
keep the mast in its place.
The sail (fºrtion) was often made up of pieces
made separately and stitched together (whence
the plural oria often means only a single sail).
The only kind of sail known by the Greeks,
according to Boeckh (Urk. 141), was the square
sail. The relum triangulare of the Alexandrian
corn ships was of later date. The sails were
often strengthened, when made of separate
pieces, by strips of leather sewn over the
stitching. (Cf. bas-relief from Pompeii, Smith,
Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul; Joseph.
Ant. iv. 8, 37, trapº row irröy ºr road, Earnuev
&vaºerov.res àpiðuoſºvres rºy Buprºv rás ºri-
Boxás.) The sail was fastened to the yard by
the repºráviov, which passed through eyelets
(kpºol) made in the border of the sail (cf.
Tapakpower). At the lower extremities of the
sail were the sheets (rºes) and tacks (red-
robes).
/

218 NAVIS
NAVIS
The ancients, instead of reefing, appear to
have brailed up their sails (orréAAelv, trapalpeiv,
orvoréxAeiv), so as to reduce the area exposed
to the wind; and thus either from the side, or
from underneath along its whole length (Arist.
→--- ~~~7–
→SETTIII ſº --
==~
--~~~ * ~ § *
: Tºss- –– S ^-->-
Brailing the sails of a moneris. The émtoretov is show in
at the stern. (Mazois, Pomp. i. 22.)
Prob. 7; Ar. Eq. 434, Schol.). (See Graser,
Gemme, for numerous instances.) The word
&vaoréAAely seems to have been used for un-
brailing the sail, where we should “shake out a
reef.” (cf. §§téval, Pind. Pyth. i. 176).
The yard in good weather was hoisted to the
top of the mast (Ar. Ran. 999), but, if the wind
freshened, was lowered. Braces (Örépal) were
in use in order to give the yard a position oblique
to the keel (cf. Verg. Aen. v. 16, “Obliquatoue
sinus in ventum ”). The representations show
also “lifts,” but the proper term is doubtful.
Kepovakós (Lat. ceruchus, Luc. Phars. viii. 177)
is perhaps right. -
The trireme carried two masts, the main
mast (iotos uéyas or yväorios) and a small fore-
mast, placed near the forecastle, and more
nearly related to the modern bowsprit than to
the modern foremast. Later the Žorriov &kare?ov,
spritsail, was called 6 66Aa'v, and later still
ô &préuov (Acts xxvii.). In all probability the
Greeks never used sails for combat. The
manoeuvres depended on the oars for motive
power. The attempt to combine the use of the
sail, where great agility in turning and much
backing water (rpúuvmv &vakpoiſeuv) were con-
stantly required, could only have complicated
matters unnecessarily, and led to disaster (Xen.
Hell. vi. 2, 27; Liv. xxvi. 39). Ramming
tactics would hardly have been pursued with
mainmast and its gear standing. It is probable,
however, that the iorros &kareios was used with
its yard for the employment of the 5expts, a
heavy weight, which, on coming alongside of
the enemy's vessel, could be dropped on his
deck (cf. Thuc. vii. 25, where the bowsprits are
used to draw the piles in the port of Syracuse).
The sprit-sail might be used to ease the
rowers, but would be furled on approaching
the enemy. In the same way it might be set
for the purposes of flight, whence the expression
in Plutarch, Tê škdriov atpegºat, “to slip out of
danger.” (Cf. Suid. s. v. 66Awy: Diod. xx. 61;
Liv. xxxvi. 44; Eur. I. T. 1132.)
Anchors.-For anchors, the Homeric vessels
used stones (eival), perforated so that a cord
could be passed through them, Anchors properly
so-called are said to have been invented by
Anacharsis (Strabo, vii. p. 303; Schol. ad Ap.
Rhod. i. 1277). The anchors were furnished
with flukes (&ykio Tpa), and from the represen-
tations it is clear that in most cases they had
stocks and crowns. By the ring fastened to
the latter they were buoyed. (Cf. Hesych. s. v.
orapyával : Paus. viii. 12.) The anchor was
carried in the bows, sometimes over the spur
(Pind. Pyth. iv. 342:
émet 6' épubóAov
kpéuaorav &yköpas itepéev):
though Breusing thinks that the érotis is here
intended by the word ugoNov. Vessels of war
carried more than one anchor. Boeckh (Urkund.
p. 166) gives four to the Attic trireme. The
Ancient Anchors. (Baumcister, Denkm.)
heaviest was called ispá (Lucian, Jup. Trag. 51)
and used in the last resort. We find chain
cables for anchors mentioned as used by the
Veneti (Caes. Bell. Gall. iii. 13).
We have now mentioned the principal details
of equipment in the Greek man-of-war. For
other nautical terms and their meaning, the
reader is referred to the Glossary appended to
this article.
The dimensions of the trireme were, according
to Graser:—
Feet.
Length of éykomov 124
Bows e . 11
Stern 14
Total length 149
Breadth at water-line e . 14
At Parodus g & & º . 18
With Parodus . * * . 21
Space between diaphragmata . * 7
Deck in Cataphract class above water 11
Draught . & & & 8}
Depth of hold . 10+
*Capacity of trireme . 232; tons.
Measurements, &c., according to Cartault:—
Feet.
Length of Syktotrov 4. gº ſº ** 94
Bows . ge * * & *, 9
Stern . ſº * * & 10
Total length . º * J 113
Breadth at water-line 12
Breadth at Parodus º gº 15 - 31
Deck above water . * te g 10
Draught. * (* tº & * . 6
M. Cartault reduces the height of the thala-
mite port-holes above the water to 13 ft., so as
to diminish the instability which forms the
obvious objection to Graser's dimensions given
above.
Taking the proportions in the Acropolis trireme
to be exact, and the distance from seat to seat
* Graser's calculation of the capacity of the trireme
at 2323 tons seems excessive.

NAWIS
NAWIS 219
and hand to hand to be the normal 3 feet, and
applying the scale thus obtained, the height of
the Aphract trireme would appear to be even
less than that assumed by M. Cartault; that is
to say, apparently not more than 8 feet, if so
much, from the under-side of the deck to the
Xater-line.
As all the Attic triremes seem to have been
made on the same model, their gear was inter-
changeable, an arrangement which, in a fleet of
from 300 to 400 vessels, was of the utmost
importance for refitting.
The regular crew of the Attic trireme
consisted probably of 220 persons. Of these 174
were rowers, viz.: 62 thranites, 58 zeugites,
54 thalamites. To these must be added 10 epi-
batae, 17 sailors, 1 trierarch, 1 kv6epvárms,
1 revrmkóvrapxos, 2 rotxapxoi, 1 trpapets,
1 ceXevorràs, 1 rpimpaſſams, 1 oxapets, making
the total number 220. .
The number of epibatae varied greatly, and
depended on the style of fighting preferred.
The Athenians held to speed and dexterity in
the use of the ram, and so carried but few
fighting men. Xerxes' great fleet carried 30
marines to each trireme. Each Chian vessel at
the battle of Lade had 40 picked men as marines
on board. The Corinthians and Corcyreans had
their decks crowded at the battle of Sybota;
and in the great harbour of Syracuse, where
there was no space for their favourite ma-
noeuvres (Diecplus and Periplus), the unfortunate
Athenians found themselves obliged to imitate
their enemy’s tactics with disastrous results to
themselves (Thuc. vii. 70).
The bulk of the rest of the ship's company
consisted of the sailors, who were under the
orders of the kvěepvárms, and whose duties were
connected with the mast and sails and tackle of
the ship, and who are supposed sometimes to
have manned the oars called trepivew in the
Attic Tables.
Besides these were the officers, five of superior
rank, viz.: 1. The Trierarch or captain was
supreme on board his own vessel, though under
the orders of the orparmyos when in company
with the fleet (Dem. c. Polycl. p. 1212, § 19).
Many Athenian trierarchs were no doubt prac-
tised seamen, but the state burden of trierarchy
must constantly have fallen upon men less com-
petent to command a vessel. Hence the great
need of having as second in command a pro-
fessional seaman. This was (2) the kw8epvirms,
originally the actual helmsman, but in later
times the master of the vessel, under whose
orders were the seamen and the whole crew.
He had probably risen from the ranks, and
passed through all the various stages of pro-
motion, so as to have intimate and special
acquaintance with his professional duties (Ar.
Eq. 541). It is probable that the trierarch had
to find the officers, though he might have the
crew furnished by the state ér karaxó yov.
Naturally it would be of the greatest impor-
tance to him to obtain the services of a first-
rate kugepwºrms, on whose skill depended the
navigation of the vessel and its safety at sea.
The references to his art (kv8epvnrikh) in the
philosophers are sufficient to show the high
estimation in which it was held (Plat. Rep. vi.
p. 448 E; Gorg. p. 511 D; Arist. Rhet. 2, 21).
The inferior officers were immediately under his
command, and through them the crew, espe-
cially that part which was towards the stern
of the vessel. (Xen. Anab. v. 8, 20; Econ.
8, 14.)
Next under the kw8epvärms of the navigating
officers was the trpapets (Plut. Agis, 101), who
had charge of the crew in the forepart of the
vessel, and was also responsible for the look-out.
Under him two rotxapxot superintended the
two lines of rowers, one on each side; the
discipline of the motive power of the vessel
being thus provided for, while the voice of the
kexevaths and the flute of the rpimpačams pro-
vided the harmony to which the pulsation of
the stroke and the throb of the recovery against
the thowl-pin responded in unison.
Besides these an important personage on the
staff of the trireme was the revrmkówrapyos,
who was immediately under the trierarch.
(Dem. c. Polycl. pp. 1212, 1214, §§ 19, 24;
Plato, Jeges, iv. p. 507 A.) His function was
to buy all the necessary stores, and to feed and
pay the crew, and, in a word, to attend to the
general economy of the vessel. Under his orders
for these administrative purposes the ke^evorràs
seems to have been placed.
An interesting question arises after the con-
sideration of the construction and the motive
power of the trireme ; viz. what rate of speed
could be obtained 2 Unfortunately the instances
from which any deduction could be drawn with
certainty as to this matter, are rare and incon-
clusive. The pace of sailing vessels has indeed
numerous illustrations (Ap. Rhod. i. 602;
Lycurgus, Leocr. 17 and 70; Thuc. ii. 97). The
conclusion drawn as to these may be stated
as giving them from six to eight miles an hour,
under favourable circumstances. Now the tri-
reme must have been able to overhaul the
sailing vessel. It was a cause of terror to its
enemies and admiration to its friends by reason
of its speed (Xen. Oecon. 8, 8). Yet measuring
the man-power as compared with horse-power
even at the ratio of 8–1, which would give, with
Graser, about 24 horse-power for the propulsion
of the trireme, it is difficult to obtain a very
high rate of speed as a result. Graser cites an
instance (Xen. Anab. vi. 42) in which it is
stated that from Byzantium to Heraclea in
Bithynia (a distance of about 150 nautical
miles) could be rowed in a day by a trireme,
and was a very long day’s work. From this he
deduces a pace of from 9 to 10 miles an hour.
But the passage does not absolutely exclude the
use of sails as an auxiliary motive power.
Given a long vessel with fine lines, strongly
built in its lower parts, with all the lines of
resistance converging to the beak, which would
receive the shock in ramming, while the upper
works were built as lightly as would be con-
sistent with carrying the weight of the crew
and the mast and sails and their gear, we may
conceive a pace of 8 or 9 knots to have been
possible with a strong and well-trained crew.
Such speed, if at any time, was attained by the
kaxal rpińpets of Athens in the days of her
glory, when her maritime superiority was
acknowledged by friends and foes alike.
At this point, before quitting the trireme, We
may touch on the development of the ram. or
beak, and its effect upon naval tactics. Pliny
refers the invention of the ram to Piseus, a
220 NAWIS
NAWIS
Tuscan pirate, but there is not much to support
his statement. The indications given in the
Egyptian wall representations (cf. p.203) incline
us to infer that the East and not the West was
the parent of the invention. As we have seen,
there is no indication of its existence in Homer.
The Assyrian bireme given above is perhaps the
earliest actual representation of the beak. In
Diodorus, Semiramis is credited with the con-
struction in Bactria of vessels of war with
brazen beaks, the crews of which were furnished
from Phoenicia and Syria. The early Greek
Coins of Phaselis.
a.o. 480.
types as shown on the vases present a projecting
beam for a beak often fashioned into the likeness
of some sea-monster's head. Behind this the
line of the forecastle ascends sharply at almost a
right angle. We trace in
the coin of Phaselis and in
the coin of Samos figured
here, a tendency to fill
** up the angle thus formed,
and the fore-part of the
vessel thus assumes the
look of the boar's head
(cf. Herod. iii. 59), which
became typical of the Sa-
mian navy. Hence the
Samaena with which the Samian prisoners were
branded by the Athenians (440 B.C.), which
Plutarch explains to be the image of a kind
of vessel invented by Polycrates, low in the
fore-part, wide and hollow in the sides, light
and expeditious for sailing, and with a cur-
vature of prow like a boar's head (ºrpwpos tº
ºuwud).
The Attic trireme was on finer lines, the
lowest waling-pieces on either side prolonged
to meet a strong timber projecting from the
end of the keel, which still had considerable
camber, met so as to form a strong beak
just above the water-level. The shock of ram-
ming would thus be received along the line of
greatest resistance. But with this exception
the lightness necessary to the speed of the
Athenian trireme forbade any accumulation of
heavy timbers elsewhere. Hence when the
Corinthians, cutting down the bows of their
vessels, shortening the beaks, and greatly
strengthening the two catheads on either side,
determined to meet the Athenians stem-on
(ºpowºoah), which was thought by the latter a
clumsy and unseamanlike manoeuvre, the solid
work of the Dorian vessels was sufficient to
receive the blow of the Athenian beak and to
break up the light work behind it, while the
great catheads served to tear away the rapefe-
peria and parodus, and exposed the tykarov.
From this time, whatever might remain for
skill and speed to do by way of manoeuvring the
trireme in the open sea, yet the increase of
weight naturally led to the attempt to increase
the motive power; and first, quadriremes, then
quinqueremes, and then in quick succession
hexeremes, octeremes, and from ten up to sixteen
banks of oars (“in-
habilis prope mag-
nitudinis ”) canne
into vogue, culmi-
nating in the gi-
gantic toy of Pto-
lemy, the Tessera-
CONTERES.
The manºeuvring
of a fleet can only
beganced at briefly
here. Sailing in Demetrius. B.c. 294-287.
“column line a-
head” (ºr répas),
in as many lines as
the admiral (arpa-
rºyds) ordered, the
fleet came when in
view of the enemy
into “column line
abreast” by the
manoeuvre called
rapdrafts. The
formation of a cir-
cle, especially by
those who wished
to stand on the …
defensive, is not º -
without instances; /. º
but this formation º -
had manifold dis-
advantages, as the
Peloponnesians dis-
covered to their
cost in the battles
against Phormio in
the Corinthian Gulf
(Thuc. ii. 83). The formation of a semicircle
(lunata classe, unwoetºeſ ºrgaº) was also com-
mon (Herod. viii. 16; Lucan, iv. 45; Prop. iv.
380; Veg. iv. 45). The common manoeuvres
of attack were: first the diecplus (Herod. vi. 12,
15; Thuc. i. 49, vii. 36), rowing through the
enemy's line, doing what damage was possible
with missiles in passing, and then turning sud-
denly and ramming him before he could get
round. To effect this successfully was regarded
as the acme of skill. Second, the periplus (Xen.
Hell. i. 6, 31; Thuc. ii. 84; Ar Ran. 535), in
which, while the front line attacked as usual, a
portion of the squadron wheeled round (as in
cavalry tactics) and took the enemy's fleet in
flank.
Ships lightened before naval action.—Polyb, i.
61; Liv. xxii. 14, xxxvi. 43.
Action only in calm weather.—Weget. iv. 43;
Lucan, iii. 522; Liv, xxv. 27, xxvi. 39.
Action avoided in narrows by superior fleet-
Veget. iv. 46; Thuc. ii. 83 ff. (Phormio); Appian.
B. C. v. 96 (Calvisius); Polyb. i. 49 (action ºf
Romans with Adherbal); Liv. xxviii. 40; Diod.
sic. xiii.49 (Athenians and Mindarus); Polyaen.
iv. 6 (Nicanor).
Sails taken in before fighting and masts lowered.
–Liv. xxxvi. 44; Polyb. i. 61; Xen. Hell. vi. 2
(Iphicrates).
Small sºils used in flight—Liv. xxxvi. 45
(“sublatis dolonibus effusefugere”); Herod. vi.
i4 (Samians, from Lade); Polyb. xvi. 15.
Coin of Samos, B.C. 494.
Antigonus.
B.C. 292.
e.c. 200.
Leucas.












NAWIS
NAWIS 221
Orders of battle.—Liv. xxxvi. 44, xxxvii. 23;
Polyb, i. 49, 61; Diod, Sic. xiii. 97.
Semicircle.—Lucian, iv. 45: Silius, xiv. 367;
Polyaen. iii. 10 (Timotheus); Propert. iv. 380;
Herod. viii. 16; Veget. iv. 45.
The defeat of the Athenians at Syracuse, and
the success of the Peloponnesian shipwrights in
their improvements in the build of their vessels,
led to further innovations. The quadrireme
(Plin. H. N. vii. § 57; Diod, siv. 41, 42, pro-
bably invented by Carthaginians and adopted by
Dionysius of Syracuse, about 400 B.C.) added
the motive power of 66 more oars to a length
and breadth but slightly increased. The quin-
quereme, which practically superseded the
trireme as the typical man-of-war in the 3rd
and 2nd centuries, had a complement of 300
oarsmen, according to Polybius (i. 26, 7), while
the increase in height and general dimensions
was not very great. The Athenians appear to
have had a certain number of quadriremes in
their navy by 330 B.C.; the first quinqueremes
mentioned in the Attic Tables (Boeckh, Urk. xiv.)
belong to 325 B.C.
-
The following table gives the relative propor-
tions, according to Graser:-
*- ºr lºº
Length . . . - 149 158+ 158
Breadth at water-line . 14. 15 18
Greatest breadth 18 22 25
Height of deck above
water-line. . . º 11 13. 15
Draught . . . - 84 10. 11+
Total height. . . . . .194 23. 25
These figures in all probability admit of some
reduction, but the proportion may be regarded
as correct.
Graser gives the number of rowers thus:-
Trireme, 174; quadrireme, 240; quinquereme,
310; hexeres, 384; hepteres, 462; octeres, 514;
enneres, 630; deceres, 720.
The quinquereme was soon exceeded, though
not superseded, by larger rates. It plays the
most important part in naval history up to the
time of Actium, when with the victory of the
Liburnians the larger rates fell into disrepute, and
the art of constructing them gradually decayed.
(The student will find interesting descriptions of
naval actions and manoeuvres in Xen. Hell. i. 6,
ii. 1. vi. 2; Polyb. xvi. 2-9.)
The Romans, though not a seafaring people,
appear from the treaty with Carthage to have
been familiar with the sea, and to have had
maritime interests as early as the time of the
Kings. The existence of duumviri navales,
officers charged with repairing the fleet, the
right of electing whom was transferred to the
people in 311 B.C., proves that the state had, at
that time and previously, some naval force.
And coins of a date as early as 350 bear the
representation of the bows of a ship, of a type
more rude and bluff than the Greek, but still
very possibly borrowed from the Greek cities in
Magna Graecia. In the instances exhibited by
the coins, which belong to the half-century pre-
ceding the First Punic War, there are apparently
two varieties of construction. In one the de-
pression of the beak is remarkable, and the
timbers which support it appear to be compacted
with cross-pieces.
These vessels were
probably tri-
remes. In the
year 303 B.C. a
treaty was made
with the Taren-
times, by which
the Lacinian
Promontory was
made the boun-
dary beyond
which the Roman
war-ships were
not to pass. L.
Cornelius in 282
B.c. violated that
treaty, and was
defeated by the
Tarentines with
the loss of half
his fleet. The
Samnite wars
seem to have
diverted the attention of the Romans entirely
from maritime affairs, and at the beginning of
the Punic wars they were practically without
a fleet. They then first seem to have realised
the fact that in the conflict which was before
them, the mastery of the Mediterranean was
an absolute necessity, not only for the protec-
tion of their own coasts, which already had
suffered from the descents of the Carthaginian
fleets, but also as the first step towards em-
pire (Polyb. i. 20,
21). Hence in
the year 260 B.C.,
when a Cartha-
ginian quinque-
reme which had
been driven on
shore fell into
their hands, they
determined to
construct a fleet
of similar vessels,
No less than 100
were built in six
weeks, while their
future crews were
practised rowing
in frame-work set
up on land. Cn.
Cornelius with
seventeen of these
vessels sailed in
advance to attack
Roman coin, B.C. 320-270.
B.C. 91.
Roman coin.
the Carthaginians.
He was himself º
attacked and º
taken with all his º
vessels. Duilius, º/ A.
who then took the º
command of the
fleet, by the in-
vention of the
corrus (Polyb. i. 22, 23)—a swinging bridge
S. º.
Roman coin. B.C. 38.
with a heavy iron spike, which, when let fall
on the enemy's deck, not only grappled his









222 NAVIS
vessel, but gave the boarders access to it-
was enabled to neutralise the ramming tactics
of the Carthaginians and their superior naval
skill. The battles of Mylae and of Ecnomus, in
which the Carthaginians were defeated with great
loss, were the prelude of maritime dominion tº
Rome. The importance of the ram was thus much
º century
following we see the ram much less projecting
and apparently less strongly supported. On the
other hand, the 5expts, great beams and great
grappling hooks, iron hands, and falºes with
curved steel heads, such as those with which
the sailing vessels of the Veneti were crippled
by Caesar of the coast of Gaul (Caes B. G. iii.
14), came into use and favour. Great towers-
tuºres (“alta navium propugnacula”)—were
placed in the bows, whence our term “fore-
castle,”—from which missiles could be showered
on the enemy's deck. Vipsanius Agrippa is
|T-
*
-
º AEE -
sº
Bireme. (From Winckelmann, Mon. Ined. 207.)
credited by Servius with an invention by which
these could suddenly be raised when coming
into action, so as to take the enemy by surprise.
In all the naval battles in which the Roman
fleets engage, the main object of their tactics
seems to be to leave as little as possible to sea-
manship and skill, and to come to close quarters
and a hand-to-hand fight as soon as possible. In
a word, boarding-tactics superseded ramming
tactics.
(The student will find interesting accounts
of Roman naval actions in Polyb. i. 61;-Liv.
xxxvi. 44, 45; xxxvii. 24, 30.)
As early as 190 B.C. the use of fire (Liv.
xxxvii. 30) in a naval action is mentioned.
Later, Siphons, the precursors of artillery,
launched Greek fire rocket-fashion against the
enemy.
The Liburnian galleys were biremes (Lucan,
iii. 584: “ordine contentae gemino crevisse
Liburnae"). According to Suidas, Auguppukal
ºray of kara row
tpi mp a pººr by
(lege rpmpucºw)
égymnarious was
tºrov, &AA& An-
ºrrpur&repai Xax-
kéusoxof Te kal
laxupal kal kard-
ºpparrol kal ºrd-
xos airºv ºri-
grow. The name
seems to have
been taken from
the vessels of the
Liburnians, an Illyrian race, inhabiting the
islands of that coast and much given to piracy.
The name Liburnian, in the same way as the
Coin of Hadrian.
NAWIS
name trireme, came afterwards to be used for
any ship of war. (Appian, Mithr proºm.; Vege-
tius, iv. 57.)
In the time of Trajan, some attempt was
made to build larger rates than biremes, and
Valentinian had quinqueremes constructed. But
in the Byzantine period no vessels with more
banks than two appear; and the tendency is to
return to single banks, which, according to the
Emperor Leo (Tactica), are called yawaſa,
“galleys.”
Under the Emperors two great naval stations
were established for the fleets that were intended
to keep the peace of the Mediterranean: (1) at
Ravenna, for the east; and (2) at Misenum, on
the Campanian coast, for the west. There were
also guard-ships regularly stationed on the
coast of Gaul at Forum Julii (Fréjus) and
Portus Herculis Monoeci (Monaco). But after
Actium there is little to interest us in naval
affairs, with the exception perhaps of Germani-
cus's operations in the North Sea, and at a
later date the war with the Vandals, for which
Procopius is our authority, until the time of the
Byzantine Emperor Leo (800 A.D.). No student
of naval history should omit to read the chap-
ters of the Tactica which refer to the construc-
tion and equipment of a fleet. In the following
centuries came the invention of the “Apostis.”
(a projecting framework, upon the edge of
which were set the thowipins, thus enabling
oars of greater length to be used) and the birth
of the mediaeval galley, which, with its con-
struction “alla Scaloccio” and its long sweeps
worked by several men, was a vessel quite dis-
tinct from the ancient men-of-war.
One point remains yet for consideration, viz.
the manning of ancient navies. In the fleet of
Agamemnon, as we have seen, they were aire-
péra kal udzuol révres. The Athenian fleet
was manned in its best days by freemen.
Xenophon (de Republ. Athen) tells us that the
seafaring habits of the Athenians were such
that every one knew how to handle an oar, and
that the crew of a trireme could be got together
at once. At the time of the Peloponnesian War.
the pay of an ordinary oarsman was three obols
a day, increased towards the end of the war to
four obols. The pay of the thranites was higher,
their services being valued at a drachma. Raising
the pay of seamen during hostilities was a
favourite expedient with a view to induce the
enemy’s crews to desert. There were, however,
many causes that led to the employment of
forced labour, and with it to the deterioration
and unpopularity of sea-service. The absolute
discomfort in a cataphract ship must have been
extreme. In a hot climate, with little ventila-
tion, the participation with 200 or 300 human
beings, all stark naked, packed so closely that
there was not room for one man more (Cic.
Verr. v. 51, 133, “Ea est enim ratio instruc-
tarum ornatarumque navium ut non modo
pluressed me singuliquidem possint accedere"),
in a laborious mechanical toil, could only have
been voluntarily endured under the pressure of
some great necessity or sense of duty. The
heat, the smells, the drudgery, must have been
terrible; and we can understand the desire of
the Ionians at Lade to be free from the severe
discipline of Dionysius. Besides the discomfort,
the actual danger was very great. The crews




NAWIS
*
NAWIS 223
*)
might at any time be drowned or burnt, or as at
Sybota (Thuc. i. 50) butchered perhaps in cold
blood. We have only to think of the moment of
conflict, the crash of the beak through the
timbers, and the mangled mass of humanity
hurled into the bilge, while the water swiftly
followed the blow, the thranites perhaps
escaping, but the lower ranks almost certainly
drowned—and it is easy to understand how the
service was avoided by the free and left to the
slave.
The Romans manned their fleet by levies from
the lowest orders and forced service of the
allies. The greater proportion of the crews
were slaves contributed as substitutes, and it is
this fact perhaps which explains the equanimity
with which such wholesale loss of life at sea as
is recorded by Polybius (bk. i.) was endured.
Among the Romans themselves, service on board
ship was most unpopular ; and it is not sur-
prising to find discontented classiarii wishing to
be transferred to the legions, “in spem honora-
tioris militiae' (Tacitus),
[Citizens: “In classem scripti,” Liv. xxii. 55;
Polyb. vi. 17. Allies: Liv. xxxii. 8; xxxvi. 4.
Libertini, Liv. xl. 16; xlii. 27. Servi: Liv.
xxiv. 11; xxvi. 35. Criminals: Wal. Max. ix.
ult. ; Appian, blº. v.]
Smaller vessels. –’Akatos, &köttov, cutter,
(?) yacht : Schol. Ar. Lys. 64, eió0s TAotov
&\levrtkoo; Thuc. iv. 67 ; Etym. Magn. s. v. ;
Pind. Nem. v. 5. Sometimes carried on board
ship : Agathias, iii. 21, 97, viies poptióes ué yd-
Aal wered povs eixov Tas ākārovs; Plin. H. N.
ix. $94, “acatii modo carinatam, inflexa puppe,
prora, rostrata ; ” Strabo, Aertà, a rev& kal
koúqa. Šalov &v0p6trovs Trévre ical effcoat Öexóweva,
orträvlov 8& Tpudkovta Tows travtas 6éčao'0at
8vváueva.
Képkovpos, cercurus, cutter : Plin. vii. § 56,
invented by Cyprians. Not small : Diod. l. 61 ;
with a long stern, Schol. Ar. Paic, 142; smaller
than penteconter, Herod. vii. 97.
KapáBua, kāpaflou, shallop; the name origin of
mediaeval caravel, and our carvel-built (Hesych.;
Altyn. Mag. s. v.).
Aéugos, lemhus : Liv. xxxiii. 33. Next in
size to cercurus, used as scouts: Polyb. i. 53, 9;
Thuc. ii. 83, Schol. Swift, with fine bows and
light draught: Ar. de animi incess. 10; Polyb.
XX. 85 ; Liv. xxxiv. 25. Sixteen oars, generally
more. [LEMI,US.]
KéAmtes, celoces, avisos: Xen. Hell. i. 6, 26;
Thuc. iv. 9. Pirate craft: Thuc. iv. 9; Polyb.
v. 62, 6íkpot a kai kéAmtes, “narrow and
swift.”
'EtraktpokéAmtes, a modification of the former :
Etymn. Mag., átrakt pokéAms ovveré0m ék Te kexm-
Tos, kal étraktpí60s. IIAota Śē Anotpukö. Bpaxéa #
puév étaktply €k too katayeuv rá orvXópeva, 6 6&
kéAms eis to 61%ketv kai pet yetv kov páratos.
Mvoirápaves, myoparones, small pinnaces
chiefly used by pirates: Cic. in Verr. passim.
Sails and oars, generally more than six.
Actuariae.—All the above-mentioned vessels
belong to this class, povăpets uovákpotot. Hence
used as a general term opposed both to the
Toxvápets and to onerariae : Caes. B. G. v. 1.
Number of oars varied : Liv. xxxviii. 38, “naves
actuarias, nulla quarum plus quam triginta remis
agatur, habeto; ” Cic. Ep. ad Att. xvi. 3,
“tribus actuariolis decem Scalmis.”
Phasc/us = bark; name used also poetically
(Catuli. 4, &c.); might be large or small (Sall.
Jug. 3, “ cohors una grandi phaselo vecta ");
not a ship of war.
TaüAoi, oncretzºtte : Ar. A c. 592. Phoenician
originally : Callim. Fr. 217; Herod. iii. 136,
viii. 97.
"Huidºtal.
03. I’S.
TpumpmutoAta, with only half the thranitic
bank. Cp. Pol. xvi. 2, where a vessel of this
class is pierced under the 6pavitticos aſka Augs.
not decked throughout (Hesych.): so more
room obtained for the ikpta, by the reduction of
the upper bank, which rowed only amidships.
Furnished with 1; banks of
Glossary of certain Yaval Terms, not caplained
(thove.
*Aykotva, (tſuju'ruſ : Isid. xix. 47, “Anquina.
funis quo ad malum antenna constringitur ; ”
Attic. Tab. 3122, &ykolvaſvl Sitta?v.
'Akpoo TúAtov: used of ornament both at bow
and stern (cf. &Kpoköpugga); but more properly
of the bow ornament: āq Āaarov and kopówm of
the stern.
"Aakapua. Leather bags fitting over the oar
at the oar ports, to prevent the wash of the sea.
from entering. Zomar. s. v. ; Suidas; Schol.
Jean. 367 ; Achurn. 97.
Apüoxoi. Etſui. Jſuſ, gives the true inter-
pretation: 39Aa Öp60. śq’ &v iſ Tpátis épetóerat Tăs
Trºyvvuévris vetºs, #70 uv atmptypiata. Eustath.
p. 1878,63; p. 1879, 4, TâgoaXot éq’ &v orouxmööv
6tate0epuévalv ji Tpétrus iotarat Töv kalvoup'yovué-
way veðv 3rd igºt mta. Plat. Tim. p. 81 B,
atmptyuata Tis Tryvvuévns veðs. Hesych.,
8ptakes róv šūAav Tóv 8aataçávtav thu Tpótriv
Too TAotov. It is clear that they were the
pieces of timber which supported the keel of a
vessel while building. They had to be care-
fully adjusted in a line, and on a level or slight
incline. Hence the use of the term as regards
the setting of the axe-heads in the Odyssey
(xix. 574).
*Eögqos, floor, either actual of the vessei
(Dem. Zenoth. 883) or the lowest deck above
the bilge—our orlop deck.
’ETríoſelov, according to Cartault, the piece be-
tween the stern-post and the aphrasta, just as
the gºtáAos is between the stem-post and the
acrostolium. (Pollux, i. 90, MS. Örmpt muévow.)
'HAalcárm, the stem part of the mast, above
the kapyjor:ov. (Ap. Rhod. i. 565, Schol.)
KatóðAmpua. Probably an awning, possibly
of skin, to keep off missiles from deck. (Cf.
Athenian preparation against grappling irons at
Syracuse.)
Kpíkov. Rings set in eyelet-holes for ropes to
pass through, either on the borders or at the
corners of sails. Herod. ii. 36: táv ioTuðv rows
kpíkovs kal Tovs K&Aovs of uév &AAot #26ev
Tpooróéova'i, Aiyūrriot 68 ora,6ev.
Nowels. Graser, “waling-pieces; ” Cartault.
“couples.” Phot., áykotAta TAotov : Hesych.,
Śwaa repupepä" éºykołAta TAotov : Herod. i. 194
ii. 96. The passages seem to leave it douhº
as to whether “waling-pieces,” i.e. longi
pieces from stem to stern, or “ribs "f
to gunwale, are intended.
IIapağAñuata : Xen. Hell. i. 6,
IIapappiaata. Suid. Séppets,
Two kinds appear in the Attic T






224 NAVIS
NAUMACHIA
and Aevkg. The former probably were of
skin, the latter of felt (cilicium). The former
used probably along the Tápoãos, and the latter
along the Tpdq, mā or deck-rail, as a protection
against missiles. (Boeckh, Urkun. p. 159.)
[PLUTEI.]
Sparum, Supparum. Isid. Orig. xix. 32:
“Siparum genus veli unum pedem habens quo
mavigia juvari solent in navigatione quoties vis
venti languescit.” Sen. Ep. 77 : “Subito hodie
nobis Alexandrinae naves apparuerunt . . . on-
his in pilis Puteolorum turba consistit et ex
ipso velorum genere Alexandrinas intelligit
solis enin licet supparum intendere.” A trian-
gular topsail, which all merchant vessels except
the Alexandrian corn-ships were obliged to
strike on coming into harbour. (Cf. Senec.
Med. 327; Lucan, Phars. v. 429; Schol. “vela
minora in modum A litterae.”
Tappés, rappos évt.exhs. Of the whole equip-
ment of oars for a trireme, Attic Tables; pro-
perly of the blade of the oar, Ar. Nub. 226,
Schol. So Táppapua.
Tépôpioi. Kinds of kāAot used for brailing
the sails. Clue lines, or leech lines, or brunt
łines. Hesych. : oi eis to képas roo iotſov
£icatépa,0ev Šešeluévol év ois to &puevov čAkovoi.
Tépôpov. Galen. ii. p. 645 : kvpia's uév oita's
ôvoud ſet at Tö &kpov Tās Kepaías.
Tpdqºmč. Hesych. : Tö rās veðs xe?Aos. So
Etym. Mag. and Tzetzes, ad Lyc. 641. The
gunwale, in which in small vessels the thowls
were fixed. In larger vessels the balustrade or
lattice-work, through parts of which oars were
used sometimes. See figures of vessels on Col.
Traj.
Tporós, Tporathp. The thong which fastened
the oar to the thowl (Tporoúa'0at). (Hesych.
S. v.; Aesch. Pers. 376; Hom. Od. iv. 728; Thuc.
ii. 93.)
"Tirmpéotov. The oarsman's cushion. (Cf.
Ar. Eq. 785, Schol.)
‘Tiró8Amua. (?) A tarpaulin used to cover
the oar-ports when sailing. (Graser, R. N. 82.)
‘TTošćuata. Strong cables stretched length-
wise from stem to stern, which, shrinking when
wetted, helped to tighten the vessel, and relieve
the strain upon her from the motion of the
stroke when rowing. Frequently mentioned in
Attic Tables. Two apparently furnished to each
trireme. In Egyptian vessels, one apparently
from stem to stern over crutches to prevent
vessel hogging (see cut 2 on p. 208). Cf. Ap.
Rhod. i. 367. Plato (Rep. x. p. 616 C) compares
the Milky Way to the Úroſópata of a trireme.
List of articles of equipment for one trireme
from Attic Tables.—1, iorros uéyas, 1 igros
&káreios, 2 kepaſat ue^d\al, 2 kepaſai &kareiot,
1 to Tuov, tappos évtexís, 2 trnāāAta, 2 kAlpa-
«ióes, 3 Kovrot, 2 trapagºrdºtal, 2 öroğuara, 1
&ykowa, 2 indures, 2 tróðes, 2 örépal, 1 x axlvás,
2 Tapappūgara Tptxiva, 2 trapappūuata Aevká,
1 Kará8Amug, 1 Stró8Amua, 4 axoſvia &ykvpeta,
+ oxotvia èrtyva, 2 &ykvpal, unpäuara kaxe6tov,
30 kóral trepivey.
Literature.—Scheffer, de Militié Navali Vete-
Apsala, 1654; Boeckh, Urkunden über das
des Attischen Staates ; B. Graser, De
; Veterum, Berlin, 1864; Id. Die
Königlichen Museums zu Berlin,
is áltesten Schiffsdarstellungen auf
v2en, Berlin, 1870; Id. Das Modell
eines Alt-griechischen Kriegsschiffes, Berlin,
1873; Cartault, La Trière Athénienne, Paris,
1881; Breusing, Die Nautik der Alten, Bremen,
1866; Jules Wars, L’Art Ngutique dans l’An-
tiquité, Paris, 1887; Serre, Etudes sur l’Histoire
Militaire et Maritime, Paris, 1888; Duemichen,
Fleet of an Egyptian Queen ; Smith, Voyage and
Shipwreck of St. Paul. [E. W.]
NAUMACHIA was the name given to the
representation of a naval battle among the
Romans, and also to the places where such
exhibitions took place. These sham fights
were sometimes arranged in the Amphitheatre,
sufficient water being introduced to float the
ships [AMPHITHEATRUM, Vol. I. p. 113]; but
more frequently in places specially constructed
for the purpose, that is, vast basins faced with
stone and surrounded by stone seats, like an
amphitheatre.
The first representation of a sea-fight was
given B.C. 46 by Julius Caesar, who caused a
basin to be dug for the purpose in a district
called Codeta Minor (Suet. Jul. 39 ; Dio Cass.
xliii. 23), which, according to Friedländer and
Marquardt, was in the Campus Martius. Accord-
ing to Burn (Rome and Campagna, p. 268), the
Codeta Major was in the Campus, the Codeta
Minor in the Transtiberine region : both derived
their name from the abundance of marestail
(equisetum) which grew there. The second was
given by Augustus, B.C. 2, at the dedication of
the temple of Mars Ultor, and for this purpose
a basin was dug, 1800 feet by 1200, probably in
the gardens of Caesar in the Transtiberine
region. It is pretty clear from the wording of
the inscription of Ancyra, “ Navalis praeli
spectaculum dedi trans Tiberim in quo loco
nunc nemus est Caesarum, cavato solo,” &c.,
that the construction was in a new place, and
not, as Burn says, an enlargement of Julius
Caesar’s basin. Even about the site of this
naumachia there is some question, since Dio
Cass. lv. 10 places it in the Circus Flaminius,
and in Tacitus there are various readings, cis
and trans Tiberim. We may, however, best
conclude that (as stated in the Mon. Ancyr.
and in Suetonius) the naumachia of Augustus
was in the hort Caesaris, on the further side of
the river, and that its site is marked by remains
recently found. (See Middleton's Rome, p. 291 :
Burn’s Rome and Campagna, p. 268.) This
naumachia continued in use after others had
been made (the Notitia speaks of five), and was
subsequently called vetus mºtumachia (Suet. Tit.
7). Dio Cass. lxi. 9 speaks of it as the place
where Nero gave a public banquet. The most
remarkable naumachia was that given by
Claudius, A.D. 52, on Lake Fucinus, to celebrate
the draining of the lake (but before the com-
pletion of the work), where 19,000 men dressed
as Rhodians and Sicilians manoeuvred in the
fight with fifty ships on each side, the spec-
tators being grouped on the shore and the sur-
rounding hills, as on the tiers of seats in an amphi-
theatre: the signal for battle was given by a
trumpet, sounded by a silver image of a Triton.
(Suet. Claud. 21; Tac. Ann. xii. 56.) Nero's
naumachiae are mentioned by Dio Cass. lxi. 9,
lxii. 15; but they seem to have been sometimes
in the amphitheatre, sometimes in the statſ/na
Neronis, a great basin in Nero's Golden House,
on the site where the Flavian Amphitheatre or






NAUTA
NEBRIS 225
Colosseum was afterwards built (Mart. Spect. 2).
Titus used the vetus naumachia of Augustus, but
Domitian had a new and larger lake dug below
the Vatican (“in a new place,” Dio Cass. lxvii.
8). He afterwards pulled it to pieces and used
the stone to replace the wooden seats of the
Circus Maximus which had been burnt (Suet.
Dom. 4, 5). Naumachiae were not confined to
Rome: on the contrary we can have no doubt
that they took place in many provincial amphi-
theatres. In the amphitheatres at Capua and
Nîmes, for instance, the arrangements for
flooding the amphitheatre have been traced.
The combatants in these sea-fights, called
naumachiarii (Suet. Claud. 21), were captives
(Dio Cass. xlviii. 19), or criminals condemned to
death (Dio Cass. lx. 33), who fought as in
gladiatorial contests till one party was killed,
unless preserved by the clemency of the em-
peror (cf. Suet. Claud. 21). The ships were
divided into two parties (cf. the domestic imita-
tion mentioned in Hor. Ep. i. 18, 61), and the
crews were dressed to represent different maritime
nations, as Tyrians and Egyptians (Suet. Jul.
31), Rhodians and Sicilians (Suet. Claud. 21;
Dio Cass. lx. 33), Persians and Athenians (Dio
Cass. lxi. 9), Corcyraeans and Corinthians (Id.
lxvi. 25). These sea-fights were exhibited with
the same magnificence and the same lavish
expenditure of human life which characterised
the gladiatorial combats. In Nero's naumachia
there were sea-monsters swimming in the lake
(Suet. Ner. 12); the magnificence of the
naumachia given by Claudius is mentioned
above : in the games exhibited by Titus in the
vetus naumachia of Augustus, we find on the
first day the basin covered with planks sup-
ported on piles forming an arena for gladiators
and a venatio, on the second day a chariot-race,
on the third a naval combat of 3000 Athenians
and Syracusans, in the course of which the
Athenians landed on an island in the basin and
took a fort there. Martial, however (Spect. 24),
vaunts the naumachia of Domitian as superior
to all that went before. (See also Friedländer,
Sittengeschichte, ii. 367 ff.; Marquardt, Staats-
verwaltung, iii. 558 f.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
NAUTA. [NAVIs.
NAUTICON (vavrików). . [FENUs.]
NAUTO'DICAE (vavroötkal) were judicial
authorities in disputes between merchants
(êutropoi) who carried on traffic by sea, and in
suits against foreigners who usurped the rights
of citizenship ; in other words, in the 6tral
eutropikal and 6tral ševtas. The connexion of
the two classes of cases may be explained by the
fact that the trading metoecs were just the
most likely men to get themselves wrongly
enrolled as citizens (Schömann, Antiq. i. 474,
E. T.). The nautodicae were appointed every
year by lot in the month of Gamelion (Lys. Or.
17, repl Smuoo. &ötk., § 5), and probably attended
to the 6tral éutropical only during the winter,
when navigation ceased, whereas the 6tral
£evías might be brought before them all the
year round. There can be no doubt that they
dated from an early period of Athenian history,
when it was sufficient for a man to be a citizen
if only his father was a citizen, whatever his
mother might be; that is, previous to the time
of Pericles (Plut. Pericl, 37; compare CIVITAs,
p. 444 5).
WOL. II.
In what precise capacity they administered
these suits was formerly a matter of dispute,
some grammarians calling them öukaotal or
jurymen (Hesych. s. v.; Lew Seguer. p. 283, 3),
others àpxal or eioraya'yeſs, presiding magis-
trates (Poll. viii. 126; Harpocrat., Suid., Lez.
Rhet. s. v.). The weight of authority was in
favour of the latter view ; but a difficulty was
found in the fact that, in the time of Demo-
sthenes and the orators contemporary with
Philip of Macedon, the suits in question are
shown to have been tried before the Thesmo-
thetae. The only orator who mentions the
nautodicae belongs to an earlier period (Lys.
l. c. §§ 5, 8), and is clearly in favour of their
having been an āpxh. But in all the speeches
of Demosthenes no trace occurs of them, and in
that against Lacritus (p. 940, § 47 ff.), where
all the courts are mentioned before whom such
a case as that of Lacritus might be brought, the
orator could scarcely have failed to include the
nautodicae if they had still existed in his time.
Hence Boeckh (P. E. p. 49, and with slight
modification in his later view, Sthh.* i. 64)
thought that the thesmothetae had the jºyeuovía
Sukaotºmpſov, while the nautodicae sat as a jury
under them. The better attested opinion that
they were a magistracy is now shown to be
correct by an inscription (C. I. A. i. 29, oi
vavroö[{kat . . . Tjö Sukaothpiou trapexévrov, i.e.
shall be the eigayo)eſs of the case; Lips. Att.
Process, p. 96; Fränkel, n. 92 on Boeckh). The
difficulty vanishes if we suppose that the 6tral
éutropical in the middle of the 4th century,
when they became 6tral éppmwo [EMMENOI
DIKAI], were taken from the nautodicae and
transferred to the thesmothetae; and that as
the principal occupation of the former was gone,
the Stical £evías were likewise transferred to the
thesmothetae, and the office of the nautodicae
was abolished. If Lucian mentions them in a
dialogue supposed to have taken place after the
death of Alexander, this is not the only similar
anachronism in his writings (Lucian, Dial.
Meretr. 2, § 2 = p. 282 R.; Lipsius, Att. Proc.
p. 97 n.). The notion of Schömann (Antiq. l.c.)
that the nautodicae judged the éptropikal 6tral
themselves, while they prepared 8tral ševtas for
trial and brought them before the Heliastic
courts, is an unnecessary attempt to reconcile
the grammarians; for we find bikáçew and
Sukaoths occasionally used of magistrates in
their capacity of eigaya, yets (cf. Att. Process,
p. 43 Lips.). (Baumstark, de Curatoribus
Emporii et Nautodicis apud Athenienses, Freiburg
in Breisgau, 1828, pp. 65–78; Att. Process,
pp. 95–98 Lips. ; the old edition, pp. 83-86 is
much less satisfactory.) [L. S.] [W. W.]
NEBRIS, a fawn’s skin (from veðpós, a
fawn; see AEGIS), worn originally by hunters
and others as an appropriate part of their dress,
and afterwards attributed to Dionysus (Eurip.
Bacch. 111, 126, 176; Aristoph. Ranae, 1211,
&c.), and consequently assumed by his votaries
in the processions and ceremonies which they
observed in honour of him. [DIONYSIA.]. The
annexed woodcut, taken from Sir W. Hamilton's
Wases (i. 37), shows a priestess of Bacchus in
the attitude of offering a nebris to him or to
one of his ministers. The works of ancient art
often show it as worn not only by male and
female bacchanals, but also by Pans and Satyrs.
Q
226 NECRODEIPNON
NEGOTIORUM GESTORUM ACTIO
It was commonly put on in the same manner as
the aegis, or goat-skin, by tying the two fore-
º
fºr: º
º §
§ º
W. S IS
N \s *\
2\
| |
|
Nebris, fawn’s skin. (From Greek vase.)
legs over the right shoulder so as to allow the
body of the skin to cover the left side of the
wearer. (Ovid. Met. vi. 593.) [J. Y.]
NECRODEIPNON (velºpóSearvov). [Fu-
NUS.
NECY'SIA (veicāoria). [FUNUs.]
NEFASTIDIES. [DIES.]
NEGATI'WA, NEGATO'RIA ACTIO.
[CONFESSORIA ACTIO.]
NEGLIGENTIA. [CULPA.]
NEGOTIATO'RES (of Trpayuarevéuevo, or
épyaſópºevol, C. J. G. 2053) signified specially
during the later times of the Republic Roman
citizens settled in the provinces, who lent money
upon interest or bought up corn on speculation
(Caes. B. G. vii. 3), which they sent to Rome as
well as to other places. Their chief business,
however, was lending money upon interest as
usurers; and hence we find the words negotia,
negotiatio, and negotiari used in this sense. The
negotiatores are distinguished from the publicani
(Cic, ad Att. ii. 16, “malo negotiatoribus satis-
facere, quam publicanis :” comp. Cic. Verr. ii.
3, 7; pro Flacc. 16, 38; pro Leg. Manil. 7, 18),
and from the mercatores (Cic. pro Planc. 26,
64, “negotiatoribus comis, mercatoribus justus”).
That the word negotiatores was, during the later
times of the Republic, always used in the signi-
fication above given, is amply proved by Ernesti
in the treatise quoted below, and is also suffi-
ciently clear from the following passages:–Cic.
pro Flacc. 29, 71; 37, 92;-Verr. 60, 137; ad
Q. Fr. i. 1;-Hirt. B. Afr. 36. Hence the
negotiatores in the provinces corresponded to
the argentarii and feneratores at Rome; and
accordingly we find Cicero giving the name of
feneratores to certain persons at Rome, and
afterwards calling the very same persons nego-
tiatores when they are in the provinces (Cic. ad
Att. v. 21, vi. 1–3). The negotiatores, like the
publicani, belonged to the Equestrian order, but
men of senatorial rank, though forbidden so to
trade themselves, indirectly shared the gains, in
return for their countenance and support. Cato
the elder was a creditable exception to this, and
exerted himself to protect the provincials (Liv.
xxxii. 27; Plut. Cat. 6); but to show the
extent of the evil we need only cite the instance
of M. Junius Brutus, who (acting of course
through another, the negotiator Scaptius) lent
money to the state of Salamis in Cyprus at 48
per cent. : Scaptius demanded 200 talents for
106 received, and, having obtained troops from
Appius Claudius, proconsul of Cilicia, so mal-
treated the senate of Salamis that five senators
died. Cicero, the next proconsul, had honesty
enough to desire a moderate and just settlement
of the debt, but lacked the resolution to enforce
it. (Compare Ernesti, De Negotiatoribus, in his
Opuscula Philologica; Marquardt, Staatsver-
waltung, i.” 542.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
NEGOTIORUM GESTORUM ACTIO.
Negotiorum gestio is the intentional management
of another person's affairs or business without
instructions (mandatum) or any official obliga-
tion to do so, and was first recognised as ground
for an action (quasi ea contractu, Inst. iii. 27, 1,
and, in character, bonae fidei) between the princi-
pal and the would-be agent by the praetorian
edict utilitatis causa (Dig. 3, 5, 1, 3).
The intention of the negotiorum gestor must be
to act on behalf of another person, even though
his motive may also be self-seeking (Dig. 3, 5,
20): his duties practically coincide with those
of a duly commissioned agent [MANDATUM);
the chief of them being to bestow the care and
attention of a “bonus paterfamilias” [CULPA] on
the business he has taken in hand, so that he
was responsible for exacta diligentia, and in
some cases he was liable even for casus or acci-
dent (Dig. 3, 5, 3, 9; ib. 10). Naturally, too,
he was bound to deliver up to his principal all
property or profit which came to him from the
transactions he undertook (Dig. ib. 2). These
duties were enforced by actio negotiorum gesto-
num directa.
The gestor may have a converse remedy (actio
negotiorum gestorum contraria) against his
principal for all reasonable costs and expenses.
incurred on the latter's behalf, with interest,
and for indemnity against all liabilities under-
taken in his interest (Dig. ib. 10), provided
(1) the principal had not prohibited his inter-
ference (Cod. 2, 19, 24); (2) his intention was
to lay the principal under a legal obligation
(Dig. 10, 3, 14, 1), and not one of Liberalitas or
Pietas: if his object was his own sole advantage,
he could sue the principal only so far as the
latter had derived material benefit from his
action (Dig. 3, 5, 6, 3); (3) the state of the
principal's affairs was such that, except for the
gestor's intervention, he would be seriously
prejudiced (Dig. 44, 7, 5, pr.). If this was the
case, the gestor could recover, even though the
anticipated benefit was as a fact not realised ;
or, as it is sometimes put, the negotia need not
have been “utiliter gesta,” it is enough if they
were “utiliter coepta” (Dig. 15, 3, 10, 1 ; ib. 12,
2); e.g. if he paid for medical attendance on a
sick slave, who died notwithstanding all his care.
Where the interference was not warranted
by genuine necessity, but the gestor's object






NEMEA
NEMEA 227
was merely to secure a great advantage for the
principal, he could recover only so far as the
advantage actually went (Dig. 15, 3, 11 ; ib.
43). To the rule as to prohibition by the
principal there was an exception in the case of
burying a dead body, if the gestor had good
reasons for disregarding the injunction (Dig. 11,
7, 14, 3).
It seems to have been a question among the
classical jurists whether ratification of the
gestor's proceedings by the principal converted
the relation from negotiorum gestio into man-
datum or not : Ulpian (Dig. 42, 1,60) decides it
in the affirmative, while Scaevola (Dig. 3, 5, 9)
maintains the opposite. Perhaps the solution
of this conflict in the authorities is that after
ratification the gestor could treat his principal
as mandator, though the latter, ratification
being merely a unilateral act, was not entitled
to treat the former as mandatarius: though it is
maintained by some writers, on the authority of
Cod. 5, 16, 25 ; 4, 28, 7, pr., that Justinian
confirmed the view of Ulpian.
See the article on Negotiorum Gestio in
Holtzendorff's Rechtslearicon, where monographs
on this topic by Chambon, Dankwart, Köllner,
and others are referred to. [J. B. M.]
NE’MEA (Neptéa) was a valley in Argolis,
between Kleonae and Phlius. It was the re-
puted scene of many famous mythical events.
Here (it was said) Argos had watched Io : and
here Heraklés slew the lion. Pausanias (ii. 15,
2) relates that in his time the den of the Nemean
lion was pointed out in a mountain range, a
little less than two miles from Nemea. And
here too, in historic times, stood a splendid
temple of Nemean Zeus, with a sacred enclosure
(&Aaos, not to be rendered “grove’), in which
the Nemean games (Nénea or Népleua) were
held (Strab. viii. p. 377). Pindar describes the
locality of these games by a variety of imagi-
native expressions: e.g. Nepeaſov čv troAvvuvârg
Aubs &Aorel (Nem. ii. 4, 5); &orictois paloovros ūr’
dºyvytois àpeoiv (Nem. vi. 45, 46); xóptos év
Aéovros (Olymp. xiii. 44). The valley of Nemea
from its situation belonged naturally to the
people of Kleonae, who for a long time were
presidents of the games (&yovo0éral). But,
before Olymp. 53, 1, the Argives obtained
possession of the temple and the presidency at
the games. At a later time the Kleonaeans
recovered the right of presiding, but did not
retain it (Pind. Nem. x. ; Pausan. ii. 15, 3).
In prehistoric times we find the institution of
the Nemean festival connected with the expe-
dition of the Seven against Thebes (Apollodor.
iii. 6, 4), or with the slaying of the Nemean
lion by Heraklēs (Schol. Pind. Nem.). Writers
who held the former opinion uniformly describe
the festival as an āyöv émird ptos, established to
commemorate the youth Archemoros, who was
killed by a serpent (Apollodor. l. c.), but differ
as to the particular Archemoros whose death
was thus honoured. Some represented him to
have been the son of Lycurgus, king of Nemea,
while others (among whom was Aeschylus)
related that he was the son of Nemea, daughter
of Asopus (Schol. Pind. Nem.). Apollodorus in
the passage referred to gives the names of the
victors, together with the contests in which
they were victorious at the first Nemean games.
The second celebration of these games, is attri-
buted by Pausanias (x. 25, 2, 3) to the Epi-
gonl. -
As regards the first historic occurrence of the
festival, we have but scanty evidence. In its
local character it had no doubt been in existence
from immemorial antiquity; but not until long
after the Olympic games had become famous did
those of Nemea rise to the rank of a Pan-
Hellenic festival. Eusebius dates the first
Nemead from Olymp. 53, 2: but it is probable
from the dissertation of G. Hermann, whose con-
clusions are supported by Boeckh, that the series
of historical Nemeads began in the winter of
Olymp. 51 (Boeckh, C. I. i. n. 34, p. 53). The
Nemean games, like the Isthmian, in this respect
were biennial (&yöv Tptermpurcós), i.e. two com-
plete years elapsed between each festival.
Accordingly they fell twice within the Olym-
pic period, occurring alternately in winter and
summer in the second and fourth years re-
spectively of each Olympic revre'rmpts. We
read in the Schol. to Pindar’s Nemean odes that
they took place on the 12th of the month
Panémos (amvi travéuq, 6a,6ekdrp), but such
authority helps us but little in settling the
matter.
The games comprised musical, gymnic, and
equestrian contests (&yöv Auovo.ukós, "yuuvikás,
itririkós). (Plut. Philop. 11; Pausan. viii. 50,
3; Schol. Pind. Nem.) The gymnic contests at
Nemea, as regards the subjects of competition,
corresponded closely with those at Olympia.
The following are expressly mentioned:—The
simple foot-race (yuuvöv otáðuov) for men and
boys; the wrestling bout (tra Am) for men and
boys; the trévraðAov for men and boys; the
Traykpártov for men and boys (Pind. Nem.
passim ; Herod. vi. 92, ix. 75). That boxing
(trwygaxto) was a subject of competition may be
inferred from Pausan. viii. 40, 3. We learn
further from Pausanias (ii. 15, 2) and Pindar
that, besides the simple foot-race, the Nemean
games included the armour-race (öttàfºrms
âpéaos) and the long race (§ 66Atxos—notice
accent). In the equestrian contests we know
that Alcibiades, Chromios of Aetna, and Polyklés
of Sparta (Pausan. i. 22, 6) were victorious.
That the games occupied more than one day
may be inferred from Liv. xxvii. 31, where he
uses the words per dies festos in reference to
them.
The Argives, as has been said above, ulti-
mately supplanted the Kleonaeans as presidents
of the Nemean festival, but they occasionally
delegated this function to military chieftains,
like Philip of Macedon or Titus Quintius
Flamininus (Liv. xxvii. 30, xxxiv. 41). In a late
inscription the officers who actually presided
are referred to as Hellanodikae (‘EXAavoötkal).
Boeckh conjectured that these were twelve in
number, while those who discharged the like
duty at Olympia, and bore the same title,
numbered only ten (Boeckh, C. I. 1126, p. 581).
Like the other great Pan-Hellenic festivals,
the Nemean was an āyāv ore pavítms, i.e. one in
which the victor obtained a wreath in token of
his victory. The Nemean wreath was, according
to some accounts, at first woven of olive-sprays
(éAata), the garland of green parsley (x^wpå
oréauva) having replaced it afterwards; according
to others, the parsley wreath was the original
prize (as it continued to be throughºut his-
Q &
228 NEMESEIA
NERWUS
torical times) on account of its special fitness, as
an emblem of mourning, to be associated with
the memory of Archemoros. But a different
myth, already alluded to, represents Heraklés,
when he instituted the games after overcoming
the lion, as having also appointed the parsley-
wreath to be the victor's reward. And this
latter account seems to have been present to the
mind of Pindar, for he speaks of the wreath as
Bordva Aéovros (Nem. vi. 71, 72).
During the celebration of each Nemean
festival a cessation of hostilities (ékexeipta,
ortrovoai) between belligerents was an imperative
duty (cf. viepopumvig Neped.6t, Pind. Nem. iii. 2,
with Schol.). A sacred embassy, too, was on
these occasions sent by each of the several
Hellenic states to Nemea, with offerings, to
Nemean Zeus (Demosth. Meid. p. 552, § 115).
Historians, as well as late coins and inscrip-
tions, testify that the (still so called) Nemean
games came to be regularly held in Argos
(Polyb. v. 101, 5; Diod. xix. 64; Liv. xxx. 1 ;
Boeckh, C. I. 234, p. 356). On a comparatively
early occasion, indeed, Argos had been the scene of
the festival. For the circumstances, vid. Plut.
Arat. 28. Local festivals, named after the great
Nemean, were established in many places, e.g. at
Aetna in Sicily (Schol. Pind. Olymp. xiii. 158)
and at Megara (Schol. Pind. Olymp. vii. 157).
That Nemea were also instituted at Anchialos in
Thrace may be inferred from a medal stamped
under Caracalla, bearing the name NEMAIA
(instead of the usual NEMEIA); and, from the
fact of its bearing also the word CEOYHPIA,
the further inference has been drawn that the
Thracian Nemea were founded in honour of
Sept. Severus. (For more detailed information
respecting Nemea, see Krause, Pythien, Nemeen,
u. Isthmien, whose guidance has been mainly
followed in the present article.) [J. I. B.]
NEMESEIA (vegéoreia), undoubtedly the
same as the Genesia (yevéoria), was a public
festival celebrated at Athens on the 5th of the
month of Boedromion (Bekker, Anecd. pp. 86,
231, and 282). As to the rites and ceremonies
observed on the occasion, nothing is known.
The name Nemeseia or Nemesia was given to
the solemnity, because i Népueo is étrº Töv &to-
6avóvrov rétaktau. It would seem that the
name was sometimes applied to certain funeral
rites performed by private persons in honour of
a deceased member of a family. (Demosth. Trpos
Xtrovë. p. 1031; comp. Harpocrat. p. 206, and
A. Mommsen, Heortol. p. 209.) [L. S.]
NENIA. . [FUNUs.]
NEO'CORI (veakópol) signified originally a
temple-attendant ; perhaps a temple - sweeper
(Hesych. S. v.), which may well be illustrated by
Ion's description of his office (Eur, Ion, 121):
others, however, prefer to connect the termina-
tion with the root of Boćkoxos, aiyukopets, colo
in the sense of tending (cf. Suid. s. v.; Curtius,
Gr. Etym. 463). However that may be, the
word was applied, even in early times, to
priestly officers of high rank, who had the
superintendence of temples and their treasures
(Plat. Legg. vi. p. 759 A; Xen. Anab. v. 3, § 6).
Under the Empire the word was especially
applied to those cities in Asia which erected
temples to the Roman emperors, since the whole
city in such a case was regarded as the guardian
of the worship. These sanctuaries for the cult
* ,-
of the emperor began in the lifetime of Augustus,
at Cyzicus (Tac. Ann. iv. 36) and elsewhere.
Not only the cities which possessed a temple of
this kind (distinct from the worship of Rome
and Augustus by the entire province), but
also those which contributed (Dio Chrysost. ii.
p. 70) to its support, were called , veakópou
of the emperor: the name belonged to the
city, not to any religious official. Accordingly
we frequently find on the coins of Ephesus,
Smyrna, and other cities the epithet NEQ-
KOPOX, which also occurs in the inscriptions
of those cities (see Conybeare and. Howson, St.
Paul, ch. xvi. fin.). No city was allowed to
assume this office without the permission of the
Roman senate, as is clear both from inscriptions
and from Tac. Ann. iv. 55, 56, from whom we
learn also that Cyzicus was punished for neg-
lecting the duties. The name belonged to the
city, not to any religious official. These local
cults were directed by a sacerdos or àpxtepets,
who must be distinguished from the épxtepets
'Agias (=’Aoudpxms), or priest of the Koinon,
i.e. the union of the whole province of Asia
for the worship of Rome and Augustus
[ASIARCHAE]. The neocorate (as was said
above) was distinct from this, and belonged to
separate cities, a single neocorate implying a
single temple maintained to an emperor or
imperial family: a city might be äls or Tpis
weakópos, if it had two or three temples to
two or three different emperors or imperial
families. (See Ramsay in Class. Review, iii. 175
[1889]; Marquardt, Staatsv. i. 504, iii. 464)
[AEDITUI.] [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
NEODAMO'DEIS (veoãauðeis). [HE-
LOTES.]
NEPTUNA'LIA, a festival of Neptune,
celebrated at Rome (Warr. L. L. vi. 19). The
day on which it was held was the 23rd of July.
In the ancient calendaria this day is marked as
Nept. ludi et feriae, or Nept. ludi, from which
we see that the festival was celebrated with
games. Respecting the ceremonies of this fes-
tival, nothing is known, except that the people
used to build huts of branches and foliage
(umbrae, Fest. s. v. Umbrae), in which they pro-
bably feasted, drank, and amused themselves.
(Hor. Carm. iii. 28, 1, &c.; Tertull. de Spect.
6.) The lines of Ausonius (Ecl. de Feriis, 19 ft.)
may perhaps imply that navigia took part in
the festival of Neptune, while quadrigae belonged
to the Consualia. [L. S.]
NERO'NIA. [QUINQUENNALIA.]
NERVUS, a sort of stocks (£5Aov, also robo-
käkkm, xolvić), in which criminals were confined,
used frequently as a punishment for slaves. The
original meaning was probably a thong or a
strap (corresponding to the other uses of the
word), and with this strap the feet were tied to
a post: so Festus defines it as “ferreum vin-
culum quo pedes impediuntur,” but adds that
it also confined the neck sometimes; hence it
may be said to have combined the pillory and
the stocks. This will explain the expression
nervum brachialem (Plaut. Poen. v. 4, 99),
which means embracing by throwing the arms
about the neck. The words numella and boiae
had the same sense, and both of these (though
not nervus) were used to express the ordinary
method, still in use, of fastening up cattle by
the neck (Colum. R. R. vi. 19). It is clear that
NEUROSPASTA
NEXUM 229
the nervus was not merely bonds, like compedes,
but, more like modern stocks and pillory, had a
wooden framework with holes for hands, feet,
and neck, which were kept in their places by
iron bands and collars: hence Aristophanes,
Equit. 1049, calls the £6Aov revrea &pi;))09, i.e.
having five holes, for feet, hands, and neck. (The
KAotos seems to have confined the neck and
hands only: Lucian. Towarch. 29; the kūpov
held the neck.) This “support" of the neck is
probably indicated by Plautus in the expression
os columnatum, when he speaks of the punish-
ment of Naevius for libel: probably also by the
porrectum jugulum of the captivus (Hor. Sat. i.
3, 88). The stocks were used for the imprison-
ment of freeborn malefactors as well as for
slaves, both among Greeks and Romans. The
kiſpov is used for state-prisoners at Thebes
(Arist. Pol. viii. 6, 15 = p. 1306): we find the
nervus for thieves (Plaut. Aul. iv. 10, 13); for
debtors, by Law of Twelve Tables (ap. Gell.
xx. 1), “vincito aut nervo aut compedibus ”
[NEXUM]: compare Liv. vi. 15. So as a common
part of imprisonment (cf. Act. Apost. xvi. 24) it
is often used as equivalent to carcer (Ter. Phorm.
iv. 4, 15, &c.). [G. E. M.]
NEUROSPASTA. [PUPA.]
NEXUM. The most general meaning of
this obscure and much-debated term seems to be
any legal transaction entered into with the well-
known form of the Balance and Bronze. Festus
says, “Nexum est, ut ait Gallus Aelius, quod-
cunque per aes et libram geritur, idque mecti
dicitur: quo in genere sunt haec: testamenti-
factio, nexi datio, nexi liberatio: ” similarly
Varro (L. L. vii. 105), “Nexum Manilius scribit
omne quod per aes et libram geritur, in quo
sunt mancipia:” the similarity of the expres-
sion suggesting strongly that both writers were
transcribing somewhat unintelligently from an
older author. But some writers (among whom
Varro méntions Mucius Scaevola) seem to have
restricted the signification of nexum to trans-
actions effected per aes et libram with the object
of creating an obligation—in other words, to
contract as opposed to mere conveyance: and
there is a large consensus, if not complete
unanimity, among those learned in the antiqui-
ties of Roman law, in favour of the view that
there was a very old contract-form among the
Romans called neaum, in which the obligation
or juris vinculum was established by the use of
the aes et libra, and which, so long as it sub-
sisted, possessed at least one very peculiar
characteristic, which made it extremely popular
among the wealthy patrician lending class at
Rome. -
It is supposed that the form was originally
employed for creating money loans. The cere-
monial was the same in substance as that in
every mancipation, and included the presence,
besides the parties themselves, of the five wit-
nesses and a libripens. But to the conveyance
of the money, which alone an ordinary mancipa-
tion would have contained, there seems to have
been superadded a damnatio by the lender,
analogous to that in one of the four old forms
of bequest [LEGATUM), which Huschke conjec-
tures to have run somewhat as follows: “Quod
ego tibi mille asses hoc aere aeneaque libra hexos
dedi, eos tu mihi post annum cum fenore
unciario dare damnas esto.” According to this
view, the obligation arose, as it were, from an
act of legislation, the five witnesses representing
the whole populus, as in other transactions in
which the same form was observed. By others
(especially Niebuhr, following Salmasius) the
obligation is held to originate in a second manci-
pation: the lender conveyed the money to the
borrower, and then the latter sold or pledged
himself to the former as a security for repay-
ment, it being provided that no action was to be
taken on this sale or mortgage of the person
until default had been made in performance of
the obligation: but since Savigny’s essay referred
to at the conclusion of this article, the hypothesis
of a sale or pledge of himself by the borrower
seems to find few supporters. So much as to
the divergent views as to the precise mode in
which the obligation to repay the money loan
originated. Subsequently it is believed that by
the fiction of a money loan other contracts (e.g.
sales) came to be represented as made by nexum,
which thus became an abstract form in which
any transaction which left an outstanding money
debt could be expressed (Liv. viii. 28). The
debt was termed nevum aes (“nexum aes apud
antiquos dicebatur pecunia, quae per nexum,
obligatur,” Festus: so, too, Varro observes,
“Quod obligatur per libram, nec suum sit, inde
Nexum dictum ”), and sometimes, too, perhaps
nuncupata pecunit ; for, according to Festus,
“nuncupata pecunia est, ut ait Cincius in lib. ii.
de officio jurisconsulti, nomina certa nominibus
certis pronuntiata: CUM NEXUM FACIET MAN-
CIPIUMQUE, UTI LINGUA NUNCUPASSIT, ita ut
nominavit locutusve erit, ITA IUS ESTO.” The
making of a contract in this form was known as
neari datio, and the debtor was said nearum inire”
(Liv. vii. 19).
The peculiarity of this form of incurring
obligation, to which it owed its popularity
among the lending class, was that, if the day
fixed for payment passed without such payment
being made, the creditor was under no necessity of
bringing an action at law to prove the existence
of the debt: the debtor stood on the same foot-
ing with a defendant against whom a judgment
had been given (judicatus), or who had admitted
his liability in court (in jure confessus): he
became nexus himself, and liable forthwith to
the severe execution procedure by manus injectio,
or, as Hölder expresses it, “Nexum ist die
Begründung einer Executionsreifen Geldschuld
per aes et libram.” “Liber’” (says Varro)
“qui suas operas in servitutem pro pecunia
quadam debebat, dum solveret, nexus vocatur,
ut ab aere obaeratus; ” a definition clearly
referring to the nexus' liability to be sold into
foreign slavery at one time, and later to work
out his debt as quasi-slave of his creditor. As
soon as the day fixed for repayment had passed,
the latter could arrest him at once, take him
before the praetor, and after statement of the
contract (supported, it may be presumed, by the
evidence of the five witnesses) have him, along
with the children in his power (Liv. ii. 24;
Dionys. vi. 29, 37), addictus in the usual way
to himself by the magistrate. After such
addictio, the debtor was in the unenviable posi-
tion described under MANUS INJECTIO, of which
a full account is given by Gellius (xx. 1).
Unless he paid the debt, or got a vindex to
undertake his defence at the risk of being con-
230 NEXUM
NEXUM
demned in double damages, the creditor led him
away and kept him chained and fettered in one
of the private prisons so familiar to readers of
early Roman history, in which he had the privi-
lege of being supported on his own means, in
default of which the creditor was bound to
provide him daily with at least a pound of meal.
His detention here lasted for sixty days, during
the first half of which he could still procure his
release by payment or compromise: during the
second half the creditor had to take him before
the praetor on three successive market-days,
and publicly proclaim the amount of the debt,
to give anyone else an opportunity of saving
him from the final severities prescribed by the
Twelve Tables. At the conclusion of the sixty
days, if the money were still unpaid, the creditor
had the choice of two alternatives: either to
set him free, or to remove him from the list of
Roman citizens by selling him into foreign
slavery or killing him. If there were more
than one creditor, the statute permitted them
to cut each from his body a portion proportionate
to their claims : “tertiis nundinis partes
secanto: si plus minusve secuerunt, se fraude
esto.” The advantages of nexum, as a form of
contract, thus consisted in the creditor's being
dispensed from the necessity of proving his debt
by the ordinary legal process; over the ordinary
creditor he had a superiority analogous to that
of the landlord who can distrain for rent. But
this was seriously curtailed by a Lex Wallia
(Gaius, iv. 25, Studenund), which limited the
operation of manus injectio in its original form
to the cases of judgment debtors and defendants
condemned in an actio depensi [INTERCESSIO):
the nexum-debtor, on being arrested for non-
payment, was allowed “sibi manum depellere et
pro se agere; ” he was no longer obliged to
submit to imprisonment until the debt was
proved against him by ordinary legal process,
and against this he could defend himself in
person, instead of through a vindex, though
still he would have to pay double damages if
cast in the suit. Subsequently a statute usually
called Poetelia or Poetelia Papiria, the relation
of which to the Lex Wallia is very obscure, is
believed to have practically put an end to
nexum as a form of contract altogether. The
passages on which this inference is based are
the following:—Liv. viii. 28, “Eo anno plebei
Romanae velut aliud initium libertatis factum
est, quod necti desierunt: mutatum autem jus
ob unius feneratoris simul libidinem simul cru-
delitatem insignem. L. Papirius is fuit, cui
cum se T. Publilius ob aes alienum paternum
nexum dedisset, quae aetas formaque miseri-
cordiam elicere poterat, ad libidinem et con-
tumeliam animum accenderunt. Victum eo
die ob impotentem injuriam unius ingens win-
culum fidei: jussique consules ferre ad populum,
me quis, nisi quinoxam meruisset, donec poenam
lueret, in compedibus aut in nervo teneretur,
pecuniae creditae bona debitoris non corpus
obnoxium esset. Ita nexi soluti cautumque
in posterum ne necterentur;”—Cic. de Republ.
ii. 34, 59, “Cum sunt propter unius libidinem
omnia nexa civium liberata, nectierque postea
desitum ; ”— Warr. L. L. vii. 105, “ut omnes,
qui bonam copiam jurarunt, ne essent nexi sed
soluti” (cf. Dionys. xvi. 5). The general
result of the statute seems to have been to
release all those who at the time of its enact-
ment were in private imprisonment under a
nexum, because they had not chosen to dispute
their liability, and to prohibit for the future the
employment of manus injectio in any form
against debtors who had incurred an obligation
in this manner; nexum lost the last of its old
advantages for the creditor which the Lex
Wallia had left it, and so went out of use:
“Nectier postea desitum.” It is not improba-
ble that the Lex Silia, which introduced a new
legis actio for the recovery of money debts, was
occasioned by this legislation.
It would seem that even before the Lex Poe-
tilia the rule of the Twelve Tables, which
compelled the creditor, after the lapse of sixty
days, to either release, kill, or sell the debitor
addictus into foreign slavery, had been repealed
or gone into desuetude. The Lex Poetilia sanc-
tioned the retention of the debtor as a quasi-
slave of the creditor, but prohibited the use of
bonds or fetters unless the action in which he
had been condemned was ea delicto: he could
be kept at work by the creditor, the value of
his labour being deducted from the sum of his
debt, and returned to his former status as soon
as it had been discharged in full.
Corresponding to the creation of an obligation
by nexum was a similar method of discharge,
called neari liberatio. The form of this, though no
longer used for this particular purpose after
nexum had ceased to exist, survived for the
discharge of other obligations held to be in-
curred per aes et libram or in a similar manner:
its application in the payment of judgment
debts and of legacies given per damnationem is
described by Gaius (iii. 173–175).
Though this general theory of nexum as a
contract-form is accepted (with more or less of
divergence and modification) by most writers on
Roman law, it should be remarked that the
passages in the Latin authors in which the
words nectere, nearum, nearus occur, contain in
themselves very little to support it. The writer
of this article has been favoured by Professor
Nettleship of Oxford with an exhaustive exami-
nation of these passages, the general conclusion
to which he was led being that the terms
express only obligation in general, especially
obligation in the way of pledging, and that the
hypothesis of a special contract called newum,
coordinate with stipulatio and expensilatio, is
really untenable. If the writer understands
him correctly, he takes the passages dealing
with the so-called Lex Poetelia to chronicle only
the abolition of the private prisons of the
Roman usurers, or at any rate the prohibition of
the older severities on the part of the gaoler,
whatever the nature of the action in which the
defendant had been condemned.
Among earlier writers there appears to have
been considerable confusion between newum and
addictio. “Addicere” apparently expresses the
magisterial award of one person to another—
under the older and more severe procedure, for
private execution or sale into foreign slavery:
under the later system, to work out by his
labour the sum due to his unsatisfied creditor.
A man might be addictus either because he was
judicatus or confessus, because he had failed to
perform a contract into which he had entered by
nexum, or under the Twelve Tables because he
NOBILES, NOBILITAS
had been convicted of furtum manifestum
(Gaius, iii. 189); but the relation between the
two terms seems sufficiently clear, though
Niebuhr was the first writer who placed it in
clear light. He himself found the leading
characteristic of newum in the sale or pledging
of his own person by the debtor; but this idea,
as has been observed above, was strongly com-
bated by Savigny, who propounded the theory
that the personal execution known as manus
injectio was allowed only on money loans and
other debts fictitiously represented as money
loans by means of nexum ; the execution upon
all other judgments was against the property,
not against the person, of the debtor. This,
however, has found little favour with Savigny’s
successors, and seems to be sufficiently disproved
by Gaius (iv. 21), who says that manus injectio
was prescribed as the proper procedure on all
judgment debts whatsoever by the Twelve
Tables. A divergent view expounded with great
fulness by Huschke, and adopted by Mr. Long
in the earlier editions of this work, is that
nexum entitled the creditor to seize the debtor,
and to treat him in the manner described by
Gellius, without resorting to the magistrate for
formal addictio at all. Van Heusde represents
nexum as the condition from which addictio
proceeded, and thinks that the Lex Poetelia
abolished both by permitting in the future only
execution against the property; but the sur-
vival of addictio in consequence of manus injectio
resorted to upon a judgment to far later times
is proved clearly by Liv. xxxiii. 14 ; Sallust.
Cat. 33; Cic. pro Flacco, 20–22, 48–53.
(The best discussions on the subject are Nie-
buhr, Röm. Geschichte, i. 637–644, ii. 667–673,
iii. 178–181; Savigny, Ueber das altrömische
Schuldrecht, vermischte Schriften, ii. 396–470;
Scheurl, Vom Nexum, Erlangen, 1839; C. Sell,
de juris Romani newo et mancipio, Brunswick,
1840; C. Van Heusde, de lege Poetelia Papiria,
1842; Bachofen, Das Newum, 1843; Danz,
Geschichte des röm. Rechts, 1846, Theil ii. 85–
106; Huschke, Ueber das Recht des Weaum,
Leipzig, 1846; Giraud, Des Nezi ou de la con-
dition des debiteurs chez les Romains, Paris, 1847;
Muirhead, Roman Law ; Puchta, Institutionen,
§§ 162,269,277, 321.) [J. B. M.]
NO’BILES, NOBI'LITAS. In the earliest
period of Roman history the Patricians or
Patres, who belonged to the older organisation
of the populus in curiae, gentes, and familiae,
were the nobles as opposed to the Plebs: they
practically monopolised political power and the
distinction which such power brings. Livy,
who wrote in the age of Augustus, and is not
very careful in the use of terms, often designates
the Patricians by the term nobilis (vi. 42); and
yet nobilis, in its proper historic sense, has a
different meaning.
In B.C. 366 the plebeians obtained the right
of being eligible to the consulship, and finally
were admitted to all the curule magistracies.
Thus the two classes were put on the same
footing as to political capacity. Those plebeians
who had obtained a curule magistracy were
thus elevated above their own body, and the
personal distinction of a father would confer
distinction on his descendants. It is in the
nature of aristocratic institutions to perish if
they are exclusive: but they perpetuate them-
NOBILES, NOBILITAS 231
selves by giving a plebeian class the power of
acquiring a share in the lustre they bestow.
Those who are received within the body of
nobles are pleased at being separated from their
former companions, and are at least as exclusive
in their notions as the original members of the
class which they have joined.
This was the history of Nobilitas at Rome.
The sharp distinction between plebeians and the
old patricians became blurred no less by their
political equalisation than by the greater fre-
quency of marriages between them after the
enactment of the Lex Canuleia; but the de-
scendants of plebeians who had filled curule
magistracies formed a class called Nobiles or
men, “known,” in contrast with Ignobiles or
people who were not known. The Nobiles had
no legal privileges as such : but they were
bound together by a common distinction derived
from a legal title and by a common interest;
and their common interest was to endeavour to
confine the election to all the high magistracies
to the members of their own body, to the
Nobilitas. Thus the descendants of those
plebeians who had won their way to distinction
combined to exclude: other plebeians from the
distinction which their own ancestors had trans-
mitted to them.
The external distinction of the Nobiles was
the Jus Imaginum, a right or privilege which
apparently was established on usage only, and
not on any positive enactment. These Imagines
were figures with painted masks of wax, made
to resemble the person whom they represented
(Pliny, H. N. xxxv. § 2, “expressi cera vultus”);
and they were placed in the atrium of the
house, apparently in small wooden receptacles
or cases somewhat in the form of temples
(£6xiva vatówa, Polyb. vi. 53). The Imagines
were accompanied with the tituli or names of
distinction which the deceased had acquired ;
and the tituli were connected in some way by
lines or branches so as to exhibit the pedigree
(stemma) of the family: cf. the passages quoted
in Becker, Handbuch der römischen Alterthümer,
ii. p. 222, note 53. These Imagines were gene-
rally enclosed in their cases, but were brought
out on festival days and other great ceremonials,
and crowned with bay (laureatae): they also
formed part of a solemn funeral procession.
The most complete account of them is in the
passage of Polybius already referred to; but
there is frequent mention of them in the Roman
writers.
These were the external marks or signs of a
Nobilis Familia : a kind of heraldic distinction
in substance. The origin of this use of Ima-
gines, from which the notion of Roman Nobilitas
must not be separated, is uncertain. The term
Nobilitas, as already observed, is applied by
Livy to a period of Roman history before the
consulship was opened to the plebeians; and it
is not improbable that the patricians had the
use of Imagines, which those plebeians after-
wards adopted, when the curule magistracies
were made accessible to them. The patricians .
carried back their pedigrees (stemmata) to the
remotest historical period, and even beyond it
(Tac. Ann. iv. 9); and the practice of having
Imagines, clearly connected with the ancestor
worship of primitive races which Sir Henry
Maine has so fully discussed in his Early Law
232 NOBILES, NOBILITAS
NOBILES, NOBILITAS
and Custom, probably existed before the notion
of the Jus Imaginum was established, though it
is equally likely that that notion, as well as the
technical conception of Roman Nobilitas, ori-
ginated in the admission of the plebeians to the
consulship. Indeed, as the object of the pa-
tricians, who were all of equal rank so far as
their class was concerned, would be to attach to
themselves such plebeians as were elected to
curule magistracies, it seems conformable to the
nature of the thing that the family of such
plebeians should be allowed or invited to adopt
some existing distinction which should separate
them from the body to which they properly
belonged. Usage would soon give to such a
practice the notion of legality; and thus the
Jus Imaginum would be established, as many
Roman institutions were, by some general con-
viction of utility or upon some prevailing
notion, and it would be perpetuated by custom.
A plebeian who first attained a curule office
was the founder of his family’s Nobilitas (prin-
ceps nobilitatis—auctor generis). Such a person
could have no Imagines of his ancestors; and he
could have none of his own, for such Imagines of
a man were not made till after he was dead
(Polyb. l. c.). Such a person then was not
nobilis in the full sense of the term, nor yet was
he ignobilis. He was called by the Romans a
novus homo or a new man, and his condition was
known as Novitas: see the speech which is put
in the mouth of C. Marius in Sallust, Jug. 85.
The term novus homo was never applied to a
patrician. The first novus homo of Rome was
the first plebeian Consul, L. Sextius, and the two
most distinguished novi homines were C. Marius
and M. Tullius Cicero, both natives of an
Italian municipium.
The patricians would of course be jealous of
the new nobility, which however, when once
formed, would easily unite with the old aristo-
cracy to monopolise political power, and to
prevent more novi homines from polluting this
exclusive class (Sallust. Jug. 63). Their efforts,
in particular, to exclude the poorer citizens from
rising to their own order is attested by the rule
established from the time of the First Punic
War, that the cost of the public games should
be no longer defrayed by the treasury, but by
the aediles (Dionys. vii. 71), and the aedileship
was the first step to the higher magistracies.
As early as the Second Punic War, the new
class, composed of patricians or original aristo-
crats, and Nobiles or newly engrafted aristocrats,
was able to exclude novi homines from the
consulship (Liv. xxii. 34). They maintained
this power to the end of the Republican period, and
the consulship continued almost in the exclusive
possession of the Nobilitas. The testimony of
Cicero, himself a novus homo, on this point is
full and distinct. -
As to the persons who would be included in
the stemma of a noble family, it appears that
all the ascendants of a man up to the ancestor
who first attained a curule office would be
comprehended, and also the ascendants on the
mother's side who had been nobiles. Adoption
would also increase the number of persons who
would be comprised in a stemma: and if Affines
were occasionally included, as they appear to
have been, the stemma would become an
enormous pedigree,
The term Optimates, as explained by Cicero
(pro Sest. 45), is opposed to Populares: he
describes the Optimates to be all those “qui
neque nocentes sunt nec natura improbi nec
furiosi nec malis domesticis impediti.” This is
no political definition: it is nothing more than
such a name as Conservative or any other.
The use of it by Livy (iii. 39) shows how he
understood it; but it is only confusing to employ
it in relation to the early times of which he is
speaking. Welleius (ii. 3) describes the Opti-
mates as the Senatus, the better and larger part
of the Equestris ordo, and such part of the Plebs
as were unaffected by pernicious counsels: all
these joined in the attack on Gracchus. This
opens our eyes to the real meaning of Optimates:
they were the Nobilitas and the chief part of
the Equites, a rich middle class, and also all
others whose support the Nobilitas and Equites
could command: in fact all who were opposed
to change that might affect the power of the
Nobilitas and the interests of those whom
the Nobilitas allied with themselves. Optimates.
in this sense are opposed to Plebs, the mass of
the people: and Optimates is a wider term than
Nobilitas, inasmuch as it would comprehend the
Nobilitas and all who adhered to them.
The term Populares is vague. It could be
used to signify the opponents of the Nobilitas,
whether the motives of these opponents were
pure and honest, or whether their aim was self-
aggrandisement through popular favour. Of
Caesar, who sought to gain the popular favour,
it was truly said, that it was not so much what
he gave to the people which made him formida-
ble, as what he would expect to get from them
in return. A popularis might be of the class of
the Nobilitas, and very often was. He might
even be a patrician, like Caesar: his object
might be either to humble the nobles, to promote
the interests of the people, or to promote his
own: or he might have all these objects, as
Caesar had. g
The chief passages in classical writers bearing
on the contrast of nobiles, ignobiles, and nov;
homines are Cicero, in Rull. ii. 1, 2; pro Cluentio,
40, 111; Appian, de Bell. Civ. ii. 2; Plutarch,
Cato Maj. i.; Well. Pat. ii. 128, and Asconius in
Argum. Orat. in toga candida, p. 82 (Orelli).
The subject of Nobilitas is handled by Becker,
in the work already referred to, and there are
also some remarks on the Roman Nobiles in
Zachariae, Sulla (i. 5). He observes of Sulla
that though his family was pâtrician, he could
hardly be considered as belonging to the Nobiles
in the strict sense, as the term Nobilitas implied
that some one of a man’s ancestors had filled a
curule magistracy, and also implied the posses-
'sion of wealth. But this is a confused view of
the matter. Sulla's ancestors had filled curule
magistracies; and though his family was poor,
it was still Nobilis. A Nobilis, though poor, as
Sulla was, was Nobilis still: want of wealth
might deprive a man of influence, but not of
the Jus Imaginum. If there was any patrician
whose ancestors had never filled a curule office,
he would not be nobilis in the technical later
sense. But when the Nobilitas had been formed
into a powerful body, which was long before the
reforms of the Gracchi, the distinction, of
patrician was of secondary importance. It
would seem unlikely that there was any patri-
NODUS
NOMEN 233
cian gens existing in the year 133 B.C., or
indeed long before that time, the families of
which had not enjoyed the highest honours
of the state many times. The exceptions, if
any, would be few.
In reading the Greek writers on Roman
history, it is useful to attend to the meaning of
the political terms which they employ. The
8vvarol of Plutarch (Tib. Gracch. 13, 20) and
the TAoûoriol are the Nobilitas and their partisans;
or, as Cicero would call them after he was made
consul, the Optimates. In such passages as Dio
Cass. xxxviii. 2 the meaning of Suvarol may be col-
lected from the context. [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
NODUS, in a special sense, was applied to
the following parts of dress:–1. The knot used
in tying on the scarf [CHLAMYs] or other article
constituting the AMICTUS. This was often
effected by the aid of a brooch [FIBULA], a ring,
or some jewel (Verg. Aen. i. 320, vi. 301,
xi. 776; Claud. de Rapt. Pros. ii. 40); but
frequently in the method shown in the woodcut
of Diana, Vol. I. p. 416. 2. The knot of hair
(köpupflos, kpagüxos), either at the top or at
the back of the head, adopted by both sexes in
fastening their long hair, which was turned
upwards or backwards for the purpose (“crine
rursus adducto revocare nodo,” Sen. Oedip. ii.;
Verg. Aen. iv. 138; Hor. Epod. xi. 28).
Examples may be seen in the woodcuts under
CoMA. 3. The knot of leather worn by boys of
the poorer classes at Rome instead of the golden
BULLA. . [J. Y.]
NOMEN (§voua), name. 1. GREEK. The
Greeks, as is well known, bore only one name
(Paus. vii. 7, § 4), and it was one of the espe-
cial rights of a father to choose the names for
his children, and to alter them if he pleased.
(Dem. c. Boeot. i. p. 1006, § 39; c. Macart.
p. 1075, § 74.) It was customary to give to
the eldest son the name of the grandfather on
his father's side. The history of Greece con-
tains many instances of this custom, and Sosi-
theus (ap. Dem. c. Macart. 1. c. says, “I gave to
my eldest son, as is just (šortrep kal 6trauðv
éori), the name of my father.” (Compare Eus-
tath. ad Îl. v. 546; Dem. c. Boeot. i. p. 1002,
§ 27.) Similarly girls were called after the
grandmother (Isae. de Pyrrh.. hered. § 30).
What custom was generally followed in regard
to the other children may be inferred from the
same passage, for Sositheus goes on to say, that
he called his second son after the name of his
wife's father, the third after a relation of his
wife, and the fourth son after his own grand-
father on his mother's side. Mothers seem also
sometimes to have assumed the right of giving
the names to their children (Eurip. Phoen. 58),
and it may be that, as in the case described by
Aristophanes (Nub. 60, &c.), sometimes a quar-
rel arose between the parents, if they could not
agree upon the name to be given to a child. A
boy also sometimes received the name of his
father, as in the cases of Demosthenes and
Demades, or one similar to that of his father.
Nausinicus thus called his son Nausiphilus, and
Callicrates called his son Callistratus. (Boeckh,
ad Pind. Pyth. iv. p. 265.) A similar method
was sometimes adopted in the names of several
brothers; thus two brothers in the speech of
Lysias against Diagiton are called Diodotus and
Diogiton. In some cases lastly, the name of a
son was a patronymic, formed from the name
of the father, as Phocion, the son of Phocos.
The day on which children received their
names was the tenth after their birth (Aristoph.
Av. 922, &c.). According to some accounts, a
child received its name as early as the seventh
or even fifth day after its birth. [AMPHI-
DROMIA.] The tenth day, called Sekdrºm, how-
ever, was a festive day, and friends and relations
were invited to take part in a sacrifice and a
repast, whence the expressions Sekdrºmy 66erv
and Šekármy Égriáv. If in a court of justice
proofs could be adduced that a father had held
the Öekdrºm, it was sufficient evidence that he
had recognised the child as his own. (Dem.
c. Boeot. ii. p. 1017, § 28.)
The fact that every Greek had only one name
rendered it necessary to have an innumerable
variety of names. But, however great the
number of names might be, ambiguity and con-
fusion could not be avoided; and in reading the
works of the Greeks we are not always certain
whether the same name in different passages or
writers belongs to one or to several persons.
The Greeks themselves were aware of this, and
where accuracy was of importance they used
various means to prevent mistakes. Sometimes
they added the name of the father in the geni-
tive case, as ‘AAkibid.6ms à KAeivtov, IIAetorrodvač
ô IIavoravtov: sometimes they added the name
of the place or country in which a person was
born, in the form of an adjective, as Oovkvötöms
ô 'A0mvaſos, ‘Hpóðotos ‘AAikapwagorets, Xappav-
tföms IIalavleås, Aikatapxos é Megahvios, &c.;
sometimes they added an epithet to the name,
expressing either the occupation or profession "
which a person followed, or indicating the school
to which he belonged. Instances are of such
frequent occurrence that it is superfluous to
quote any. The custom of adding the father's
name was called Tarpá6ev Švouáçeoréal (Paus.
vii. 7, § 4 ; Xenoph. Oeconom. 7, § 3).
In common life the Greeks had yet another
means of avoiding ambiguity, and this was the
frequent use of nicknames, expressive of mental
or bodily peculiarities and defects. Thus De-
mosthenes was from his childhood called Bóra-
Aos. (Aeschin. c. Timarch. §§ 126, 141 ; Dem.
de Cor. p. 288, § 180.) Aristophanes (Av. 1291,
&c.) mentions several names of birds which were
used as nicknames; other nicknames are pre-
served in Athenaeus (vi. p. 242). [Cf. Xen.
Hell. ii. 2, 31; Lucian, Symp. 6; Athen. x.
p. 436.]
(Compare Becker - Göll, Charikles, vol. ii.
. 26.)
p 2, ROMAN. It has been said that the Romans
originally had only one name (“simplicia
nomina,” Varro, ap. Auct. de Praenom. 1), but
Mommsen justly remarks that the instances
given—Romulus, Remus, Faustulus—are all of
the mythical age, and that even then we hear of
Numa Pompilius, &c. (R. Forsch. i. 5). Though
there can be no doubt that there was greater
simplicity of nomenclature in the earliest
times, and though the prevalence of single
names is not impossible, the view taken by
Mommsen is most probable that the early
Roman custom was to have two names; the
second in the genitive, representing the father
or head of the household, as Marcus Marci,
Caecilia Metelli. In process of time we find
234 NOMEN
NOMEN
for freeborn men a triple name, the nomen or
name par excellence to designate the gens, the
cognomen the family, and the praenomen the
individual. The order properly (and so used in
good prose) was praenomen, nomen, cognomen;
but in metrical writing this is not preserved:
e.g. “Cornelius Lucius Scipio Barbatus,” as an
epitaph in Saturnian verse (C. I. L. vi. 1285).
For formal description the name of the father,
grandfather, and even great grandfather was
added, and sometimes the tribe also, as M. Tullius
M. f. M. m. M. pr. Cor(nelia tribu) Cicero (Momm.
I. R. N.4320). When the praenomen (for ordinary
speech) was omitted, the order does not appear
consistent in all writers. In older times the
cognomen, in this case, stands first, as Pulcher
Claudius, Balbus Cornelius, and this is followed
by Cicero : whereas Caesar preserves the order
belonging to the triple name and keeps the cog-
momen after the praenomen, Livy and Tacitus
vary their practice (see Marquardt, Privatl. 9,
note). For every-day use the praenomen alone
was used for relations or intimate friends (and
those who wished to appear as such) addressing
each other; the cognomen alone in ordinary
intercourse, with the praenomen added some-
times in emphatic address: the nomen being
used only for formal purposes. As, however,
the triple name grew out of something simpler,
so as time went on it spread into a much longer
and more complex system of names, and finally
ended in what cannot be called a system at all.
It is necessary to examine the names more in
detail.
1. Nomen.—This, the gentile name, in patri-
cian families always ended in ius, which proba-
bly marks an original patronymic: the termina-
tions eius, aius, aeus, eus are merely variations
of it. Other terminations of the nomen mark a
different origin, and are thus classed by Momm-
sen,_acus (e.g. Avidiacus) as Gallic; enus as
Umbrian; na (Caecina, &c.) as Etruscan : some
others are formed from the names of towns,
whence the family sprung, as Norbanus, &c.:
Verres stands apart, and was perhaps an ori-
ginal cognomen turned into a nomen (Mommsen,
R. Forsch. i. 51).
2. Praenomen.—This individual name was
given to boys on the ninth day after their birth
on the dies lustricus [LUSTRATIO, p. 102]: when
it is said (Auct. de Praen. 3) that this name was
not given till the assumption of the toga virilis,
it can only be meant that the official entry was
then made: for we have inscriptions speaking of
young children under their praenomina (C. I. L.
x. 2221). The number of recognised praenomina
was originally larger, and Varro (as cited by
the above author) mentions as ancient prae-
nomina disused in his time Agrippa, Ancus,
Caesar, Faustus, Hostus, Lar, Opiter, Postumus,
Proculus, Sertor, Statius, Tullus, Volero, Vo-
piscºts. - x
There survived 18 for patrician families, re-
presented in an abbreviated form : Aulus (A.),
Decimus (D.), Gaius (C.), Gnaeus (Cn.), Kaeso
(K), Lucius (L.), Manius (M.'), Marcus (M.),
Publius (P), Quintus (Q.), Servius (Ser.), Sextus
(Sea.), Spurius (Sp.), Tiberius (T.), Titus (T),
Mamercus (Mam.), Appius (Ap.), Numerius (N.).
The number, no doubt, decreased from the cus-
tom of different families using only a few prae-
nomina, usually only five or six (the Cornelii
used only Cn., L. and P.). Of the above some
were used by particular families and by no
other; K., for instance, by the Fabii and Quinc-
tilii alone, Mam. only by the Aemilii. (See
Mommsen, op. cit. 15.) In plebeian families
there was not the same restriction, and a greater
variety appears (Novius, Vibius, &c.); yet those
who became nobiles followed the patrician rule,
so that the Domitii have only the praenomina
Gnaeus and Lucius (Suet. Wer. 1). The reaction
under Sulla revived some old praenomina or
introduced others, as Faustus, Iulus, Cossus: but
it is difficult to say how far all such should be
regarded as genuine praenomina. Mau is proba-
bly right in his note on Marquardt, Privatl. 13,
when he demurs to the view that Paullus,
Agrippa, Nero, Drusus, Germanicus, &c., became
praenomina, and holds them rather to be cog-
nomina which by a later fashion for various
reasons in some distinguished families displaced
the proper praenomen, as when we find Africanus
Aemilius Regillus a consul in B.C. 9, and so de-
scribed on a coin. -
3. Cognomen.—Every Roman citizen, besides
belonging to a gens, was also a member of a
familia, contained in the gens, and as such he
might have a cognomen or third name, which
marked off that familia from others of the same
gens. This was in the Republic probably uni-
versal, or nearly so, in patrician families
(Plutarch, however, Cor. 11, says that C. Marcius
had no cognomen till he took Corioli). In
plebeian families it was not the rule: for in-
stance, the Marii, Sertorii, and Mummii had
none (Plut. Mar. 1); but many afterwards
gained them, as Pompeius, when he took the
cognomen Magnus. Some from mere assumption
took cognomina to which they were considered
to have no right: witness the case of Staienus
calling himself Paetus (Cic. pro Cluent. 26, 72).
Marquardt, from the fact that the cognomen
stands after the tribe, when the tribe also is
given, conjectures that the use of cognomina
does not date further back in ordinary usage
than Servius Tullius: as a legal form in laws
and decrees, it is enjoined only in Sulla's time
(see the citations in Marquardt, op. cit. 14).
As to their origin we can have little doubt that
they were personal names, originally given for
some reason (often a bodily peculiarity) to some
man, and then transmitted to all his family:
sometimes they are descriptive, as Pulcher,
Calvus, Naso ; sometimes they mark an origin,
as Sabinus, Maluginensis. (As regards the re-
presentative of the cognomen in family emblems,
the apex of the Flaminii, the torques of the
Manlii, &c., see INSIGNE.) It is probable that
under the Republic the third name implied
nobilitas, but it came later to be the mark merely
of freedom (Cod. Just. vii. 16, 9); and in Juv.
v. 127, “tanquam habeas tria nomina’’ means
rather, as Professor Mayor says, “as though you
were free,” than, as Marquardt puts it, “tan-
quam nobilis sis.” -
The nobiles, however, proceeded further to
multiply their cognomina: such fourth or fifth
names were still, like the third, called cognomen
in classical Latin (Cic. pro Mur. 14, 31): the
practice of calling them agnomina did not begin
till the grammarians of the 4th cent. A.D.
Under this head we have (i.) the adoptive names,
for which see ADOPTIO, Vol. I. p. 26. It may
NOMEN
NOMINATIO 235
be observed that the termination anus was not
usual after Sulla, when the original cognomen
was added instead of the altered momen : e.g. M.
Terentius Varro Lucullus. It is a peculiarity
that Brutus adopted by Q. Servilius Caepio is
called simply Q. Caepio Brutus (Mommsen,
R. Forsch. 51). (ii.) The cognomen ea virtute :
Africanus, Asiaticus, &c. (iii.) Those added
more like nicknames, as Q. Caecilius Metellus
Celer (cf. Plin. H. N. vii. § 54). The cognomina
ea, virtute were passed on to children (Cic. de
Rep. vi. 11), though how far is uncertain:
Mommsen thinks, only to the eldest Son.
The name-system became altered or altogether
lost under the Empire. The emperors, as
Gaius and Titus, used sometimes the praenomen
alone with the imperial title, sometimes the
cognomen only, as Imp. Caesar Vespasianus (see
Mommsen, R. Forsch. 741): for the citizens, as
mentioned above, we find sometimes the use of
cognomen in place of praenomen, sometimes the
multiplication of gentile names by adding the
names of the mother's family or other relations;
sometimes again a second praenomen is put in,
often quite out of its place: e.g. C. Antius
Aulus Julius Quadratus, P. Aelius Aelianus
Archelaus Marcus. As a climax we have a
string of thirty names. (Orell. 2761.) -
In later times we find a pure nickname, which
is termed signum (Capitol. Gord. iv. 8) or voca-
bulum (Tac. Ann. i. 41), coupled by the words
sive or qui et, as “Eustatius sive Lampadius”
(C. I. L. v. 4410), “M. Datellius Trophimus qui
et Fortunatus,” but sometimes as Lucilius Me-
trobius signo Sapricus (C. I. L. x. 3796).
Remarkable instances of these signa or vocabula
are “Caligula,” “Cedo alteram ” (Tac. Ann. i.
23, 41), “Manus ad ferrum ” (Lamprid. Aure-
Jian. 6). .
Names of Women.—Wives and daughters added
originally the name of the man in whose manus
they were, the wife her husband's, the daughter
her father's, as Metella Crassi, Caecilia Metelli;
but later it became usual for the daughter to
express the relationship by adding f. after the
father's name. The praenomen might be used
also before the gentile name, as Secunda Valeria
M. f., but without the limitation of praenomina
observed in the sons of the family. In the
later Republic the single gentile name is more
common; but under the Empire we find two
names usual, formed from the nomen and
cognomen of the father, or the combined gentile
names of father and mother (Caecilia Metella,
Valeria Attia): three names are exceptional
(Suet. Claud. 56).
Slaves originally bore the affix por = puer to
the master's praenomen, as Marcipor or Marpor,
Quintipor, &c., which Pliny (H. W. xxxiii. § 26)
thinks pointed to the simplicity of life when a
man had usually only one slave: it must be
observed, however, that the termination is found
comparatively late (Sall. Hist. iii. fr. 69),
and also that we find it for freedmen, “Aulus
Caecilius, Auli libertus, Olipor.” When slaves
were multiplied and servus legally replaced puer,
we find slaves in republican times distinguished
by their own names with the master's in inverted
order: thus the slave of P. Egnatius is “Pharnaces
Egnatii Publii servus.”; under the Empire more
naturally as “Eleutherus C. Julii Florentini
servus.” A curious practice was the tacking on
the name of a previous master with the suffix
anws, as “Secundus Caesaris servus Crescenti-
anus,” “Anna Liviae serva Maecenatiana,” when
the slaves had been formerly in the household
of Crescens or Maecenas.
Freedmen originally took before their own
names the gentile name of their master and any
praenomen, as L. Livius Andronicus, the freed-
man of M. Livius Salinator. The condition is
also expressed in inscriptions: e.g. “M. Ramnius
P. l. Diopantus” means that Diopantus was a
freedman of P. Ramnius, and took for himself
the praenomen M. Later it became customary to
take the master's praenomen also. Freedmen
of a woman took the names of the father of their
mistress, as “M. Livius, Augustae l., Ismarus.”
Cicero however, while Tiro becomes M. Tullius
Tiro, gives Dionysius the nomen of Atticus and
his own praenomen (Cic, ad Att. iv. 15, 1).
The names indicating servile origin disappeared
in the second generation. (Marquardt, Privatle-
ben, 6–28; Mommsen, Röm. Forschungen, 1–68; a
mass of literature on the subject is cited by
Marquardt on page 6.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
NQMEN. [FENUs; OBLIGATIONEs.]
NOMENCLA'TOR. For the ordinary no-
menclator, see AMBITUS, Vol. I. p. 100 a. There
was also a nomenclator censorius to attend upon
the censor (who had no lictors): he was a freed-
man of the censor and held the same place as
the accensus of other magistrates [ACCENSUs].
The use of a nomenclator in the duties of the
censorial office, especially in the equitum census
or recognitio, is obvious. [See CENSUs:
EQUITES.] Inscriptions mentioning the nomen-
clator censorius may be found in Mommsen's
Staatsrecht, i. p. 359. As the censorial power
passed to the emperor, it is natural that we
find these attendants reappearing as nomenclatores
a censibus attached to the imperial bureau which
received petitions for admission to the Equites
(C. J. L. xiv. 3553). [See also MAGISTER A
CENSIBUS. [G. E. M.]
NOMINATIO and NOMINO are the
technical words used to denote the first stage in
the appointment to the augurship and other
priestly colleges, under the law of Labienus,
B.C. 63. On a vacancy in their college, each of
the augurs “nominated” a candidate for the
post, and the choice between those so nominated
was decided by a popular vote of seventeen
tribes chosen by lot. In order that the assembly
might exercise an effective choice, a sufficient
number of candidates was secured by a rule that
not more than two augurs might give their
nomination to any one candidate. (Cic. Phil. ii.
2. 4. -
5 #. term nominare is likewise used of a func-
tion of the emperors in the election of magi-
strates from the time that these elections were
transferred (Tac. Ann. i. 15) to the senate.
This “nomination ” is different from the right
of recommending candidates which the emperor
possessed; for Tacitus (l.c.) tells of Tiberius
that he limited himself “ne plures quam quat-
tuor candidatos commendaret, sine repulsa et
ambitu designandos;” while in the previous
chapter he says, “candidatos praeturae duodecim
nominavit, numerum ab Augusto traditum, et
hortante senatu ut augeret, jure jurando ob-
strinxit se non excessurum.” In the same Way
when Asinius Gallus proposed (Tac. Ann. ii. 36)
236 NOMINATIO
NOMINATIO
that appointments for five years on should be
made at once, he added, “princeps duodecim
candidatos in annos singulos nominaret.” This
passage however, as it merely repeats the words
of Ann. i. 14, and extends the system there
described to suit a quinquennial arrangement,
may be left out of account. The description
(Ann. i. 81) of the consular elections, on the
other hand, cannot be passed over: “plerumque
eos tantum apud se professos disseruit, quorum
nomina consulibus edidisset: posse et alios pro-
fiteri, sigratiae aut meritis confiderent.” Lastly,
we have an electioneering letter of the younger
Pliny (ii. 9): “Anxium me et inquietum habet
petitio Sexti Eruci mei. . . ego Sexto latum
clavum a Caesare nostro, ego quaesturam impe-
travi, meo suffragio pervenit ad jus tribunatum
petendi, quem nisi obtinet in senatu wereor me
decepisse Caesarem videar.”
The last passage would naturally be taken to
mean (see Nipperdey ad Tac. Ann. i. 81) that
the emperor's leave was necessary before a
candidate could offer himself for election, and it
would be further natural to identify such leave
with the “nomination ” mentioned by Tacitus.
In that case we should expect to find the
emperor “nominating” a long list of candidates
(beside those specially recommended) and the
senate choosing out of this list. When, how-
ever, we find that the senate begs Tiberius to
increase the number of his nominees, it becomes
clear that “nomination ” can have no such
meaning as has been suggested. Twelve was
the ordinary number of annual vacancies for
the praetorship; so that if the emperor gave
leave only to twelve candidates, these twelve
persons must necessarily be elected; the distinc-
tion between those of them who were and
those who were not recommended would vanish;
nominatio and commendatio (which are always
contrasted by our authorities) would have pre-
cisely the same effect. The value of such a
nomination would manifestly be diminished by
every addition to the number nominated. It is
quite impossible, considering the relations be-
tween Tiberius and the senators, that they
should at the beginning of his reign have urged
him to lessen his own powers by giving them
greater freedom of choice, and that he should
have positively refused to do so. We have
indeed a somewhat similar question of appoint-
ment in Ann. iii. 32 and 35, but there the senate
wish the emperor to give them one name, and
he insists on giving two for them to choose
from. -
It is clear from Pliny’s letter that there were
contested elections in the senate to the office of
tribune. As regards the praetorship, we may
draw the same conclusion from the account in
Tacitus (Ann. ii. 51) of the election of a “praetor
suffectus,” and still more clearly from an inci-
dent in Nero's time (Ann. xiv. 28): “Comitia
praetorum arbitrio senatus haberi solita, quoniam
acriore ambitu exarserant, princeps composuit,
tres, qui supra numerum petebant, legioni prae-
ficiendo.” On the other hand, we never hear of
contested elections to the consulship.
Mommsen (Staatsrecht, ii.” pp. 917 ff.) has
an explanation which lessens though it does
not remove the difficulty of reconciling these
passages. He first gets rid of Pliny's canvassing
letter by the supposition that “meo suffragio
the office of tribune.
pervenit ad jus tribunatum petendi" does not
refer to any fresh privilege obtained by him for
Erucius, but merely sums up what he had got
for him before, namely the latus clavus and the
quaestorship, these being the qualifications
which now enabled him to be a candidate for
This interpretation would
seem very forced if we were dealing with a
simple and straightforward letter-writer, but it
is not inadmissible in the case of the artificial
epistles of the younger Pliny. Mommsen pro-
ceeds to point out that under the Republic the
msgistrate conducting an election had the duty
of examining the legal qualifications of the
candidate, and was bound to accept only those
votes which were given to persons legally
eligible (“rationem alicujus in comitiis habere”).
Under the principate this ministerial duty would
belong jointly to the emperor and to the consuls.
Either of the two co-ordinate powers might
examine the qualifications of a candidate, and
declare him capable or incapable of standing.
Manifestly the emperor's certificate would be
the more prized; all candidates would press to
have their claims vouched for by him, and (if
this tendency were not checked) on the emperor
alone would fall the responsibility of deciding
who was, and who was not, to be on the list of
candidates. This responsibility the senate press
Tiberius to assume, but he insists on the consuls
taking some part of it, and will only certify in
a limited number of cases. Such is Mommsen's
explanation of “candidatos praeturae duodecim
nominavit.”
It may be objected to this that we should
expect that the candidates who were sent to the
consuls would be at a disadvantage compared
with the eight candidates who, though not
“commended,” were selected by the emperor
for the honour of his certificate. The senators,
we might suppose, would be as unlikely to vote
against the eight “nominated ” as against the
four avowedly “commended.” . The system
seems to have led to precisely this result in the
elections to the consulship. Tiberius (Ann. i. 81)
does not commend anyone for this office; he
merely announces that two qualified candidates
have sent in their names to him ; any others
may send in their names to the consuls. The
effect naturally is that no one does so; the
emperor's certificate to the consular candidate,
by driving all others from the field, has the
same result as commendation. Mommsen (op.
cit. p. 923) quotes an inscription where such a
one actually describes himself as commended by
Tiberius for the consulship. -
How then are we to account for the practical
difference between the consular and the prae-
torian elections 2 There must have been some
understanding, by which candidates more nume-
rous than the vacancies were encouraged to
stand in the one case and discouraged from
standing in the other. We may suppose that
all candidates laid their names, formally or
informally, before the emperor. If he announced
(as Tacitus says he did in the case of the consul-
ship) that only two properly qualified candidates
had come to his official knowledge, this would
be a sufficient hint to the rest of the competitors
that they were to efface themselves. If, on the
other hand, he brought forward the names of
all, and ordered the consuls to examine the
NOMISMATOS DIAPHORAS GRAPHE
NOMOS 237
qualifications of some of them while he himself
undertook that duty in the case of others, this
may have been done in such a way as to imply
that he wished them all to be voted for in-
differently. This would be especially the case,
if we may conjecture that the emperor did not
arbitrarily pick and choose the candidates he
was to “nominate,” as he undoubtedly did those
whom he was to “commend.” A passage of
Dio Cassius (lviii. 20), relating to Tiberius, may
perhaps throw some light on this. After saying
that Tiberius commended certain candidates,
who were elected at once by all voices, he pro-
ceeds to describe his practice in the case of
those not commended—rows 8& étri Te Tots
Sukaidºuaori kai étri ră ăuoxoyig Tô Te KAftgº
rotočuevos. It may perhaps be allowable to
interpret this as meaning that certain ancestry
or certain services (5ukaidºuata) gave a man a
claim by custom to have his certificate from the
emperor, and that in some other cases persons
were marked out for the honour by general
acclamation of the senate or by consent of their
competitors (àpoxoyig); but that for the rest
Tiberius in the case of the praetorship decided
by lot which names he should examine for him-
self and which he should refer for examination
to the consuls. In the latter case, as chance
alone would decide, it can have been no indication
of disfavour that a man should not come armed
with the imperial certificate. [J. L. S. D.]
NOMI’SMATOS DIA'PEIORAS GRA-
PHE (voułogaros Suaq opäs Ypaqf) is the name
of the public action which might, at Athens, be
brought against anyone who coined money
either too light in weight or not consisting of
the pure metal prescribed by the law. The
lawful punishment inflicted upon a person in
case he was convicted was death. (Demosth. c.
Lept. p. 508, § 67; c. Timocrat. p. 765, $ 212.)
What action might be brought against those
who coined money without the sanction of the
republic, and how such persons were punished,
is not known (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 437).
Xenophon (de Vect. iii. 2) remarks that the
Athenian silver coins were actually worth their
nominal value. [L. S.] [H. H.]
NOMOPHY'LACES (vouoqūxakes) were
certain magistrates or official persons of high
authority, whose duty it was to see that
nothing unconstitutional was proposed, and to
punish those who acted unconstitutionally (Xen.
Oec. 9, 14 ; Cic. de Leg. iii. 20, 46): they had
also to provide for the safe custody of written
laws and records (C. I. G. 3794). Generally
speaking, they were intended to uphold the
established order of things against hasty
innovators (cf. Plat. Leg. vi. p. 755 A). We
find them at Abdera, Mylasa, Chalcedon, Corcyra
(see the inscr. cited by Gilbert, Staatsalt. ii.
p. 337): but the office sometimes has a different
title, voucheſktat at Andania (Dittenberg, 388,
114) and 6eoruoqūAakes at Elis (Thuc. v. 47).
At Sparta there were five voucq àAakes and a
'ypauparodºxaſ; or keeper of records, who in
some inscriptions is ranked with his superiors,
so that the number appears to be six. (See
Gilbert, i. p. 27.)
At Athens this supervision had originally
belonged to the Areiopagus, and, when Ephialtes
deprived that body of its power [AREIOPAGUS,
Vol. I. p. 177], it seemed necessary to have
some “guardians of the law” who should be a
check upon too rapid legislation, by protesting
against propositions which were detrimental to
the state or subversive of the constitution.
(Lea. Cantab. s. v.; Phot. s. v.; Schömann,
Antiq. p. 342; Grote, Hist, v. 503, ch. xlvi.;
E. Curtius, Hist. ii. p. 385.) These were a board
of seven Nomophylaces, chosen annually by lot,
who sat beside the Proedri in the senate and in
the assembly. They were abolished in the
archonship of Eucleides, when the Areiopagus
regained some of its supervising powers, but
were instituted again by Demetrius of Phalerum.
Some writers hold this to have been the first
institution of nomophylaces at Athens (see
Gilbert, Staatsalt. i. p. 153). It may be
observed that the importance of the board
was really small, since the control which
belonged to them was in practice superseded
by the GRAPHE PARANOMON ; and this may
account for our hearing nothing of their
activity. [C. R. K.] [G. E. M.]
NOMOS (vduos). The definition of vauos in
[Dem.] c. Aristog. i. p. 774, § 16—a definition
which has passed into the Digests, i. 2, de legibus
—contains all the points which must be touched
upon in discussing law and legislation amongst
the Greeks : tras earl vöpios súpmua uév kal Sápov
6eów, §6)pa 3’ &v6párov ppoviuwu, Émavépôoua
8è rôv čkovortov Kal &kovoſov &paptmudrav,
tróAews 8& ovv8%km couvh, ka9'?v traoru Trpoo hire,
(iv roſs év rā tróxel. In the heroic ages the
king's authority, which the family derived from
the favour of Zeus (Tipº 6’ x Atós égri, Il. ii.
197) and which passed by descent, as a general
rule, to the eldest son, was not absolute, but
limited in 57tois yépaat (Thuc. i. 13: cf. Dion.
Halic. A. R. v. 74). As Aristotle says (Pol. iii.
10 [14 B.] 1), “he commands the army, ad-
ministers justice " (chiefly, though not exclu-
sively), “and conducts the rites of religion.”
The king received from Zeus the sceptre, the
symbol of the judicial authority, and with it the
6éutorres (Il. ii. 206; ix. 98 f.), which belong
properly to Zeus (Od. xvi. 403): so that “when
he decided a dispute by a sentence the judgment
was assumed to be the result of direct inspira-
tion; ” when he called in the assistance of the
ºyépovres, “they sat on polished stones in the
holy circle and held in their hands the heralds’
sceptres; with these they rose up and gave
sentence in turn" (Il. xviii. 504 ft., SucaorróAot,
otre 6éutorras irpos Aibs eipúarai, Il. i. 238 f.),
and he himself occupied probably the same
position among them which is ascribed to Minos
when judging the dead (Od. xi. 568 ft.). [REX.]
The same idea which caused these judgments of
the king to be attributed to divine inspiration
shows itself here and there at a later period in
the claim of a divine origin for entire systems of
laws. “Do you believe, as Homer says,” asks
the Athenian of the Cretan Cleinias, “that
Minos went every ninth year to converse with
Zeus and made laws for your cities in accordance
with his sacred words 2 ” “Yes, that is our
tradition” (Plat. Legg. i. init.). According to
the tradition of the Spartans preserved by
Herodotus (i. 69), Lycurgus introduced the laws
of Crete into Sparta: “Some, however,” he
adds, “ said that the Pythia gave him the con-
stitution which still exists in Sparta; ” and the
latter belief gained general acceptance (Xen.
238 NOMOS
NGMOS
de Rep. Lac. 8, tru06xpmotoi váuoi), so that
Lycurgus came to be looked upon as pūo is ris
&v6patrium usurykówm 9eig rivi ävváuel (Plat.
Legg. iii. p. 691 E). Zaleucus, too, is made to
say that Athene had appeared to him in a dream
and given him laws (Plut. de Se ips. laud.
p. 534 A: ; cf. Arist. Aokpóv troAir. fr. 230).
The great fundamental conceptions of morality,
common alike to all mankind, the #ypaqot vöuou,
were also believed to have come from the gods
(Soph. Oed. R. 864 ft. ; Eurip. Antiop. fr. 219;
Xen. Memor. iv. 4, 19); and being derived and
having their sanction from heaven, they were
considered superior to the enactments of human
societies (Soph. Antig. 454 f.; Eurip. Suppl. 19,
526, 537; Thuc. iv. 97, etc.). This is the koivos
vópos–àora &ypaſpa trapā traoru äuoAoyeſoréal
Šokeſ—as opposed to the tâuos vôpos, kað’ ºv
ºyeypappuévov troAireſſovrai, which applies only
to the citizens of each individual state (Arist.
Rhet. i. 10, 3). The 13tos vówos did not protect
the foreigner (&rtumºros werevaarſs, Il. ix. 648);
there never was at Athens a state law Tows
£évows uh &öuceſtorðal, as Petit supposes (Legg.
Attic. viii. tit. iv. p. 678), but there, as every-
where, šévot were looked upon as protected by
Zebs Eévios (oí, plot 66pus éort’. . . §elvov &ruña'al,
Od. xiv. 56, ix. 270; Plat. Legg. v. p. 729E,
etc.; kata. Tov Koubv Štravrov &vépôtrov váuov
§s keiral rov qečyovra öéxeoréal, Dem. c. Aristocr.
p. 648, § 85). When aliens became residents
(uéroucol) in Athens, they were admitted to the
protection of the law under certain conditions,
but were never placed on the same footing as
the Athenians, and the special jurisdiction over
them was entrusted to the polemarch. (As to
the kóapios £évios in Gortyn, see Bull. de Corr.
Bellén. xi. p. 243.) [METOECI.] -
The 6éutores of the king were not laws, but
single, isolated judgments. Zeus, as Grote says,
or the human king on earth, was not a law-
maker, but a judge (the word vôuos does not
occur in Homer); but, owing to parities of
circumstances in the simple conditions of ancient
society, awards were likely to follow and re-
Semble each other in the succession of similar
cases. Thus a beginning was made of customary
law which was fully developed in the era of
aristocracies following upon the period of kingly
rule. The regal power, though limited, was
liable to be abused, and Hesiod complains bitterly
of the crooked and corrupt judgments of which
the kings were habitually guilty. The nobles,
who had originally served as council to the king,
superseded him (except in Sparta, where how-
ever his power was greatly reduced), and
alternated the functions of administration among
themselves; and at Athens, as we are told
(Pausan. iv. 5, 10, &vt. Baoixetas were armorav
és àpx?iv Štreč6vvov; cf. Herod. iii. 80), the
archons were made responsible (to the Eupatrids,
Schömann, Jahrb. f. kl, Philol. 1872, p. 105 f.).
These aristocracies did not claim direct inspira-
tion for every sentence, as the kings had done,
but they claimed that they alone possessed the
knowledge of the law: this, then, is the epoch
of Customary Law, of the unwritten law known
exclusively to one class. The Spartans never
went beyond this stage. Their váutua were held
to be as old as their race: “The descendants of
Pamphylus and of the Heracleidae who dwell
under the brow of Taygetus wish always to
retain the refluol of Aegimius,” i.e. the son of
Dorus and their mythical ancestor (Pind. P. vi.
64 f.); and Hellanicus, the most ancient writer
on the constitution of Sparta, makes no mention
of Lycurgus (for which he is censured by
Ephorus, Strab. viii. p. 366), and attributes what
are called the institutions of Lycurgus to the
first kings, Procles and Eurysthenes. When
Herodotus (i. 65) describes the Spartans before
the time of Lycurgus as being kaicovouáratol,
he can only mean that these Te0aol of Aegimius
had been overthrown, and that Lycurgus restored
them. Lycurgus’ laws were not written (the
Spartans were forbidden by a rhetra to have
written laws); Lycurgus connected the problem
of legislation chiefly with education (Plut. Lyc.
13, to yūp 8Aov kal trav Tijs vouc0eorías pyov
eis thv traiSeſay &vilipe). Hence we find that
the yépovres in Sparta could punish with death
and exile (Arist. Pol. vi. 7 [iv. 9° B.], 5 ; tās
qovikās bucd.govoiv, iii. 1, 7) without being
responsible (ii. 6 [9 B.], 17) or being bound by
a written code. The kings decided disputes about
heiresses, and all adoptions were made in their
presence (Herod. vi. 57); the ephors decided
civil suits (T&s róv ovugoNaſaw öſkas, Arist.
Pol. ii. 7 [10 B.], 6), and for these Lycurgus did
“not prescribe any positive rule or inviolable
usage, willing that their manner and form should
be altered according to the circumstances of
time, and determination of men of sound judg-
ment” (Plut. Lyc. 13).-In Crete the position
of the yépovres (called there BovXà, Arist. Pol.
ii. 7 [10 B.], 3) was exactly the same as in
Sparta: they were not bound in their sentences
by a written code; but private law was reduced
to writing. In 1884 near Gortyn an inscription
was discovered (on part of an inside wall of
what was probably the Šukaothpiov), in twelve
columns, written Bovoſtpopmååv, dating from
between 450 to 350 (cf. Svoronos in Bull. de
Corr. Hellén. xii. p. 404 f. against Comparetti's
earlier date), containing an elaborate code of
private laws, in which reference is made several
times to previous written laws, partly still in
force, partly amended by this code, e.g. xii. 16 f,
à èyparro trpo ràvöe róv Ypaupiðrwv. [COSMI;
add to the literature there given Merriam, Amer.
Journ. of Archaeol. i. 4 and ii. 1.] This brings
us to a new epoch : to the era of Codes. The
aristocracies seem to have abused their monopoly
of legal knowledge, and at all events their ex-
clusive possession of the law was a formidable
impediment to the success of the popular move-
ments beginning to be universal. Laws written
on tablets and published to the people took the
place of usages deposited with the recollection
of a privileged class. The first written code, we
are told, was that of Zaleucus (Strab. vi. p. 259);
it is specially mentioned of him, that whilst it
had hitherto been left to the discretion of the
judge to settle the punishment for every offence,
he fixed the penalty by law (Strab. vi. p. 260),
and also gave simple regulations for private
suits (Diod. xi. 21, 3: cf. Polyb, xii. 16). In
B.C. 621 the archon Draco (Pausan, ix. 36, 8)
was appointed to draw up a written code of
laws for Athens (Arist. Pol. ii. 9 [12 B.], 9);
these are usually called 6eguoi, and by that
name distinguished from the véuot of Solon, e.g.
Andoc. de Myst. §§ 81, 83; yet Solon uses the
term 9egubs of his amnesty law on the 13th Ščov
NOMOS
NOMOS 239
(Plut. Sol. 19, 3; cf. Dem. c. Leoch. p. 1094,
§ 46); and [Dem.] c. Euerg. et Mnes. p. 1161,
§ 71, speaks of Draco's vówou. We know very
little about Draco's laws with the exception of
those on homicide, which Solon retained (Plut.
Sol. 17), and which were always considered
excellent (Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 14). They
were probably no more than such ancient ordin-
ances reduced to writing as the ephetae had been
accustomed to enforce ever since the community
had, step by step, put an end to the blood-feud
and reduced the pursuit of the murderer and
the atonement for murder to legal forms, making
the vögos instead of the prosecutor kūptos of the
murderer (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 642, § 69, póvos
Ákočgios; p. 643, § 71, póvos &koúatos, etc.).
The extreme severity of Draco's punishments,
on which Aristotle remarks, was not due to any
cruel disposition on his part, but to the Spirit
of the age: moreover their severity has been
somewhat exaggerated (Pollux, ix. 61 ; viii. 42).
At all events the people gained little by the
written code except a more perfect knowledge of
its severity. In B.C. 594 * Solon was chosen
archon and ÖlaxMakrºs kal vouc0érms (Plut.
Sol. 14, cf. 16; Herod. i. 29, 'A6mvatoia't ke?\et-
oraoru väuous étoimore). Unfortunately so small
are the fragments which have come down to us
of Solon’s laws (collected by Duncker, Gesch. d.
Alterth. vi.” p. 198 ft.), and so much has been
ascribed to him by the orators which belongs
really to subsequent times, that it is scarcely
possible to form a clear opinion respecting his
legislation in all its details. Certain it is that
it shows a remarkable progress in the Greek
mind respecting legislation. No special divine
inspiration was claimed for Solon’s laws, nothing
beyond that divine influence which the Greeks
felt to underlie and support every social insti-
tution; they were looked upon as the laws of a
just and practically wise man (oilk #qvyov čva
* A different date for Solon’s legislation is fixed by
Holzapfel (Berl. Stud. vii. 3) and Th. Case (Class. Rev.
ii. No. 8). The former places it in B.C. 584–3, as De-
mostllenes does, who in B.C. 343–2 (the date of de fals.
Leg.) places the era of Solon 240 years back (p. 420,
§ 251). After Damarias had held the archonship for
two years (587–585 B.C.) and was driven by force from
office, a compromise was effected, by which four Eupa-
trids, three dimoukou, and two 8mutovpyoi should be
elected archons. This arrangement lasted only one
year (B.C. 585–4), according to Busolt (Griech. Gesch. i.
p. 544), for in the following year fell Solon's legislation.
Th. Case distinguishes Solon’s seisachtheia, passed in
the year of his archonship, i.e. B. c. 594, and his general
legislation, which occurred after B.C. 570; in fixing the
latter so late he relies especially on Herodotus' remark
(ii. 177), that Solon borrowed his law against idleness
from Amasis king of Egypt, who succeeded to the
throne c. 570 B.C. (Wiedemann, Aegypt. Gesch. p. 602;
Class. Rev. ii. No. 9, p. 291.) It is, however, anything
but certain that this law was introduced by Solon; a
better authority, Lysias (Lez. Rhet, Cantabr. p. 665,
20ff.; cf. Plut. Sol. 17), ascribes it to Draco, who ordained
death as the penalty (disfranchisement, Pollux, viii. 42),
whilst Solon, who retained this law, inflicted a fine of
100 drachmas for the first conviction and disfranchise-
ment only when a person was convicted a third time.
According to Theophrastus (trepi váutov, fr. 27), it was
Pisistratus who first passed the law; this probably
means that he introduced further modifications. Duncker
(l.c. p. 156 n.), too, is of opinion that one year was not
sufficient for carrying out all Solon's reforms. . -
Töv Sukaićratov kal qpovipºratov Štiational toſs
trpdypacriv, Plut. Sol. 14), who fitted his laws
to the existing state of things rather than made
things suit his laws (l. c. 22), and who, when
asked whether he had given the Athenians the
best laws, could truly answer, “The best of
those which they would accept " (l. c. 15),=of
a man who, believing in human progress, did
not endeavour to secure fixity or finality for his
laws (tows vówovs prl uetakivmtoiseival, Plut.
Sept. Sap. Conviv. p. 152 a, as contrasted with
Lycurgus’ theory in Plut. Lyc. 29, &kivmrov čs
to pléNAov), but only exacted from the Athenians
an oath that they would not rescind any of
them for ten years (Herod. i. 29; for a century,
Plut. Sol. 25), and devised wise regulations for
the revision of the code. For, knowing on the
one hand that laws consecrated by long usage
are more readily obeyed (cf. on this point Arist.
Pol. ii. 5 [8 B.], 14), and foreseeing on the other
that the best legislation would in course of time
require adaptation to existing circumstances, he
so contrived matters that whilst his laws were
subject to constant revision, all attempts at
hasty legislation were checked. [NOMOTHETEs...}
Any law thenceforward added to the code was
in fact “a contract of the state according to
which it befits all who belong to it to live: ”
cf. Arist. Rhet. i. 15, 21, kal &Aws airbs 6 vágos
ovv6%km ris éorív; Anaxim. Ars Rhet. ed. Spen-
gel, p. 2, 2, p. 13, 12 f.; and the same principle
in Plato, Legg. i. p. 644 D, tr. 5& Trägi Toârous
Aoytoplbs 8 Tí trot” airów &ueuvov 3 xeipov 6s
ºvevåuevos 36 yua TóAews kowbv vöuos étra-
wóuaorai. For any law which was Éturáčeous
(Dem. c. Tim. p. 722, § 68 ; c. Lept. p. 482,
§ 83 f.) the proposer could reckon upon ready
acceptance ; for it was the outcome of practical
needs which required only to be duly stated
within the prescribed forms. To satisfy a
practical need (ék Yap too mpdºrregóat riva &v
où trpooijkev, Šic rotºrov 'rous vópovs #6mkav of
traxaloſ, Aeschin. c. Tim. § 13; 6 ačv y&p vów0s
trépuke trpoxéºyeuv & whº be? ºrpärrelv, Lyc. c.
Leocr. § 4), not to build up a system of laws
which provided for every conceivable case, was
the aim of Greek legislation (Theophr. tr. vöuay,
fr. 1 and 2, in Journ. of Philol. vi. p. 1 : “jura
constitui oportet, ut ait Th.,” in his “quae étrº
To traetorov accidunt, non quae éic trapaxóryov,”
Digest. i. 3, 3; Tô yöp &maš # 6ts, ut ait Th.,
trapaflaivovorty of vouc0état, Digest. i. 3, 6).
Solon's laws were inscribed Bovorpoqmööv on
square wooden tablets (§§oves) on a pivot (Aris-
totle in Aul. Gell. W. A. ii. 12; Harpocr. s. v.
#ovi, Plut. Sol. 25). Draco's laws on homicide,
which Solon retained, were likewise inscribed
on &éoves, but these were counted by them-
selves. This is evident from C. J. A. i. No. 61,
where Draco's law trepl (póvov is mentioned as
being inscribed on the trpátos &#ov (cf. Dem.
c. Aristocr. p. 629, § 28, Čv rá, a &#ovi, Cobet,
War. Lect, p. 123), whilst the trpáros &#av
of Solon’s legislation contained quite different
laws. From Plut. Sol. 24 we learn that it
contained a law forbidding the exportation of
any native produce except olive oil ; and from
Harpocr. s. v. oriros, that on it were inscribed
regulations for the maintenance of widows and
orphans. This first &av evidently contained
the vöuot roß &pxovros: for the tºpxwv was
bound, on pain of forfeiting 100 drachmas, te
240 NOMOS
NOMOS
pronounce solemn curses upon any offender
against the law. regulating export, and to him
was also entrusted the care of widows and
orphans (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 57). From
this it would appear that Solon's laws were
arranged according to the magistrates who had
to administer them—an arrangement which
seems to have been the usual one at Athens
(Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 206 f : vöuos row
Baorixéas, Athen. vi. p. 235 c ; Pollux, iii. 39;
váuoi 80w)\evtukot, lea, in Dem. C. Tim. p. 706,
§ 20, etc.; the vöuot trikxhpaw, rexavikot,
éutropikot, etc., were subdivisions, e.g. the vópol
étrikâfipwy of the vöuot too &pxovros, etc.).
According to the scholiast on Plat. Polit, p.
298 D, Solon divided his laws into vöuot repl
Tów iepāv, vówou troAttikoi, and vôuot trepl rôv
iöuatikºv, and the third class was placed on the
#oves, the other two on the kūp8ets (cf. Sol.
25); but earlier writers knew of no such
difference between &éoves and kūpêeus (cf. Era-
tosthenes in Schol. on Aristoph. Nub. 447).
According to others, the Ščoves were wooden
tablets, whilst the kūpéets were stone pillars
(Apollodorus in Harpocr. s. v.); but from the
passage from Cratinus quoted by Plut. Sol. 25
it is clear that the kūp6ers were of wood. In
all probability, as Aristotle suggests, &#oves and
köpfels were synonymous terms [AXONES].
Solon's laws were preserved first in the Acropolis,
subsequently brought by Ephialtes eis rô Bov-
Aevtåptov kal rºv &yopáv (Anaximenes in Har-
pocr. s. v. 6 kāra,6ev vöpios), and ultimately to
the prytaneum, where Polemon, c. 200 B.C., saw
them yet (Harpocr. s. v. čovi), and where some
remnants (Aethava Pukpd) existed even in the days
of Plutarch (Sol. 25); some sixty years later
Pausanias said inaccurately €v 6 (sc. Prytaneum)
vöuoi re oi 26Awvós eiot yeypaſſiévot, etc.
(i. 18, 3). According to Aristotle, copies of the
laws were placed in the cºro& BagiNeta (Har-
pocr. s. v. kõpbels). Whether Aristotle refers
to the legislation of B.C. 409 and 403, or to an
earlier measure (perhaps to Ephialtes, l.c., robs
Küpflets eis . . . thv &yopdv, etc.), it is perfectly
elear that for practical use such copies of all
the laws on orrāAat were in the court of the
basileus in the market-place : cf. C. I. A. i.
No. 61, &vaypayávrov oi &vaypaqets tav vöuov
. . . v aráAm Atôſvp kai karaðévrov trpó06ev Tijs
a toas rās Bagińetas, and the psephisma in
Andoc. de Myst. § 84, robs 6& Kupoupévous róv
váuoy &vaypdºpetv sis row rotxov, i.e. eis rhy
arody (l. c. §§ 85, 82). There were besides, in
the offices of the different magistrates, copies of
those laws which they had to administer; thus
Andocides speaks of a law which he considered
Solonian as év tá ortham éutpooróev roſ, govaev-
triptov (de Myst. § 95 f.; cf. the véuot govXev-
Tukol in Dem. c. Tºm. p. 706, § 20); the laws
on homicide were engraven on a grãAm in the
Areiopagus (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 627, § 22; Lys.
ge caed. Erat. § 30; [Lys.]... c. Andoc. § 15;
[Dem.] c. Euerg. et Mnes. p. 1161, § 71).”
Within a year after the deposition of the Four
Hundred the complete democracy was restored,
* The ancient law respecting the wife of the basileus
engraven on a stone pillar élièpoſs Ypéridgw'Arrukofs
was preserved in the temple of Dionysus év Aiuvais,
which was opened only once every year ([Dem.] c.
Neaer. p. 1370, 3.76 f.). S. . . . . ..... . . . . . .
t
A
* * * * *
and a revision of the laws ensued: commission-
ers (ovyypapets, C. J. A. i. No. 58: Demophan-
tus was one of them, tdöe A. ovvéypayev,
Andoc. de Myst. § 96) were appointed with āva-
'ypaſpeis (C. I. A. i. No. 61; cf. Lys. c. Nicom.
§ 2) under them to copy the laws within four
months after the revision (R. Schöll, de extraord.
quibusd. magistr. Athen. in Comment. Philol. in
hon. Th. Mommseni, p. 458 ft.), and from C.I.A. i.
No. 57 and No. 61 it is evident that the law on
the competency of the senate and the popular
assembly, and Draco's law respecting homicide,
were copied afresh. This revision was inter-
rupted by the unfavourable turn which the war
took, and was not resumed until the archonship
of Eucleides, B.C. 403. Then it was proposed
xpāobal roſs 36Aww.os vöuous kal roſs Apákovros
9eoploſs (Andoc. de Myst. § 82; cf. Xen. Memor.
ii. 2, 42, toſs vópious rols àpxaíois) in the mean-
time; the senate selected ten voup6éral (Öröowv
6 &v trpooróém, oi 6éka [Sluiter, lect. Andoc. p. 134,
of Öe MSS.] ſipmuévol vouc0érai Örö täs 8ov-
Aïs), who had to write on tablets all proposals
for new laws, post them up for public inspec-
tion before the statues of the Eponymous Heroes,
and hand them over within a month rats
āpxais, i.e. to the different magistrates inter-
ested, all the laws to be examined first by the
senate and then by the 500 nomothetae (after
having taken the oath), elected by the Ömuórai,
and during the discussion before the senators
every private citizen was to have liberty to
enter the senate and tender his opinion. All
the laws thus approved were written out in
the Ionian alphabet (Suid. s. v. Xautov 6 biluos).
At the same time it was enacted that no
magistrate should act upon any law not among
those inscribed ; that no psephisma either of
the senate or of the people should overrule any
law; that no law should be passed ºr' &vöpl
unless by the votes of the majority in an
assembly at which at least 6000 Athenians
were present and voted (secret voting by
ballot), e.g. in case of naturalisation of a
foreigner; and that in future the code as
revised in the archonship of Eucleides should
be used (Andoc. l. c. § 87; cf. Dem. c. Tim.
p. 713, § 42, lea),—After the Lamian war the
democratic constitution was overthrown by
Antipater; Demetrius of Phaleron, the third
vouc0érms of Athens (Syncellus, Chron. 273),
established again a professedly democratic
government (oi advov oi karéAvore thv 3muo-
kpartav &AAä kal érmvápówore, Strab. ix. p. 398),
but Plutarch's (Demetr. 10) description of it as
in fact a uovapxurch karáorrao is seems more
accurate; three years after his death, in B.C.
304–3, a new &vaypaq”) of the laws took place
(C. I. A. ii. No. 258).
The magistrates and dicasts were bound by
solemn oaths to administer the laws, executive
and judicial: the nine archons swore ovuſpvX4-
few rows véuous (Pollux, viii. 86; cf. Plut. Sol.
25), the senators Bovaeśorew karū tows véuous
(Xen. Memor. i. 1, 18), the dicasts karū, Tots
yóuous bikárely . . . kal repl &v by vöuoi Phºol,
yváum rj Sikatorárm kgiveſv (Dem.0. Lept.
p. 492, § 118, etc.). In the decree of Tisamenus
the senate of Areiopagus were enjoined to see
§was by ai épxal roſs retuévois véºols Xpoºl
(Andoc. de Myst. §84; cf. Plut. Sol. 19). As
| the "dicasts performed the functions both of
NOMOS
NOMOTHETES 241
judge and jury, i.e. were entrusted with the
whole judicial power after the cause was
brought into court (they decided upon the law
as well as upon the facts without being di-
rected or controlled by a presiding judge), it
is evident that the important question how the
laws of Athens worked depends on the discretion
which in practice they exercised in the interpre-
tation of the written law, or, where there was
no written statute, in applying the general
principles of law and justice to the case before
them. This is only to be discovered by a careful
perusal of the Attic orators, and is too wide a
question to be discussed here. The materials
for a trial were prepared by the parties them-
selves under the superintendence of the magis-
trate, and the dicasts had to decide upon the
materials thus prepared. Of the five &Texvot
Trío reis which Aristotle mentions (Rhet. i. 15,
váuol, uáprupes, ovv67kat, Báo avoi, Špiros) we
are here concerned only with the first ; the
parties procured copies or extracts of such laws
as were material to the questions to be tried,
and brought them before the jºyeuðv Šuica-
ormptov at the āvákploſis, by whom they were
put into the box (éxivos), together with the
other evidentiary documents, and produced at
the trial to be read to the dicasts by the 7papa-
plateis. To produce a fictitious law is said to
have been an offence punishable with death
([Dem.] c. Aristog. ii. p. 807, § 24). It was
easy for the parties to procure copies, since
every citizen had access to the public places
where the laws were open to inspection, and
to the Metroon which served as state archives
(vouoqvādictov, Suid. s. v. untpayúptms; from
the fourth century, according to Wilamowitz-
Möllendorf, Philol. Unters. i. p. 205 f.) for all
kinds of documents: laws (Lycurgus in Har-
pocr. s. v. ; Lyc. c. Leocr. § 66, etc.), decrees (the
originals, Athen. v. p. 214 e ; Dinarch. c. Dem.
§ 86), etc., and was in charge of a public servant
(ómuðarios, Dem. de fals. Leg. p. 380, § 129).
{C. Curtius, de Metroon in Ath, als Staatsarchiv.)
There was at Athens no class of persons corre-
sponding to our counsel or attorneys, whose
business or profession it was to expound the
Jaws. The office of the éénymºral related only
to religious observances. The laws were not
complicated ; at all events it was considered a
requirement of a good law that it should be
drawn simply and intelligibly (Dem. c. Tim.
p. 722, § 68), and nothing seems more directly
opposed to Solon’s aims than the charge
brought against him by Plutarch (Sol. 18),
that he wrapped his laws in studied obscurity.
Every Athenian on coming of age swore to
obey the laws (roſs 6eoploſs roſs ièpvuévous
Tretorouai kal oiotivas &v &AAovs To trx?90s
iöpúa mºral époq pāvas, Stob. Flor. xliii. 48 ; cf.
Pollux, viii. 105 f.), and Pericles pointed to the
fear of the laws as the source of every civic
virtue (Thuc. ii. 37). But, to use Burke's
words (Reflections on the Revolution in France,
p. 459), “The vice of the ancient democracies,
and one cause of their ruin, was, that they
ruled . . . by occasional decrees, psephismata.
This practice soon broke in upon the tenour
and consistency of the laws; it abated the
respect of the people towards them, and totally
destroyed them in the end.”, (Hermann, Ueber
Gesetz, Gesetzgebung, etc. im griech. Alterth, ;
WOL. II,
Maine, Anc. Law, ch. 1; Leist, Graeco - ital.
Rectsgesch.) [H. H.]
NOMO'THETES (vouobérms), legislator, is
a word which may be applied to any person
who causes laws to be enacted (6 vöuov Kalvöv
eioſpépov, Schol. on Dem. Olynth. iii. p. 31,
§ 10). Thus, Pericles and Themistocles are
called vouc0éral, movers or proposers of laws
(Lys. c. Nichom. § 28; c. Phil. § 27, etc.). It is,
however, more commonly given to those eminent
men whose laws have been celebrated for their
intrinsic merit, or for the important influence
which they exercised over the destinies of their
country. Such were Minos of Crete (Plat. Min.
p. 318 C); Zaleucus at Locri; Charondas at
Catana, whose laws were adopted by the Chal-
cidian cities in Sicily and Italy (Arist. Pol. ii. 9
[12 B.], 8, praises his laws as superior to all
others of his time in accuracy of definition and
fineness of discrimination ; they were sung trap'
oivov Katávnai, Philologus, v. p. 421, i.e. at
Catana, not 'A9hvnori, the usual text in Athen.
p. 619 b); Draco at Athens (Dem. c. Tim. p. 765,
§ 2.11); Pittacus of Lesbos; Androdamas of
Rhegium (Arist. Pol. ii. 9 [12 B.], 9), etc. But
the name of vouc0érms is given kar’ &#0x?iv to
Lycurgus and Solon; for they were also founders
of constitutions (troAireſai, Arist. Pol. ii. 9 [12 B.],
1). So high was the esteem in which Solon was
held by the Athenians as the founder of their
social polity, that although many important
reforms were effected at various periods, he still
continued to be regarded as the lawgiver, and
the whole body of laws passed under his name
(Meier, de Bon. Damm. p. 2).
As pointed out in NOMOS, Solon did not en-
deavour to secure fixity and finality for his laws.
Zaleucus (Dem. c. Tim. p. 744, § 139; Polyb. xii.
16) discouraged changes in his laws by the
regulation that he who proposed a new law had
to bring the matter before the council with a
cord about his neck, and was to be put to death
if his proposal was negatived (Diod. xii. 17
ascribes this regulation to Charondas). When
Lycurgus went on his last journey from which
he never returned (so the story runs), he bound
his countrymen by an oath to observe all his
laws till his return (Plut. Lyc. 29). Solon
exacted a similar oath of the Athenians for ten
years only (Herod. i. 29; for a century, Plut.
Sol. 25), and devised certain formalities for re-
pealing an existing law and enacting a new one
(Dem. c. Lept. p. 484, § 89 f., p. 485, § 93;
Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 38 ascribes them tº vouc0étm
tº rºw Smuokpartav karao Thaavri). Grote
(Hist. of Gr. iii. p. 123 f) doubts whether Solon
made any such provisions (as we find in opera-
tion in the time of Demosthenes), and refers “to
post-Solonian matters in the supposed Solonian
law, e.g. to the regulation (Dem. c. Tim. p. 707,
§ 23) that the proposer had to put up his pro-
ject of law before the Eponymi.” Of course
this regulation cannot have proceeded from
Solon, but the existence of such post-Solonian
matters may be admitted without giving up the
main point, viz. that it was Solon who laid down
the principle of periodical revision of the laws
(Schömann, Verfassungsgesch. Ath. p. 57).”
* In Busolt's opinion (Griech. Staats. w. Rechtsaltert-
§ 195) the mode of enacting laws in the fifth century
differed from that in use in the fourth, inasmuch as in
- R
242 NOMOTHETES
NOMOTHETES
The method of procedure at the émixelporovía
wówov was as follows:—At the first assembly of
the first prytany, i.e. on the eleventh of Heca-
tombaeon, after speeches recommending new
laws and defending the old ones had been de-
livered, the question was put to the vote (xelpo-
rovía) whether the laws should be confirmed as
they stood or be revised. The laws were sub-
mitted in groups, according to Dem. C. Tim.
p. 706, § 20, lea: ; first of 8ovXevrikot, i.e. those
concerning the BovX%; secondly, oi koivot, then
o? keivtat roºs évvéa &pxoval, and oi rāv šNAww
āpxów — evidently arranged according to the
different magistrates who had to administer
them, though the term oi kowo, vöplot is not
clear in this connexion. If a revision of one or
more groups of the laws was voted for, in the
third assembly following, the appointment of
vouc0état was taken into consideration (oké-
thaa 6al kað’ & ‘ri rows vouc0éras kaðueire, l. c.
p. 707, § 25), viz. their number and the length
of their session, and how their pay was to be
provided. In the interval those who wished to
propose a new law had to put up a copy of it
before the statues of the Eponymi (l.c. p. 705,
§ 18; p. 708, § 25; p. 711, § 36), that every one
might have an opportunity of seeing it; and to
give it still further publicity, they had to hand
a copy to the secretary of the senate to have it
read out at the intervening assemblies (Dem.
c. Lept. p. 485, § 94), probably together with
the old law which it was intended to replace
(trapavayvoús, Dem. c. Tim. p. 712, § 38). The
popular assembly was thus enabled to form an
opinion as to the extent and nature of the re-
vision, and accordingly to fix the number of the
vowoffétat to be selected by lot from among the
heliasts, and to determine their term of office;
for the nomothetae were not a standing com-
mittee of the heliasts with their own étriotdºrms
and trpoéðpot (Fränkel, d. Att. Geschworengerichte,
p. 23 f.), but were chosen ad hoc, and their
number was probably not uniform (a thousand,
as Pollux, viii. 101, says), but seems to have
varied according to the importance of the laws
under consideration. The number of nomo-
thetae given in Dem. c. Tim. p. 708, § 27, is
1001; in Andoc. de Myst. § 84, it is 500 (Blass
reads here à Bovah oi revrakóorioi Kal oi vouc-
6état instead of ii Bovah Kai of vouc0éral oi
Trevrakóotol). At the same time as the nomo-
thetae (not at the first assembly, Dem. c. Tim.
p. 707, § 23) five avváryopol (l.c. p. 711, § 36;
Dem. c. Lept. ed. Wolf, Proleg. p. 145) were chosen
to argue in defence of the laws which it was pro-
posed to repeal (not five ovváryopot for each
the fifth century certain individuals (ovyypaſſets) were
commissioned to draw up the laws which, after having
been approved by the senate, were laid before the
popular assembly; ovyypaſpets for 450 B.C. in C. I. A.
iv. No. 22 a, for 446 B.C. in the decree about the
àmapxai in Bull. de Corresp. Hell. 1880, pp. 225 ft., in
March 411 B.C. §vyypadets abrokpáropes were appointed
to prepare a new constitution (Thuc. viii. 67), cf. Xen.
Bell. ii. 3, 2, 11 : Memor. i. 2, 31; but immediately after
the overthrow of the Four Hundred vowoôéra, were
appointed (Thuc. viii. 97). Hicks (Greek Hist. Inscr.
149, A, 38) gives an interesting inscription, according
to which three voucypádow were commissioned to draw
up a new code of laws for Teos after the incorporation
of the people of Lebedos with the Teians, the laws of
Cos being in the meantime in force.
law, as the Schol. on Dem. c. Tim. p. 707, § 23,
says). Before the nomothetae were called upon
to give their final decision, the proposed laws
were examined by the senate (avvvopo6erely 8&
kal Tºv BovXhu (l.c. p. 708, § 27, psephisma);
cf. [Xen.] de Rep. Athen. iii. 2, thv 5è BovX},
Rovaeffeo'6al (bei) . . . troAA& . . . Trepl véuww.
6éorews, and Pollux, viii. 101, toys yúp véovs
(Sc. vópºovs) éðoicipaſev ji Bovāń, etc.); and if we
may take the revision of laws in B.C. 403 as an
example, the senate performed this duty b
themselves, not in conjunction with the no-
mothetae. The meetings of the nomothetae
resembled the assemblies of the people: the
prytanes convened them; irpoéâpot presided over
them, probably appointed in the same way, viz.
by lot one from each of the non-presiding tribes,
and their €triotărms chosen by lot from among
themselves. The statement that the rpoéðpot
put the question to the nomothetae (Dem. C.
Tim. p. 710, § 33; p. 723, § 71) is not “a
blunder on the part of the compiler; ” they are
mentioned in C. I. A. ii. No. 115", Év Šē roºs
vouc0érais rows trpoéðpous of &v trpoeëpeãoorly
ka) rov čtrigºrdºrmv trpoovopo6erioral, etc. The
law in favour of which the nomothetae voted,
whether the established law or the proposed
one, was köptos.
Besides this, the thesmothetae (kaAoûvral 5&
oùrws, 3ri Tàu väuwy Tºv čtriplexetav eixov, Har-
pocr. s. v.) of each year were directed to examine
the whole code of laws (6tóp6aorus Töv vápºwv), and
to see if there were any laws contradictory or use-
less (Aeschin c. Ctes. § 38; Dem. c. Lept. p. 484,
$90; Harpocr. and Photius, s. v.). If they found
such, they had to put up copies of them before
the statues of the Eponymi, the prytanes had to
convene an assembly of the people for the ap-
pointment of nomothetae (êtruypdhavres vouc-
6éras), and the étriotárms rôv irpoéðpov had to
submit the laws to the decision of the nomo-
thetae. The usual text of the last clause is row
6’ 3ruarármv Tów Trpoéðpov 6taxeuporovíav 31-
6óval tº Shuq : Tó Shuq' is, however, wrongly
repeated from the previous paragraph. It is
clear from what follows, Tów 5& Trpvráveav
âtročávrov roſs vouc0érats &vipmt’ &v 6 repos
rów vöuwu, that the nomothetae, not the as-
sembly of the people, would have repealed the
law. (Höffler, de nomothes. Att. p. 10, con-
necting this passage with Photius’ explanation
of vouc0éral, strangely supposes that the
whole people when engaged in the revision of
the laws might be called vopo6éral.) The pro-
ceedings in the étrixelpotovía Tów vöuov and in
the Ötöp6aoris are therefore only different in this
respect, that in the former any citizen so dis-
posed, in the latter the thesmothetae in their
official capacity, proposed the repeal of a law.
If, after the repeal of an old law by the
nomothetae, it was found that the law proposed
in its stead was not expedient (oilk &miríðelos)
for the Athenian people, or was contrary to any
of the established laws (lea: in Dem. c. Tim.
p. 710, § 33), the proposer was within the limit
of a year liable to prosecution (Dem. c. Lept.
p. 501, § 144; argumentum, p. 543). (Schöll,
Ueber attische Gesetzgebung, Sitzungsber. Akad.
München, 1886.) [PARANoMON GRAPHE.]
These regulations for the revision of laws were
not always observed; e.g. Demosthenes (Olynth.
iii. p. 31, § 10 f.) recommended the appointment
NONAE
NOTAE 243
of nomothetae for the special purpose of repealing
the laws concerning the theoric fund; one of
the charges against Timocrates was that he in-
duced the people to appoint nomothetae out of
the usual time, viz. on the day following the
first assembly of the year (p. 706, § 18; p. 708,
§ 26; cf. c. Lept. p. 488, §91). The practice had
grown up of passing legislative measures in the
shape of decrees, dispensing with the regular
course of law. The mere resolution of the people
in assembly was a phºptoua ; such decrees were
originally measures of government, relating to
individuals, or to particular occasions, e.g. for
the despatch of an embassy. They had indeed
the force of laws so far as regarded the obedience
due to them, and sometimes vógos and ºffſpiorua
seem to be used indiscriminately, e.g. Ps. Plut.
Vitt. X. Oratt. p. 481 E f., and Aelian, W. H. xiii.
24 (Schömann, de Comit. p. 249), but one
psephisma might be set aside at any time by
another. It was ordained by a decree of the
people that no free Athenian could be put to
torture, but Peisander urged the Athenians to
set it aside (Ašev to émi Akauavöptov Whquaga,
Andoc. de Myst. § 43 : cf. [Dem.] c. Aristog. i.
p. 784, § 47; Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 896,
n. 372).
Andocides quotes the law : 'Whquaga pumöèv
pºſite 8ovXīs pºſite Shuow vöuov kvpidºtepov sival
(de Myst. §§ 87, 89; cf. Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 694,
§ 87; c. Tim. p. 709, § 30); as long as this law
was observed, the democracy was one of the kind
in which (as Aristotle, Pol. vi.[iv. B.], 4, 3, says)
köpios fiv 6 vôpos, &AA'où to traß60s: but later
on things changed: kūptov fiv ro traj60s, &AA’
oùx 6 vöpios, -a change brought about 3rav rà
ibnºptopara köpta fi &AA& uh 5 vöuos, ovußatvel
8& rooro 61& robs Smuaydºyovs (cf. Dem. c. Lept.
p. 485, § 92, pm pio Adºrov 6' oib’ 6tuoſov 6ta-
q’épovori!, oi vápot: Xen. Hellen. i. 7, 12, to 6&
TA760s é8óa Öeuvov eival ei aft ris ééo et row
87uov trpattew 6 &v Boüxmrai : [Dem.] c. Neaer.
p. 1375, § 88, 6 yūp 8710s 6’A0mvaíav Kupić-
taros &v rôv év tá tróAet ätrövtov kai ééov airó
troueiv 8 Ti &v BoöAmtal, etc.; Hermann, Griech.
Staatsalt. § 67, n. 8). Like other despotic
sovereigns, the Athenian people claimed “a
dispensing power” of overriding the law upon
occasion; and their advisers, the professional
statesmen and orators, were as such the
“keepers of the royal conscience,” and liable
to severe punishment if their master’s conscience
consequently reproached him with what he
had done at their bidding (Dem. c. Androt. et
Tim. ed. Wayte, Introd. p. xxxiv.). The same
Athenians who declared it intolerable that the
people should not be allowed to do as it pleased
them, repented soon of their decree and directed
a prosecution of those who had advised it.
However, proposing decrees paid the fiftopes
well and was worth some risk: Demosthenes
and Demades are said to have made more than
60 talents each &m' airóv táv čv Tà ráAet pnqug-
Adºrov kal trpoševiov (Hyper. C. Dem. col. 23; cf.
Dinarch. c. Dem. § 41 ff.). [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
NONAE. [CALENDARIUM.]
NORMA (yovía, Plat. Phileb. p. 51 C;
'yváuov, Arist. Categ. 14), a square, used by
carpenters, masons, and other artificers, to make
their work rectangular (Vitruv. vii. 3; Plin.
A. W. xxxvi. § 172). . It was made by taking
three flat wooden rulers [REGULA] of equal
thickness, one of them being 2 feet 10 inches
long, the others (called oncomes, Vitruv. viii. 6)
each 2 feet long, and joining them together by
their extremities so as to assume the form of a
right-angled triangle. (Isid. Orig. xix. 18.)
This method, though only a close approximation,
must have been quite sufficient for all common
purposes. For the sake of convenience, the
longest side, i.e. the hypotenuse of the triangle,
was discarded, and the instrument then assumed
the form in which it is exhibited among other
tools in woodcut at Vol. I. p. 429. A square of
a still more simple fashion, made by merely
cutting a rectangular piece out of a board, is
shown on another sepulchral monument, found
at Rome and published by Gruter (p. 229), and
copied in the woodcut which is here introduced.
* * *
ALVNAN ºil
INSTRVMEN. FABR.TIGNAR.
Norma. (Gruter.)
The square was used in making the semicircular
striae of Ionic columns [COLUMNA], a method
founded on the proposition in Euclid, that the
angle contained in a semicircle is a right angle
(Vitruv. iii. 5, § 14).
From the use of this instrument a right
angle was also called a normal angle. (Quintil.
xi. 3, p. 446, ed. Spalding.) Any thing mis-
shapen was called abnormis. (Hor. Sat. ii. 2, 3.)
A rather more elaborate norma made of iron
is preserved in the Museum at Zurich. It has
another leg added at right angles to the long
side of the triangle at one end of it, so that angles
of 45°, 90°, and 135° can be measured. (Blüm-
ner, Technol., ii. p. 236.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
NOTA CENSO'RIA. [CENSUs.]
NOTAE (a mueſa) in a technical sense means
those signs and abbreviations which were used
(1) for secret writing, cipher; (2) for rapid
writing, i.e. shorthand or stenography.
1. We have frequent mention of the use of
cipher, for despatches or letters of an important
or compromising nature, at the end of the
Republican period. Thus of Caesar’s correspon-
dence with Oppius and Balbus we are told by
Gallus that there were “litterae singulariae sine
coagmentis syllabarum : erat autem conventum
inter eos (the writer and his correspondents)
clandestinum de commutando situ litterarum.”
The cipher used by Caesar was, according to

R 2
244 NOTAE
NOTAE
Suetonius (Jul. 56), a simple one, and consisted
in making D stand for A, E for B, and so on
through the alphabet, “si qua occultius perfer-
enda essent.” The cipher used by Augustus was
on the same principle. (Suet. Aug. 88; Becker-
Göll, Gallus, i. 62.) Whether the words Stå
ormuelov in Cic. ad Att. xiii. 32 mean, in cipher,
or simply with abbreviations of words (sigla),
or in shorthand, is uncertain. The letter to
which he refers (xiii. 30) does not seem to be
one which particularly requires secrecy, but
it is quite possible that he may have sent it in
cipher : on the other hand, he may, though less
probably, have sent Atticus the copy taken down
in shorthand from his dictation. However that
may be, we may feel tolerably certain that in
Cicero's correspondence cipher was used at
least as frequently as in Caesar's.
2. The whole system of signs for numeration
[see LOGISTICA] is no doubt essentially steno-
graphy; but it existed quite apart from, and
probably was much anterior to, the art of
shorthand writing which is usually expressed
by that word: the same may be said of signs or
letters for money value, weights, coins, &c.,
which, like the signs for numeration, arose from
consideration of economy in space, rather than
from any necessity for rapid writing. Such a
necessity was the origin of the Notae Tironianae
(called also Notae Tironis et Senecae), which we
may take as the representative of ancient
shorthand writing.
As to the history of this art, it is impossible
to say with certainty whether the Romans
originated their own shorthand and communi-
cated it to the Greeks, or whether the Greeks
had it first. The idea of its earlier use in
Greece is started by a passage of Diogenes
Laertius (ii. 48), which states that Xenophon
took down lectures àtoo muetworáuevos Tā Āeyó-
weva. It is quite possible that this may, as
some think, mean that he wrote in shorthand;
but, in the absence of other mention of the art
at that time, we should prefer to understand it
merely of ordinary note-taking. We have not
in fact any direct mention of its use among
Greeks or Romans before the time of Cicero.
(For a much earlier use in Asia, some adduce
the “ready writer’’ in Psalm xlv., in which
sense the LXX. translator possibly took it,
when he rendered it āśvypápos.) The use of
shorthand at Rome may have been developed
from cipher-writing, or more probably from
the frequent use of abbreviations, such as S. C.,
&c. Of its use by Cicero we have abundant
record. Plutarch (Cato Min. 23) tells us that
the speech on the punishment of the Cati-
linarians was the only speech of Cato that was
preserved, and that this was owing to Cicero,
“who had previously instructed those clerks
who surpassed the rest in quick writing, how to
use certain signs (ormuela) which in small and
brief characters (tätrous) comprehended the force
of many letters, and had placed them in many
parts of the senate-house. For the Romans at
that time were not used to employ, nor did they
possess, what are called shorthand writers (amuel-
oypdºor), but it was on this occasion, as they
say, that they first conceived the idea.” Dio
Cassius (lv. 7) ascribes the invention to Maecenas,
which probably means merely that he, or his
secretaries, made considerable additions and
improvements, and this is exactly the
account which Isidore gives in the 7th cen-
tury, derived, as it seems, from Suetonius,
He ascribes the invention of the shorthand in
general use (vulgares notae) to Ennius, who used
1100 signs: for taking down public speeches or
the proceedings in law-courts, there was also a
division of labour among several librarii (= no-
tarii), who took different portions. He says that
Tiro had first used notae at Rome, “sed tantum
praepositionum: ” if that is correct, we must
suppose that the actual shorthand of Tiro
consisted of abbreviations (sigla), with arbitrary
signs only for particles of frequent occurrence:
he goes on to say that additional signs were
added in succession by Vipsanius, Philargyrus
and Aquila, the freedman of Maecenas, till at
length Seneca reduced the whole to a regular
system and increased the number of signs to
5,000. As regards the Ennius here mentioned,
whom many writers have taken to be the poet
(whence they make Isidore assert a much earlier
date to Roman stenography), there can be little
doubt that he was the grammarian Ennius of
the Augustan period (see Suet. de Grammat. 1 ;
Teuffel, Hist, of Rom. Lit. § 178, 4). Indeed
the context shows clearly enough that Isidore
speaks of Ennius as improving on something which
existed in a smaller shape in Cicero's time.
From Cicero's account of Tiro (ad Fam. xvi. 4,
&c.; cf. Gell. vi. 3, 8) it is extremely probable
that the real labour of the work was his, not
Cicero's, and that the title “notae Tironianae''
is just : but the addition “et Senecae º seems to
be rejected by Seneca himself, who says, “quid
loquar verborum notas, quibus quamvis citata
excipitur oratio et celeritatem linguae manus
sequitur P vilissimorum mancipiorum ista com-
menta sunt.” The arrangement and additions
were, however, probably effected by him through
his notarii.
From this time its use spread. It served not
only for taking down public speeches (as in
Plutarch, l.c.), but also for the use of students
in the lecture-room (Quint. Inst. proem. 7), and
for any writing from dictation, e.g. for the rough
draft of wills: “Silius notario testamentum
scribendum notis dictavit, et priusquam litteris
perscriberetur (the full text for signature)
defunctus est” (Dig. 29, 1, 40). The same dis-
tinction between notae and perscriptio may be
seen in the fragment of Valerius Probus about
cipher-writing, “est etiam circa perscribendas
vel paucioribus litteris notandas voces studium
necessarium.” It was taught in schools: see
Prudent. IIepi Xreq’dvov, 9.
“Praefuerat studiis puerilibus et grege multo
Saeptus magister litterarum sederat,
Verba notis brevibus comprendere cuncta peritus,
Raptimgue punctis dicta praepetibus sequi.”
So Fulgentius (Mythol. iii. 10) divides the
writing lesson into the abecedaria or regular
alphabet, and the notaria. Many Romans kept
slaves trained for the purpose [NOTARII], and
Suetonius tells us that Titus, who prided himself
on his skill in writing, and said that he was a
“forger spoilt,” used to race his secretaries in
shorthand writing (Suet. Tit. 3). The use was
still further developed among the Christians for
taking down sermons, episcopal addresses, &c.;
and, if it was not as old as Xenophon in Greece,
NOTAE
NOVELLAE 245
it was at any rate widely employed in early
Christian times. The extant examples of Greek
shorthand writing are considered to date only
from the 10th century (see the article Palaeo-
graphy in Encyclop. Brit.), but we can have no
doubt that if the art was originated at Rome it
was not much later in reaching Greece. As to
its general use in Christian synods, St. Augustine
(Ep. 141) says that eight notarii in relays of two
at a time followed the speeches of bishops
assembled at Carthage: and we are told by
Trithemius (abbot of Wurtzburg in 1506 A.D.)
that St. Cyprian added to the original Tironian
notes. The words are worth quoting, since the
learning and research of the writer make it
likely that his account of the development of the
notae is correct: “M. Tullius Cicero librum
scripsit notarum quem Sanctus Cyprianus multis
et notis et dictionibus ampliavit, adjiciens
vocabula Christianorum usibus necessaria ut
opus ipsum fieret non solum utile paganis sed
multo magis etiam fidelibus.” The notae fell
apparently into disuse for a considerable time,
but were revived under the Carlovingian
dynasty and used in Capitularies, &c. The MSS.
written in the “Tironian ’’ character long
remained incomprehensible, till Charpentier
deciphered them and published an account of
them in 1747.
As to the ancient system itself, we have some
contemporary description from the passage of
Plutarch cited above (Cat. Min. 23), who tells
us clearly that arbitrary signs, not merely
abbreviations or sigla, were used. Compare
Manilius iv. 197:
“Hic et scriptor erit velox, cui littera verbum est,
Quique notis linguam superat, cursimdue loquentis
Excipiat longas nova per compendia voces.”
Auson. Epigr. 146:
“Cui multa fandi copia
Punctis peracta singulis
|Ut una vox absolvitur.”
From the passage of Seneca quoted above, and
from Mart. xiv. 208, we can merely gather that
the writer could keep pace with the speaker.
It is impossible to say how far what we possess
under the name of notae Tironianae reproduces
the system used in the Augustan age. Common
sense would suggest what Trithemius states to
be the fact, that great additions were made at
various times; and the view which he gives may
fairly be accepted, that the system of Tiro was
much the same in its general outlines as that
which is still extant under his name, though far
less full and elaborate. The system consists
mainly (1) in using an alphabet more or less
based on the Roman letters which can be so
modified as to facilitate the junction of letters.
(2) In representing terminations by arbitrary
signs, such as B. for bam, .B for bant (or, instead
of the regular letters, new characters similarly
multiplied by the variation of the point). To
this the “punctis” in the passages of Ausonius
and Prudentius refer. .
(3) In employing all sorts of abbreviations
(siila) independently of the character used.
(Cf. “cui littera verbum est” above.)
(4) In adopting arbitrary signs, such as
Trithemius describes, for words in common
use. With this correspond the türoi troAAów
ºpappudraw #xovira öövapuv of Plutarch and the
“nova compendia” of Manilius.
For further information on the subject, see
Kopp, Palaeographica Critica, vol. i. ; Ruess,
Tachygraphie; and especially Jules Tardiff,
Mém. Sur Not. Tiron., Acad, des. Inscriptions,
Sér, 2, vol. iii. 1852, who all give tables of the
alphabet and examples of the writing as it has
come down to us. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
NOTA/RII, shorthand writers, were slaves or
freedmen (see preceding article) whom wealthy
Romans kept in their service and often took
about with them on their travels (Plin. Ep. iii.
3, ix. 36; Mart. x. 62). They were employed
for taking notes in the law-courts (Mart. v. 51,
&c.), and were sometimes called actuarii (Suet.
Jul. 55). They were also employed by the
emperors (Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 28, Aurel. 36;
Trebell. Claud. 14), and in course of time the
title of notarii was exclusively applied to the
private secretaries of the emperors, who, of
course, were no longer slaves, but persons of high
rank. The shorthand writers were now called
eacceptores. On the re-organisation of the
empire by Constantine, the notarii were consti-
tuted into a kind of imperial chancery, who, in
addition to their regular duties, were frequently
employed by the emperor on important public
missions. The first of them in rank was called
Primicerius Notariorum, and the second, Secun-
dicerius Notariorum. Others were called tribuni
et notarii, and another class domestici et notarii,
who probably acted specially as private secre-
taries of the emperors. Others again who served
under the Praefecti Praetorii were called Notarii
Praetoriani (Cod. Theod. 6, tit. 10; Cassiod.
War. vi. 16; Pauly, Real Encycl. s. v.; Becker-
Göll, Gallus, i. 62; Walter, Gesch. des römischen
Rechts, $345, 2nd ed.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
NOVA'LE. [ARATRUM.]
NOVATIO. [OBLIGATIONES.
NOVELLAE or NOVELLAE CONSTI-
TUTIONES (veapal Statáčeis) are the discon-
nected enactments of Roman emperors following
upon a codification of the existing legislation.
The first such codification was that effected
A.D. 439 by Theodosius II. [CODEx THEODO-
SIANUs], and the first Novellae were those issued
by Theodosius himself nine years later, and
confirmed for the Western Empire by Valen-
tinian III. A.D. 448. Similarly Theodosius’
successor, Marcian, made Novellae in co-opera-
tion with the Western emperor, and the same
was done by Leo, but after him the legislation
of the two empires was distinct, and none of the
Western enactments seem to have possessed
validity in the East. Several collections of the
Novellae of Theodosius and his successors on the
throne of Constantinople were made at unknown
times and by unknown authors, and they have
been edited by Haenel (1844): such of them as are
of any importance for the modern civil law were
of course incorporated in the Code of Justinian,
and so lost the character of Novellae.
The Novellae Constitutiones of Justinian were
his enactments subsequent to the publication of
his second Codex, A.D. 534, and form a portion
of the Corpus Juris Civilis. The first was issued
on Jan. 1 in A.D. 535, and related to testamen-
tary law : it was followed in the next thirty
years (Justinian dying A.D. 565) by over 160
others, though far the greater number were
246 NOWENDIALE
NOXALIS ACTIO
issued before Tribonian's death in A.D. 545.
Many consist of but one short chapter, but some
of from forty to fifty : most concern ecclesias-
tical and administrative matters, but some are
of great importance in relation to private law,
effecting sweeping reforms in the rules of the
family, and still more of inheritance. As a rule
they are in Greek, but fifteen are in Latin and
three in both languages: in this last case it
was ordered that the Latin version, that being
the official tongue, should be considered the
authentic one. Justinian himself contemplated
making a special and separate collection of his
Novellae (Const. cordi, § 4), but we know that
this was never done from a contemporary of his
own, Johannes Scholasticus (from A.D. 557
Patriarch of Constantinople), who speaks of
them as existing oſtropäämv. Three private
collections have come down to us: (1.) The
Epitome Juliani, a Latin condensation of 125
Novellae made by Julianus, a professor in Con-
stantinople, A.D. 556. (2.) The Authenticum
or Liber Authenticorum, a collection of 134
Novellae, all in Latin, of unknown origin, largely
circulated in Italy in the twelfth century: their
genuineness was at first denied by Truerius, but
he subsequently retracted his opinion, and this
collection was considered by the glossators as
having the force of law. (3.) A collection of
168 Novellae in Greek, some of which however
are in duplicate, and others were enacted by
various successors of Justinian ; only 153 are
Justinian’s own. This was first published in
Germany by Haloander in 1531. Besides these,
there are other Novellae of uncertain origin and
force, including the thirteen so-called “Edicta
Justiniani.”
The most complete work on the history of the
Novellae is by Biener, Geschichte der Novellen
Justinians, Berlin, 1824: cf. also Beitrag zur
Litterar-Geschichte des Novellen-Auszugs von
Julian; Won Haubold, Zeitschrift, vol. iv.; and
an excellent account of the history of the various
collections and editions of them in Puchta's
Institutionen, vol. i. § 147. [J. B. M.]
NOWENDIA'LE. [SACRUM ; FUNUs.]
NOWI HO'MINES. [NobiLEs.]
NOVI O'PERIS NUNTIATIO. [OPERIs
Novi NUNTIATIO.]
NOXA, [NoxALIS ACTIO.]
NOXA/LIS ACTIO. Those actions were
“noxal" which were brought on the delict (e.g.
theft, assault, damage to property) or quasi-
delict of a slave or child in power, or on damage
done by an animal, against the master, pater-
familias, or owner. Primarily they claimed
damages for the wrong, but the defendant could
escape the pecuniary loss, if he preferred it, by
surrendering (novae dedere) the guilty body to
the plaintiff: and from noza (meaning that
guilty body) the name of the action was (accord-
ing to Justinian, Inst. iv. 8, 1) derived, though
by other writers nowa is used to express the
wrong itself (e.g. Liv. xxi. 30) or the punishment
(e.g. Servius). No action properly lay against
the dependent wrong-doer himself under the
older law; but the remedy against the dominus
or paterfamilias was the ordinary action on the
delict, or quasi-delict, to which the edict or
statute (Inst. iv. 8, 4; Dig. 9, 4, 2, 1; 47, 1, 1,
2) gave the “noxal’’ character by permitting
the defendant to escape damages by surrendering
the delinquent to the plaintiff: “Namgue erat
iniquum ” (says Justinian) “nequitiam eorum
ultra ipsorum corpora dominis damnosam esse.”
The true significance of the legal principle
involved is admirably expounded in Mr. O. W.
Holmes’ Common Law, chap. i. In practical
effect, though not in form, noxal actions were
arbitrariae [ACTIO); the defendant, if the judge
pronounced against him, being condemned in
the alternative, either to pay the damages
assessed, or to give up the delinquent : “praetor
ait . . . si servus insciente domino fecisse dicetur,
in judicio adiciam aut noxam dedere” (Dig. 9,
3, 1, pr.).
It would seem from Inst. iv. 8, 7, that
daughters were originally as liable to noxal
surrender by their paterfamilias as sons in
power, but that so far as they were concerned
the usage had gone out in the time of the
classical jurists, for Gaius (iv. 74, 79) speaks of
the deditio of filiifamilias and slaves only. By
the age of Justinian even the father's right of
surrendering sons in his power in this manner
had ceased to be exercised, and he expressly took
it away, directing that children in power should
be suable in person for their own delicts, the
damages being paid out of their peculium. The
master's right, however, of evading damages
by noxal surrender of his slave was explicitly
retained in his legislation. It would seem that
the property in the slave was transferred by
decree of the praetor: sons had been conveyed
by mancipation, and stood in mancipio to the
surrenderee (Gaius, iv. 79), but could demand
their release as a matter of right as soon as by
the result of their labour or otherwise they
contrived to pay the damages assessed in the
action (Papinian, Coll. 2, 3). This principle, as
Justinian remarks in Inst. iv. 8, 3, was extended
to the case of surrendered slaves. For the
deditio of animals in a noxal action, see
PAUPERIES.
A leading rule in all such cases was “noxalis
actio caput sequitur,” which apparently became
a proverb. The action followed the nowa, and
had to be brought against the person under
whose lawful control he or it was, not at the
commission of the wrong, but at the commence-
ment of legal proceedings. Thus, if A's slave
stole a purse, and then was sold to B, B was
the proper defendant; and if the delinquent
were manumitted, he could be sued in person by
direct, not noxal action. Similarly, if a free
man did the wrong, and then became a slave,
the remedy was against his master; and on the
same principle, if the slave died before the
action had reached the stage of litis contestatio,
the master's liability terminated, even though
his death was not known (Dig. 9, 4, 39, 4). A
master had no remedy by action if a delict were
committed against him by a slave of his own,
even though the latter were manumitted or
alienated (Inst. iv. 8, 6); and if A's slave stole
from B, and then became B’s property, B's right
of action was absolutely lost (as the law was
settled by Justinian), though the Proculian
School of jurists had maintained that it was
only suspended, recovering its vitality so soon
as his ownership over the delinquent determined
(Gaius, iv. 78). It has been conjectured that
noxal actions were originally the expression of
an absolute claim to have the offender delivered
NUCES
NUCES 247
up for the exercise of private vengeance, whether
his offence were delictual or merely breach of
contract. The surrender of Postumius to the
Samnites by the Romans with all the forms of
nozae deditio (Liv. ix. 10) was made as atone-
ment for non-observance of the treaty which he
had concluded with them, and from which the
Romans wished to release themselves—“ut
populus religione solvatur.” Under Roman
municipal law non-fulfilment of a promise made
by sponsio entailed in the end quasi-slavery
[MANUs INJECTIO), and the idea was consistently
applied by them in international relations. See
Mr. Holmes’ work already referred to, pp. 8–12,
and cf. Ihering, Geist des rômischen Rechts, i.
. 131.
p The chief original authorities for novae deditio
are Gaius, iv. 74–79; Paulus, Sent. rec. ii. 31,
7–9;—Dig. 2, 9; 9, 4 ;-Cod. 3, 41; Inst. iv.
8 and 9. [J. B. M.]
NUCES. It seems most convenient to in-
clude under this head several Greek and Roman
games of skill, which were played with nuts,
though frequently (and indeed usually in
Greece) missiles of other material were used,
such as pebbles, shells, knuckle-bones (āorpá-
‘yaxoi, tali), or, in some cases, coins. The love
of the Roman boy for these amusements makes
the phrase nuces relinquere = “to pass out of
childhood” (Pers. i. 10; cf. Catull. 71, 131).
Five of these games (we cannot think Marquardt
right in making out six) are given in the poem
Nua, ascribed to Ovid, and, according to Teuffel,
the work of some writer not much later than
Ovid. It will be seen that very similar Greek
games are mentioned by Pollux and others. It
is asserted by some scholars that marked nuces
were used in the same way as dice by those who
could not afford tali or tesserae. Considering
that, even if the trifling cost of these was too
great, pieces of wood would make much better
dice than the awkwardly rounded nut, this
seems antecedently improbable, and the passages
adduced from Latin writers do not really support
the contention. It is true that if ocellatis
aucibus is read in Suet. Aug. 83 (see below), the
obvious sense will be, nuts marked with dots,
presumably as dice, but that is not a reading of
authority. As regards the passages mainly
relied upon, in Mart. iv. 76, “Alea sed parcae
sola fuere nuces,” the meaning is that nuts are
the only property staked and lost, because he
played only in the games of nuces described
below and not at dice: if he could have used
ºnuces for dicing, the whole point would be lost.
In Mart. v. 84, the nuces in the first line are one
amusement, the fritillus in the third are another
and a different one; and the case is the same in
Mart. xiii. 1, 7. The nuts themselves were won
and lost in the games just as marbles are in
children's games of the present day, but there
is no reason to think that numbers could be
thrown as with a gambler's dice, or that they
were thrown from a dice-box: except in the
game of par impar, the games with nuces were
trials of skill, not of chance.
1. The simplest game of skill played with
these materials consisted in pitching the nuts
(or, as Pollux gives it, astragali or acorns) into
a hole, from which the players stood at some
distance (“spatio distante,” Nua, 85). The
usual Latin name for this game was probably
orca, so called because the nuts were pitched
into a narrow-mouthed jar which the author of
Nuz calis “was cavum,” Persius (iii. 50) “orca”:
some indeed assert that Persius in this passage
(where there is no direct mention of nuces) is
using orca to mean dice-box. We think this
less probable; Persius has finished the subject
of dice in the two preceding lines, he now
speaks of nuces, and of tops in line 51. In this
game the Greeks pitched their astragali not
into a jar, but either (a) into a circle drawn on
the ground called čulxxa, whence the game
itself was called eis &alAAav (Poll. ix. 102) and
&pſiAAa (Schol. Plat. p. 320, Bk.), for Marquardt
is, we think, certainly wrong in identifying the
&pixAa with the delta mentioned below: or (b)
into a hole dug in the ground, called 866pos
(Poll. ix. 103) or 866wvos, whence the game,
essentially the same as &alAAa, was called eis
Sóðvvov (Schol. l.c.). It is to be noted, how-
ever, that Pollux calls this form of the game
Tpéra, while Hesychius says of rpátra simply,
that it is a game ka0’ ºw a Tpéqova, robs &otpa-
'yāNovs eis to repov uépos. The explanation
by which Becq de Fouquières (p. 115) attempts
to make Hesychius and Pollux describe the same
game, is forced and unnatural, nor could the
words eis repov uépos bear the sense which he
gives them. It is stated by Grasberger, appa-
rently on good authority, that in Greece at this
day the same game is called Tpoſtrm, ºrpäirm, or
Adkka (i.e. a hole), and it is ingeniously sug-
gested that the game which in Pollux we find
as rpátra should be rpätra. We may offer the
further suggestion that Hesychius is not speak-
ing of any game at all similar, but by rpátra is
either describing what Pollux calls arperrivöa,
which consisted in throwing a shell or coin or
ãorrpáyaxos in such a way as to turn over to
the reverse side a shell, coin, &c., already lying
on the ground, or else is alluding to one branch
of the astragali game where the bones are to be
reversed in the air before they are caught
[TALI]. The name éqertvöa (from éptmui)
might probably be applied to any one of the
variations of the above-mentioned game: Pollux
(ix. 117) makes it the same as āpaia Aa, except
that it is played with shells. It is clear that in
all these games the nut or other missile which
fell outside the jar or hole or circle was for-
feited.
2. Castella.-In Nua. 73–76 there is a game
which has caused some difficulty, but which may
be explained as follows:–Three nuts are placed
on the ground with a fourth resting on them, so
as to form a pyramid : (when Pliny, H. W. xix.
§ 112, speaks of planting bulbs “castellatim”
in grumuli or heaps, he follows this meaning.)
The first player aims with his nut so as to
scatter (dilaminare) the pyramid (rcctas), and
having overthrown this he has at most two
more shots (bisve semelve), in which he may win
all four, presumably by making two cannons,
flipping (digito) his nut at them on the ground
(pronas). If we read rectus, pronus, which
Becq de Fouquières prefers, the sense must be
that he takes his first shot standing (rectus), his
two next kneeling (pronus), as in what is called
“knuckle-down" at marbles. For the name
castella, or ludus castellorum, we have Trebell.
Poll. Gallien. 16, 2, “de pomis castella com-
posuit.” In the passage of Suet. Aug. 83,
248 NUDIPEDALIA
NUMMUs
where Augustus is described as in his old age
playing “modo talis aut ocellatis nucibusque,”
some read castellatis nucibus, which would mean
the game of castella as described above. By
ocellati, which is the authoritative reading, Becq
de Fouquières understands agate or onyx marbles,
and no doubt nuces and marbles would be played
in the same way: the dictionaries translate
ocellati “ dice,” as being marked with dots, but,
if so, they would be coupled with tal; rather
than with nuces. Marquardt is certainly wrong
in taking lines 75, 76 to describe a separate
game: in the sequence of lines the words, alter,
etiam, quoque obviously mark the transition to
different games: nor does his rendering make
satisfactory sense, and he confesses that he finds
line 74 unintelligible.
3. A variation in aiming at the nuts was in-
troduced by rolling the missile down a sloping
board (“tabulae clivus,” Nua, 77), as is shown by
a relief in the Blundell Collection (Rich, s. v.
Tabula). The kneeling boy is probably arrang-
ing the pyramid for a shot.
4. Delta (Nuic, 81–84).- This game was
played by chalking on the ground a triangle
(which the author of Nua, compares to the
Greek letter and the constellation named after
it). This triangle is divided by bars or lines
drawn parallel to the base and called virgae (cf.
virgatus=" striped"): the nut is rolled into
the triangle and the player wins as many nuts
as he crosses bars, provided he does not roll it
out of the triangle. Obviously the best possible
throw is to pitch the nut just within the base
line and make it stop just within the apex ; it
will thus in its course have touched all the
parallel bars, and will win an equal number of
nuts (“quot tetigit virgas, tot rapit inde nuces”).
This is, in the main, the view of Becq de Fou-
quières. Barth, reading virgo, gives a strange
explanation, imagining a blindfold girl groping
for nuts.
5. For the game of chance, odd and even,
commonly played with nuts (Nua, 79), see PAR
IMPAR.
(Becq de Fouquières, Jeux des Anciens, 114–
126; Grasberger, Erziehung, i. 68 ft. ; Mar-
quardt, Privatleben, 839 f.) [G. E. M.]
NUDIPEDA'LIA. This name was given
to a procession of barefooted matrons, as an
obsecratio, in time of great drought, “cum stupet
coelum et aret annus’’ (Tertull. de Jejun. 16;
Apol. 40; cf. Petron. Sat. 44). The magis-
trates laid aside their insignia, the fasces were
reversed, and a sacrifice was offered at the tem-
ple of Jupiter, the pontifices bearing at the head
of the procession a sacred stone called the lapis
Manalis, from the temple of Mars outside the
Porta Capena. (Non. p. 547; Fest. pp. 2, 128;
Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 261.) [G. E. M.]
NUDUS (yvuvós). These words, besides de-
noting absolute nakedness, which was to be āvap-
tréxovos kal &xitov (compare Moschus, iv. 98),
were applied to anyone who, being without an
AMICTUS, wore only his tunic. (Aristoph.
Eccles. 409; Lysist. 150; John xxi. 7.) In this
state of semi-nudity, the ancients performed the
operations of ploughing, sowing, and reaping.
(Hes. Op. et Dies, 391 ; Aristoph. Lysist. 1177 ;
Verg. Georg, i. 299; Aelian, W. H. vi. 11, xiii.
27; Matt. xxiv. 18.) Thus Cincinnatus was
found nudus at the plough when he was called
to be dictator, and sent for his toga, that he
might appear before the senate. (Plin. H. N.
xviii. § 20: Aur. Vict. de Vir. Illust. 17; Liv.
iii. 26.) The accompanying woodcut is taken
Man ploughing in his tunic. (From an ancient gem.)
from an antique gem in the Florentine Collec-
tion, and shows a man ploughing in his tunic
only.
This term applied to the warrior expressed the
absence of some part of his armour. Hence
the light-armed were called yuuvâtes. [J. Y.]
NU'MERUS, the name of a body of troops in
the imperial period. [EXERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 793.]
NUMMULA'RII or NUMULA'RII. [AR-
GENTARII.
NUMMUS or NUMUS, money. The his-
tory of Greek money being set forth under
PoNDERA, and that of Roman money under AS,
we will confine ourselves in the present article
to the following points:—(1) the names of
money in antiquity, and more especially the
usage of the word nummus ; (2) the materials
of which it was made; (3) the inscriptions of
ancient coins; (4) their types and accessory de-
vices or symbols. We discuss the history of
the right of coinage in antiquity, and the regu-
lations and organisation of mints, under MONETA,
(1.) The ancient Names of Money.—The term
xpäuara originally stood for possessions of any
kind; in fact, wealth. And hence at a later
time, when wealth came to be measured by
money, Xphaara might vaguely be used for
money. But in speaking of money as distin-
guished from other kinds of property, the
Greeks would call it either &pyöpiov or vouto-
para. Of these terms the former came into use
at an early period in Greece proper, where silver
rather than the other precious metals was the
standard of value. Noutapata (from vöuos,
“law'”) stands for coin which was legal tender
in a state, and so for all moneys coined by au-
thority (Hdt. i. 94). In the South of Italy and
Sicily the word vôuos, or as it was locally
written votiuſzos, was applied to coin, and in
particular to the standard coin of the district.
It thus corresponded in usage nearly to the term
stater, which was in use in the East [STATER.].
And in fact, in the transliterated form nummus,
it is frequently used by the Roman writers as
equivalent to stater. Thus Plautus (Pseud. iii.
2, 19) uses nummus for didrachm, and in other
places (Trin. i. 2, 115) speaks of the staters of
Philip as mummi. So the Roman denarius was
Sometimes called nummus ; but the term was
applied in a special and restricted sense to the
Roman sestertius. The reason of this is that
the sestertius nearly represented in silver the
value of a pound of copper, which among the
peoples of Italy and Sicily was the unit of value,

NUMMUS
NUMMUS 249
and so became the vöpios or standard coin. The
term moneta is only equivalent to money at a
late period of Roman literature. The Roman
mint (Liv. vi. 20, 13) was connected with the
temple cf Juno Moneta: thus the word moneta
came into use in the sense of mint, and after-
wards in that of money produced by the mint.
Among the Greeks, whose currency (except in
Asia) mostly consisted of silver, the ordinary
word for money was regularly &pyüptov; and aes
was sometimes used for a parallel reason in the
same sense by the Romans.
It used to be disputed whether the Greek and
Roman coins which have come down to us were
actual money, or rather medals issued on occa-
sions. This controversy is completely closed.
It is universally agreed that the only medals of
antiquity are the Roman so-called medallions,
pieces of unusual size issued at Rome to com-
memorate various events, which may be distin-
guished among Roman copper coins by the
omission of the letters S. C. (Senatus consulto),
which regularly distinguish these latter; as
well as a few pieces of the Greek Imperial class,
struck in imitation of the Roman medallions in
cities of Asia Minor, and distinguished by a
special formula of inscription. Greek coins and
the regular issues of Rome frequently contain
allusion to political events, but they were never-
theless fully intended to pass as money, as the
uniformity of their weight and other indications
abundantly show.
(2.) Materials of Money in Antiquity.—An
important distinction holds between money of
intrinsic value and money of account. Monéy
of the former class consisted merely of ingots,
the weight and fineness of which was certified
by the state or the ruler who stamped them,
and which passed in the market according to
their actual value. Money of account, on the
other hand, might consist of pieces in themselves
nearly worthless, made for instance of tin or
leather, but kept in circulation at a fictitious
value, either in consequence of their being at
will exchangeable for valuable coin, or in conse-
quence of the arbitrary law of some ruler, who
obliges people to accept them at a fictitious
value under some penalty. In modern phrase-
ology the money of account is said in the one
case to be convertible, in the other to be in-
convertible. We will speak in order of the two
classes of coin :—
(a) Money of intrinsic value. The bulk of
this has at all times consisted of gold, silver,
and copper, or rather bronze, pure copper not
having been used by the ancients except in
rare cases. As to the use of these three sub-
stances in antiquity, see AURUM, ARGENTUM,
and AES. Flectrum was also a usual material
for money. [ELECTRUM.] In addition, iron
is said to have been used as money at Sparta;
and although no specimen has come down to us,
we may easily account for this fact by the lia-
bility of iron to rust away when buried. It is
also noteworthy that Sparta had no coinage in
any other metal until the reign of Areus. Iron
money was also current at Byzantium (Aristoph.
Nub. 249). Some specimens of iron money
struck in the cities of Peloponnesus are now
extant. Greek kings in India issued coins of
nickel (Num. Chron, 1868, p. 305).
(8) Money of account. The smaller denomi-
nations of coin were usually among the Greeks,
from the 4th century onward, issued in copper,
but for the convenience of the people these coins
were seldom of such weight as to be in actual
value what they were in nominal value. The
subject is a difficult one. Greek copper coins
seldom bear marks of value, and it is nearly
always uncertain in regard to them what is their
real denomination. But when that denomination
is fixed by type or inscription, we usually find
that they passed at a nominal value greatly in
excess of the intrinsic worth of the material.
There are exceptions: the Ptolemaic kings of
Egypt, for instance, issued copper of full weight;
but such a proceeding was as unusual in the
Greek as it was usual in the Roman world.
The light copper of the Greeks was thus in a
sense fiduciary; but it is well known that small
change may be fiduciary without affecting trade
or credit, and the English bronze coinage is now,
strictly speaking, money of account no less than
was that of the Greeks. Making this exception,
we may state the general rule that the Greeks
seldom made any attempt to pass any of their
coin at a fictitious rate; usually they were con-
tented to let it find its own level in trade and
pass for what it was. The reason of this is not
so much the commercial morality of the Hellenic
race as their keen sense of business, and the
incessant competition which the issues of various
cities had to keep up in neutral markets and on
the tables of the money-changers. A few im-
portant exceptions to this rule should be noted.
Thus it is said, though the story is open to doubt
(Hdt. iii. 56), that Polycrates passed off as gold
on the Lacedaemonians a quantity of leaden coins
gilt. We are informed that Dionysius of Syra-
cuse issued coins of tin, which he compelled
people to accept as tetradrachms, though they
weighed but a drachm (Pollux, ix. 79); also
that Perdiccas II. of Macedon paid his mer-
cenaries with copper coins plated with silver
(Polyaen. Strat. iv. 10, 2). A better attested
instance than any of these, because recorded in
an inscription, occurred in Boeotia in the 2nd
century B.C., drachms of copper, not even plated,
being there forced into circulation as the equi-
valent of silver pieces of the same size and types.
The frequency in certain classes of Greek coins
of plated specimens which have not the appear-
ance of being the work of forgers, drives us to
the supposition that the mints of Greece may
have on occasion mingled a certain proportion,
of plated coins with their regular issues. In
fact, that this was done in Rome openly, and in
accordance with law, has been completely proved.
There were even stringent laws passed at that
city to compel citizens to accept these plated
pieces as legal tender: and the bad custom may
have spread from Rome into Greece. Of course
there existed, in Rome and Greece alike, a
natural tendency, which especially showed itself
in time of poverty and need, to diminish the
weight and the fineness of current coin. But
in the great commercial cities of Greece this
tendency was counteracted by circumstances,
and the classes of coin most used in commerce,
such as the pieces of Aegina, Athens, and Corinth,
retain their excellence to a late period. This
does not hold to the same extent in later Greek
days. The drachm of Rhodes, for instance,
which weighed in the 4th century nearly 60'
250 NUMMUS
NUMMUS
grains, fell in the course of the 2nd to half that
weight; and the coins of the later Ptolemies,
though they did not lose in weight, were made
of continually baser metal. At Rome, as was
natural from the imperious and uncommercial
character of the people, laws were frequently
passed from the first debasing the coin, and
attempting to substitute worse money for better
in the public issues. More than once in Roman
history this process took a course so rapid and
violent that the value of the various denomina-
tions of state-coin became entirely confused, and
all coin passed only by weight. [See AS.] If
Seneca is to be believed (de Benef. v. 14), the
Laconians used pieces of leather stamped with
the state-mark as fiduciary coins. This may
have arisen from the weight and clumsiness of
their iron currency. We hear of a similar
practice among the Carthaginians. The subject
of the mixture of metals is too complicated to
be here treated of Naturally the alloy used in
coining in Greece and in Italy varied greatly,
both in quality and quantity. The best account
will be found in Lenormant’s Monnaie dans
J'Antiquite, vol. i. pp. 187–206.
(3.) The Inscriptions of Coins.—Greek coins
bear several kinds of inscriptions; the name of
the city or the ruler who issued them, that of
the monetary magistrate or magistrates who
directed their production, that of the artist who
cut the die. Sometimes their inscription is of
another kind ; stating their denomination or
value, explaining the type, or occasionally stat-
ing the occasion on which they were issued. It
is very difficult to make general statements as
to these classes of inscriptions, especially as this
has scarcely been before attempted; and the
present sketch must be considered as tentative.
(a) Names of rulers and cities. The earliest
coins bear no legends; but when by degrees
these make their appearance, they at first nearly
all contain the name of a city, whether in full
or in abbreviated form, or the name of a dynast.
The usual civic inscription is in the genitive
plural of the ethnic : thus the coins of Syracuse
are usually inscribed Xupakooríov, and those of
Cos Koſov. Sometimes the adjective in -kov
takes the place of this form, as in the cases
’Apkaðurców, XoAtków, IIavopuiruków, &c., in which
case we must understand some such noun as
āpyūptov, kópºua or vöutopia. Sometimes the
name of the city occurs in the nominative or
genitive, as Tápas, 'Akpdyavros. More often
still this name is represented by a few letters of
it only, more especially in early times; the coin
of Athens bears only the letters AG) E, that of
Elis only, FA, that of Corinth only the koppa.
Kings and dynasts, on the other hand, usually
inscribe their names in full in the genitive; the
money of Alexander I. of Macedon is inscribed
*AAečávöpo, that struck by Themistocles at Mag-
nesia Osutotokxéos. In the coin of Seuthes,
king of Thrace, wé have the genitive xe60a, but
the words réuſia and āpyūploy are added in some
specimens to explain and to govern the genitive.
Some of the money of Alexander of Pherae is
inscribed with the adjective *AAeëavöpeſos, with
which we must understand vówos or some such
word, and a parallel form is not rare among
civic coins, e.g. NeotroAfrns, Karavaſos. Some-
times, as in early dedicatory inscriptions, the
word £ul or eiul is added for explanation. The
earliest of inscribed coins, struck probably at
Halicarnassus (Num. Chron. N.S. 18, 261), has
the legend pavós éut origa. The proprietary
name on a coin, if we may use the expression,
is sometimes neither that of a city nor of a
ruler, but of a district or tribe, as Airóxov,
'Atreuporāv, sometimes of a religious body or a
temple, as in the case of the coins reading 'Ap-
©uctiávov, and ék Atôvuòviepā, the latter being
the mintage of the temple of the Branchidae
near Miletus.
In regard to the comparative frequency of the
names of cities and those of rulers on coins, it
should be observed that despots of cities in
Greece and the West did not before the age of
Alexander place their names on coin. We have
no coins stamped with the name of Anaxilaüs of
Rhegium, Hiero I. of Syracuse, Pisistratus or
even Jason of Pherae. To this rule Alexander
of Pherae is an almost solitary exception. On
the other hand, kings of Macedon and Thrace,
despots of Asiatic cities, and even satraps of the
Persian king, very usually place their names on
money. After Alexander the custom spread
into all the Hellenic world save Greece proper,
and even there was adopted at various times by
a variety of rulers. Areus of Sparta, Aristo-
timus of Elis, and a few others place their names
on coins; so do Agathocles and all the subse-
quent kings of Syracuse.
(8) Names of magistrates. The period at
which these first appear, and the prominence
given to them, vary in a most marked way
from city to city, and we are usually without
sufficient historical information to enable us
to trace the reasons of the variety. At Abdera
in Thrace, almost from the foundation of the
city (B.C. 543), we have on the coin a succes-
sion of magistrates' names in the genitive pre-
ceded by the preposition étrí, or sometimes in
the nominative. These were, as the éml suffi-
ciently proves, the eponymous magistrates of
the city, and it may be that they exercised a
stronger rule than that of magistrates in other
cities. At most Greek cities before the middle
of the 4th century, magistrates’ names occur
only at intervals, and usually in an abridged
form. Early in the 4th century the magistrates
of Boeotia, whether Boeotarchs or not is uncer-
tain, begin regularly to sign the coin; and about
the same time a parallel custom began to obtain
at the principal cities of the Asiatic coast—
Ephesus, Samos, Miletus, and others. In the
regal coinages of later Greece magistrates’ names
seldom occur, or are concealed in the form of
monograms; but in the Greek cities which re-
mained free, whether in Asia or Hellas, the
names of officers begin to take a place more
regularly and with more evident purpose. Thus
at Athens, during the later days of her inde-
pendence, every coin bears the name of three
distinct magistrates, whereof two have been
conjectured to be high functionaries of state,
and the third the officer specially detailed to
control the mintage of the money which bears
his name. The later coins of Rhodes, Ephesus,
and other cities, as well as the copper money of .
the Achaean League, and the coins of the Thes-
salian Epirote and Acarnanian Leagues, bear
the name of a single magistrate; the coins of
Dyrrhachium and Apollonia those of two magis-
trates. The most important works on the sub-
NUMMUS
NUNDINAE 251
ject of magistrates’ names on coins are Beulé's
..Monnaies d'Athènes and a dissertation on the coins
of Apollonia and Dyrrhachium by Dr. Brandis,
Zeitschrift für Numismatik, vol. i.
(y) Artists' names. That artists’ signatures
do occur on coins is rendered certain by the
occurrence of the full phrases Nečavros étroe? on
coins of Cydonia in Crete and Oeočáros éroeſ
on coins of Clazomenae. A full list of supposed
signatures will be found in Von Sallet’s Künst-
lerinschriften auf gr. Münzen (1871), and Lenor-
mant’s Mon. de l’Antiq. iii. p. 255. Among the
more certain and important signatures are those
of Aristoxenus at Heraclea in Lucania, of Exaces-
tidas at Camarina, Herakleidas at Catana, and of
Euaenetus, Eucleidas, Eumenus, Cimon, Sosion,
and Phrygillus at Syracuse. It is to be observed
that, save in the two cases already mentioned
of Neuantus and Theodotus, we have no certain
engraver's name out of Italy and Sicily. They
are by far commonest in Sicily; but there, as
elsewhere, are only found during a period of
about sixty years, from B.C. 410 to 350.
(5) Explanatory inscriptions. The object of
these is to acquaint us with the meaning of the
types of a coin, with its value or denomination,
or with the circumstances of its issue. The word
×orep (Xorip) accompanies the figure of Zeus on
a very early coin of Galaria in Sicily, Níka that
of Nike at Terina, Xexivoús and “Tipas those of
the two river-gods at Selinus, Atas that of a
warrior at Locris, X&relpa that of Artemis at
Cyzicus, and so forth. At the Italian Locri a
group representing a standing female figure
crowning a seated one is explained by the in-
scription to represent the crowning of Roma
(Paſua) by Good-faith (TIto ris). The denomi-
nation of a coin is seldom stated at full-length
on it, but often indicated by a few letters or a
slight variety in the type (see next head). AlO
and TPl H occur on the diobols and trihemiobols
of Corinth, 'OSoxos at Metapontum, ‘HutoğéAuv
at Aegium, Apáxum and Atôpaxuov at Ephesus.
On the late coins of Chios the number of ’Agord-
pia represented by a coin is regularly marked on
it. In the Peloponnese in early times a single
letter usually sufficed to mark denomination, H
being placed on hemiobols, T on tetartemoria,
and so forth. The circumstances of issue are
stated in the inscriptions of many coins of Im-
perial times, especially those which bear the
names of the games, Pythia, Actia, Olympia, &c.,
in connexion with which they were struck, and
those with a legend 6 Selva &vé0mke, followed by
the genitive or dative of the name of a city.
The latter class are supposed to be the result of
the munificence of individuals who on some
special occasion struck a quantity of coin at
their own private cost, but for general use and
enjoyment. Even in early times, however, a
few inscriptions of the same class may be found,
as in the case of the archaic coin of Metapontum,
which bears the legend 'AxéAoto &e6Aov, and
was clearly issued on the occasion of public
games. The coin of Locri already mentioned
contains in the words Pówa and IIto ris a clear
allusion to the circumstances under which it
was issued, some instance of good faith on the
part of the Romans towards the people of
Locri.
The inscriptions of Roman coins present us
with less variety than those of Greek. The
earlier gold and silver money bears no inscription
save the word ROMA or ROMANO, together
with a mark of value. About the time of Sulla
(Mommsen, R. M. p. 451) the name of the city and
the indication of denomination alike disappear.
The empire of Rome by that time was so widely
extended that her coin was known on every
shore, and her system of reckoning in all markets.
The place of these simpler legends is henceforth
taken by the name of a monetary magistrate,
which is usually that of one of the triumvirs
appointed to strike the money of the Republic.
In a more modest and abbreviated form indeed
we find such names as early as B.C. 190, but they
appear more prominently as time passes on.
About B.C. 100 occurs the first appearance
(Mommsen, p. 453) of such formulae as s. c.
(Senatus Consulto), ARG. PVB. (Argento Pub-
lico). At about the same period first occur
legends explanatory of the types of the coins,
which first consist of mere initials, as I. S. M. R.
(for Juno Sispes Mater Regina), or P. P. (for
Penates Publici). Afterwards we have inscrip-
tions like those mentioned under (6) above in
the case of Greek coins; for instance, Numa
Pompili beside a figure of Numa Pompilius, and
Salus beside a head of that deity. In the case
of Roman Imperial coins one side is regularly
occupied with the name and titles of the emperor
accompanying his effigy; the other side bears
sometimes merely a date, as COS III TR P xx,
which indicates that the piece was issued in the
third consulate and the 20th tribunician year of
the emperor : but more usually an inscription
containing allusion to a historical event and
accompanying a type of similar allusion, such as
Fides Militum, when the army presented a loyal
address; Fecunditati Augustae, when the empress
bore a child; Debellatori Gentt. Barbara(rum),
when the emperor reduced a refractory tribe,
and so forth.
(4.) Types and Symbols.-In the language of
numismatists the term type is applied to the
principal device or subject of either obverse or
reverse of a coin ; the term symbol is applied to
any subordinate or smaller figure which accom-
panies the type. In the later coinage of Athens,
for instance, the type of reverse is always an
owl standing on an amphora, but the symbol
varies continually, changing indeed every year.
The type belongs to the mint-city, and is usually
either the figure or head of a deity, some object
sacred to a deity, or the effigy of a king or
emperor. The symbol, on the other hand, belongs
to the monetary magistrate, and is impressed by
him to indicate his responsibility for the weight
and fineness of any issue of coin. It is usually
supposed to be copied from his signet, the signet
in antiquity answering in many points of use to
the modern signature. [P. G.]
NUNCUPATIO. [TESTAMENTUM.]
NU'NDINAE (in an older form moundinae),
the market day, a regular division of the
Calendar, and hence the market itself. The
Romans had a system of eight-day weeks, which,
like our seven-day weeks, ran on from one
month to another and from one year to another
without breaking, and starting afresh with the
new month or year, so that the nundinae was a
day “quinono semper ab orbe redit” (Ov. Fast.
i. 54). By the ordinary inclusive reckoning
the eighth day was counted as the ninth and
252 NUNDINAE
OBELISCUS
called nundinae; the whole week, or period of
eight days, being termed inter nundinum, or, in
one adjective, internundinum (tempus). The days
were marked in calendars by the letters A, B, C,
D, E, F, G, H, and it would naturally be sup-
posed that H would always be the letter of the
nundinae; but this was not so, because the 1st
of January always began afresh with A, while
the first nundinae of the new year was in-
variably the eighth day after the last nundinae
of December, and consequently, unless the nun-
dinae had fallen on the 31st of December, was
marked by a different letter, which belonged to
all the nundinae of that year. It may be
observed that this system of letters cannot
belong to the earliest times, because the letter G
was only introduced in the third cent. B.C.
But this does not prevent the eight-day division
being a very ancient Roman arrangement, as
Dionysius (ii. 28) and others describe it. (The
Sabines, however, even till the end of the
Republic, had a seven-day week, which appears
in the fast; Sabini : see Marquardt, Staatsverw.
iii. 281.) The countrymen, having worked
Seven days in the fields, came into the towns on
the eighth for the market (Macrob. i. 16, 33;
Verg. Moret. 80). The jus nundinorum—that is,
the exclusive right of the dwellers in a parti-
cular spot to hold the periodical markets for a
particular district—was granted by the senate
(cf. Suet. Claud. 12; Plin. Ep. v. 4). As to
the regulations about law business and comitia
on the nundinae, see DIES, Vol. I. p. 636, and
COMITIA, Vol. I. p. 506 b ; as regards school
holidays, LUDUs LITTERARIUS, p. 97 b.
The expression trinum nundinum (whence an
adjective trinundinus, trinundino die, &c.) is
disputed, and still open to dispute, both as to
its grammar and its meaning. The usual ex-
planation is that it is a genitive from trinae
nundinae, with an ellipse of a word signifying
space or lapse, and this is agreeable to the rule
for the use of numerals in the best Latinity,
though the rule is not without exceptions.
That Cicero took it as a genitive is clear from
de Dom. 16, 41; and its use elsewhere is not
against this, if we take trinundino to be an
adjective. The sense, according to this view, is,
such a period as to include three nundinae (i.e.
seventeen days), from the 1st to the 3rd nun-
dinae. That Plutarch and Dionysius so under-
stood it, is clear from their rendering it by
Tpírm &yopó (Dionys. vii. 58, ix. 41 ; Piut.
Coriol. 18). On the other hand, Mommsen
brings instances which seem to show that the
period was longer than seventeen days, at any
rate in republican times, and he holds that it
was a space of three complete internundina, i.e.
twenty-four days, and, if a genitive at all,
stands for trinorum nundinorum. He does not
seem to us to overthrow beyond dispute the
usual interpretation. It might be suggested
that, if the required notice had to extend over
three nundinae, it was originally a varying
length, extending from seventeen days, when
notice was given on the mundinae, to twenty-
three days, when the notice was given just after
a “market day” was past, and therefore the
trinundinum may sometimes come before us as
a period longer than twenty days (as in the
cases cited by Mommsen), sometimes as a con-
ventional term for exactly seventeen days. For
the notice required for holding CoMITIA, see
Vol. I. p. 533 a.
Nundinium, a later form of nundinum, is
found = nundinae (C. I. L. viii. 408), and =
internundinum (Macrob. l. c.); but a use
specially to be noticed is its signification, the
period of consulship. When, under the Empire,
several pairs of consuls were created in one
year [CONSUL, Vol. I. p. 537], the period of a
single consulship was called nundinium (Lam-
prid. Wit. Alexand. 28,43; Vopisc. Wit. Tacit. 9).
(Marquardt, Staatsverwalt. iii. 289; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii. 84, iii. 375.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
NUNTIATIO. [OPERIs Novi NUNTIATIO.]
NUPTIAE. [MATRIMONIUM.]
NYMPHAEUM. [DoMUs, Vol. I. p. 678.]
O.
OBAE. [TRIBUS; GEROUSIA.]
OBBA, a bowl either of wood or earthen-
ware, apparently broad at the bottom and
narrowing towards the top, used for holding
wine, but a cheap ware for common wine (Pers.
v. 148). It is said by Gellius (xvi. 7) to be a
provincialism used by Laberius. From Tertul-
lian, Apol. 13, it appears that it was used also
at funeral rites. The shape cannot be regarded
as certain. Tertullian need not be speaking
precisely of the shape when he says, “Quid
differt a simpulo obba’ ” There is no clear
proof for Rich's theory, that it was pointed at
the bottom, and in fact Persius's epithet sessilis,
i.e. squat or dumpy with a firm base, rathey
makes against it: if the reading “obbatae cas-
sides,” in Apul. Met. x. 234, is correct, we are
none the wiser, since we cannot determine the
shape of this particular cassis except by deciding
that of the obba. (Marquardt, Privatleben,
p. 654; Jahn, ad Pers. l. c.) [G. E. M.]
OBELISCUS (àBextokos) is a diminutive of
Obelus (ÖBeAós), which properly signifies a
sharpened thing, a skewer or Spit, and is the
name given to certain works of Egyptian art.* A
detailed description of such works would be
inconsistent with the plan of this work, but
some notice of them is required by the fact that
several of them were transported to Rome
under the emperors. Ammianus Marcellinus
(xvii. 4) says that “an obelisk is a very rough
stone in the shape of a kind of land-mark or
boundary stone, rising with a small inclination
on all sides to a great height; and in order that
it may imitate a solar ray by a gradual diminu-
tion of its bulk, it terminates in a prolongation
of four faces united in a sharp point. It is
very carefully smoothed.” Most ancient writers
consider obelisks as emblematic of the sun's
rays. (Comp. Plin. H. N. xxxvi. § 64.)
An obelisk is properly a single block of stone,
cut into a quadrilateral form, the sides of which
diminish gradually, but almost imperceptibly
from the base to the top of the shaft, but do
* Herodotus (ii. 111) uses êBeaës in the sense of an
obelisk.
OBEX
OBLIGATIO LITTERARUM 253
not terminate in an apex upon the top, which is
crowned by a small pyramid, consisting of four
sides terminating in a point. The Egyptian
obelisks were mostly made of the red granite of
Syene, from which place they were carried to
the different parts of Egypt. They were gene-
rally placed in pairs at the entrance to a temple,
close to other monuments of proportionate size.
But the Romans, as Mr. Burn remarks, viewed
them only as trophies, and, except those at the
Mausoleum of Augustus, they stood apart from
anything of equal height, presenting a naked
and forlorn appearance. (Rome and Campagna,
. xliv.
P dº. were first transported to Rome under
Augustus, who caused one to be erected in the
Circus and another in the Campus Martius.
KPlin. xxxvi. § 71 ; Mon. Ancyr. iv.) The for-
mer was restored in 1589, and is called at
present the Flaminian obelisk. Its whole height
is about 116 feet, and without the base about
78 feet : it now stands in the Piazza del Popolo.
The obelisk in the Campus Martius was set up
by Augustus as a sun-dial. It stands at present
on the Monte Citorio, where it was placed in
1792. (Burn’s Rome and Campagna, p. 333.)
Its whole height is about 110 feet, and without
the base about 71 feet. Another obelisk was
brought to Rome by Caligula, and placed on the
Vatican in the spina of the Circus of Caligula.
(Plin. xxxvi. § 74, xvi. § 201.) In drawings of
the 16th century it is represented as still stand-
ing in its original place. It stands at present
in front of St. Peter's, where it was placed in
1586, and its whole height is about 132 feet,
and without the base and modern ornaments at
top about 83 feet. But the largest obelisk at
Rome is that which was originally transported
from Heliopolis to Alexandria by Constantine,
and conveyed to Rome by his son Constantius,
who placed it in the Circus Maximus (Amm.
Marc. xvii. 4). Its present position is before
the north portico of the Lateran church, where
it was placed in 1588. Its whole height is about
149 feet, and without the base about 105 feet.
(See Gibbon, Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. p. 400.)
There are nine other obelisks at Rome besides
those mentioned above, but none of them are of
historical importance. Three, however, which
were found under and near the church of S.
Stefano del Cacco, one as late as 1882, are
interesting as remains of the temples of Isis and
Serapis on that site. They are now in the
Piazza della Rotonda, the Piazza della Minerva,
and the Piazza del Collegio Romano. (See
Middleton’s Rome, p. 392.) There are also
obelisks in various other places, as at Constanti-
nople, Arles, Florence, Catana in Sicily, &c.,
some of which are works of Egyptian art, and
others only imitations.
The preceding brief account is chiefly taken
from Long's Egyptian Antiquities, vol. i. cc. 14,
15. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
OBEX. [JANUA..]
OBLIGATIO LITTERARUM. One of
the four modes in which, according to Gaius
(iii. 89), contractual obligations could be in-
curred, was litteris. The contract was made by
the creditor's entry (Gaius, iii. 137) of so much
as expensum to the debtor in his account book
(codex accepti et expensi). The debtor's assent
to the entry was necessary (Cic, pro Rosc. Com.
1, 5; Val. Max. viii. 2, 2), but apart from that
it was immaterial whether he had in fact
received the money or not. For the practice of
accurate book-keeping, which the Romans very
possibly adopted from the system of the bankers
in the Greek cities of Campania, reference may
be made, in addition to the passages last cited,
to Cic. in Verr. i. 23, 60; 39, 99;-ii. 76, 186;
—pro Quint. 4, 11 ; pro Font. 3, 15; pro
Cluentio, 30, 82; and Pliny, H. N. ii. § 7. The
items of receipt and expenditure appear to have
been entered without distinction, in the order of
their occurrence, in a day-book (adversaria),
and transcribed at the end of each month into a
ledger (tabulae, codew accepti et expensi), the
precise form and character of which is much
disputed, though most probably it was arranged
in two sides or columns after the fashion of an
ordinary banker's pass-book. The entry in this
ledger (nomen facere, Cic. in Ferr. i. 36, 92;
39, 102;—ad Att. iv. 18; Seneca, de Benef. iii.
15) made the contract, and bound the debtor to
repay the specified sum: it was not merely
evidence, admitting of the possibility of re-
buttal.
We are told by Gaius (iii. 131) that if an
entry were made in the codex of an actual
money loan, the obligation to repay it arose re
(MUTUUM), not litteris, and the debt was called
specifically nomen arcarium, the written record
serving merely as evidence. It follows that
wherever a genuine money debt was created
litteris it must have been under the fiction of a
loan, as appears to have been the case in two
instances of debts originally incurred in this
manner of which we have a record (Cic. ad Att.
iv. 18; Val. Max. viii. 2, 2). But it seems
clear that the most common purpose for which
Expensilatio (as the contract is termed) was used
was that of novation (inf. p. 259): and there
were two modes in which an obligation could be
novated litteris. By the first (“Transcriptio a
re in personam,” Gaius, iii. 129) a debt owing
on some other ground, such (e.g.) as consensual
contract or legacy, might be converted into a
“literal” debt: for instance, an heir might be
given time to pay a legacy on the condition that
the legatee should be allowed to enter the money
as expensum to him. The object of this, beyond
a doubt, was to subject the strict action known
as condictio certi, with its penal wager of a third
of the sum in dispute, for an action (usually
bonae fidei) by which only the actual sum due
could be recovered. The old contract and the
old action ceased to exist, their places being
taken by new ones more favourable to the
creditor. The second form of novation (“Tran-
scriptio a persona in personam,” Gaius, iii. 130)
was employed where it was desired that money
owed by one person to a second should be owed
to him by a third instead: thus, if A owed
money to B, and it was agreed that C should
enter it in his codex as expensum to A, C would
become A's creditor instead of B. In a similar
way one debtor could be substituted for another,
the creditor remaining the same.
Whether the “literal ” contract could be
entered into by aliens was disputed between the
Sabinian and Proculian schools of lawyers. The
latter held that it was too peculiarly juris civilis
to be available to them at all : the former
thought that they could be bound by it a re in
254 oPLIGATIO LITTERARUM
OBLIGATIONES
personam, but not otherwise (Gaius, iii. 133).
But Gaius says (ib. 134) that aliens had a kind
of literal contract of their own, differing from
Expensilatio materially in form, but similar to
it in its operation. This was a species of bond
(chirographa, Syngraphae), signed by the debtor,
and acknowledging the debt, of Greek origin, as
the names denote ; and it seems clear, from the
language of Gaius, that the bond, like the debt,
was or constituted the obligation : it was not
mere evidence, like the entry of a nomen ar-
carium.
Although Gaius speaks of Expensilatio as a
form of contract actually existing in his own
day, there can be little doubt that it had gone
out of use, along with the regular keeping of
accounts, among the generality of Roman citi-
zens, and was still in vogue only with bankers,
who kept their customers’ accounts for them.
Perhaps no explanation of this need be required
beyond the general decay of republican manners
under the Empire; but probably the disuse of
the literal contract was connected with the
introduction of constitutum, which secured all the
advantages of Transcriptio without the extinc-
tion of the prior obligation, and still more with
that of the exceptio doli, which may be attri-
buted with some certainty to Gallus Aquilius,
who was Cicero's colleague in the praetorship.
The action for breach of an obligation incurred
litteris was strict; juris, and the law was that
fraud was no defence to an action of that kind,
so that a defendant was helpless whose consent
to the creditor's entry had been obtained by
misrepresentation, or by an unfulfilled under-
taking to advance money or give credit in
consideration of that promise being given. An
anecdote told by Cicero (de Off. iii. 14, §§ 58–
60) puts the matter in a strong light. Pythius,
a Syracusan banker, induced Canius to buy a
country-house from him by fraudulently in-
ducing him to believe, on the evidence of his
own eyesight, that the estate and neighbourhood
abounded in spoils for the hunter and the
fisherman. Knowing that a consensual contract
of sale would be radically vitiated by his dis-
honesty, he produced his codex, and got Canius
to assent to the debt being transcribed on the
spot. Canius, says Cicero, had no remedy, for
his colleague Aquilius had not yet introduced
his formulae de dolo. When however that had
been done, Expensilatio had virtually ceased to
be a contract binding through its form alone;
and whenever there had been anything in the
nature of chicane or dishonesty on the creditor's
part, he could not but fail in his action.
The later history of the literal contract, and
in particular of the so-called “literal obliga-
tion ”
mately bound up with that of Stipulation, the
contract made verbis. In the Greek provinces
of the Empire the old oral stipulation of Rome,
and the provincial chirographum or syngrapha,
appear to have become merged together in the
written and signed memorandum (cautio, instru-
ºnentum), purporting to attest a stipulation
actually made by oral question and answer
(Paul. Sent. rec. v. 7, 2; Inst. iii. 19, 17). If
such a cautio were obtained by the promise of a
pecuniary consideration, which in fact had not
been given, it could when sued upon be met by
the “exceptio pecuniae non numeratae,” a
of Justinian's Institutes (iii. 21), is inti-
specific variety of the eacceptio dolā; and it was
enacted in 213 A.D. (Cod. 4, 30, 3) that when
this plea was entered by the defendant, the
plaintiff should be bound to prove that the
alleged consideration had actually been given,
unless a certain interval of time had elapsed
from the date of the document. It seems that
when, in compiling the Institutes, Justinian
found that he had no genuine literal contract,
corresponding to the old Expensilatio, to describe,
he thought the best equivalent would be this
cautio purporting to evidence a stipulation, and
the kindred topic of the “exceptio pecuniae non
numeratae.” That this is the true significance
of the very difficult title (21) in the third book
of the Institutes appears clear on a careful
examination of the passage in Gaius (iii. 134),
upon which it is obviously modelled, and in
view of a later paragraph (iv. 13, 2) of the
Institutes themselves. But between the old
contract, made by entry in the codex, and the
cautio which Justinian put in its place, there is
the same radical difference that there is in
English law between a deed under seal and a
mere written memorandum of a contract. The
entry in the codex was the contract ; and if its
genuineness was not disputed, the party against
whom it was made was technically bound,
though he might escape judgment by pleading
the exceptio doli. That the cautio was not itself
a contract, and never more than evidence of an
alleged contract made (expressly or impliedly)
by stipulation, which could be rebutted by
counter-evidence that the alleged contract had
never been made at all, is placed beyond all
reasonable doubt by the passage of the Digest
(44, 7, 1, 2) in which the sources of contractual
obligations in Justinian’s time are enumerated.
In that passage, which is taken from another
work of Gaius, we read “obligationes ex con-
tractu aut re nascuntur aut verbis aut con-
sensu:” and the “aut literis’ which Gaius no
doubt originally wrote was deliberately sup-
pressed by the compilers of the Digest, so as to
bring the extract into agreement with the
actually existing law of the day. (Savigny,
Verm. Schriften, i. 205 sq.; Gneist, Die formellen
Verträge, 321 sq.; Rein, Civilrecht, p. 677 sq.;
Voigt, Jus Naturale, iv. 74, and his treatise
Ueber die Bankiers, die Buchführung und die
Litteralobligation der Römer; Keller, Beitrag
zu der Lehre von dem rôm. Literal-contracte in
Sell, Jahrbücher 1; Schüler, Die literarum obli-
gatio des àlteren röm. Rechts, 1842; Buonamici,
Sulle literarum obligationes in diritto Romano,
Arch. giurid. xvi. 3 sq.; Padeletti, History of
Roman Law, ch. 21, note 6.) [J. B. M.]
OBLIGATIONES. Obligatio is defined by
Justinian (Inst. iii. 13, pr.) as “juris vinculum,
quo necessitate adstringimur alicujus solvendae
rei, Secundum mostrae civitatis jura : ” a legal
bond, with which we are bound by a necessity
of performing some act according to the laws of
our state. It is thus a legal relation between
two ascertained persons, respectively debtor and
creditor (using these terms in a wide sense), in
virtue of which the latter is entitled to a certain
act or forbearance from the former. Sometimes
the term is used to denote specifically the right
of the creditor (e.g. Inst. iii. 28; Dig. 45, 1,
126, 2, &c.) or the duty of the debtor (e.g.
Dig. 12, 1, 6, &c.), and it occasionally bears
OBLIGATIONES
OBLIGATIONES 255
other divergent but cognate meanings; but its
proper signification is that which has been
stated. It differs from the legal relations
exemplified in ownership, servitudes, or posses-
sion, in that it involves only what jurists call
rights in personam : the person who owes the
duty is specific and ascertained from the outset,
whereas the duty owed to the owner of property,
not to interfere with his proprietary rights, is
incumbent not on any particular person, but on
persons generally: and this contrast is well put
by Paulus in Dig. 44, 7, 3, pr. : “Obligationum
substantia non in eo consistit, ut aliquod corpus
nostrum, aut servitutem nostram faciat, Sed ut
alium nobis obstringat ad dandum aliquid, vel
faciendum, vel praestandum.” According to
the Roman view, the relation between the two
parties is strictly personal : the right is the
creditor’s, and the duty is the debtor's only :
neither debtor nor creditor can be really changed
without destroying the existence of the obliga-
tion itself: or, as has been said, “The personal
relation in an obligatio, according to the Ro-
mans, is so essential, that its active or passive
transfer—assignment of the right, assumption
of the liability by another—cannot in any way
be directly effected.”
The result of an obligatio is the partial sub-
jection (in law) of one person’s will to another,
the debtor's freedom of action being partially
limited in favour of the creditor: “ debitor
intelligitur is, a quo invito pecunia exigi potest”
(i)ig. 50, 16, 108). But even this must not be
taken to imply that the creditor can in all cases
enforce his right by action at law. In the
earlier period of the Roman legal system it was
otherwise: obligation and actionability went
hand in hand; unless there was an action, the
obligation had no legal existence. But when
the ideas of equity and the jus gentium began to
gain ground, the praetor came to recognise
other legal incidents to an obligatio than action-
ability, and would allow the creditor's right to
be enforced or realised in other ways. Hence
the distinction of obligations into naturales and
civiles: a civil obligation is one enforceable by
action; a natural obligation is one which,
though not actionable, possesses all the other
legal properties of obligationes in general. For
instance, though the debtor could not be made
to pay, yet if he paid voluntarily, even by
mistake, he could not recover the money back
on the ground that it was not due (Dig. 46, 1,
16, 4). So, too, a debt “naturally ” owed could
be set-off against an actionable claim of the
debtor against the creditor (Dig. ib. 26), and it
could form a sufficient basis for a pledge, a
guarantee, or a novation (of which something
will be said below). The causes which made
obligations natural instead of civil are mainly
two : insufficiency of form in contracts, and
defective capacity of legal right or legal action
in a party. As regards the first, agreements
according to Roman law were actionable only if
they were expressed in a definite form, or else
belonged to one or other of certain specially
favoured classes; otherwise they were called
nuda pacta; no action would lie on them, but
yet the promisee might get and retain what
was due to him in other ways. As regards the
second, there were certain classes of persons
between whom there could be no civil obliga-
tion. A slave could not be bound civiliter to
any one, but was capable of natural obligation,
and similarly no one could be bound civiliter to
a slave. So, too, between pater- and filius-
familias there could be natural obligation only.
Lastly, civilis obligatio sometimes became natu-
ralis by operation of law : e.g. through the rules
as to limitation of actions, or capitis deminutio
(Dig. 4, 5, 2, 2).
Another division of obligations is based upon
the character of the legislative organ (so to
speak) to which they respectively owe their
validity. When that organ was the mouthpiece
of the civil law (e.g. the comitia, emperor, or
custom), the obligatio was said to be civilis (in
another sense): when it was the praetor or
some other magistrate, it was said to be hono-
raria or praetoria. And sometimes obligations
are classified in a manner more proper to the
actions which lie upon them, as either stricti
juris or bonae fidei. Personal actions of the
CONDICTIO class were stricti juris, others were
bonae fidei ; and these terms were transferred
to the obligations which they were brought to
enforce. Hence the contracts which were as-
cribed to the jus gentium (with the exception
of mutwum) are sometimes said to create bonae
fidei obligations; e.g. sale, hire, agency, pledge,
deposit, and others.
Finally, modern writers usually divide obli-
gations into unilateral and bilateral. An obliga-
tion is unilateral when only one of the parties
is bound, as where A lends B five pounds: the
latter alone owes anything. It is bilateral
where duties exist on both sides, as in a contract
of sale, where the vendor has to convey the
thing sold, and the vendee has to pay the price.
But, strictly speaking, every obligation is uni-
lateral, for a person cannot play two different
rôles in the same legal relation: so that the
so-called bilateral obligations are in reality two
separate obligations regarded as one by reason
of the identity of their origin.
The “object” of an obligation is always
either an act or a forbearance; the person bound
has to do or not to do. If A agrees to sell B a
horse, B has in law no right to the horse (for in
that case his right would be in rem, not in
personam); all he has a right to is a conveyance
from A, which is an act. Of the possible objects
of an obligation, in this sense, the Romans have
no scientific classification; the nearest approach
to one is that suggested in the passage of Paulus
cited above into dationes, factiones, and praesta-
tiones. But this originated in the technicalities
of pleading under the formulary system, and
in the finished law of Justinian is merely a
worthless survival of an older and obsolete
procedure. But whatever the act or forbear-
ance may be which is owed under an obligation,
it is subject to three rules. It must have an
appreciable money value in relation to the
creditor: “ea enim in obligatione consistere,
quae pecunia lui praestarique possiint" (Dig.
40, 7, 9, 2): though whether this rule was in
force under Justinian has been denied by
modern writers (e.g. Windscheid, Lehrbuch,
§ 251, note 3; Ihering, Jahrbuch für Dogmatik,
xviii. pp. 34–115). It must be lawful, and
further possible both in nature and in law; and
thirdly it must be, or be capable of being
rendered, sufficiently definite ; e.g. one cannot
256 OBLIGATIONES
OBLIGATIONES
be bound to do just as much as and no more
than one pleases (Dig. 45, 1, 108, 1).
Viewed with reference to the facts on which
the law operated so as to give them binding
force, obligations arose, according to the Insti-
tutes of Gaius, from Contract and Delict : to
these he adds in the third book of his Aurei
(Dig. 44, 7, 5) “variae causarum figurae,” a
source which in Justinian’s Institutes is repre-
sented by the more intelligible heads of quasi-
contract and quasi-delict. Justinian's enume-
ration of the sources of obligations, though
hardly exhaustive and not scientifically adequate,
is more satisfactory than the classification of
Modestinus, who in Dig. 44, 7, 52 says that
obligations arise from res, verba, consensus, lea,
jus honorarium, necessitas, and peccatum. To
make Justinian’s statement at all a good one,
the term contractus must be taken to include all
agreements, for every agreement, if Savigny is
correct, gave rise to at least a “natural ” obli-
gation, though by Justinian himself it is used
to denote only certain agreements which, owing
£o their form or nature, were actionable under
the civil law. The general Roman terms sig-
nifying “agreement * are conventio, pactio,
pactum : “et est pactio duorum pluriumve in
idem placitum consensus” (Dig. 2, 14, 1, 2).
The essential element here is the consent of two
(or more) wills, but this was not enough, in the
Roman view, to make a contractus, a term
differentiated from pactum by the circumstance
that to certain agreements (pacta) a “civil”
obligation was annexed by the older law in
virtue either of their nature, or of their being
attended by some other fact besides the mere
fact of agreement. An unaccepted promise, or
promise without agreement (pollicitatio), gave
rise to an obligation only in certain cases when
made to a municipal corporation (Dig. 50, 12,
3, pr.), and where vows were made to the Deity
or pagan gods (Dig. ib. 2, pr. and 1). Action-
able pacta are called by modern writers pacta
vestita: they include, firstly, the contracts
recognised by the older law:—NEXUM (which
is not treated by Gaius or Justinian), and the
contracts made verbis and litteris, re and con-
sensu : and, secondly, certain agreements which
were made actionable at different times by the
edict or imperial legislation (pacta praetoria
and legitima). Agreements on which no action
lay were termed by the Romans pacta nuda :
“muda pactio obligationem non parit, sed parit
exceptionem" (Dig. 2, 14, 7, 4): i.e. they could
be relied upon in defence, e.g. for purposes of
set-off, and according to Savigny possessed all
the incidents of naturalis obligatio, but could not
be sued upon : “ex nudo pacto inter cives
Romanos actio non nascitur" (Paul. Sent. rec.
ii. 14, 1).
Perhaps the oldest of the Roman contracts
was NEXUM, to the article on which reference
may be made. But there were two other very
old formal contracts which had a longer history,
and of which we have far fuller knowledge,
viz. Stipulatio and Expensilatio or literal con-
tract. The first is by Gaius and Justinian
identified with the obligation made verbis, which
is usually taken to comprise two other far less
important formal promises: dotis dictio (Ulpian,
Reg. 6, 2; Cic. pro Flacco, 35, 86; pro Caec.
25, 72; Terence, Andr. v. 4, 47: see Dos) and
jurata promissio liberti (Dig. 38, 1, 7: see
LIBERTUs). Stipulatio was a form of contract
which gave rise only to a unilateral obligation,
the promiser, binding himself to the stipulator
or promisee by returning an oral affirmative
answer to the oral question of the latter (Cic.
pro Caec. 3, 7). Originally the only terms
which could be used were spondes? spondeo
(Plaut. Capt. iv. 2, 117), and the strictest
correspondence between question and answer
was insisted upon : moreover in this form no
one could contract except Roman citizens, so
that peregrini could not avail themselves at
first of stipulation at all (Gaius, iii. 93, 179).
Later, other words became sanctioned by usage:
e.g. promittis 2 promitto, dabis 2 facies? &c.
(Gaius, iii. 93; Inst. iii. 15, 1), by employment
of which the form was made accessible to aliens:
and in Gaius' time Greek equivalents were
permitted. Similarly, by degrees the require-
ment of strict and literal correspondence between
question and answer was dispensed with, and,
owing to a constitution of Leo, A.D. 469 (Cod.
8, 38, 10; Inst. l. c.), the law allowed in
Justinian's age the use of any terms and any
language whatever, provided the parties under-
stood one another: by which time, too, it had
been discovered to be so inconvenient that the
proceedings must be oral, and so necessitated
the presence of the parties, that the original
solemnities of stipulation had in most cases
dwindled down to a written memorandum of a
promise fictitiously represented as having been
made in answer to a preceding question (cautio),
upon which an action would successfully lie
unless the defendant chose dishonestly to rely
upon the defence that the contract had not been
made (as, strictly speaking, the law required)
by oral question and answer (Inst. iii. 19, 17
and 12). The value of such cautiones was
merely evidentiary: oral stipulations were pro-
bably always made in the presence of witnesses
(Cic. pro Rosc. Com. 5, 13), which, however,
were not prescribed by law, as in the case of
mancipations and nexum.
Stipulation is not so much a peculiar species
of contract as a universal contract form: a form
in which any agreement whatever could be
concluded, and into which many were thrown,
even though actionable in themselves (e.g. sales),
on account of the superiority of the remedy
(condictio) that would then be enforced. Jus-
tinian (Inst. iv. 15, 7) recommends that when-
ever the object of a stipulation is other than the
payment of a sum of money, it should be
expressed in the form of a condition to a bond :
e.g. “If you do not do so and so for me, do you
promise me so much " The advantages secured
by this were that the promisee, if the condition
was not fulfilled, was not under any necessity of
proving what loss he had suffered (Inst. l. c.),
which perhaps would have given him very
inadequate damages (“et ad exiguam summam
deducitur,” Dig. 46, 5, 11), and that the ground
of action was not a promise to do, but a promise
to pay, so that until Justinian's time the plain-
tiff recovered more than the sum actually due
by means of the penal wager involved in
condictio certi [see PER CONDICTIONEMACTIO).
Various grounds are stated by Gaius (iii.
97–109) and Justinian (Inst. iii. 19) on which
| stipulations were void (inutiles), some of which,
OBLIGATIONES
OBLIGATIONES 257
however, affect all contracts, and not stipulation
only. Among the latter are impossibility of
performance (Gaius, iii. 97; Inst. iii. 19,
1 and 2), impossible conditions (Gaius, iii. 98;
Inst. ib. 11), and the elementary principle of
law that a contract can confer rights and
impose duties only on those who are parties to
it (Gaius, iii. 103; Inst. ib. 3, 4, 19–21). To
stipulation alone relate the rules as to the
correspondence of question and answer (Gaius,
iii. 102; Inst. ib. 5), to the incapacity of deaf or
dumb persons to be parties (Gaius, iii. 105;
Inst. ib. 7), and to the necessity of the parties
being simultaneously present with one another
(Gaius, iii. 138; Inst. ib. 12). Something also
is said upon the contractual capacity of pupilli
and infantes, as to which see IMPUBES and
INFANs. 2.
It was not unusual for the promise to be
made on the stipulator's behalf to a second
promisee as well as to himself, who was called
the adstipulator, and was a kind of trustee for
the real creditor. He could accept and even sue
for performance of the promise (Gaius, iii. 111),
but could be compelled by actio mandati to
deliver up to his principal or the latter's heir
anything which thereby came into his hands,
and was liable to a penal procedure under the
Lex Aquilia (Gaius, iii. 215) if he fraudulently
released the promiser. Some peculiar rules as
to adstipulatio are noticed by Gaius (iii. 114).
Its object was to facilitate representation of the
promisee by an agent in an action at a time
when attorneys were not generally allowed for
that purpose, and to enable a promise to be
validly made of performance to a person after
his death, which otherwise could not have been
done till the time of Justinian (Gaius, iii. 100 ;
Inst. iii. 19, 13). In the latter’s legislation
adstipulatio disappears, both of the purposes
which it had served being directly attainable.
Stipulation was also perhaps the commonest
mode in which the contract of suretyship was
made. [See INTERCESSIO.]
For Expensilatio, or literal contract, see the
article on OBLIGATIO LITTERARUM. The “real *
contracts, those in which the obligation is
generated re, i.e. by delivery of property or
possession, are four in number, viz. two varieties
of loan, MUTUUM and CoMMODATUM, Deposit
[DEPOSITUM) and Pledge [PIGNUs]. Both Gaius
and Justinian also speak of the duty of a man
to repay money paid to him in the mistaken
belief that he could legally claim it as “real,”
though (Gaius, iii. 91; Inst. iii. 14, 1) they
hesitate to attribute to it a contractual character,
and later in the Institutes (iii. 27, 6) Justinian
enumerates it among quasi-contractual obliga-
tions.
The Consensual Contracts, agreements on which
an action lay in virtue of the mere consent of
the parties (Gaius, iii. 136; Inst. iii. 22), apart
from all form, are sale [EMPTIo VENDITIO), hire
[LOCATIO CoNDUCTIO), partnership [SOCIETAS],
and agency [MANDATUM]. With regard to the
last, it should be observed that where an agent
made a contract on behalf of his principal, the
Roman law never allowed the latter to sue
directly on it; but only as the assignee of his
own agent (Dig. 3, 3, 68; 41, 2, 49, 2). The
only exception to this was where the agent was
the principal's filiusfamilias; and this was due
WOL. II.
to the rule that, as persons in potestas are
incapable of proprietary rights, rights acquired
by them ea contractu vest immediately in their
dominus or paterfamilias. The dominus could
not sue on contracts made by his slave, for they
gave rise to naturalis obligatio only, but he was
entitled to any advantage otherwise derivable
from them ; on those made by his son in power
the paterfamilias had an action: the modifica-
tions of this principle by the development of the
doctrine of peculium are described under PATRIA
PoTESTAS. Manus and Mancipium were also
conditions which vested in the superior the
benefit arising from contracts made by the
inferior: see Gaius, iii. 163–167, and Inst. iii.
titles 17 and 28.
Among the agreements which were actionable
without being termed contractus by the Romans,
the first place is to be given to the so-called
Innominate Contracts, which were a development
of the principle—in reality part-performance—
involved in the obligations arising re. The
simple reason why the borrower in a Mutuum
(e.g.) or the pledgee in a Pignus was bound by a
civil obligation was that the other party had
first done all he had engaged to do. Apparently
owing to the influence of the jurist Labeo, a
more general application of this principle shortly
after the fall of the Republic gave a great
extension to the Roman contract system; and
by a gradual development it was at length held
that every agreement (even though not belong-
ing to any of the hitherto established classes of
contract), in which an act on the one side was
the consideration for an act on the other, was
enforceable by action at the suit of that party
who had done all to which he was bound under
its terms (Dig. 2, 14, 7, 2). Such agreements
are by modern writers termed Innominate
Contracts because they have no specific names,
such as Sale, Pledge, &c.; their characteristic
marks are mutuality and part-performance:
until one of the parties has done what he has
engaged to do, no action lies, whereby they are
clearly distinguished from the contracts which
are actionable in virtue of the mere fact of
agreement (Dig. 19, 4, 1, 2). By Paulus they
are roughly classified according to the possible
acts which might be the consideration for one
another respectively (“aut enim do tibi ut des,
aut do ut facias, aut facio ut des, aut facio ut
facias,” Dig. 19, 5, 5, pr.): but the most usual
clue to them is the mention of the actio (civilis
in factum, or praescriptis verbis) by which the
party who had performed could exact counter-
performance or recover damages from the other
(e.g. Inst. iii. 24, 1 and 2). If the part-
performance had consisted in conveyance of
property (dare), the plaintiff might, as alterna-
tive to the actio praescriptis verbis, redemand
what he had conveyed by the older remedy
known as “condictio causa data causa non
secuta” (Dig. 12, 14, 3, 2). The commonest
examples of Innominate Contract are exchange
(Permutatio, Inst. iii. 23, 2); Aestimatum, the
acceptance of property valued at a certain
maximum under the condition of either return-
ing it or paying the price at which it is valued
(Dig. 19, 13, 1, pr.); Transactio, or compromise
(Dig. 2, 15; Cod. 2, 4); and Precarium, or per-
missive occupancy (Dig. 43, 26, 19, 2). But the
practical value of the actio praescriptis verbis is
S
258 OBLIGATIONES
OBLIGATIONES
best realised in cases which cannot certainly be
regarded as within the principle of any named
(i.e. Real or Consensual) Contract, and in which
the jurists say, “tutius esse, praescriptis verbis
agere” (Dig. 19, 3, 1, pr. ; .4, 3, 9, 3, &c.).
This extension was apparently due to juristic
action. Other agreements, as has been observed
above, were made actionable by the praetor or
by the emperor. The chief pacta praetoria are
Constitutum [INTERCESSIO), Hypotheca [PIG-
NUs]; Receptum arbitrii, the agreement to
refer a dispute to arbitration (Dig. 4, 8); and
Receptum nautarum, cauponum, &c., the obli-
gation (quasi ea contractu rather than contrac-
tual) of innkeepers, shipowners, and others in
similar positions, to be answerable for the safe
custody and restitution of property put under
their charge and control (Dig. 4, 9, 1, pr., &c.).
Of the pacta legitima first made actionable by the
emperors, the chief example is DONATIO : com-
pare also the legislation of Zeno on the subject
of EMPHYTEUSIS. It is also usual to enumerate
among pacta vestita what civilians call pacta
adjecta ; subsidiary conventions annexed to an
agreement remedied by bonae fidei action, and
themselves enforceable by that action if entered
into substantially as part of and at the same
time with the main agreement (ea, continenti),
even though expressed in the guise of a
condition. For instance, if A agreed to buy
B’s house on condition that the latter put it in
repair, this condition would itself be construed
as a promise ; and an action would lie for its
breach, the contract being consensual : had the
transaction been Stipulatio or Mutuum (on
which the action was strict; juris), it would
have been otherwise (Dig. 2, 14, 7, 5 ; ib. 7;
19, 1, 13, 30; 19, 5, 6; 18, 1, 75).
Obligationes arising quasi ea contractu are
illustrated in the Institutes (iii. 27) and in
Dig. 44, 7, 5 by Negotiorum gestio [NEGO-
TIORUM GESTORUM ACTIO), the relation of
guardian and ward [CURATOR, TUTOR), joint-
ownership arising from gift, inheritance or
legacy, &c. In all these cases the party
or parties are bound by an obligation, though
not under any express agreement; but the
circumstances being more analogous to Contract
than to Delict, the obligation is said to be
quasi-contractual.
Obligationes arising from Delict denote the
vinculum juris which the law creates in certain
cases of wrong-doing between the injured person
and the delinquent. As soon as a “ delict,” in
the Roman sense, is committed, the wrong-doer
is “bound * to the man he has wronged, to pay
him a penalty; and where the act is one which
causes loss of or damage to property, he is also
bound to indemnify the person on whom such
loss or damage falls. Such delicts are four in
number, viz. Theft [FURTUM), Robbery [BONA
VI RAPTA or RAPINA, Damage to property
[DAMNUM INJURIA DATUM], and Assault, i.ibei,
Slander, &c. [INJURIA]. Quasi-delictual obliga-
tions are illustrated in the Institutes (iv. 5) by
instances of two kinds: cases of vicarious
responsibility, imposed on a man because he
employs careless or dishonest servants (e.g. Inst.
iv. 5, 3), or because it may be difficult to
ascertain the real offender (ib. 1 and 2), and
wrongs which result directly from a man’s own
culpa or dolus, but which do not come under the
definition of any of the four delicts proper
(ib. pr.). -
Hitherto obligations have been spoken of as
existing between two parties only : but to the
same obligation there may possibly be two or
more debtors, or two or more creditors, all of
whom are comprehended under the general
name of rei (Cic. de Orat. ii. 43, 183). Two
distinct forms of such plurality of parties are
found in the Roman law, called by modern
writers Solidarity and Correality. Solidarity is
mainly passive: one creditor is entitled against
two or more debtors by different obligations;
but these obligations, though different from one
another, have one and the same act or forbear-
ance as their object: so that when that object
is once attained by the performance of one of
them, all the rest, having no longer any object,
cease ipso facto to exist. For instance, where
two persons jointly commit a delict—e.g. break
a man's windows—the obligation to make com-
pensation (though not that to pay the penalty
prescribed by law) is of this nature: as soon as
one has paid for mending the windows, the
other's liability is at an end (Dig. 2, 10, 1, 4;
4, 2, 14, 15, &c.). Other examples of solidary
obligation are found in the liability of co-tutors
for dolus and culpa in the discharge of their
duties (Dig. 16, 3, 1, 43), and in those cases
where two or more persons jointly incur duties
ea contractu without becoming correi (e.g.
Dig. 17, 1, 60, 2; 16, 3, 1, 43; 13, 6, 5, 13).
Correality resembles Solidarity in the identity
of the obligation-object which is owed to one
creditor by several debtors, or by one debtor to
several creditors; but it differs in that there is
also but one obligation: there is but, one single
vinculum juris by which the debtor and the
creditors, or the creditors and the debtor, are
bound to one another; so that any act or event
which extinguishes that single obligation be-
tween the creditor and one of the debtors, or
between the debtor and one of the creditors,
puts an end to it between them all. Correal
obligation arose most commonly from contract,
usually stipulation in the form described in
Inst. iii. 16, pr. ; but it could also be created in
a testament, by the testator charging a bequest
on one or other of his heirs in the alternative
(Dig. 30, 8, 1), and similarly in a banking
partnership the socii were liable correaliter on
all their business transactions, whether entered
into by one or all of them (Dig. 2, 14, 9, pr.).
Of the modes in which obligations could be
extinguished (which extinction is commonly
expressed by solvere in the general sense of
loosing or releasing, Dig. 42, 1, 4, 7; 50, 16,
47; ib. 176), the first to be noticed is per-
formance (“solutio stricto sensu ’). So far as
the release of the debtor was concerned, it was
immaterial from whom performance proceeded—
whether from himself or from some third person
(Gaius, iii. 168). Whether he was equally dis-
charged by what is called datio in solutum, the
acceptance by the creditor of something other
than what was really owed in lieu of it, had
been disputed between the two schools of jurists:
the Sabinians, whose view was eventually con-
firmed by Justinian (Inst. iii. 29, pr.), answered
in the affirmative, while the Proculians held
that in law the debtor remained bound, though
if sued he could successfully meet the creditor's
OBLIGATIONES
OBLIGATIONES 259
action by the plea of fraud (exceptio doli mali).
Secondly, certain obligations could be properly
discharged only by an “imaginaria solutio per
aes et libram ” (Gaius, iii. 173–175): for these
reference may be made to the article on NEXUM.
A third mode of extinction was Acceptilatio, a
formal release from an obligation incurred by
stipulation only (Terence, Adelph. ii. 1; 10), and
expressed in a solemn corresponding form of
question and answer—“Quod ego tibi promisi
habesne acceptum ? Habeo : consentaneum
enim visum est,” says Gaius (iii. 170), “verbis
factam obligationem posse aliis verbis dissolvi.”
But though Acceptilatio was specialised to the
discharge of obligations created verbis, a liability
incurred in any other way whatsoever could be
transformed by Novatio (of which below) into a
verbal obligation, and then released in this
manner (Gaius, iii. 170; Inst. iii. 29, 1): and
the jurist Gallus Aquilius devised a compre-
hensive formula, called the Stipulatio Aquiliana,
(Inst. ib. 2), by which all obligations in which
one and the same person was debtor, and another
and the same creditor, could be embraced in a
single novatio, whereby they were converted into
a single obligation, which could then, if required,
be discharged by Acceptilatio : “Quidguid tibi
hodierno die per Aquilianam stipulationem
spopondi, id onine habesne acceptum ? Habeo,
acceptumque tuli’” (Inst. iii. 29, 2, after Floren-
tinus in Dig. 46, 4, 18, pr. and 1). Novation,
which has already been more than once referred
to, is the extinction of one obligation by the
substitution for it of another (Dig. 46, 2, 1, pr.).
Originally this could be effected in two ways: by
Transcriptio (Gaius, iii. 128–130; see OBLIGATIO
LITTERARUM) and Stipulation : but the former
had gone out of use long before Justinian's time,
and perhaps even as early as that of Gaius.
The end in view in a Novation was sometimes
to change one of the parties to a subsisting
obligation, as where A stipulates from B for
payment to him of a debt due to himself from
C (change of debtor), or where C (with B’s con-
sent) stipulates from A for payment to himself
of a debt owed by A to B (change of creditor):
but more commonly perhaps it was to alter the
nature of a subsisting liability by converting a
real or consensual into a verbal obligation (so as
to substitute a strict; juris for a bonae fidei
action), or by modifying its terms. It was im-
material whether the obligation “novated” was,
civilis or naturalis, and the obligation created by
the “novating” contract would extinguish the
old one even though itself naturalis only (Gaius,
iii. 176; Inst. iii. 29, 3). Whether an absolute
obligation was extinguished at once by a con-
ditional novating stipulation was at one time a
question: the great jurist Servius Sulpicius had
held that extinction ensued even though the
condition of the novating contract was never
fulfilled, but Justinian confirmed the view up-
held by Gaius (iii. 179), that the old obligation
subsisted until the condition of the new one was
fulfilled, but that if the creditor sued upon it
before such fulfilment he could be repelled by
exceptio doli or pacti (Dig. 23, 3, 50 ; Inst. iii.
29, 3). He also enacted that in order to effect
a novation the parties to the contract must
expressly state this as their intention.
Gaius (iv. 108) tells us that under the old
procedure by legis actio no second action could
ever be brought on the same ground, so that
obligations were extinguished by being sued
upon : and also (iii. 180) that under the for-
mulary system of procedure the same result
ensued from litis contestatio or joinder of issue,
if the action belonged to the class of Judicia
legitima: litis contestatio thus having a quasi-
novative effect, and substituting for the original
obligation a new liability on the defendant to
be condemned if the plaintiff proved his case
(Gaius, iii. 181); though according to Dig. 12, 6,
60, the old obligation was not really destroyed,
but continued to exist naturaliter. The judicia
which were not legitima litis contestatio did not
destroy the obligation, but if the plaintiff sued
on it a second time he could be defeated by
exceptio rei in judicium deductae or rei judicatae
(Gaius, iv. 106). When the formulary system
was superseded (A.D. 294), litis contestatio ceased
to have this operation in any case, though if
the action had been decided on its merits the
earceptio re; judicatae was as powerful to repel a .
second suit as before (Inst. iv. 13, 5). [See the
article on LITIS CONTESTATIO.] Justinian also
observes (Inst. iv. 29, 4) that the obligation of
a consensual contract could be extinguished by
contraria voluntas, i.e. by the parties agreeing to
be off their bargain, provided neither had done
anything in execution of his side of it (re in-
tegra): such an agreement, when the res was
no longer integra, had not the same effect, but
operated as a new contract, which bound the
party in whose favour performance had taken
place to restore the other in statum quo, but
which was unable to affect injuriously rights
acquired under the original agreement by third
persons (Dig. 2, 14, 58).
There were other modes in which obligations
were discharged, and of which no mention is
made in the Institutional works of Gaius and
Justinian : e.g. physical impossibility of per-
formance arising ea post facto without default
of the debtor (Dig. 46, 3, 92): in some cases
CONFUSIO (Dig. ib. 95, 2); and sometimes death
of one of the parties to a contract, as in societas
(Inst. iii. 25, 5) and mandatum (ib. 26, 10).
The obligation to pay a penalty on a delict was
also destroyed by the delinquent’s decease, and
those involved in the actiones furt; and injuri-
arum were dissolved ipso jure by “pactum de
non petendo’’ or agreement not to sue (Dig. 2,
14, 17, 1).
A few words are necessary on the transfer
inter vivos of the rights and liabilities in an
obligation. The latter could in no way be
transferred without the creditor's assent, and
then only by means of a novatio, the old obliga-
tion being destroyed, and a new one with
different parties taking its place. Similarly the
creditor's right could be transferred, with the
debtor's co-operation, by substituted agreement ;
but without such novation he had no means of
assigning his right so as to enable the assignee
to sue in his own name, or indeed to sue at all
till the introduction of the formulary procedure.
After this the assignee could bring his action as
the assignee's agent and in the latter's name
(Gaius, ii. 39; iv. 86), but subsequently he was
enabled to sue in his own name by actio utilis
(Dig. 3, 3, 55;-Cod. 4, 15, ult. ; 6, 37, 18).
The Roman law, however, apparently never
recognised a genuine assignment of * tit
S -
260 OBOLUS
OCREA
personam, by which the assignee simply and
actually stepped into the shoes of his assignor,
who simultaneously dropped altogether out of
the matter.
(Gaius, iii. 88–225; Inst. iii. 13–iv. 5; Dig.
2, 14; 44, 7 ;—Cod. 4, 10; Savigny, Obliga-
#onenrecht; Unterholzner, Quellenmässige Zusan-
menstellung der Lehre des rômischen Rechts von
den Schuldwerhältnissen, Leipzig, 1840. Re-
ference may also be made to the part on Obliga-
tions in the works of the leading modern civi-
lians, such as Vangerow, Windscheid, Ortolan,
Thibaut, Arndts, Baron, Puchta, and to Dr.
Bruns’ article on the modern Roman law in
Holzendorff’s Encyclopädie (4th edit.), pp. 458–
509. Compare also for some points only slightly
touched on in this article Excursus v., vii., viii.
and ix. in Mr. Moyle's edition of the Institutes
of Justinian.) [J. B. M.]
O'BOLUS (380Aés) was the sixth part of a
drachm [see PondERA, DRACHMA), whether as
weight or coin. As a silver coin the obol was
in circulation in Greece, Asia, and the West from
early times, as well as its multiples the tetrobol,
triobol (hemidrachm), and diobol. In the sixth
and fifth centuries B.C. the fractions of an obol,
the hemiobol, tetartemorion, &c., were issued in
silver at Athens and other cities. About B.C.
400 copper coin began to be in use, and the
obolus and its parts were
issued in that metal.
As an instance we figure
a copper coin of Meta-
pontum, identified as an
obolus by its inscription.
The metal value of the
obolus varied according
to the standard followed in its striking ; it
would be between one penny and twopence. In
Athens the obolus contained 8 xaxico. [P. G.]
OBSIDIONA'LIS CORO'NA. [CoRONA.]
OBSO'NIUM. [OPSON.]
OCCA'TIO. [AGRICULTURA, Vol. I. p. 63.]
OCCUPA"TIO is the advisedly taking pos-
session of a thing which belongs to no one (res
nullius), with the intention of appropriating it :
the property in it is thereby ipso facto vested
in him who takes possession (Cic. de Off. i. 7,
21): “quod nullius est, id ratione naturali
occupanti conceditur" (Dig. 41, 1, 3, pr.).
Hence (following Gaius, ii. 66, and also in the
passage just cited) Justinian enumerates occu-
patio in his Institutes as one of the adquisitiones
naturales, or modes of acquiring property recog-
nised practically among all peoples, as being
based on the jus gentium or naturale. Among
the things of which one can become owner in
this fashion are wild animals, birds, bees, and
fishes (Inst. ii. 1, 12–16), enemies’ property on
Roman soil (ib. 17), stones and pebbles found on
the sea-shore (ib. 18), islands which rise in
the sea (ib. 22), treasure trove (ib. 39), and
res derelictae, property abandoned by its former
owner (ib. 47). [J. B. M.]
OCHLOCRATIA (3xxokparta), the do-
minion of the rabble, or mob-tyranny, a name
of later origin than the time of Aristotle, and
applied to that perversion of a democracy which
extends the idea far beyond that of a state
where all have equal legal rights and equal
franchise, so that the natural and wholesome
inequalities of society were removed or counter-
Obulus of Metapontum.
(British Museum.) :
acted by the introduction of devices, such as
paying citizens for attendance in the popular
assembly, or increasing the number and re-
stricting the duration and authority of public
offices. Hence the exercise of all the highest
functions of government came to be practically
in the hands of a mere faction, consisting of the
lowest and poorest, though most numerous,
class of citizens, who were thus tempted to
adopt as their avocation that which they would
formerly have delegated to others; and the
state came to be regarded as a property of which
each citizen was entitled to an equal share. In
some respects therefore it most nearly represents
the modern idea of a socialist state. Though,
however, as was said above, Aristotle does not
recognise the term, we may find perhaps his
conception of the ochlocracy in his “extreme
democracy” (rexévrata 6muokparta). He says
of this that it corresponds to the extreme oli-
garchy or övvao reta (Pol. iv. 5, p. 1292 b);
and he defines it as a democracy which over-
rides the constitution: Köptov eival ºrb tra?60s
kal ph Tov vówov (whereas in his other kinds of
democracy it is in each case &pxeiv 8& Töv vówov)
toūto 68 yt yueral àrav Tó, ú/mºptopara kūpua ñ
&AA& uh 5 vöuos" orvuòatvei 5& rooro Suá rows
6muayaºyots. Here we have no constitution,
except that which may be formed and re-formed
from hour to hour by the hasty legislation of
the masses, following impulse or the voice of the
popular leaders: it is clear that, if this is not
exactly the 3xxokparta described above, it would
soon pass into it. [C. P. M.] [G. E. M.]
O'CREA (kvnuts), a greave, a legging. A
pair of greaves (kvnuióes) was one of the six
articles of armour which formed the complete
equipment of a Greek or Etruscan warrior
[ARMA), and likewise of a Roman soldier, as
fixed by Servius Tullius (Liv.i.43). The greaves
were always 'put on before the thorax, which
made it difficult to bend the body (Il. iii. 330,
&c.). In the Homeric poems, eúkvåutòes is a
standing epithet of the Achaeans, and proves
the general use of the greave. The Homeric
greaves were usually made of bronze (Il. vii. 41,
xańkokvåutóes). The greaves of Achilles (Il.
xviii. 613, xxi. 592) are said to be made of tin
(kaorotrepos), and “rang terribly” (Il. xxi. 593,
apiepāaxéov ková8more), a statement which has
caused difficulty, as tin does not resound when
struck. Helbig (Homerisches Epos, p. 196)
suggests either that tin was an unfamiliar metal
to the poet, or that the greaves were made of
bronze, plated with tin. The Homeric greaves
were sometimes “fitted with silver anklets *
(äpyvpéotoiv ćrior pvptois, Il. iii. 331, xi. 18,
&c.), which were perhaps the ring-like margins
at the bottom of the greave (see illustration
below).
In historical times, bronze was the usual
material, as shown by the specimens discovered.
In poetical passages greaves are described as of
orichalc (Hes. Scut. 122), silver, electrum, and
gold (Werg. Aen. vii. 634, viii. 624, xi. 488).
Greaves frequently had a lining, probably of
leather, felt or cloth. Traces of leather were
found in a specimen from the Crimea (Antiq. du
Bosp. Cimm., pl. xxviii., fig. 8; i. p. 195); and
many specimens, in the British Museum and
elsewhere, have a row of small holes round the
edge for the attachment of the lining (cf. the

OCREA
OENOPHORUM 261
engraving s. v. GALEA). Another method of
fitting the greave to the leg so as not to hurt it
was by the interposition of a kind of sponge
(&x{AAetos), which was also used for the lining
of helmets. Aristotle (Hist. An. v., xvi.) de-
scribes it as of remarkable fineness, closeness, and
toughness, and as used for the purpose of deaden-
ing a blow.
The greaves were accurately modelled to fit
the leg, the two sides meeting exactly at the
back of the calf. In order to put them on it
was necessary forcibly to open them. How
accurately the greave was intended to fit at the
back of the leg may be observed in the heroic
bronze fragment of which a view is given
below.
Greaves thus fitted required in many cases no
other fastening than their own elasticity. Often,
nevertheless, they were further secured with
two straps, as may be seen in the woodcut at Vol.
I. p. 189. Their form and appearance will be best
understood from the accompanying woodcuts.
Bronze Shield and pair of Greaves. (Brit. Museum.)
This woodcut represents the interior view of
a bronze shield and a pair of bronze greaves
which were found by Signor Campamari in an
Etruscan tomb, and are now in the British
Museum. These greaves are made right and
left. -
The annexed illustration represents a frag-
ment of a bronze statue of heroic
size, found in Magna Graecia, and
now in the British Museum. It
is the right leg of a warrior,
wearing a closely-fitting greave,
adorned above the knee with a
carefully worked Gorgoneion of
the archaic type. (Journ. of
Hellen. Stud., pl. lxix.) The top
of the greave is seen projecting
somewhat above the knee. The
illustration shows very clearly
the ankle-ring (ério ºptov: see
the explanation proposed above).
That the Greeks took delight in
handsome and convenient greaves
may be inferred from Homer's
allusions to the subject, and from
the extant remains. A specimen
of an elaborately adorned Greek
greave is engraved in Antiq. du
Bosp. Cimm., pl. xxviii. fig. 7
(= Baumeister, Denkmäler, fig.
2221).
The modern Greeks and Alba-
nians wear greaves, in form re-
* sembling those of their ancestors,
rea.V.e. •:
(British but made of softer materials, such
Museum.) as velvet ornamented with gold,
and fastened with hooks and eyes (cf. Hobhouse,
Travels, i. p. 133).
Among the Romans, greaves made of bronze
and richly embossed were worn by gladiators.
Specimens have been found at Pompeii (Over-
beck, p. 458; Baumeister, Denkmäler, fig. 2347–
9; Gell, Pompeiana, 1817, pl. 18). In the time
of the Empire greaves had not been entirely
abandoned (Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 40), but were
a distinguishing mark of the centurions. Com-
pare a relief from Verona (Lindenschmidt, Tracht
und Bewaffnung des röm. Heeres, pl. 1, fig. 6)
and the relief from Petronell (Baumeister, Denk-
mäler, fig. 2276, and p. 2060; cf. also Zoega,
Bassire!. pl. xvi.). At an earlier period the
heavy-armed wore a single greave on the right
leg, as that which was foremost in close combat
(Veget. de Re Mil. i. 20). The Roman greaves
were further distinguished from those of Greece,
by the fact that they only covered the front
part of the leg (trpokvmuſs, Polyb. vi. 23, 8).
Leggings of ox-hide or strong leather, pro-
bably of the form already described, were worn
by agricultural labourers (Hom. Od. xxiv. 228;
Pliny, H. N. xix. § 7; Pallad. de Re Rustica,
i. 43) and by huntsmen (Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 234).
The word kvnuis was also used in a more
general sense (kvnuts. To Stróðmua, Hesych.
S. v.). [J. Y.] [A. H. S.]
OCTA'WAE. [VECTIGALIA.]
OCTO'BER EQUU.S. On the Ides of Octo-
ber in each year there was a race of bigae in the
Campus Martius, after which the off-horse of
the winning biga was sacrificed by the flamen
Martialis at the altar of Mars: the tail was cut
(offa penita, "Arnob. vii. 24; cf. Plaut. Mil.
Glor. iii. 1, 165; and curto equo, Prop. v. 1, 20)
and, taken to the Regia, the blood from it
sprinkled on the hearth of Vesta: the blood
from the sacrificed horse was kept and stored
up within the Regia, for future sacred rites
[PARILIA]. For the head of the victim there
was a struggle between the inhabitants of the
Via Sacra and those of the Subura : if the
former got it, it was fixed on the walls of the
Regia; if the latter, on the turris Mamilia in
the Subura. This struggle, representing a com-
petition between two halves of the old city,
marks the festival as dating from the earliest
beginning of Rome (Mommsen. Hist. of Rome,
i. 53; Burn, Rome and Campagna, p. 38).
Marquardt sees also in the struggle a form of
lustration or expiation, comparing Lobeck,
Aglaoph. 680. The horse was clearly the ap-
propriate sacrifice to Mars (to whom also the
Equiria were sacred), and the fact that the
blood was reserved for another ancient lustral
rite suggests that we have here the original
purely Roman lustration. (See also Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, iii. 334 f.) [G. E. M.]
ODE'UM. [THEATRUM.]
OENO'PHORUM, a vessel for holding wine.
It had two handles, as is clear from a passage
(cited by Marquardt, Privatleben, 650) from the
comedy Querolus, where among dilapidated goods
we have “oenophorum exauriculatum.” It is
described by Isidore (Or. xx. 6, 1) as “vas
ferens vinum ; ” much larger than a drinking-
cup (Juv. vi. 425), and such that it could be
held by the handles and inverted, in pouring
the contents into cups, as in the line of
Lucilius, “vertitur oenophoris fundus, sententia


262 OFFENDIX
OLEA, OLIVA
nobis" (cf. “invertunt allifanis vinaria tota,”
Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 39). It is clear from the above
passages that it was not (as has often been
stated by commentators on Hor. Sat. i. 6, 109,
and Pers. v. 140) a wine-basket or “cellaret,”
but a large wine-vessel. The slaves, in these
passages of Horace and Persius, carry it outside
their luggage, ready for use. The word “oeno-
phorum ” in Plin. xxxiv. § 69, adduced by some
as from oenophorus and meaning “a slave bear-
ing a wine-basket,” cannot have anything to do
with this subject: if the passage is so read, it
is merely a statue of a wine-carrier by Praxi-
teles—but the true reading seems to be “cane-
phoram.” [G. E. M.]
OFFENDIX. [APEX.]
OI’KIAS DIKE (oiktas Šíkm), an action to
recover a house (like any other action where
property was the subject of litigation, as xapſov,
ăvăpatrööwy, vetºs, introv 6/km), belonged to the
class of Staëlkagtai, i.e. actions in which the
dispute was āta, trpoo’ikel wax Aov, Léº. Seguer.
236 = Etym. M. p. 267, 7), e.g. one claiming it
because he had bought it, the other because
it had been mortgaged to him. Certain speeches
of Lysias, Isaeus, Hyperides, and Deinarchus,
which dealt with this subject, are all lost; in
some, it would seem, private creditors made
claims upon a confiscated estate by this action
(Harpocr. s. v. trapakataSoxii). By the laws of
Zaleucus (Polyb. xii. 16) possession of the
property in dispute was secured till after the
action to the last bonae fidei possessor; Attic
law directed probably the same. Such actions
belonged to the jurisdiction of the Forty (Att.
Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 674–81). The évoikſov
6íkm was another action to recover a house, not
merely the bygone rents, as Hudtwalcker (Diaet.
. 143 m.) supposed; cf. Thalheim, Griech.
Rechtsaltert. p. 84, n. 2. If house-rent was not
paid by the tenant, the owner might evict him,
but he was not, it seems, assisted by the authori-
ties in so doing : ka94trep kal é: oikias, pnalv ć
Bíov, Ščotkićéue6a, 6tav to évoſktov 6 uto 660 as
oil kouigºuevos Thy 6&pav &@éAm, Töv képauoy
&béAm, to ppéap éykAeton (Stob. Floril. v.
67). [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
O'LEA, OLIVA (#Ada, or, in older Attic
and Trag., áAata); O'LEUM, OLIVUM
(ÉNatov); OLE'TUM, OLIVE"TUM (exatów).
That the cultivation of the olive, and the use
of its oil for anointing, for light, and for food,
belonged to the earliest recorded life in the
south of Western Asia, is clear from mention of
it in all parts of the Bible ; but there is con-
siderable ground for thinking (1) that it was
not cultivated among the Greeks in the earliest
times of which we have record, and (2) that
after its cultivation began its oil was used at
first neither for light nor food, but only for
anointing the body. The wood of the olive is
used in Homer, as a hard wood readily taking a
polish, for axe-handles, clubs, &c. (Il. xiii. 612;
Od. ix. 320), which of course does not prove
cultivation: it is used for anointing frequently
in the Odyssey, but from the way in which it is
spoken of (e.g. 0d. vi. 79) it seems to be even
then somewhat rare and costly, and there is
still more indication of its being reserved for
gods and heroes in the mention of it in Il. xiv.
171, xviii. 350, xxiii. 186 (the commoner use
in the Doloneia, Il. x. 577, belongs to what is
now generally considered the latest part of the
Iliad): the same perhaps may be said of its
being taken to express the sheen of garments in
the idealised pictures of the divinely wrought
shield (Il. xviii. 596), whereas the commoner
animal fat suffices to supply the usual Homeric
epithets for bright (oriyaxóets, Attrapós), as also
in &mogríA8ovres &Aeſqatos (Od. iii. 408): and
the éAatov is 5')pov in contrast with the thick
&Aeſqap. On the whole, there is nothing to
exclude Hehn's theory, that in the earliest
Homeric period oil was an imported luxury,
used as an unguent by the rich instead of the
ordinary &Aeſqap of fat. The question when
the cultivation of the olive began among the
Greeks is affected by the sense given to pox{m in
Od. v. 476. If that is a wild olive (oleaster), it
follows that the éAaſm of the Odyssey is a
cultivated olea Europaea. Hehn thinks it is
not, and conjectures, without good reason, that
it means a myrtle. It is true that Hesychius
himself is uncertain, and suggests three trees;
but we should find it hard to oppose the direct
statement of Eustathius (Dios. i. 138) that it
was the older name for wild olive, afterwards
called kórivos and āyptéXatos, with which
Pausan. ii. 32, 10 agrees: it is an unsatisfactory
comment of Hehn’s that this opinion may be
based solely on the Homeric line. But the
evidence of cultivation in the Odyssey does not
depend on that passage ; we have the olive as a
garden tree in Od. vii. 16. The simile in
Il. xvii. 55 may at first sight seem to claim the
cultivated olive for the earliest Homeric poem ;
but, apart from the question whether the simile
is a later introduction, the mention of a solitary
tree does not suggest cultivated olive-yards for
oil-making, and it is noticed for its beauty and
its flower, not for its fryit. On the whole; the
reasonable conclusion is that in the time of the
earliest Homeric writings the cultivation of the
olive had not reached the shores of Asia Minor
or Greece, and olive-oil is rare and imported:
in the later part of the Iliad and the Odyssey
the cultivation is just beginning, and oil is more
widely used for anointing, though not for light
or food (that the berry however was eaten, is
implied by the description of Tantalus). In
Northern Greece it was certainly later than the
time of Hesiod, who does not mention the tree
at all (Plin. xv. § 3 is not sufficient evidence to
the contrary), though he describes the treat-
ment of vines. When it took so firm a root in
Attica, it is impossible to say, but probably not
much later than 700 B.C.; for, though Chry-
sostom says that Peisistratus first introduced it
at Athens, the statement of Plutarch (Sol. 24),
that Solon excepted oil when he prohibited
export of Attic produce, postulates a much
earlier date for the beginning of the industry.
We shall, however, no doubt rightly believe
that the wise measures of Peisistratus en-
couraged and extended the cultivation of the
olive in Attica. Attica was possibly its earliest
home in Greece, though not, as the tradition in
Herodotus v. 82 implies, the earliest in the
world. When it became identified with the
goddess Athena is equally open to question, but
the legends were probably in consequence of the
olive becoming a source of wealth in Attica.
The epithet ispá, applied to the olive in the
Odyssey, may perhaps imply that it was be-
OLEA, OLIVA
OLEA, OLIVA 263
coming known as a benefactor, but there is
nowhere in Homer a connexion of the tree
with Athene. (On the subject, however, of the
myths connected with the olive, see Bötticher,
Baumcultus der Athen. pp. 30, 107.) That the
Greek colonists brought the cultivation of the
olive to Magna Graecia and Massilia, and that
it spread thence over Italy and Provence, is
probable: we have mention in Amphis (4th
cent. B.C.) of the oil of Thurii as famous. Pliny
(H. N. xv. § 1) cites the authority of Fenestella
for the tradition that there was no olive-tree in
Italy until the time of Tarquinius Priscus,
which may very well mean that it came in
with the Greek colonists about the year 600,
and was introduced into Latium from the
Campanian Greeks in the time of the Tarquins.
(See Buchholz, Homerische Realien, ii. § 19;
and especially Hehn, Kulturpflanzen, pp. 88–
104.)
MORIAE (uápai éAaſat or poptal). Besides
the 16tal éAatal, which were private property,
there were other olives, growing both on public
and private lands, which were the property of
the state. From these came the oil which was
used for prizes in special jars (Phot. s. v.;
PANATHENAEA). They were called uopiat from
the tradition that they had been propagated
(ueplopmuéval) from the sacred olive of Athene
in the Acropolis: they thus acquired a sacred
character, and were placed under the control of
the Areiopagus, whence monthly inspectors (étri-
Alexm'raf) and annual commissioners (yvámoves)
were sent to visit them. Anyone who destroyed
a moria was punishable with banishment and
confiscation. The moria, or stump of one which
had been cut, was guarded by a fence (ormicós),
which word sometimes includes the tree itself
or the stump, as well as the fence (Lys. Trepl
onkow, Or. 7 ; Jebb, Attic Orators, i. 289 f. and
note on Soph. O. C. 701).
VARIETIES.—The Olea Europaea is the only
species of the natural family of Oleaceae which
yields the highly valued olive oil, but many
varieties are produced by different modes of
culture, and by peculiarities of soil and climate.
Columella enumerates ten, and this number may
be considerably increased from the works of
other ancient writers. The following seem to
have been the most important:-1. Pausia s.
Posea ; 2. Regia ; 3. Orchis s. Orchitis s. Orchita
S. Orchasº-ºp. Radius; 5. Licinia s. Liciniana;
6. Sergia S. Sergiana. Of these the berry of the
Pausia, according to Columella, was the most
pleasant in flavour (jucundissima), but only
while it is green, for “vetustate corrumpitur:”
hence perhaps the apparent contradiction in
Virgil, “amara Pausia bacca’’; that of the
Regia was the finest; while both of these,
together with the Orchis and the Radius, and in
general all the larger varieties, were better
suited for eating than for oil. The Licinia, on
the other hand, in the Venafruni district, yielded
the finest oil; the Sergia, the chief olive of
the Sabine district, the greatest quantity. (Cat.
R. R. 7; Warr. R. R. i. 24; Columell. v. 8, de
Arbor. 17; Plin. H. W. xv. §§ 1–20.)
SoLL AND CLIMATE.-The soil considered most
congenial was a rich tenacious clay, or a mixture
of clay and sand, a gravelly subsoil being essen-
tial in either case to carry off the water. Deep
fat mould was found to be not unsuitable, but
any land which retained moisture was avoided,
and also light, stony ground ; for, although the
trees did not die in the latter, they never became
vigorous. Here again, however, Columella and
Virgil are at variance; for while the former
observes, “inimicus est ager sabulo macer et
nuda glarea,” and Columella, followed by Palla-
dius, speaks of “creta figuli quam argillam
vocant ’’ as unsuitable, the poet declares:
“Difficiles primum terrae collesque maligni,
Tenuis ubi argilla et dumosis calculus arvis,
Palladia gaudent silva vivacis olivae.”
(Georg. ii. 179.)
They may, however, be speaking of different
varieties, since Cato (approved by Varro, i. 24)
says that “ager crassus et calidus ” suits most
olives, but the Liciniana may be planted in
ground which is “frigidior et macrior.”
The olive is very impatient of frost, and
scarcely any of the varieties known to the
ancients would flourish in very hot or very cold
situations. In hot localities, it was expedient to
form the plantations on the side of a hill facing
the north, in cold localities upon a southern
slope. The Sergia liked a colder exposure than
most olives. Neither a very lofty nor a very
low position was appropriate, but gentle rolling
eminences, such as characterised the country of
the Sabines in Italy and the district of Baetica
in Spain. (Strabo, iii. p. 144.) Under ordinary
circumstances, a western exposure lying well
open to the sun was preferred. It is asserted by
several classical authors that the olive will not.
live, or at least not prove fruitful, at a distance
from the sea-coast greater than from thirty to
fifty miles, and there is no doubt that the shores.
of the Mediterranean best suit it, but the shores
of the Lago di Garda must be mentioned as an
exception to the rule. If the olives of Italy
held the first place, and especially those of
Venafrum, Baetica and Istria came next. The
partiality of Martial (xii. 63) alters the order:
“ Uncto Corduba laetior Venafro
Histra nec minus absoluta testa.”
(Cat. R. R. 6; Warr. i. 24; Columella, v. 8;
Plin. H. N. xvii. § 30; Pallad. iii. 18; Theophr.
de C. P. ii. 5; Geopon. ix. 4.)
PROPAGATION AND CULTURE.—Previous to
the formation of an olive-yard (oletum, olivetwu)
it was necessary to lay out a nursery (semi-
narium) for the reception of the young plants.
A piece of ground was selected for this pur-
pose, freely exposed to the sun and air, and in
which the soil was a rich black mould. It was
the practice to trench (pastinare) this to the
depth of three feet, and then to leave it to
crumble down under the influence of the
atmosphere.
The propagation of the olive was effected in
various ways. -
1. The method generally adopted was to fix
upon the most productive trees, and to select
from these long, young, healthy branches (ramos
novellos), of such a thickness as to be easily em-
braced by the hand. The branches immediately
after being detached from the parent stem, were
sawed into lengths of a foot and a half each,
great care being taken not to injure the bark;
these segments, which were called taleae or
clavolae or trunci, were then tapered to a point
264 OLEA, OLIVA.
OLEA, OLIVA
at each end with a knife, the two extremities
were smeared with dung and ashes, they were
buried upright in the ground, so that the tops
were a few fingers’ breadth below the surface,
and each talea was placed as nearly as possible
in the same position, both vertically and
laterally, as the branch had occupied upon the
tree. During the first year, the ground was
frequently loosened by the sarculum; when the
young roots (radiculae seminum) had taken a
firm hold, heavy hand-rakes (rastra) were em-
ployed for the same purpose, and in the heat of
summer water was regularly supplied. For two
years no pruning was resorted to, but in the
third year the whole of the shoots (ramuli),
with the exception of two, were lopped off; in
the fourth year, the weaker of the remaining
two was detached, and in the fifth year the
young trees (arbusculae) were fit for being
transplanted (habiles translationi). This latter
operation was best performed in autumn where
the ground to which they were conveyed was
dry; but if it was moist and rich, in spring, a
short time before the buds were formed. In
the field which they were to occupy permanently,
pits (scrobes) four feet every way were pre-
pared, if practicable, a year beforehand, so that
the earth might be thoroughly pulverised;
small stones and gravel mixed with mould were
placed at the bottom to the depth of a few
inches, and some grains of barley were scattered
over all. The young tree was lifted with as
large a ball of earth as possible attached to the
roots, placed in the pit surrounded with a little
manure, and planted so as to occupy precisely
the same position, in relation to the cardinal
points, as in the nursery. In rich corn land,
the space left between each row was at least
sixty feet, and between each tree in the row
forty feet, in order that the branches and roots
might have full space to spread; but in poorer
soil twenty-five feet each way were considered
sufficient. The rows were arranged so as to run
from east to west, in order that the cool breezes
might sweep freely down the open spaces in
summer. After the trees had become firmly
fixed, and had been pruned up into a proper
shape, that is, into a single stem kept without
branches to the height of the tallest ox,−the
labour attending upon an olive-yard was com-
paratively trifling. Evey year, the soil around
the roots was loosened with hoes (bidens), or
with the plough, the roots themselves laid bare
(ablaqueare, ablaqueatio), the young suckers cut
away, and the lichens scraped from the bark;
every third year, in autumn, manure was
thrown in, and amurca poured in at the roots
was said to be useful for destroying worms;
every eighth year the trees were pruned. The
system of culture here indicated was followed so
generally that it had become embodied in a
proverb, “Veteris proverbii meminisse convenit,
eum qui aret olivetum, rogare fructum; qui
stercoret, exorare; qui caedat, cogere” (Colu-
mell. v. 9, § 15). Besides this, the whole
surface of the ground was regularly ploughed
at the usual seasons, and cropped in alternate
years, the manure applied for these crops being
altogether independent of that supplied to the
trees specially. Moreover, since olives bore
fruit, in abundance at least, only once in two
should yield a crop in those years when the
trees were unproductive.
2. A second method of propagation was to cut
the roots of wild olives into small pieces in such
a manner that each should contain an eye or
rudiment of a lateral fibre (radicum oculis silves-
trium olearum hortulos eacolere), and these pieces
were treated precisely in the same manner as the
taleae described above.
3. A third method is indicated by Virgil in
the lines—
“Quin et caudicibus sectis, mirabile dictu,
Truditure Sicco radix oleagina ligno,”
- (Georg. ii. 30,)
and is still pursued in some parts of Italy,
where, as we are told, “an old tree is hewn
down and the stock cut into pieces of nearly the
size and shape of a mushroom, and which from
that circumstance are called movoli ; care at the
same time is taken that a small portion of bark
shall belong to each novolo. These, after having
been dipped in manure, are put into the earth,
soon throw up shoots, are transplanted at the end
of one year, and in three years are fit to form an
olive-yard.” (Cf. Theophr. Hist. Plant. ii. 2.)
Grafting or budding (inserere, insitio, oculos
inserere) were also resorted to for the purpose of
introducing fine varieties or of rendering barren
trees fruitful. (Cat. R. R. 40, 42, 43, 45; Warr.
R. R. i. 40; Columell. v. 9, de Arbor. 17; Plin.
H. N. xvii. §§ 125–140; Pallad. iii. 8, 18, x. 1,
xi. 8; Geopon. ix. 5, 6, &c.; Blunt's Westiges of
Ancient Manners, &c., in Italy, p. 215.)
OLIVE-GATHERING (0leitas, Olivitas).- The
olive usually comes to maturity, in Italy, about
the middle or latter end of December; but,
according to the views of the proprietors, it was
gathered in various stages of its progress, either
while yet green (alba), or when changing colour
(varia), or when fully ripe (nigra), but it was
considered highly desirable that it should never
be allowed to remain so long as to fall of its own
accord. The fruit was picked as far as possible
with the bare hand, but such as could not be
reached from the ground or by the aid of ladders
was beaten down with long reeds, which were
preferred to sticks as less likely to injure the
bark of the branches and the young bearers, a
want of attention to this precaution on the part
of the gatherers (legul:) being in the opinion
of Varro the cause why olive-trees so seldom
yielded a full crop for two years consecutively.
(Warr. R. R. i. 55; Plin. H. N. xv. § 11;
Geopon. ix. 17.)
DIFFERENT USES.—The chronological order
in the uses of the olive appears to have been—
1. For anointing (from the Homeric age on-
wards; see the beginning of this article), and in
this use frequently as the vehicle of perfumes.
2. For burning in lamps (post-Homeric).
3. For food : (a) as a fruit, either fresh or
preserved—the eating of the fresh fruit is im-
plied in Od. xi. 588; (b) oil as food or for cook-
ing purposes seems to have been absolutely
unknown in Homeric times, though afterwards
a staff of life in Greece and Italy. On this
subject see Hehn (op. cit. p. 125), who thinks
that wine and oil have long been slowly and
gradually spreading from South to North; that,
though the use of the vine and olive belonged to
years, matters were so arranged that the land | the civilised parts of the Roman empire, it was
OLEA, OLIVA
OLEA, OLIVA 265
not always so, but that oil had in Italy and
Greece supplanted animal fat alike for unguents
and for food, just as still (in his opinion) the
uses of wine and oil are gradually extending
northwards into the countries of beer and butter:
and it may be remarked here that butter,
though used by the Greeks only for medical
purposes, was known not only as 800tupov, but
as Aatov čk ydºckros. (Athen. x. p. 447 d:
Blümner, Privatalt. 228; BUTYRUM.)
PRESERVING OLIVES. (Condere oleas, oliva-
rum conditura, conditio.)
Olives might be preserved in various ways,
either when unripe (albae, acerbae), or ripe
(nigrae), or half-ripe (variae, fuscae).
Green olives, the Pausia being used principally
for this purpose, were preserved in strong brine
(muria), according to the modern practice, or
they were beaten together into a mass, steeped
in water which was frequently changed, then
pressed and thrown with salt into a jar of
vinegar, to which various spices or flavouring
condiments were added, especially the seeds of
the Pistachia Lentiscus, or Gum Mastich tree,
and fennel. Sometimes, instead of vinegar,
inspissated must (sapa, defrutum), or sweet
wine (passum) or honey, were employed, in
which case the olives were preserved sweet, and
sometimes salt pickle, vinegar, must and oil,
seem to have been all mixed together.
Half-ripe olives (and here again the Pausia
was the favourite) were picked with their stalks
and covered over in a jar with the best oil. In
this manner they retained the flavour of the
fresh fruit for more than a year.
Ripe olives, especially the orchitis, were
sprinkled with salt, and left untouched for five
days; the salt was then shaken off, and they
were dried in the sun. Or they were preserved
sweet in defrutum without salt.
The peculiar preparation called Epityrum was
made by taking olives in any of the three stages,
extracting the stones, chopping up the pulp and
throwing the fragments into a jar with oil,
vinegar, coriander seeds, cumin, fennel, rue and
mint, the quantity of oil being sufficient to cover
up the compound and exclude the air. In fact,
it was an olive salad, and, as the name imports,
*aten with cheese. (Cat. R. R. 118, 119 ;
Warr. R. R. i. 60; Columell. xii. 49; Geopon.
ix. 3, 32.) g -
OIL-MAKING (Oleum conficere).-The fruit of
the olive-tree consists of two parts, the pulpy
pericarp (caro) and the stone (nucleus).
The caro or pulp yielded two fluids: one of
these of a watery consistence, dark in colour,
bitter to the taste, flowed from the olive upon
very slight pressure; it was called äuäpym by
the Greeks, Amurca by the Latins, and was
extensively used as a manure and for a great
number of purposes connected with domestic
economy. The other fluid which flowed from
the pulp, when subjected to more forcible
pressure, was the oil (oleum, olivum), mingled
however to a certain extent with amurca and
other impurities (fraces, faeces), and this was
of different qualities, according to the state of
the fruit and the amount of pressure. The
finest oil was made from the fruit before it was
fully ripe, and from this circufmstance, or from
its greenish colour, was termed Oleum viride,
and by the Greeks àuq dictyov : the quantity
given out was however small, and hence the
remark of Cato, “Quam acerbissima olea oleum
facies tam oleum optimum erit: domino de
matura olea oleum fieri maxime expediet.”
A distinction is made by Columella between
the oil obtained from the fruit when green
(oleum acerbum s. aestivum), when half ripe
(oleum viride), and when fully ripe (oleum
maturum); and while he considers the manu-
facture of the first as inexpedient, in consequence
of the scanty produce, he strongly recommends
the proprietor to make as much as possible of
the second, because the quantity yielded was
considerable, and the price so high, as almost to
double his receipts.
Under ordinary circumstances, the ripe fruit
when gathered was carefully cleaned, and con-
veyed in baskets to the farmhouse, where it
was placed in heaps upon sloping wooden floors
(in tabulato), in order that a portion of the
amurca might flow out, and a slight fermenta-
tion took place (ut ibi mediocriter fracescat),
which rendered them more tender and more
productive, and exactly the same system is
pursued for the same reason in modern times.
The gatherings of each day (coactura unius-
cujusque diei) were kept separate, and great care
was taken to leave them in this state for a very
limited period ; for if the masses heated, the oil
soon became rancid (“Olea lecta si nimium diu
fuit in acervis, caldore fracescit, et oleum foeti-
dum fit”). If, therefore, circumstances did not
allow of the oil being made soon after the fruit
was gathered, the olives were spread out and
exposed to the air so as to check any tendency
towards decomposition. It is the neglect of
these rules and precautions which renders the
oil now made in Spain so offensive, for there the
olives are frequently allowed to remain in cellars
for months before they are used. Although
both ancient and modern experience are upon
the whole in favour of a slight fermentation,
Cato, whose great practical knowledge entitles
him to respect, strongly recommends that it
should be altogether dispensed with, and affirms
that the oil would be both more abundant in
quantity and superior in quality : “Quam
citissime conficies maxime expediet.”
The olives when considered to be in a proper
state were placed in bags or flexible baskets
(fiscis), and were then subjected to the action
of a machine consisting partly of a bruising and
partly of a squeezing apparatus, which was
constructed in various ways, and designated by
various names: Trapetum, Mola olearia, Canalis
et Solea, Torcular, Prelum, Tudicula. [TRAPE-
TUM.] The oil as it issued forth was received
in a leaden pot (cortina plumbea), placed in the
cistern (lacus) below the press. From the
cortina it was ladled out by an assistant (capu-
lator), with a large flat spoon (concha), first into
one vat (labrum fictile), and then into another,
thirty being placed in a row for this purpose.
It was allowed to rest for a while in each, and
the operation was repeated again and again
(oleum frequenter capiant) until the amurca and
all impurities had been completely removed.
. In cold weather when the oil remained in union
with the amurca notwithstanding these trans-
ferences, the separation was effected by mixing
a little parched salt with the combined fluids;
but when the cold was very intense, dry car-
266 OLIGARCHIA
OLIGARCHIA
bonate of soda (nitrum) was found to answer
better. The oil was finally poured into jars
(dolia olearia), which had been previously
thoroughly cleaned and seasoned, and glazed
with wax or gum to prevent absorption, the
lids (opercula) were carefully secured, and they
were then delivered to the overseer (custos), by
whom they were stored up in the vault reserved
for their reception (cella olearia).
After a moderate force had been applied to
the press, and a considerable quantity of oil had
flowed forth, the bruised pulp (Sampsa) was
taken out of the bags, separated from the kernel,
mixed with a little salt, replaced and subjected
to the action of the press a second, and again a
third time. The oil first obtained (oleum primae
pressurae) was the finest; and in proportion as
additional force was applied by the press-men
(factores, torcularii), the quality became gra-
dually worse (“longe melioris Saporis quod
minore vi preli quasi lixivium defluxerit ’’).
Hence the product of each pressing was kept
distinct, the marketable value of each being
very different (“plurimum refert non miscere
iterationes multoque minus tertiationem cum
prima pressura’’). The lowest quality of all
(oleum cibarium) was made from olives which
had been partially damaged by vermin, or which
had fallen from the trees in bad weather into
the mud, so that it became necessary to wash
them in warm water before they could be used.
The quantity of fruit thrown at one time into
the press varied from 120 to 160 modii, accord-
ing to the capacity of the vessels: this quantity
was termed Factus, the amount of oil obtained
from one factus was called Hostus, but these
words are not unfrequently confounded. (Cat.
R. R. 7, 64, 65, 66; Varr. R. R. i. 24, 55;
Columell. xii. 52; Plin. H. W. xv. § 23;
Geopon. ix. 17; Blümmer, Technologie, i.
348 f.) [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
OLIGA'RCHIA (3Avyapxta), the government
of a few, is a term the application of which by
writers on political science is less wide than its
etymological signification might have warranted.
(See Polyb. vi. 4; Arist. Pol. iv. 4, p. 1290,
from whom we learn that some writers used
Oligarchia as a generic name, including Aristo-
cratia as one of its species.) It is shown
elsewhere [ARISTOCRATIA] under what con-
ditions the limitation of political power to a
portion of the community was regarded as
a proper and regular constitution (āp0% troAt-
teia), whose guiding principle was the common
good, not the private interest of those in
power (Arist. Pol. iii. 6, p. 1279; iv. 2, p. 1289).
The term Oligarchia was applied to that
perversion (trapéic8aats) of an Aristocratia into
which the latter passed when, owing to the
rise of the demus [DEMOCRATIA] and the vanish-
ing of those substantial grounds of pre-eminence
which rendered an Aristocratia not unjust, the
rule of the dominant portion of the community
ceased to be the exponent of the general
interests of the state, and became the ascendency
of a faction, whose efforts were directed chiefly
towards their own aggrandisement and the
maintenance of their own power and privileges
(Arist. Eth. Wicom. viii. 12; Polyb. vi. 8, § 4).
The preservation of power under such cir-
cumstances of course depended chiefly upon
the possession of superior wealth and the other
appliances of wealth which were its concomi-
tants. Thus it came to be regarded as
essentially characteristic of an oligarchy, that
the main distinction between the dominant
faction and the subject portion of the commu-
nity was the possession of greater wealth on the
part of the former. (Arist. Pol. iv. 4, p. 1290 b,
Sipos uév éotiv Štav oi éAeë6epot kūpudi āoriv,
ÖAiyapxia 5& Štav of traoûgiot. A little further
on he says: ÖAiyapxial 5& 6tav oi raoûgiou ka?
eū-yevéa repot, ÖAfyou èvres, köpioi Tàs àpx?s
&oiv. Comp. iv. 6, p. 1293; Plat. de Rep. viii.
pp. 550 C, 553 A.) The case of the wealthy
portion being also the more numerous would be
a very rare exception. Their dominion, of course,
would not be an oligarchy; but neither would
it be a democracy (Arist. Pol. iv. 4, p. 1290).
When an aristocracy passed in the natural
development of society into an oligarchy, the
oligarchs would, of course, be high-born as well
as rich. But high birth was not an essential
condition. It very commonly happened that the
oligarchs were themselves only a section of
the old nobility, having excluded the poorer
members of their order from the possession of
power.
Aristotle (Pol. iv. 5, p. 1292 b) distinguishes
various species of oligarchy:-1. Where a
certain large amount of property is the only
requisite for being a member of the ruling
class: 2. Where the property qualification is
not large, but the members of the government
themselves supply any vacancies that may occur
in their ranks by electing others to fill them:
3. Where the son succeeds to the power of his
father: 4. Where, besides this being the case,
the rulers govern according to no fixed laws, but
arbitrarily. (Comp. Plat. Polit. pp. 301, 302.)
The first kind, where privileges were distributed
according to certain gradations of property,
especially when the tſumua was not extrava-
gantly high, so that a considerable number
shared political power, though only a few of
them might be eligible to the highest offices,
was sometimes called ripuokparía (Arist. Eth.
Nic. viii. 12). It approximates closely to the
troAireſa, and hence Aristotle (Pol. iv. 11) calls
it ÖAiyapxia troAvruch, that is, an oligarchy so
moderate as to be nearly a troAireſa: where
more extensive privileges were given to large
property, it was called TAovrokparta (Xen. Mem.
iv. 6, 22): Plato, in Rep. viii. p. 547 D, uses
Tipuokparta in a different sense.
To the conditions of 3 and 4, where the rule of
the few is both arbitrary and hereditary, or, in
other words, where arbitrary power has come
into the possession of a few ruling families, the
name Svyaareia is given (Arist. Pol. iv. 5, 2,
p. 1292 b): this is described as the extreme
oligarchy and corresponding (āvría Tpopos) to
the extreme dembcracy [OCHLoCRATIA]. This
8vvaorteſa is described as existing in Boeotia at
the time of the Persian invasion, and in Thessaly
(Thuc. iii. 62; iv. 78) and sometimes in Crete
(Arist. Pol. ii. 10, p. 1272 b), and the danger of
it is given as one cause for ostracism (Arist.
Pol. v. 3, p. 1302).
The term Aristocratia is not unfrequently
applied to what the more careful distinctions of
the writers on political science would term
Oligarchia. (Comp. Thuc. iii. 82; Xen. Hellen.
v. 2, § 7; Aristoph. Av. 125.)
OLLA
OLLA 267
Besides the authorities quoted above, the
reader may consult Wachsmuth, Hellenische
Alterthumskunde, §§ 36, 44, 47, 63, 64;
Schömann, Antiq. of Greece, p. 98; Her-
mann, Lehrbuch der griech. Staatsalterthümer,
§§ 58–61; Thirlwall, Hist. of Greece, vol. i.
ch. 10. [C. P. M.] [G. E. M.]
OLLA, ant. AULA (Plaut. Auluſ., passim),
a word used much in the same sense as our
word “jar” or “pot,” and corresponding most
nearly perhaps to the Greek xúrpos, xúrpa: a
vase which might be of almost any shape, but
which, with a view to capacity, would no doubt
usually be of a somewhat bellying form.
The olla was made of various materials, ac-
cording to the purpose for which it was in-
tended: thus of ollae which were destined for
cooking purposes, the material would be either
bronze (aenum, Ovid, Met, vii. 318) or different
kinds of stone which were turned upon the
lathe. At Pleurs, a village near Chiavenna to
the north of the Lake of Como, the manufacture
of vessels from the potstone in a neighbouring
mountain is still carried on, and has probably
existed there from the time of Pliny, who makes
express mention of it (H. N. xxxvi. §§ 22, 44).
Some of these vessels are nearly two feet in
diameter, and, being adapted to bear the fire,
are used for cooking. (“Oculis obser-
vare ollam pultis, me aduratur,” Varro,
ap. Non. Marcell. p. 543, ed. Merceri;
Festus, s. v. Aulas.)
The most ordinary material was
earthenware (testacea); and in this
material the olla would be adapted to
various uses, principally no doubt for
holding solids or liquids and keeping
them in store. Thus we read of an
olla filled with denarii (Cic. Fam. ix.
18); with resin (Martial, Ep. 12, 32);
and with oil (Plin. H. W. xxxvii. § 10).
Fruit was in this manner preserved
(Plin. H. N. xv. § 22); and from this
circumstance the adjective ollaris came
to mean “preserved” (upae ollares,
Colum. xii. 43; Martial, vii. 20).
The Romans as well as the Greeks
used pots for holding and for growing
flowers (Cato, de Re R. 51: see VAs):
those which were intended for growing
seeds would have the bottom perfo-
rated (Plin. H. N. ×vii. § 10, where a
seed of pine is sown in such a perfo-
rated olla).
In certain sacrificial rites, hand-made
ollae continued to be used down to a
late period, in memory of the primitive
construction of those of the old cult.
They remained in an unchanged form,
as is shown by the examples which
were found in the sanctuary of the
Fratres Arvales, which, though of a
quite late epoch, are still of rough workmanship
and hand-made. (See Giornale Arcadico, lviii.
Giulio, 1868, tav. iv. Nos. 1-18.)
Another very remarkable use of these vessels
of earthenware among the Greeks was to put
infants into them to be exposed (Aristoph. Ran.
1188, Schol. ad loc. : Moeris, s. v. ºxvrpiqués),
or to be carried anywhere (Aristoph. Thesºn.
512-516; Schol. ad loc.). Hence the exposure
of children was called ºxvrpigeº (Hesych.s.º.),
and the miserable women who practised it ey-
xvt pºrpiai (Suidas, s. v.).
The term is also used to indicate both the
urn (urna) in which the ashes of the dead were
put, and also the niche in the tomb or colum-
barium in which the urn was placed. After
some days, when the ashes had been dried in
the sun, the nearest relatives of the deceased
gathered them in an urn of clay, glass, marble,
|alabaster, other kinds of stone, bronze, silver, or
gold: these were called ollae. In the large
| public cemeteries in Rome a poor slave, or a
person of limited means who could not afford a
special grave, had to buy a niche called olla
for his urn: these ollae were themselves objects
of presentation which the poorer classes made
amongst one another, as the inscriptions show.
Below the single olla was placed in this case a
small inscription which contained the name of
him whose bones lay in the urn, and which
would be drawn up on the occasion of the gift
and as a record of the gift (see C. I. L. i. 1047,
&c.). A sepulchre which held several of these
niches is called a schola ollarum (Reines, class.
16, n. 53).
In the year 1732 were found in a vineyard on
the right of the Appian Way an extraordinary
number of ollae of terracotta in a sepulchral
chamber. They were all more or less of the
same size, capacity, and form. Some good
specimens of cinerary ollae are preserved in the
| British Museum in a small apartment in the
basement, so constructed as to exhibit accurately
the manner of arranging them.
| Sometimes the ollae were buried up to the
nººk within the niches, so that the only part
which showed was the tile or lid (operculum,
érômua), on which the name of the person


268
OLYMPIA
OLYMPLA
whose ashes were contained inside was engraved
(see Muratori, 1756, 7, ollae quae sunt operculis
et titulis marmoreis). This lid generally corre-
sponded in the material and the style of orna-
ment with the olla itself (Herod. i. 48 ; Col. de
Re Rust. xii. 48). Sometimes it was so arranged
as to be sliding or movable, and might be de-
pressed or raised so as to cover exactly the
contents of the vessel it belonged to, like that
now used for snuff and tobacco jars; this form
of lid was called operculum ambulatorium. The
Romans sometimes covered their beehives with
lids of this kind, in order that the size of the
honeycomb and hive might be exactly propor-
tioned to each other (Plin. H. N. xxi. § 47;
Rich, s. v.). From Olla we have the word
Ollaria, another name for the niches in the
columbarium in which the cinerary urns (ollae)
were placed. C. S.
OLY'MPIA (3Aſſumia), usually called the
Olympic games, the greatest of the national
festivals of the Greeks. It was celebrated at
Olympia in Elis, the name given to a small plain
to the west of Pisa, which was bounded on the
north and north-east by the mountains Cronion
and Olympus, on the south by the river Alpheus,
and on the west by the Cladeus, which flows
into the Alpheus. Olympia does not appear to
have been a town, but rather a collection of
temples and public buildings, a full description
of which does not come within the plan of this
work. The whole district within the above-
mentioned bounds was holy ground (réuevos),
sacred to Olympian Zeus, within which, on its
northern side, was a quadrangular enclosure, of
peculiar sanctity, called the Altis. The latter
was in historic times adorned with the most
exquisite work that Hellenic art could produce
in sculpture, painting, and architecture. Within
it stood the temples of Olympian Zeus (’OAvu-
Tuelov), of Héra (‘Hpalov), and the treasure-
houses of many Hellenic states; while in the
centre rose the high altar of Zeus, in sacrifice
whereon he revealed his will to his chosen
priests, the Iamidae (Pind. Olymp. vi.). Many
relics of ancient art have been recently dis-
covered in the Altis and the surrounding space,
and much light has been thrown on the topo-
graphy of Olympia, by excavations conducted
according to the agreement made in 1874
between the Greek and German governments.
For a minute, full, and highly interesting ac-
count of the results thus obtained, the reader
may be referred to the work of Adolf Boetticher,
Olympia, das Fest und seine Stätte, 2nd edit.,
Berlin, 1886.
The origin of the Olympic games is buried
in obscurity. The legends of the Elean priests
attributed the institution of the festival to the
Idaean Heracles, and referred it to the time of
‘Cronos. According to their account, Rhea com-
mitted her new-born Zeus to the Idaean Dactyli,
also called Curetes, of whom five brothers,
Heracles, Paeonaeus, Epimedes, Iasius, and Idas,
came from Ida in Crete, to Olympia, where a
temple had been erected to Cronos by the men
of the golden age; and Heracles, the eldest,
conquered his brothers in a foot-race, and was
crowned with the wild olive-tree. Heracles
hereupon established a contest, which was to be
celebrated every five years, because he and his
brothers were five in number (Paus. v. 7, § 4).
Fifty years after Deucalion's flood they said that
Clymenus, the son of Cardys, a descendant of
the Idaean Heracles, came from Crete, and cele-
brated the festival; but that Endymion, the son
of Aethlius, deprived Clymenus of the sove-
reignty, and offered the kingdom as a prize to
his sons in the foot-race; that a generation after
Endymion the festival was celebrated by Pelops
to the honour of the Olympian Zeus; that when
the sons of Pelops were scattered through Pelo-
ponnesus, Amythaon, the son of Cretheus and a
relation of Endymion, celebrated it; that to him
succeeded Pelias and Neleus in conjunction, then
Augeas, and at last Heracles, the son of Amphi-
tryon, after the taking of Elis. Afterwards
Oxylus is mentioned as presiding over the games,
and then they are said to have been discontinued
till their revival by Iphitus. (Paus. v. 8, § 1, 2.)
Most ancient writers, however, attribute the
institution of the games to Heracles, the son of
Amphitryon (Apollod. ii. 7, § 2; Diod. iv. 14 ;
compare Strabo, viii. p. 355), while others repre-
sent Atreus as their founder. (Well. Pat. i. 8;
Hermann, Pol. Ant. § 23, n. 10.) But of all
the traditions respecting the origin of the
Olympic games, far the most interesting to us
is that which Pindar adopts. According to him
(Olymp. xi. 24–77; iii. 14), they were founded
by Herakles Amphitryoniades to commemorate
his victory over the Moliones and Augeas. We
translate freely a passage from the Eleventh
Olympic ode :-‘‘Thereupon did the valiant son
of Zeus, gathering together in Pisa all his host
and all the spoil of oxen which he drawe, pro-
ceed to measure out a hallowed precinct (Çd.6eov
&Aoros) consecrate to Zeus most mighty; and in
the open plain with a fence of stakes he marked
the Altis off, and appointed the space around it
to be a place of rest, whereon the folk might
take their evening meal; the while he honoured
Alpheus' stream in union with the twelve
sovereign gods. Then gave he to Kronos' Hill
its name; for heretofore, as long as Oinomaos
reigned, nameless it rose and wet with many a
snowflake. And at this, the birth-rite of the
festival, the Destinies, I ween, stood by, yea and
Time, sole test of what is good and true, which
as it onward sped did manifest in what wise the
hero portioned out, and slew, and sacrificed, as
first-fruits, the spoils which war had given him;
in what wise too, in sooth, with this, the First
Olympiad, and the victories thereat won, he
ordained that henceforth, as each term of four
years closed, the feast should be renewed.” The
poet goes on to give a list of the victors at this
celebration of the games, and it is worth ob-
serving that his record differs entirely from that
of Pausanias, both in the names of the victors
and in the other particulars (Paus. v. 7, p. 392).
Strabo (viii. pp. 354, 355) rejects all these
legends, and says that the festival was first
instituted after the return of the Heraclidae to
the Peloponnesus by the Aetolians, who united
themselves with the Eleans. It is impossible to
say what credit is to be given to the ancient
traditions respecting the institution of the fes-
tival; but they appear to show that religious
festivals had been celebrated at Olympia from
the earliest times, and it is difficult to conceive
that the Peloponnesians and the other Greeks
would have attached such importance to this
festival, unless Olympia had long been regarded
OLYMPIA
OLYMPLA 269
as a hallowed site. The first historical fact con-
nected with the Olympian games is their revival
by Iphitus, king of Elis, who is said to have
accomplished it with the assistance of Lycurgus,
the Spartan lawgiver, and Cleosthenes of Pisa;
and the names of Iphitus and Lycurgus were
inscribed on a disc in commemoration of the
event ; which disc Pausanias saw in the temple
of Hera at Olympia. (Paus. v. 4, § 4; v. 20,
§ 1 ; Plut. Lyc. 1, 23.) It would appear from
this tradition, as Thirlwall (Hist. of Greece, ii.
p. 386) has remarked, that Sparta concurred
with the two states most interested in the
establishment of the festival, and mainly con-
tributed to procure the consent of the other
Peloponnesians. The celebration of the festival
may have been discontinued in consequence of
the troubles consequent upon the Dorian invasion,
and we are told that Iphitus was commanded by
the Delphic oracle to revive it as a remedy for
intestine commotions and for pestilence, with
which Greece was then afflicted. Iphitus there-
upon induced the Eleans to sacrifice to Heracles,
whom they had formerly regarded as an enemy,
and from this time the games were regularly
celebrated. (Paus. l. c.) Different dates are
assigned to Iphitus by ancient writers, some
placing his revival of the Olympiad at B.C. 884,
and others, as Callimachus, at B.C. 828. (Clinton,
Fast. Hell. p. 409, t.) The interval of four years
between two successive celebrations of the fes-
tival was called an Olympiad; but the Olym-
piads were not employed as a chronological era
till the victory of Coroebus in the foot-race
B.C. 776. [OLYMPIAS.]
The most important point in the renewal of
the festival by Iphitus was the establishment of
the ékexeipta (in the Elean dialect 9épua =
6eopºd; see Müller, Dor. i. p. 252), or sacred
armistice, the formula for proclaiming which
was inscribed in a circle on the disc mentioned
above. The proclamation was made by peace-
heralds (orrovão bápot), first in Elis and after-
wards in the other parts of Greece; it put a
stop to all warfare for the month in which
the games were celebrated, and which was
called ispoumvía. The territory of Elis itself
was considered especially sacred during its con-
tinuance, and no armed force could enter it
without incurring the guilt of sacrilege. When
the Spartans on one occasion sent forces against
the fortress Phyrcum and Lepreum during the
existence of the Olympic truce (év rais 'Oxvu-
triarcats orirovãaſs), they were fined by the Eleans,
according to the Olympic law, 2000 minae, being
two for each Hoplite. (Thucyd. v. 49.) The
Eleans, however, pretended not only that their
lands were inviolable during the existence of
the truce, but that by the original agreement
with the other states of Peloponnesus their lands
were made sacred for ever, and were never to
be attacked by any hostile force (Strabo, viii.
p. 358); and they further stated that the first
violation of their territory was made by Pheidon
of Argos. But the Eleans themselves did not
abstain from arms, and it is not probable that
such a privilege would have existed without
imposing on them the corresponding duty of
refraining from attacking the territory of their
neighbours. The later Greeks do not appear to
have admitted this claim of the Eleans, as we
find many cases in which their country was made
the scene of war. (Xen. Hell. iii. 2, § 23, &c.;
vii. 4, &c.) +
The Olympic festival was probably confined at
first to the Peloponnesians; but as its celebrity
extended, the other Greeks took part in it, till at
length it became a festival for the whole nation.
No one was allowed to contend in the games but
persons of pure Hellenic blood: barbarians might
be spectators, but slaves were entirely excluded.
All persons who had been branded by their own
states with atimia, or had been guilty of any
offence against the divine laws, were not permitted
to contend (Lex apud Dem. c. Aristocrat. p. 631,
§ 37). When the Hellenic race had been ex-
tended by colonies to Asia, Africa, and other parts
of Europe, persons contended in the games from
very distant places; and in later times a greater
number of conquerors came from the colonies than
from the mother country. After the conquest of
Greece by the Romans, the latter were allowed
to take part in the games. The emperors Tiberius
and Nero were both conquerors, and Pausanias
(v. 20, § 4) speaks of a Roman senator who gained
the victory. During the freedom of Greece, even
Greeks were sometimes excluded, when they had
been guilty of a crime which appeared to the
Eleans to deserve this punishment. The horses
of Hieron of Syracuse were excluded from the
chariot-race through the influence of Themi-
stocles, because he had not taken part with the
other Greeks against the Persians. (Plut. Them.
25; Aelian, W. H. ix. 5.) All the Lacedae-
monians were excluded in the 90th Olympiad,
because they had not paid the fine for violating
the Elean territory, as mentioned above (Thuc.
v. 49, 50 ; Paus. iii. 8, § 2); and similar cases of
exclusion are mentioned by the ancient writers.
No women were allowed to be present or
even to cross the Alpheus during the celebration
of the games under penalty of being hurled down
from the Typaean rock. Only one instance is
recorded of a woman having ventured to be
present, and she, although detected, was pardoned
in consideration of her father, brothers, and som
having been victors in the games. (Paus. v. 6,
§ 5*; Ael. W. H. x. 1.) An exception was made
to this law in favour of the priestess of Demeter
Chamyne, who sat on an altar of white marble
opposite to the Hellanodicae. (Paus. vi. 20, § 6;
compare Suet. Ner. c. 12.) Women were, how-
ever, allowed to send chariots to the races; and
the first woman whose horses won the prize was
Cynisca, the daughter of Archidamus, and sister
of Agesilaus. (Paus. iii. 8, § 1.) The number
of spectators at the festival was very great ; and
these were drawn together not merely by the
desire of seeing the games, but partly through
the opportunity it afforded them of carrying
on commercial transactions with persons from
distant places (Well. i. 8; mercatus Olympiacus,
Justin, xiii. 5), as is the case with the Moham-
medan festivals at Mecca and Medina. Many of
the persons present were also deputies (6ewpoſ)
sent to represent the various states of Greece;
* It would appear from another passage of Pausanias
that virgins were allowed to be present, though married
women were not (trap6évous Šč our eipyovort 6eaoraorbat,
vi. 20, § 6); but this statement is opposed to all others
on the subject, and the reading of the passage seems to
be doubtful. (See Walckenaer, ad Theocr. Adon.
pp. 196, 197.)
270 OLYMPIA.
OLYMPIA
and we find that these embassies vied with one
another in the number of their offerings and the
splendour of their general appearance, in order
to support the honour of their native cities. The
most illustrious citizens of a state were fre-
quently sent as 6ewpoi. (Thuc. vi. 16; [Andoc.]
c. Alc. § 21.)
The Olympic festival was a Penteteris (trev-
Termpts), that is, according to the ancient mode
of reckoning, a space of four years elapsed between
each and the next succeeding festival, in the same
way as there was only a space of two years in a
Tptermpts. According to the Scholiast on Pindar
(ad Ol. iii. 35, Boeckh), the Olympic festival was
celebrated at an interval sometimes of 49, some-
times of 50 months; in the former case in the
month of Apollonius, in the latter in that of
Parthenius. This statement has given rise to
much difference of opinion from the time of J.
Scaliger; but the explanation of Boeckh in his
commentary on Pindar is the most satisfactory,
that the festival was celebrated on the first full
moon after the summer solstice, which some-
times fell in the month of Apollonius, and some-
times in Parthenius, both of which he considers
to be the names of Elean or Olympian months:
consequently the festival was usually celebrated
in the Attic month of Hecatombaeon. It lasted,
after all the contests had been introduced, five
days, from the 11th to the 15th days of the
month inclusive. (Schol. ad Pind. Ol. v. 6.)
The fourth day of the festival was the 14th of
the month, which was the day of the full moon,
and which divided the month into two equal
parts (6tzówmvis uſiva, Pind. Ol. iii. 19.; Schol.
ad loc.).
The festival was under the immediate super-
intendence of the Olympian Zeus, whose temple
at Olympia, adorned with the statue of the god
made by Phidias, was one of the most splendid
works of Grecian art (Paus. v. 10, &c.). There
were also temples and altars to most of the other
gods. The festival itself may be divided into
two parts, the games or contests (&yöv 'OAvu-
triakós, &é6Xav Šuix^al, kpío is &é0Aww, Teówös
&é6xov, vikaq optal), and the festive rites (éopti)
connected with the sacrifices, with the proces-
sions and with the public banquets in honour of
the conquerors. Thus Pausanias distinguishes
between the two parts of the festival, when he
speaks of Töv &yóva èv 'OAvutríg travāyvpív re
'OAvutriarchy (v. 4, § 4). The conquerors in the
games, and private individuals, as well as the
theori or deputies from the various states, offered
sacrifices to the different gods; but the chief
sacrifices were offered by the Eleans in the name
of the Elean state. The order in which the
Eleans offered their sacrifices to the different
gods is given in a passage of Pausanias (v. 14,
§ 5). There has been considerable dispute among
modern writers, whether the sacrifices were
offered by the Eleans and the Theori at the com-
mencement or at the termination of the contests;
our limits do not allow us to enter into the con-
troversy, but it appears most probable that
certain sacrifices were offered by the Eleans as
introductory to the games, but that the majority
were not offered till the conclusion, when the
flesh of the victims was required for the public
banquets given to the victors.
The contests consisted of various trials of
strength and skill, which were increased in
number from time to time. There were in all
twenty-four contests, eighteen in which men
took part and six in which boys engaged, though
they were never all exhibited at one festival,
since some were abolished almost immediately
after their institution, and others after they had
been in use only a short time. We subjoin a
list of these from Pausanias (v. 8, § 2, 3 ; 9, § 1, 2:
compare Plut. Symp. v. 2), with the date of the
introduction of each, commencing from the Olym-
piad of Coroebus:—1. The foot-race (öpónos),
which was the only contest during the first
13 Olympiads. 2. The 6tavXos, or foot-race, in
which the stadium was traversed twice, first
introduced in Ol. 14. 3. The 66Atxos, a still
longer foot-race than the 6tavXos, introduced in
Ol. 15.* For a more particular account of the
6tavXos and 66Atxos see STADIUM. 4. Wrestling
(tréAm) [LUCTA], and 5. The Pentathlum (trév-
taðAov), which consisted of five exercises [PEN-
TATHLUMJ, both introduced in Ol. 18. 6. Box-
ing (trwº) wh), introduced in Ol. 23. [PUGILATUS.]
7. The chariot-race with four full-grown horses
(iirirav reastwy Spóuos, Špua), introduced in
Ol. 25. 8. The Pancratium (traykpártov) [PAN-
CRATIUMJ, and 9. The horse-race (irros kéAms),
both introduced in Ol. 33. 10 and 11. The
foot-race and wrestling for boys, both introduced
in; Ol. 37. 12. The Pentathlum for boys, in-
troduced in Ol. 38, but immediately afterwards
abolished. 13. Boxing for boys, introduced in
Ol. 41. 14. The foot-race, in which men ran
with the equipments of heavy-armed soldiers
(Töv Šträttöv Špónos), introduced in Ol. 65, on
account of its training men for actual service in
war. 15. The chariot-race with mules (&thum),
introduced in Ol. 70; and 16. The horse-race
with mares (kåAtrm), described by Pausanias
(v. 9, § 1, 2), introduced in Ol. 71, both of
which were abolished in Ol. 84. 17. The
chariot-race with two full-grown horses (irrov
Texeſov orvywpts), introduced in Ol. 93. 18, 19.
The contest of heralds (kåpukes) and trumpeters
(oraxtrºyicraft), introduced in Ol. 96. (African.
ap. Euseb. Xpov. 1. ‘EXA. ÖA. p. 41; Paus. v. 22,
§ 1 ; compare Cic. ad Fam. v. 12.) 20. The
chariot-race with four foals (rºxov špuagw),
introduced in Ol. 99. 21. The chariot-race with
two foals (tréAwy ovvopts), introduced in Ol. 128.
22. The horse-race with foals (tróAos kéxms),
introduced in Ol. 131. 23. The Pancratium for
boys, introduced in Ol. 145. 24. There was also
a horse-race (irros kéAms) in which boys rode
(Paus. vi. 2, § 4; 12, § 1; 13, § 6), but we do not
know the time of its introduction. Of these
contests, the greater number were in existence
in the heroic age, but the following were intro-
duced for the first time by the Eleans:—all the
contests in which boys took part, the foot-race
of Hoplites, the races in which foals were em-
ployed, the chariot-race in which mules were
used, and the horse-race with mares (káArm).
* Some words appear to have dropped out of the
passage of Pausanias. In every other case he mentions
the name of the first conqueror in each new contest, but
never the name of the conqueror in the same contest in
the following Ol. In this passage, however, after giving
the name of the first conqueror in the Diaulos, he adds,
rfi & #7s"Akavºos. There can be little doubt that this
must be the name of the conqueror in the Dolichos;
which is also expressly stated by Africanus (apud Eus.
Xpov. 1. ‘EXA. 88, p. 39).
OLYMPIA
OLYMPIA 271
The contests of heralds and trumpeters were also
probably introduced after the heroic age.
Pausanias (v. 9, §3) says that up to the 77th
Olympiad all the contests took place in one day;
but as it was found impossible in that Olympiad
to finish them all in so short a time, a new
arrangement was made. The number of days
in the whole festival, which were henceforth
devoted to the games, and the order in which
they were celebrated, has been a subject of much
dispute among modern writers, and in many
particulars can be only matter of conjecture.
The following arrangement is proposed by Krause
(Olympia, p. 106):—On the first day, the initi-
atory sacrifices were offered, and all the com-
petitors classed and arranged by the judges. On
the same day, the contest between the trumpeters
took place; and to this succeeded on the same
day and the next the contests of the boys, some-
what in the following order:-the Foot-Race,
Wrestling, Boxing, the Pentathlum, the Pan-
cratium, and, lastly, the Horse-Race. On the
third day, which appears to have been the prin-
cipal one, the contests of the men took place,
somewhat in the following order:-the simple
Foot-Race, the Diaulos, the Dolichos, Wrestling,
Boxing, the Pancratium, and the Race of Hoplites.
On the fourth day the Pentathlum, either before
or after the Chariot and Horse Races, which were
celebrated on this day. On the same day or on
the fifth, the contests of the Heralds may have
taken place. The fifth day appears to have been
devoted to processions and sacrifices, and to the
banquets given by the Eleans to the conquerors
in the games.
The judges in the Olympic games, called
Hellanodicae (‘EAAavočíkai), were appointed by
the Eleans, who had the regulation of the whole
festival. It appears to have been originally under
the superintendence of Pisa, in the neighbour-
hood of which Olympia was situated, and ac-
cordingly we find in the ancient legends the
names of Oenomaus, Pelops, and Augeas as presi-
dents of the games. But after the conquest of
Peloponnesus by the Dorians on the return of
the Heraclidae, the Aetolians, who had been of
great assistance to the Heraclidae, settled in
Elis, and from this time the Aetolian Eleans
obtained the regulation of the festival, and
appointed the presiding officers. (Strabo, viii.
pp. 357, 358.) Pisa, however, did not quietly
relinquish its claim to the superintendence of
the festival, and it is not improbable that at
first it had an equal share with the Eleans in its
administration. The Eleans themselves only
reckoned three festivals in which they had not
had the presidency, namely, the 8th, in which
Pheidon and the Piseans obtained it; the 34th,
which was celebrated under the superintendence
of Pantaleon, king of Pisa; and the 104th, cele-
brated under the superintendence of the Piseans
and Arcadians. These Olympiads the Eleans
called åvoxvpatríabes, as celebrated contrary to
law. (Paus. vi. 22, § 2; 4, § 2.)
The Hellanodicae were chosen by lot from the
whole body of the Eleans. Pausanias (v. 9, § 4, 5)
has given an account of their numbers at different
periods; but the commencement of the passage
is unfortunately corrupt. At first, he says,
there were only two judges chosen from all the
Eleans, but that in the 25th Ol. (75th Ol. 2)
nine Hellanodicae were appointed, three of whom
had the superintendence of the horse-races, three
of the Pentathlum, and three of the other con-
tests. Two Olympiads after, a tenth judge was
added. In the 103rd Ol. the number was in-
creased to 12, as at that time there were 12
Elean Phylae, and a judge was chosen from each
tribe; but as the Eleans afterwards lost part of
their lands in war with the Arcadians, the num-
ber of Phylae was reduced to eight in the 104th
Ol., and accordingly there were then only eight
Hellanodicae. But in the 108th Ol. the number
of Hellanodicae was increased to 10, and re-
mained the same to the time of Pausanias
(Paus. l.c.).
The Hellanodicae were instructed for ten
months before the festival by certain of the
Elean magistrates, called Nouoqtaakes, in a
building devoted to the purpose near the market-
place, which was called ‘EAAavočikaićv. (Paus.
vi. 24, § 3.) Their office probably only lasted
for one festival. They had to see that all the
laws relating to the games were observed by the
competitors and others, to determine the prizes,
and to give them to the conquerors. An appeal
lay from their decision to the Elean senate.
(Paus. vi. 3, § 3.) Their office was considered
most honourable. They wore a purple robe
(tropºpvpts), and had in the Stadium special seats
appropriated to them. (Paus. vi. 20, §§ 5, 6, 7 ;
Bekker, Anecd. p. 249, 4.) Under the direction
of the Hellanodicae was a certain number of
&Airai with an āAvrápxms at their head, who
formed a kind of police, and carried into execu-
tion the commands of the Hellanodicae. (Lucian,
c. 40, vol. i. p. 738, Reitz; Etym. M. p. 72, 13.)
There were also various other minor officers
under the control of the Hellanodicae.
All free Greeks who had complied with the
rules prescribed to candidates were allowed to
contend in the games. The equestrian contests
were necessarily confined to the wealthy; but
the poorest citizens could contend in the athletic
contests, of which Pausanias (vi. 10, § 1) men-
tions an example. This, however, was far from
degrading the games in public opinion; and
some of the noblest as well as meanest citizens
of the state took part in these contests. The
owners of the chariots and horses were not
obliged to contend in person; and the wealthy
vied with one another in the number and magni-
ficence of the chariots and horses which they
sent to the games. Alcibiades sent seven chariots
to one festival, a greater number than had ever
been entered by a private person (Thuc. vi. 16),
and the Greek kings in Sicily, Macedon, and
other parts of the Hellenic world contended
with one another for the prize in the equestrian
contests.
All persons who were about to contend had
to prove to the Hellanodicae that they were
freemen, of pure Hellenic blood, had not been
branded with atimia, nor guilty of any sacri-
legious act. They further had to prove that
they had undergone the preparatory training
(ºrporyvuváoruata) for ten months previously, and
the truth of this they were obliged to swear to
in the BovXevriptov at Olympia before the statue
of Zeus “Opkios. The fathers, brothers, and
gymnastic teachers of the competitors, as well
as the competitors themselves, had also to swear
that they would be guilty of no crime (kakoúp-
ºymua) in reference to the contests. (Paus. v.24,
272 OLYMPIA
OLYMPIA
§ 2.) All competitors were obliged, thirty days
previous to the festival, to undergo certain exer-
cises in the Gymnasium at Elis, under the Super-
intendence of the Hellanodicae. (Paus. vi. 26,
§ 1–3; 24, § 1.) . The different contests, and the
order in which they would follow one another,
were written by the Hellanodicae upon a tablet
(Aeëkaua) exposed to public view. (Compare
Dio Cass. lxxix. 10.)
The competitors took their places by lot, and
were of course differently arranged according to
the different contests in which they were to be
engaged. The herald then proclaimed the name
and country of each competitor. (Compare
Plato, Leg. viii. p. 833.) When they were all
ready to begin the contest, the judges exhorted
them to acquit themselves nobly, and then gave
the signal to commence. Any one detected in
bribing a competitor to give the victory to his
antagonist was heavily fined; the practice ap-
pears to have been not uncommon from the
many instances recorded by Pausanias (v. 21).
The only prize given to the conqueror was a
garland of wild olive (kórivos), which according
to the Elean legends was the prize originally
instituted by the Idaean Heracles. (Paus. v. 7,
§ 4.) But according to Phlegon's account (IIepi
Töv 'OAvpuríov, p. 140), the olive crown was not
given as a prize upon the revival of the games
by Iphitus, and was first bestowed in the seventh
Olympiad with the approbation of the oracle at
Delphi. This garland was cut from a sacred
olive-tree, called éAata KańAto répavos, which
grew in the sacred grove of Altis in Olympia,
near the altars of Aphrodite and the Hours.
(Paus. v. 15, § 3.) Heracles is said to have
brought it from the country of the Hyperboreans,
and to have planted it himself at the répua of
the hippodrome outside the Altis. (Pind. Ol.
ii. 14; Müller, Dor. ii. 12, § 3.) A boy, both
of whose parents were still alive (&aſpióaXhs
traſs), cut it with a golden sickle (xpva &
6petróvº). The victor was originally crowned
upon a tripod covered over with bronze (rpírovs
étrixa Nkos), but afterwards, and in the time of
Pausanias, upon a table made of ivory and gold.
(Paus. v. 12, § 3; 20, § 1, 2.) Palm branches,
the common tokens of victory on other occasions,
were placed in their hands. The name of the
victor, and that of his father and of his country,
were then proclaimed by a herald before the re-
presentatives of assembled Greece. The festival
ended with processions and sacrifices, and with a
public banquet given by the Eleans to the con-
querors in the Prytaneum. (Paus. v. 15, § 8.)
The most powerful states considered an Olympic
victory gained by one of their citizens to confer
honour upon the state to which he belonged;
and a conqueror usually had immunities and
privileges conferred upon him by the gratitude
of his fellow-citizens. The Eleans allowed his
statue to be placed in the Altis, which was
adorned with numerous such statues erected by
the conquerors or their families, or at the ex-
pense of the states of which they were citizens.
On his return home, the victor entered the
city in a triumphal procession, in which his
praises were celebrated frequently in the loftiest
strains of poetry. (Compare ATHLETAE, Vol. I.
p. 239 a.)
Sometimes the victory was obtained without a
contest, in which case it was said to be ākovirſ.
This happened either when the antagonist, who
was assigned, neglected to come or came too
late, or when an Athletes had obtained such
celebrity by former conquests or possessed such
strength and skill that no one dared to oppose
him. (Paus. vi. 7, § 2.) When one state con-
ferred a crown upon another state, a proclama-
tion to this effect was frequently made at the
great national festivals of the Greeks (Demosth.
de Cor. p. 265).
As persons from all parts of the Hellenic
world were assembled together at the Olympic
games, it was the best opportunity which the
artist and the writer possessed of making their
works known. In fact, it answered to some
extent the same purpose as the press does in
modern times. Before the invention of printing,
the reading of an author's works to as large an
assembly as could be obtained, was one of the
easiest and surest modes of publishing them ;
and this was a favourite practice of the Greeks
and Romans. Accordingly, we find many in-
stances of literary works thus published at the
Olympic festival. Herodotus is said to have
read his history at this festival; but though
there are some reasons for doubting the correct-
ness of this statement, there are numerous other
writers who thus published their works, as the
sophist Hippias, Prodicus of Ceos, Anaximenes,
the orator Lysias, Dio Chrysostom, &c. (Com-
pare Lucian, Herod. c. 3, 4, vol. i. p. 834, Reitz.)
It must be borne in mind that these recitations
were not contests, and that they formed pro-
perly no part of the festival. In the same way
painters and other artists exhibited their works
at Olympia. (Lucian, l.c.)
The Olympic games continued to be celebrated
with much splendour under the Roman emperors,
by many of whom great privileges were awarded
to the conquerors. [ATHLETAE, Vol. I. p. 241.]
In the sixteenth year of the reign of Theodosius,
A.D. 394 (Ol. 293), the Olympic festival was for
ever abolished; but we have no account of the
names of the victors from Ol. 249. .
Our limits do not allow us to enter into the
question of the influence of the Olympic games
upon the national character; but the reader
will find some useful remarks on this subject in
Thirlwall’s Hist. of Greece, vol. i. p. 390, and
Grote’s Hist. of Greece, iv. pp. 75 ft.
There were many ancient works on the sub-
ject of the Olympic games and the conquerors
therein. One of the chief sources from which
the writers obtained their materials must have
been the registers of conquerors in the games,
which were diligently preserved by the Eleans.
('HAetwv és Tovs 'OXvuttovíkas Ypduaara, Paus.
iii. 21, § 1, v. 21, § 5, vi. 2, § 1 ; tā 'HAetov
'ypdupara àpxala, v. 4, § 4.) One of the most
ancient works on this subject was by the Elean.
Hippias, a contemporary of Plato, and was enti-
tled ávaypaqº) 'Oxvutriovulców (Plut. Numa, 1).
Aristotle also appears to have written a work
on the same subject (Diog. Laërt. v. 26). There
was a work by Timaeus of Sicily, entitled 'Oxug-
triovſkat # Xpovik& Trpašíðia, and another by
Erastosthenes (born B.C. 275), also called 'Oxvu-
triovſka (Diog. Laërt. viii. 51). The Athenian
Stesicleides is mentioned as the author of an
&vaypaſph Tāv &pxávrov. Kal OAvPºrtovº
(Diog. Laërt. ii. 56), and Pliny (H. N. viii. $82)
speaks of Scopas (?) as a writer of Olympionicae.
OLYMPLA
OLYMPIA 273
*
There were also many ancient works on the
Greek festivals in general, in which the Olympic
games were of course treated of Thus the
work of Dicaearchus IIept ‘Aydºvov (Diog. Laërt.
v. 47) contained a division entitled ě 'OAva-
trikós (Athen. xiv. p. 620 d).
One of the most important works on the
Olympic games was by Phlegon of Tralles, who
lived in the reign of Hadrian ; it was entitled
IIepi Tôv’OAvuiríov or 'OXvutríav kal Xpovicov
>vvaya, yń, was comprised in 16 books, and
extended from the first Olympiad to Ol. 229.
We still possess two considerable fragments of
it. The important work of Julius Africanus,
‘EXAhvav 'OXvutridães &to ris trptºrms, &c., is
preserved to us by Eusebius; it comes down to
Ol. 249. Dexippus of Athens, in his Xpovich
iotopſa, carried down the Olympic conquerors to
Ol. 262.
In modern works much useful information on
the Olympic games is given in Corsini's Dissert.
Agonisticae, and in Boeckh’s and Dissen's edi-
tions of Pindar. See also Meier's article on the
Olympic Games, and Rathgeber's articles on
Olympia, Olympieion, and Olympischer Jupiter
in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclopädie ; Dissen,
Ueber die Anordnung der Olympischen Spiele, in
his Kleine Schriften, p. 185; Krause, Olympia
wder Darstellung der grossen Olympischen Spiele,
Wien, 1838; and Boetticher, Olympia, 1886.
In course of time festivals were established
in several Greek states in imitation of the one at
Olympia, to which the same name was given.
Some of these are only known to us by inscrip-
tions and coins; but others, as the Olympic festi-
val at Antioch, obtained great celebrity. After
these Olympic festivals had been established in
several places, the great Olympic festival is
sometimes designated in inscriptions by the addi-
tion of “in Pisa,” v IIetam. (Compare Boeckh,
Inscr. n. 247, pp. 361, 362; n. 1068, p. 564.)
We subjoin from Krause an alphabetical list of
these smaller Olympic festivals. They were
celebrated at:—
Aegae in Macedonia. This festival was in
existence in the time of Alexander the Great.
(Arrian, Anab. i. 11.) X-
Alexandria. (Gruter, Inscr. p. cccxiv. n. 240.)
In later times, the number of Alexandrian con-
querors in the great Olympic games was greater
than from any other state.
Anazarbus in Cilicia. This festival was not
introduced till a late period. (Eckhel, Doctr.
Num. iii. p. 44.)
Antioch in Syria. This festival was cele-
brated at Daphne, a small place 40 stadia from
Antioch, where there was a large sacred grove
watered by many fountains. The festival was
originally called Daphnea, and was sacred to
Apollo and Artemis (Strabo, xvi. p. 750; Athen.
v. p. 194), but was called Olympia, after the
inhabitants of Antioch had purchased from the
Eleans, in A.D. 44, the privilege of celebrating
Olympic games. It was not, however, regularly
celebrated as an Olympic festival till the time
of the Emperor Commodus. It commenced on
the first day of the month Hyperberetaeus
(October), with which the year of Antioch
began. It was under the presidency of an Alyt-
arches. The celebration of it was abolished by
Justin, A.D. 521. The writings of Libanius, and
of Chrysostom, the Christian Father, who lived
WOL. II.
many years at Antioch, gave various particulars
respecting this festival.
Athens. There were two festivals of the name
of Olympia celebrated at Athens, one of which
was in existence in the time of Pindar (Pind.
Nem. ii. 23, &c.; Schol. ad loc.), who celebrates
the ancestors of the Athenian Timodemus as
conquerors in it, and perhaps much earlier
(Schol. ad Thuc. i. 126). It was celebrated to
the honour of Zeus, in the spring between the
great Dionysia and the Bendideia. (Boeckh,
Inscr. pp. 53, 250–252.) The other Olympic
festival at Athens was instituted by Hadrian
A.D. 131 ; from which time a new Olympic era
commenced. (Corsini, Fast. Att. vol. ii. pp. 105,
110, &c.; Spartian. Hadr. 13.) [OLYMPIAs.]
Attalia in Pamphylia. This festival is only
known to us by coins. (Rathgeber, l.c. p. 326.)
Cyzicus. (Boeckh, Inscr. n. 2810.)
Cyrene. (Boeckh, Explicat. Pind. p. 328.)
Dium in Macedonia. These games were insti-
tuted by Archelaus, and lasted nine days, corre-
sponding to the number of the nine Muses.
They were celebrated with great splendour by
Philip II. and Alexander the Great. (Diodor.
xvii. 16; Dio Chrysost. vol. i. p. 73, Reiske;
Suidas, s. v. 'Avačavöpföms.)
Ephesus. This festival appears by inscrip-
tions, in which it is sometimes called 'Aépuava.
*OAöpitria. Šv ’Eqéag, to have been instituted by
Hadrian. (Boeckh, Inscr. n. 2810; compare
n. 2987, 3000.)
Elis. Besides the great Olympic games,
there appear to have been smaller ones cele-
brated yearly. (Anecdot. Gr. ed. Siebenk. p. 95.)
Magnesia in Lydia. (Rathgeber, l.c. pp. 326,
327.)
Neapolis. (Corsini, Diss. Agon. iv. 14, p. 103.)
Nicaea in Bithynia. (Eustath. ad Dionys.
Perieg. pp. 172, 173, in Geogr. Min. ed. Bern-
hardy.)
Nicopolis in Epeirus. Augustus, after the
conquest of Antony, off Actium, founded Nico-
polis, and instituted games to be celebrated
every five years (&yöv revretnpukós) in com-
memoration of his victory. These games are
sometimes called Olympic, but more frequently
bear the name of Actia. They were sacred to
Apollo, and were under the care of the Lacedae-
monians. (Strabo, vii. p. 325.) [ACTIA.]
Olympus in Thessaly, on the mountain of that
name. (Schol. ad Apoll. Rhod. Argonaut. i.
599.
* in Mysia. (Boeckh, Inscr, n. 2810;
Mionnet, ii. 610, n. 626.)
Side in Pamphylia. (Rathgeber, p. 129.)
Smyrna. Pausanias (vi. 14, § 1), mentions an
Agon of the Smyrnaeans, which, Corsini, (Diss.
Agon. i. 12, p. 20) supposes to be an Olympic
festival. The Marmor Oxoniense expressly men-
tions Olympia at Smyrna, and they also occur
in inscriptions. (Grüter, Insor. P. 314, 1 ;
Boeckh, Inscr. ad n. 1720.)
Tarsus in Cilicia. This festival is only
known to us by coins. (Krause, p. 228.)
Tegea in Arcadia. (Boeckh, Inscr. n. 1513,
p. 700.)
Thessalonica in Macedonia. (Krause, p. 230.)
Thyatira in Lydia. (Rathgeber, p. 328.)
Tralles in Lydia. (Krause, p. 233.) $
Tyrus in Phoenicia. (Rathgeber; p. 328.)
[W. S.] [J. I. B.]
T
274 OLYMPIAS
OLYMPIAS
OLYMPIAS ('OAvutrids), the most cele-
brated chronological era among the Greeks, was
the period of four years which elapsed between
anyone and the next following celebration of
the Olympic games. The Olympiads began to
be reckoned from the victory of Coroebus in the
foot-race, which happened in the year B.C. 776
(Paus. v. 8, § 3; viii. 26, § 3; Strab. viii.
p. 355). Timaeus of Sicily, however, who
flourished B.C. 264, was the first writer who
regularly arranged events according to the con-
querors in each Olympiad, with which he
compared the years of the Attic archons,
the Spartan ephors, and that of the Argive
priestesses (Polyb. xii. 12, § 1). His practice
of recording events by Olympiads was followed
by Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Dionysius of
Halicarnassus, and sometimes by Pausanias,
Aelian, Diogenes Laërtius, Arrian, &c. It is
twice adopted by Thucydides (iii. 8, v. 49) and
Xenophon (Hell. i. 2, § 1; ii. 3, § 1). The
names of the conquerors in the foot-race only
were used to designate the Olympiad, not the
conquerors in the other contests. Thucydides
(ll. cc.), however, designates two Olympiads by
the name of the conquerors in the Pancratium ;
but this appears only to have been done on
account of the celebrity of these victors, both of
whom conquered twice in the Pancratium.
Other writers, however, adhere so strictly to
the practice of designating the Olympiad only
by the conqueror in the foot-race, that even
when the same person had obtained the prize in
other contests as well as in the foot-race, they
only mention the latter. Thus Diodorus (xi.
70) and Pausanias (iv. 24, § 2) only record the
conquest of Xenophon of Corinth in the foot-
race, although he had also conquered at the
same festival in the Pentathlum.
The writers who make use of the eras of the
Olympiads usually give the number of the
Olympiad (the first corresponding to B. C. 776),
and then the name of the conqueror in the foot-
race. Some writers also speak of events as
happening in the first, second, third, or fourth
year, as the case may be, of a certain Olympiad;
but others do not give the separate years of
each Olympiad.
We subjoin for the use of the student a list
of the Olympiads with the years of the Chris-
tian era corresponding to them from the begin-
ning of the Olympiads to A.D. 301. To save
space the separate years of each Olympiad,
with the corresponding years B.C., are only given
from the 47th to the 126th Olympiad, as this
is the most important period of Grecian his-
tory; in the other Olympiads the first year only
is given. In consulting the following table it
must be borne in mind that the Olympic games
were celebrated about midsummer [OLYMPIA],
and that the Attic year commenced at about
the same time. If, therefore, an event happened
in the second half of the Attic year, the year
B.C. must be reduced by 1. Thus Socrates
was put to death in the 1st year of the
95th Olympiad, which corresponds in the fol-
lowing table to B.C. 400; but as his death hap-
pened in Thargelion, the 11th month of the
Attic year, the year B.C. must be reduced by
i. * gives us B.C. 399, the true date of his
eath.
B.C.,
776.
772.
768.
764.
760.
756.
752.
748.
744.
740.
736.
732.
728.
724.
720.
716.
712.
708.
704.
700.
696.
692.
688.
684.
680.
672.
668.
660.
656.
648.
644.
636.
632.
628,
624.
620.
616.
612.
608.
604.
600.
596.
592.
591.
590.
589.
588.
587.
586.
585.
584.
583.
582.
581.
580.
579.
577.
576.
575.
574.
573.
571.
570.
569.
568.
567.
566.
565,
564,
563.
562,
561,
560.
559.
558.
557.
556.
555.
554.
553.
552.
551.
550.
549.
548.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
i
:
B.C. Ol.
547. 2.
546. 3.
545. 4.
544. 59. 1.
543. 2.
542. 3.
541. 4.
540. 60. 1.
539. 2.
538. 3.
537. 4.
536. 61. 1.
535. 2.
534. 3.
533. 4.
532. 62. 1.
531. 2.
530. 3.
529. 4.
528. 63. 1.
527. 2.
526. 3.
525. 4.
524. 64. l.
523. 2.
522. 3.
521. 4.
520. 65. 1.
519. 2.
518. 3.
517. 4.
516. 66. 1.
515. 2.
514. 3.
513. 4.
512. 67. 1.
511. 2.
510. 3.
509. 4.
508. 68. 1.
507. 2.
506. 3.
505. 4.
504. 69. 1.
503. 2.
502. 3.
501. 4.
500. 70. 1.
499. 2.
498. 3.
49 7. 4.
496. 71. 1.
495. 2.
494. 3.
493. 4.
492. 72. 1.
491. 2.
490. 3.
489. 4.
488. 73. 1.
487. 2.
486. 3.
485. 4.
484. 74. 1.
483. 2.
482. 3.
481. 4.
480. 75. 1.
479. 2.
478. 3.
477. 4.
476. 76. 1.
475. 2.
474. 3.
473. 4.
472. 77. 1.
471. 2.
470. 3.
469. 4.
468. 78. 1.
467. 2.
466. 3.
465. 4.
464. 79. I.
463. 2.
462. 3.
461. 4.
460. 80. 1.
459. 2.
458. 3.
4.
B.C.,
456.
455.
462.
401.
400.
399.
398.
397.
396.
395.
394.
393.
392.
391.
390.
389.
388.
387.
386.
385.
384.
383.
382.
381.
380.
379.
378.
377.
376.
375.
374.
373.
372.
371.
370.
369.
368.
367.
366.
Oi.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
103.
ſº*.
OLYMPIAS
OPERIS NOWI NUNTIATIO 275
B.C. Ol. B.C. Ol. B.C. Ol.
365. 4. 285. 4. 4. 194. 1.
364. 104. l. 284. 124. 1.
363. 2. 283. 2.
362. 3. 282. 3. A.D Ol.
361. 4. 281. 4. 1. 195. 1.
360. 105. 1. 280. 125. 1. 5. 196. 1.
359. 2. 279. 2. 9. 197. 1.
358. 3. 278. 3. 13. 198. 1.
357. 4. 277. 4. 17. 199. 1.
356. 106. 1. 276. 126. 1. 21. 200. 1.
355. 2. 275. 2. 25. 201. 1.
354. 3. 274. 3. 29. 202. l.
353. 4. 273. 4. 33. 203. 1.
352. 107. 1. 272. 127. l. 37. 204. 1.
351. 2. 268. 128. 1. 41. 205. 1.
350. 3. 264. 129. 1. 45. 206. l.
349. 4. 260. 130. 1. 49. 207. l.
348. 108. 1. 256. 131. 1. 53. 208. 1.
347. 2. 252. 132. 1. 57. 209. 1.
346. 3. 248. 133. 1. 61. 210. l.
345. 4. 244. 134. 1. 65. 211. 1.
344. 109. 1. 240. 135. l. 69. 212. 1.
343. 2. 236. 136. l. 73. 213, 1.
342. 3. 232. 137. l. 77. 214. 1.
341. 4. 228. 138. 1. 81. 215. 1.
340. 110. 1. 224. 139. l. 85. 216. 1.
339. 2. 220. 140. l. 89. 217. 1.
338. 3. 216. 141. l. 93. 218. l.
337. 4. 212. 142. l. 97. 219. 1.
336. 111. l. 208. 143. l. 101. 220. 1.
335. 2. 204. 144. 1. 105. 221. 1.
334. 3. 200. 145. 1. 109. 222. l.
333. 4. | 196. 146. 1. 113. 223. 1.
332. 112. 1. 192. 147. 1. 117. 224. 1.
331. 2. 188. 148. 1. 121. 225. 1.
330. 3. 184. 149. 1. 125. 226. 1.
329. 4. | 180. 150. l. 129. 227. 1.
328. 113. 1. 176. 151. 1. 133. 228. 1.
327. 2. 172. 152. 1. 137. 229. 1.
326. 3. 168. 153. 1. 141. 230. l.
325. 4. 164. 154. I. 145. 231. 1.
324. 114. 1. 160. 155. l. 149. 232. 1.
323. 2. 156. 156. l. | 153. 233. 1.
322. 3. 152. 157. 1. 157. 234. 1.
321. 4. 148. 158. 1. 161. 235. 1.
320. 115. l. 144. 159. l. 165. 236. 1.
319. 2. 140. 160. 1. 169. 237. 1.
3.18. 3. 136. 161. 1. 173. 238. 1.
317. 4. | 132. 162. 1. 177. 239. 1.
316. 116. 1. 128. 163. 1. 181. 240. 1.
315. 2. l 124. 164. 1. 185. 24l. 1.
314. 3. 120. 165. 1. 189. 242. 1.
313. 4. | 116. 166. 1. 193. 243. l.
312. 117. 1. 112. 167. 1. 197. 244. 1.
311. 2. 108. 168. I. 201. 245. 1.
3.10. 3. 104. 169. 1, 205. 246. 1.
309. 4. | 100. 170. l. 209. 247. 1.
308. 118. 1. 96. 171. 1. 213. 248. l.
307. 2. 92 172. 1. 217. 249. 1.
306. 3. 88 173. 1. 221. 250. 1.
305. 4. | 84. 174. 1. 225. 25l. 1.
304. 119. 1. 80. 175. 1. 229. 252. 1.
303. 2. 76. 176. 1. 233. 253. 1.
302. 3. | 72. 177. l. 237. 254. 1.
301. 4. | 68. 178. l. 241. 255. 1.
300. 120. 1. 64. 179. l. 245. 256. 1.
299. 2. 60. 180. 1. 249. 257. 1.
298. 3. 56. 181. l. 253. 258. 1.
297. 4. 52. 182. 1. 257. 259. 1.
296. 121. 1. 48. 183. 1. 261. 260. 1.
295. 2. 44. 184. 1. 265. 261. 1.
‘294. 3. 40. 185. l. 269. 262. 1.
293. 4. 36. 186. 1. 273. 263. 1.
292. 122. 1. 32. 187. 1. 277. 264. 1.
291. 2. 28. 188. 1. 281. 265. 1.
290. 3. 24. 189. 1. 285. 266. 1.
289. 4. 20. 190. 1. 289. 267. 1.
288. 123. l. | 16. 191. l. 293. 268. 1.
287. 2. 12. 192. 1. 297. 269. 1.
286. 3. 8. 193. l. 301. 270. 1.
Many of the ancient writers did not consider
history to begin till the Olympiad of Coroebus,
and regarded as fabulous the events said to
have occurred in preceding times. (Censorinus,
de Die Natal. c. 21; African. apud Euseb. Praep.
x. 10, p. 487 d ; Clinton, Fast. Hell, vol. ii.
Introd. p. ii.)
The old Olympiad era appears only to have
been used by writers, and especially by his-
torians. It does not seem to have been ever
adopted by any state in public documents. It
is never found on any coins, and scarcely ever
on inscriptions. There are only two inscrip-
tions published by Boeckh in which it appears
to be used (Corp. Inscr. n. 2682, 2999). A
new Olympiad era, however, came into use
under the Roman emperors, which is found in
inscriptions and was used in public documents.
This era begins in Ol. 227. 3 (A.D. 131), in
which year Hadrian dedicated the Olympieion
at Athens; and accordingly we find Ol. 227. 3
spoken of as the first Olympiad, Ol. 228. 3 (A.D.
135) as the second Olympiad, &c. (Boeckh,
Corp. Inscr. m. 342, 446, 1345).
(Krause, Olympia, p. 60, &c.; Wurm, de Pond.,
&c., § 94, &c.) [W. S.]
ONYX. [SCALPTURA.]
OPA: [METOPA.]
OPA'LIA, a Roman festival in honour of
Ops (or Opis), which was celebrated on the 14th
day before the Kalends of January (Dec. 19),
being the third day of the Saturnalia, which
in popular usage as a time of holiday extended
from the 17th to 23rd December. From the time
of Augustus onwards the 17th belonged especially
to Saturn, the 19th to Ops, the wife of Saturn.
(Macrob. Sat. i. 12; Warr. L. L. vi. 22, ed. Müller;
Festus, s. v. Opalia.) The worshippers of Ops
paid their vows sitting, and touched the earth,
of which she was the goddess (Macrob. l. c.),
with which may be compared Il. ix. 565, Talav
xeparly &Aoſa... trpáxvv ka9egouévn: the method
of addressing supplications alike to the Earth
and to véprepot 9eoſ. (See Preller, Röm. Myth.
pp. 416, 417.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
OPERIS NOWI NUNTIATIO was a
summary extra-judicial remedy provided by
the edict against a person who was making an
opus novum, by which is to be understood the
building, altering, or demolishing of some
structure attached to the soil (Dig. 39, 1, 1, 12);
and its object was either the maintenance of a
private right, the prevention of damage, or the
protection of the public interest (Dig. ib. 1, 16).
The right of making the nuntiatio belonged (1)
to the owner of land, “qui jus aliquid prohibendi
habet:” his right might be founded either on
anticipated injury to his own property, on some
statutory rule (e.g. those relating to the height
of buildings), or on a contract or private
disposition of his neighbour; (2) to the super-
ficiarius, pledgee, emphyteuta, and bonā-fide
possessor of the land; (3) to any one else who
is so endangered by the opus novum, that he
could demand “cautio damni infecti’ (Dig.
ib. 1, 17); and (4) to any full-grown citizen, if
the opus is in loco sacro, religioso, or publico
(Dig. ib. 3, 4). But a lessee, or a person, whº
merely had a servitude over the threatened
property, had no right of nuntiatio, and even
the usufructuarius could make it only in the
name and on behalf of the dominus (Dig.
ib. 1, 20). - - -
In form the nuntiatio was a notice, given Oſl
the spot (Dig. ib. 5, 4), to discontinue the opus:
it could be made either personally or through
an agent (though the latter would have to giye
the cautio de rato, Dig. ib. 5, 18), but must be
in the presence of the person responsible for the
work protested against, or of some *
. T
276 OPIMA SPOLIA
OPSON
of his from whom he could receive information
of it. No application to or assistance from the
praetor was requisite (Dig. ib. 1, 2), but it was
essential that the notice should be given before
the opus was completed: after completion it
was of no effect (ib. 1, 1, “futura opera"),
redress being then obtainable only by the
interdict “Quod vi aut clam.”
If the opus novum consisted in building on
the complainant's land, or inserting or causing
anything to project into his premises, it was
better to apply at once to the praetor, or to
prevent it per manum ; that is (as it is explained)
“jactu lapilli,” which was a symbolical resort
to force for self-protection (Dig. ib. 5, 10;
43, 24, 20, pr.).
The result of nuntiatio was that any conti-
nuation of the work was unlawful, so that the
injured person, in that event, was entitled by
the so-called “Interdictum de demoliendo’ to
be restored in statum quo (Dig. ib. 20, pr. and 4).
It could be extinguished or cancelled in a variety
of ways: e.g. by waiver on the part of the
nuntians, unless made in the public interest
(Dig. ib. 1, 10; 2, 14, 7, 14); by the death of the
nuntians (ib. 8, 6), or by his parting with the land
which entitled him to raise his voice against the
opus; by the person answerable for it giving
security that if judgment were delivered against
its legality he would at his own cost restore
things in statum quo (Dig. ib. 5, 17), and by the
nuntians refusing such security when properly
tendered. When the cautio was given, or un-
lawfully rejected by the nuntians, the party
was entitled to an “Interdictum prohibitorium ”
for his protection in prosecuting the work (Dig.
ib. 20, 9 sqq.). Finally, the person to whom
notice was given could take legal proceedings
(extra ordinem, Dig. ib. 1, 9) to obtain permission
for carrying the work on (remissio: “operis
novi nuntiationem remiserit,” Lea Gall. Cis-
alp. x.), on the ground that the nuntiatio was
illegal or had been waived, or that the public
interest required its completion; but such
femissio was not a final determination of the
rights of the case, which could be attained only
by a real action.
(Dig. 39, 1; 43, 25; Cod. 8, 11. Besides
the account given of the law on the matter in
the usual text-books on Roman Law, there
are express treatises on the subject by Stöl-
zel, Reinhard, Polis, Hesse, Burkhard, and
others.) [J. B. M.]
OPIMA SPOTLIA. [SpoLIA.]
OPINATO'RES were officers under the
Roman emperors who were sent to demand
arrears of the annona militaris. The regular
collector was termed eacactor; the opinator was
an extraordinary official sent to coerce overdue
supplies, and was for the army what the
compulsor was for other tribute. The name is
probably derived from opinari in the sense of
aestimare, because they assessed what the due
amounted to. (Cod. 12, tit. 38, s. 11; Cod.
Theod. 7, tit. 4, s. 26; Symmach. Ep. ix.
49.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
OPISTHO'DOMUS. [TEMPLUM.)
OPISTHO'GRAPHI. [LIBER.]
OPPIDUM, originally the stronghold,
commonly overlooking the plain (ob pedum),
which served as a refuge in times of danger, for
the inhabitants of the surrounding district.
(The derivation from opus, suggested by Momm-
sen, H. R. i. 39, E. T., 1s impossible, and has
been abandoned by him in later editions.)
Hence it did not differ essentially from urbs.
But while the latter word came to be used
especially of Rome, oppidum became the general
name for country towns, including municipia,
praefecturae, and coloniae [COLONIA]. The
term is also commonly used of the towns
which possessed Latin rights (oppida Latina);
for the organisation of these, cf. the Leges
Salpensana et Malacitana in C. I. L. ii. pp.
253 ff. [A. S. W.]
OPSON (Šipov : in Latin obsonium or opso-
nium corresponds to some extent, but not
entirely : see below), by etymology the non-
farinaceous part of a meal (that which was
cooked), but by usage almost restricted in post-
Homeric times to fish. It must be remarked that
in the Homeric age fish does not seem to have
been regarded as a proper article of food for
those who could get anything else, even when
they lived, as in Ithaca, close to the sea: this
has been noticed by Plato, Rep. iii. p. 404 B,
and Plutarch (de Is. et Osir. 7; cf. Athen. i.
p. 9 d), and the same also is asserted of the old
Italians (Ov. Fast. vi. 173). It cannot be said
that fish was unknown as food, for we have
fishermen (Od. xii. 251 ; xix. 113, where it is
cheap, gratuitous food; xxii. 384: compare the
gruesome simile in Od. x. 124); and Odysseus
and his companions eat fish in Thrinacia ; but
that is only, as we are told, “under stress of
gnawing hunger,” when they were wind-bound
and had eaten all their provisions. In Il. ix.
489, Od. iii. 480, &c., Šipov is cooked meat: in
Il. xi. 630 the word is used in a sense more like
that of later times, of an onion prepared as a
“relish ’’ or seasoning, in or with wine. In
later times, at any rate at Athens, it is easy to
trace its acquired meaning. Those who could
afford nothing better had bread in some shape
or other as their food and their only staff of
life, but all who had the means added something
to eat with it, and this naturally took the form
of something cooked, Šipov properly so called :
the term, however, became so far conventional
that it was possible to use it for any dainty
which helped to make the bread more palatable
(and for which, in default of anything else,
Alubs is proverbially used, Xen. Cyr. i. 5, 12);
so Plato, Rep. ii. p. 372 C, in describing an
imaginary vegetarian diet of a simple people,
gives them “salt, olives, cheese, and onions” as
ūhov: but just below, when he returns to ordi-
nary life, he uses êtya in the more usual sense of
meat, or rather fish. What we should call
“butcher's meat ” played a comparatively small
part in the Athenian diet; it was of course
eaten (in early times chiefly when a sacrifice
had been offered: Athen. v. p. 192 b ; Juv. Sat.
xi. 85); and birds and game of various kinds
(especially thrushes and hares) appeared at the
dinner table: still, however, Professor Mahaffy
rightly notices (Social Life in Greece, p. 306)
that “the Attic people ate little meat, and
lived chiefly on fish and vegetables.” Hence it
was that ùpov is used almost exclusively of
fish, and the derivatives à pavely, &c. of buying
fish, &c., so that in the words of Athenaeus
(vii. p. 276 e: cf. Plut. Symp. iv. 2, p. 667 f.),
trávrov táv trpoorollmudraw ö/wv kakovkévov
*
OPSON
ORACULUM 277
ečevſkmarev 6 ix90s Stå rºv čaſperov č8w8%iv
uévos (solely) of to kaAeſoróat. The āhoºd yos
is an epicure in fish (row oi kpéas &AA& 64xag-
orav ruávra, Anth. Pal. i. 287; cf. Plut. l.c.):
and in Hellenistic Greek Šipčptov (like the
modern Greek påpi) may be used as absolutely
= ix0ás. (At Sparta, however, according to
Athenaeus, iv. p. 141 b, the Šipov was commonly
boiled pork.) As regards the cost, one obol for
a simple dinner of fish and vegetables, see
Boeckh, Staatshaus. i.” pp. 128, 141. As to the
fish supply, the commonest were the épúal,
caught off their own shores, which were so
abundant that Athenaeus (vii. p. 285 b) says
that, though a delicacy elsewhere, they were
looked down upon at Athens as the tºpov of the
poor: Lake Copais produced the eels, regarded
as the greatest of luxuries (Aristoph. Acharn.
880, &c.); otherwise fresh-water fish were
despised (Athen. vii. p. 228 f). We may notice
especially the great consumption of salt fish
(tāpixos), whence rapixovs &été repov became a
proverb. Of this supply the Euxine was the
chief source (Athen. iii. p. 119 b): there were
rapixeſat (establishments for curing fish) at
Byzantium (Dem. Lacrit. p. 993, § 32; Strab.
vii. p. 310; cf. tapixároxos 860 tropos, Athen.
iii. p. 116 b) and at various places at the mouths
of rivers running into the Euxine, and as far as
the Sea of Azov (Strab. xi. p. 493): abundance
also came from Egypt, Sardinia, and Spain
(Poll. vi. 48; cf. Herod. ii. 215; Boeckh,
Staatshaus. i. 128). From these places the salt
fish was sent to Athens in jars (kepduta, Dem.
Lacrif. p. 934, § 34, or &aq'opiis). The most
*Iseful fish for salting were various sorts of
thunny; the &vrákatos also was used, which
seems to be a sturgeon. The roe was made into
a sort of caviare in early times: it is stated by
Gell (Pomp. i. 178) that a jar containing caviare
was found at Pompeii: fish sauce or pickle was
made principally from the orköuÉpos. A long
list of the names of the favourite fish will be
found in Athen. vi. p. 281 f., which need not be
given here: and indeed translating most Greek
and Latin names for fish, like Greek and Latin
names for nearly all birds and flowers, is very
hazardous guess-work. (For the fish-market at
Athens, see AGORA ; MACELLUM.)
As regards the Latin use of obsonium (or
opsonium), it must be observed that among the
Romans there was no such common abstention
from butcher's meat as among the Athenians,
and consequently no such limitation, in the
ordinary use of the word, to one kind of food.
In the adapters or translators of Greek comedy,
we naturally find the word chiefly, though not
exclusively, in the Greek sense (e.g. Ter. And,
ii. 2, 23 and 32), and so in Plautus and Terence
obsonare (or obsonari) is to go to market to buy
fish : that, however, it was not exclusively so
used, even in these writers, is clear from the
Aulularia of Plautus, where there is much talk
of obsonium and obsonatores, but in Act. ii. 8 the
“macellum ” has a choice of fish, veal, lamb,
beef, and pork. In Horace, Sat. ii. 2, 41,
obsonium probably refers to the fish which pre-
cedes, and in Juv. iv. 64 it certainly does, but we
may conclude that in Latin the word could not
be used by itself, apart from the context, to
distinguish fish from provisions generally: in
Mart. xiv. 217 the obsonator is clearly the slave.
sent to market for provisions of any kind re-
quired for dinner, which at Rome was certainly
not by rule a fish dinner, and in this general
sense we may understand obsonator where it
occurs in inscriptions (C. I. L. vi. 6246, 8753).
In Pliny, xxxii. 87 and xv. 82, where obsonium
is used for salt and figs, we have the Greek idea
of it as something added to give a seasoning to
the bread, for which sense of sauce or “relish ’’
pulmentarium is the correct Latin word, and is
used to render the proverbs “hunger the best
sauce,” &c. in Latin, which the Greeks express
by tºpov: see also Cato, R. R. 58, which is
wrongly cited sometimes as describing Roman
“family’’ life. Cato speaks of the economies of
the slaves (familia), and says that you should
pickle for them, as the addition to their bread
(pulmentarium = tºpov), the wind-fallen olives,
and then those which will not yield much oil,
used very sparingly: if these too are all used
up before the year goes round, then the slaves
must have the dregs of fish-brine (allea, or allec ;
muria being the clear fish-brine). (For the Roman
fish supply, see PISCINA : for further discussion
and authorities on the subject of Šipov, see
Becker-Göll, Charikles, ii. 316; Blümner, Gr.
Privatalt. 223 ff. ; Marquardt, Privatleben, 432
ff.) [G. E. M.]
OPTIMATES. [NobiLEs.]
OPTIO. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 801 b.]
ORA'CULUM (uavreſov, xpmothplov). In
the vast and varied system of practical religion
which prevailed in Greece, oracles took the
foremost place. An oracle, in the sense in
which the word is here used, is some special
locality supposed to be chosen by a supernatural
power (god, hero, or shade of the dead) as an
abode from which he might give answers to his
worshippers. (The answer itself is also known
as an oracle, alike in Greek, Latin, and
English.)
Difficult as it is to trace the exact steps by
which the oracular system of Greece was
formed, it is not difficult to see the general
causes which produced it. The Greeks were,
excepting the Hebrews, the most sincerely
religious race of antiquity; but they differed
from the Hebrews in this, that their imaginative
powers were far more vivid, but their moral
sense was less strong. Hence, while the deep
connexion of religion and morality increases
steadily in the Greek mind from Homer through
Aeschylus and Pindar to Socrates, it is always
overshadowed by a set of feelings and concep-
tions which had not a moral but a naturalistic
origin. The early Pelasgian (to take the most
ancient of the Greek races) would look with a
mixture of trembling and inquiry upon the
great features of nature which surrounded him,
—the mountains, the rivers, the woods; and
while he instinctively personified the powers
inherent in these (even before they had well-
defined names) and deprecated their anger,
he would naturally think that their will was
ascertainable through some external feature,
motion or sound, especially through any that
might be more than usually subtle and recon-
dite. Places of impressive aspect would be to
him centres of religious awe. The two most
ancient and powerful of the Greek oracles,
Dodona and Delphi, were unquestionably created
by the operation of this feeling; and it will
278 ORACULUM
ORACULUM
be well to begin with an account of these two,
before approaching those of later origin and
inferior importance. -
The Oracle of Dodona in Epirus.-Here Zeus
himself, the supreme god, was believed to give
messages to men through the rustling of the
leaves of a lofty oak. We must suppose some-
thing notable in the special tree; but the
region round about Dodona, besides being
mountainous, is said to be the most stormy in
the whole of Europe (Mommsen, Delphika, p. 4),
and would be calculated to excite the primitive
feelings of the supernatural in a high degree.
We can trace the oracle of Dodona up to a
time of extreme primitiveness, when, it is
probable, no other oracle existed in Greece, and
before any of the refinements of experimental
divination had been systematised. It is first
mentioned in one of the most touching passages
in Homer, that in which Achilles, before sending
out his friend Patroclus to the battle, prays for
his safe return. The invocation runs as fol-
lows (Hom. Il. xvi. 233–235):—
Zeß &va, Aw8ovate, IIexagyuké, rºdó, vaſtov,
Aw86vms pºeëéov 8voxetuépov : &pi;pi 8& XeXAoi
oroi vaiova' introdºńrat āvūrrówoães, xapaleovat"
“O king Zeus, Dodonaean and Pelasgian, thou
who dwellest afar off, ruler of Dodona the
place of wintry storms; and round about thee
the Selli thy interpreters dwell, they of un-
washed feet, whose couch is on the bare
ground . . . . .” Achilles, it is plain, addresses
Zeus in these terms because he was believed to
stand in a nearer relation to men at Dodona,
through his oracle, than elsewhere; but also
the passage appears to intimate a difference
between the Zeus of Dodona and that more
familiar Zeus who quarrelled with Hera on
Olympus. And we have other reasons for
thinking that the Zeus whom the Pelasgi
worshipped in those remote times was some-
thing far vaguer than the Zeus of Homer. In
the first place, we have the distinct affirmation
of Herodotus (ii. 52): “In early times the
Pelasgi, as I know by information which I got
at Dodona, offered sacrifices of all kinds, and
prayed to the gods, but had no distinct names
or appellations for them, since they had never
heard of any.” Herodotus goes on to say that
the names of the gods were introduced from
Egypt, and that the oracle of Dodona sanctioned
their use; statements which are open to criti-
cism. In the next place, Zeus at Dodona was
Worshipped under a peculiar name, Zeus Naius
(Naſos), the exact meaning of which is un-
certain; and with him was worshipped a goddess,
Dione, whose name (as Bouché-Leclercq suggests)
is probably the feminine of Zeus. When the
Worship of Dione was introduced, we do not
know; the first mention of it appears to be in
Demosthenes (c. Meid. p. 531, § 53; de F, L,
p. 437, § 299); but Strabo (vii. p. 329) tells us
that she had a common temple with Jupiter;
the researches of Carapanos at Dodona show
that votive tablets were dedicated to her jointly
with Zeus; and the meaning of her name and
antiquity of her worship are testified by the two
quaint verses ascribed by Pausanias (x. 12, § 5)
to the early priestesses of Dodona:
Zeis iv, Zeiſs éori, Zeus éroeral, & weyáAs Zeº.
Ta Kapirois àviet, 8to kaićere unrápa yatav.
Though Dione is not mentioned here, it is
difficult not to think that she is identical with
the earth (yā) mentioned in the second line;
and if so, Zeus and Dione are symbolical of
heaven and earth. -
We may then in all probability look upon the
oracle at Dodona, in its original form, as
dedicated to a Zeus who symbolised, simply,
Heaven, and the power that dwells therein;
and either from the first, or at all events at a
very early date, a goddess symbolising the
Earth, Dione, was associated with him. Such a
worship must have been very different from
the elaborate mythology which afterwards pre-
vailed; and it will be observed that the
ceremonial described by Homer is no less
simple and primitive. The interpreters of Zeus
are the “Selli with unwashed feet, whose
couch is on the bare ground; ” and if one is to
take the account in the Odyssey as not far
removed in time from that in the Iliad, we must
suppose that they listened, as they lay, to the
rustling of the oak-leaves; for in that poem
(xiv. 327–8, xix. 296–7) Ulysses is said (in a
feigned story) to have gone to Dodona to hear
the counsel of Zeus “out of the lofty foliaged
oak : ”
Töv 8 es AoStövmv påro Bäuevat, 5%pa 6eoto
ék 8pwös inhukópouo Atos Bovāńv Šmakoúa'at.
Further, these Selli appear to have been origin-
ally not a caste of priests, but a tribe: Aristotle
(Meteor. i. 14) speaks of them as such, and
brings them into close connexion with the
original Hellenes. It is therefore probable that
they are the same as the Helli mentioned by
Pindar, and that their district in those early
times was called Hellopia; for “at the end of
Hellopia,” says Hesiod (Fragm. ap. Schol.
Sophocl. Trach. 1169), “is the city of Dodona,
which Zeus chose to be his oracular seat, and
where he lived in the trunk of an oak-tree
(pryo0).”
So far the accounts of Dodona testify to a
native origin, and to great rudeness of character.
But the next step in its history brings it into
contact with a foreign country; namely, Egypt.
Herodotus, who gives the account referred to
(ii. 54–57), professes it to be a narrative of the
foundation of the oracle. Few will think this
probable: but it may very well mark a period
when the oracle received a more systematic
form, and, above all, when the institution of
priestesses began. These are not mentioned by
Homer; and though they might have risen from
a native source, there is no improbability in
their foreign derivation. The priests at the
Egyptian Thebes, then, told Herodotus that
“two of the sacred women were once carried off
from Thebes by the Phoenicians, and they had
learnt that one of them had been sold into
Libya and the other into Greece; and these
women were the first founders of the oracles in
the two countries.” The Dodonaean story, also
told to Herodotus, is the exact counterpart of
the above, except that the women are repre-
sented as doves. “Two black doves,” said the
priestesses of Dodona, “flew away from the
Egyptian Thebes, and, while one directed its
flight to Libya, the other came hither: she
alighted on an oak, and sitting there began to
speak with a human voice, and said that on the
ORACULUM
ORACULUM 279
spot where she was, there should henceforth be
an oracle of Zeus . . . . The dove which flew to
Libya bade the Libyans to establish there the
oracle of Ammon.” The correspondence between
these narratives, current in localities so distant
from one another as the Egyptian Thebes and
Dodona, is too great to have come by chance;
and when we find from Strabo (vii. Fragm.
1 and 2) that the words for “old woman” and
for “dove” in the Molossian language are
similar, and from Sophocles (Trachin. 171–2)
and Pausanias (x. 12, § 5) that the priestesses
at Dodona were actually called “doves,” all
objection to the Dodonaean story, on the ground
of the seeming miracles, surely vanishes. And
it is a further confirmation that Herodotus
(ii. 57) tells us that the Dodonaean oracle
resembled in character that at Thebes; to which
may be added that Strabo (vii. Fragm. 1) tells
us that the oracles of Dodona and Ammon were
similar. Moreover, the quaint verses of the
Dodonaean priestesses, quoted above from
Pausanias, must remind us (longo intervallo) of
the celebrated inscription on the temple of the
veiled Isis,
It will then appear that at a certain early
period of the Dodonaean oracle, an important
change took place owing to Egyptian influence;
a change which at any rate involved the ap-
pointment of priestesses. It is possible that the
worship of Dione was introduced at the same
period, and so Strabo seems to imply (vii.
p. 329): but this is altogether uncertain. When
priestesses were once introduced as ministrants
of the oracle, the male interpreters of the
divine will sank into the background. Sophocles
indeed (Trach. 1167) speaks of the Selli: but
the passage applies to remote antiquity.
Herodotus seems to have met with none; and
they are ignored by Plato (Phaedr. 244 B).
Strabo, however (ix. p. 402), tells us that,
owing to a certain tragical occurrence, men and
not women communicated the divine messages
to Boeotians; though all other nations received
them from the priestesses. At the same time
the priestesses were under the control of a
council of men; and Carapanos has found at
Dodona inscriptions bearing the name and title
of the president (vatapxos) of this council, and
of one of its officers (trooard rms). (Carapanos,
Dodone, pp. 50, 56.) Strabo tells us that the
priests referred to by Homer were called
Toplovpot, and that some affirmed this to be the
true reading in Hom. Od. xvi. 403, in place of
6éutores.
Certain changes in the method of divination
employed by this oracle must now be noted.
The original method was by the interpretation
of sounds (viz. the rustling of leaves); but in
Plato's time we find (Plat. Phaedr. 244 B) that
the priestesses, like those at Delphi, prophesied
in a state of divine frenzy. This might be a
direct imitation of Delphi; but the imitation
would probably be disguised by an intermediate
stage, dream-inspiration. Lycophron tells us
(ap. Eustath. ad Iliad. xvi. 233) that this mode
of divination existed at Dodona; and it would be
quite natural for the priests or priestesses to
listen to their rustling oak-tree by preference at
night (and Homer's word xapaleoval suggests
this). Again, we learn from Cicero (Divin. i.
34, 76) that divination by lots was practised at
Dodona; it was an ill omen, he tells us, for the
Spartans before Leuctra, that a monkey over-
turned the vessel in which were the lots that
they had sent to the oracle. In later times
brazen vessels were used to produce sounds of
prophetic import: a circle of such vessels was
suspended, which being moved by the wind
struck against one another: for the same pur-
pose a present was made by the Corcyraeans of
a metal basin with a statue of a man placed
over it, in the hand of which was a brazen
scourge of three thongs, from which small bones
(&otpáyaxol) were suspended, which being moved
by the wind struck against the basin. (Steph.
Byz. s. v. Aw8ávn: Suidas, s. v. Awāovalov
XaAketov: Philostr. Imag. ii. p. 830; Strabo,
vii. Fragm. 3.) This “Corcyraean scourge”
was seen in the early part of the 2nd century
B.C. by Polemon the geographer (cf. L. Preller,
Polemonis periegetae fragmenta, Lips. 1838). At
a still later date we have mention of a marvellous
fountain at Dodona, which kindled torches whem,
applied to it, and whose murmurings had also a
prophetic quality (Plin. ii. § 228; Serv. ad Aen.
iii. 466).
No mention has been made above of a mode of
divination which, in times when Dodona had
fallen into decay, was thought to have been
formerly practised there; namely, by the
observation of the flight of doves. Dionysius of
Halicarnassus (i. 15) mentions this; as also.
Strabo (vii. Fragm. 1), who however regards.
it as a misinterpretation of the fact that the
priestesses were called “doves.” And a misin-
terpretation it was, no doubt, and one which
would very naturally be caused by the original
narrative of the foundation of the oracle in Hero-.
dotus; or by the expression Storgöv trexeláðov
in Soph. Trach. 172. But it had a hold on the
imagination of the Roman poets, which was.
increased by the fact that Dione, spoken of by
Homer as the mother of Aphrodite (Il. v. 371),
was afterwards identified with Aphrodite herself
(Theocr. Idyll. vii. 116; Ovid. Art. Am. iii. 3,
769; Fast. ii. 461, v. 309), to whom doves were
particularly sacred, whence Servius (ad Aen. iii.
466) actually speaks of the oracle as dedicated
“Jovi et Veneri,” and in the Clementine.
Homilies (iv. 16, v. 13) Dodone is used as
synonymous with Aphrodite. But all these are
late and inaccurate representations, and receive
no support whatever from any author con-
temporary with the period when the oracle was.
flourishing.
A curious phrase may here be mentioned,
with which Ephorus (ap. Macr. Saturn. v. 18,
8) tells us the oracles emanating from Dodona
always terminated—“Sacrifice to Achelous:”
the origin and exact meaning of the injunction
is unknown.
Dodona, though the most ancient of the
oracles (as Herod. ii. 52 says, and as everything
leads us to believe) was of course very inferior
in political importance to Delphi, during the
historical period. Croesus consulted it (Herod.
i. 46), but was dissatisfied with its answer. The
Athenians were unfortunately encouraged by it
in their Sicilian expedition (Pausan. viii. 11,
§ 6; Suidas, s. v. 'Avví8as). On the other
hand, it proved itself incorruptible to the bribes
of Lysander, when he wished to make himself
king of Sparta (Plut. Lysand); and it may be
280 ORACULUM
ORAOULUM
that Delphi had shown itself less scrupulous
(though it also is said to have refused the bribe),
for we find that Agesilaus, when meditating his
expedition into Asia, gave a most marked pre-
ference to Dodona over Delphi (Plut. Apophth.
Lacon. Agesil. 10). Demosthenes in the Meidias
(l.c.) appeals to the two as equal authorities;
in the de Falså Legatione (l.c.), however, he
refers to Zeus and Dione, but not to Apollo.
We read of honours paid by the Athenians to
the oracle of Dodona at a still later date
(Hyperid. pro Euwenippo, $35). The discoveries
of Carapanos prove that the official documents
of the Epirotic assembly were kept in the temple
of Dodona (Dodone, pp. 48–68). But in B.C. 219,
Dorimachus, the Aetolian general, razed the
temple to the ground, and in B.C. 167 the
Roman general Paulus Aemilius devastated and
ruined Epirus. The oracle never recovered these
blows. Seneca (Herc. Oet. 1623) speaks of it as
deserted. Hadrian appears from the inscriptions
to have been a benefactor to Dodona (Carapanos,
op. cit. p. 171), and probably even rebuilt the
temple; but the restoration, to judge both from
probability and from the testimony of Lucian
(Icaromen. 24), had little vitality; and the
oracle may be said to have died under the
destructive invasion of Dorimachus.
The actual site of Dodona, which long had
been unknown, was discovered in the year 1876
by a Greek explorer, M. Constantin Carapanos,
in the valley of the Tcharacovitza, about eleven
miles south-west of the town and lake of Janina.
Bp. Chr. Wordsworth, however, had already
fixed upon the same spot (Greece, p. 249).
The foundations of the temple and of the sacred
enclosure were laid bare ; and numerous inscrip-
tions on leaden tablets render this one of the
most important antiquarian discoveries ever
made. Out of the mass of the votive tablets
one inscription of more than ordinary historical
interest may be quoted here : that in which the
distracted Corcyraeans beg the oracle to tell
them “to what god or hero they must pray and
sacrifice, in order to agree together for the
common good.”
It will suffice just to mention the fact that
a line of Homer (Il. ii. 750) mentions another
Dodona in Thessaly, which has been by some
supposed to be the original of the Epirotic oracle.
The supposition, however, is otherwise entirely
unsupported, and may be discarded without any
great risk of error.
Special works on Dodona are given at the end
of this article. -
The Oracle of Delphi...—The site of Delphi—
the victorious rival of Dodona, and the centre of
Greek religion—has never been in the same
doubt as the site of Dodona. The remains have
never been so completely covered; and the
natural features of the place—the rocky wall of
the Phaedriades overhanging the town, the foun-
tain of Castalia issuing from a great cleft in
this wall, the double peak in which the rocks
culminate, and the Corycian cave on the heights
above leading to the summit of Parnassus—are
too striking and have been too well described
by ancient authorities for their identity to be
mistaken. But for a complete account of the
geography of Delphi reference must be made to
the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography
(art. DELPHI). Anyone who considers the
position of Delphi in relation to the Pelopon-
nesus, Boeotia, and Attica, will see how great
an advantage it had in. its situation; which,
without being absolutely under the rule of any
of the chief Greek states, was yet at no great
distance from any of them, and was at once
isolated and accessible.
If the Iliad were to be taken as a poem com-
posed in its entirety as it stands, we should be
compelled to say that Delphi was at least as
ancient as even Dodona. For in the ninth book,
vo. 404–5, Achilles speaks of it, under the name
of Pytho, as a proverb for wealth ; he would
not barter his life, he says, for all that is con-
tained within the stone threshold of Apollo at
Pytho: .
Oöö’ 6ara Ääivos ojöös &óñropos évros éépyev
‘poisov 'AtróAAovos IIv6of €vi tre+pméarom.
It is impossible that such wealth can have
arisen in any other way but that in which
history tells us that the temple of Delphi did
grow rich ; namely, by the gifts of those who
consulted the oracle. Hence the oracle of
Delphi was in full vigour when the ninth book
of the Iliad was written. But that book was
probably not part of the original Iliad; the
arguments of Grote on this point (Hist. of
Greece, vol. ii. pp. 240–246) are almost im-
possible to controvert. (See also Jebb, Homer,
pp. 155–170.) And if Apollo, when the
greater part of the Iliad was written, had been
so distinctly the Pythian god as the 9th book
implies that he was, it is scarcely possible that
more trace of the connexion should not be
found in the poem. It is true that in the
Odyssey (viii. 79–82) there is one mention of
the Pythian oracle; but the passage is no
doubt later than the Iliad generally, and may
be much later. On the whole, in spite of the
assumption of the tragedians that the Delphic
oracle was the source of spiritual guidance to
Greece from the remotest past, the probability
is that it was still in its infancy when the
greater part of the Iliad was written. It must
be particularly noticed that the word Delphi
does not occur either in the Iliad or in the
Odyssey.
To trace the rise of the oracle is a problem
of equal interest and difficulty. The persistent
tradition among the Greeks was, that it had
first been an oracle of the Earth (yaſa): so say
Aeschylus (Eumen. 1, 2) and Euripides; the
latter even speaking of a certain conflict for
possession between Earth and Apollo (Iph. in T.
1249, and 1261–1283). It is clear how the
rocky chasm at Delphi, in which the oracle was
believed to reside, would suggest the notion of
Earth as a supernatural power; and though it
may be less clear to us why a close association
should have been thought to exist between Earth
and Themis (i.e. Law or Right Order), as
Aeschylus (l. c., and compare Prom. 209) inti-
mates, still there is a meaning in such alliance.
In those dim early ages, the divine agent woull
receive various namés, as chance or the character
of the speaker might direct; and hence we may
consider it a part of the same tradition, that
Night (Nºê) was sometimes thought to take the
place of Earth. (Plut. de Sera Numinis Vindicta,
c. 22; Argum. Pind. Pyth.) But how and why did
the transition from these vague powers to the
ORACULUM
ORACULUM 281
clearly conceived and radiant god, Apollo, take
place 2 It would be idle to affirm positively;
but it seems better here to desert our oldest
authority, Aeschylus, who (Eumen. 6, 7) makes
a certain Titaness, Phoebe, the intermediary;
which sounds like a poetical contrivance. There
is really more support for, and more probability
in, the view which regards Poseidon as the
intermediary. This is practically affirmed by
Pausanias (x. 5, § 3, and 24, § 4), by Pliny
(vii. § 203), and others; the mention of Poseidon
in connexion with Delphi by Aeschylus (Eumen.
27) and Euripides (Ion, 446) adds strength to
this view ; still more does the fact that he had
an altar in the Delphic temple itself (Pausan.
l. c.); and it is plain how Poseidon in his quality
of Earthshaker (évvoortyalos) would naturally be
thought of as a more personal power than the
abstract Earth, especially as the region about
Parnassus suffers from earthquakes. The prox-
imity of the sea, again, would suggest Poseidon
as the presiding deity; and the name Delphi
furnishes another ground. But this brings in
some intricate points.
What .is here affirmed is this: that when
men first desired to personify the Delphic
divinity (more than by the vague terms Earth
or Night), Poseidon was the deity first selected.
The dolphin (6expis) would manifestly be a
symbol of Poseidon; and consequently an altar
with the figure of a dolphin sculptured on it
(6éAqelos Boués, Hymn, ad Pyth. Apoll. 319)
would mark the first site of the city of Delphi,
and would be the reason for the name of that
city. And when afterwards the votaries of the
more youthful, more splendid Apollo—the god to
whom the prophetic art was assigned—succeeded
in expelling the rude and ungraceful Poseidon
(who was not specially believed to be a prophet)
from the oracular seat, the altar would still
bear its symbol, the dolphin, and legends drawn
from that symbol would be invented appropriate
to the victorious deity. Whereas, if the worship
of Apollo came to Delphi without the previous
worship of Poseidon, it is not easy to say why
there should be any connexion between Apollo
and the dolphin. It is true, we find the temple
of Apollo Delphinius at Athens (Plut. Theseus);
but that is likely to be named after Delphi, as
the temple of Apollo Pythius (in the same
neighbourhood) after Pytho. And we find that
at Anticyra, close by Delphi, Pausanias (x. 36,
§ 4) saw a temple of Poseidon with a statue of
the god, in which he was represented as setting
one foot on the back of a dolphin; which, though
it may be a mere accident, yet in such a locality
suggests a reminiscence of an old tradition. If
Delphi had been a large city, we might have
expected more evidence than we have ; but for
a long time it was but small : hence all the
earliest records speak of Pytho, the district, not
of Delphi, the town. The meaning of the name
Pytho, and of the celebrated legend of Apollo,
on his advent, slaying the dragon Python, are
difficult points; it may even be that some
conflict between Apollo and his predecessors is
shadowed out by the legend (Eur, Iph. in T.
l. c.).
When may be thought of the claims of
Poseidon, the principal fact is, that the Delphic
oracle had a complex, and not, like the Dodo-
naean oracle, a simple origin. The aspect of
the place had from immemorial time suggested
that a power of divine prophecy was inherent in
it ; and this in the course of ages was taken
possession of by that god, Apollo, in whom the
chief prophetic power had been believed to
dwell, even before any definite oracular seat
was assigned to him. Two currents of strong
religious feeling met, and produced the most
powerful religious influence that Greece knew.
And there were yet other currents of feeling,
and passionate aspirations, which imprinted on
the Delphic oracle its exact form. The peculiar
influence of the oracle was exerted through the
frenzy of the Pythian prophetess. The god was
believed to mould her accents, to speak with
her voice ; an awe-striking phenomenon much
more than when the devout inquirer listened to
the rustling of leaves or to the rattling of
bronze basins. Such inspiration was a novelty;
it may have been imitated afterwards, and the
idea of it was always attached to those im-
palpable personages, the Sibyls (Verg. Aen. vi.
44 sqq.), one of whom, Herophile, was said to
have been closely connected with Delphi (Pausan.
x. 12). But at Delphi it was more than an
idea: and whatever may have been the exact
date or manner in which it arose, there can be
little doubt that it was but one form of that
religious exaltation which prevailed so strongly
in central Greece in the early times, and which
sent the Bacchanals to wander and rave on the
heights of Parnassus itself (Eurip. Ion, 714–718;
Iph. in T. 1243, 4). Indeed, this identification
of the Pythian with the Bacchic frenzy, this
close alliance between Apollo and Dionysus,
has the authority both of Aeschylus and
Euripides, according to Macrobius, Saturn. i.
- 18; who quotes from Aeschylus the line 6
ktororets 'AtróAAwy 6 Ka8atos (? Bakxeſos or
Xaßatos) 6 pºdivris, “the ivy-crowned Apollo ''
(fr. 383), and from Euripides, Aéotrora pixó-
Saq've Bákye, IIaiáv'AtroAAov et Avpe (fr. 480).
Conversely, Euripides attributes prophetic power
to the Bacchic enthusiast: rö yap 8akxečaripov
kal to pavióðes uavrukhv troAA#v éxel (Bacchae,
298, 9). We must indeed not quite go the
length of these expressions; no doubt there was
a difference between the worship of Apollo and
the worship of Dionysus, between the Pythia
and the Bacchante; but it is important to notice
the resemblance too. Delphi and the region
round were full of memorials of Dionysus (Plut.
Quaest. Graec. 12; Pausan. x. 33, § 5); but the
traditions do not go so far as to make Dionysus
the actual possessor, at any period, of the
Delphic oracle.
Conjointly with these religious causes of the
Pythian frenzy must be noticed a physical
cause supposed by all the later writers on the
subject to have co-operated or even to have been
the leading agency in the matter. This was an
exhalation from the cavernous chasm over which
the tripod, or prophetic seat, was placed. Now,
an attentive examination of the evidence will
show that in all probability this supposed ex-
halation was a mere product of the imagination.
Had it been a real smoke or gas, it is incredible
that no mention of it should be found in those
descriptions of the temple and shrine which
Aeschylus and Euripides have given us. Whereas
even the later writers generally speak of it as
something abstract and impalpable: Strabo
282 ORACULUM
ORACULUM
(ix. 3, § 5) calls it trusiuſ, ºv6ovalgorikév:
Čicero (de 1jivin. i. 36) calls it terrae vis. Plu-
tarch, who uses the word ávaðvatagus to denote
it, does indeed treat it, as material; but the
single sensible quality which he ascribes to it is
one unlike a natural product of the earth: he
says that a ravishingly sweet smell was sometimes
perceived by visitors to the oracle to proceed
from the shrine (Defect. Orac. 50). These
worthy persons had doubtless not inquired if
the burning myrrh to which Euripides refers
(Ion, 89) had been used more freely than
usual. &
It is of course not to be questioned that
Aeschylus and Euripides believed that an in-
fluence, causing prophetic frenzy, did ascend
from the Delphic chasm. But the materialising
of that influence, so as to make it definitely
sensuous, was the work of a later day.
story of Diodorus (xvi. 26) and others, that the
oracular power was first made known by the
fact that some goats, on approaching the chasm,
became intoxicated in a marvellous way—an
intoxication which the goatherd afterwards
experienced—forms a natural transition to the
more material view. Pausanias, who when
recounting this story uses the very material
word ārabs to describe the influence (x. 5, § 3),
afterwards (x. 24, § 5) says that it is the water
of the fountain Cassotis, flowing through the
chasm, which “makes the women prophetic.”
Special solemnities accompanied the promul-
gation of an oracle. Not on every day could a
consultant inquire of the god. Plutarch tells
us (Quaest. Graec. 9), on the authority of Calli-
sthenes and Anaxandrides, that originally only
one day in the year was assigned for these
deliverances, the 7th of the month Bysius (our
March). This is hard to believe of any historical
period; and even the after-regulation of which
he speaks, permitting consultation once a month,
seems hardly adequate. We may suppose, in
practice, more frequent possibilities of consulta-
tion, though by what rule we do not know.
That there were unlucky days (&toppéðes) when
no consultation was permissible, is clear from
the anecdote about Alexander seeking to force
the Pythia to reply on such a day (Plut. Alea’.
14). (Her involuntary cry, “My son, thou art in-
vincible,” was seized on by him as a true answer.)
But a powerful and friendly state, seeking to
consult the oracle, would hardly be left very
long without an opportunity of doing so. No
doubt there were distinctions made, the know-
ledge of which is quite lost to us. The 7th
of the month Bysius was, it may be observed,
regarded as the birthday of Apollo.
Three days before the day of oracular utter-
ance, the Pythia is said to have begun her
preparation for the solemn act by fasting and
bathing in the Castalian spring (Schol. ad Eurip.
Phoen. 223). This last statement has been
doubted, but hardly with good reason; at all
events to bathe in the fountain of Castalia
would seem to have been a duty for all who
either asked for or who assisted in giving out
the oracular reply (Eurip. Ion, 94–101; Phoen.
222–225; Pindar, Pyth. v. 39, and compare
iv. 290; Heliod. Aeth. ii. 26). It is just possible
that the fountain of Cassotis, which flowed
through the actual shrine (Pausanias, l.c.), may
have been included under the term Castalia;
The
but it is not likely; and the remains of a rock-
hewn bath are still to be seen near the Castalian
spring. The Pythia herself was chosen from
among the virgins of Delphi (Eurip. Ion, 1323);
she was not allowed to marry, and in early
times was always a young girl; but after the
Thessalian Echecrates had seduced a Pythia,
women above fifty were selected for the office,
though they were still dressed as young maidens
(Diod. l. c.). How strictly these rules were
kept, we do not know. In early times there
was but one Pythia; later on there were two,
and even a third if need were (Plut. Defect.
Orac. 8); then again in Plutarch's time a single
prophetess sufficed for the reduced clientèle of
the oracle. *.
When the day arrived, the various consultants
determined by lot their precedence in inquiring;
except in the case of certain favoured indivi-
duals or states, to whom in return for special
services a right of precedence (Tpoplavreia) had
been accorded; as, e.g. to Croesus and the
Lydians (Herod. i. 54), the Lacedaemonians
(Plut. Pericl. 21), and to Philip of Macedon
(Demosth. Phil. iii. p. 119, § 32). That a certain
payment was made to the oracle, appears from
the fact that &réAeta as well as trpopavreia was
granted to the Lydians. But, however pro-
pitious in itself the day might be, it was
necessary that the omens should be taken before
the votary could actually put his question to
the god. In the earliest times it is probable
that the flight of birds would furnish an augury
(cf. Hymn. ad Herm. 540); but in the historical
times a sacrifice was invariably offered,—a goat,
an ox, a sheep, or a wild boar (Eurip. Ion, 229;
Plut. Defect. Or. 49). Extraordinary pains
were taken to see that the victim was sound in
all respects. An ox was fed on barley, a wild
boar on chick-peas, to see whether they ate them
with appetite; water was poured on the goats,
and it was necessary that they should tremble
all over (and not merely move the head, as in
other sacrifices) for the omen to be good.
If the omen were not good, to consult the
oracle was dangerous; nor was this a mere idle
fancy; for Plutarch (Defect. Orac. 51) records
one such case in which the Pythia (overwrought
doubtless in the highest degree by the imagina-
tions connected with her office) leaped from the
tripod, fell into convulsions, and within a few
days died.
But if the omens were good, the Pythia, after
burning laurel leaves and flour of barley (Plut.
Pyth. Orac. 6), or perhaps myrrh (Eurip. Ion,
89), in the never-dying flame (Aesch. Choeph.
1036) on the altar of the god, and dressed in a
costume which recalled that of Apollo Musa-
getes (Plut. ib. 24), mounted the tripod, the
three-legged stool, which was suspended over
the chasm. Close beside her was a golden
statue of Apollo (Pausan. x. 24, § 4). What
are we to say about the state of frenzy into
which she then fell ? Was there true uplifting
of the spirit in it, and a mixture of real
inspiration? Was the question put to her
understood by her, and did her mind, however
frenzied, really attempt an answer? Or was
she in any degree instructed beforehand? Or
was the whole an exhibition of pure raving non-
sense 2 None of these elements would probably
be wholly absent; it is but human nature that
ORACULUM
ORACULUM 283
the inferior should have predominated; but the
higher are not quite to be excluded. Of course,
the general history of the oracle must guide
our opinion.
By the side of the Pythia stood the prophet
(Herod. viii. 36; Plut. Defect. Orac. 51), whose
office was to interpret her vague and wild
cries, and put them into ordered language. His
proximity, it may be noted, is clear proof that
there was not really any intoxicating vapour in
the shrine; else he must inevitably have been
infected as well as the Pythia. Sometimes more
than one official of this sort attended (he seems
to have been called “prophet” or “priest’”
indifferently—the latter is the general term in
the inscriptions discovered at Delphi), but no
doubt the duty would be discharged by only
one at one time. The determination of those
who were to serve was made by lot (Eurip. Ion,
416), the whole number of the noble families of
Delphi being apparently eligible. , Besides these
prophet-priests, another band of functionaries
must be noticed—the “Saints" (šoriol), of whom
there were five in number, chosen from the
most ancient families of Delphi who claimed to
be descended from Deucalion (Plut. Quaest.
Graec. 9). The victim sacrificed at the time of
the appointment of a Šotos was called Öowthp.
It is not quite certain that these “Saints.”
were not identical with the “priests,” “Saints’
and “priests” being alike distinguished from
the “prophets”; but in any case the two (or
three) classes assisted each other in the whole
cycle of duties pertaining to the oracle. Three
names of these Deucalionic families are known
to us: Cleomantids, Thracids (Diodor. xvi. 24;
Lycurg. c. Leocr. § 158), and Laphriads (Hesych.
s. v.). (It has been ingeniously conjectured that
the “Saints * were a remnant of old forms of
worship, anterior to the arrival of Apollo at
Delphi.)
Before proceeding to characterise, as far as
can be done, the final upshot of these elaborate
schemes of divine guidance, a few minor points
may be noted. The responses of the oracle, as
delivered to the consultant by the prophet, were
at first always in hexameters. It was said that
this metre was invented by the first Pythia,
Phemonoe; but Dodona set up a rival claim :
no doubt both were wrong. The verses, com-
posed on the spur of the moment, were often
rough enough ; nevertheless, when the oracle
betook itself to prose, many regretted the
change. Plutarch wrote a treatise in which he
tried to make the best of the matter; but it
must be admitted, that the main cause of the
change, the decline in the dignity of the ques-
tions which the oracle was called on to solve
(seeing that it no longer had high points of
government to deal with), might well excite the
regret of its votaries (Plut. Pyth. Orac. 28).
It is implied in various ways, and especially
in the accusation against the Pythia Perialla
(of having been bribed by king Cleomenes),
that the Pythia was not a mere idle instrument
in the matter, but really directed, in part, the
answers. Some have thought that there were
means of divination at Delphi independent of
the Pythia; but, in spite of the éuTupa (Eur.
And, 1213) and the dreams (Iph. Taur. 1263),
all oracular utterances in historical times seem
to have been derived from prophetic frenzy.
The presence of the Šuqaxos or sacred stone
in the temple served to put the oracles under
the highest guarantee, that of Zeus himself;
who, it was believed, had determined this
stone to be the earth's centre by sending from
the remotest east and west a pair of eagles;
** in this point (Pindar, Pyth. iv. 131 ;
I W. J }.
What, in fine, was the good or ill of the
Delphic oracle? The general impression that
we receive from history is, that it acted for
good ; and that in the freedom of its own action
and the freedom of action of its consultants, it
had a great advantage, enabling the Greek race
to combine the sense of religious mystery in a
rare degree with individual energy; but that it
failed, when the Greek race had reached a certain
degree of development, in guiding and control-
ling power. The causes that produced this
failure were: the non-reality of the creed of
Apollo, whereby intelligent minds were alien-
ated; the attempt on the part of the oracle to
be wiser than it could be, and the consequent
recourse to evasion and deception; and the lack
(not the entire absence) of positive moral force.
In private life, it had various beneficent func-
tions, of which the chief perhaps was the aid
that it gave in the manumission of slaves
[LIBERTUS]: the advice which it gave to indi-
viduals could not probably, except where the
moral principle involved was clear (e.g. Herod.
vi. 86), rest on any sure ground.
In treating of the oracle in its public aspect,
the idea that it had any extraordinary prophetic
power, or second sight, must be laid aside; not
that there are not some things in the history
that may puzzle us as regards this, especially
the first oracle given to Croesus; but the second
oracle to Croesus, being plainly an evasion,
demolishes the effect of the first oracle. The
miraculous defence of Delphi against the Per-
sians (Herod. viii. 37–39) is one of the best
attested of heathen miracles; the similar de-
fence against the Gauls (Pausan. x. 23, § 3 sqq.)
has less evidence: but in the first case a natural
explanation is open to us; the second is more
frankly legendary.
The real good which the oracle did, and es-
pecially in the earlier days, lay in the courage
which it imparted through the supernatural
blessing of which it was believed to be (and
perhaps was) the minister. Sincerity of inten-
tion, and the belief in a presiding divine power,
were elements of value which, on the whole, it
impressed strongly on society. Whether we
can rely or not on the statements that it sup-
ported the great legislators, Lycurgus and
Solon (Herod. i. 65; Plutarch, Solon, 148), it
unquestionably directed and encouraged the
colonising spirit of the Greeks. The most
remarkable instance of this is the case of Cyrene,
the foundation of which appears to have been
entirely due to the Delphic oracle (Herod. iv.
150–159): “King Apollo sends thee,” are the
words of the oracle to Battus (ib. 155). But
Syracuse (Suid. s. v. 'Apxias), Crotona (Strabo,
vi. p. 262), Rhegium (ib. p. 257), Magnesia
(Athen. iv. p. 173 e), and probably Metapon-
tium (Strabo, vi. p. 264), are also instances in
point; and the remark which Herodotus makes
(v. 42) that Dorieus did not consult the oracle
in his colonising effort shows how exceptional
284 ORACULUM
ORACULUM
such a case was. There is indeed some likeli-
hood in the supposition that the Delphic oracle
had, through its numerous correspondents, real
information of the state of foreign countries,
such as a private individual could not possess
(this is one explanation of the successful reply
to Croesus, Herod. i. 47); if so, force would be
added to its spiritual encouragement. In the
internal relations of Greeks to each other, the
oracle was not faultless in its directions, yet
sometimes beneficent : e.g. we read (Thucyd. i.
103) that it sent word to the Lacedaemonians
to spare the captive Helots at Ithome ; on the
other hand, it countenanced the futile and
rapacious attempt of Cylon (Thucyd. i. 126).
It is not said that the Amphictyonic council
(whose laudable intention to promote peace
among Greeks had so little result) was founded
from Delphi; but it had close connexions with
the oracle (Strabo, ix. p. 420; Pausan. x. 8, § 1 ;
Aeschin. de Fals. Leg. § 121). Undoubtedly,
however, the most important act of the Delphic
oracle, as regards the internal affairs of the
Greek states, was the command which it issued
to Sparta to liberate Athens from the despot
Hippias; a command issued to an unwilling but
dutiful agent, and successfully carried out (510
B.C.). Few deeds in the world's history have been
more fruitful of great consequences; but it was
too great a service to be rewarded with gratitude.
The Athenians declared that the Pythia had
been bribed (Herod. v. 63), and falsely attributed
their own liberation to Harmodius and Aristo-
geiton. The 6th century B.C., in which the
last-named event was one of the closing scenes,
is that which shows Delphi at the height of its
power. It begins with the first Sacred war, in
which Delphi was delivered from the rival pre-
tensions and aggressions of Cirrha and Crissa;
yet the severity exercised towards those cities is
a blot on its fair fame. In the middle of the
6th century the great gifts of Croesus were
made; shortly after which (548 B.C.) the temple
at Delphi was burnt down, but rebuilt with
great splendour by the Alcmaeonidae. Inside
this temple the sayings of the seven wise men
(of which yyā0, areavrév, “know thyself,” is the
most famous) were inscribed (Pausan. x. 24, § 1).
The Persian wars show, though almost im-
perceptibly, a turn in the tide of greatness
of Delphi. The oracle perhaps knew too much
about the power of the Persians; at all events
its tendency was to counsel submission, or, what
was tantamount, inactivity. This was the effect
of its utterances to the Cnidians (Herod. i. 174),
to the Argives (Herod. vii. 148), and to the
Cretans (Herod. vii. 169, 171). But such advice
was not given through mere cowardice; and in
the romantic history of the Persian war, few
things are more interesting than the clash of
sentiment between the fiery and resolute Athe-
nians and the timid but clear-sighted oracle
(Herod. vii. 140–143). The counsel that was
hammered out, as it were, between these two
contending (but not hostile) forces—the counsel
that the Athenians should betake themselves to
their “wooden walls”—was in fact the very
best that could have been given; though, had it
failed, the oracle would have no doubt sheltered
itself under the ambiguity of the term.
The disastrous Peloponnesian war marks the
first point in Greek history in which the Delphic
oracle sinks below the level required by the
situation. Not that it was unnatural, or wholly
wrong, for it to support the Spartans (Thucyd.
i. 118, 123); but it had no real command over
the combatants. The authority of Aelian (V. H.
iv. 6) is hardly sufficient for what we would
gladly believe, that at the end of the war the
oracle pleaded on behalf of Athens. After the
beginning of the 4th century B.C. its influence
falls. Agesilaus (Plut. Apophthegm. Lacon.
Agesil. 10) set it below Dodona; and Epami-
nondas seems not to have consulted it when
Messina was made a state (Pausan. iv. 27,
§§ 3–6): though he made it gifts after the
battle of Leuctra, as Lysander had done at the
close of the Peloponnesian war (Plut. Lysander).
As the first Sacred war ushered in the highest
fame of the Delphic oracle (B.C. 600–590), so
the second Sacred war (B.C. 357–346) marks the
beginning of the definite decline, alike of Greece
and of Delphi; for it introduced Philip of Mace-
don into Central Greece. Nor only that ; but
it was marked by the dispersion of the vast
Delphian treasures seized by the Phocians. In
the preceding century, such a sacrilege would
have been impossible. And though neither
Philip nor Alexander intended harm to Delphi,
yet the enormous conquests of the latter dis-
persed the Greek race over many lands, and
(what was perhaps of still greater moment)
transferred the centre of public interest and of
power away from Greece altogether. With the
saying of Demosthenes, # IIvöſa pixiiririget, and
the exclamation extorted by Alexander from the
Pythia, “My son, thou art invincible,” the
public career of the Delphic oracle may be said
to close.
Yet it must not be dismissed without one
word more. When it declared Socrates “the
wisest of men,” it not only uttered the most
remarkable of its deliverances, but also trans-
mitted the sign of its great authority to a moral
power that was far to transcend its own, and
gave the greatest of its vital impulses exactly
when its own apparent force was beginning to
Wane.
For the names of special works on Delphi, see
the end of this article.
On the Oracular System generally. — Delphi
and Dodona stand apart. These having been
treated of, the occasion is the best for some gene-
ral remarks on all the oracles.
It must not be forgotten that oracles were
only the most highly organised form of the
general effort to obtain supernatural knowledge
and power; that isolated diviners, unconnected
with any oracle, abounded throughout Greece;
that modes of divination by sacrifice, the flight
of birds, the casting of pebbles, were known
and practised in all quarters; and that, even
when diviners united into a college, there was
no oracle, properly speaking, unless the place
itself through some known feature, as a tree or
a rocky cleft, co-operated. For lack of this,
the college of diviners at Telmessus in Lycia
cannot be held to constitute an oracle (Herod. i.
78). A scarcely less necessary feature of an
oracle was that it should have an organised
body of ministers. This is sometimes wanting
in a so-called oracle, but never in an oracle of
importance. Without priests and sacrifice,
there could be no solemnity of approach to the
ORACULUM
ORACULUM 285
divine power. In an oracle, the intercourse
between God and man was thought to be at its
highest.
A curious incidental fact is the excessive
abundance of oracles in Boeotia, their entire
absence from Attica. The Attic temperament
was too keen-witted, seemingly, for an oracle to
be able to flourish under its close inspection;
though, at a distance, the Athenians were very
reverential to oracles. On the other hand, the
Boeotians were not content unless they had a
divinity close by.
The fact that Apollo, not Zeus, is the god
who generally presides over oracles, must be
noted and understood. It was not meant in
disparagement of Zeus. Zeus was so great,
that the human mind could not come in imme-
diate contact with him; an intermediary was
necessary; and such was Apollo. But what
Apollo declared, Zeus had first conceived and
intended. (Aesch. Eum. 19, 616–618.) Yet
this idea was not invariable, for the most primi-
tive oracle, Dodona, belonged to Zeus simply ;
and two others will immediately be described.
The chief distinction of class between oracles,
as respects the method by which the prophecy
was procured, was this: some were called arti-
ficial, in which signs of future events were
derived from external appearances intellectually
interpreted; others natural, in which, either
through dreams or through a prophetic frenzy,
the divine intention was implanted directly in
the mind of the seer, and uttered by him (or
generally by her) in involuntary phrases.
Dodona originally belonged to the first class,
Delphi to the second. But Dodona, as has been
said, resorted afterwards to the method of in-
spiration. Oracles of Apollo may be generally
assumed to have some tinge of the prophetic
frenzy, though often softened down. Oracles to
which the sick resorted, generally made use of
dreams (cf. Tertull. de Anim. 46); the patient
slept a night in the temple (incubatio).
The two most important oracles, after Delphi
and Dodona, are the oracle of Zeus Ammon in
Libya, and that of Apollo at Branchidae.
Those who wish to know the experiences of a
consultant of the minor oracles may refer to the
discourses of Aelius Aristides (an abstract is
§ by M. Bouché-Leclercq, vol. iii. pp. 299–
307).
The oracles will now be set down according
to their several classes.
Oracles of Zeus (other than Dodona).
1. Oracle of Zeus at Olympia. This is an
instance of a true and very ancient oracle,
slowly metamorphosed under the influence of a
system of divination which had grown up under
the shelter of the oracle, but yet was not strictly
oracular. Pausanias saw at Olympia an enclo-
sure sacred to Zeus the Thunderer (Zeis Karai-
Bárms), close to the great altar; and also an
altar dedicated to Earth, and another to Themis,
close by the mouth (orépuov) of a hollow chasm.
Here we have something that sounds like the
primary form of the Delphic oracle; perhaps a
still nearer reminiscence of Dodona. But a
family of priestly diviners, the Iamidae, whose
origin is far removed in the legendary past, in
which their first father Iamus was said to have
been a son of Apollo (Pindar, Olymp. vi. 47-121),
introduced methods of divination unknown to
the earliest times; by the observation of the
entrails of victims (Herod. i. 59; viii. 134) and
of the flames of sacrifices (Pindar, Olymp. viii.
4); and the true oracle gave way before the
new-comers. With the Iamidae were joined
the Clytiades (Pausan. vi. 17, § 6). The divina-
tion, according to these rites, was performed
before the altar of Zeus Olympius (Pindar,
Olymp. vi. 118, 119). Yet the oracle did not
cease to be called an oracle ; Sophocles (Oed.
Tyr. 900) assigns to it a high dignity; and the
change was perhaps not distinctly recognised by
most. From what Strabo says (viii. p. 353), and
Lucian. Icar. 24, we conclude that it was hardly
consulted at all on ordinary occasions, in the
historical period; this impression is, however,
º by the interesting story in Xen. Hell.
iv. 72.
2. Oracle of Zeus Ammon, in an oasis of Libya,
in the north-west of Egypt. This oracle came
immediately after Delphi and Dodona in import-
ance and fame; and there is this point of great
interest about it, that it was in all probability
founded by Egyptians, and then refined and
humanised through the Greek inhabitants of
Cyrene. Two distinct national cults united to
produce it.
Zeus, in this oracle, was represented as having
a ram’s head (kptompéorotros, Herod. iv. 181, ii.
42). Such a representation cannot rationally
be supposed to have had any origin but one ;
namely, in the Egyptian Thebes, where the
chief god, Ammon (Amun), was also represented
with a ram’s head. The derivation of the
oracle of Ammon from the Egyptian Thebes has
already been spoken of in treating of Dodona;
and though the story of captive Egyptian
women, given by Herodotus, could not fairly be
expected to have left any trace recognisable by
modern research, the other parts of the account
of Herodotus do receive confirmation from
recent discoveries very remarkably. What
Herodotus says (ii. 42) is, that the inhabitants
of the oasis of Ammon were descended from a
joint colony of Egyptians and Ethiopians, and
he implies that the Egyptians were from Thebes,
and gives a fanciful story why the Thebans and
other Egyptians gave their chief god (whom he
calls Zeus) a ram’s head. Now, R. Lepsius (in
the Zeitschrift für aegyptischen Sprache whd
Alterthumskunde, 1877, pp. 8-23) has shown
from the monuments that it was precisely under
the Ethiopian dynasty that the god Ammon of
Thebes (Amun) was first represented with a
ram’s head, he having been previously depicted
with a human head surmounted by two large
feathers; and that it was under a king of that
dynasty, Teharqou (692–664 B.C.), that the
oasis of Ammon was colonised and the oracle
founded, a short time before the colonisation of
Cyrene by the Greeks. This fixes the origin of
the Ammonian oracle very precisely, and entirely
in accordance with Herodotus.
The Cyreneans embraced the worship of Zeus
Ammon with eagerness, and extended it among
their kindred in Greece, the Spartans and The-
bans (Pausan. iii. 18, § 2; ix. 16, § 1). Never-
theless, there was always some little hesitation
among the Greeks in identifying this deity abso:
lutely with their own Zeus. The ram's head
e
286 ORACULUM
ORACULUM
naturally stood in the way; and hence some-
times only the ram’s horns were attributed to
him, the head and face being those of a man,
and this would appear to have been the case in
a statue of him at Megalopolis in Arcadia
(&yaMua "Aunovos, képara étri riis kepaññs
#xov kpioi, Pausan. viii. 32, § 1). We may
hope, and perhaps believe, that it was so also
in the statue of Ammon dedicated in a temple
of the god at Thebes by the poet Pindar (Pausan.
ix. 16, § 1). Pindar completely identifies
Ammon with Zeus (Pyth. ix. 89), and, as we
learn from the Scholiast on that passage, ad-
dressed to him a hymn, hailing him as “master
of Olympus ”; which hymn was engraved on a
pillar by Ptolemy the First, king of Egypt, and
seen by Pausanias (l.c.). On the other hand,
in Plato, Ammon is always Ammon, never Zeus.
Few more quaint stories are preserved than the
complaint of the Athenians to this oracle as to
their own military failure in spite of their
splendid sacrifices; while the Lacedaemonians,
who troubled themselves little about those
things, won their battles ([Plato], Alcib. ii. 148,
149). It is scarcely necessary to say that
Alexander the Great identified Ammon with
Zeus.
We know but little of the methods of divina-
tion employed at this oracle; but from Diodorus
(xvii. 50, 51) we gather that one was, to carry
the statue, flashing with emeralds, in solemn
procession, and judge by the changing appear-
ances which it presented: 80 priests joined in
this ceremonial. The spring of water in the
oasis must have furnished another means; for
when the oracle had fallen into decay, the
priests provided themselves with a supply of
water from it, which they carried about and
sold as possessing qualities of divination (Juv.
vi. 553–555). The oracle had been nearly
deserted long before Juvenal's time (cf. Strabo,
xvii. p. 814).
Oracles of Apollo (other than Delphi).
The oracles of Apollo will here be taken in a
geographical order: namely, first, those in
Boeotia and the neighbouring parts (Phocis and
Euboea); next, those in Asia Minor and the
adjacent islands; lastly, the few (of which
Delos is the most important) scattered else-
where.
But it is necessary to say, in a few words,
the order in which these oracles actually grew.
The peculiarity of the case is, that the oracular
impulse first came to birth in Greece, while the
Worship of Apollo (as appears from the legends,
from Homer, and from general considerations)
originated on the coasts of Asia Minor. The
prophetic god was separated from the chief
oracular seats. But gradually, the worship of
Apollo crossed over the Aegean ; and, at Delphi,
found the seat that fulfilled all that the imagi:
nation required. Then, the centre having been
found, the oracular impulse was flashed back
over the Aegean; and created on the Ionian
coasts those oracular seats which could not have
originated there, but which were resorted to
and honoured, as soon as their pretensions were
understood.
1. Oracle at Abae, in the N.E. of Phocis.
This oracle is first mentioned in the 6th century
Delphi.
B.C., when Croesus included it among the seven
oracles which he tested as a preliminary to his
intended inquiry concerning the expediency of
making war on Cyrus. It was therefore an
oracle of distinction, though it proved unequal
to satisfying the test imposed by Croesus
(Herod. i. 46, 47). It pretended to great anti-
quity. Shortly before the Persian wars it
received from the Phocians a great number of
shields and other booty won in battle from the
Thessalians, an equal number being sent to
After the battle of Thermopylae, the
Thessalians determined to take their revenge;
they led a Persian army into Phocis, and de-
stroyed among other places the temple of Abae
(Herod. viii. 33). Pausanias (x. 35, § 2) tells
us that the Greeks passed a resolution to leave
in their ruins all temples that had been destroyed
in this invasion, as a memorial of undying
hatred. But this cannot have been carried out
here : it must be inferred from Sophocles (Oed.
Tyr. 899) that the temple of Abae was fully
existent in the latter half of the 5th century
B.C. Moreover, we find it predicting victory
to the Thebans before the battle of Leuctra
(Pausan. iv. 32, § 5): in spite of which, those
same Thebans burnt it, and 500 Phocians in it,
in the Sacred or Phocian War (B.C. 346). And
though the town of Abae, at the end of that
war, was exempted from the ruin that fell on
the rest of Phocis (Pausan. x. 3, § 2), the temple
and oracle were irretrievably gone. Centuries
afterwards, Hadrian built a smaller temple
close by, and the Romans, from a feeling of
piety towards Apollo, allowed the people of
Abae to govern themselves. (Pausan. x. 35,
§ 2.)
2. Oracle of Tegyra. This lay not far from
Abae, but just within the Boeotian frontier.
Plutarch tells us that it flourished chiefly in
the Persian wars, when it had a high priest
Echecrates (Pelopid. 16), and promised the
Greeks the victory over the Persians (Defect.
Orac. 5). Tegyra was on one occasion declared
by the Pythia herself to have been the birth-
place of Apollo (Plutarch, Pelopid. 16; Defect.
Orac. 5; Steph. Byz. s. v. Teyüpa).
3. Oracle of Mount Ptoon, near Acraephia, in
the territory of Thebes. Mythology affirmed
that Tenerus, son of Apollo and Melia, was the
first prophet here (Strabo, ix. p. 412). More
interesting is it to know, on the same authority,
that Pindar sang of this oracle. When Mys the
Carian was sent by Mardonius to consult it, at
the time of the Persian wars, the prophet
answered him in the Carian language, so that
the Thebans who accompanied him could not
write down the reply, and Mys was obliged to
do this himself (Herod. viii. 135). This oracle
also was consulted by the Thebans before
Leuctra (Pausan. iv. 32, § 5), but was destroyed
in the general ruin of the Theban territory by
Alexander (Pausan. ix. 23, § 3). In the time
of Plutarch the whole district was desolate
(Plut. Defect. Orac. 8).
4. Oracle of Apollo Ismenius, south of Thebes.
This was the national sanctuary of the Thebans,
and oracles were given here, as at Olympia, by
inspection of the entrails of victims (Herod.
viii. 134) and by the shape of altar-flames
(Soph. Oed. Tyr. 21). A stone at the entrance
of the temple was pointed out as the seat on
ORACULUM
ORACULUM 287
which Manto, the daughter of Tiresias, had
prophesied. In this oracle a boy of good family
and handsome appearance was selected yearly as
priest and termed Sapwmºpópos (laurel-bearer);
and if in more than usually good position, dedi-
cated a tripod before his year of office was over.
(Pausan. ix. 10, §§ 2–4; and compare Pindar,
Pyth. xi. 7–10.) Herodotus saw three such
tripods, inscribed with ancient Cadmean charac-
ters (v. 58–61). One was inscribed with the
name of Amphitryon, and Pausanias (l.c.) says
that it was dedicated on behalf of Heracles,
and was the most remarkable of all the tripods
he had seen. Possibly it was from this collec-
tion that a yearly tripod was sent to Dodona
(Strabo, ix. p. 402). Before the disastrous con-
flict with Alexander, the Thebans are said to
have asked of this oracle the meaning of a cer-
tain cobweb in the temple of Demeter, and to
have received an ambiguous answer (Diodor.
xvii. 10).
5. Oracle of Apollo Spodios, also at Thebes.
Here divination by voice-omens was practised,
as at Smyrna. (Pausan. ix. 11, § 5.) This
oracle, like the last, was of course destroyed by
Alexander.
6. Oracle of Hysiae, at the foot of Cithaeron,
near Attica. The temple was unfinished: the
mode of inspiration was by drinking from a
sacred well. (Pausan. ix. 2, § 1.)
7. Oracle of Eutresis, between Thespiae and
Plataea, in the neighbourhood of Leuctra.
(Steph. Byz. s. v. Eörpmats: Schol. ad Il. ii.
502.)
8. Oracle of Apollo Didymaeus, usually called
the oracle of the Branchidae, in the territory of
Miletus. This oracle was, as has been intimated,
the fourth in importance of all in the Grecian
world; and the legends respecting its founda-
tion are highly picturesque. (Conon. Narrat.
33; Warr. ap. Lutat. ad Stat. Thebaid, viii. 198.)
The antiquity of it has, however, been much
doubted, and C. W. Soldau (in the Zeitschrift
für Alterthumswissenschaft, 1841, pp. 546–584)
endeavours to show that it was founded some-
where about the last quarter of the 7th cen-
tury B.C. But his arguments, though highly
ingenious, hardly seem to countervail these two
facts: first, that Herodotus calls it “an oracle
founded in ancient time ’’ (uavrážov čk traXatoo
ièpvaévov, i. 157); and, secondly, that Pharaoh-
Necho (who died in B.C. 601) sent to Branchidae,
“as an offering to Apollo,” his military dress
(Herod. ii. 159), which he would hardly have
done to a quite recent institution. It is true
that it is suggested that the temple was more
ancient than the oracle ; but no one supposes
that the family of the Branchidae were more
ancient than the oracle; and their arrival (in
the person of the head of the family, Branchus)
could hardly have been a fact unknown to
Herodotus if it had taken place only a century
and a half before his own time. Branchus is
probably a mythical person; the only argument
to the contrary being the obscure reference in
Diogenes Laertius (i. 3, 5 [72]), in which he
is set side by side with the sage Chilon as a per-
son of brief terse speech.
The oracle, however, is quite unmentioned by
Homer or the Homeric hymns, and various
points in the myths of its foundation indicate
that it was an offshoot from Delphi; to which
conclusion the reference in Strabo (xvii. p. 814)
also leads. But at the beginning of the 5th
century B.C., the sentiments of the Delphic
oracle towards Branchidae were the reverse of
friendly (Herod. vi. 19). It was the oracle
chiefly consulted by the Aeolians and Ionians of
Asia Minor; and it was one of the seven selected
by Croesus to answer his test question; and
though it appears not to have solved his puzzle
satisfactorily, he gave it, says Herodotus (i. 92),
“offerings, as I learn, equal in weight and
similar to those which he made to Delphi.”
This, under all the circumstances, may be
doubted; but Croesus must have been liberal to
the Branchidae, to render such a statement
possible.
The meaning of the word Didymaeus (Albv-
Platos or Alêvuets) is not quite certain; but if
we accept the statement of Stephanus of Byzan-
tium (s. v. Afāvua) that the temple and oracle
were dedicated to Zeus and Apollo, “the twin
Apôllo” (i.e. twin with Zeus) seems the natural
interpretation : though “twin with Artemis”
cannot be discarded as impossible, if Atôvuets
has this meaning. In any case, if Stephanus be
right, such a dedication suggests an oracular
foundation (cf. Aesch. Eum. 19), and goes some
way to show that the oracle is coeval with the
temple.
Of the constitution of the oracle of Branchidae
only a few traces are left. As its name implies,
it was administered by a sacerdotal family, and
this appears further from its later history; for
in the unfortunate close of the history of the
Branchidae, far away in the Sogdiana, we find
them preserving their cohesion and identity.
Other families are also mentioned in connexion
with this oracle, especially the Evangelides (cf.
Conon. Narrat. 44); but what their relation to
it exactly was we do not know. Perhaps they
only entered on the scene after the Branchidae
had disappeared. Though Strabo (l.c.) describes
this oracle as similar to Delphi, in the fact of
its replying by words and not by signs, we can-
not certainly infer that it had a tripod and a
prophetess in the early times; though it had in
the times of Iamblichus (de Myst. iii. 2). But
it had a sacred spring more marvellous than
Castalia, which rose in the promontory of
Mycale, then (it was said) dived under the sea
and reappeared near the temple of Apollo
(Pausan. v. 7, § 5; and cf. Euseb. Praep. Ev.
v. 15).
#. Branchidae failed in patriotism (Schol.
Aristoph. Plut. 1002; Zenob. v. 80); yet the
impression which the few stories that have
come down to us about them leave, is not wholly
unfavourable. When we find the historian
Hecataeus proposing to take the treasure of
their temple, and to derive thence a fund for
repelling the Persians (Herod. v. 36), their cool-
ness for the Greek cause, if not admirable, is
intelligible. About the beginning of the 5th
century B.C. a catastrophe overwhelmed them.
Darius, after capturing Miletus, burnt their
temple (Herod. vi. 19, 20) and, we must infer,
appropriated its treasures; and when the his-
torian goes on to say that Darius “carried away
the Milesians to Ampe on the Tigris,” we should
suppose that the Branchidae were at any rate
among those carried off. But a different story
was current in Greece in later days; namely,
288 ORAGULUM
ORACULUM
that it was Xerxes, not Darius, who carried
away the Branchidae; that they voluntarily
surrendered their treasures to him, bargaining
for a safe home in Persia, since they dared not
dwell among the Greeks, and that they were
accordingly settled in Sogdiana (Curtius, vii. 23;
Aelian, ap. Suid. s. v. Bpayxtóat: Strabo, xi.
. 518, xiv. p. 634; Plut. de Ser. num, vindicta,
i2); and Strabo says, finally, that it was Xerxes
who burnt their temple. Amid this contradic-
tory evidence, it is impossible for us now to
decide how the case lay; but the easiest supposi-
tion is, that Herodotus was not aware of the
exact place to which the Branchidae were trans-
ported, and that on this point the four later
historians are right; that the four historians,
on the other hand, are mistaken in saying that
Xerxes had anything to do with the matter
(since Herodotus could hardly have erred here);
and that the story of the treachery of the
Branchidae was the exaggerated shape which the
sense of their want of patriotism took in the
minds of after-generations. Be that as it may,
the final upshot, as reported by the four above-
named historians, was tragical. Alexander the
Great, in his wild arrogance regarding himself
as the avenger of the past wrongs of Greece,
slew the descendants of the Branchidae, in their
peaceable remote retreat in Sogdiana.
The oracle of Apollo Didymaeus, no longer
the oracle of the Branchidae (though still some-
times called so), revived from the ruins in which
the Persians had left it ; though how soon, we
do not know. In the time of Alexander we find
it under the direction of the authorities of
Miletus (cf. O. Rayet, Rev. Archéol. 1874, ii.
pp. 106, 107); the priests were chosen annually
by lot from among the principal families of the
city (cf. C. I. G. 2884, 2881): the chief of the
priestly body was called a reqavmºpópos, “crown-
bearer,” and it seems possible that he combined
with his religious office, either sometimes or
always, the position of chief magistrate of the
city, for we find him in one case admitting cer-
tain persons to citizenship (O. Rayet, p. 108);
besides these, there was a prophet, also annually
ordained. The temple had been rebuilt, but on
a scale so grand that the roof was never put on
(Strabo, xiv. p. 634). The oracle flattered Alex-
ander, and after him Seleucus Nicator, from
whom it received gifts; and from this time
onwards it rapidly became rich. In the year
74 B.C. it was pillaged by pirates, yet Strabe in
his visit still found it in a condition of great
magnificence. It seems (like the other Asiatic
oracles) to have been less affected by a decline
in prestige than the oracles in Greece proper;
and the Roman senate included it among those
religious institutions which it was legally per-
missible to endow with inheritances (Ulpian,
Fragm. xxii. 6). It shared in the oracular re-
vival of the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D., but
after the death of Julian fell irretrievably into
I'll 111.
9. Oracle of Claros. This was situated north
of Miletus, near Colophon. It was said to have
been founded by Cretans under Rhacius, who
were joined afterwards by a Theban colony sent
out under the auspices of the Delphic oracle, at
an extremely early date. Manto, daughter of
Tiresias, was among the Thebans; she married
Rhacius, and their son was the prophet Mopsus,
from whom the prophets of Claros may have
traced their descent ; but this is doubtful.
(Pausan. vii. 3, §§ 1, 2.) In later times, the
prophets were generally taken from Miletus
(Tac. Ann. ii. 54). The oracle at Claros had
its centre in a cave with a beautiful clear pool
in it, near a sacred wood, in which, it was said,
there were no serpents (Aelian, Hist. Anim.
x. 49). We hear but little of this oracle in
early times: Alexander was said to have been
encouraged by it in a design he had of rebuilding
Smyrna (Pausan. vii. 5, § 1). A prophet, who
drank the sacred water, was the revealer of the
divine will (Tac. l.c.) and pronounced oracles
in verse, answering the questioner without even
having heard the question. The cynic philoso-
pher Oenomaus of Gadara (in the 2nd century
A.D.) was, however, by no means impressed with
the truthfulness of the replies (Oenom, ap. Euseb.
Praep. Evang. v. 2). Germanicus consulted this
oracle, which was said to have prophesied his
death (Tac. l.c.); it was sometimes consulted
by letter (Ovid, Fast. i. 20); and it was patro-
mised by Apollonius of Tyana (Philostr. Wit.
Apoll. iv. 1) and Alexander of Abonotichos
(Lucian, Pseudom. 29). Inscriptions prove that
its fame extended even to Britain. Porphyry
(ad Aneb. p. 3) and Iamblichus (Myst. iii. 11)
speak of it, but after that time it is unmen-
tioned.
10. Oracle of Patara, in Lycia. The story
(not of course likely to be approved of at Delphi)
was that Apollo spent six months of the year
here (the winter time) and the six summer
months at Delos. (Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 401;
Servius ad Verg. Aen. iv. 143: cf. Herod.
i. 182.)
11. Oracle at Cyaneae, in Lycia. (The town
is mentioned in Pliny, v. § 101.) Here was an
oracle of Apollo Thyrxeus (perhaps = 6vpatos:
cf. Tertull. de coron. mil. 354), near which was
a well, into which any one looking saw “all
that he desired” (trévra ötróo a 6éAel, Pausan.
vii. 21, § 6).
12. Oracle at Seleucia, in Cilicia (cf. Steph.
Byz. s. v. Xexei Keta). Here Apollo was invoked
as “Sarpedonius” (from the neighbouring pro-
montory, dedicated to the hero Sarpedon). The
people of Palmyra, in the height of their pride
under Zenobia, asked this oracle if they could
conquer the empire of the East. It is not sur-
prising that they were repelled (Zosim. i. 57).
It would seem that this is the oracle called by
Strabo the oracle of Artemis Sarpedonia (xiv. 5,
§ 9).
13. Oracle at Hybla, near Magnesia (cf. Athen.
xv. § 13). Possibly the true name of this
oracle is Hylae (Pausan. x. 32, § 6). It seems
from its situation to be the same as that of
Hiera Kome, mentioned in Liv. xxxviii. 13.
14. Oracle at Gryneia or Grynium. The
principal oracle among the Aeolic cities of Asia
Minor. (Strabo, xiii. p. 622; Werg. Eclog. vi.
72; Aen. iv. 345; Pausan. i. 21, § 7; Athen. iv.
p. 149 d ; Hecat. Fragm. 211.) The town itself
is mentioned in Herodotus (i. 149), and appears
from Strabo to have been dependent on Myrina;
and as Myrina sent tribute to Delphi (Plut.
Pyth. Orac. 16), the Grynean oracle was no
doubt an offshoot from Delphi. (For an instance
of a consultation of this oracle, cf. C. J. G.
3538.)
ORACULUM
ORACULUM 289
15. Oracle of Apollo Napaeus (Natratos), near
Methymna in Lesbos. (Steph. Byz. s. v. Ndºrm;
Schol. Arist. Nub. 144; Macrob. i. 17, 45; cf.
Strabo, ix. p. 426.)
16. Oracle of Apollo Actaeus and Artemis at
Adrastaea, in the north of the Troad. (Strabo,
xiii. p. 588.)
17. Oracle at Zeleia, in the same neighbour-
hood (Tzetz. ad Lycophr. 315).
18. Oracle at Chalcedon (Dion. Byzant.
Anaplus Bospori, Fragm. 67: cf. C. J. G. 3794).
19. Oracle of Delos. The singularity of this
oracle is why it should not have existed in times
when oracles were most important. It appeared
to have every advantage; the Homeric hymn
to the Delian Apollo (v. 81) shows that from
the first it was designed to be an oracle; the
island itself had the highest celebrity for its
sacredness, and the religious ceremonials with
which it was honoured were scarcely surpassed
in Greece: yet an oracle it was not. When one
asks why this was, the answer must be con-
jectural. Probably the reason was, that it lay
out of the reach of those Greek races who had
the disposition suitable for originating oracles
(the Boeotians and Phocians), and was peculiarly
under the thumb of that race (the Athenians)
which was devoid of any such disposition. Under
some circumstances, it might have been a re-
ligious centre for the Ionians and Aeolians of
Asia Minor; but they probably found the sea-
voyage a deterrent, and they had their own
highly celebrated oracles (see above) derived
from Delphi. Not till the 2nd century B.C. is
any reference made (outside the brief allusion in
the Homeric hymn) to an oracle in the island.
Then Zeno of Rhodes speaks of the Rhodians
having inquired of this oracle (cf. Diod. v. 58).
But Virgil (Aen. iii. 90–93) gave it a far higher
reputation; though, considering the looseness
of the Roman poets in such points, his reference
has hardly any historical authority. The satiri-
cal allusion in Lucian (Bis accus. 1) is, however,
real evidence; and in a still later age Julian con-
sulted it (Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. iii. 16). When
one asks whether the oracle, such as it was, was
situated in the temple near the sea-shore or on
the top of Mount Cynthus, in the really ancient
shrine discovered by M. Lebègue (Recherches sur
Delos), the testimony of Himerius (Orat. xviii. 1)
seems to decide the point in favour of the latter.
The story that Apollo spent the six summer
months of the year at Delos, has already been
referred to under the head of the Oracle of
Patara.
20. Oracle at Abdera.
Lycophr. 445.)
21. Oracle of Apollo Deiradiotes, at Argos.
This is stated to have been an offshoot from
Delphi (Pausan. ii. 24); but in one point the cere-
monies differed remarkably from those of Delphi:
the priestess once a month sacrificed a lamb dur-
ing the night, and tasted the blood, in order to
obtain the prophetic ecstasy. This appears to
show that the oracle had a higher antiquity
than belonged to its Delphic origin, and was in
the first instance an oracle of the dead. It was
kept alive by the patriotism of the Argives,
always mindful of their primaeval renown, and
was still active in the time of Pausanias.
22. Oracle of Apollo Lycius, also at Argos.
The prophetess is said to have warned Pyrrhus,
WOL. II.
(Pindar, ap. Tzetzes,
just before his death (Plut. Pyrrh. 31). Pau-
sanias, however, does not mention this oracle,
and some doubt consequently attaches to it.
Except the two at Argos, there was no oracle of
Apollo in Peloponnesus: the neighbourhood of
Delphi overpowered minor establishments.
23. Oracle of Daphne, near Antioch in Syria.
A very late oracle, and of no good repute. The
prophetic fountain had here the name of Castalia,
and a bay-tree grew close by. Hadrian obtained
from this oracle a prophecy that he should be
emperor; but on his becoming such in reality,
he destroyed the fountain, lest any one else
should draw from it a similar augury. Julian
attempted to restore it, but the temple was
burnt down (accidentally, it seems) during the
struggle which he waged against the Christians,
and this practically meant the end of the oracle.
(Strabo, xv. p. 750; C. I. G. 1693; Sozom.
Bist. Eccles, v. 19; Amm. Marcell. xxii. 12, 8.)
Oracles of other Gods.
Though the overwhelming prestige of Apollo,
as the revealer of the will of his father Zeus to
men, tended to extinguish the prophetic function
of other divinities in the eyes of their adorers,
it could not quite succeed in doing so. To be a
god, and not to be able to predict the future,
was to fall so seriously beneath the divine level,
that the worshipper of Athene or Hermes would
never admit that the object of his worship
was reduced so low. Hence, scattered through
Greece, though few in number by comparison,
were the oracular seats of the other super-
natural powers of the upper or nether world;
the rites by which they were approached being
sometimes of a very singular nature.
The Earth, as has appeared already, was to
the primitive populations almost the chief dis-
closer of the future (thus, originally, at Delphi).
The oracle of Earth (yaſa) at Aegira in Achaia,
mentioned by Pliny (xxviii. § 147), may be a
mistake of that writer (cf. Pausan. vii. 25,
§ 13); but at Patrae, not far from Aegira,
Earth, associated with Demeter (i.e. Tº uſirmp)
and Persephone, gave oracles respecting the sick.
A mirror was let down by a rope into a sacred
well, so as to float upon the surface. Prayers
were then performed and incense offered, where-
upon the image of the sick person was seen in
the mirror either as a corpse or in a state of
recovery. (Pausan. ii. 24, § 1.)
A vague tradition of an oracle of the Nymphs
called Sphragitides existed on Mount Cithaeron
(Plut. Aristid. 11; Pausan. ix. 3, § 9). A
tradition of an oracle of Poseidon Hippios, at
Onchestus in Boeotia, is preserved in the Homeric
hymn to Apollo (230–238), with which compare
Pausan. ix. 26, § 5, and, as emphasising the
word Hippios, Hom. Il. xix. 405–417. An oracle
of Ino-Pasiphae, who seems to represent the
moon, existed in Laconia between Oetylus and
Thalamae; the revelation being made through
dreams (Pausan. iii. 26, § 1). The other oracle
of this deity mentioned by Pausanias, at Epi-
daurus Limera, seems hardly rightly so called.
[INOA.]
There was an oracle of Pluto and Core (Perse-
phone) at Acharaca, between Tralles and Nysa,
in Asia Minor, in the basin of the Maeander.
A large grove, a temple, and a cave called the
U
290 ORACULUM
ORACULUM
Charonium, were the seat of the oracle. “The
sick resort thither, and live in the village near
the cave, among experienced priests, who sleep
at night in the open air and direct the mode of
cure by their dreams. The priests invoke the
gods to cure the sick, and frequently take them
into the cave, where they remain in quiet with-
out food for several days. Sometimes the sick
themselves observe their own dreams, but apply
to the priests to interpret them. To others the
place is interdicted and fatal.” (Strabo, xiv.
p. 650, abridged.) The singular ceremony which
Strabo proceeds to narrate has no direct bearing
on the oracle. There appears to have been an
oracle of Pluto at Eana in Macedonia (cf. L.
Henzey, Mission archeol. de Macédoine, Inscr. N,
120).
An oracle of Dionysus existed at Amphicaea
or Amphicleia, in Phocis, to the north of Par-
nassus. Like the oracle at Acharaca, its function
was limited to the cure of the sick, and its mode
of operation was by dreams interpreted by an
inspired prophet (Pausan. x. 33, § 11). Another
oracle of Dionysus was at Satrae in Thrace, and
the prophets were called Bessi (Herod. vii. 111).
The oracles, however, were given by a pro-
phetess, “as at Delphi, and are not more
recondite,” says Herodotus. The oracle of
Dionysus in Thrace, mentioned by Pausanias
(ix. 30, § 9), may perhaps be the same as the
one just mentioned.
Oracles of Pan were to be found at Troezen
(Pausan. ii. 32, § 6), and in the cave at Paneas,
one of the principal sources of the river Jordan
(C. I. G. 4539); the oracles were given through
dreams. An oracle of Aphrodite existed at
Paphos in Cyprus, and was consulted by Titus
(Tac. Hist. ii. 3, 4). An oracle of Hera Acraea
(i.e. the goddess of the hill-tops) was between
Lechaeon and Pagae, on the gulf of Corinth
(Strabo, viii. p. 380).
Hermes, from his close connexion with Apollo,
was a god that might be expected to give
oracles: this power, however, in the Homeric
hymn to Hermes, 552 sqq., is only accorded to
him in a limited degree by the more exalted
deity. He had an oracle at Pharae in Achaia,
where his altar stood in the middle of the
market-place. Incense was offered there, oil
lamps were lighted before it, a copper coin was
placed upon the altar, and after this the question
was put to the god by a whisper in his ear.
The person who consulted him immediately left
the market-place. The first remark that he
heard made by any one after leaving the market-
place was believed to imply the answer of
Hermes (Pausan. vii. 22, § 2). This mode of
oracular disclosure was so much associated with
Hermes that he received the name of KAemöövlos
from it; as we learn from an inscription found
at Pitane, near Smyrna (Le Bas et Waddington,
Voyage archéol. v. 1724"). Hence it is probable
that the KAmöðvøy ispöv at Smyrna, mentioned
by Pausanias (ix. 11, § 7), was an oracle of
Hermes.
Athene, the goddess of rational valour, had
scarcely any oracles; though Plato, identifying
her with the Egyptian Neith, says that she in-
troduced into Greece “prophecy and medicine”
(Plato, Tim. p. 24 C). Characteristically enough,
the only oracle attributed to her is to the effect
of “Help thyself, and heaven will help thee.”
(Zenob. Cent. v. 93; Diogenian. Cent. viii. 11;
Suidas, s. v. Thu Xeºpa; cf. Babr. 20.)
Oracles of Heroes.
Asclepius (Aesculapius) lies almost half-way
between gods and heroes; still he may be more
properly reckoned among the latter. And the
oracular seats where he was believed to instruct
men are of peculiar interest, because they furnish
the meeting-point between religion and science,
as those were conceived in the classical Greek
world. For, on the one hand, he was thought
of as the god of healing, the son of Apollo,
begotten by Apollo that he might heal bodily
sicknesses (Menand. Rhet. Epidict. p. 327;
Olympiod. Vit. Plat. p. 4, 42); in whose temples
the sick would spend a night in hope of being
miraculously relieved by the morning (Pausan-
ii. 27, § 2). This aspect of him had a tendency
to gain ground; to Aeschylus (Agam. 1022)
and Pindar (Pyth. iii. 96) he is a faulty man;
Aristophanes (Plutus, 662 sqq.), with all his
mockery, treats Asclepius as a god. But, on the
other hand, Asclepius was the legendary father
of a crowd of descendants, the Asclepiadae, who,
in whatever degree they considered religious
communications important for success in the
healing art, had genuinely scientific qualities
(Plato, Rep. iii. p. 405 sqq.; MEDICINA). These
two phases of the doctrine and practice con-
nected with the name of Asclepius were so
intermingled, that they cannot now be separated.
Epidaurus was the chief seat of the religious
worship; there Asclepius had a temple and a
grove, and a magnificent gold and ivory statue,
and innumerable votive tablets on the walls.
attested the cures wrought on sick persons by
the method of incubation (Pausan. ii. 26, 27).
But at Cos the medical school culminated, and
there Hippocrates, the first great light of medical
science, lived, and wrote. Yet Epidaurus and
Cos were not hostile to one another, and we read
of an embassy sent by the Epidaurians to the
Asclepius of Cos (Pausan. iii. 23, § 6). We
must assume that in the generality of the shrines
of Asclepius (of which nearly a hundred are
reckoned ; cf. Th. Panofka, Asclepios und die
Asclepiaden, pp. 271–361) the religious element,
the prophecy by dreams and incubation, greatly
outweighed the scientific. It is a question of
much interest why,. in view of the paucity of
oracles of ordinary gods, other than Apollo, so
remarkable an exception should be found in the
case of Asclepius. The theory was (Menand.
Rhet. and Olympiod. l.c.) that Apollo committed
to Asclepius this part of his functions; but it is
impossible to suppose that persons erecting a
temple to Asclepius had any clear theory of
delegation. No doubt the truth is, that the
worship of Asclepius was antecedent to the
worship of Apollo, and his emblem, the snake,
had an origin quite distinct from the Apolline
worship; and his affiliation to Apollo was a device
of the worshippers of Apollo, in order that they
might appropriate a power that they could not
expel. At Pergamus, another great seat of
Asclepius, the celebrated physician Galen, start-
ing from pure faith in the oracular cures, taught
himself principles of more exact medical science.
In the year 293 B.C. the Sibylline books com-
manded the Romans to “seek Asclepius at
ORACULUM
ORACULUM 291
Epidaurus.” They did so, and brought away a
mysterious serpent; then, on the spot where this
serpent disappeared, they built a temple to
Asclepius (Aesculapius). Oracles were given
there through dreams, and miracles performed
(C. I. G. 5977, 5980). Serapis was joined with
Aesculapius in the worship at this temple (Suet.
Claud. 25). This also was the case at Pergamus.
F. A. Wolf (Vermischte Schriften, pp. 382 sqq.)
endeavours to show that mesmerism was used
in the curative rites of Asclepius; but the expe-
riences of Aelius Aristides hardly bear this out.
Oracles of Heracles. One was at Hyettus in
Boeotia (Pausan. ix. 36, § 6); another at Bura,
in Achaia. Those who consulted it prayed and
put their questions, and then cast four dice
painted with figures, and the answer was given
according to the position of these figures (Pausan.
vii. 25, §6). Another oracle of Heracles was at
Gades (Dio Cass. lxxvii. 20). Like Asclepius,
Heracles was almost to be reckoned as a god ;
had he been merely the Greek son of Zeus and
Alcmena, this would not have been so : but he
was identified with foreign deities, such as
Melkart.
Oracle of Trophonius at Lebadea. One of the
most celebrated of the Greek oracles, and in a
place of sombre and impressive aspect, in Boeotia.
There were different versions of the legend of
Trophonius: the most dignified (found in Plut.
Consol. ad Apoll. 14) tells us that Trophonius
and Agamedes built the temple of Delphi, and,
upon desiring a reward of the god, he told them
that he would give them one on the seventh
day; on which day they were found dead.
Apollo made Trophonius a prophet ; and the
Boeotians were bidden to consult him at Lebadea
on the means to put an end to a drought that
afflicted the land. A swarm of bees led them to
the sacred cave, and the oracle was established
(Pausan. ix. 40, 1, 2). The rites necessary
before consulting it were complicated and ter-
rifying. First, the consultants had to purify
themselves by spending some days in the sanc-
tuary of the good spirit and good luck ('A'ya.000
Aaiuovos kal &ya07s Túxms); to live soberly
and purely; to abstain from warm baths, but
to bathe in the river Hercyna; to offer sacrifices
to Trophonius and his children, to Apollo, Cronos,
king Zeus, to Here who holds the reins (Heni-
ocha), and to Demeter Europe, who was said to
have nursed Trophonius; and during each of
these sacrifices a soothsayer examined the en-
trails of the victim. On the last night, the
consultant had to sacrifice a ram to Agamedes.
Only in the event of all the signs being favour-
able was admission to the cave granted. If it
were granted: two boys, 13 years old, led the
consultant again to the river Hercyna, and
bathed and anointed him. The priests then
made him drink from the well of Lethe, that
he might forget all his former thoughts, and
from the well of Mnemosyne, that he might
remember the visions he was about to receive.
They showed him an ancient statue of Tro-
phonius, which he adored; led him to the
sanctuary, dressed him in linen garments, with
girdles and a peculiar kind of shoes (kpmſtröes);
and bade him descend a ladder into the cave.
Close to the bottom was an opening into which
he put his foot; some invisible power then drew
his whole body through the opening. In each
hand he held a honeycake to appease the sub-
terranean deities. The vision then seen by him
was carefully remembered, and told to the
priests on his remounting to the light; and
when he had recovered from his fears, the
priests informed him of the meaning of the
oracle. (Pausan. ix. 39, § 3 sqq.; cf. Philostr.
Wit. Apoll. viii. 19.) But the vision sometimes
left men melancholy for a long time. Epa-
minondas consulted this oracle just before the
battle of Leuctra, and received from it the
shield of Aristomenes, the Messenian hero
(Pausan. iv. 32, §§ 5, 6). It preserved a certain
reputation even down to the time of Plutarch
(de Orac. Defect. 5), though Sulla had plundered
it. It was much consulted by the Romans
(Origen, c. Celsus, vii. p. 355). Lebadea is the
origin of the modern Livadia.
Oracle of Tiresias at Orchomemus.
de Orac. Defect. 44.)
Oracles of Amphiaraus. Thebes and Oropus
(on the Euripus) contended for the honour of
possessing the spot in which the hero Amphia-
raus was swallowed up by the earth. Hence
there were two oracles at which he was invoked:
one between Thebes and Potniae, the other in a
narrow valley close to the sea, between Oropus
and Psaphis (Strabo, ix. 1, § 22). The first was
the one consulted by Croesus; it was among the
seven to which he proposed his test question,
and it was even said to have given an answer
not altogether wrong (Herod. i. 46, 49). Hence
the Thebans possessed the golden shield and
spear presented by Croesus (Herod. i. 52) to
this oracle; they placed these gifts, however,
not in the temple of Amphiaraus, but in the
temple of Apollo Ismenius. Moreover, the
Thebans would not themselves consult this
oracle ; they affirmed that the hero was their
ally, and that they would not disturb his im-
partiality (Herod. viii. 134). This looks like a
pretext to cover a feeling of hostility; Amphia-
raus had fought against the Thebans. Pausanias
(ix. 8, § 2) tells us that the grass round this
temple, and the columns of it, were the scene of
a perpetual miracle; cattle would not crop the
one, nor birds settle upon the other: doubtless
as a proof of the genuineness of the tradition
attached to the spot. The oracles were given
through dreams to persons sleeping in the
temple (Herod. viii. 134): they had to prepare
themselves for this incubatio by fasting one day,
and by abstaining from wine for three days
(Philostr. Wit. Apoll. ii. 37).
At the other oracle, that of Oropus, were two
sacred wells and an altar of elaborate workman-
ship (Pausan. i. 34, §§ 2 sqq.). It was especially
consulted by the sick, who had to purify them-
selves and sacrifice a ram ; on the skin of which
they afterwards slept in the temple. The means
of recovery was then supposed to be intimated
to them in dreams. If they recovered, they
had to throw some pieces of money into the
well within the sanctuary. The sacred ground
alleged to belong to this oracle was the subject
of a curious controversy, which occasioned the
speech of Hyperides pro Euwenippo.
Oracle of Hemithea, at Castabos in the Carian
Chersonese. (Diodor. v. 62, 63.)
Oracle of Mopsus, otherwise called the oracle
of Amphilochus, at Mallos in Cilicia. The two
rival seers, Mopsus and Amphilochus, * slain
U
(Plut.
292 ORACULUM
ORACULUM
each other, and their oracles, which were adja-
cent, had great celebrity in times succeeding the
commencement of our era, and one of the most
curious stories connected with oracles is told of
that of Mopsus by Plutarch (de Orac. Defect. 45.
See also Pausan, i. 34, § 3; Lucian, Pseudom.
28; Tertullian, de An. 46; Dio Cass. lxxii.7).
Öracles of Calchas and Podalirius, on Mount
Drion, in South Italy (Daunia). The character
and ceremonial of these oracles were similar to
each other, and also to the oracle of Amphiaraus
at Oropus (see above). (Strabo, Yi. P. 284)
Oracle of Protesilaus, at Elaeus, in the
Thracian Chersonese. This oracle is not men-
tioned till the 3rd century A.D. by Philostratus
(Heroic. ii. 6), and probably was of recent date
then.
Oracle of Autolycus (an Argonaut, and not
the celebrated thief) at Sinope. (Strabo, xii.
p. 545.)
Oracle of Odysseus, in Aetolia.
Lycophr. 799.)
Oracle of Menestheus, the
Aeneas, near Gades, in Spain.
140.)
Oracles of Neryllinus, in the Troad, and of
Proteus at Parium (Athenagor. Supplic. pro
Christ. 26). The oracles are said to have been
localised in statues.
The oracle which Alexander of Abonotichos
endeavoured to found in the age of the Anto-
nines can hardly be reckoned among the number,
as it died with him.
(Tzetz. ad
companion of
(Strabo, iii. p.
Oracles of the Dead.
It was thought that at certain places, where
deep openings were seen in the solid earth, the
shades of the dead could rise from their sub-
terranean abode, and give answers to the living.
Such a place was called vervouavreſov or ºvXo-
Troputrefov. The most ancient oracular seat of
this kind was near lake Aornos among the
Thesprotians. (Herod. v. 92, § 7; Diodor. iv.
22; Pausan. ix. 30, § 3.) Periander, the sage
and tyrant, had recourse to this. Another cele-
brated Greek, Pausanias the Spartan king,
sought relief for his troubled spirit at Phigalia
in Arcadia, by summoning the shade of Cleonice
(Pausan. iii. 17, §§ 8, 9). Taenarus, in the
south of Laconia, presented in its cave another
such oracular seat; thither the slayer of Archi-
lochus, the poet, was sent by the Delphic oracle
(Plut. de Sera num, vind. 17). Heraclea on the
Propontis was another seat of the kind (Plut.
Cimon, 6). As at other oracles, sacrifice was
necessary before the shade could be moved to
appear; and also prayers (Hom. Od. xi. 23–37).
Italian Oracles.
Generally speaking, Oracles, in the sense of
special places where divine answers were given
to men, were not known to the Italian nations.
Their modes of divination were different. (Of
course, such oracles as those of Calchas and
Podalirius mentioned above, or that of Aescu-
lapius at Rome, were of Greek origin.) Yet if
we could trust the poets, there were true oracular
seats of Faunus at Albunea (Verg. Aen. vii. 81
sqq.) and on the Aventine (Ovid, Fast. iv. 650
sqq.). Wirgil was so imbued with Greek models
that his historical authority on such a point is
very small. That of Ovid is better; but on the
whole there is no sufficient proof of anything
that can be called an oracular seat of Faunus.
It is noticeable, that while Virgil makes his
oracle complete by bringing in a priest, this
essential mark of a fixed place of revelation is
absent in Ovid. Moreover, in the somewhat
similar passage, Fast. iii. 295 sqq., Numa sacri:
fices, not to Faunus, but to the fountain; and
certainly here it can hardly be thought that an
oracular seat of Faunus is indicated. Similarly,
the tradition preserved by Dionysius of Hali-
carnassus (i. 14), that at Tiora Matiene, one of
the aboriginal cities of Italy, a woodpecker
used to perch on a wooden column and pronounce
oracles given by Mars, cannot be considered as
evidence of a real historical oracular seat.
But the temples of Fortune at Praeneste and
Antium were real oracles, and the only instances
in Italy. The story of the foundation of the
Praenestine oracle is told by Cicero, de Div.
ii. 41, 85. A noble Praenestine, Numerius
Suffucius, was bidden by a dream to cleave open
a rock; upon his doing so a large number of
wooden “lots” (sortes) fell out, inscribed with
antique characters. At the same time honey
flowed out of an olive-tree near ; and at the
bidding of the haruspices, the olive-tree was
carved into a wooden box, and the lots were
enclosed in it. This took place near an image
of the infant Jupiter, who was represented
(with Juno) as sucking the breast of Fortune
(who must be regarded, not as in our sense of
the word, but as Primigenia, the origin of life.
The Romans borrowed this characterisation of
Fortune: cf. Liv. xxix. 36, xxxiv. 53). Once a
year, in the month of April, a two-days’ festival
was held at Praeneste in honour of Fortune and
Jupiter, the box was opened, and a child drew
out the lots at random (Cic. l.c.; Kal. Praenest.
iii. Id. April). See, for further mention of the
“lots” of Praeneste, Propert. ii. 32, 3; Suet.
Tib. 63, Domit. 15 ; Strabo, v. p. 238.
The temple of Fortune at Antium has been
made famous by Horace (Od. i. 29, 1). Two
sister Fortunes were represented, and were said
to give the oracles by bending their heads
(Macrob. Sat, i. 23, 13: compare Suet. Caliq. 57,
and Ernesti’s note on the passage). Martial
calls them veridicae sorores (v. 1, 3).
At Caere (Liv. xxi. 62) and Foierii (Liv. xxii.
1) there appear also to have been “lots’ from
which omens were derived.
On the Roman oracles, Niebuhr, Hist. of
Rome, vol. i. p. 508, &c.; Hartung, Die Relig.
der Römer, vol. i. p. 96 (besides Bouché-
Leclercq's work mentioned below), may be
consulted.
Egyptian and Syrian Oracles.
A brief mention may be made of these, in so
far as they touch Greek or Roman history.
The connexion of Serapis with Asclepius has:
been already mentioned. But the oracles of
Serapis himself at Alexandria (Tac. Hist, iv.
81–84; Suet. Vesp. 7; Dio Chrysost. Orat.
xxxii.), at Canopus (Strabo, xvii. p. 801), and
probably at Memphis (see Bouché - Leclercq,
vol. iii. pp. 385–6), had great fame. So had
the oracle of Apis at Memphis (Diog. Laert.
ORACULUM
ORATIONES PRINCIPUM 293
viii. 90 ; Amm. Marcell. xxii. 14; Plin. viii.
§ 46; Dio Chrysost. Orat. xxxii. 13), and of Isis
at Philae (C. I. G. 4894–4947).
Of Syrian oracles, that of Heliopolis (Baalbek)
is mentioned by Macrobius (Sat. i. 23, 13, and
i. 17, 66), that of Hierapolis by Lucian (Dea
Syr. 36): in each of these the Sun was the
revealing deity. At Nicephorium on the
Euphrates an oracle of Zeus is mentioned in
the Augustan history (Hadrian, 2); how far the
oracle was Greek, how far Syrian, is uncertain.
It will suffice to mention the oracles at Apamea
(Dio Cass. lxxviii. 8 and 40), at Gaza (Steph.
Byz. s. v. Taça, and Act. Bolland. Februar. iii.
p. 654), and Aphaca (Zosim. i. 58). A reference
to the singular story related by Gregory of
Nyssa respecting the oracle at Neocaesarea in
Pontus (Greg. Nyss. iii. pp. 915, 916, Migne)
may conclude this article.
The most complete work on the subject of
oracles is Bouché-Leclercq's Divination dans
l’Antiquite (Paris, 1879–1882). Great use of
this work has been made in the present article;
the whole subject is elucidated by it in a very
remarkable manner. The author's proofs of his
views are sometimes rather scattered, and there
are some inaccuracies in the quotation-references
in the notes. His disposition is to be somewhat
too severe on the Delphic oracle; and his views
respecting the origin of the Peleiades at Dodona,
and the antiquity of the oracle of Branchidae,
have not been followed in this article. His
work, however, must always be an authority.
Other works on oracles that may be mentioned
are Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterthum. ii. p. 585,
&c.; Klausen, in Ersch and Gruber's Encyclop.
s. v. Orakel; A. Maury, Histoire des Religions de
la Grèce antique, vol. ii. ch. xiii. Paris, 1857;
K. F. Hermann, Jehrbuch der griechischen Anti-
quitäten, ii.” (1858), §§ 37–41; E. Curtius, Die
JHellenische Mantik (Göttingen, 1864); L. H. de
Fontaine, De divinitatis origine et progress",
Rostock, 1867; and an interesting essay by
F. W. H. Myers, in Hellenica, pp. 425–492,
London, 1880, since republished among the
author's essays.
On Dodona specially, the important works of
C. Carapanos (Mémoire sur Dodone et le Culte de
Jupiter Naios, 1877, and Dodone et ses ruines,
Paris, 1878) take the first place. Besides these,
may be mentioned Cordes, de Oraculo Dodonaeo,
Gröningen, 1826; J. Arneth, Ueber das Tauben-
orakel von Dodona, Wien, 1840; L. von Lassaulx,
Das Pelagische Orakel des Zeus zu Dodona,
Würzburg, 1840; L. Preller, Dodona, 1842, in
Pauly's Real-Encyclop. ii. pp. 1190–1195 : F. D.
von Gerlach, Dodona, Basel, 1859; G. Perthes,
JDie Peleiaden zu Dodona, Merseb. 1869; H. R.
Pontow, Die Orakelinschriften von Dodona, in
Fleckeisen's Neue Jahrbücher für Philologie, for
1883, pp. 305-360. This last work is, it will
be seen, subsequent to the discoveries of M.
Carapanos.
On Delphi specially, it is impossible to quote
a quarter of the works written during this
century. But these may be mentioned: C. F.
Wilster, De Religione et Oraculo Apollinis
Delphici, Hafniae, 1827; H. Piotrowski, De
gravitate Oraculi Delphici, Lipsiae, 1829; R. H.
Klausen, in Ersch und Gruber's Encyclopädie,
s. v. Orakel; D. Hüllmann, Würdigung des
Delphischen Orakels, Bonn, 1837; W. Götte, Das
Delphische Orakel, &c., Leipzig, 1839; L. Preller,
art. Delphi, 1842 (Pauly's Real Encyclopäaie, ii.
pp. 909–919); J. Kayser, Delphi, Darmstadt,
1855; P. Foucart, Memoire sur les Ruines et
l'histoire de Delphes, Paris, 1865; A. Mommsen,
Delphika, Leipzig, 1878.
Other works on oracles in general, and the
particular oracles, will be found referred to in
the above-mentioned treatise of Bouché-Le-
clercq. [J. R. M.]
ORARIUM. [SUDARIUM.]
ORATIONES PRI'NCIPUM. Many of the
orationes of the Roman emperors, such as are
quoted by the Augustae historiae scriptores, are
merely communications to the senate, e.g. the
announcement of a victory (Capitol. Maacim. duo,
12, 13), but those which are the subject
of this note relate to legislation only. Under
the earlier emperors the orationes were projets
de loi submitted by the princeps either personally
or by memorandum (epistola, libellus: e.g. Dig.
5, 3, 22; 24, 1, 32; 27, 9, 1) to the senate,
which in appearance, though not in reality, still
possessed legislative power: the consuls, as
presidents of the assembly, would then open a
discussion on the proposal (e.g. Dig. 5, 3, 20, 6),
which we cannot doubt was invariably embodied
in a senatusconsultum with little or no altera-
tion, and so constitutionally invested with the
force of law. Instances are found in Gaius
(ii. 285), “ex oratione divi Hadriani senatus-
consultum factum est; ” and in Dig. 23, 2, 16
(Paulus), “oratione divi Marci . . . . quam sena-
tusconsultum secutum est.”
But the fact that, either through his jus
edicendi, or in virtue of the Lex Curiata de
Imperio, the emperor's own ordinances had the
force of law, and the ostentatious unwillingness
of the senate to make even a false show of inde-
pendence by pretending to discuss his legislative
proposals, gradually led to the recognition of
the oratio as itself law, apart from the senatus-
consultum which was founded on it: so that the
two are often cited indifferently by the classical
jurists—the oratio as containing the reason or
grounds of the law, the senatusconsultum for
its particular terms and provisions (e.g. Dig. 2,
15, 8; 23, 2, 60; 5, 3, 20, 22, 40; 11, 4, 3: so
too “divi Pertinacis oratione cautum est,” Inst.
ii. 17, 7): and the actual consultation of the
senate gradually sank into a merely formal
acclamation. As to the mode of communication,
unless the emperor delivered the oratio in
person, which seems not to have been very
usual, it was embodied in an epistola or libellus
(Dig. 5, 3, 20, 22), which was read to the senate
by one of the quaestors (Dig. 1, 13): for in-
stance, Suetonius (Tit. 6) says that Titus some-
times read his father's orationes in the Senate
“quaestoris vice,” and the practice is frequently
referred to : e.g. Suet. Aug. 65; Tac. Ann. iii.
52, xvi. 7; Dio Cass. liv. 25, lx. 2. The mode
of proceeding upon the receipt of one of these
orationes may be collected from the preamble of
the senatusconsultum in Dig. 5, 3; and when it
was drawn up with much regard to detail, the
subsequent senatusconsultum was clearly a
simple reproduction of its terms.
It is not quite clear when the practice of
formally giving the force of law to orationes by
embodying them in senatusconsulta went out of
use. Senatusconsulta originating in this manner
294 ORATOR
ORATOR
are found in the reigns of Septimius Severus
and his son Caracalla (e.g. Dig. 24, 1, 32), but
under the Christian emperors the oratio appears
simply as one of the modes of publishing or
promulgating emperor-made law, by addressing
it to the senate (“leges, quae missae ad venera-
bilem coetum oratione conduntur,” Cod. 1, 14, 3:
cf. Cod. Theod. 4, 1, 1): if addressed to a
magistrate, it would rather be called mandatum
or rescriptum ; if “ad populum ” or “ad omnes
populos,” an edictum or edictalis constitutio.
Genuine senatusconsulta now occur only in rela-
tion to the senatorial games or other burdens
which the senate had to bear as a corporation
(Symmach. x. 28, 10).
There has been much discussion on the amount
of the influence exercised by these orationes on
the legislation of the senate. But it seems to
be tolerably clear, from the evidence that we
have and from the nature of the case, that the
oratio might recommend generally some legisla-
tive measure and leave the details to the senate,
or it might contain all the details of the pro-
posed measure, and so be in substance, though
not in form, a senatusconsultum : and it would
become a senatusconsultum on being adopted by
the senate, which, in the case supposed, would
be merely a matter of form. [SENATUSCON-
SULTUM.] In the case of an oratio expressed
in more general terms, there is no reason to
suppose that the emperor's recommendation
was less of a command : it was merely a
command in more general terms. (See Dirk-
sen, Ueber die Reden der röm. Kaiser und deren
JEinfluss auf die Gesetzgebung, in Rhein. Mus, fir
Jurisprudenz, vol. ii., and Vermischte Schriften,
part i., No. vi. [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
ORATOR. Cicero remarks (Or. Part.c. 28,
100) that “a certain kind of causes belong to
Jus Civile, and that Jus Civile is conversant
about statutes (lea) and custom (mos) apper-
taining to things public and private, the know-
ledge of which, though neglected by most
orators, seems to me to be necessary for the
purposes of oratory.” In his treatise on the
Orator, and particularly in the first book, Cicero
has given his opinion of the duties and requisite
qualifications of an orator in the form of a
dialogue, in which Lucius Licinius Crassus and
M. Antonius are the chief speakers. Crassus
was himself a model of the highest excellence
in oratory; and the opinions attributed to him
as to the qualifications of an orator were those
of Cicero himself, who in the introductory part
of his first book (c. 6) declares that “in his
opinion no man can deserve the title of a perfect
orator unless he has acquired a knowledge of all
important things and of all arts: for it is out
of knowledge that oratory must blossom and
expand, and if it is not founded on matter which
the orator has fully mastered and understood, it
is idle talk, and may almost be called puerile.”
According to Crassus, the province of the orator
embraces everything: he must be able to speak
well on all subjects. Consequently he must
have a knowledge of the Jus Civile (i. 44, 197),
the necessity for which Crassus illustrates by
instances; and he should not only know the Jus
Civile, as being necessary when he has to speak
in causes relating to private matters and to
privata judicia, but he should also have a know-
ledge of the Jus Publicum, which is conversant
about a state as such, and he should be familiar
with the events of history and instances derived
from the experience of the past. Antonius
(i. 49, 213) limits the qualifications of the orator
to the command of language pleasant to the ear
and of arguments adapted to convince in causes
in the forum and on ordinary occasions. He
further requires the orator to have competent
voice and action and sufficient grace and ease.
In i. 58, 246, he contends that an orator does
not require a knowledge of the Jus Civile, in
support of which he instances himself, for
Crassus allowed that Antonius could satisfac-
torily conduct a cause, though Antonius, accord-
ing to his own admission, had never learnt the
Jus Civile, and had never felt the want of it in
such causes as he had defended.
The profession then of the orator, who with
reference to a client's case is also called patronus
(de Orat. i. 56, 237; Brut. 38, 143), was quite
distinct from that of the consulting lawyer
[JURISCONSULTI), and also from that of the
advocatus, at least in the time of Cicero (ii. 74,
301), and even later (de Orat. dial. 34). The
advocatus assisted a party with legal advice, and
accompanied him into court, though there his
assistance was not active, being limited to the
effect which might be produced by the mere
fact of his reputation; but after the fall of the
Republic the functions of advocatus and pa-
tronus or orator are confused, as the greater
jurists ceased to go into court. An orator, who
possessed a competent knowledge of the civil
law, would have thereby an advantage, as
Antonius admits (i. 59, 251); but as there were
many essentials to an orator, which were diffi-
cult of attainment, he says that it would be
unwise to distract him with other things. Some
requisites of oratory, such as voice and gesture,
could be acquired only by discipline: whereas a
competent knowledge of the law of a case
(juris utilitas) could be got at any time from a
jurisconsult or from books. Antonius thinks
that in this matter the Roman acted more
wisely than the Greek orators, who, being
ignorant of law, had the assistance of low
fellows who worked for hire, and were called
Pragmatici (i. 45): the Roman orators entrusted
the maintenance of the law to the high charac-
ter of their professed jurists.
So far as the profession of an advocate consists
in the skilful conduct of a cause, and in the
supporting of his own side of a question by
proper argument, it must be admitted with
Antonius that a very moderate knowledge of
law is sufficient; and indeed even a purely legal
argument requires not so much the accumula-
tion of a vast store of legal knowledge as the
power of handling the matter when it has been
collected. The method in which this consum-
mate master of his art managed a cause is stated
by himself (de Orat. ii. 72,292); and in another
passage (Brut. 37, 129) Cicero has recorded his
merits as an orator. Servius Sulpicius, who
was the greatest lawyer of his age, had a good
practical knowledge of the law; but others had
this also, and what distinguished him from all
his contemporaries was something else: “Many
others as well as Sulpicius had a great know-
ledge of the law: he alone possessed it as an
art. But the knowledge of law by itself would
never have helped him to this without the
ORATOR
ORDO 295
possession of that art which teaches us to ture. The fragments of the Roman orators,
divide the whole of a thing into its parts, by
exact definition to develop what is imperfectly
seen, by explanation to clear up what is obscure :
first of all to see ambiguities, then to disen-
tangle them, lastly to have a rule by which
truth and falsehood are distinguished, and by
which it shall appear what consequences follow
from premisses, and what do not ” (Brut. 41,
152). With such a power Sulpicius combined a
knowledge of letters and a pleasing style of
speaking. As a forensic orator then he must
have been one of the first that ever lived: but
still among the Romans his reputation was that
of a jurist, while Antonius, who had no know-
ledge of the law, is put on a level as an orator
(patronus) with L. Crassus, who of all the
eloquent men of Rome had the best acquaintance
with the law.
How serious a study oratory was among the
Romans is attested by Cicero, who (Brut. 91,
&c.) tells us by what painful labour he achieved
excellence. Roman oratory reached its perfec-
tion in the century which preceded the Christian
era: its decline dates from the establishment of
the imperial power under Augustus and his
successors: for though there were many good
speakers and more skilful rhetoricians under the
Empire, the oratory of the Republic was ren-
dered by circumstances unsuitable for the senate,
for the popular assemblies, or for cases of crime
and high misdemeanour. Upon this subject, see
Savigny, History of the Roman Law in the
Middle Ages, i. p. 25.
In the Dialogue de Oratoribus, which is attri-
buted (no doubt rightly) to Tacitus, Messala,
one of the speakers, attempts (c. 28, &c.) to
assign the reasons for the low level of oratory
in the time of Vespasian (when the Dialogue
was written) compared with its condition in the
age of Cicero and his predecessors. He attributes
its decline to the neglect of the discipline under
which children were formerly brought up, and
to the practice of resorting to rhetores, who
professed to teach the art of oratory. This
gives occasion to speak more at length of the
early discipline of the old orators, and of Cicero's
course of study as described in the Brutus.
The old orators (c. 34) learnt their art by
constant attendance on some eminent orator,
and by actual experience of business: the
orators of Messala’s time were formed in the
schools of Rhetoric, and their powers were
developed by exercises on fictitious matters.
These however, it is obvious, were only secon-
dary causes. The immediate causes appear to be
indicated by Maternus, another speaker in the
Dialogue, who attributes the former flourishing
condition of eloquence to the political influence
which oratory conferred on its possessor under
the Republic, and to the party struggles and
even the violence that are incident to such a
social condition. The allusion to the effect
produced by the establishment of the Empire is
clear enough in the following words, which
refer both to the Imperial and the Republican
periods: “Cum mixtis omnibus et moderatore
auno carentibus, tantum quisque orator Saperet,
quantum erranti populo persuaderi poterat.”
The memorials of Roman oratory are the
speeches of Cicero: but they are only a small
portion of the great mass of oratorical litera-
from Appius Caecus and M. Porcius Cato to
Q. Aurelius Symmachus, have been collected
by H. Meyer, Zürich, 1 vol. 8vo, 2nd edit.,
1842. [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
ORBUS. [LEGEs JULIAE, p. 45 a.]
ORCA. [SITELLA.]
ORCHE'SIS (àpxmoris). [SALTATIO.]
ORCHESTRA. [THEATRUM.]
ORCI'NUS LIBERTUS. [MANUMISSIo.]
ORCI'NUS SENATOR. [SENATUs.]
ºpºsaurus JUDEX. [JudEx PEDA-
NEUS. -
ORDINATIUS SERVUS. [SERVUs]
ORDO, “properly ‘the row,’ appears most
clearly in its original concrete signification in
the banks of oars in a ship, in the tiers of tiles
on a roof, or in the benches of a theatre’
(Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. p. 459).
In a military sense the word ordo (or its
Greek equivalent rôypia, Polyb. vi. 24, 5) is used
of the manipulus of two centuries (see Liv.
viii. 8); Ordinem ducere means “to be a centu-
rion,” two of whom held joint command in each
maniple (Cic. Phil. i. 8, 20; cf. Liv. xlii. 34, 5),
and ordinarius is said (Festus, s. v.) to be equi-
valent to manipularis in the sense of “a man in
the ranks.” From this military usage is doubt-
less derived the phrase in ordinem cogere, which
must originally have meant “to reduce a man
to the ranks,” but which is generally used of
one who treats with contempt the person or
office of a magistrate (Liv. xxv. 3, 19; xliii.
16, 9). It is doubtful whether the word ordo
in Cicero's descriptions of the Servian Comitia
Centuriata (“pecunias aevitates ordines partiunto
equitum peditumque,” “ descriptis ordinibus
classibus aetatibus,” “omnium aetatum ordi-
numque suffragiis’) is to be explained with
Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 253, n. 1) as meaning
“century,” or whether it is to be taken (as
seems more probable) merely to indicate the
two great categories of horse and foot.
In a less technical sense the word is used of
any distinct class of persons, as by Cicero (Verr.
ii. 6, 17), “si cuiquam ordini sive aratorum
sive pecuariorum sive mercatorum probatus sit,”
especially when, as in these cases (ib. 55,137),
the class has a common interest and habits of
common action. But it seems to have been felt
that it was an improper use of the word, when
the category so designated had nothing else in
common save the single characteristic indicated
in its appellation. Cicero, for instance (in the
passage last referred to), seems to deny that the
term can be correctly applied to the collective
censors of the Sicilian states, or again (Phil. vi.
5, 14) to all the persons who have ever served as
military tribunes. It is possibly on this ground
that the word does not appear to signify the
Roman magistrates taken collectively, nor the
various grades in the senate, consulares, prae-
torii, &c.; though, in a more general sense,
Livy (xxiii. 23, 4) can use it of the categories of
persons chosen into the senate — “ut ordo
ordini, non homo homini praelatus videretur.”
It seems improbable that we can speak of the
Roman priests collectively as ordo Sacerdotum ;
if these words had habitually borne any such
meaning, Festus (s. v.) would hardly have used
them in an entirely different sense (“the table
of precedence among the priests”). The in-
296 ORDO
ORDO
scription (C. J. L. vi. 2010) in which ordo
sacerdotum occurs merely shows that certain
officials of the imperial household formed them-
selves into a religious guild which they thought
fit to call by this name. It is very rare again
to find ordo designating either of the great
classes of “patrician * and “plebeian,” though
there are exceptions, as where Capito (in Aul.
Gell. x. 20) implies it of the patriciate, “quo-
niam in populo omnis pars civitatis omnesque
ejus ordines contineantur, plebs vero ea dicitur
in qua gentes civium patriciae non insunt,” or
where Pliny (H. W. xxxiii. § 29) says, “anuli
plane tertium ordinem mediumque plebi et
patribus inseruere.”
On the other hand, the word is constantly
applied to the two great dominant classes in the
Roman state, the Senate and the Equites, and
likewise to the corresponding classes in the
municipia, the ordo decurionum and the Ordo
Augustalium. At Rome the senate and equites
are not unfrequently called uterque ordo, just as
if no other portion of the state had a claim to
this designation. The senate having no fixed
meeting-place, a Roman senator did not refer to
a speech made therein as being delivered “in
this house,” but in hoc ordine (Sall. Cat. 52, 13).
While the word ordo, as applied to the Roman
senate, requires a qualifying pronoun, as hic or
noster, or a qualifying adjective, as amplissimus,
in the municipia ordo written alone indicates
the town-council, and is its distinctive appella-
tion as contrasted with the Senatus of Rome, just
as the local decurio is distinguished from the
Roman “senator” (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 842).
It is more difficult to decide what, exactly, is
meant in each passage by the equester ordo. It
is undoubtedly used in some places of the
eighteen centuries of Knights, as by Cicero in
Phil. vi. 5, 13, “altera ab equitibus Romanis
equo publico, qui item adscribunt “patrono.’
Quem unquam iste ordo patronum adoptavit * *
Under the Principate this is its common mean-
ing; it is the only sense which will serve in
any passage where we find the ordo taking
action as a formal and legally constituted cor-
poration (e.g. Tac. Ann. ii. 83, 5). If Mommsen
be correct in his supposition that the right of
sitting on juries was confined to these equites
equo publico [see EquTTEs], then the phrase is
very frequently applied to them in republican
times, for the jury-courts are repeatedly said to
have been in the possession of the equester ordo.
This interpretation is, however, more than
doubtful. In very many cases, on the other
hand, ordo is used of the equites Roman; in the
wider sense; of all, that is, who not being
senators possessed the qualifying property of
400,000 H. S., and were therefore eligible for
the eighteen centuries. We know from Horace
(Ep. i. 1, 62) and from Juvenal (iii. 159) that
it was a pecuniary qualification which gave a
man the right, under Roscius Otho's law, to sit
in the front rows of the theatre : but Cicero
says of Roscius (Mur. 19, 40), “equestri ordini
restituit non solum dignitatem sed etiam
voluptatem.” The wider sense is also far more
probable in passages where Cicero speaks of the
policy or temper of the order, as (Verr. iii.
41, 94) “quum aliquid contra utilitatem ejus
ordinis fecisset,” and again, “qui unum equitem
Romanum contumelia dignum put asset, ab
universo ordine malo dignus judicaretur.”
Quintus Cicero (de Pet. Cons. 8), speaking of
the young men who composed the equestrian
centuries, distinguishes them from the ordo in
its wider sense—“quod equester ordo tuus est,
sequentur illi auctoritatem ordinis.” (See
against this Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. pp. 484
and 497.)
The other classes to which the term is appli-
cable can be ascertained only by observing the
practice in books and in inscriptions. The ex-
pression is very frequently used of the tribuni
aerarii, of the libertini (e.g. in Cic. Verr. , i.
47, 124, and repeatedly in Livy) and of the
publicani (e.g. Liv. xxv. 3, 12). We have like-
wise occasionally mentioned an ordo lictorum
and an ordo scribarum in Rome (see ref. in
Mommsen, Staatsr. i. p. 342, n. 4), and in the
municipia an ordo Seviralium (Orelli, Inscr.
2229). In later times men of any calling who
choose to unite themselves into a guild seem to
adopt this appellation. Two such guilds are
described (C. I. L. xiv. 251 and 252) with
different adjectives of uncertain meaning (tabu-
lariorum and pleromariorum), but both as “ordo
corporatorum lenunculariorum auxiliarium
(lighter-men) Ostiensium.” In C. I. L. xiv.
2408 we have an ordo adlectorum at Bovillae,
referring apparently to the adlecti Scaenae, who
seem to have been “licensed " or “certificated ”
actors. An ordo haruspicum is mentioned in
C. I. L. vi. 2161 and 2162 : from the first of
these we should infer that the order was not
strictly localised; for while the donees appear
to be at Rome (where the tablet was found), the
donor is not only haruspea; Augustorwm and
magister publicus haruspicum, but likewise Pon-
tifex and Dictator of Alba.
It remains to notice some peculiar uses of the
words extra ordinem. “Praeturae extra or-
dinem ’’ are said by Tacitus (Ann. ii. 32, 1) to
have been granted to certain informers. This
may mean that extra praetorships were specially
invented to suit them, or more probably (as
Nipperdy supposes) that these persons were
allowed to anticipate their regular turn for
holding that office. In the Lex de Imperio
Wespasiani we find that the recommendation of
candidates by the emperor is made effective, by
the privilege granted them that “eorum extra
ordinem ratio habeatur; ” that is to say, they
are not to take their chance among the general
list of candidates, but to have their case con-
sidered specially and first of all [see NoMINATIO).
In criminal procedure, a trial which was to have
precedence of all others is said to be taken
extra ordinem, and the accused in such a case is
extraordinarius reus (Cic, ad Fam. viii. 8, 1).
In civil procedure, judicia ordinaria are those
tried under the formulary system, where the
points at issue are referred to a single juror
subject to instructions given him by the praetor.
When the praetor himself decides without this
reference to a judex, we have a cognitio extra
ordinem (Tac. Ann. xiii. 51); and when (as
frequently happened under the principate) such
suits became too numerous for the personal
attention of the magistrate, the substitute to
whom he delegated the task without binding
him down by a formula was called judeº extra
ordinem datus. (See Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii.”
p. 980, n. 1.) - [J. L. S. D.]
ORGANON
ORPHICA ' 297.
O'RGANON. [MACHINA J
O'RGIA. [MYSTERIA.]
ORGYI’A (àpyvić), a Greek measure of
length, derived from the human body, was the
distance from extremity to extremity of the
outstretched arms, whence the name from Öpéya.
(Xen. Mem. ii. 3, 19; Pollux, ii. 158.) It was
= 6 tróðes or 4 whyeus, and was Tāj of the
stadium (Herod. ii. 149). It may be expressed
nearly enough in English by the word fathom.
(Compare MENSURA and the Tables.) [P. S.]
ORICHAL'CUM (àpeixaxicos). During the
first three centuries of the Roman Empire, and
probably as early as the second century, B.C.,
this word appears to have been used to indicate
brass—i.e. an artificial alloy of copper and zinc.
The chief extant objects made of this metallic
compound are the sestertii and dupondii (some-
times known by coin-collectors as “first " and
“second * brass coins) of Augustus and the
earlier emperors. Of coins of this class Dr.
Percy (Metallurgy, i. 521 – 523) quotes the
following analyses:—(i.) Sestertius of Nero
(Rome): Copper, 81'07; zinc, 17 '81. (ii.)
Dupondius of Vespasian (Rome): Copper,
81-97; zinc, 18.68. (iii.) Titus, brass coin
(Rome): Copper, 83° 04; zinc, 15'84. (iv.)
Trajan (Greek Imperial coin of Caria): Copper,
77°590; zinc, 20-700. (v.) Hadrian, brass
coin: Copper, 85-67; zinc, 10 '85. (vi.)
Caracalla (Greek Imperial, large size): Copper,
74-24; zinc, 14-42. Most of the above coins
also contain small quantities of tin, lead, and
iron. (Cp. Mommsen, Monn. rom. iii. 37, 47;
Lenormant, La Monnaie dans l’Ant. i. p. 202;
Plin. H. N. xxxiv. 2, 4.) The coins of the
Roman Republic—other than those in gold and
silver—are, on the other hand, not of brass, but
mainly an alloy of copper and tin, i.e. bronze.
Orichalcum, though not a costly metal, had
the appearance of gold (Cic. de Off. iii. 23, 92);
hence the mistaken orthography aurichalcum
and the derivation from aurum, which are some-
times found (cp. Fest. 9, 4 ; Isid. xvi. 20, 3).
Orichalcum is the Greek épetxańkos, apparently
“copper found in the mountains.” The word
êpetxaxkos first occurs in [Hom.] Hymn. in Ven.
9, where earrings of it are mentioned. It is
also found in Hesiod, Sc. Herc. 122 (“greaves”);
Plat. Critias, p. 114 E, p. 116 B (described as a
metal no longer existent);-Ps.-Aristot. Mir.
ausc. 58, p. 834, B, 22; 49, p. 834 A, 1 ; 62, p.
835A, 9;-Callim. Lavacr. Pall. 19 (“mirror”);
Apoll. Rhod. 971–978, and Schol.; Strabo, xiii.
p. 610; Anon. Peripl. m. Eryth. 6 (Müller,
Geog. Gr. Min. i. p. 262); Paus. ii. 37, 3 ; He-
sychius, Photius, Suidas, s. v. Öpetxa Nkos : C. I. G.
vol. i. p. 286 ; ’A6% v a lov (periodical), vii.
(1879), p. 87, No. 2, line 24 f. (orrxeyy's pet-
Xaxxtvm). For a discussion of the meaning of
Öpetxaxkos in individual passages, the reader
must be referred to the commentaries and to the
pages of Rossignol and Blümner. Generally, it
may be said that by Špetxańkos the Greek
writers intended a bright metal resembling gold
in appearance, and one of which the exact
nature was uncertain or unknown to them.
Probably in some instances a mixture (whether
artificial or natural cannot be determined) of
copper and zinc (i.e. brass) was indicated by the
word.
In the Latin writers, from Plautus onwards,
the word orichalcum is frequently found ; gene-
rally, it would seem, with the meaning of brass.
The chief passages are as follows:—Plaut. Curc.
i. 3, 46 (202); Mil. iii. 1, 69 (660); Pseud. ii.
3, 22 (688); Cic. de Off. iii. 23, 92 (“Si quis
aurum vendens, orichalcum se putet vendere”);
Verg. Aen. xii. 87 (“Auro squalentem alboque
orichalco Circumdat humeris”). Blümner sup-
poses this “white orichalcum ” to have been an
alloy, like prince's metal, and compares the
XaAkös Aeukös of Theoph. Fr. 4, 71; Etym. M.
p. 630, 51 ; Tzetz. ad Hes. Scut. 122; Hor.
A. P. 202 (“Tibia non ut nunc orichalco
vincta”); Plin. H. N. xxxvii. § 126; Stat.
Theb. x. , 660 (arms of orichalcum); Suet.
Vitell. 5 (“Proque auro et argentum stannum
et aurichalcum supposuisse’’), &c.
(For copious references to ancient and modern
writers on the subject, see Rossignol, Les
Métaua dans l’Antiquite, Paris, 1863; and
Blümner, Technologie, iv. p. 91; p. 192, note 4;
and p. 193 ff.) [W K. W. H.]
ORIGINA’RII. [Coloni, Vol. I. p. 472 a.]
ORNAMENTA TRIUMPHA'LIA. [TRi-
UMPHUs.]
ORNA'TRIX. [CoMA.]
ORNI'THON. [AGRICULTURA, Vol. I. p. 80.]
O'RPHICA. Whatever is to be said in any
summary of the Orphic doctrines must start
from Lobeck’s great section on the subject in his
Aglaophamus (233–1104). Like the Phanes of
the Orphic legend, he must be absorbed by any
one who coming after him essays, however feebly
and imperfectly, to play the part of the order-
ing Zeus.
1. Orpheus.-In early times, the difference
between prophet or poet and priest hardly
existed, so that it is not surprising that the
Thracian Orpheus, who is so well known as a
poet, should appear also as a priest. An important
passage of Aristophanes (Ran. 1032) says that
what Orpheus gave the Greeks towards civilisa-
tion was rexeral pávov ºr’ &méxea.6al. But far
more in later times came to be attributed to
him; viz. the invention of writing, music,
medical art, oracles, heroic versification, and
other things (Lobeck, 233–243). But it was
chiefly as the founder of a mystic brotherhood
that he was known. The first mention of him
is in Ibycus, 530 B.C. (Bergk, iii. p. 241); but
already to Pindar (Pyth. 177) he was of older
date than Homer, and from the position assigned
to him in the passage of Aristophanes cited
above the comic poet would seem to have held
the same opinion; indeed this belief was so
strong that Herodotus (ii. 53) felt called upon
to express his entire dissent from it. We have
shown in ELEUSINIA that, during the seventh
and sixth centuries B.C., there was a great influx
into Greece of Thracian and Oriental worships
(cf. Lobeck, 304 f.), consisting of purificatory
and mystic rites—which were all quite foreign
to the ordinary Hellenic ideas. For example, the
ancient Scholiasts (see Schol. Venet, on Il. xi-
680) did not fail to notice that there was no
trace of purification for murder in Homer. The
earliest instance of such is in the Aethiopis of
Arctinus, wherein Ulysses purifies Achilles for
the murder of Thersites (cf. Grote, i. 25). Now
it was round the name of Orpheus that these
Thracian and Oriental ideas clustered ; he was
held to be the founder of the sect, and as time
298
ORPHICA
ORPHICA
went on and as it grew in importance, he came
to be considered the actual author of the various
works written by the members of the sect, in
fact, “eine litterarische Collectivperson,” as
Preller puts it; and so Aristotle (Cic. N. D. i.
38, 107) and a grammarian Dionysius (Suid. s. v.
°oppets) could boldly declare that Orpheus
never existed at all; and again others could say
that there were two, three, or even six Orpheuses
{Lobeck, 351–357). But the sect continued to
exist, and did not fail to make its mark in
classical Greek times; it continued during the
Alexandrine era on into Roman times, gradually
gathering round it all sorts of accretions, super-
stitions without number, and every kind of
nonsense in its speculations, which was, however,
allegorised away into metaphysical conceptions,
till in the third and fourth centuries A.D. it was
the Orphic theology and the Orphic life that
made the last intellectual struggle against the
victorious doctrines of Christianity. It was a
recognised theory that all the philosophers had
derived their systems from the Orphic school,
and even at the Renaissance there were the
most extravagant views held of this fount of
original wisdom (Lobeck, 407-410). Let us see
then, firstly, what the Orphics practised.
2. The Orphic Life. — That this was the
regular expression is plain from Plato (Legg. vi.
782 D). It enjoined abstinence from certain
foods,-meat, fish, beans (lorov roi kváuous re
4ayetv ice paNds Te Tokhov, as the precept ran)
—possibly on account of beans being used at
funerals, and on the same ground the votaries
appear to have abstained from eggs (Lobeck,
254, 477); they used to wear white garments
(Eur. Frag. Cretens.—“luculenta vitae Orphicae
descriptio,” ib. 622), but were not allowed to
use linen clothes either during religious worship
nor as a winding sheet for the corpse—all this
on account of certain religious reasons set forth
in the Orphic books (cf. Herod. ii. 81). No
bloody sacrifices were allowed (Plat. l.c.; Plut.
Conviv. Sept. Sap. 159, 20), for transmigration
of souls was a cardinal feature of their doctrine.
They believed in the original sin of man,
sprung as he was from the ashes of the Titans,
and that the human soul passed from one body
to another—that is, from one charnel-house to
another (orópia, a hua)—till the ingrained taint
was washed out and the purified soul was trans-
lated to the stars. We can hardly help feeling
a connexion between this doctrine and the
Buddhist passage from Sansara to Nirvana.
Besides, there was specially the taint of guilt
in certain families (cf. Plat. Phaedr. 244 E);
purifications were absolutely necessary for such
(Diog. Laert. viii. 33), and purifications accord-
ing to Orphic rites of course alone availed.
Here came the scandal in the eyes of the ordinary
Sreeks, especially as a certain class of religious
beggars, called Orpheotelestae or Metragyrtae
or some such title bespeaking their foreign
ritual, went about with an ass carrying their
sacred utensils (8vos ūyov uvorràpia, Aristoph.
Ran. 159), with great strings of books (3132 ov
6puabów), promising expiations from crimes both
for those alive and for the dead by “certain
sacrifices and pleasurable amusements,” and
otherwise trading on the superstitious feelings of
the community (Plat. Rep. ii. 364 B). Paradise
was open to the true votary if he performed the
true ceremonial, and a precious paradise it some-
times was—perpetual drunkenness (ib. 363 C;
Plat. Comp. Cimon. et Lucull. 1; Lobeck, 807).
But there was no lack of votaries among the
superstitious: the belorubatuav of Theophrastus
(xvi.) goes with wife and child once a month to
an Orpheotelestes. The Phrygian worship of
Sabazius, too, was full of purifications and
superstitious magic; it was celebrated with
great wildness both of grief and horror, and thus,
highly ecstatic in its nature, was much affected
by women and the lower orders (Aristoph.
Lys. 388)—in all which points it is very similar
to Orphic rites (Lobeck, 695). Priestesses
appear to have played an important part (cf.
Menand. Frag. 530, 21, Kock); they were called
trepupaktptal or ēyxvtpuo Tpiat (Schol. Aristoph.
Vesp. 289). A priestess called Ninus was put
to death for magic (Schol. on Dem. Fals. Leg.
431, § 281); and Aeschines's mother, Glaucothea,
officiated at most vulgar Sabazian ceremonies,
according to Demosthenes (de Coron. 313, § 259;
Lobeck, 646 ft., 652 ft.). Then, too, there were
the Corybantes, who were supposed to cause
madness (Eur. Hipp. 142), which was cured by
exorcisings and purifications according to the
rites of these divinities (Schol. on Aristoph.
Vesp. 119), rites which consisted of elaborate
ceremonies, with ecstatic dances and clashing
of cymbals round the patient, who sat enthroned
wº 6poviguós) in the midst of those
officiating (Plat. Euthyd. 277 E ; Legg. vii. 790,
791; Lobeck, 116, 640 ft.). The anxious cere-
monial of the genuine Orphics, their abstinences
and fastings, their scrupulousness about clothes
and so forth, made them appear all of a piece
with these pettifogging impostors, and so utterly
contemptible in the eyes of the strong-minded
Athenian man of the world (cf. the speech of
Theseus in Eur. Hipp. 952). This genuine
Orphic life, however, which was practised by
an ascetic religious brotherhood, must not be
charged with all the excesses of the impostors
who traded on its name, nor with the calumnies
which the ordinary pleasure-loving Greek was
only too ready to fling against it. It does not
appear to have made any mark that we can
appreciate till the Pythagorean brotherhood
broke up in Italy. This was an ascetic religious
society, very similar in some points to the
Orphics; and accordingly the scattered Pytha-
goreans joined naturally to the Orphics, and
introduced into their doctrines the more highly-
developed speculative principles which their
master had taught them : and we take it that
it was this influx of Pythagorean members that
gave the most important impetus to the de-
velopment of Orphic doctrine and increased
prominence to the Orphic life. To the Orphic
speculations we now turn.
3. The Orphic Authors generally.—Before the
Pythagorean league was broken up, during that
period at Athens after the murder of Cylon
when the Athenian people were a prey to
religious terrors and recourse had to be taken
to various foreign methods of purification, it
was only natural that the Orphic religion should
appear. Onomacritus, who lived at the court
of Pisistratus, was a xpmap.oxóyos and 6taðétms
(arranger and editor) of the Oracles of Musaeus
(Herod. vii. 6). He performed the same office
for the works attributed to Orpheus (Tatian,
ORPHICA
ORPHICA 299
adv. Graecos, xli. 275, p. 885 Migne; Clem.
Alex. Strom. i. 332, Pott), but at the same time
he forged several works and attributed them to
the names of Orpheus and Musaeus, which must
have been venerable at the time (Herod. l.c.;
Plut. Pyth. Resp. 25; Paus. i. 22, 7; Suidas,
S. v. 'Oppets). So Aristotle always speaks of
7& kaxodueva `Oppéws &m, rà 'Oppikā kaxoß-
Aweva èrm, and such like (Lobeck, 339). A
celebrated passage in Pausanias (viii. 37, 5)
shows that we are to attribute to Onomacritus
the introduction of the Zagreus legend (see
below, § 6). Pherecydes of Athens (Suid. s. v.)
is also credited with the same functions as
Onomacritus. Then, after the Pythagorean
influence became predominant, we have writings
from men called Cercops, Brontinus, Zopyrus,
Persinus, from a woman Arignote, and many
other Pythagoreans. The Orphic poems gained
considerable popularity and were recited by the
rhapsodists at the public games (Plat. Ion,
536 B), but it was specially by the priestly
family of the Lycomidae that the Orphic ritual
was used (Paus. ix. 27, 2; 30, 5); they introduced
Orphic speculations and rites into the Eleusinian
worship [ELEUSINIA]. The Peripatetic Eudemus
did good service in collecting and editing an
Orphic theogony, and we hear of one Epigenes
occupying himself with the grammar and
criticism of the Orphic poems (Lobeck, 340).
For the long succession of writers who busied
themselves with Orphic treatises, it will be
sufficient to refer to Lobeck, 341–347, and to
point out the goodly collection of them there
was in Neo-Platonic times. Then we find
Charax, Syrianus, and Hierocles occupied chiefly
in harmonising Orpheus, Pythagoras, and Plato,
and one Asclepiades actually writing a Harmony
of All the Theologies (Töv 6.e0Aoyióv Štraordºv
Thu orvuqovíav), though this was mere child's
play compared with later Byzantine efforts
(Lobeck, 346). But we must come to the actual
writings attributed to Orpheus.
4. The Orphic Literature specially.—Preller
(in Pauly, iv. 999) divides the Orphic literature
into (1) Theological, (2) Liturgical, (3) Theur-
gical—an excellent division, which introduces
order into the chaos of the catalogues given by
Clement (Strom. i. 397) and Suidas (s. v. 'Op-
qets). This classification we shall follow, giving
up any pretence, except in a very few cases, of
attempting to discover who were the actual
authors of the separate works.
i. Theological. — (1) Theogonia or Theologia
(see § 5). (2) Kparipes (there were two works,
a greater Crater and a less)—a title taken from
the two mixings in Plato wherein the Deity
constructed the universal soul and the individual
souls, according to Lobeck, p. 736, though his
reasons are not very plain. The fragments of
the work only speak of the Unity of the Gods
(ib. 731, 735). (3) ºvatká, attributed to both
Brontinus and Onomacritus, treats of how the
individual soul is breathed into or inhaled by
the body, after having been carried thereto by
the winds (cf. thy jux?iv čk roß &Aov eiotéval
&varvedvºrov, ºpepopuévnvitro róv &véuwu, Aristot.
de Anim. i. 5, 13). The guardians of the winds,
or the winds themselves, are called Tritopatores,
whatever be the true interpretation of that
word, perhaps that they are our ancestors
(rpſtol rārepes, proavi in the general sense of
“ancestors”): for further, see Lobeck, 753–773,
especially 763. Here, too, may have come in
the wide-spread theory of the transmigration of
souls, of the circle of births which it should be
our aim to get free from : kūkxov ºr' at Aïčat
kal &varvedaat kakórnros (ib. 800). (4) “Iepo!
Aóyot—besides the Theogony, which is often so
styled (ib. 508), there were certain treatises under
this name on the mystic import of numbers
in Pythagorean style. Pythagoras wrote ispo,
Aóyot in prose on this subject, but he acknow-
ledges his obligations to Orpheus (ib. 717, 725,
726). (5) Tptayubs may be mentioned here,
a work on the number Three, in prose, and
therefore not written by an Orphic, but by Ion
the tragedian, or perhaps Epigenes (ib. 388).
(6) Kará8a0 is eis Atóov—concerning the descent
of Orpheus to Hades to recover Eurydice, ascribed
to Prodicus. It seems to be older than Plat.
Symp. 179 D.; Eurip. Med. 557. The detailed
description of Hades attributed to Orpheus
doubtless came in here (Diod. i. 96; Lobeck,
811, 812). (7) Alaðīkat (cf. Justin, Cohort. 15)
was the testament of Orpheus to Musaeus. It
is a sort of palinode in that he reduces the 360
gods he had formerly allowed back to one god
(Lobeck, 364). See an extensive fragment on
this subject in Hermann's Orphica, p. 447, and
much the same poem, only lengthened, on p.450ff.
It was written by Alexandrine Jews, as the plain
allusions to Abraham and Moses show. On the
monotheism of the mysteries, see, besides Lobeck,
460-5, some remarks in MYSTERIA. (8) Atk-
rvov appears to have had reference to the forma-
tion of the human frame, which is compared to
the weaving of a net (Aristot. de Generat. Anim.
ii. 1 = 734 a. 20, Lobeck, 381). (9) Kºrtoris
kéopov : geographical. (10) IIéraos, attributed
to Zopyrus or Brontinus (Suid. s. v. 'Oppets),
seems to have been a treatise on cosmogony,
trérxos being the heavens (cf. Psalm civ. 2,
“who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain;”
also Pherecydes, Zas trouéet påpos uéya Te ka?
kaxov kai év airó rouc{AAet yaw re kal "Oymvov
kal '0'yńvov Štěplata). (11) trepi oretopºv, also
attributed to Hermes Trismegistus; but as a
portion of a verse is preserved, it is best to give
it to an Orphic source, as Hermes wrote in
prose. (12) 'Apºyovavrikā (still extant) was
written in late Christian times, and was an
effort to dress up Greek mythology on Orphic
principles. (13) Texetaſ, composed by Onoma-
critus (Suidas, s. v. 'Oppets). Of its contents
we know nothing for certain. Schuster (De
veteris Orphicae Theogoniae indole atque origine,
p. 54) thinks that it was probably in this work
that Onomacritus published the Zagreus legend.
ii. Liturgical.—(1) “‘ruvot to the gods (cf.
Paus. ix. 27, 2; 30, 5). They were pugikol
iſuvot, ris à rod 'AtróAAwvos qigis, Tís roß
Atos trapari0éuevot, as Menander, de Encom. ii.
30, says; and he justly considers them liable to
parody (cf. Lobeck, 390, 745 f.), and they were
parodied by the New Comedy. In one of them
the Sun is said to be father of everything
(Macrob. Sat. i. 23, 22). They were composed
by one man, in late Christian times, who had
some knowledge of the old poets and of mystic
theology. The Neo-Platonists do not use them,
though they might have, to support their 6eo-
kpaaría and extensive allegorising. These hymns
are first mentioned in the 12th cent A.D. The
300 ORPHICA
ORPHICA
elaborate proof of these conclusions by Lobeck
is one of the finest arguments in the Aglaophamus
(389–410). (2) ©povia uot untpºol kai Bakxuká
l-prayers and hymns sung at the 6póvoa is of
votaries in the worship of Cybele and Bacchus:
similar to those used in the worship of the
Corybantes, § 2. (3) "Opkoi. A few lines of
this poem referring to the Mosaic cosmogony
are found in Justin, but they are also attributed
to Hermes Trismegistus (Lobeck, 737, 738).
(4) Xarâpia — prayers and thanksgivings for
safety, attributed to authors called Timocles or
Perginus (ib. 383). (5) 'Ovopaotiká, lists of
names of the gods, sometimes with interpreta-
tion, possibly like the lists in the Kpathp (ib.
731), or the various names of one and the same
god, as in Ov. Met. iv. 11 ff. (6) Neotevktuká,
forms of service for the dedication of temples
(ib. 375). (7) Owntoxicóv. This was perhaps
one of the kind of books the Orphic impostors
used to carry about (§ 2).
iii. Theurgical. (1) “Ep”)a kal huépal. These
were really separate works at first. That called
ãpya is also called repl yeapytas, and Lobeck
(414–5) quotes some verses from it. This poem
has been supposed by Tyrwhitt to have been the
same as the trepi karapy&v of Maximus, the
preceptor of Julian, but the fact is Maximus
plagiarised from it (ib. 418–424). To it
was added an astrological poem called Aw8e-
Icastmptôes. The juépat is also called épmue-
píðes, a kind of superstitious astrological diary
(cf. Juv. vi. 569; Plin. H. N. xxix. $9), treating
of what days were lucky and what unlucky,
concerning which Lobeck collects a vast mass of
learning (428–434), and also of the days on
which it was considered that the gods were
born. (2) trepi purów, Boravčºv, papuákov—
concerning the healing properties of certain
plants, animals and drugs, which degenerated into
absurd magic. We also hear of books written
by Orpheus called trepl étrºpätków kal ua yuköv,
and such like—Orpheus the poet and minstrel,
who stayed rivers by his song, and with his lute
made trees and the mountain tops that freeze
bow themselves when he did sing, being trans-
formed into Orpheus the magician (ib. 751–2).
(3) Auðurá, on the magical properties of stones.
This poem is still extant (Hermann's Orphica,
pp. 359–442). It was not known to Proculus.
Suidas (s. v. 'Oppets) says that a poem on this
subject, called 'OyöomkovráA100s, was composed
by Onomacritus, and included in his Texeraſ,
and this is probable enough, as the virtue of
rings is a very old superstition (cf. the story of
Gyges in Plato; yet see Lobeck, 377). (4)
'Iepogroxiotiká and Karagwariká, concerning
the dress and especially the girdles of the ini.
tiates and of the statues. Purple bands round
the waist were essential in the Cabirian worship
[CABIRIA]. Some verses are quoted in Macrob.
Sat. i. 18, 22, describing the dress as having sun
and stars represented on it, very much like the
dress we should associate with a magician. Also
some verses in Eusebius and Nicephorus (Lobeck,
728 ft.), concerning the special symbols or in.
signia to be put on statues; e.g. lizards round
the statue of Hecate, just as the bow was the
symbol of Apollo, and the winged sandals of
Hermes. Such a statue was said to be avago-
Alkôs ièpvpiévov. For superstition in this direc-
tion, see Lobeck l.c. (5) 'Apºwoo Kotría (or &ve-
u00 koria), 300 kotriká, and &06vrikā treated, as
their names indicate, of various kinds of divi-
nation (ib. 410).
5. The Orphic Theogony. — The multifarious
theogonies which existed among the Greeks are
very confusing, and their history has yet to be
written, especially in the light of an extensive
knowledge of Oriental literature. The philo-
sophical value of these theogonies is that they,
at any rate, asked the question of cosmogony.
The not very definite evidences of an actual
work, called Oeo'yovía, attributed to Orpheus, is
given by Lobeck (367, 368). Under what are
called the Orphic Theogonies, we have four,
which must be mentioned separately.
(1) That systematised under the name of
Eudemus, the pupil of Aristotle. It began with
Night (&tro Sé rijs Nukrös étrouſ garo rhy
&pxfiv, says Damascius, ap. Lobeck, 488).
Further than this we cannot go with certainty.
We can neither with Zeller (Die Philosophie der
Griechen, i. 99, Eng. trans.) infer from Plato
(Tim. 40 D) that, according to Eudemus, “be-
side Night are placed Earth and Sky, both of
which apparently proceeded from Night, as with
Hesiod the Earth came forth from Chaos; Night
being here substituted for Chaos. The children
of Uranus and Gaea are Oceanus and Tethys”—
this would be to beg the question that Plato
used the Eudemian theogony. Nor suppose with
Schuster (op. cit. p. 16 ft.) that the system of
Eudemus which posits one first principle (cf.
Aristot. Met. xii. 6, of 6.e0X&You oi ék vuktös
'yevvævres) is identical with that referred to by
Lydus (de Mens. ii. 7) which posits three—viz.
Night, Earth, Sky; however great may be the
resemblance (cf. Lobeck, 494). This is well
shown by Otto Kern, De Orphei Epimenidis, Phe-
recydis theogoniis quaestiones criticae, pp. 53–
55). *
(2) That given by Apollonius Rhodius (Argon.
i. 494 ft.), where Orpheus is introduced as sing-
ing how Earth, Sky, and Sea were all com-
mingled together in the beginning, but after-
Wards separated “by reason of destructive
Strife” (vetkeos é: 3Xooto); how sun, moon, and
Stars got their fixed courses in heaven; how
mountains arose and sounding rivers with
their nymphs, and how all creeping things
were produced. And in those primeval days
did Ophion and Eurynome rule in heaven, till
they were cast into the ocean by Kronos and
Rhea, who ruled for a time over the happy gods
the Titans (ualcópearai 6.e0?s Titfiriv), while Zeus
was still a child and did not wield the thunder-
bolt. The first part of this cosmogony is un-
questionably derived from Empedocles: the
Sphairos being divided by Neikos is a cardinal
point of his doctrine. But to whom the story
about the rule of Ophion and Eurynome is due
is not yet decided. Preller (Ausgewählte Aufsätze,
ed. Köhler, p. 358) says Pherecydes, but this is
most probably not the case: see Kern (op. cit.
pp. 57–61, and chap. 3 on Pherecydes). Preller
(l.c.) quotes a number of passages where allusion
is made to this dynasty (Lycophr. Alea’. 1192,
and Tzetzes ad loc.; Schol. on Aristoph. Nub.
247, on Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 955; Lucian, Tra-
gopod. 99 f.). In Claud. Rapt. Proserp. iii. 348,
Ophion is a giant.
(3) # kata row ‘Iepévvuov pepopévn kal ‘EAAa-
wikov, efirep u% Ital 6 airós éotiv (Damasc. ap."
ORPHICA
ORPHICA 30L
Lobeck, 484). Zeller (op. cit. p. 103) shows that
this Hieronymus was probably the Egyptian
who was author of a Phoenician Antiquities
(àpxaloxo-yia potvikukň), and mentioned by Jose-
phus (Ant. i. 3, 6, 9), not the Peripatetic philo-
sopher; and this is rendered almost certain from
the fact that in much (e.g. the notion of water
and primitive slime at the beginning) this theo-
gony agrees with the Phoenician cosmogonies
(Schuster, op. cit. 90–98). He it was who pro-
bably attributed to Hellanicus a work of his own
called Aiyvirtuakā (Epictet. Diss. ii. 19, 14)—
for there were many books on foreign nations
which were falsely ascribed to Hellanicus—and
both in the Aiyvirtuakö, and in the Phoenician
Antiquities he may have expressed the same
view of the Orphic theogony. This view posits
water and primitive slime, from which came
Earth by solidification. From these two, Earth
and Water, comes a dragon with the heads of a
bull and a lion, and between the two the visage
of a god, and he had upon his shoulders wings,
and his name was Never-Aging Time (Xpévos
&yńpaos), and the same was Heracles. And with
him did consort Necessity, and she was none
other than the incorporeal Adrastea, who is
spread abroad throughout all space and reacheth
to the ends of the world, and she is both male
and female. Then did Time generate a gigantic
egg, and filled by the might of its generator
it burst in twain, and its top was Heaven and its
bottom Earth (Lobeck, 487). Again, there is
mention of another god, though it is not plain
whether he belongs to this theogony or not (ib.
486), and he was incorporeal, yet he had golden
wings on his shoulders, and to his flanks were
united heads of bulls, and on his head was a
mighty dragon, like unto the manifold forms of
beasts, and his name was Protogonos or Zeus or
Pan, for he arranged the whole world. Not
very different to this is—
(4) The theogony called that of the Rhapso-
dists, which was the one ordinarily in vogue,
and which was regarded by both Christians and
Neo-Platonists as the genuine Orphic theogony.
This is important when we remember that they
considered Orpheus as the real author of all
the Greek mythologies and disregarded Hesiod
(Lobeck, 466). Orpheus was supposed to have
learned it from the Sun. According to it,
Chronus is the first of all, and he produces
Aether and Chaos, by the agency of which two
he produces further a silver egg, from which
bursts a god called Phanes or Metis or Erica-
paeus, also called Protogonos and the cosmo-
gonic Eros. This god contains the germs of
everything, so is male and female, has the heads
of numerous animals, and so forth. The upper
part of the egg becomes Heaven and the lower
Earth. Phanes then proceeds to create the Sun
of the natural world, and afterwards the Moon
with its mountains and cities and palaces (Lobeck,
499). From himself Phanes produces Night,
and afterwards a horrid monster called Echidna:
from Night Phanes begets Uranus and Gaea.
Then follow the generations of these two, pretty
much the same as in Hesiod, the Parcae, Cen-
timani, Cyclopes, Titans, till Cronus dethrones
Uranus and later Zeus dethrones Cronus. Then
it is that Zeus devours Phanes, and so becomes
the sum of all things, but only that he may
once more reproduce them in accordance with
the dictates of Justice (Aíkm). Then follow
accounts of a few of the other gods—Apollo,
Athena, Aphrodite, and others, though often
with considerable blending of the gods together,
—e.g. Demeter and Rhea ; Persephone, Artemis,
and Hecate. But the chief story in this part of
the theogony is that of Zagreus, which we
reserve for the next section.
It would be trifling to inquire whence came
the very obvious idea of the world-egg, whether
it was derived from the Semites, whether it was
an old Aryan idea, or was arrived at indepen-
dently by the Greeks (Lobeck, 476). As to the
derivation of the name Ericapaeus, quot etymo-
!ogici tot sententiae. Delitzsch says it is a Se-
mitic name, Arik Anpen ("pls jºs), “long-
yisaged,” the first of the ten Sephiroth; so too
Schelling, that he is Erek Appayim (nºs Ts),
“long-suffering.” Zoega, from Egyptian roots
eri and keb, and that it means “the multiplier;”
for Malela interprets him as Çavodărmp. Gött-
ling thinks of €ap and kārus, the breath of
vernal winds; Wisconti, of épi and kút rely, the
fierce devourer (though it is he who is devoured);
while Kern (p. 22) with great complacency
assures us that he was so called because he was
devoured in the morning, just as Eos is called
#plºyéveta, because she is early born. Here again,
though for other reasons, we think quaerere
ludicrum esse. Phanes appears to have been
interpreted by the Platonists as the Sun of the
intelligible world, creator of the Sun of the
natural world, and so the name of Dionysus is
given to both (Lobeck, 499). We pass on to
Night, who is the Orphic Night, a venerable
goddess, the nurse of Cronus, a prophetess, the
avenger of the crimes committed by Cronus,
the guide of Zeus in the ordering of the world,
she who prompts him to devour Phanes, &c.—
quite different from the mere personification of
the time of darkness in Hesiod. This is well
developed by Kern, pp. 17–19, as also his proof
(29–31), quite certain, that Echidna was not, as
Lobeck supposed (493), another name of the
Orphic Night, who was not a monstrous divinity
at all, and had no likeness to a serpent. The
swallowing of Phanes is the great feature of the
Orphic theogony: it leads to the numerous
pantheistic hymns in the Orphic collection (cf.
Lobeck, 519 ft.).
The lateness of the theogony “according to
Hieronymus ” is proved by Zeller (op. cit. p. 101)
with cogent arguments. It must be later than
the syncretism of the Stoics. The symbolism so
highly developed, the abstract ideas (Time, Ne-
cessity), the distinction of corporeal and incor-
poreal, the spreading of Adrastea through the
world, like that of the Platonic world-soul, the
pantheistic conception of Zeus—all point to a late
origin: and Kern urges that it is much later
than the theogony of the Rhapsodists and was
borrowed from them. The latter is compara-
tively plain and simple, the former a medley of
philosophical and theological ideas, collected
from all sides and run pell-mell together... Why
has Chronus-Heracles his multiform attributes?
—he does, but produce an egg (27): if Earth is
solidified from mud, why is the egg introduced
at all (28), and why is a regress made from
Earth to Chaos (32) 2 and why is Adrastea, who
does nothing, given as a consort to Chronus?
302 ORPHICA
ORPHICA
The simpler legend, Kern says (28), is obviously
the more ancient. But we cannot follow Lobeck
(611) and Kern (35 ft.) in supposing that the
theogony of the Rhapsodists was known to
Plato, and is to be referred to the age of Onoma-
critus. Zeller's arguments (op. cit. 105–108) to
prove that this theogony is later than the syn-
cretists appear to us to have great weight. He
urges against Lobeck : (a) That the first definite
evidence of this theogony appears in the Pseudo-
Aristotelian treatise De Mundo, c. 7; Plato,
Legg. iv. 715 E, proves nothing [see MYSTERIA].
(b) Plato in Symp. 178 B does not mention Eros-
Phanes of Orpheus as proof of the antiquity of
Eros. (c) The Aristotelian evidence, Met. xiv. 4
(Oi 8& Iroimtal of &pxaïot raûrm épota's fi Baqi-
Aetely kal &pxelv (paalu oi robs trpátovs ofcw
vökra kal oëpavöv # Xàos 3 &tceavov &AA& Tov
Ata), only points to Eudemus's theogony. (d)
Apollonius would have hardly made Orpheus
sing what was quite different to the ordinary
received theogony. (e) The peculiar Pantheism
points to a late origin: that Zeus is the ultimate
origin and support of all things is quite dif-
ferent from supposing him the complex of all
things. (f) The story of Phanes is an attempt
to reconcile the idea of Zeus as the com-
plex of all things with the mythological idea
that he is the founder of the last generation
of gods. (g) The Hesiodic myth of Zeus swal-
lowing Metis is used in such a way that Metis
is combined with the Helios-Dionysus of the
earlier Orphic theology, with the creative Eros
of the Cosmogonies, and with Oriental divinities
into the form of Phanes. This could only have
happened in the age of the syncretists. It may
be perhaps a mere imitation of the theory that
the Deity from time to time took all things back
into himself, and again put them forth. Preller
(in Pauly, iv. 999) sees evidences of Egyptising
Gnosticism in it. Even though some of these
arguments may be overthrown—as, for example,
(c) on linguistic grounds by Kern (p. 56); and
though such lines as the well-known ones of
Aeschylus (or Euphorion), Zets &otiv aiéâp,
Zeus 5& yń, Zeds 5’ oëpavós, Zets tot rô Távra.
Xàti Tôvö’ 5téprepov, have as pantheistic an
air about them as one could desire—still the
bulk of the arguments are untouched; and
though it is true that the passages of Plato
wherein this theogony is supposed to be alluded
to (Crat. 402 B; Tim. 40 D; Legg. iv. 715;
Phaedr. 248 C; Phil. 66 C; Soph. 242 D) are
too vague to guarantee anything more than the
barest probability, yet the absence of all allu-
sion to Chronus, and to such striking features as
the World Egg (though this may be alluded to
by Aristoph. Aves, 695 ft.) and to Phanes, makes
us pause before we can feel quite certain that Plato
was acquainted with this elaborate story.
6. The Zagreus-legend is the most important
feature of the later part of the Orphic theogony
(Lobeck, 547-593). Zeus violates Proserpina
(his own daughter by Deo or Demeter) under the
form of a serpent. She bears Zagreus, “the
great hunter,” a mighty god with a bull's head,
destined to become the king of Heaven, whom
even as a child Zeus seated on his throne and
entrusted with his thunderbolts. He appointed
Apollo and the Curetes to guard the child. But
Hera in jealousy urged the Titans against the
god; who, after beguiling him with a mirror
and other toys, slew him, though he resisted
violently, cut him in pieces, boiled him, and
finally ate him. His heart alone they left in-
tact; it was taken up and preserved by Pallas.
Hecate brings news of the murder to Zeus, who
strikes down the Titans with his thunderbolt,
and gives the heart to Apollo to bury at Delphi
(cf. Aesch. Eum. 24). It was buried under the
tripod (or, according to other accounts, under
the omphalos), and from it rose again Dionysus
in all his glory. There were probably mystic
rites to Semele and Dionysus at Delphi (Lobeck,
619–20), but they are not recorded in any
Orphic book. Other accounts tell that Zeus
swallowed the heart dissolved in a drink, or
gave the drink to Semele, who thereby conceiving
bore the Theban Dionysus. From the blood of
the Titans who ate Zagreus sprang men, who
are as such mainly foes to the gods, but have
also something Dionysiac and god-like in their
nature, even as had the Titans (Dio Chrys. xxx.
550 R.). For further, see Lobeck, 567–8, though
he thinks (580) that this may have been merely
a poetical representation of an assumed rela-
tionship between men and gods.
This legend, certainly known to Callimachus
(Etym. M. s. v. Zaypeſs), is attributed by Pau-
sanias (viii. 37, 5) to Onomacritus. Nor is there
any reason to question this statement. Well
acquainted as he was with the Pythagorean phi-
losophy, it was Onomacritus who did much to
give expression and a kind of rational order to
the wild and coarse fancies and practices which
had been invading Greece for the previous cen-
tury. For it is plain that this legend of the
passion (tra6%uata) of the god came from the
East. There is a certain similarity between it
and that of Soma in the Rig Veda (Maury, Reli-
gions de la Grèce antique, iii. 325), that of Osiris
in Egypt, of Atys in Phrygia, and of Adonis or
Thammuz in Phoenicia. Now by the time of the
syncretists, from about the 3rd century B.C., all
these Eastern religions had got blended together
in the Greek mind. Clement (ap. Lobeck, 588)
says that these Orphic rites of Zagreus came from
Phrygia, and Lobeck seems to agree (cf. 655,
“Itaque omnia eodem nos deducunt vestigia
sacra Orphica a Phrygiis nihil diversa fuisse").
Diodorus says expressly (v. 75) that the Cretans
were the first who gave Dionysus as son to
Proserpina, though indeed Cretan and Phrygian
forms of worship were so confused in his mind
that he actually says (iv. 4) the Cretan Dionysus
was called Sabazius (Maury, op. cit. 328). Yet
confirmatory evidence of its Cretan origin can
be seen by the Chorus in the Cretans of Euri-
pides (cf. § 2). Lobeck (624) is perhaps too
cautious in thinking that this is no evidence: a
poet would naturally choose the chief votaries
of a divinity as the characters into whose mouth
to put an account of that divinity’s ritual. Now
the Cretan religion was mainly Phoenician
(Movers, Die Phönizer, i. 27–32), and it is from
them that we may principally derive the story
of Zagreus. For further evidence on this point,
see Fr. Lenormant in the Gazette Archéologique
for 1879, pp. 22, 23, 34. But the rites of
Zagreus became blended with ecstatic rites of
Dionysus, introduced from Thrace, where the
worship of Dionysus was indigenous (Herod. v.
7, vii. 111; Grote, i. 23 ff.), and from whence the
Dionysic worship originally came into Greece.
ORPHICA
OSCHOPHORIA 303
In this legend Zeus and Zagreus are considered
as Chthonian gods, Zagreus being sometimes
said to be the son of Hades, sometimes Hades
himself (Lobeck, 621). Cicero says he was son
of Jupiter and the Moon (Nat. Deor. iii. 23, 58):
cf. Diodorus (iii. 73), who says Zeus and Io were
his parents. Lenormant (op. cit. p. 19), after
Maury (p. 323), sees in him a personification of
the vital force in nature. Hence his title
Tpató-Yovos in the Orphic Hymn (xxx. 2), his
many names, and many forms (xlvi. xlvii.), and
that he unites the attributes of the Hellenic
Zeus and the Thracian Sabazius. But we must
recollect that he is always called Dionysus, never
Sabazius, in Orphic works (Lobeck, 621). As to
the date of the introduction of the Zagreus
legend into Greek ritual, Lenormant (op. cit. 23)
places it at the time when Clisthenes substituted
the recitations of the passion of Dionysus for
that of Adrastus, himself an heroic personage,
representing a divine Adrastus, who virtually is
identified with Adonis (cf. Apoll. iii. 6, 1 ; Hygin.
Fab. 69; and Maury, iii. 327, cf. p. 197). When
the Orphic doctrines insinuated themselves into
the Eleusinian mysteries, Zagreus came to be
identified with Iacchus [ELEUSINIA]. A car-
dinal feature of this Zagreus worship was the
&ploqaytat (Eur. Bacch. 139), which point dis-
tinctly to savage rites, and do not harmonise
at all with the purer and higher Orphic life
which abstained from all live creatures, though
Euripides (l.c.) and Plutarch (Symp. viii. 8)
and Porphyrius ( V. P. ii. 28, yeworduevot pudvov
trpos &Ambetav &6uctou rôv Aoitrów Śgov) seem to
think they do (Lobeck, 623). That the sacrifices
were originally human (cf. Porphyr. Abst. ii. 55),
and that the remembrance thereof was not en-
tirely extinct in 480 B.C., is proved by Themis-
tocles's sacrifice of three Persian prisoners to
Dionysus Omestes (Plut. Them. 13), but later they
were replaced by the lower animals. Thus Dio-
nysus was called Taupoqāyos and Mooxopáyos
(Soph. Frag. 602, ed. Nauck, Schol. ad Aristoph.
Ran. 357). Sacrifices called &Moqaytat were also
celebrated at Chios, Lesbos, Tenedos, and, as ori-
ginally, at Crete. (Porphyr. l. c.; Clem. Alex-
andr. Protr. ii. 36, Pott. ; Ael. W. H. iii. 42, Wat.
Anim. xii. 34; Firmic. Matern. p. 9.) The rite
was supposed to be a representation of Zagreus
himself, torn in pieces by the Titans (cf. Schol.
on Clem. Alex. iv. p. 119, ed. Klotz, &Auð y&p
eforólov ºpéa oi uvovuévol Atovão 4', 8etypa toûro
Texoduevot too otrapayuoi, ºv Štěorm Atóvvaros
§tro Töv Malváðav—the last words showing a
strange confusion of Zagreus and Orpheus. A
vase from Vulci gives scenes from the duoqaytal:
and these as well as many other vase-pictures
bearing on the Zagreus legend are described by
Lenormant (op. cit. 24–37). Plato (Legg. ii.
672 D) thinks that perhaps the whole story
may have arisen from the natural inclination
of the undeveloped mind to excited dancing, wild
shouting, and generally mad behaviour, and as a
subject for such indulgences feigned the passion
of the god. This is a very prosaic theory,
but we think as near the truth as the unsatis-
factory allegorising and symbolising which the
later Greek authors applied to the whole story;
some (rationalists) supposing that it represented
the cultivation of the vine, its pruning, and the
pressing of the grapes; others (metaphysicians)
seeing therein the necessary discerption of the
divine element when it enters into matter (rhy
6eiav Šēvapuy peptgeoréat eis rºv iſamu); while
again the more religious section, such as Plutarch,
saw in it a symbol and a testimony of the re-
birth of the soul (uſ,80s eis rºv traxty-yevso-tav):
cf. Lobeck, 710–714.
Besides Lobeck, the following are a few of the
works on the Orphic doctrines:—Zoega, Ueber
den wranfänglichen Gott der Orphiker, in his
Abhandlungen, 211–265; K. O. Müller, Prole-
gomena zu einen wissenschaftlichen Mythologie,
pp. 369-379; Preller in Pauly, s. v. Orpheus;
Schömann, Griechische Alterthümer, ii. 370–
377; Gerhard, Ueber Orpheus und die Orphiker;
Maury, Les Religions de la Grèce antique, iii-
300–337; Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen,
i. 83–108, Eng. trans. ; P. R. Schuster, De veteris
Orphicae Theogoniae indole atque origine; Otto
Kern, De Orphei Epimenidis Pherecydis theo-
goniis quaestiones criticae, 1–61 ; Fr. Lenormant,
in the Gazette Archéologique, 1879, 18–37.
[L. C. P.]
ORTHODO'RON. [MENSURA, p. 161.]
OSCHOPHO'RIA (Öaxopópta or &axopópta),
an Attic festival, which as a vintage festival
paid honour to Dionysus and Athena, the givers
of wine and oil, and at the same time honoured
the memory of Theseus, and according to some
of Ariadne also (Plut. Thes. 23). The time of
its celebration was the 7th and 8th of the Attic
month Pyanepsion (Plut. Thes. 22). It is said
to have been instituted by Theseus. Its name
is derived from 60%0s, taxos, or ëoxm, a branch
of vines with grapes, for it was a vintage festi-
val; and on the day of its celebration two
youths, called čoxoq6pot, whose parents were
alive, and who were elected from among the
noblest and wealthiest citizens (Schol. ad Nicand.
Alexiph. 109), carried, in the disguise of women,
branches of vines with fresh grapes from the
temple of Dionysus in Athens, to the ancient.
temple of Athena Sciras in Phalerus. These
youths were followed by a procession of persons
who likewise carried vine-branches, and a chorus
sang hymns called čoxoqopic& uéAm, which were
accompanied by dances (Athen. xiv. p. 681). In
the sacrifice which was offered on this occasion,
women also took part ; they were called 6él-
Twoq6pot, for they represented the mothers of the
youths, carried the provisions (Šipa kal oritſa) for
them, and related stories to them. During the
sacrifice the staff of the herald was adorned with
garlands, and when the libation was performed
the spectators cried out €AeAed, iot, iod (Plut.
Thes. 22). The ephebi taken from all the tribes
had on this day a contest in racing from the
city to the temple of Athena Sciras, during
which they also carried the to xm, and the victor
received a cup filled with five different things
(revrátkoos, revratrāāa, or trevratram), viz. wine,
honey, cheese, flour, and a little oil (Athen. xi.
p. 495). According to other accounts, the victor
only drank from this cup. The story which was
symbolically represented in the rites and cere-
monies of this festival, and which was said to
have given rise to it, is related by Plutarch
(Thes. 22, 23) and by Proclus (p. 388, ed. Gais-
ford). (Compare Bekker's Anecdot. p. 318;
Etymol. Magn. and Hesych. s. v. 'Oaxoi ; Suidas,
s. v. '00'xopépia and &axopópos; Preller,
Griech. Myth. i. 165; Bötticher, Baumcultus,
p. 399; A. Mommsen, Heortol. p. 271.) [L. S.]
304 OSCILLA
OSCILLA
OSCILLA were small figures or masks,
representing either the whole human figure or a
part of it, generally the face, which is no doubt
its original meaning, for we may assume the
etymology to be a diminutive of os, “a face,”
through osculum. A less acceptable derivation
is suggested from Osci, on the theory that the
custom was derived from that nation—a theory
which has no value except so far as it records a
belief, that the custom was indigenous in Italy.
These figures or masks were hung up as offerings
in various ways, and in connexion with various
rites. We may notice especially (1) the figures
like woollen dolls hung up to Mania=Larunda,
the Mother of the Lares [see COMPITALIA]. An
account of this deity is given under the name
Mania in the Dictionary of Biography and
Mythology, but it must be observed that there is
an error in the statement that these were
figures of Mania, for which the authority of
Macrobius (i. 7) is cited. Marquardt is un-
doubtedly right in saying that, in the passage
“effigies Maniae suspensae,” Maniae is the
dative. The true account is that, as Mania and
the Lares were invoked to protect the household,
images of this sort, one to represent each
member of the family, were hung up as
propitiatory (or expiatory) offerings at the
cross ways and at the house-doors (Macrob.
i. 7, 34). These images were also themselves
sometimes called maniae, not because they were
figures of Mania, but because they were used in
her worship. In some parts of Scotland (per-
haps of England also 2) there is or was not long
ago a custom, possibly of similar origin, of
hanging up in cottages wheat and oats from
the last harvest-loads, tied up with ribbons into
some sort of doll-shape and called “Maidens: ”
it may perhaps be a question whether this name
signifies dedicated to the Virgin, or figures of
maidens like the pupae; and again whether the
custom dates since the introduction of Christi-
anity or is an older pagan survival. One form
of Roman oscilla was also called pila, as in the
fragment ap. Non. p. 538, 14, “Suspendit
Laribus manias, molles pilas; ” and in Festus,
“pilae et effigies muliebres ex lana compitalibus
ãº
suspendebantur in compitis, quod hunc diem
festum esse deorum inferorum, quos vocant
Lares, putarent, quibus tot pilae quot capita
servorum, tot effigies quot essent liberi pone-
bantur, ut vivis parcerent et essent his pilis
et simulacris contenti.” This passage has im-
portant bearing on the expiatory significance, of
which more will be said further on, and it also
suggests that the pilae were not, as Marquardt
says, the same as maniae, but were a ruder sort
of woollen bundle, perhaps signifying a human
being, but not so carefully shaped—the use
of these pilae stuffed with wool in the amphi-
theatre is well known—in the Compitalia then
the members of the family are represented by
effigies as oscilla, the slaves by the ruder
pilae.
(2.) Oscilla were hung up at the Feriae
Latinae, and we are told also that oscillatio
(swinging) was a part of the ceremony. The
explanations given are rather suspicious. In
Schol. Bob. p. 256 we are told that there was a
reminiscence of the fact that, the bodies of
Aeneas and Latinus being undiscoverable, their
animae were sought in the air. Festus (s. v.)
says that swinging was called oscillatio because
persons who indulged in “this sort of amuse-
ment * masked themselves “propter verecun-
diam.” We may surmise that this was a
comparatively modern addition, and that the
swinging of the old religion was not of living
persons amusing themselves, but of oscilla,
which represented, as is explained below, rites
of expiation and purification. If, however,
from the first those who partook in the festival
really did swing themselves (as some assert of
the wholly distinct Greek festival AEORA),
we may assume that the significance was still
that of purification (as in Verg. Aen. vi. 740),
and not that of a search after the bodies of
Aeneas and Latinus.
(3.) The oscilla at the festival of Sementivae
and in the country Paganalia are perhaps the
best known, from the famous lines of Virgil
(Georg. ii. 382–396). These masks or figures,
whether in honour of Bacchus, Liber pater, or
any deity connected with the fruits of the
ſº º
º
Fº
- † /
Offerings at a rustic festival. From an ancient engraved cup. (Bötticher.)

OSCILLA
OSCILLA 305
earth, were hung upon the boughs of trees—not
always the fruitful vine or olive, for Virgil
speaks of a pine—offerings were made below,
and songs were sung, like those of the Ambar-
valia. The whole scene, as described in Virgil,
appears very well in the representation on the
onyx cup, figured above. It should be observed
that though there can be little doubt that the
oscilla here also, as in the festivals before
mentioned, represented sacrifices, yet the cus-
tom had arisen of making the mask a face of
the deity himself to whom it was offered.
(4.) On the Saturnalia presents were made
of little pottery figures or faces (Macrob.
i. 11, 1).
As regards the ordinary material of the
oscilla, that depended no doubt on the wealth
of the household: oscilla in marble and in
pottery may be seen in the British Museum,
the former with a metal loop
for the suspension (the metal
is ancient also), the latter
with holes at the sides of
the mask: but these durable
oscilla were not the common-
est: the epithet mollia in
Virgil probably refers to the
material. Surely we may
reject the views cited by
Conington ad loc., that mollia
= mobilia, or that it is “be-
cause of the beautiful, mild
expression: ” the expression
of many of the oscilla in museums is neither
one nor the other. Ladewig's suggestion that it
means “waxen” is nearer the truth, and no
doubt the ordinary mask-shapes were of wax,
but many also were, as has been seen from the
passage of Festus quoted above, figures of wool:
the word mollia would express either: it is
likely that wood also was a less common
material.
The true significance is a more important
point, and there can be no doubt that we have
in these oscilla a relic of human sacrifice, either
expiatory or propitiatory, or both together.
This is stated distinctly by Macrobius (l. c.),
who says that in the time of Tarquinius
Superbus (the date is immaterial) human sacri-
fices were offered to the Lares and Mania, “ut
pro capitibus capitibus supplicaretur... ut pro
familiarum sospitate pueri mactarentur Maniae
deae, matri Larum;’ and he proceeds to say,
that in later times the images hung up at each
door sufficed instead “periculum expiare: ” and
the words of Festus, quoted above, show even
more clearly the appeasing of a dreaded power
by a simulated atoning sacrifice. The same
substitution for human sacrifice appears in
the rush images of the Argei thrown from the
bridge [ARGEI ; PONs), and in the customs and
traditions connected with the somewhat similar
Greek Aeora [AEORA], where no doubt the images
swung represented atoning human sacrifices of
earlier times. (It may be doubted, as in the
Feriae Latinae, whether there was really ori-
ginally any “swinging” at these rites except of
these images.)
As Dionysus was in the older times propitiated
by the real bodies sacrificed, life offered for life,
so he was afterwards by the unreal, and this is
precisely the view of Macrobius in the similar
WOL. II.
Marble Mask of
Bacchus, in the
British Museum.
rite, “ut faustis sacrificiis infausta mutarent
inferentes Diti, non hominum capita, sed oscilla
ad humanam effigiem arte simulata.”
We have then the propitiation by human
sacrifice, once real and afterwards simulated, at
festivals of Jupiter and of gods connected with
death, Saturnus (to whom human sacrifice
especially belonged, Lactant. Inst. i. 21, 6) and
the Lares. Further, in the supplication of
country or fruit-giving deities, we have a com-
bination of several superstitions: we have the
actual tree worship (on which see Bötticher,
Baumcultus, passim) and the worship of the
deities who presided over trees and crops in
general, and could give or withhold the fruits;
and there is moreover a double symbolism in
the swinging images, not only the symbolical
sacrifices for the real sacrifices, mentioned before
(with which we may suppose the tree-divinities
as well as the personal deities to have once
been propitiated), but also a symbolical purifica-
tion by air, which is the doctrine of Verg. Aen.
vi. 640, “aliae panduntur inanes suspensae
ad ventos: ” on which Servius says that there
are three modes of purification, “either by fire
or water, or by air, which was the mode in the
sacred rites of Liber; ” that is, by the oscilla.
[See also LUSTRATIO.] Hence the swinging
images were a lustration of the crops, as well
as a propitiation of the Powers, who could give
fruitfulness, by an expiatory offering. If the
actual swinging of those who partook in the
festival was originally part of the Feriae
Latinae and the Aeora, then there was also in
them a symbol of purification by air; and, at
least in the latter case, there was (as Bötticher
remarks, citing Serv. ad Verg. Aen. xii. 603) a
parentatio.
Whether the Italian rite was indigenous or
borrowed from Greece, must be regarded as
uncertain. Probus (ad Verg. Georg. l. c.) says
that it came from Attica: at the same time
there is so much suggestion of antiquity in the
expiatory sacrifice to the Lares, that one is
inclined to regard both this and the offerings to
trees and gods of the country as older than the
introduction of the Greek rites, and to think
that the similarity with the Aeora is accidental.
The hanging up of propitiatory offerings or
thank-offerings in the form of waxen limbs,
figures, &c., is common enough in many religions
and many countries to allow such a coincidence.
The chain of connexion afterwards with Liber,
Bacchus, and the Aeora is easy; and it must
be recollected
that the oscilla,
which we have
surviving, repre-
sent not only
Bacchus, but
various rustic
deities. It should
be stated also
that in the os-
cilla of collections
there may be
some confusion
between the os- Olive-tree with oscilla, fistula, and
cilla properly so pedum. (F. ºn engraved
called and repre- gem.)
sentations of masks hung up by players in the
festival, not as a symbolical sacrifice, but
X


306 OSCINES
OVATIO
merely as a dedicatory offering along with other
articles used, such as a thyrsus or syrinx: we
find also many discs with figures in relief; but
though Bötticher treats these also as oscilla,
it must be a question whether they are not
merely offerings placed on the walls of shrines.
The theory that the name oscilla could be applied
to the heads of the sacrificed animals, hung up
on the trees, is also put forward, but is hardly
consistent with the precise definitions of the
word which we have : we see them so hung in
ancient works of art, and they may have been
compared to oscilla (as in a passage cited by
Bötticher), but the true oscilla were probably
always manufactured.
In the illustrations given (1) is from an onyx-
cup in the Paris collection; (2) is a marble
oscillum of Bacchus in the British Museum
(described in Guide to Greek and Roman Sculp-
ture, 1873, Part ii. 131); (3) is from a gem
(Maffei, Gem. Ant. iii. 64). (Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii.” 192, 200; Preller, Röm. Myth.
105, &c.; Bötticher, Baumcultus der Hellenen,
pp. 80–91; Hermann, Gr. Alt. § 27.) [G. E. M.]
O'SCINES. [AUGUR.]
OSTIA'RIUM, one form of Tributum Capitis
[see WECTIGALIA]. A tax imposed in Cilicia,
Syria, and perhaps some other provinces, upon
doorways, whose number was probably regarded
as a sign of the value of the property. (Com-
pare the English window-tax.) Nothing is
known of the amount. The word ostiarium is
found in Caesar, B. C. 3, 32. Cic. Fam. iii. 8, 5,
speaks of eaſactio ostiorum. [F. T. R.]
OSTLA'RIUS. [DoMUs.]
O'STIUM. T.JANUA.
OSTRACINDA (Öarpaktvöa), a game which
Greek boys played as follows:–Two sets stand
opposite, divided by a line drawn on the ground:
a boy throws up a shell or a dish, white on one
side and coloured black with pitch on the other,
and each set of boys has one or other of these
colours allotted to them. As he throws the
shell, he calls vyš juépa : and if the white (i.e.
day) side falls uppermost, the set which repre-
sents the day pursues, and the other set runs
away; if the “night ° side falls uppermost, the
fugitives and pursuers are reversed. As soon
as any boy is caught he is called čvos, and is
out of the game (övos Ká0mrat, Plat. Theaet.
p. 146 A : see also BASILINDA). It is not pre-
cisely stated whether the game went on until
all the fugitives were caught, nor whether there
was a point of safety to be reckoned, but it is
very likely that the game was played with
varying rules at different times and places. It
is not probable that there was the slightest
political symbolism in the game, as Becq de
Fouquières somewhat too fancifully suggests.
The connexion of Öortparcívča and Öortpakugués; as
in Aristoph. Eq. 855, is merely verbal punning.
The expression 30 tpdrov treptorrpoſph seems to
have become proverbial for a turn of fortune:
see especially Plat. Rep. vii. p. 521 C; where
there is also an allegory formed from the idea of
vöö juépa. The game itself supplies an allegory
in Plat. Phaedr. p. 241 B. Our authorities for
ôorpakſvöa are Pollux, ix. 111 ; Eustath. ad Îl.
xviii. 543; Plato, Com. in Meineke, Fr. Com. ii.
2, 664: see also Becq de Fouquières, Jeua, des
Anciens, p. 79; Grasberger, Erziehung, p. 57;
Becker-Göll, Charikles, ii. 37. [G. E. M.]
y
OSTRACISMUS. [ExSILIUM.]
O'STRACON (§arpakov). [FICTILE.]
OWA"TIO, a lesser triumph; the terms
applied by the Greek writers on Roman history
are reſos (piapagos, eiaaths or stas 6píaugos.
It was distinguished from TRIUMPH.Us in the
following particulars:–The general did not
enter the city in a chariot drawn by four horses,
but on foot; he was not arrayed in the gorgeous
gold embroidered robe, but in the simple toga
praetexta of a magistrate ; his brows were
encircled with a wreath not of laurel but of
myrtle; he bore no sceptre in his hand; the
procession was not heralded by trumpets, headed
by the senate and thronged with victorious
troops, but was enlivened by a crowd of flute-
players, attended chiefly by knights and ple-
beians, frequently without soldiers; the cere-
monies were concluded by the sacrifice not of a
bull but of a sheep. (Plut. Marcell. c. 22;
Dionys. v. 47; Gell. v. 6; Liv. iii. 10, xxvi. 21.)
We must, however, reject, alike on the grounds
of form and probability, the theory of Plutarch
(and of some modern writers) that the word
ovatio is derived from this sacrifice of an ovis.
It cannot be said that the etymology is certain,
but the most probable is that (which Fick holds)
from a root av, which appears in ača, “to
shout,” &c.; hence the views of Festus that it
came from saying repeatedly O ! in gladness, and
of Dionysius that it came from stol, have at
least an element of truth. At least we may
surmise that the word ovo meant “to rejoice”
before it was connected with sacrifice at all.
Dionysius is mistaken in assigning a laurel
chaplet to the conqueror on these occasions,
since all the Roman writers agree with Plutarch
in representing that the myrtle crown, hence
called ovalis corona, was a characteristic of the
ovation. (Festus, s. v. Ovalis Corona ; Pliny,
H. N. xv. § 125; Plut. ; Gell. l. cc.) Compare
CORONA. -
In later times, the victor entered upon horse-
back (Serv. in Verg. Aen. iv. 543), and the
ovations celebrated by Octavianus, Drusus,
Tiberius, &c., are usually recorded by Dio
Cassius by a reference to this circumstance
(Dio Cass. xlviii. 31; xlix. 15; liv. 8,33; ly. 2).
Strictly speaking, neither a triumph nor an
ovation was granted except to the victor in a
bellum justum: that is to say, it could not be
claimed upon the defeat of revolted citizens or
slaves in a bellum civile. (Val. Max. ii. 8, 7,
“neque aut ovans, aut curru ; ” Dio Cass. xlii.
18, 43; Tac. Hist. iv. 4.) This explains Lucan,
i. 12, “Bella geri placuit nullos habitura
triumphos.” This rule held with regard to
triumphs, but was relaxed for ovations from an
early time, so that Gellius does not mention this
as precluding an ovation (v. 6). Thus, for
instance, M’. Aquillius had an ovation, not a
triumph, after the Servile war B.C. 100 (Cic. de
Orat. ii. 47, 195); see also the instance of
Crassus below, and Octavian's two ovations for
the civil wars, Suet. Aug. 22. (Cf. Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, i.” 133.)
An ovation was granted when the advantage
gained, although considerable, was not sufficient
to constitute a legitimate claim to the higher
distinction of a triumph, or when the victory
had been achieved with little bloodshed, as in
the case of Postumius Tubertus, who first
OWILE
PAEDAGOGUS 807
received this honour (Plin. H. N. xv. § 125); or
when hostilities had not been regularly pro-
claimed (Festus, Gell. l.cc.); or when the war
had not been completely terminated, which was
one of the ostensible reasons for refusing a
triumph to Marcellus on his return from Sicily
(Plut. l. c.; Liv. xxvi. 21); or when the contest
had been carried on against base and unworthy
foes: and hence when the servile bands of
Athenion and Spartacus were destroyed by Per-
perna and Crassus, these leaders celebrated
ovations only (Florus, iii. 19; Plin. l.c.; Gell.
l. c.), although the latter by a special resolution
of the senate was permitted to wear a laurel
CI'OWI). [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
OWILE. [CoMITIA, Vol. I., p. 508a.]
OU'SLAS DIKE. [ENOIKIou DIKE.]
OXY'BAPHUM. [ACETABULUM ;
BALUM.]
CYM-
P.
PA’CTIO, PACTUM. [OBLIGATIONES.]
PAEAN, strictly a hymn relating to relief
from plagues and sickness, but extended also so
as to refer to safety from danger of any kind.
No doubt it was originally connected with the
ancient god of healing; in epic poetry IIathwy,
but transferred to Apollo, who, as the god of
light, among other attributes, took to himself
the especial function of healing—it would be
out of place here to discuss that point further:
reference may be made to the Dictionary of My-
thology; Preller's Griech. Myth. i. 212; A.
Mommsen, Delphica, &c. In fact it follows the
extended meaning of the personified Paean;
under which name we find Apollo (Aesch. Ag.
146; Soph. O. T. 154); The Sun (Orph. viii.
12); Dionysus, and even Death as the deliverer
from pain and disease (Eur. Hipp. 1373). It
then became associated with victory, tra-
ditionally because it was the song of triumph
for the victory of Apollo over the Python,
which after all came to the same thing, if the
Python symbolised deadly maladies: and hence,
lastly, was sung before or after victories in
general. With this agrees the statement of
Proclus cited by Phot. p. 321, 11, elö0s $67s sis
Trávras viv Ypapéuevov 6eoûs, to 8& traNatov
iötws &tevéuero rò 'AtróAAww, kal rā’Apréutöt
étrl kataraíſorel Aotuov kal v6orww &ööpevos. It
should be noticed that the paean is a hymn
(1) of supplication or propitiation during the
pain or danger ; (2) a thanksgiving after it is
past. Of the first kind is the hymn in Il. i.
472, Soph. O. T. 5, and also the paean before
the battle (Thuc. i. 50, iv. 96, &c.): of the
second, the hymn after victory or deliverance
(Il. xxii. 391). Though, however, it might be
essentially a prayer, yet words and tune ex-
pressed, as Müller says, courage and confidence,
even if the cure or the victory was still in an-
ticipation. “All sounds of woe (aſalva) cease
when Ie Paean is heard” (Callim. Apoll. 20).
It was sung by several persons, one of whom
probably led (éâpxe), the others, and , the
singers either sat at table (Plat. Symp. p. 176;
Xen. Symp. ii. 1; Plut. Conn. 5), or marched
onwards in a body, as the Cretans, after a
happy voyage, at Delphi (Hom. Hymn. Apoll.
514). Hence the term among the Spartans trauðv
éuSarſipuos, of the paean sung by those march-
ing to battle (Plut. Lyc. 22). It was sung at
festivals of Apollo, especially at the Hyacinthia
(eis Tā ‘Takiv0ia étri Tov traiava, Xen. Hell. iv.
5, § 11; Ages. ii. 17), and was also sung from
very early times in the temples of the god
gº. Iłymn. ad Apoll. 514; Eurip. Ion, 125,
C. J.
In later times, paeans were sung in honour
of mortals. Thus Aratus sang paeans to the
honour of the Macedonian Antigonus (Plat.
Cleom. 16); a paean composed by Alexinus was
sung at Delphi in honour of the Macedonian
Craterus; and the Rhodians celebrated Ptole-
maeus I, king of Egypt, in the same manner
(Athen. xv. p. 696, e, f). The Chalcidians, in
Plutarch's time, still continued to celebrate in
a paean the praises of their benefactor, Titus
Flaminius (Plut. Flam. 16).
The practice of singing the paean at banquets,
and especially at the end of the feast, when li-
bations were poured out to the gods, was very
ancient. It is mentioned by Alcman, who lived
in the 7th century B.C. (Strabo, x. p. 482).
(Müller, Hist. of Greek Literature, p. 27; Bode,
Gesch. der lyrisch. Dichtkunst der Hellen. vol. i.
p.9 ft.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PAEDAGO'GIA. [PAEDAGogus.]
PAEDAGO'GUS (tratèaya, yās), a slave, to
whose care in an Athenian family the sons of
the house were committed when they reached
the age of six. His duty was rather to guard
them from evil, both physical and moral, than
to instruct them, though it is probable that
before they went to school he gave some home
instruction, as did the paedagogi at Rome: this
is indicated by Plutarch, when he calls Phoenix
the paedagogus of Achilles (de Educat. Puer. 7).
His chief duty, however, was to accompany
them to and from the school, the gymnasium,
and out of doors generally : he was responsible
for their safety and for their avoidance of bad
company (see Plato, Lysis, p. 223; Aeschin. c.
Timarch. § 10). It is probable that he sat
with them in the schools; and though it is not
certain, it is on the whole most likely that the
seated figures with sticks in the Duris vase
(shown on page 96) are paedagogi (see Blümmer,
Privatleben, p. 221). Usually they are repre-
sented as wearing a short-sleeved chiton, and a
small rough himation, bearded, and holding a
walking-stick with a crook. (See woodcut
under FUNUs, Wol. I. p. 886.) Further account
of their duties is given under LUDUS LITTERA-
RIUS, p. 95. We gather from Plutarch (l.c.)
that in most, or at least in many, households
those slaves who were no use for anything else
were employed as paedagogi; a carelessness of
which he disapproves as much as Tacitus does
of something similar at Rome (Dial. 29). This
was, however, perhaps a bad fashion of later
times. We should gather from Plato's manner
of speaking about them that they were trust-
worthy; and it seems best to assume that, in
the better age and in well-ordered houses, they
were trusted servants (cf. Herod. viii. 75), who
were sometimes retained when they grew old
as faithful attendants on the ladies of the family.
This view is given especially by Euripides, who
(as Mr. Verrall remarks on Med. 49) assigns a
X 2
308 PAEDONOMUS
PAENULA
more conspicuous and honourable part to slaves.
(See the plays Medea, Phoenissae, Ion, and the
|Bacchides of Plautus, and notice especially the
expressions in Ion, 853 ff.). Being slaves, they
were of course foreigners, Thracian (Plato, Alcib.
i. p. 122 B) or Asiatic, and therefore speaking
Greek with a foreign accent (štroflap;3apígovres,
Plato, Lysis, l.c.).
At Rome the custom of having a paedagogus,
instead of only a custos, was borrowed from
Greece towards the end of the Republic, when
it became common to teach children to speak
Greek. For his duties, see LUDUS IITTERARIUS,
p.97 b. An early instance of this custom is
seen in the Greek Gorgias, who is called pedi-
sequus puerorum (Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 52, 65).
Antonius has an attendant called trauðaya'yös
in Dio Cass. xlvi. 5, and under the Empire the
office was common in all houses which could
afford it. The care of the paedagogus lasted till
the toga virilis was assumed (Stat. Silv. v. 2,
68). The feminine paedagoga occurs in in-
scriptions (C. I. L. vi. 6631, 9758; viii. 1506),
and was (like the Greek ancilla of Tac. Dial. 29)
a teacher of Greek to the very young children,
and perhaps an attendant upon the daughters
afterwards.
A different meaning attached to the name in
the further development of the slave household
in imperial times. Young slaves, whether born
in the house or purchased as boys, were trained
up under slave instructors. Something of the
same sort existed of course in earlier times;
e.g. we hear of the elder Cato having the slave
boys taught useful arts in order that they
might be sold at a profit (Plut. Cat. 21): but
the term paedagogus as applied to the teaching
of slave boys belongs to a later time than
Cato's, and denotes especially the trainer of
the ornamental attendant boys, cupbearers at
banquets, &c., in rich houses, under the Em-
pire or shortly before: the earlier date may
be deduced from Cic. pro Rosc. Am. 41, 120;
pro Mil. 10, 28. Such page boys, who are
sometimes called capillati (Mart. iii. 58, 29),
lived together in a page's room or hall called
paedagogium, having over them paedagogi, sub-
paedagogi, and decani (see Spartian. Hadr. 2,
and numerous inscriptions cited by Marquardt,
Privatl. 158): hence they were called pueri
paedagogiani (Ammian. xxvi. 6, 15; xxix. 3, 3).
The name of the place in which they were
taught was transferred to the boys themselves,
and we often find slave boys of this class them-
selves called paedagogia (Senec. de Vit, beat. 17;
Ep. 123; Plin. H. W. xxxiii. § 40; Dig. 33, 7,
12), whence it is easy to see the development
of the mediaeval page (see Littré, s. v.). (Becker-
Göll, Charikles, ii. 46; Gallus, ii. 80, 146;
Marquardt, Privatl. 112.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PAEDO'NOMUS (ratēováuos) was a magis-
trate at Sparta (and in some other Doric states)
who had the general superintendence of the
education of boys, which in Doric states was
concerned with little else besides bodily training
[LUDUS LITTERARIUS, p. 94]. His office was
honourable; the appointment by election. He
had control over the discipline and moral
conduct of the boys, at Sparta after the age of
7; he inspected them and punished those who
were negligent or disobedient. For this purpose
warriyoſpápot were assigned to him by Lycurgus.
The more immediate inspection of the gymnastic
exercises belonged to magistrates called 816tatot
or 816éot [BIDIAEI]. In Crete also we find
tratēováuoi (Strabo, x. p. 483; Schömann, Antiq.
p. 303), but boys there did not come completely
under their control till the age of 17. At Teos
(see inscriptions in Gilbert, Staatsalterth. ii.
338), the traičovágos shared with the Yupiva-
oríapxos the charge of education. (Xen. Rep.
Lac. ii. 2, iii. 10, iv. 6; Plut. Lyc. 17; Krause,
Gymnastik u. Agon. pp. 254, 6773. Gilbert,
op. cit. i. 67.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PAEDOTRIBAE. [PALAESTRA.]
PAE'NULA. [An inscription (Gruter, 646,
5), G.N. Cossvt.IVs PAENVLARIVs, shows that
this is the correct spelling. The derivation of
the word is unknown; it certainly is not from
qalvöAms, which only occurs in late writers, as
a translation of the Latin; uavööm being also
used.] The paenula was a sleeveless cloak of
thick cloth, worn by the Romans as a protection
against rain and cold : hence Horace takes a
“paenula solstitio,” an overcoat, during the
dog-days as a telling instance of discomfort. It
is frequently mentioned in the literature of all
periods, from Plautus down to the Fathers of
the Latin Church. The paenula was worn by
country-folk who did not wear the TOGA over
their tunics, and, although not so fashionable as
the LACERNA, was used by all classes when on
a journey. (Cic. pro Mil. 10, § 20; ad Att.
xiii. 33;-Quint. Inst. vi. ; Sen. Ep. 87.) It
was also part of the dress of slaves (Plaut. Most.
iv. 2, 74), and at times did them good service in
warding off awkward blows (Plaut. loc. cit.).
Under the Empire we hear of sedan-chairmen
(lecticarii) clad in what seems to have been a
livery of it (Mart. ix. 22, 9; Suet. Nero, 30;
Sen. de Ben. iii. 28, 5).
A paenula mulionica is mentioned by Cicero,
and we know from other authors that it was
occasionally used by soldiers (Sen. de Ben. v. 24,
1; Suet. Galba, 6). In Imperial times its use
seems to have been much extended, and it was
worn in Rome as a protection against the rain.
(Juv. Sat. v. 79). Tribunes (Spart. Hadr. 3),
orators (Tac. Dial. 39), and grammarians even
went so far as to adopt it as their special garb.
in cold weather, though it was considered below
the dignity of the higher magistrates to wear it
at all. Spectators at the games, especially no
doubt those who could not afford the more
expensive LACERNA, found it convenient (Dio
Cass. lxxii. 21), and Tertullian takes this as its
original use, accusing the Lacedaemonians of
inventing it to satisfy their desire for theatrical
performances in the winter. Women wore it no
less than men, for Ulpian (Dig. 34, 2, 23, 2)
speaks of it as a commune vestimentum ; and that
this fashion goes back as far as Cicero's time is
shown by a jest of his, recorded by Quintilian
(viii. 3, 54). These paenulae matronales (Tre-
bellius, de quieto Tyr. 14, 4; cf. Suet. Calig.
52) were probably of a special cut. The
material used in its manufacture was thick
woollen stuff; that from Tarentum and Canu-
sium and, after its introduction, GAUSAPE,
being preferred (cf. Plin. H. N. viii. § 193;
Mart. xiv. 145). Leather, or more probably
fur (for scortea may mean either), was also used
(Mart. l. c. 130; Sen. Nat. Quaest. iv. 6, 21).
Its colour was dark (rufa or fusca), as one
PAENULA
PAGUS 309
would expect a cloak for bad weather to be,
and it was perhaps on account of its dingy
appearance that it was worn at funerals and
formed part of the munera funebria (Cic. in
Vatin. 12, 30; Dio Cass. lxxii. 21, 1. 27 ; Suet.
Tib. 7, Claud. 2).
The notices in literature do not give any very
definite information about its shape, or the
manner of wearing it, except that it was sleeve-
less, fitted closely to the body, was drawn over
the head, and was sometimes provided with a
hood (Plin. H. N. xxiv. § 88). [See woodcut
under CUCULLUS.] In Christian times it was
adopted as a vestment, but in this use is better
known as the casula or chasuble (see Dict.
Christ. Antiqq. s. v. “Casula”).
The paenula occurs but seldom on monuments,
chiefly no doubt because
its shape does not admit
of an artistic arrange-
ment of folds, but also
because it is not a
garment characteristic
of any calling or mode
of life. The monuments
representing it were
first collected by Bar-
tholinus in his admi-
rable Commentarius de
Paenula, and compara-
tively few examples
have been since added
to his list (see, how-
ever, Hübner in Pro-
º gram 2wm Winckel-
ſº mannsfest, Berlin,
"Sº 1866). All agree in
{
º
“-------aºiſºlkme
- • **** º --
$º- * !! º *... -->
| ..
tº a
showing a cloak coming
down to the knees, very
like a long cape, except
that it is closed all
round, the head passing through a slit in the
centre, exactly in the same way as in the
poncho of Spanish-America. The variety in
e §§§ - *- :
...º. §º asse’ſº
... . .--~º ºr
º ‘º § 5%
*HººV (f///º-3 wr
%,...." AE - w
§ § - * . . . WNS
§º ‘(I'llº
" a Jº . (A → .
~3 6%.W. W. . |
||Nº|W
Paenula. (From statuette
in British Museum.)
...??
&
*
W.
ºt-
º
...A'ſ
***...
| | | *
& Vº
*-
"...f.
Figure wearing Paenula. (From Trajan's Column.)
shape is very considerable, the cloak appearing
sometimes square, sometimes round, and some-
times of a bell-shape. In most cases a tuckered
seam runs down the centre in front, enabling
the wearer to hitch up one side over his shoulder,
and to keep his arm free. However, even so,
it is plain that the paenula could not be worn
when free movement of the arms was necessary;
and this is the point which Cicero makes in
Milo's favour, when he pleads that he was
paenulatus, which he assumes really meant
paenula irretitus. It also explains why it is
that out of the numerous figures of soldiers on
Roman reliefs so very few wear this cloak.
One of these few is the cippus of L. Duccius
Rufinus Signifer of the Ninth Legion, found and
preserved at York. (Wellbeloved, Eboracum,
plate xiii. fig. 1.) There is no monumental
evidence for Marquardt's theory that Cicero's
expression scindere paenulam (ad Att. l.c.) refers
to a custom by which the host unbuttoned his
guest's cloak on his arrival; none of the repre-
sentations show anything like buttons. (Besides
Bartholinus’ work, above mentioned, the best
edition of which is that contained in Graevius'
Thesaurus, tom. vi., see Marquardt, Privatleben,
ed. 2, pp. 564 f.; and Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii.
p. 125 f.) [W. C. F. A.]
PAGA'NI, PAGANA'LIA. [PAGUS.]
PAGA'NICA. [PILA.]
PAGUS, a canton. The meaning of this
word cannot be given in precise and absolute
terms, partly because we can have no doubt
that its significance varied greatly between the
earliest and the later times of Roman history,
partly because its application by Latin writers
to similar, but not identical, communities out-
side Italy (especially in Gaul) and their com-
parison of pagi with the Greek 67aol tend to
complicate the question. Latium was anciently
divided into a number of clan-settlements or
villages which were an aggregate of dwellings
gathered round a central enclosed or fortified
space, an ara, or castellum [cf. OPPIDUM]. As
regards the terms vicus (oikos) and pagus in
reference to these ancient settlements, we may
gather from various passages that vicus meant
houses closely connected, and so a small village or
hamlet of a continuous street, pagus a district
including scattered houses or scattered hamlets
(Varro, L. L. v. 145; Festus, p. 371 ; Ammian.
xxxi. 2, 17; WICUs). This will hold good, whether
we take its etymology (pango) to signify
“buildings” or “fixed boundary" (cf. Momm-
sen, Roman Hist. vol. i. p. 38, with Staatsrecht,
iii. p. 116). Old writers have connected it with
Thym, the central village well, or with tréyos,
i.e. a hill-fort (Festus, s. v.; Serv. ad Georg. ii.
381; Dionys. iv. 15): but the first would
rather suit the vicus or hamlet, since the pagus
would have many wells, and the second would
do better for the ara; than for the district round
it. In speaking of clan-settlements, we must
guard against the notion that the gens and
pagus could be identified the one with the other:
the pagus was purely local and would remain, if
the main body of the gens dwelling in it mi-
grated elsewhere: so long only as they dwelt
there, they would be pagani of that pagus. We
cannot even assume that the inhabitants of a
pagus were, except perhaps in altogether pre-
historic times, members of the same gens. It is



















31() PAGUS
PAGUs'
probable indeed that originally they were so, and
that afterwards in some cases two or more
gentes might have joined in the same pagus; in
others some portions of the old gens or gentes
may have left the district, and their places have
been filled up by others. Accordingly we find
the names of pagi mostly local with the termi-
nation -anus, but some few gentile, as pagus
Walerius, pagus Julius, or the Roman pagus
Lemonius for instance (see Mommsen, Staatsr.
iii. 113): and even where pagi have gentile
names, we cannot always say whether the name
belonged to it, as the original clan-settlement,
or was given in honour of some member of the
gens afterwards connected with it.
Politically, as both Mommsen and Marquardt
are careful to point out, the pagus did not form
an independent community. Here again, how-
ever, we cannot say that this was always true,
and the original pagi may have been purely
independent clan-settlements: such an opinion
would, after all, be in accord with a dictum in
Mommsen's Rome, “All history begins, not with
the union but with the disunion of a nation.”
But whatever the pre-historic condition of these
cantons, we know them as only single members
of an aggregate state called civitas or populus,
which gathered together in fora or conciliabula
for markets or for legislation, and, as one
people, combined for defensive or offensive war-
fare. This is indeed clearly indicated by
Isidore (Orig. xv. 2, 11). The stages were,
probably, first the pagus with its own centre of
refuge and its own sovereign rights, then several
pagi gathering round a common centre for
refuge—such, for instance, as Tusculum, which
became the urbs or oppidum of the combined
pagi, and then a league of various canton
centres, such as Alba.
Though, however, the pagus was not (unless
in primitive times) an independent state, it had
an organisation analogous to that of a collegium:
we find that magister pagi-aediles pagi (some-
times a single magister pagi)—whom Dionys. ii.
76, ascribing the institution to Numa, calls
tröyov &pxoviras — are annually elected with
priestly functions, to look after the sacred rites
of the pagus, with some police control also of
local matters, such as the roads (Siculus Flaccus,
p. 146), and perhaps of water-supply (cf. Festus,
s. v. sifus): a power of fining the members of
the pagus appears in inscriptions (C. I. L. ix.
3513), and a common council for such local
business (C. I. L. i. 571). It is clear that their
administrative importance, whatever it had
been once, dwindled to almost nothing, to
nothing in fact, apart from the religious rites,
but what necessarily followed on the pagus
having common as well as private property,+
but to a late period it remained as a geogra-
phical term for the district of woodland and
tillage outside a town and attached to it for all
real administration, containing within itself
villages (vici), country houses (villae), and farms
(fundi or praedia): often several pagi attached
to one large town, as for instance 11 pagi to
Beneventum (see Isid. Orig. xv. 2, 11; and the
inscriptions cited by Marquardt, Staatsr. i.
p. 11).
It may be seen from the above description
that the pagi resembled in many respects village
communes or Gemeinde, particularly those in
Switzerland [cf. DEMUs], and they have often
been compared to the Attic Siuos. It is highly
probable that the primitive 67/10s and the
primitive pagus were essentially the same, but
it would be misleading to regard them as
identical in historic times, as may be readily
seen by comparing the accounts in the separate
articles. One salient point of difference was
that the connexion with the 67/10s was retained
whether the members of it dwelt in Athens or
not, whereas the contrary was the case with the
pagus. Hence Mommsen in his Staatsrecht de-
precates the comparison with the 67gos, and
prefers to compare the pagus with the Egyptian
váuos or the subdivision rotrapxta (for an
account of which see Marquardt, Staatsverw. i.
pp. 447 f.): it must be observed, however, that
the extent and the administrative importance of
the nome were much greater than those of the
Italian pagus.
At Rome the inhabitants of the old city
(for which see SEPTIMONTIUM) were called
montani ; the accretion of other settlements, or
pagi, later included in the city, furnished the
pagani. Hence in the age of Cicero montani et
pagani would come to mean all the inhabitants
of the city, as in Cic. de Domo, 27, 74; Q. Cic.
de pet. Cons. 8, 30 (if the reading montium for
omnium is adopted). So the Capitol, the Aven-
time, and the Janiculum were pagi, not montes;
and the terms pagus Janicolensis, pagus Aven-
tinensis lasted down to the year B.C. 7, when
Augustus re-arranged the city,
The Celtic pagus, at the time of the Roman
conquest, had at once a greater extent than the
Italian, and a greater power from the fact that
these cantons were not in the same way changed
from their primitive condition and absorbed
into a regularly constituted state, but still
retained their own clan government with gene-
rally a somewhat loose combination in the
civitas (closer, however, among the Belgae than
among other Gallic tribes). The political state
to some extent represents what Aristotle gives
as #6vos in contradistinction to tróAus—a people
dwelling karū koºpas icexoptopévol. From the
direct information which we possess about Gaul,
we see that a certain number of pagi made up a
civitas (Liv. Ep. 65): of the Helvetii there were
four pagi which made up the civitas Helvetica.
(Caes. B. G. i. 37): and four was probably the
normal number, though Caesar (iv. 1) tells us
of the nation which he calls the Suevi with 100
pagi, each contributing 1000 warriors in a
national war. The most powerful of the Hel-
vetic pagi was the pagus Tigurinus, whose
chief place was Aventicum (Avenches, near
the Lake of Morat; C. I. Helvet. 159). It
would seem that the Pays de Vaud to some
extent geographically represents the pagus Ti-
gurinus, as etymologically pagus is represented
by pays. After the Roman conquest and the
dissolution of the Helvetic civitas, the political
and administrative importance of the pagus
ceases, and it retains only its religious functions
(inscr. cit.): that the vici subsequently had the
power of making decrees is seen in several Hel-
vetic inscriptions (149, 241, &c.). Perhaps
some indication of the nature and origin of the
Celtic pagus may be found in the fact that
Strabo (iv. p. 193) calls it pîAov, and Mommsen
(Hermes, xix. p. 316) considers that it resembles
PAGUS
PALA
311
a Roman tribus in its original composition. In
the same article he shows that the clue to the
real nature and constitution of these cantons
may be found in the account of the Galatian
state given in Strabo. The retpapxia of the
Galatians is one-fourth of the cicitas or éðvos :
each tetrarchy had for matters of justice or for
command in war a head-man (rétpapxos); the
office is for life and hereditary (Strabo, xii.
p. 547, trarpºša retpapxia Tów Taxatów ; cf.
p. 541, tois &to yévows terpápxous).; under the
tetrarch are officials called Šukaaths and otpa-
to pöAač, and two ÚrootpatopúAakes. There
was a national council of the three #69 m or
civitates who occupied Asia, composed of the
twelve tetrarchs and three hundred senators; but
except for cases of murder and the national
concerns of peace and war, the twelve tetrar-
chies or pagi had independent local government.
For national interests the three #6vm at various
periods had separate princes, whom Strabo calls
#yepidves or a single jºyeu&v for the three com-
bined (Strabo, xii. pp. 566, 567). It is not
improbable that we have here an organisation
belonging to the Celts in Gaul as well as in Asia.
The fourfold division may be traced in the four
“kings,” or tetrarchs, of the Cantii (Caes. B. G.
v. 22), whom we see acting together in a
national war under the leadership of “Cassi-
vellaunus,” but apparently having rule over
their respective tetrarchies.
Paganalia.-The Italian pagi had their tute-
lary deities and sanctuaries, which are mentioned
even in Christian times (as in a conservative
decree of Constantine, Cod. Theod. xvi. 10, 3).
Here were celebrated in January at the end of
seed-time, “semente peracta,” the country
paganalia, which corresponded to the feriae
sementivae. (Preller, however, believes in a
festival at the beginning as well as the end of
seed-time: the evidence for his view is not
satisfactory.) An offering was made to Tellus
(in later times to Ceres) of cakes of meal and a
pregnant sow. At this festival also masks or
small images were hung up [OSCILLA], and
there were games and rustic songs. (Ov. Fast.
i. 667 f.; Dionys. iv. 15; Verg. Georg. ii. 385;
Hor. Ep. i. 1, 49; ii. 1, 140.) The lustratio
pagi at this festival was a rustic Ambarvalia,
which, besides its religious significance, had the
advantages of fixing the boundaries of the pagus.
[AMBARVALIA; LUSTRATIO.] At the festival of
the Paganalia the magister pagi presided, and
his wife (magistra) assisted.
Pagani—It remains only to remark on special
acquired senses of this word, which strictly
meant only those who for the time being dwelt
in any pagus. We find pagani used in contra-
distinction to milites or to armati (Juv. xvi. 33;
Plin. Ep. vii. 25, x. 86; Suet. Aug. 27, Galb. 19;
—Tac. Hist. i. 53; ii. 14, 88; iii. 24, 43, 77;
iv. 20; Dig. 48, 19, 14). From these passages,
and especially from Tacitus, taking also notice
of the date when the usage began, it is tolerably
clear that the original distinction was between
the regularly enrolled soldiers and the irregular
undrilled half-armed bands of rustics who in
the Roman campaigns fought sometimes against
them for their country like the rustics in Verg.
Aen. vii. 505 or modern francs-firewºrs, some-
times in the ranks of one Roman army against
another in times of civil war.
The famous
“Vos nisi vincitis pagani” (Tac. Hist. iii. 24) is
not the same as Caesar’s use of “Quirites”: the
word “yokel ” might be used, but “militiamen,”
i.e. rustic levies, would more nearly express the
taunt which Antonius Primus addressed to his
soldiers. The more general opposition of the
word to miles followed. The modern use of the
word “pagan,” from the fact that the old
religion lingered most in the rural districts,
first appears in a law of Valentinian A.D. 368,
when the old religion is called religio paganorum
(Cod. Theod. xvi. 2, 18; cf. Isid, viii. 10).
(For the pagus, see Mommsen, Rom. Hist. i.
37-40; Staatsrecht, iii. pp. 112–119; Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, i. pp. i. 3-15; — for the
Gallic pagi, Mommsen in Hermes, xvi. 449 f,
xix. 316 f.;-for the paganalia, Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii. 199; Preller, Röm. Myth.
404.) [G. E. M.]
PALA (probably = oricatróvn, orkapetov), "a
spade. The spade was comparatively little used
in ancient husbandry, the implements used
besides the plough for breaking up and cleaning
the ground being mostly of the pick-axe or hoe
shape [see BIDENS, LIGO, MARRA, SARCULUM].
The pala was used, like our spade, for digging,
not picking : it was of iron (Colum. x. 45), with
a broad cutting edge curved at the end. Pliny
(H. N. xviii. § 46) speaks of it as useful for
breaking up rushy ground (juncosus), whereas
he recommends the bidens for stony ground and
for loosening the soil before planting slips (xvii.
§ 123): and this was probably one of its uses
in the olive-yard. Cato (R. R. 10), in his list
of implements requisite for an olive-yard of 240
jugera, gives only 4 palae, but 6 aratra and
8 Sarcula : it was used too for digging a trench
(Liv. iii. 26), and in gardening (Colum. l.c.).
The woodcut below, taken from a funeral monu-
Pala, falx, and bidens. (From an ancient relief.)
ment at Rome (Fabretti, Inscript. Ant. p. 574),
exhibits a deceased countryman with his fals
and bidens, and also with a pala, modified by
the addition of a strong cross-bar, by the use of
which he was enabled to drive it nearly twice
as deep into the ground as he could have done
without it. In this form the instrument was

312 PALAESTE
PALAESTRA
called bipalium, being employed in trenching
(pastinatio), or, when the ground was full of
roots to a considerable depth, in loosening them,
turning them over, and extirpating them, so as
to prepare the soil for planting vines and other
trees. By means of this implement, which is
still used in Italy and called vanga, the ground
was dug to the depth of two spades or nearly
two feet. It is clear, however, from Columella,
xi. 3, 10, that the cross-bar was placed higher
when a deeper spit was required : he speaks of
digging three feet deep, but says that in other
cases it will be sufficient to dig “non alto bi-
palio, id est minus quam duos pedes; ” where
the various reading bipedalio is clearly a mis-
conception from the “duos pedes.” (Plin. H. W.
xviii. § 230; Cat. R. R. vi. 45, 151; Varro,
R. R. i. 37; Colum. R. R. v. 6.) -
Cato (ib. 11) mentions wooden shovels (palas
ligneas) among the implements necessary to the
husbandman. One principal application of them
was in winnowing. The winnowing-shovel,
also called in Latin ventilabrum (Varro, R. R. i.
52), is still generally used in Greece, and the
mode of employing it is exhibited by Stuart in
his Antiquities of Athens. The corn which has
been threshed lies in a heap upon the floor, and
the labourer throws it to a distance with the
shovel, whilst the wind, blowing strongly across
the direction in which it is thrown, drives the
chaff and refuse to one side. So Isid. Or. xx.
14, 10, “pala quae ventilabrum vulgo dicitur, a
ventilandis paleis nominata " (the etymology
need not be accepted); and Tertull. Praescr. 3,
“palam in manu portat ad purgandam arcam
suam.” According to Schol. ad Aristoph. Av.
806, this was called a kāquov as well as träov
or Aikamrmpts. The fruit of leguminous plants
was purified and adapted to be used for food in
the same manner. (Hom. Il. v. 499–502; xiii.
588–592.)
The term pala was applied anciently, as it is
in modern Italian, to the blade or broad part of
an oar. [REMUS.] In a ring the broad part,
which held the gem, was called by the name of
pala. [ANULUS.] [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PALAESTE. [PALMUs; MENSURA, p. 161.]
PALAESTRA (traxatorrpa). The upshot of
a controversy which lasted for many years as to
the difference between a trañatorrpa and a yup-
váotov is that as a general rule the taxatarpal
were the ordinary schools kept by private in-
dividuals, where boys were trained and got
regular instruction in physical exercises: while
the yupudoria were the public establishments to
which the grown-up young men, and even adults
(Plat. Rep. 452 B; Xen. Symp. 2, 18), resorted
for exercise, but where there was no regular
instruction given except to those who were
training either for the games or to become pro-
fessional athletes. This distinction was made
by K. F. Hermann in his additions to Becker’s
Charikles, ii. 186, 189, and has been accepted by
Guhl and Koner," 256–7, Grasberger (Erziehung
und Unterricht, i. 252), Göll (Charikles, ii. 239),
Blümner (Privatalterthümer, 336, and in Bau-
meister's Denkmäler, s. v. Gymnastik), Mahaffy
(Old Greek Education, p. 25, note), and Iwan
Müller (Handbuch der klass. Alterthümswis-
senschaft, iv. 451 g, 1887).
Becker in his Charikles (Eng. trans. p. 294)
had maintained “that the Gymnasium was a
place including grounds for running, archery,
javelin-practice, and the like, along with baths
and numerous resorts for those who only sought
amusement ; while the Palaestra, on the other
hand, was the regular wrestling-school, where,
originally, wrestling (tréAm) and the pancration
were principally taught and practised; ” and
that “the distinction which Krause had at-
tempted to establish that the Palaestra was
chiefly for the use of boys is quite untenable.”
He bases his conclusion on Aristoph. Av. 140,
trats àpatos &tro yuavaotov: on Plat. Legg. vi.
794 D, who wishes for yupuydoria kal 6tbackaxeta.
for girls as well as boys, proving, he thinks, that
7vuváoia were used for boys; on Lucian, Nav. 4,
where the young men go to the palaestra; and
on Theophr. Char. vii. (Jebb), which speaks of
gymnasia where the ephebi practise, which
implies, Becker thinks, that there were gymnasia
where the boys practised. But neither in this
passage nor in that from Plato is yuplvágua used
otherwise than generically in the sense of
“ places for exercise,” with no idea of any dis-
tinction from traNato Tpai : and as to the passage
from Aristophanes, Göll (op. cit. 234) shows
from Theocritus (Idyll. xxiii. 60, 61) and Lucian
(Amor. 26) that traſs is a term that can be
applied to youths up to twenty years of age;
while the passage from Lucian represents the
young men as setting out in search of Adi-
mantus, who had gone to the palaestra to look
for a favourite boy, and not with any idea of
exercising. But, again, there is the much-
discussed passage in Antiphon (Tetral. ii. 2, 3;
3, 6), where a boy (traſs), answering a summons
from his traiāorpí8ms, crosses the range and is
killed by a spear shot by a youth (uelpdictov),
who is said to be ue^eróv uerò, Tóv #Atkov
âlcovrígely Éiri rig 'yvavao’ſq. But this can be
explained by supposing either that the traſs was
a spectator, or more likely was practising for the
games, and the presence of the trauðorpíðms
seems an additional proof of this. It is better
to explain the passage thus than to force the
sense of émiſ, “in the neighbourhood of,” with
Grasberger, i. 269.
A striking passage to show that palaestrae
were for boys, gymnasia for young men, is
Theocritus (Idyll. ii. 80), where the young men
Delphis and Eudamippus come from the gym-
nasium (äs &to yupuyao ſolo kaxov távov špti
Attrövtov), compared with vo. 8, 97, where
Delphis is represented as staying about the
palaestra of Timagetus to see his boy favourite.
It also shows that the palaestrae were called
after their proprietor (or perhaps their founder):
compare also the palaestrae of Taureas (Plat.
Charm. 153A), Timeas (C. I. A. ii. 445, 1. 22),
Antigenes (ib. 446, l. 61), Sibyrtius (Plut. Alc. 3).
The master of the palaestra was called traičo-
Tp(8ns : he was regularly paid by the parents
of the boys he taught, and the conducting a
palaestra was an ordinary private speculation.
Sometimes, indeed, we find certain quarters of
the town building palaestrae ([Xen.] Rep. Ath.
2, 10), probably by subscription, but even these
were private undertakings, as the state, as such,
had nothing to do with them. That regular
instruction was given in the palaestrae can be
proved from Theophrastus (Char. xix.), where
the Loquacious man goes into the trañato Tpat
and prevents the boys getting on with their
PALAESTRA
PALAESTRA 313
work by his endless gossip with the traiãotpíðat
and Ötöda kaxoi.
As to the actual building, a palaestra required
for wrestling and jumping a smoothly-floored,
fairly large room. Throwing the spear and
discus and running required indeed a very con-
siderable space; but the palaestra in a strict
sense, i.e. place for wrestling, was generally
separated from the course for running (5péaos):
cf. Herod. vi. 128, KAetor06vns kai Spópov ſcal
Traxata rpmv troumorduevos eixe. In the smaller
palaestrae there probably was no àpôpos, only a
comparatively small room for wrestling. This
was doubtless the chief exercise practised in the
palaestra; since instruction would be more
necessary for wrestling than for running. Besides
this main school-room, there were smaller ad-
jacent rooms: one for holding oil, with which
the wrestlers rubbed themselves; another for
sand, which was necessary to enable them to
get grips; and a third for a bath—unless a
river happened to be close by. The elaborate
Palaestra described by Vitruvius (v. 11) is
really a Gymnasium, and is fully treated of
under that head.
There are many vase-paintings of athletic
exercises; a good example is in Baumeister's
JDenkmäler, fig. 671. In these paintings, besides
those actually exercising who are naked, there
is generally a clothed bearded figure, who carries
a rod in one hand and often a staff in the other.
He is the traiãorpt&ms, and the rod is used for
punishment (cf. Aelian, War. Hist. ii. 6).
Corporal punishment was much resorted to in
ancient schools. Occasionally a statue of a
bearded Hermes is depicted (cf. Gerhard, Auser-
lesene Vasenbilder, Taf. lxvi.). Along with
Apollo (Lucian, Anach. 7), Hermes was the god
who principally presided over athletics (Hor.
Carm. i. 10, 4 ; cf. Orelli, Inscript. 1417), and
he was said by mythologists to have been the
father of the goddess Palaestra (Philostr. Imagg.
ii. 32, p. 433, Kayser).
The tratēorpt&ms was the ordinary trainer in
gymnastics (Plat. Lach. 184 E.; Aristoph. Nub.
973, Eq. 1238), just as the ypauparua this was
the ordinary schoolmaster in our sense of the
word; and the two are often mentioned in con-
nexion (Plat. Protag. 312 B: Dio Chrys. Or. xiii.
426, Reiske). He trained all the boys who did
not want either to compete in the games or to
become professional athletes. The latter were
trained by the yuuvaarſs, who had more special
scientific knowledge, and who also possessed a
greater acquaintance with physiology, which
enabled him to tell the effect on the constitution
of this or that exercise (Galen, de sanit. tuend. ii.
12, vol. vi. pp. 156–7, ed. Kuhn). The trauðo-
Tpí8ms was not expected to have a scientific
knowledge of the exercises: he had just the
knack and trick (thv ćutreuptav re àua kal
Tpiðfiv, Galen, op. cit. ii. 9 = p. 143: cf. Plat.
Gorg. 463 A), and was only expected to know
how to do the exercises and to show his pupils
how to do them, but not to determine any special
exercises to be assigned to each separate pupil.
Just like the ordinary preparatory schoolmaster
of the last generation, he put his pupils through
a traditional course; believing, like the pro-
verbial unscientific cook, that what was sauce
for the goose was sauce for the gander. Indeed
the cook is his very analogue, according to Galen
(l.c.), who says that the Tatēorpí8ms is to the
7vºlvaarths as the cook (we should perhaps say
the apothecary) is to the physician; that is,
that he carried out the directions given by the
'Yvuvaatſis : and this was the function a traičo-
Tpí8ms performed when he acted in concert with
the yuplvaaths. However, it must be remem-
bered, on the one hand, that the great mass of
Greek boys were never subjected to the training
of the Yvavao Tſis: and, on the other, that we
are not to suppose all traiāorpíðat merely gave
routine and rule-of-thumb instruction. We hear
that Herodicus of Selymbria was quite scientific
(Plat. Itep. 406 B). But in Plato's time the
distinction of traiāorpſ Bus and yuplvaarhs was
not marked, as he ranks now the one, now the
other, on a level with the physician (Crit. 47 B;
Protag. 313 E). It gradually grew up in after-
times (there is a hint of it in Aristotle, Eth.
Aic. x. 9, 15), owing to the greater number of
boys who wished to attain first-rate excellence
in athletics; perhaps we may compare the in-
creasing number of schools which with us hire
cricket professionals. But though the distinction
was certainly made and is much insisted on by
Galen and others, still in all the Catalogues of
the ephebi coming from Roman times we almost
always find the ratēorpíðms given, often the
itrotrauðorpí8ms, but there is no mention of the
'yvuvaoths. (See the Catalogues of the ephebi
in C. J. A. iii. 1077–1275.) +
We cannot fix with certainty the details of
the instruction. For example, the time of day
at which the physical training took place,
whether all the boys went to their gymnastic
exercises in the afternoon, as Grasberger (op. cit.
i. 292 ft.) maintains, or whether the younger and
the older went at different times—the one in the
morning, the other in the afternoon—as Stark
and Göll hold. The arguments on both sides
rest on a priori grounds; Grasberger insisting
on the whole tenor of ancient life being to work
the brains in the morning and the body in the
afternoon, and that such is the natural course,
while Stark (notes to Hermann's Privatalter-
thimer, $36, note 13) is satisfied with showing
against Grasberger that his reference to Plato,
Lysis, 223 A, proves nothing, as that passage
refers to the special occasion of a feast. Cer-
tain it is that children went to some sort of
school very early in the morning (Plato, Legg.
808 C; Thucyd. vii. 29; LUDUs, p. 95).
The actual exercises practised in the palaestra
were running, jumping, wrestling, throwing the
spear and the discus—which formed what was
called the Pentathlon [PENTATHLON]; boxing
and the pancration were mostly confined to the
gymnasium (I. Müller, l.c.), though in a milder
form they were perhaps practised by the boys
too (Blümmer in Baumeister, l.c.). But, besides
these athletic exercises, the trauðotp:Bms was
expected to train the boys in what we would
call calisthenics, so that they should walk pro-
perly without any swaggering (orogeºv, Dio
Chrys. Or. xxxi. 651, Reiske: cf. Alexis, Frag.
263, Kock) and generally have a graceful car-
riage. It is possibly in this respect that we are
to explain what Isocrates says (de Antid. § 181)
that yupwaaruch is a part of traičorpiðuch. The
general aim of the exercises was that the boys
should be fair and strong in body, as the traido-
rptºns is represented as saying in Plato, Gorg-
© wº :* •.
g jº • *s s & & * * *
e º (4. * s
& L, & , * >
• , s , , . " * e
is g tº º &
314 PALILIA
PALLA
452 B, to ºpyov uoiſ Éoti kaAoûs Te kal ioxupov's
roleſ, rows &v6pátrovs tº adºplara. There is a
very interesting passage in Clement of Alex-
andria (Strom. pp. 823, 4, ed. Potter) in which
he tells how the traičorpíðms directed each several
motion of beginners (oxmuarigetv and 6tairAdo-
orew are the words used); more forward pupils
he instructed by showing (êtrièeukvis) himself
how the exercise was done, while to the most
advanced pupils he simply told (irpoordtrol é;
êvéuaros) what exercise was to be performed.
In early times the state exercised a police
control over the palaestrae in the interests of
morality, Solon enacting that the schools should
not be opened before sunrise or kept open after
sunset, and forbidding grown men to visit the
palaestrae (Aeschin. Timarch. §§ 9-12): but
this law soon fell into abeyance, as may be seen
from the Lysis and Charmides of Plato, and
from Theophrastus's account of the Loquacious
II13. Ile
The Greek exercises of the palaestra never
took any great hold on the Romans. They dis-
approved of them as leading to idleness, and,
owing to the nakedness of those who took part
in the exercises, to immorality; and besides, they
were no good for war (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 40 =
274, 25, Reiske; Senec. Epist. 88, 18; Plin.
Epist. x. 40, 2). But still they were practised
a good deal by the Romans, sometimes as a
preparation for the bath, but generally by young
men who wished for some, but not for very
violent, exercise (Hor. Sat. ii. 2, 8 ft. : cf. Carm.
i. 8, 8; iii. 12, 7; and Strabo, v. 236): cf.
Marquardt, Privatleben der Römer, 120.
But the word “palaestra” has other senses
than the one we have treated of. Haase (in
Ersch and Gruber, s. v. Palaestra) shows that it
is used as a special part of a gymnasium, as
(at least in Roman times) synonymous with
gymnasium, and also in a metaphorical sense.
That it was used for part of a gymnasium,
probably the part where wrestling was practised,
can be proved from Hyperides (Orat. Att. ii.
p. 404, ed. Didot), Plut. (Wit. X. Oratt. 841, 27),
and perhaps Lucian (Parasit. 51). That it was
synonymous with gymnasium in Roman times
can be proved from Vitruvius (v. 11), who
describes a gymnasium and calls it a palaestra;
Plutarch, too (Sympos. ii. 4 = 638, 21), says
that the place where all the athletes exercise is
called a palaestra; and Pausanias tells us (v. 15,
8; vi. 21, 2) that there were at Olympia
palaestrae especially devoted to athletes. The
wealthy Romans often had private palaestrae or
gymnasia added to their houses (Cic. Att. i. 10,
3; Verr. v. 72, 185). For the metaphorical use
of “palaestra,” as signifying rhetorical academic
oratory as opposed to real public speaking, see
Cic. de Orat. i. 18, 81 ; and for elegance in com-
position as opposed to an uncouth and unculti-
vated style, Cic. de Leg. i. 2, 6.
The chief works to consult for further in-
formation on the exercises of the Palaestra are
Haase's article on Palaestrik in Ersch and Gruber;
Krause in Pauly, s. v. Gymnasium ; Grasberger,
op. cit. i. 244 to end; Hermann-Blümner, Gr.
Privatalterthümer, 341–351; and Mahaffy, Old
Greek Education, chap. iii. Detailed accounts of
the different exercises will be found in separate
articles summarised in the Index. [L. C. P.]
PALI'LIA. [PARILIA.]
PALLA. The palla and its Greek counter-
part, the trétraos, were identical in shape with
the pallium or iudriov, being square or rect-
angular shawls or plaids; but while the pallium
was worn by both sexes, the palla was, originally
at any rate, confined to women. It was worn as
it came from the loom, generally with the addi-
tion of embroidery, but without any alteration
in shape at the hands of tailor or sempstress. It
is usual to divide the modes of wearing such
garments into two great divisions: first, those
in which they are loosely thrown round the
body [AMICTUs]; and, secondly, those in which
they are fastened more closely and securely by
means of pins and broochés [FIBULA), and at
times a girdle [ZONA]. To the latter class is
given, with somewhat questionable correctness,
the name indumenta. It is unwise to press this
division too far, and the failure to perceive that
the same garment might be worn either way
has led to much needless controversy as to the
use of words. The actual modes of wearing
dictated by fashion, or suggested by the needs
of life, were truly endless, as were also the
differences in size, material, and pattern required
to suit the wants of woman and girl, matron and
maid, rich and poor, mourner and reveller, in
all the varied pursuits and on all the many
occasions which demand a special dress. These
manifold uses are reflected in language, but the
difficulty in determining what they were is in-
creased by the fact that, as fashions changed
and life became more complex, old words became
obsolete or changed their meaning, while new
words were applied to garments known formerly
by other mannes. In no case is it so truly neces-
sary to bear this in mind as in that of the
trétxos. Its derivation is uncertain, but
Studniczka's conjecture that it is a reduplicated
form of the root seen in palla, pallium, and pellis,
is at once plausible and satisfactory.
In Homer it is used of the chief dress of
women, which is also called ěavás (Il. iii. 385;
xiv. 178; xxi. 507) or eiavás (Il. xvi. 9); but
from their use in other passages these would
seem to be merely epithets (Il. v. 734; viii.
385; xviii. 352, 613; xxiii. 254), rénxos being
the distinctive name. It was worn next the
skin, for Hera on leaving her bath put it on first
(Il. xiv. 178); and Athene, when she dons the
shirt (xitëv) and armour of Zeus, has first to
loose the brooch at her shoulder and let the
trétaos fall from her (Il. v. 734). The latter
passage shows that the garment was not a sewn
one, like the shirt which the men wore (xurév),
but one which could be thrown off in an instant
(karéxevey). Everything in fact goes to show
that it was worn in the same way as the Doric
shift [TUNICA], but fastened below the shoulder
just above the breast (cf. xpvoreſms 6 verſial
karð grâ60s trepovăro, Il. xiv. 180); a mode of
wearing which is admirably illustrated by the
figures on many early Greek vases (v. infra). This
method of wearing a dress, as heavy as one's
chief garment must be, has the obvious defect
that it throws the whole weight on the shoulders.
This was met by the use of the girdle [ZONA],
which had the further advantage of keeping the
open side of the Trétaos in some degree closed.
The girdle was worn universally, and is always
mentioned when details of the toilet are given.
Even such apparent exceptions as in the case of
PALLA
PALLA 315
Athena (Il. v. 734; viii. 385) do not imply that
it was not worn; nor is it necessary to suppose
that when Aphrodite protected Aeneas from the
Greek darts with the irröyua of her gown that
she necessarily was without a girdle (Il. v. 315),
for tritinyua may well have a different meaning
(v. infra). In many cases the open side was no
doubt held together by a row of brooches, for it is
impossible to assume that the twelve golden trepô-
vat that accompanied the Trém Nos which Antinous
presented to Penelope had any other use (0d.
xviii. 292). Whether the trérxos still further
resembled the Doric shift in being doubled at
the top, into a fold falling over the breast, is
not clear, though this is very possibly the mean-
ing of irröyua in the passage quoted above.
What little knowledge we have of the fashions
of the ladies of Epic times, and the way in which
they wore their gowns most becomingly, is
given by the epithets which the bard applies
to fair women. We learn, for instance, that
even though their robes were long and swept
the ground (éAkeoutrétraot, Il. ii. 442; x. 185),
they did not hide the charms of a neat ankle
(storqvpos, Hesiod. Theogn. 254, 961; Scut.
Herc. 16, 86;-kaAAtaq'vpos, Il. ix. 557, 560,
xiv. 319; 0d. v. 333, xi. 603, &c.;—and
ºravčarqupos, Hymn. in Cer. 2, 77) any more than
those of their snow-white arms (Aevicºevos,
passim). Epithets referring to the nice adjust-
ment of the girdle are common, but are, with
the exception of effgovos and kaxAfgovos, very
obscure, and those cannot be said to give us any
very definite information. Ba0;(ovoi is difficult
to explain, though it certainly cannot mean that
the Homeric ladies wore their gowns with thick
folds, hanging over a low-girt girdle, in the
style of a later age (best seen in the Parthenon
marbles). It wery probably refers to slimness
of waist, which was beyond any doubt looked on
as beautiful. (This is possibly the point of the
comparison of the waist of Agamemnon to that
of Ares, Il. ii. 479.) Neither does 8a0&icoxtros
refer to the fashion mentioned above, as seen
in the Pheidiac statues, but rather expresses the
poet's admiration for a well-moulded bust (Il.
xviii. 122; xxiv. 315, &c.). The Trét}\os was some-
times richly embroidered (Il. vi. 294; 0d. xv.
107); indeed, to judge by the frequency of the
epithets trotrixos and trapatroſkixos, it was seldom
without this kind of ornament. The cloth from
which it was made seems to have been of the
brightest colours, saffron ('H&s kpokómetrāos,
Il. viii. 1 et passim), purple (Hymn. in Cer. 182,
360; Hesiod. Theogn. 406), and flaming red (if
we may trust the description of Aphrodite's
robe, paeivórepos trupos airyfis, Hymn. in Ven.
86). The material cannot have been anything
else but wool, for no other stuff would be
sufficiently warm for such an important gar-
ment, neither is it likely that linen would be
embroidered as the trétraos was. Besides, if we
may take the goddesses Calypso and Circe as
examples of the fashions of the time, the linen
mantle (pâpos), which the men of Epic times wore
as an over-garment, was used as a dress girded
round the waist, and probably was also pinned
at the shoulders in the same fashion as the
Trétaos (Od. v. 230, x. 543; cf. Hesiod, Op. 198).
Even if this passage does not allow us to argue
that the women of the time wore the pâpos, we
have the account of the dancing maidens on the
shield of Achilles (Il. xviii. 597), who wore
linen raiment, though we are not told in what
way.
Besides being a lady's garment, the réirãos
appears in the Homeric poems as a covering for
chariots (Il. v. 193) and seats (Od. vii. 96), and
also as the purple pall in which the golden urn
that contained the ashes of Hector was wrapped
(Il. xxiv. 795). It was for these reasons and for
the richness of their ornament that the trérxot
form such a large part of the treasures of the
household, and that they were acceptable pre-
sents (Od. xvii. 292; cf. Il. xiv. 178), forming
part of Hector's ransom (Il. xxiv. 229), and
being the choicest gift that could be offered by
the Trojan women to the patron goddess of the
town (Il. vi. 90, 271). [DoNARIA.]
Of the changes which Greek dress underwent
during the ages which followed that of the
Epic, we can learn but little from literature.
We gather from the occasional protests of the
lyric poets and the rigorous measures of the
lawgivers that the influence of Oriental luxury
was ever on the increase. It is not, however,
until this luxury had given way to the healthy
reaction which followed the Persian wars that
we can get contemporary information about the
costume of the times. Then we find that the
trétraos was no longer an every-day garment,
but the characteristic robe of hero and god on
the stage, or in poetry. It occurs very fre-
quently in the Attic tragedians, but always
with an indefinite meaning, as indeed we might
gather from the frequency with which the
plural and the word Trét}\opia are used. In
Aeschylus, for instance, we find that not only is
a woman's robe, be it woollen or linen (Choeph.
25; Suppl. 111; Pers. 125), called trétraos, but
that men's clothing also bears the name. So-
phocles uses the word with equal laxity, while
Euripides makes it a word for clothes in general,
using it for the over- not less than the under-
garments of both men and women. In alk
literature subsequent to the tragedians the
word occurs in the same loose way, with one
very important exception; that of the trétxos
which was each year carried in the Panathenaic
procession on a mast to the Parthenon, where it
was solemnly presented to Athena Parthenos.
[ARRHEPHORIA; PANATHENAEA..] This robe was
embroidered with scenes from the battles be-
tween the gods and the giants, in which Athena
took a prominent part (Eur. Hec. 466–474, cf.
Ion, 184 f.). There can be no doubt whatever
that this robe, as is usual in the case of such
ancient cults, went back as regards texture to
very early ages, in fact in all probability prior
to the Homeric.
By a fortunate coincidence we are able to
date approximately the disappearance of the
trétrºos at Athens. Herodotus (v. 87, 88) tells
us that the women of Athens gave up the
archaic dress of Greece, which resembled the
Doric, and adopted the Ionian, in order to be
able to dispense with the use of the fibula. The
occurrence which brought this change about was
the murder of the only man who returned from
the disastrous expedition against Aegina; and
as this took place in the first half of the sixth
century B.C., we have an approximate date for
the change in question, even if we discard the
story as a fiction. This rough date is moreover
316 PALLA
PALLA
borne out by the monuments. As to the monu-
ments: it has so far been impossible to recognise
the trém Aos in any of the objects found at
Hissarlik, Mycenae, Archomenos, and Tiryns;
but this does not preclude the possibility of its
having been worn at that age, for the objects
are in most cases of a foreign origin. The fact,
however, that no fibulae were among the
numerous ornaments found in the graves at
Mycenae would seem to cast a doubt on it.
In the graves of a later date, such as those of
the Dipylon and Phaleron at Athens, and of
Assarlik in Caria, fibulae have been found in
large quantities. Unfortunately the figures on
the pottery of this age are too rude to give us
any idea of the costume of the time in which
they were used. It is in fact on the early
“black-figured ” ware from Athens and Corinth
that we are first able to find a garment answer-
ing to the Homeric description. This is, per-
haps, best seen on the figures of the famous
François vase (now in Florence), which repre-
sent the women as wearing an archaic form of
the Doric shift, which, in most cases, is their
only garment. It is fastened not above, but
below, the shoulder (karð orrā60s) with a large
fibula of archaic pattern. This is well shown
Mo p A
§º
(A
Wºzzº
tººls º § sº
% § ty. A o:
- * Qº
Yºr Jº
- &#.
§ſ |zº
§
H
§ſ sº
§ 2.
R
H sº tº
H arº is
H
$ H
5.
º stſ. E: gº
H
H
§ $ºº
§ *
§|| |Bºžđſ. !
§º y ÖjFF Frrºr:l
–S
Moirae. (From François vase.)
by the representations of Moirae. Other vases
prove that this garment was open down the side;
for instance, a cylix of the vase-painter Xenocles,
showing Polyxena as she flies from Achilles,
with the whole leg displayed. The style of
these vases proves that this costume was at
least as old as the seventh century B.C., and it
continues to appear in all the vase-paintings of
the “black-figured" style. When this style
was given up and the “red figure” was adopted,
other forms of female garments are seen in the
paintings, and this archaic trérxos disappears.
If the latest system of dating is correct, this
change of style in vase-ornamentation took
place not later than the middle of the sixth
century B.C.; and as this agrees exactly with
what Herodotus tells us, we may accept it as
certain that it was then that the trétraos, or
archaic dress, was given up by the women of
Athens. The statues of the latter half of the
sixth century lately discovered on the Acropolis,
and the vase-paintings of the same period, show
clearly enough how the transition took place.
The characteristic of all these statues and
figures is that they wear over their linen chiton
a mantle, which is pinned or fastened at one
shoulder and passes under the left arm. It fits
closely to the form, and the top is doubled over
into a fold, so that it is nothing but a Doric
shift, with the brooch at one shoulder loosened
and the arm shoved out. It is in fact the
trérxos worn over the linen or Ionic shift, and
without a girdle. The resemblance is made
still greater by the fact that it is generally
richly embroidered. However, in this form it
has lost its old name, and was known as iud-
Tuov [PALLIUMJ. It was noted above that the
trétraos of Athena was retained in the original
meaning of the word throughout the whole of
antiquity, and this is strikingly borne out by
the artistic tradition seen in the statues of
Athena. In nearly all the oldest representa-
tions (e.g. in the metope from the oldest temple
at Selinus and on the Burgon vase) she is
clothed in the garment described in Homer and
shown on the vases. The same type was adopted
by Pheidias for his Athene Parthenos, as we see
by the numerous reproductions of it that have
come to light. The best
of these is the statuette
found at the Warvakeion,
near Athens, an accurate
Roman copy of the great
original. Even in Hel-
lenistic art it is often
retained as the charac-
teristic garb of Athena
(e.g. “Minerve au col-
lier” in the Louvre).
[The view as to the
nature of the tréarxos
taken above is that first
propounded by Franz
Studniczka in his Bei-
träge zur Geschichte der
altgriechischen Tracht,
p. 92 seq. (Wien, 1885).
It has been accepted by
Helbig in Das Homerische
Epos (Leipzig, 1887), and
by Iwan Müller, Hand- i.
buch der klassischen Alter-
thumswissenschaft, Band
IV. (Nordlingen, 1887).]
Palla, though it denotes a genuinely Roman
garment, is used as the translation of Trétraus
(Serv. ad Aen. i. 479), for peplus and peplum are
artificial forms which were never naturalised.
Used as a translation, it is par excellence the
garb of heroic personages on the tragic stage
(cf. Hor. A. P. 279, “personae pallaeque re-
pertor honestae; ” Aeschylus; and Milton, Il
Penseroso, “Tragedy in sceptred pall”). Closely
Statuette of Athene
Parthenos.
connected with this is its use in poetry, where

PALLA
PALLA 317
it is worn not only by gods and goddesses, but
by mythical figures in general. In both cases
its meaning is quite as vague as that of trétraos
in Attic tragedy (v. supra). The garment itself
was a rectangular piece of cloth (Isidor. xix. 25),
which could be worn either as a dress or a
shawl, which at times served the purposes of a
curtain (Sen. de Ira, 22, 2). -
The notices in literature give us but little
satisfactory information as to the various ways
in which it was worn, owing to the fact that in
very many cases (e.g. in Plautus) it is impossi-
ble to say whether a Greek or a Roman garment
is meant. This difficulty has given rise to a
controversy which has raged since the time of
Rubenius and Ferrarius, and cannot be said to
have yet come to an end. That the original
way of wearing it was practically the same as
that of wearing the Doric shift, may be regarded
as certain, for Warro includes it among the gar-
ments quae indutui sunt (L. L. v. 131), and
there is good reason to believe that it took the
place of an archaic garment of somewhat the
same shape, but of a smaller size, which sur-
vived until classical times in a ceremonial dress
called the RICINIUM. Whether the palla con-
tinued to be worn as a shift after the introduc-
tion of the tunica, must, at the present state of
our knowledge, remain undecided. Marquardt
(Privatleben, p. 579) maintains that it did,
supporting his view by an appeal to the phrases
tunico-pallium, tunicae pallium, and tunica pal-
liata, and to statues found at Herculaneum.
The statues, however, are Greek, not Roman,
while the phrases are only used by late com-
mentators, and must be referred to pallium and
not to palla. Even the palla picta which was
sent by the senate cum amiculo purpureo (Liv.
xxvii. 4) does not prove that even at that time
it was worn at Rome as an undergarment, for it
is probable that it was a repovaTpls of the style
then so fashionable at Alexandria. However
this may be, it is as a shawl, covering the stola,
that we hear of it in classical times, when it
took the same place in the dress of women as
the toga did in that of men. When thus worn,
it was thrown over the left shoulder, drawn
across the back, brought either over or under
the right shoulder, and tucked round the body.
This manner of wearing it is well described by
Apuleius (Met. xi. 3): “Palla nigerrima splen-
descens atronitore quae circumcirca remeans et
sub dextrum latus ad umerum laevum recur-
rens, umbonis vicem dejecta parte laciniaé.
multiplici contabulatione dependula ad ultimas
oras nodulis fimbriarum decoriter confluebat.”
Worn thus, it was practically identical with the
indriov [PALLIUM), and was the outdoor dress
of all respectable women (Hor. Sat. i. 2, 97;
Sen. Troad. 91: cf. Mart. xi. 104, 7, where it
is called pallium), as well as by girls (Tib. iv. 2,
11). As a woman's shawl it seems to have,
like the toga, become unfashionable under the
Empire; and we find that, even in the time of
Tiberius, Caecina inveighed against the change
(Tertull. de Pall. 4). In the third century it
seems to have gone out of use entirely as a gar-
ment, for it is not mentioned by Ulpian, nor is
it in the list given in the edict of Diocletian.
The garments which supplanted it were more
especially the dalmatica and the colobium. [DAL-
MATICA.] On the monuments of all kinds,
especially the portrait statues of the Empire,
it frequently appears used as a shawl, wrapped
round the body as described above. Nowhere,
however, do we find any support for the
assumption that it was sometimes girded,
which some base on the use of succincta in
Hor. Sat. i. 8, 23; Werg. Aen. vi. 555. On
the monuments the palla is easily recognised
in the mantle worn by Roman women, though,
except in the case of certain portrait statues
and reliefs, there must be always a doubt.
whether the garment is Greek or not.
Statue of Livia wearing the Palla.
The modes of wearing it are very numerous;
but in all a third part is thrown over the left
shoulder from behind, and the garment drawn
round the body, covering or leaving free the
right arm. Sometimes it is wrapped so
tightly round the body that the end is thrown
once more over the left shoulder from the
front. Sometimes it is drawn over the
head, to serve either as a veil or as a protection
against the weather. In nearly all cases it is a
rectangular piece of cloth, the dimensions vary-
ing very considerably. In some few instances,
however, it resembles the toga in having one of
its sides cut in a circular form.
Palla is also one of the names given to the
xtröv ćp000 réðios (tunica talaris), which with
the xxaabs formed the conventional costume of
the Citharoedus (cf. Auctor ad Herenn. iv. 47,
60; Apuleius, Florid. 2, 15). This had no real
connexion with the palla, being a long sleeved
tunic girded high above the waist; it was also
known as stola and orippa. Statues and reliefs
representing citharoedi (especially Apollo Citha.
roedus) are clad in this robe. The best known of
these works is the statue of Apollo Citharoedus
in the Vatican. Martial (i. 93), mentions a
gallica palla, but this is a short jacket (“Dimi-
diasque nates gallica palla tegit”), which seems
to have been peculiar to Gaul, and is described

318 PALLIUM
PALLIUM
by Strabo, iv. p. 196, (kéArai) āvri, 6 ×iróvov
oxigrows Xeiptówtows pépova i pºexplaiòotov kal
'yńovröv.
Apollo Citharoedus. (From the Vatican.)
[References to the earlier literature will be
found in Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 576 ft.
A criticism of Marquardt is given in Göll's
edition (1882) of Becker's Gallus, p. 258 ft.
The best account of palla = xírov Špôoor rdöuos
is in Stephani, Compte-Rendu, 1875, pp. 102–
153. For the monuments, see Müller in Bau-
meister's Denkmäler des klassischen. Alterthums,
S. v. Toga.] [W. C. F. A.]
PA'LLIUM. At all periods of Greek life the
characteristic outdoor garment, both of men and
women, was a mantle or shawl, consisting of a
rectangular piece of cloth. Such mantles were
known generally as étrušAfipata or trepiflaſhpiata,
or more specially as iudria. ‘Ipºdriov is derived
from the root Fes or és (cf. vestis). The cognate
word eiua is used in Homer of clothes in general,
and Feua occurs in the celebrated inscription
from Gortyn in the same sense. The early form
eiudriov is found in an inscription from Andania
(Dittenberger, No. 388, 16), with which êudriov
in another inscription (Roehl, I. G. A. 395 a.)
may be compared. The older sense of the word,
meaning “raiment,” was retained in the plural
at all periods of Greek literature.
Apart from the name, the use of the cloak or
shawl is, as has been shown in the article PALLA,
as old as the art of weaving. The garments of
men no less than women were woven on the
domestic loom, retvyuéva xeport yuvaików, and
all of the same rectangular shape. As a conse-
quence the sole difference between the dress of
men and that of women lay in the size and
material, but not in the shape of their garments.
The earliest method of wearing such clothes is
undoubtedly as a cloak fastened round the body
with a pin or clasp and a girdle. This was the
dress of women in the Homeric age [PALLA),
but men had already at that time adopted the
linen shirt as an under-garment. Some attempt
has of late been made to gather, from the repre-
sentations on objects found at Mycenae and
other early sites, the nature of pre-Homeric
dress, but the Greek character of those which
are clear enough to give definite information is
too doubtful to allow of even the most general
conclusions. Other attempts to settle the
question by an appeal to Egyptian, Assyrian,
and Phoenician monuments have been made, but
have, at the present state of our knowledge, no
claim to serious consideration. In Homer, the
dress for men is a mantle, worn over a shirt of
linen (xit dºw; TU-
NICA), which is
called either XAaſ-
va or påpos. The
women, on the
other hand, are
clad in the trét}\os,
but the veils which
are worn over this
cannot be classed
as shawls or man-
tles. There can be
no doubt that both
the XAaiva and
qāpos were rect-
angular pieces of
cloth, worn with-
out being altered in
shape by any cut-
ting or sewing.
The XAaïva [LA-
ENA) was of wool,
and had a thick
nap (otſ\m, Il. x.
134). Those worn
by great folk were
dyed red (Il loc.
cit.; Od. xiv. 500,
xxi. 118), or pur-
ple (Od. iv. 115,
154; xix. 225), but
it was the dress of
the poor man no
less than the rich,
for it was worn by
the swineherd Eu-
maeus (Od. xiv.
529) and by the
servants of Pene-
lope's suitors (Od.
xv. 331). It was
fastened round the
neck with a brooch or pin (Od. xix. 226), and,
as the brooch is not always mentioned, it is
possible that it may also have been worn
without, simply wrapped round the body. Two
forms of it are mentioned, the first the Štrºot-
6es xAalvat (Il. xxiv. 229), the latter the
XXaiva Öttà? (Il. x. 134; 0d. xix. 225).
There can be little, if any, doubt that the
latter form is the same as the 6ttrMač, a gar-
ment often mentioned (Il. iii. 126, xxii. 440;
Od. xix. 245); the only difference between the
6ttraağ and the xxaſva being that the former is
the latter doubled. That the older commen-
tators were wrong in understanding the differ-
ence to be one of pattern is shown by a passage
in the Odyssey (xiii.224), where Athene, dis-
guised as a youthful shepherd, is described as
Figure of Peleus, from a vase.
(Helbig.)


PALLIUM
PALLIUM 319
8tarruxov &piq &uotoiv čxov evepyéa A&rmy,
which shows that it lay in the folding. It
might be thought perhaps that the 6tarruxos
Aðtrm is a different garment, but there is no
reason to suppose that it has any more definite
meaning than the later Adjaros : it is in fact a
general word for clothing. The Öſtraağ may
have been larger than the simple XAaïva : but
from the analogy of the use of shawls it seems
Teasonable to suppose that the same garment
could be used either way. The larger size
would be a simple explanation of the fact that
the 6ttraağ was occasionally highly ornamented.
Thus Helen (Il. iii. 125):
wéyav tarov iſ patve
AirAaka wapp.apémy troXéas 8' vétraororev &é0Xous
Tptôov 6’ immočápov kai. 'Axaíov XaAkuxurtövtovº
and Andromache (Il. xxii. 440) wove a 6traat
with a pattern of 6póva troiklaa, though what
these were it is
impossible to de-
termine.
d’apos is a word
of disputed ori-
gin. Curtius de-
rives it from
q’épa, but Stud-
niczka, following
Krall, prefers to
derive it from
the old Egyptian
p(h)aar, meaning
“a winding
she et,” while
Fraenkel pro-
poses the Semitic
root àfar (or
dfar), but these
are from the na-
ture of the case
only conjectures.
Whatever its de-
rivation may be, the word is used in Homer
in a general sense, referring to a textile fabric
for women's garments, swaddling clothes, wind-
ing sheets, and as a substitute for sails (and
in a more special sense for a man’s garment).
These different uses lead us irresistibly to the
conclusion that the material was of linen, not
wool; and this is fully confirmed by the epi-
thets àpyūqeos, Aerrós, vºmyáreos, and éïtravvils
applied to it, all of which are appropriate for
linen, but not for wool.
The description of the pâpos which Penelope
weaves (Od. xxiv. 147) is also only applicable
to linen. As a man's garment it was worn in
place of the XXaiva, by the princes and men of
rank, never by the poor or ordinary folk. It is
also worn by both Calypso and Circe, and it is a
moot point whether this implies that ladies ever
wore it. The epithet uéya would seem to imply
that it was larger than the XAalva. It does not
seem to have been worn double. It was dyed
purple in Od. viii. 221.
Of the way in which the mantle was worn in
the ages which followed the Homeric, literature
gives us but little information. The garments,
however, mentioned in Hesiod and the Hymns,
are the same as in Homer, and there is nothing
to lead one to suppose that the fashion of wear-
ing them had changed in any essentials. The
8èm Aaš. (From François vase.)
!
|
sad want of any notices, except the most
general, in the Lyric poems, is much to be
lamented, for they lived in an age when great
changes in costume were taking place, as may
be learned from many protests against the grow-
ing luxury, and from the repressive enactments
of early codes. It is not indeed until Thucydides
that any clear account of the nature of this
change is to be found. He, in his prefatory
sketch of Greek civilisation (i. 6), distinguishes
broadly three periods: (1) that when weapons
were worn in ordinary life (roi oričmpopopeiv);
(2) that of a leisurely mode of life, when ease
and luxury were possible (ris &velačvns Staſ-
tns); (3) that of moderation in dress (rfis
werpías €0.07tos). The Athenians, he says, were
the first to give up wearing arms and to adopt
the leisurely mode of life, while it was the
influence of the Spartans that brought about the
revolt against luxury and the return to sim-
plicity of the third period, a reform which took
place in the middle of the fifth century; for he
adds that it was not long since elderly gentle-
men in easy circumstances gave up the long
linen shirt (which the Ionian still wore) with
the archaic head-dress—a remark which is
borne out by the mockery in the Knights of
Aristophanes (425 B.C.) of the ancient costume
(Ar. Eq. 1323 and 1331). This of course only
applies to the dress of men, but Herodotus
(v. 87, 88) informs us that about the middle of
the sixth century the Athenian women gave
up the old woollen shift and adopted the linen
OD16.
In both cases it is very important to remember
that the changes described took place only with-
in a restricted area, some of them in fact only
at Athens. Thus the old Trétryos of wool was
still worn in the Peloponnese in the sixth century,
and that of linen in Ionia during the fifth ;
while in the more out-of-the-way parts of Greece,
in Aetolia and Thessaly, the costumes were
probably almost the same as in the times of
Homer and Hesiod. All these changes can be
traced with the greatest distinctness in the
monuments of the art of the seventh and sixth
centuries B.C.
The most important of these remains, both as
being the most numerous and as giving the best
representations, are the vases of the black-
figured and early red-figured styles. Next to
these come statuettes of bronze and terra-cotta,
and reliefs in stone or metal plate. Least im-
portant are the statues in the round; for these,
if male, are mostly nude, and, in any case, are
of a too conventional type to be good evidence.
In the earliest of these monuments we find the
men clad either in a long shirt with a mantle,
with its ends hanging in front at an equal length
from each shoulder, or without shirt and in a
mantle folded double and thrown over the
shoulders in the same symmetrical way. The
former is worn by old men generally, and by
others in a time of peace ; the latter is the
costume of youths and warriors.
There can be little doubt that the long mantle
is the XAalva, most probably worn in the same
way as in Homeric times. The doubled mantle
may perhaps be the 8ttraağ, but this is by no
means the way of doubling it. The Homeric
XXaiva was fastened with a brooch or clasp, but
nothing of the kind is shown by the vase-

320 PALLIUM
PALLIUM
paintings. This, however, does not necessarily
disprove its use, for it is very rare to find the
fibula of a woman's rétaos shown, and yet it
Figures from Frieze of the Parthenon.
was absolutely indispensable. It is besides
difficult to see in what other way than by a
clasp the XAalva can have been kept in place in
this symmetrical style of wearing it.
The women on vases of this class are clad in
the trétryos, and wear a veil, which falls from the
head symmetrically over the shoulders, and down
the back is practically a shawl. Both this and
the symmetrical mantles of the men are well
shown on the François vase at Florence.
On vases rather later than these one finds that
the women assume the mantle, probably owing
to the adoption of the linen shift, which made
a warm shawl an absolute necessity. The way
in which the change came about is shown by the
characteristic fashion in which the shawl appears
fastened with a brooch or brooches, but only at
one shoulder, leaving the other shoulder and arm
free and the breast bare; the mantle being in
fact a trétraos with the brooch at the closed side
loosened. This is by far the commonest costume
on archaic statues and statuettes, in marble,
terra-cotta, and bronze from Rhodes, Athens,
Magna Graecia, Etruria, and in fact all the
places where objects of archaic art are found.
It is peculiarly well-suited for the formal ele-
gance of the period, the Ionic shift of linen
showing at the bared breast and shoulder, in
contrast with the folds of the woollen shawl,
which hangs diagonally down in artificially
arranged plaits. It is well seen in many of the
statues discovered on the Acropolis in 1886
(Rhomaidis—Cavvadias, Les Musées d'Athènes), on
the Athene of the Aeginetan East Pediment, and in
countless vase-paintings. (Cf. Furtwängler in
Roscher's Lewicon of Mythology, s. v. Aphrodite.)
In Graeco-Roman times, this costume is impor-
tant, because adopted as an archaic trait by the
archaistic artists of that time. Instances of its
use in this way are very numerous: the Artemis
from Pompeii (cf. Studnizcka, in Bulletino del
Inst. 1888), the Dresden Pallas, and the
Minerva from Herculaneum. It is generally
known as the “Spes” costume, early archaeo-
logists having wrongly imagined that it was
peculiar to Roman statues of that goddess.
Scarcely less characteristic of archaic and
archaistic art is the symmetrical wearing of
the XAaſva. This is seen on the Hermes Krio-
phoros of Wilton House, Oinomaos in the East
Pediment from Olympia, on the figures of Athene
on late Panathenaic vases, and of Poseidon on
various coins. It is also a common motive on
the flying statues, and reliefs of the Hellenistic
time, and is usually wrongly explained as being
a XAapids.
Early in the sixth, if not in the seventh cen-
tury B.C., the manner of wearing the cloak
which prevailed in classical times begins to
appear in works of art. In it the symmetrical
fashion, in which the ends are thrown over the
shoulders, has been given up, and the cloak is
wrapped round the body, being thrown over
the left shoulder across the back, and under or
over the right arm, according to the desire of
the wearer to cover or keep his arm free. At
first this fashion was confined to men, but by
the fifth century it had become almost universal
for women. The cloak thus worn is generally
known as the iudriov : but, as will be shown
further on, this is but a very special use of the
term, the sole difference between cloaks wrapped
round the body in this fashion and cloaks worn
in other fashions (e.g. the Tp(8wv) being the
immaterial one of size.
At this period, as indeed at every other, such
a iudriov was the indispensable outdoor dress
of the Greek; and to appear without it in one's
under-garment was indecent, and anyone so
dressed was spoken of as naked (yuplvás). In
primitive times the cloak had probably been
the sole garment of both sexes, and it remained
so among some of the Dorians and the poorer
working classes down to the close of Greek
history. In Homer's time men of quality had
already adopted a shirt (xitav), and we have
seen that women followed their example some-
where in the sixth century. By the fifth cen-
tury, however, it had become so much the
exception to wear a cloak without an under-
garment that to do so (to be &xtrov čviuatiº,
Diod. xi. 26) was a sign either of great poverty
or determined asceticism. This of course does
not apply to warriors or hunters, who wore the
old garb, even to late times.
In Athens much importance was attached to
the nice adjustment and elegant wearing of the
indriov. Indeed the way in which it was worn
was regarded as an infallible guide to the
character of its owner. To leave the left
shoulder free instead of the right was a true
sign of a barbarian, as can be seen from the
horror with which Poseidon in Aristophanes”
Birds (1567) greets the outlandish god Tri-
ballos, who had put it on ét' àpigrépá, instead
of ém, 6éčia. Even Plato, in the Theaetetus
(p. 175), speaks of one who is not a gentleman
as &vağāAAeo'6al oilk &miotapévov čír Šešič
éAev6épos. The length it ought to be worn was
considered a point of great nicety; and though
Quintilian (xi. 3, 143) says that it was cus-
tomary in antiquity to wear the cloak long
enough to touch one's boots, yet Alcibades
offended many by wearing it down to his ankles
(Plut. Alc. 1; cf. Demosth. F. L. p. 442, § 314).
Theophrastus decides that it must come downs
as low as the knees. In the time of the early
Attic orators it was apparently the custom to
keep the right hand wrapped in the folds of the
iudriov when speaking, an attitude which is
seen in the well-known statue of Sophocles.
Aeschines says (c. Timarch. § 27) that the
custom had disappeared in his time; Cleon

PALLIUM
PALLIUM 321
being, according to Plutarch (Nicias), the first
to disregard it.
We must beware of assuming that the iuditiow
was a distinct garment, differing specifically
from the XXaiva and other forms of cloak. The
word originally was perfectly general, denoting
clothes of all kinds; and even when its meaning
grew more restricted in classical times, it only
meant a cloak or over-garment as opposed to
the shirt or under-garment. Fashion, however,
only recognised one peculiar mode of wearing it
as worthy of a gentleman, and this particular
mode has in the usage of modern times usurped
the name.
Among the specific garments worn at this
time, the XAaſva [LAENA] is the most important.
It was still made of thick woollen stuff (Arist.
Av. 493), and was used as a winter cloak
(iuártov xe-pièpvov, Hesych.) or as a blanket,
though it was finer than the origipa, which was
also used for this purpose (Ar. Vespae, 1138;
Ranae, 1459). It is frequently mentioned and
its compounds are numerous.
The XAavis was a much finer garment and
of Milesian wool ; it was worn in hot weather
by men, at other times by ladies, old men (Arist.
Eccl. 848), and effeminate persons. It is first
mentioned by Simonides, but XAdvöua (= x\a-
víðua, which are among the festival robes in
Arist. Lys. 1188) and XAdviorka are among the
robes in the Komos of the Heraeum at Samos
(cf. C. Curtius, Inschriften und Studien zur
Geschichte von Samos).
The Amödpiov was also a summer garment, as
we see from Arist. Av. 715, where the swallow
is said to announce āte xp}, xNaivav troxetv kal
Amöðptov trptao 6ai. The word is a diminutive of
Añ60s (cf. Affèvov in an Attic inscription, C. I.
155, 45).
The Čvorris was also a garment of fine quality
worn by women of quality at festivals (Arist.
Lys. 1189), which would have been intended
rather to complete a gorgeous costume than to
form an essential part of it. In Theocr. ii. 74,
however, it is an ordinary over-garment. It
was also worn by men (Arist. Nub. 70), especially
on state occasions, and seems to have been used
on the stage for the attire of heroic personages.
The éqeorphs was somewhat similar to the
$varts, and also worn by both men and women.
In Xen. Symp. 4, 38, it has the epithet traxeia,
from which it would appear that it was not so
light as the Évorts.
The éq'art'ſs, according to the Scholiast on
Clemens Alexandrinus (iv. 128, ed. Klotz), is a
more costly form of the x\aſya, was used by
hunters and warriors, and is very probably the
garment which is often seen wrapped round a
hunter's arm. Polybius uses it (quoted by
Athen. 194 f) as a translation of the Latin
Sagum.
The &pitréxovov (Theocr. xv. 39), &urexévn,
and &ºtrexéviov do not seem to refer to any
special form of étí8Amua or mantle, but to be
quite general. The same is the case with Adºrm
and A6tros.
Pollux (vii. 47) divides xXaival into &m Am-
ºtöes and Sitamytóes (cf. C. I. Afr. i. 405).
The varieties of the iuditiow hitherto described
come under the former head, while under the
latter are grouped varieties in which the mantle
was worn folded double and pinned by a clasp
VOL. II.
or brooch round the neck. Such forms were
the natural dress of poor folk and those who led
Statue of Sophocles, in the Lateran.
an active life. Lycurgus (c. Leocr. § 40) tells
how, in the panic which followed Chaeronea,
aged citizens went about with their mantles
doubled and pinned
(Straš rà itadtta
éatretropirmuévows).
For the TRIBON,
see that article.
It is only neces-
sary to mention in
this place that the
Tpí8wv, though not
regarded strictly
as a iuditiou (inas-
much as it was not
an over-garment,
but a Soie gar-
ment, supplying
the place of x{tov
and iudriov), yet
belongs in form to
the cloak and not
to the shirt.
The dress of the
common people
was probably not
very different from
this, but often con-
sisted of skins or
of the éâwuſs. The
éčapils is a hybrid
garment, at once
cloak and shirt
(xur&v Wuoi, Kal
indriov, Hesych.),
Lady in outdoor dress. (From
worn by men in a terra-cotta in the British
much the same Museum.)
way as the Doric shift or réirAos (TUNICA]
was by women, only being much shorter, barely
reaching to the knees. The right arm, how-
Y


322 PALLIUMI
PALUDAMENTUM
ever, was left free by loosing the clasp at the
shoulder. On this account it has been generally
described as a xutov čTepopudorzaxos, in contrast
to the ordinary xutdºv, which was āuptud-
axaxos. It was essentially the garb of servants
(rxjua oikeróv : , cf. Arist. Vesp. 444), whereas
the xvr&v àupipidoxaxos was the garb of free-
men (axfiua €xev6epôv, Poll. vii. 47). An
immense number of éðapitães were exported from
Megara (cf. Blümner, Gewerbäche Thätigkeit,
p. 71, n. 4). In art the ééopºls is, after the
fourth century, the characteristic garb of
Odysseus, Hephaestos, and Daedalus, and at all
periods is peculiar to handicraftsmen, labourers,
seafaring folk, and beggars. In such cases the
trixos is generally worn with it. [EXOMIS.]
Other names for mantles denote colour and
texture, but apparently no characteristic differ-
ence in the manner of wearing.
is a good instance of this; it is an over-garment
worn exclusively by women (Arist. Thesm. 253;
Eccles. 1332); and when it is adopted by men,
as by Agathon in the Frogs (Arist. Ran. 46), a
joke is always intended. The Barpaxts, a frog-
coloured cloak, was on the contrary a man's
garment.
Of the cloaks and shawls worn in the
Hellenistic age but little that is definite can be
said, for, though the material is not scant, no
writer of authority has treated of the subject.
The old Greek x\aiva, ÉÉopºts, Tpí8wv, and
XAapabs still survived, doubtless in much the
same forms as before, but they were no longer
fashionable, except perhaps with philosophic
Romans, who were more Greek than the Greeks
themselves. The cosmopolitan spirit of the age
had led to the adoption of many foreign gar-
ments; and where Roman dress was not worn,
Oriental was to be found. The Greeks had, even
in the time of Aristophanes, a liking for Persian
dress, but it was not until the third century
that garments like the Lydian wavööm or the
karupls ákraſa or orapatris of Persia were
adopted wholesale from the East, and nation-
alised all over the Greek world. With the
exception of the terra-cottas and a few reliefs
which unfortunately have, as yet, not been
systematically studied, the art of this age gives
only the faintest idea of the costume actually
worn. In sculpture the love of the nude figure
was continually growing, and, with it, the
drapery became more and more conventional.
On the vases, on the other hand, the costumes,
though varied and elaborate, are only too
evidently theatrical or idealised. Next to
the terra-cottas, which are a perfect mine for
garments of every conceivable size and shape,
worn in the most diversified ways, the Pompeian
wall-paintings are perhaps the most useful
guides, though the information they give is
rather as to the gaudy colours which were
regarded as tasteful, than the actual shape of
the dresses. In Rome itself the Greek mantle
never became naturalised, though, under the
name pallium, it was well known to them as the
distinctive mark of a Greek. Indeed palliatus is.
used as meaning Greek, in opposition to togatus,
meaning Roman, not only in the well-known
division of comedies into palliatae and togatae,
but apparently in ordinary speech. Conservative
Romans regarded it as beneath their dignity to
wear a pallium, and we find it cast up as a
The kpokarðs
reproach against Scipio Africanus (Liv. xxix. 19)
and Rabirius (Cic. pro Rab. 9, 25) that they did
so. Cicero speaks with indignation of Verres
(in Verrem, v. 33, 86), “stetit soleatus praetor
populi Romani pallio purpureo tunica talari,”
and even under the Empire Germanicus offended
some people by adopting a “par Graecis amictus.”
(Tac. Ann. ii. 59). -
Palliolum is frequently used as an equivalent
for TpiBay or ééauſs, but is also found in the
more general sense.
(See Hermann - Blümner, Lehrbuch, Pt. iii.;
Iwan Müller, Handbuch, 1887, Pt. iv. p. 396
Seq.; Baumeister, Denkmäler, s. v. Himation; and
for Homeric and early history of subject,
Studniczka, Beiträge zur Geschichte der alt-
griechischen Tracht, Vienna, 1886, the main
results of which have been incorporated by
W. Helbig in the 2nd edition of Das homerische
Epos, 1887.) [W. C. F. A.]
PA'LMIPES, i.e. pes et palinus, a Roman
measure of length, equal to a foot and a palm ;
or a foot and a quarter, or 15 inches, or 20
digits. (Plin. H. N. xvii. § 32; Vitruv. v. 6.)
[MENSURA.] [P. S.]
PALMUS (also palma, Plin. vii. § 28), pro-
perly the width of the open hand, or, more
exactly, of the four fingers, was used by the
Romans for two different measures of length;
namely, as the translation of the Greek traXaath,
or Sápov in old Greek, and a tuéau?) respectively.
In the former sense it is equal to 4 digits, or 3
inches, or 1–4th of a foot, or 1–6th of the cubit.
(Varro, R. R. v. 1; cf. Colum. v. 1; Frontin.
Aq. 24.) This was the only sense in Latin of
the best age, but a later sense appears (first in
ecclesiastical writers, Jerome, Ezech. 40, &c.), in
which palmus – a tribauji, a span of 9 inches.
It is a mistake to suppose that this measure
existed earlier in Latin as “palmus major.”
The Romans had no special word in earlier times
for ortribauñ, but expressed it as dodrans (# of a
foot): “ternas Spithamas, hoc est ternos
dodrantes” (Plin. vii. § 26). In the passage
sometimes quoted from Varro, R. R. iii. 7, the
ordinary palmus of 3 inches is meant. (Hultsch,
Metrologie, p. 15, note.) [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
PALUDAMENTUM. The root of this word
and its cognate adjective is undoubtedly that
contained in pallium and palla, though it is not
possible to trace any real connexion. Varro
tells us that Ennius speaks of Minerva as
“virago paluda,” but does not explain its
special meaning (L. L. vii. 37). He also
remarks that paludamentum was used originally
of any kind of military decoration, and this
statement is borne out by a passage of Veranius
given by Festus (s. v.). In the extant literature
it is only employed to denote the SAGUM or
military cloak, and in writers of the best age is
applied only to the Sagum purpureum worn by
the Imperator, as distinguished from the sagum
gregale of the common soldier. The cases in
which it is used in the former and more general
sense are rare. Lucilius, for instance, if we
may trust Nonius, spoke of it as the garb of the
rorarii, and Sabidius (in the scholium in the
Veronese MS. on Verg. Aen. x. 241) gives it to
the pedites no less than the equites. Livy is the
author who uses it most frequently in this way,
doubtless from his love of archaeological detail.
Thus we find that as the survivor of the Horatii
PALUDAMENTUM
PALUDAMENTUM 323
returns from the triple duel his sister recognises
the paludamentum she had wrought for his slain
foe (i. 26, 2); so, too, when Gracchus prepares
to die, it is “paludamento circum laevum
bracchium intorto.” Two other passages in
which Livy speaks of a consul being accompanied
by “paludatis lictoribus ” (xli. 10, 7; xlv. 39,
11) gave the commentators much trouble, but
are easily explained by comparing Cic. in Pis. 23,
55, with Sil. Ital. ix. 420, the former telling us
that the lictors wore the sagum, the latter
giving it the epithet rubens. [LICTOR.]
With such rare exceptions the paludamentum
is the cloak which was put on by the Roman
general when leaving the city invested with the
Żmperium, and was doffed when he re-entered
and became once more an ordinary citizen.
(Varro, loc. cit.; Caes. B. C. i. 6; Liv. xli. 10;-
Cic. in Pis. 13; ad Att. iv. 13; ad Fam. xv.
17.) Hence we find that the insignia of a
consul which the senate sent as a present to
Masinissa included “sagula purpurea duo’”
(Liv. xxx. 17, 13), and that paludatus is regu-
larly used to denote a general in command of an
army on active service (Cic. Verr. ii. 7, 13;
Juv. vi. 399). Such phrases as “togam palu-
damento mutare,” meaning to get peace for war
(Sallust), are not uncommon (cf. Pliny, Paneg.
56, 4).
*-*-
Figures wearing Paludamentum. (Trajan's Column.)
Purple, though the favourite (Hirt. de B. Afr.
57; Plin. H. N. xxii. §§ 2, 3, and more especially
the customs dues, C. I. L. viii. 408) colour, was
not the only one, as is shown by the story told
by Valerius Maximus (i. 6, 11), of how Crassus
on the fatal morn of Charrae went out in a
dark-coloured and not in a purple or white
paludamentum. It was worn regularly by the
emperors (Suet. Claud. 31), and was, by some
who were careful to observe old constitutional
forms, laid aside on entering the city (Tac.
Hist. ii. 89; Suet. Vitell. 11). Pliny (H. N.
xxxiii. § 63) says that at the great sea-fight
exhibited by Claudius, Agrippina wore a palu-
damentum of cloth of gold (“indutam paluda-
mento aureo textili sine alia materia *), and
Tacitus (Ann. xii. 56) describes the same
garment as “chlamys aurata; ” while Dio
Cassius has the expression xXauðt Staxpúate
étroopºeiro (lx. 33). It is not impossible that
Pliny may have made a slip in giving Agrippina's
cloak the specific name, but there certainly were
paludamenta embroidered or woven with gold
thread in the later days of the Empire (Aurel.
Vict, Epit. 3). It was probably this form
which was adopted as a vestment at Milan,
where the Bishop wore a paludamentum baptis-
male (Muratori, Antiq. It med, aev. iv. 897).
The monuments which represent it are generally
portraits of the emperors; and these show that,
while there was no distinction in shape, the
paludamentum was larger and of thicker and
better material than the ordinary sagum. It is
frequently fringed, and is worn as a rule with
the clasp at the right shoulder, though cases
occur where it is at the left. In the famous
statue of Augustus in the Vatican, it is un-
clasped, thrown round the loins, and hangs over
Roman Emperor in Paludamentum. (Maffei.)
the left arm. This is of course owing to the
difficulty of treating such a one-sided garment
in the round,-a difficulty which the Hellenistic
sculptors got over in the case of the chlamys by
letting it hang from the left shoulder. In the
case of busts a compromise is made by hitching
the paludamentum over the left shoulder and
leaving both arms free.
The origin of this cloak has been the subject
of some guesswork, many following Florus (i. 5,
6), and deriving it, like the other insignia of
authority, from Etruria; while others prefer to
connect it with the chlamys, which is worn in
the same way. There is, however, surely no
need to suppose that the Romans required to be
taught the use of a garment which is so obvious,
and so universally found all over the world;
neither is it very unscientific to assume that,
however alike in shape, there must always be a .
distinction between the dress of the general and
those under him. (Marquardt, Privatlebes,
p. 567.) [W. R.] [W. C. .. A.]
Y


324 PALUS
PANATHENAEA
PALUS, a pole or stake, was used in the
military exercises of the Romans. It was stuck
into the ground, and the tiro, armed with a
heavy wicker shield and a wooden sword, had to
attack it as if it were a real enemy. Vegetius
(i. 11) gives a full account of the drill. This
kind of exercise is sometimes called palaria
(Sosip. Charis. i. p. 11). It was used for exer-
cise (e.g. before the bath) as well as for military
drill. So Martial (vii. 32, 8) speaks of “nudi
stipitis ictus hebes,” where the stipes = palus,
and the “ictus hebes' expresses the wooden
sword, which Juvenal (vi. 247) renders by
sudes, when he is speaking of women taking to
these manly exercises (vulnera pali). See Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 185 f. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PAMBOEO'TIA (traugotária), a festive
panegyris of all the Boeotians, which the gram-
marians compare with the Panathenaea of the
Atticans, and the Panionia of the Ionians. The
principal object of the meeting was the common
worship of Athena Itonia, who had a temple in
the neighbourhood of Coronea, near which the
panegyris was held (Strabo, ix. p. 411; Paus.
ix. 34, § 1). From Polybius (iv. 3, ix. 34) it
appears that during this national festival no war
was allowed to be carried on, and that in case
of a war a truce was always concluded. This
panegyris is also mentioned by Plutarch (Amat.
Narrat. p. 774 f.). It is a disputed point whe-
ther the Pamboeotia had anything to do with
the political constitution of Boeotia, and with
the relation of its several towns to Thebes. The
question is discussed in Sainte-Croix, Des Gow-
vernements federat. p. 211, &c.; Raoul-Rochette,
Sur la Forme et l'Administr. de l’Etat federatif
des Beotiens, in the Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscript.
vol. viii. (1827), p. 214. It seems probable that
its object was religious, not political, though,
as at other panegyreis, there were no doubt
political harangues [PANEGYRIs]. The state
and constitution of Boeotia is discussed under
BoEOTARCHES. (See also Gilbert, Staatsalter-
thimer, ii. 53. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PANATHENAEA (rö. IIava6#vata) was a
very ancient festival in honour of Athena Polias
and Erechtheus (A. Mommsen, Heortologie der
Athener, 14 ft., 37 ff.), said to have been founded
by Erechtheus or Erichthonius 729 years before
the first Olympiad (C. I. G. 2374, cf. p. 325),
called at first Athenaea, but after the orvuot-
kuopios by Theseus Panathenaea (Plut. Thes. 24;
Suid. s. v. IIava.0%ivata). Pisistratus renewed it
with increased splendour, and attached more
especial importance therein to the worship of
his protecting divinity, Athena.
1. The Greater and Lesser Panathenaea.—The
Greater Panathenaea was a revre'rmpls cele-
brated every fourth year, and was merely an
extended and more magnificent performance of
the Lesser Panathenaea, which was always from
of old, held every year (cf. Hom. Il. ii. 551).
As each fourth year came round the Lesser was
incorporated in the Greater. The procession
and the hecatomb always remained the basis of
the latter, but the chariot-race also appears to
have been considered as belonging to the original
festival. Erechtheus is said to have ridden at it
himself (0. J. G. l.c.). Pisistratus may be vir-
tually considered as the second establisher of
the Greater Panathenaea (Schol. on Aristid.
p. 323), though we hear that the performance
under the Archon Hippoclides in 566 B.C. was
attended by a large concourse of strangers and
was widely celebrated, especially as on that
occasion gymnastic contests were first intro-
duced. Indeed Marcellinus (Vit. Thuc. § 3) says
the Panathenaea was established in the archon-
ship of Hippoclides. The increased splendour of
the Greater festival of course diminished the
importance of the Lesser: so, though the adjec-
tive usyd. Aa is often found attaching to the
Greater (C. I. G. 380, 1068; Boeckh, Staatshaus-
haltung, ii.* 513), still generally IIavadhvata
alone is used for the Greater, the Lesser one
being styled ukpá.
The statement in the Arg, to Dem. Mid. 510,
that the Lesser festival was a trieteris, is dis-
proved both by such evidence as r& IIavaðhvata.
t& kar’ eviautóv (Rangabé, 814, 32) and also
by the fact that inscriptions on vases point to
Panathenaea having been held in every single
Olympic year (Mommsen, pp. 119, 125). The
Greater Panathenaea were celebrated every third
Olympic year (e.g. C. I. G. i. 251, by the Archon
Charondas in 110. 3; Lys. Accept. Mun. Def.
§ 1, by the Archon Glaucippus in 92. 3.; see
other confirmatory arguments in Mommsen,
pp. 120, 121); therefore they were held in the
same years as the Pythian games. Solon, we
know, took a Pythian calendar to regulate the
Athenian one, and Pisistratus in many points
followed closely in Solon's steps (Mommsen,
122). -
2. The date of the Panathenaea.—The principal
day was the third from the end of Hecatombaeon
(about August 13th). Proclus (in Plat. Tim.
p. 9) says so expressly of the Greater: and this
agrees with Schol. on Hom. Il. viii. 39, where
Athena is said to have been born on that day.
But Proclus says that the Lesser Panathenaea
came immediately after the Bendideia [BENDI-
DEIA], accordingly on the 21st of Thargelion
(about June 8th). But the Greater and Lesser
Panathenaea are undoubtedly connected in that
the former is but an amplification of the latter
so that a priori there is a presumption that
they are held at the same time. Further
C. I. G. 157 obviously follows the calendar, and
it puts the Panathenaea after the sacrifice to
Eirene on Hecatombaeon 16th. According to
Demosthenes (Timocrates, p. 709, § 28), the
Panathenaea are just approaching on Hecatom-
baeon 11th ; but these are certainly the Lesser
Panathenaea (Schaefer, Demosth. i. 334 ; Wayte
on Dem. Tim. § 26), as the year is Ol. 106. 4,
not 106. 3. The argument that the list in
Lysias (op. cit. §4) is necessarily in chronological
order is disproved by such lists as Isaeus (de
Dicaeog. hered. § 36), and [Andoc.] contr. Alc.
$42, which can be seen from comparison to be
certainly not both in chronological order.
The evidence for a Panathenaea in the spring
is Himerius, who gives as a title to his third
speech, eis Bagſaetov IIavaômvatois, épxopévov
toū apos; cf. [Verg.] Ciris, 21 ff. (probably com-
posed in Hadrian's time); but this refers to the
Roman Quinquatria, which were called Pana-
thenaea after the disappearance of the older
festival (Dionys. Hal. ii. 70).
3. The Musical Contest.—This was only held
at the Greater Panathenaea. Pisistratus was
of the gens of the Philaidae, who lived in
Brauron, where there was a contest of rhapsodes
PANATHENAEA
PANATHENAEA 325
from of old (Schol. on Aristoph. Av. 873). Hence
he but transferred to the capital the custom of
his village. He introduced recitations of the
Homeric poems, which were better regulated
by Hipparchus; cf. Plat. Hipp. 228 B; Ael.
W. H. viii. 2. (For the meaning of é; ŠtroSox?s
and éé ÖtroAhilea's, see Mahaffy, Hist. of Greek
Literature, i. 29, note.) The poems were now
sung in much longer portions than before, and
probably both the Iliad and the Odyssey as the
Neleidae are especially celebrated in the latter
(cf. Mommsen, p. 138). In later times other poets
(e.g. Choerilus of Samos, fl. 420 B.C.) obtained
the privilege of being recited at the Panathenaea
(Suidas, s. v. Xoſpiños). -
The musical contest proper was introduced by
Pericles, who built the new Odeum for the pur-
pose (Plut. Pericl. 13). Previously the recita-
tions of the rhapsodes were in the old unroofed
Odeum. There is a very important inscription
(C.I.A. ii. 965 = Rang. 961) concerning these
musical contests. The part referring to the
rhapsodists is probably lost. Then follow five
prizes for the kiðapq,50ſ. For the first an olive
crown set with gold (otépavos 6axx00 xpvoods),
value 1000 drachmas and 500 drachmas in silver:
for the second, probably a crown value 700, for
the third 600, for the fourth 400, and for the
fifth 300 (see Rangabé, ii. p. 673). Next two
prizes &vöpáo t aixgåois: for the first a crown
value 300, for the second one value 100. Next
āvāpāori kiðaptorals: for the first it appears a
Crown valued at 500 drachmas, or 300 drachmas
in money; for the second probably 200, and for
the third 100. The fact that we find &vöpáal
added proves that there were contests of boys
too (cf. C. J. G. 2758, Col. i.). The aëxntal also
got prizes, but the inscription does not record
what they were. Note that the prizes in the
musical contests are reckoned in money, not in
kind, as in the older gymnastic and equestrian
contests. The first who won a victory in these
musical contests was Phrynis in Ol. 83. 3
(446 B.C.) : see Schol. on Aristoph. Nub. 971
(alter Kawatov to KaNApºdzov). Plutarch ap-
pears to have written a treatise on the Pana-
thenaic music (de Mus. 8). There were not
any dramatic representations at the Panathenaea.
When we consider the long recitations of the
rhapsodes and the musical contests proper, we
may allow perhaps three days for this part of
the ceremony on a liberal computation, certainly
not less than one and a half days (Mommsen,
p. 202).
4. The Gymnastic Contest.—There is frequent
mention of this contest at the Greater Pana-
thenaea (C. I. G. 251, Rang. 849, 18; Dem. de
Cor. p. 265, § 116—a passage, by the way, which
shows that proclamations in honour of bene-
factors were made at the Greater Panathenaea
at the gymnastic contest), none for the Lesser:
besides, it had nothing to do with the ritual;
it was a purely secular and late addition, said to
have been first made by the Archon Hippoclides
in 566 B.C., or perhaps Pisistratus himself (cf.
§ 1). The inscription referred to above, C. I. A.
ii. 965 (= Rang. 960), also gives details as to
the gymnastic contests. . The competitors were
divided into traßes, &yévetoi, and &vöpes, the
traßes being those from 12 to 16 years of age,
the āyévetot from 16 to 20, and the évôpes
above 20. Thus neither a traſs nor an ā-yévetos
could compete as such twice. In later times
(Rang.964) the traßes were still further divided,
e.g. into Tăs, trpºrms #Atkias, ris Ševrépas (cf.
C. J. G. 1590, traßwu Tàu Tpeogvrépov, traßay
Tów weatépwu), the traßes rās rptrns being
doubtless the &yévetot. There is then an event
£ic travrov, which means an all-comers’ race, but
for boys, as is plain from its position before
ëvöpas. . The boys, and striplings had their
events first : then there was an interval (if a
whole night did not intervene); and on re-as-
sembling, the men's events took place. Accord-
ing to, C. J.A. ii. 965, the traibes and &yáveiot
have five contests, aráðtov, Trévraºxov, räxm,
Tuyuh, traykpártov. According to Rang. 963
(belonging to the late period of the Diadochi),
the trafões have six, while the &yevelot still have
only five. Perhaps the 66Atxos, which was
added, was for all below the class of &vöpes.
The men's contests were, according to C. I. A.
966 (= Rang. 962), of 190 B.C., 66Atxos, orgölov,
6íavXos, tririos (= a double Stavaos), Trévraéxov,
tréAm, Tvyuh, traykpártov, Öræfrns (= race in
armour). Note the order of the events, though
in Plato's time the ordótov came first (Legg.
viii. 833 A); cf. C. I. A. ii. 965. The races were
run in heats (rdèeus) of four each (Paus. vi. 13,
4); the victors in the heats afterwards running
together. There were prizes for the first and
second in the deciding heat in the ratio of 5:1
(= ox: sheep, cf. Plut. Sol. 23): see C. J. A. l. c.
The prizes consisted of oil from the uopſai in the
Academia [OLEA, p. 263 al, given in special
prize amphorae, which were called äuqope’s
IIavaðmuaikoſ (Athen. v. 199). The oil was
meant to be sold, and could be exported free of
duty (oik Šari 8'éčaywy?) éAatov šč 'A6mvöv ei an
toſs vukógi, Schol. on Pind. Nem. x. 64). The
number of amphorae given, according to the in-
scription referred to, was about 1450, and the
value (1 amphora worth 6 drachmas) about
1 talent 2700 drachmas (see Rangabé, ii. p. 671).
The gymnastic games probably lasted two days,
certainly not less than one (Mommsen, 202).
5. The Equestrian Contest.—There is plenty
of evidence for an equestrian contest at the
Greater Panathenaea, none for the Lesser ;
though there may have been a kind of cere-
monial race, more as a matter of worship than as
a contest in which the victors got substantial
prizes. None of the evidences for Athlothetae
(cf. § 11) at the Lesser Panathenaea are
absolutely conclusive, yet we may perhaps sup-
pose that there was an equestrian contest on a
small scale at this festival (Mommsen, 124–127).
To understand thoroughly the many events of
this division at different times, the reader must
study the inscriptions in C. I. A. 965 b-Rang.
960 (380 B.C.), 966= Rang. 962 (190 B.C.), 968
(166 B.C.), 969 (162 B.C.), C. I. G. 1591 (250
B.C.), and above all the elaborate table of the
comparison of these inscriptions in Mommsen
(Taf IV.). The multifarious details can only
be set forth in such a table, and any one who
wants to study them very closely must be
referred to it. Here we can merely give an idea
of the plan, noticing that the events appear to
have increased in number as time went on.
The first and chief event, the one which legend
said Erechtheus introduced, was that of the
&Togárms (cf. rās &#vns kal Täs Káxtrms
Spóuos at Olympia in Paus. v. 9, 1 and 2).
326 PANATHENAEA
PANATHENAEA
A charioteer (#vićxos éyòu;34 ov or Čečyet
&ygiðd ſov) and a companion, as in the Iliad,
occupy the chariot. The companion (here called
&mogárms, not trapat&#tms) leaps out (hence
his name) and again up (hence sometimes
we find him also called åvaßdºrms), partly
helped by the driver (who thus gets his
title éyòu;34 wV), partly by kinds of wheels
called ārobatikoi ºrpoxoi (Mommsen, p. 154).
The son of Phocion (Plut. Phoc. 20) took part
in this contest, so it must not be inferred from
its absence in C. I. A. ii. 965 that it did not
exist in 380 B.C. It is really broken off the
inscription. The second division in Mommsen's
table is ordinary riding and driving, without
any relation to ritual or war. Here the horses
are divided into foals and full-grown horses;
they are yoked either singly, or two or four
together; and the races are divided into 6tavaol
and ākāutriot. Then there are various permu-
tations and combinations that may be made of
these (e.g. ovvopſûl tra Mukň, kéAmri texeſq.,
ãpuari texeſq in C. I. A. ii. 968): but there is
no 6tavXos ever for a single horse, only for a
yoke or a pair, and not even for these in the case
of foals. The third division consists of what we
may call military competitions, and they are
much the same as the second division, only there
do not appear so many combinations (e.g. ib.
āppart troAewormpiq, it rq, troAeptorff). There
is no need to suppose that these contests were
exclusively confined to the cavalry (Mommsen,
161–2). The fourth refers to the procession in
honour of Athena, and always consisted of four
horses (sū-yet tropatrikó Stavaov or ākāutriov. The
fifth was of javelin-throwers from horseback, a
contest which soon disappeared. Notice further
that several events are for all comers (ék
trövtov); cf. C. I. A. 968, 42 ff., as opposed to
those for Athenians only (róv troAvruków).
The inscription C. I. A. ii. 965 b, of which
the beginning is lost containing the &mogárms,
gives the following, which Mommsen classifies
thus:–
1st Class.
2nd Class.
[&togárms.]
trirov trajukáš Češºyei (40 : 8).
introv Çeflyet &6mqdyº (140 : 40);
i.e. Texeiq (see Hesych. s. v.
&ö#qayos); was probably a
slang word for the great
expense such splendid race-
horses entailed. -
Trrº kéâmtu vikóvri (16:4).
7trirav Čečyet vukóvri (30:6).
(It is specially noted in the inscription that
these are troAsuto'rmpſois.)
4th Class. Keijºyei troutruká vukóvri (4:2,
5th Class. &p' trirov &rovrígovri (5:1).
(In brackets we have given the number of jars
of oil awarded for first and second prizes.) The
amateurs who took part in the contests of the
second class are the best rewarded; and it was
to encourage them to spend their money on
keeping horses that these events were made the
most distinguished. In C. J. A. ii. 966, 41,
king Ptolemy Epiphanes appears as victor
among them in the 6tavXos with a chariot.
The place for both the gymnastic and
equestrian contests was perhaps the Eleusinium
(Köhler to C. I. A. ii. 2, p. 392), or the deme
Echelidae, W. of the Piraeus (Steph. Byz. s. v.
'Exexíðat: Etym. M. s. v. 'Evexexuā4, 340, 53;
3rd Class.
Mommsen, 152. Yet cf. Milchhöfer in Bau-
meister's Denkmäler, s. v. Peiraieus, p. 1200).
It took up a day probably, though possibly only
half a day (ib. 202).
6. The Smaller Contests.-(a) That called
Euandria (süavöpía) was a means by which the
leaders of the procession were chosen. It was a
Aetrovpyta, [Andoc.j in Alcib. § 42, and he who
performed it chose out of his tribe a certain
number — perhaps about twenty - four, the
number of a chorus—of the tallest and best
looking members, and arrayed these with proper
festal garments. A member of another tribe
did the same, and probably only two tribes
contended, as no second prize appears in C. J. A.
ii. 965. From this contest strangers were
expressly excluded (Bekk. Anecd. 257, 13).
Sauppe and Köhler consider that there were two
companies who contended in each case in the
Euandria, one of seniors, the other of juniors;
perhaps the contest of the seniors was called
ečavāpta in the special sense, and that of the
juniors eion Ata: cf. Rang. 964 and Mommsen,
168.
(b) The Pyrrhic dance [PYRRHICA], performed
at both the Greater and Lesser Panathenaea.
(Lys. Accept. Mun. Def. §§ 1, 4). With the
Euandria and the Lampadedromia it belonged to
the more strictly religious part of the festival
(cf. Aristoph. Nub. 988 and Schol.). Athena
was said to have danced the Pyrrhic dance after
her victory over the Giants (Dionys. Hal. vii.
72). As belonging to the religious part of the
festival, the prize was an ox for sacrifice, and
bore the special title of vikmtmptov (cf. Xen. Cyr.
viii. 3, 33, where the ox alone is called vikm'riptov,
not the goblets: also Mommsen, 163; Rangabé,
ii. p. 671). There were Pyrrhic dancers of all
three ages—traſões, āyévetot, and &vöpes. A
relief published by Beulé (L’Acropole d'Athènes,
ii., last plate but one) presents eight armed
youths performing the Pyrrhic dance. A full
body of Pyrrhicists would then be twenty-four,
the number of a comic chorus. They wear a
light helmet, carry a shield on their left arms,
but are otherwise naked. How the victory was
gained in the Pyrrhic dance and the Euandria is
not stated; probably by decision of a judge. The
figure on the left of the relief may be perhaps
the judge. -
(c) The LAMPADEDROMIA, the prize of which
in C. I. A. ii. 965 was a hydria of oil (cf. Schol.
in Pind. Nem. xv. 61), value 30 drachmas.
7. The Pannychis.-This was the night of
the 28th (the day being reckoned from sunset to
sunset). The Lampadedromia was the first
event in it. Then followed during the greater
part of the night litanies (ÖAoAffyuata) by the
elder priestesses, which were originally prayers
and thanksgivings for the harvest, and subse-
quently songs of joy for the birth of Athena.
Mommsen (p. 171, note) thinks that possibly
the conclusion of the Eumenides may have
reference to the ceremonies of the Panathenaic
pannychis. There were also dances by the
younger priestesses, and towards morning songs
by cyclic choruses (cf. Lys, op. cit. § 2) of
youths and men (véow r" &oióal xopów re woxirat,
Eur. Heracl. 779, a passage comprising many
features of the Panathenaea, which, however,
must not be taken as expressing the order in
time, only the order in importance of the several
PANATHENAEA
PANATHENAEA 327
events). The kind of songs the men sang may
perhaps be partly seen in the dithyramb of
Lamprocles in Bergk (Lyr. Graec. iii. p. 554:
cf. Aristoph. Nub. 967 and Schol.). The ispoirotol
got next to nothing for the expenses of the
Pannychis, only 50 drachmas, and this had to
compensate much other outlay besides (Rang.
814, 27–30, and his note).
8. The Procession and Sacrifices.—The proces-
sion was most splendid. It comprised the victors
in the games of the preceding days, the troutreſs
or leaders of the sacrifices, both Athenian and
those of strangers (for the colonies and
.cleruchies used to send sacrifices to the Pana-
thenaea, e.g. Brea, C. I. A. i. 31), a large quota
of cavalry (for Demosthenes, Phil. i. p. 47, § 26,
speaks of intrapyot : cf. Sèhol. on Aristoph, Nub.
386), the chief officers of the army, ragtap):ot
and arpatnºyot, dignified elders (9aWAoq6pol,
Xen. Symp. 4, 17), bearing olive branches
(9&AAoi), doubtless with their pièroticol as a ka-
qmºpópot following, in later times the ephebi
splendidly equipped : while of women there was
a long train of kavmſpápot [CANEPHOROS], with
the wives and daughters of the uéroucot as their
oricia&mdépoi and Suppoq’ópot [METOECI]: then
the Athenian people, generally marshalled ac-
cording to their demes. Though the frieze of
the Parthenon reproduces some points, especially
the genuine Athenian element of the Panathenaic
festival, still it must not be supposed that it
reproduces all the details; e.g. the puéroucol, of
whom we have most specific evidence, do not
appear. For another service of the female
Aéroukou at the Panathenaea, see HYDRIA-
PHORIA.
One of the most striking features of the pro-
cession was the Peplus, worked by épyao rival,
superintended by two &ppm påpot and certain
priestesses, which was destined for the ancient
statue of Athena Polias, according to certain
prescriptions of the Delphic god. Pisistratus
probably intended that a new peplus should be
brought every four years; the Elean maidens
wove a peplus for the goddess only once in every
four years (Paus. v. 16, 2); but in republican
Athens a new peplus was made each year
(Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 566). In the time of
the Diadochi portraits of some of these were
placed where the figures of the gods should have
heen (Plut. Demetr. 10). The peplus was sus-
pended like a sail from the yards on the mast of
the Panathenaic Ship (Schol. on Hom. Il. v.
734), which was an actual ship, very large and
beautiful. The marvellous appearance of a ship
going through the streets was effected by
subterranean machines (Philostr. Wit. Soph. ii.
1, 5, p. 236 Kayser ; Paus. i. 29, 1), of which
we should very much like to have further
information. The Athenians had become a
seafaring people, and they wished to signify
it: the time of the agrarian Athena was
passed (Mommsen, 188). On the peplus were
represented the épio reta of the goddess, especi-
ally her victory over Enceladus and the Giants
(Schol. on Eur. Hec. 466; Suidas, s. v. IIérxos).
It was considered a great sight for the populace
(Plaut. Merc. prol. 67).
The procession, marshalled mainly in the
outer Ceramicus, partly inside the town, passed
through the market-place to the Eleusinium at
the east end of the Acropolis (cf. Schol. to
Aristoph. Eq. 566), turned round this to the
left, and passed along the Pelasgicon, north of
the Acropolis, and so reached the Propylaea
(Philostr. l.c.; cp. Xen. Hipp. 3, 2). Then some
of the members performed the sacrifice to Athena
Hygiaea, while others offered a preliminary
sacrifice on the Areopagus. Prayers accom-
panied these offerings, and we hear of prayers
being offered for the Plataeans at the Greater
Panathenaea (Herod. vi. 111). On entering the
Acropolis, which was only allowed to genuine
Athenians, there was the sacrifice of one cow to
Athena Nike (Rang. 814, 20); after this fol-
lowed the hecatomb to Athena Polias, on the
large altar in the eastern part of the Acropolis.
In earlier times the hecatomb was offered at the
Erechtheum. After the procession followed the
éatíaqis. The flesh of the victims was given,
according to demes, to a certain fixed number
out of each deme. The aſka'pmºpópot supplied
bread and cakes.
9. The Boat-race was a supplementary event
on the 29th of Hecatombaeon, the day on which
ships are to be drawn down to the sea (Hes.
Op. 815). It was held every four years in
the Piraeus in honour of Poseidon (identified
with Erechtheus) and Athena. The difference
of locality forbids our associating it with the
Sunian regatta, though this was also held only
once in four years (Herod. vi. 87; Lys, op. cit.
§ 5). In connexion with this part of the fes-
tival the orator Lycurgus, in whose family was
the priesthood of Poseidon Erechtheus, estab-
lished three cyclic choruses (Westerm. Bioffr.
JMin. 273, 50) in honour of that god, with valu-
able prizes.
10. The Calendar of the Panathenaea.—For
the Lesser Panathenaea (which was the nucleus
of the Greater) the chief day of the festival was
the 28th of Hecatombaeon; it comprised the
pannychis, the procession, the sacrifices, and the
feasting : and the 27th sufficed for the horse-
races (when there were any), the Euandria and
the Pyrrhic dances. At the Greater Panathe-
naea these days were allotted to the same
events. But the day on which the festival
began will vary according as we allow a longer
or shorter period for the three chief contests:
thus the Musical contest might last three days
or 13 days, the Gymnastic two days or one day,
and the Equestrian one day or half a day.
According, then, to the longer period, the Pan-
athenaea would begin on the 21st ; according
to the shorter, on the 24th. The longer period
has the advantage that it leaves the afternoons
free for prelections (K. F. Hermann, Gr. Alt.
54, 24) or dinner-parties (Xen. Symp. init.).
The shorter will suit Thucyd. v. 47 better;
cf. Mommsen, 204, 205.
11. The Officials of the Festival.—(1) The ten
Athlothetae, one chosen from each tribe. They
held office for four years, and their function, as
Pollux says (viii. 93), was to arrange the
musical, gymnastic, and equestrian contests at
the Panathenaea. We find in inscriptions that
they received subsidies from the rapiſas of
the sacred chest of Athena (C. I. A. i. 188).
(2) The Hieropoioi [HIEROPOIoI], who managed
the Lesser Panathenaea (Rang. 814, 32). They
appear to have had nothing to do with the
specially Greater festival (Etym. M. p. 469, 4).
(3) The Gymnasiarchae [GYMNASIUM), who
328 . PANCRATIASTAE
PANCRATIUM
especially superintended the LAMPADEDROMIA.
(4) The Demarchs [DEMARCHI], who marshalled
the people in demes for the procession and for
the égºríaorus (Schol. on Aristoph. Wub. 37;
Suidas, s. v.). Concerning those who had per-
quisites in connexion with the festival, such as
the uávrets and archons in the kpeavogtai, see
Rang. 814.
12. Panathenaea outside Athens may perhaps
be inferred from IIava.0%ivata év 'A6%ivals in
C. I. G. 1068. We are told that Themistocles
established Panathenaea in Magnesia (Ath. xii.
533), and in Teos there was a guild of Pan-
athenaistae (C. I. G. 3073). The cleruchs no
doubt celebrated the festival abroad.
(The principal works on the Panathenaic fes-
tivals are Meursius, Panathenaea, in Gronovius's
Thesaurus, vii. p. 83 ff.; H. A. Müller, Pan-
athenaica, 1837; M. H. E. Meier, Panathenaea
in Ersch and Gruber, iii. 10, 277–294; K. F.
Hermann, Gottesd. Alt. § 54, pp. 358-367;
Krause, s. v. Panathenaea in Pauly, v. 1105–
1111; August Mommsen, Heortologie der
Athener, 116–205; and Rangabé, ii. pp. 667–
696.) [L. C. P.]
PANCRATIASTAE. [PANCRATIUM.]
PANCRA"TIUM (Traykpártov) is composed
of trav and kpáros, and accordingly signifies an
athletic game, in which all the powers of the
fighter were called into action. The pancratium
was one of the games or gymnastic contests
which were exhibited at all the great festivals
of Greece; it consisted of boxing and wrestling
(irvºyu) and träAm: cf. Schol. on Plat. Rep. 338
C, D), and was reckoned to be one of the heavy
or hard exercises (&yovía wara Bapéa or Bapti-
tepa), on account of the violent exertions and
great weight of body it required, and for this
reason it was not much practised in the
gymnasia; and where it was practised, it was
probably not without modifications to render it
easier for the boys. According to the ancient
physicians, it had very rarely a beneficial influ-
ence upon health (H. Mercurial. de Art. Gymnast.
v. 7).
At Sparta the regular pancratium was for-
bidden, but the name was there applied to a
fierce and irregular fight not controlled by any
rules, in which even biting and scratching were
not uncommon, and in which, in short, every-
thing was allowed by which one of the parties
might hope to overcome the other. In Homer
we neither find the game nor the name of the
pancratium mentioned ; and as it was not intro-
duced at the Olympic games until Ol. 33=648
B.C. (Paus. v. 8, § 8), we may presume that the
game, though it may have existed long before
in a rude state, was not brought to any degree
of perfection until a short time before that
event. It is scarcely possible to speak of an
inventor of the pancratium, as it must have
gradually arisen out of a rude mode of fighting,
which is customary among all uncivilised nations,
and which was kept up at Sparta in its original
state. But the Greeks regarded Theseus as the
inventor of the pancratium, who for want of a
sword was said to have used this mode of fight-
ing against the Minotaurus (Schol. ad Pind.
Nem. v. 49). Other legends represented Heracles
as having been victor in the pancratium (Paus.
v. 8, § 4), and later writers make other heroes
also fight the pancratium (Lucan, Pharsal. iv.
613, &c.); but these are mere fictions. After
the pancratium was once introduced at Olympia,
it soon made its way into the other great games
of Greece also, and in the times of the Roman
emperors we also find it practised in Italy. In
Ol. 145 = 200 B.C. the pancratium for boys was
introduced at the Olympic games, and the first
boy who gained the victory was Phaedimus, a
native of a town in Troas (Paus. v. 8, in fin.).
This innovation had been adopted before in
others of the national games, e.g. in the Nemean
(Pind. Nem. v.); and in the 61st Pythiad (Ol.
108 = 348 B.G.) we find a Theban boy of the
name of Iolaidas as victor in the pancratium at
the Pythian games (Paus. x. 7, § 8). At the
Isthmian games the pancratium for boys is only
mentioned in the mythical age (Paus. v. 2, 4)
till quite late times, but it may have been prac-
tised during the Greek classical period.
Philostratus (Imag. ii. 6) says that the pan-
cratium of men was the most beautiful of all
athletic contests; and the combatants must cer-
tainly have shown to the spectators a variety of
beautiful and exciting manoeuvres, as all the arts
of boxing and wrestling appeared here united
(Aristot. Rhet. i. 5; Plut. Sympos. ii. 4, p. 638,
27).
The first person who is said to have fought
the pancratium artistically was Leucaros of
Acarnania (Schol. to Pind. Nem. iii. 27). It
was partly fought standing, partly was a rough
and tumble on the ground (áAtvömoris, küxious).
This twofold nature explains why the term "ray-
kpariáſelv is used somewhat variously, some-
times for simple boxing (Tö trafety &AAñAous
épôográðmy, Lucian, Anach. 8); but the idea of
violent combat seems to be generally associated
with it (cf. Aeschin. Tim. § 26). Boxing was
certainly considered the chief element (Lucian,
Anach. 8, 24; Pind. Nem. iii. 17; Schol. on
Pind. Isthm. iv. 75; Schol. on Dem. Mid. p. 537,
§ 71), where allusion is specially made to the
blows received in the pancratium. The fact too
that the “successors of Heracles * had to win
their victory in wrestling (not boxing) and the
pancratium tends to show that boxing must
have been a principal part of the latter, for we
cannot suppose it to have been disregarded.
But still the āAtvömous on the ground was a
highly important feature of the pancratium.
It is to be noticed that the fist does not appear
to have been closed; the usual way to hold the
hands was with the fingers curved (see the cuts).
The caestus [CAESTUs] were not used, for Pau.
sanias never mentions them in any of his accounts
of the pancratium; nor are they found on any
statues or pictures; further, Paus. vi. 15, 3
seems to show that they were not used, for no
wounds are anticipated from the pancratium :
cf. Artemid. Oneir. i. 64, to 8& Traykpºrtov rà.
airā tī trulypifi amuaível traživ 8AdBms. Nor
were the lighter gloves called usix{xal used, for
they would have impeded the movements of the
fingers.
The name of these combatants was traykpa-
tigatal or traupaxoi (Pollux, iii. 150; cf. Plat.
Euthyd. 271 D). Other predicates applied to
the pancratium are &paxos, &Aetirtos, &#ttmros,
&mpáguaxos, &avvéčarros, reptorêevis, weyauxhs:
cf. Krause, Gymnastik und Agonistik, p. 536.
The combatants fought naked, and had their
bodies anointed and covered with sand, by
PANCRATIUM
PANCRATIUM 329
which they were enabled to take hold of one
another (Philostr. l. c.; Aristoph. Paw, 897).
When two pancratiastae began their contest,
they stood with outstretched arms: and the
first object which each of them endeavoured to
accomplish was to gain a favourable position
and grip, each trying to make the other stand
so that the sun might shine in his face, or that
other inconveniences might prevent his fighting
with success (cf. Gell. xiii. 27, §§ 3, 4). This
struggle was only the introduction to the real
contest, though in certain cases this preparatory
struggle might terminate the whole game, as
one of the parties might wear out the other by
a series of stratagems, and compel him to give
up further resistance (āmayopetºeiv). Sostratus
of Sicyon had gained many a victory by such
tricks (Paus. vi. 4, § 1). When the real contest
began, each of the fighters might commence by
boxing or by wrestling, accordingly as he
thought he should be more successful in the one
than in the other. The using the teeth and
butting with the head were considered unfair
fighting (kakouaxetv) and contrary to the law
of the games (vágos évaydºvuos); cf. Lucian,
Demon. 49; Philostr. l. c. The victory was
not decided until one of the parties was killed,
or lifted up a finger, thereby declaring that he
was unable to continue the contest either from
pain or fatigue (Philostr. l. c.). It usually hap-
pened that one of the combatants, by some
trick or other, made his antagonist fall to the
ground, and the wrestling which then com-
menced was called āvak)\ivord Am, and continued
until one of the parties declared himself con-
quered or was strangled, as was the case at
Olympia with Arrhichion or Arrachion of Phi-
galia, in Ol. 54 (= 564 B.C.), who, however,
was declared victor, as his opponent gave up at
the last moment from the pain of a broken toe
(Paus. viii. 40, § 1, &c.; Euseb. Chron. p. 150,
Scalig.). A lively description of this struggle is
given by Philostratus (l.c.). Sometimes one of
the fighters fell down on his back on purpose
that he might thus ward off the attacks of his
antagonist more easily, and this is perhaps the
trick called Śmiraoruás. The usual mode of
making a person fall was to put one foot behind
his, and then to push him backward, or to
seize him round his body in such a manner that
the upper part being the heavier the person
lost his balance and fell. Hence the expres-
sion Aéorov Aqušáveiv, uéooxafletv, Médov aipeiv,
Wrestlers in the Pancratium. (Krause.)
613 umpſºv orgv, &c. (Scalig, ad
\ f 2/
TG. LeCro. 6Yély
Al Xeuv, 48).” The above woodcut re-
Euseb. Chron. p.
presents two pairs of pancratiastae; the one on
the right hand is an example of the évakålvo-
tröAm, and that on the left of the pueo oxafletv.
They are taken from Krause's Gymnastik und
Agonistik d. Hellen., Taf. xii. b, Fig. 35 b, 31 b,
where they are copied respectively from Grivaud,
Rec. d. Mon. Ant. vol. i. pl. 20, 21, and Krause,
Signorum vet, icones, tab. 10.
As the contest was in a large measure wrest-
ling, many of the tricks of wrestlers—&kpoxet-
piouás, &yxelv, Avyiſeuv, orpe&Aoûv or orpé-
qelv–were often used. Violently to throw
oneself on one's opponent (éváAAeo 6a) was a
common feature (cf. Pollux, l.c.; Philostr. l.c.).
Many of the recognised figures and movements
of the pancratium were imitated in the gymno-
paedic dance (Athen. xiv. 631). As an essen-
tial part of the pancratium was a struggle on
the ground, and as regular battle with an enemy
was a standing not a lying combat, Plato (Legg.
viii. 832 E, 834 A, B) banished the pancratium.
from his State, and substituted the contest of
light-armed warriors (treataa’rikh).
The contests of pancratiastae at Olympia took
place about mid-day: for in 472 B.C., beginning
rather late, they continued on that occasion
into the night (Paus. vi. 24, 1: cf. v. 9, 3;
viii. 40, 3).
At Rome the pancratium is first mentioned in
the games which Caligula gave to the people
(Dio Cass. lix. 13, 9). After this time it seems
to have become extremely popular, and Justinian
(Novell. cv. c. 1, provided traykapirov be, as some
suppose, a mistake for traykpártov) made it one
of the seven solemnities (rpáoão) which the
consuls had to provide for the amusement of the
people.
Several of the Greek pancratiastae have been
immortalised in the epinician odes of Pindar,
namely Timodemus of Athens (Nem. ii.), Melissus
and Strepsiades of Thebes (Isth. iv. and vii.),
Aristoclides, Phylacides and Cleander of Aegina
(Nem. iii., Isth. v. and vi., viii.), and a boy
Pytheas of Aegina (Nem. v.). But besides these
the names of a great many other victors in the
pancratium are known. (Compare Fellows,
Discoveries in Lycia, p. 313, Lond. 1841.) A
victor in both wrestling and the pancratium
on the same day at Olympia was especially
honoured, and considered to be the successor of
Heracles. His name was regarded as worthy of
being recorded for
posterity. The |-
first successor of &
Heracles (Paus. v.
8, 4) was Caprus
of Elea, in 204
B.C. (ib. v. 21, 10,
where a long list
of similar victors
in after-times is
&
*.
Y!
!
--~~
Af
.*-ºs, -
$º- 2\
given). They ||
appear to have |
been sometimes |
called trapaboč0-
vikai (Plut. Comp.
Cim. et Lucull. 2),
For a distin-
guished pancra-
tiast to win a
victory in one of the races was almost unheard
of, the training required in either case being *
Pancratium. - (Krause.)






330 PANDECTAE
PANDECTAE
very special (cf. Epictet. iii. 1; Diod, iv. 14), yet
the pancratiast. Theagenes won the long, race at
Phthia (Paus. vi. 11, 5). Other celebrated
pancratiastae were Polydamas (vi. 5,4–8), Pro-
machus, Timasitheus (vi. 8, 6–7), Clitomachus
(vi. 15, 3–5), &c.
The diet and training of the pancratiastae
were the same as those of other athletae.
[ATHLETAE.] They generally wore their hair
in a bunch (cirrus, Suet. Nero, 45) on the top
of the head; see the preceding cut taken from
Krause (op. cit. Taf, Xviii. Fig. 68).
(Compare Hieron. Mercurialis, de Arte Gym-
nastica ; J. H. Krause, Die Gymnastik und
Agonistik der Hellenen, vol. i. pp. 534–556; also
in Pauly, iii. 1019–1021, s. v. Gymnastica,
sect. xiv.) [L. S.] [L. C. P.]
PANDECTAE or DIGESTA. Justinian,
having determined at the beginning of his reign
to reduce the entire body of Roman law to a new
and more compendious form, first caused a com-
pilation or codex to be made of imperial statute
law (ler), and then proceeded to the more
ambitious project of digesting the law contained
in the writings of the jurists (jus). The diffi-
culty of ascertaining the law from this latter
source, owing to the number of books to be con-
sulted, the scarcity of copies of them, and their
want of agreement, had long been regarded as a
great practical evil. An imperfect remedy for
it had been supplied by an enactment of
Theodosius II. and Valentinian III. A.D. 426,
who had declared that only the writings of five
eminent jurists and of other jurists cited by
them should have legal authority ; and they at
the same time laid down rules for determining
questions upon which these jurists disagreed
[JURISCONSULTI]. It was left to Justinian to
carry out a complete measure of reform, though
it was one which had long been contemplated.
In the last month of A.D. 530, this emperor, in a
constitution called from its first words Deo
auctore, addressed to Tribonian, who had been
employed in preparing the Codex Constitu-
tionum, empowered him to name a commission
of which he was to be the head, for the purpose
of making a Digest from the writings of those
jurists to whose works legal authority had been
given by emperors, e.g. by the law of citations, or,
as it is expressed by Justinian, “Antiquorum
prudentium quibus auctoritatem conscriben-
darum interpretandarumque legum sacratissimi
principes praebuerunt.” The Digest, however,
contains extracts from Hermogenianus and
Arcadius Charisius, and possibly from one or two
other jurists, who were subsequent in date to
the classical jurists. The compilers were not
bound by the rules of the law of citations for
settling cases of dispute, but had full power to
declare the law as they thought fit. Many con-
troversies had been previously settled by
Justinian in his quinquaginta decisiones, which
were subsequently embodied in the Codex,
repetitae praelectionis. The instructions of the
Emperor were, to select what was useful, to
omit what was antiquated or superfluous, to
avoid unnecessary repetitions, to get rid of con-
tradictions, and to make such other changes as
should produce out of the mass of ancient juristical
writings a useful and complete body of law.
The work was to be distributed into fifty books,
and the books were to be subdivided into titles
(tituli). The compilation was to be named
Digesta, a Latin term indicating a collection
or arrangement of the works of an author
(Mommsen, Zeitsch. f. Rechtsgesch. vii. 480), or
Pandectae, a Greek word expressive of the com-
prehensiveness of the work. The name Digesta.
had been used by Salvius Julianus for the title
of his chief work, and also by the jurists Celsus
and Marcellus. The word Pandectae had also
been applied to compilations which contained
various kinds of matter (Gell., Praef.) Thus
the Pandects of Ulpian and of Modestinus are
spoken of Justinian strictly prohibited any
commentaries being written on the Digest, so as
to prevent his work being buried under a mass
of interpretation. Permission, however, was
given to make paratitla or references to parallel
passages, with a short statement of their con-
tents (Const. Deo auctore, s. 12: cf. Heimbach,
Proleg. ad Basil. vol. vi. p. 4). It was also pro-
vided that abbreviations (sigla) should not be
used in forming the text of the Digest. The
writings of the jurists were deprived of all
independent authority, and were not to be used
for the purpose of elucidating the meaning of
the text. Thus the Digest, together with the
other parts of Justinian's legislation, was to be
the exclusive source of law. The work was
completed in three years, as appears by a con-
stitution both in Greek and Latin, which con-
firmed the work, and gave to it statutory
authority (Const. Tanta and Aéðwkev). it
became law on the 30th Dec., A.D. 533. The
rapidity with which the compilers completed
their work is remarkable, though in estimating
it we should remember that they had not to
draft a code of new rules, but were mainly
occupied in selecting and co-ordinating ancient
materials. Besides Tribonian, who had the
general conduct of the undertaking, sixteen
other persons are mentioned as having been
employed in the work, among whom were
Constantinus, an official of high rank, the
professors Dorotheus and Anatolius, who had
been invited for that purpose from the law
school of Berytus, and the professors Theophilus
and Cratinus, who taught at Constantinople.
Besides these, there were eleven practising
lawyers. The vast extent of the work of the
compilers is shown by the statement that they
made use of nearly 2,000 different treatises,
which contained 3,000,000 lines (versus, ort{xot),
but the amount inserted in their compilation
was only 150,000 lines, according to the state-
ment of Justinian. Tribonian procured this
large collection of treatises, many of which had
fallen into oblivion, and a list of them with the
names of their authors was prefixed to the work,
pursuant to the instructions of Justinian (Const.
Tanta, &c. s. 16). Such a list is at present only
found in the Florentine MS. of the Digest,
written in Greek. Although it is not exact,
containing some treatises from which no extracts
were taken and omitting others which were
ased, it is probably a copy of the Index
mentioned in the Constitutio Tanta. The Index
comprises 381 authors, 207 treatises, and 1544
books. Salvius Julianus and Papinian head
the list, otherwise the order of names is in-
tended to be historical, and, as a general rule,
IS SO.
In accordance with the instructions of Jus-
PANDECTAE
PANDECTAE 331
tinian, the Digest is distributed into fifty books,
which with the exception of three books are
divided into Titles, of which there are 432. The
books 30, 31, and 32 are not divided into Titles,
but have one common title, De legatis et
fideicommissis. Under each Title are placed the
extracts from the several jurists, numbered 1, 2,
3, and so on, with the writer's name and the
name and division of the work from which the
extract is made. These extracts amount to
9,142. No name corresponding to Liber or
Titulus is given to these subdivisions of Tituli,
which are formed by the extracts from the
several writers, but Justinian (Const. Tanta, i.
7) has called them leges, and they are often
designated by this term ; another common term
used to denote them is fragmenta. The fifty
books differ materially both in bulk, number of
titles, and number of extracts.
Various ways of citing passages from the
Digest have been in use at different times and
countries. The Byzantine writers gave first the
number of the book (81–848Atov), then that of
the title (ru), and lastly the extract (Övy).
The Glossators simply gave the rubric of
the title and the first words of the extract,
as also of the paragraph or section. Subse-
quently the number of the fragment and section
was substituted for the first words. Modern
writers frequently give the number of the book
and title as well as of the fragment and para-
graph. Among German civilians it has been
usual to put the number of the fragment and
paragraph before the rubric, and in modern
times to insert after the rubric the number of
the book and title: e.g. l. or fr. 1, §5, de obli-
gationibus et actionibus, 44, 7. It has become
usual among English writers to cite in the
reverse order, and to leave out the rubric: e.g.
D. 44, 7, 1, § 5. The Glossators and their
followers, in referring to the Digest, sometimes
indicate the work by P, p, or r (for Pandectae)
and sometimes by D or f-ff being derived
from a mode of writing 8 with a line through
it (Zeitsch. f. Rechtsgesch. xii. 300). The oldest
printed English work in which the Digest is
cited is Bracton's Treatise on the Law of
England, and his mode of citation is naturally
that of the Glossators from whom his knowledge
of Roman law was derived. (Two Discourses
by G. Long, London, 1847, p. 107.)
Justinian divided the whole fifty books into
seven large masses, called partes, which perhaps
corresponded with the seven main divisions of
the works on the Edict, and had also a special
reference to the course of instruction then
established. (For the mystical significance
which may attach to the numbers adopted by
Justinian, cf. Const. Tanta, §§ 1, 2, “Et in
septem partes eos digessimus, non perperam
neque sine ratione, sed in numerorum naturam et
artem respicientes et consentaneam eis divisionem
partium conficientes; ” and see Hofmann in
Zeitsch. f. Rechtsgesch. xi. 340, &c.; Roby,
Introd. p. xxix.) The first part (trpāra) com-
prises the first four books; the second (de
judiciis), six, i.e. from the fifth to the eleventh ;
the third (de rebus), seven, i.e. from the twelfth
to the nineteenth ; the fourth (the umbilicus
Pandectarum, or central part), from the twentieth
to the twenty-seventh; the fifth (de testamentis),
nine, i.e. from the twenty-eighth to the thirty-
sixth; the sixth, seven, i.e. from thirty-seventh
to forty-fourth; and the seventh, five, from the
forty-fifth to the fiftieth.
The number of writers from whose works
extracts were made is thirty-nine, comprehend-
ing those jurists from whom extracts have been
erroneously supposed by Gibbon and others to
have been made at secondhand, as G. Mucius
Scaevola, the Pontifex, from whom four frag-
ments were, and Aelius Gallus, from whom one
fragment is taken, whose name is omitted from
the Florentine index; but omitting Servius
Sulpicius Rufus, who is represented by his
pupil Alfenus, distinguishing Aelius Gallus from
Julius Aquila, Venuleius from Claudius Satur-
minus, assuming that there is only one Pomponius,
and omitting Sabinus, whose name is erroneously
inserted in the Florentine Index. (Zimmern,
Gesch. des röm. Privatrechts, p. 224.)
The following is the list of jurists from whose
writings the Digest was constructed, as it was
given in the Palingenesia of Hommel, who has
arranged the matter taken from each writer
under his name, and placed the names in alpha-
betical order. (The new Palingenesia by Lenel
is not sufficiently advanced to make it available
for this purpose.) The dates of the jurists and the
other facts appended are to a great extent taken
from Mr. Roby's Introduction to the Digest. The
figures in the third column indicate the pro-
portions contributed to the Digest by each jurist,
estimated in the pages of Hommel. (a) denotes
that the contribution is under one page of the
Palingenesia. The extracts from many of the
writers are few and short: those from Ulpian
are more than a third of the whole; and next
to these the extracts from Paulus, Papinian,
Julianus, Pomponius, Q. Cervidius Scaevola,
and Gaius, are the largest.
DATE,
Sextus Caecilius Africanus. Hadrian and the
Antonines . . 23#
Alfenus Varus . . . . A pupil of Servius
Sulpicius and con-
temporary of Cicero 9
. Unknown, last but
two in Florentine
Index . . . .
. In Florentine Index,
Gallus Aquila; un-
known ; in Index
between Marcianus
and Modestinus . (a)
Aurelius Arcadius Charisius Constantine . 2}
Callistratus . . . . . Severus and Caracalla 15
Juventius Celsus. . . . Domitian and Hadrian 14
Florentinus . . . . . Unknown, but cf.
Dig. 41, 1, 16 . . 4
. Hadrian and the An-
Furius Anthianus .
(a)
Julius Aquila. . .
Gaius g $º ſº o * > º
tonines . • 63
C. Aelius Gallus . . . . A contemporary of
Cicero . . . O.
. Constantine the Great 9%
. Trajan and Hadrian. 23
Claudius Hermogenianus
Priscus Javolenus
P. Salvius Julianus . . Hadrian . . . . 68
M. Antistius Labeo . . Augustus . ... 10
Aemilius Macer . . . Alex. Severus. ... 10
Antoninus Pius . . "
. The Antonines . . 21
. Caracalla and Alex-
Lucius Volusius Maecianus
Lucius Ulpius Marcellus
Aelius Marcianus . .
ander Severus . . 36
Junius Mauricianus. . Antoninus Pius . . (a)
Rutilius Maximus . . . Unknown; in the
Index last but one. (a)
Arrius Menander. . . . Caracalla . . . . 2
332 PANDECTAE
PANDECTAE
DATE.
Maximus,
Consul B.C. 95 . . (a)
. A pupil of Ulpian . 40
. Trajan and Hadrian . 73
. Severus and Caracalla 92
. Commodus. . . . 2
. Alex. Severus. 268
. Hadrian and the An-
tonines . . . . 70
. Tiberius and his suc-
ceSSOTS • . . . 6
. Caracalla . . . . 1
. The Antonines . . 1
Quintus Mucius Scaevola . Pontifex
Herennius Modestimus .
Priscus Neratius .
L. Aemilius Papinianus
Justus Papirius .
Julius Paulus.
Sextus Pomponius
Proculus . . . .
Licinius Rufinus . . .
Claudius Saturninus.
Q. Cervidius Scaevola . The Antonines . 74%
Paternus Tarrentenus . . Commodus. . . . (a)
Clemens Terentius . . Antoninus Pius . 3}
Q. Sept. Florens Tertullianus The Antonines . . 1
Claudius Tryphoninus . Caracalla , • 18
Hadrian and Anto-
minus Pius . . . 3
. The Antonines . . 10
. S. Severus and Alex.
Saverus . 610
It follows from the instructions of the Emperor
and the object of his work that the extracts
from the jurists are not always given in their
exact words, alterations and additions being
required in them in order that inconsistencies
and repetitions might be avoided and the law
brought up to date. The presence of these
interpolations, called by civilians emblemata
Triboniani, is not indicated by the compilers,
and hence we frequently cannot be sure of the
extent to which extracts represent what the
jurists to whom they are attributed actually
wrote (cf. Gradenwitz, Interpolationen in den
Pandekten).
In some cases we have the means of comparing
extracts with their originals (for such a com-
parison see Roby's Introd., ch. v.), but for the
most part the writings of the Roman jurists
only exist in the form in which they were
adopted by Justinian. The compilers appear to
have frequently obscured the meaning of
passages by their interpolations; they have in
some cases admitted antinomies, and have in-
serted many repetitions. (On the latter subject,
cf. Bluhme, Dissertatio de geminatis et similibus
quae in Digestis inveniwntur capitibus.)
But the chief defect of the Digest consists in
its want of systematic arrangement, subjects
belonging to the same department of law being
sometimes separated in the most arbitrary way.
It will be remembered that the compilers were
fettered by the Emperor's instructions, which
required them to arrange (digerere) the whole
body of the law comprised in the Digest accord-
ing to the Code and the Edictum Perpetuum.
Thus the books and titles of the Digest were,
generally speaking, arranged after the pattern
of the Edict, for the Code also followed the Edict
in its arrangement. (For the probable order
of topics in the Edict, see Lenel, Das Edictum
Perpetuum.) This order of subjects, though
extremely confusing to a modern reader, would
have been familiar to the lawyers of Justinian’s
time from the commentaries on the Edict, and was
no doubt regarded by them as a convenient one
for practical purposes. --
It has long been a matter of dispute whether
the compilers of the Digest were guided by any,
and, if any, by what principle in the arrange-
ment of the several extracts under the respective
Salvius Aburnus Valens .
Venuleius Saturninus .
Domitius Ulpianus
titles. The subject is examined in a very learned
essay by Bluhme, entitled Die Ordnung der
Fragmente in der Pandektentiteln (Zeitschrift
für Rechtsgesch., vol. iv.). The investigation
is of course founded on the titles of the
several works of the jurists, which as already
observed are given at the head of each extract :
thus, for instance, in the beginning of the third
book, the first seven extracts are headed as
follows: “Ulpianus Libro sexagesimo quarto ad
Edictum ; ” “Idem Libro primo Fideicommis-
sorum; ” “Idem Libro quarto ad Sabinum ; ”
“Idem Libro quinto ad Sabinum ; ” “Paulus
Libro primo ad Sabinum; ” “Julianus Libro
trigesimo tertio Digestorum; ” “Paulus Libro
secundo ad Sabinum.” These will serve as
samples of the whole, and will explain the
following remarks from Bluhme, whose con:
clusions are these :—“The compilers separated
all the writings from which extracts were to be
made, into three parts, and formed themselves
into three committees. Each committee read
through in order the books that had fallen to it;
lot, yet so that books which were closely related
as to their contents were extracted at the same
time. The books were compared with the Code
of Justinian, and what was selected for the new
compilation was placed under a title taken.
either from the Code, the Edict, or in case of
necessity from the work itself which was ex-
tracted. What came under the same title was
compared; repetitions were erased, contradictions
were got rid of, and alterations were made, when
the contents of the extracts seemed to require it.
When the three committees had finished their
labours, the present Digest was formed out of
the three collections of extracts. In order to
accomplish this, they made that collection the
foundation of each title which contained the
most numerous or at least the longest extracts.
With these they compared the smaller collections,
striking out, as they had done before, repetitions
and contradictions, making the necessary ad-
ditions, and giving more exact definitions and
general principles. What remained over of the
smaller collections without having had an
appropriate place assigned to it, was placed after
the first collection, and its place in the series
after the first collection was generally deter-
mined by the number of extracts.”
“The Digest does not seem to have been sub-
jected to any further revision.”
Bluhme remarks that, although the Consti-
tutions Deo Auctore, Imperatoriam, Tanta, and
Cord; contain much information on the economy
of the Digest and the mode of proceeding of the
compilers, only the two following facts are
distinctly stated:—1. That the extracts from
the writings of the jurists were arranged
according to the titles of the Code and the Edict-
2. That the extracts were compared with the
Code. Accordingly everything else must be
proved from an examination of the work itself,
and this is the object of Bluhme’s laborious essay-
He observes that if a person will examine the
extracts in the titles De Verborum Significatione
and De Regulis Juris (50, tit. 16, 17), he will
find a regular order observable in the titles of
the juristical works from which the extracts are
taken. Generally, the series of the books quoted
shows that the original order of the works from
which the extracts were to be made has not
PANDIA -
PANEGYRIS 333
been altered; and the several works generally
follow in both these titles in the same order. A
similar remark applies to the title De Verborum
Obligationibus (Dig. 45, tit. 1), though there is
a variation in all the three titles as to the
relative order of the three masses, which are
presently to be mentioned. “In the remaining
titles of the Digest,” adds Bluhme, “at first
sight it appears as if one could find no other
distinction in the titles of the extracts than this,
that one part of them has a certain kind of
connexion, and another part merely indicates, a
motley assemblage of books out of which the
extracts have been made. But on a closer com-
parison not only are three masses clearly dis-
tinguishable, but this comparison leads to the
certain conclusion, that all the writings which
were used in the compilation of the Digest
may be referred to three classes. The Com-
mentaries on Sabinus (Ad Sabinum), on the
Edict (Ad Edictum), and Papinian’s writings are
at the head of these three classes. We may
accordingly denote these three masses respectively
by the names Sabinian, the Edict, and Papinian.
In each of these classes the several works from
which extracts are made, always follow in
regular order.” This order is shown by a table
which Bluhme has inserted in his essay.
This article, if read in connexion with the
articles Cooex and INSTITUTIONES, will give
some general notion of the Legislation of Jus-
tinian, the objects of which cannot be expressed
better than in the following words:—“Jus-
tinian's plan embraced two principal works, one
of which was to be a selection from the Jurists
and the other from the Constitutiones. The
first, the Pandect, was very appropriately in-
tended to contain the foundation of the law :
it was the first work since the date of the
Twelve Tables, which in itself, and without
supposing the existence of any other, might
serve as a central point of the whole body of the
law. It may be properly called a Code, and the
first complete Code since the time of the Twelve
Tables, though a large part of its contents is not
Law, but consists of Dogma and the investi-
gation of particular cases. Instead of the
insufficient rules of Valentinian III., the excerpts
in the Pandect are taken immediately from the
writings of the Jurists in great numbers, and
arranged according to their matter. The Code
also has a more comprehensive plan than the
earlier codes, since it comprises both Rescripts
and Edicts. These two works, the Pandect and
the Code, ought propérly to be considered as the
completion of Justinian's design. The Institu-
tiones cannot be viewed as a third work, inde-
pendent of both : it serves as an introduction
to them or as a manual. Lastly, the Novellae
are single and subsequent additions and altera-
tions, and it is merely an accidental circumstance
that a third edition of the Code was not made
at the end of Justinian's reign, which would
have comprised the Novellae which had a
permanent application.” (Savigny, Gesch. d.
röm. Rechts, i. p. 14.)
For the editions of the Digest, see Teuffel,
Hist, of Rom. Lit. § 480, 11, 12; and compare
CORPUs JURIS. [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
PA'NDIA, a festival celebrated at Athens
after the Dionysia, in the middle of the month
Elaphebolion (Dem. Meid, p. 517, § 9). Its
piorum.
origin has been a matter of dispute even among
the ancients, as may be seen by reference to
Etym. M. and Photius s. v., where three origins
are assigned,—Pandia, the moon-goddess, the
Attic king Pandion, and Zeus. Hermann takes
it to be a general feast of the old tribe Dias, and
Welcker as an “all-Zeus ” festival; but proba-
bly the right view is that of A. Mommsen and
Preller, that it was a full-moon feast in honour
of Pandia, an equivalent name for Selene, or of
Artemis when her worship was afterwards iden-
tified with that of Selene. It is not impossible
that in course of time the tribe Pandionis may
have regarded themselves as specially connected
with this festival, though we have no clear evi-
dence of it, nor again that Zeus, as Preller
thinks, may afterwards have been associated in
the worship. The exact date seems to be the
14th of Elaphebolion, if the 13th ended the
Dionysia. (See DIONYSIA, Vol. I. p. 640; A.
Mommsen, Heortol. pp. 61, 389, 396; Preller,
Griech. Myth. i. 347.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PANE'GYRIS (travāyvpis) signifies a meet-
ing or assembly of a whole people at fixed
periods, varying in the different cases, for the
purpose of worshipping at a common sanctuary.
But the word is used in three ways:—1. For a
meeting of the inhabitants of one particular
town and its vicinity [EPHESIA]; 2. For a
meeting of the inhabitants of a whole district, a
province, or of the whole body of people belong-
ing to a particular tribe [CARNEIA, DELIA,
PAMBOEOTIA, PANIONIA]; and 3. For great
national meetings, as at the Olympic, Pythian,
Isthmian, and Nemean games. Such in its
origin also was the great Amphictyonic meeting,
which assumed more political importance than
other panegyreis. Although, in all panegyreis
which we know, the religious character forms
the most prominent feature, the spectacles and
amusements were the attraction to the larger
number, nor were political discussions and reso-
lutions excluded, though they were perhaps
more a consequence of the presence of many
persons than objects of the meeting. As regards
their religious character, the panegyreis were
real festivals in which prayers were performed,
sacrifices offered, processions held, &c. The
amusements comprehended the whole variety of
games, gymnastic and musical contests, and
entertainments. Every panegyris, moreover,
was made by tradespeople a source of gain, and
it may be presumed that such a meeting was
never held without a fair, at which all sorts of
things were exhibited for sale. (Paus. X. 32,
§ 9; Strabo, x. p. 486; Dio Chrysost. Orat.
xxvii. p. 528.) In later times, when the love
of gain had become stronger than religious
feeling, the fairs appear to have become a more
prominent characteristic of a panegyris than
before ; hence the Olympic games are called
mercatus Olympiacus or ludi et mercatus Olym-
(Cic. Tusc. v. 3, 9; Justin. xiii. 5;
Well. Pat. i. 8.) Festive orations were also
frequently addressed to a panegyris, whence
they are called Aéryol travnyvpukot. The Sophists
made this the occasion for epideictic addresses
(Quinctil. iii. 4, 14) to the assembled Greeks;
as when Gorgias or Lysias at Olympia preached
national unity. To the Greeks the speech of
Peter the Hermit at Clermont would have been
a “panegyric.” The Panegyricus of Isocrates,
334
PANTOMIMUS
PANHELLENIA
though it was probably never, delivered, is an
imaginary discourse of this kind. (See Jebb,
A#6 Orators, i. 203 f.; ii. 150.) In later times
any oration in praise of a person was called
panegyricus, as that of Pliny on the Emperor
Trajan.
Each panegyris is treated of in a separate
article. For a general acqount see Wachsmuth,
Hell. Alt. i. p. 149, &c.; Boeckh, ad Pind.
Ol. vii. p. 175, &c.; Hermann, Staatsalterth.
§ 10. - - [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PAN.HELLENIA (travex Añvia), a festival,
or perhaps rather a panegyris of all the Greeks,
which seems to have been instituted by the
Emperor Hadrian, with the well-meant but
impracticable view of reviving a national spirit
among the Greeks. (Philostr. Wit. Soph. ii.
1, 5; Boeckh, Corp. Inscrip. i. p. 789, ii.
p. 580.) [L. S.]
PANIO'NIA (travićvia), the great national
panegyris of the Ionians on Mount Mycale,
near Priene and between Ephesus and Miletus
(from which Grote conjectures that these towns
were the primitive centre round which the
other Ionian settlements gathered, forming
gradually the confederation of twelve cities),
where their national god Poseidon Heliconius
had his sanctuary, called the Panionium (Herod.
i. 148; Strabo, viii. p. 384; Paus. vii. 24, § 4).
One of the principal objects of this national
meeting was the common worship of Poseidon,
to whom splendid sacrifices were offered on the
occasion (Diodor. xv. 49). As chief priest for
the conduct of the sacrifices, they always ap-
pointed a young man of Priene, with the title
of king. But religious worship was not the
only object for which they assembled at the
Panionium ; on certain emergencies, especially
in case of any danger threatening their country,
the Ionians discussed at these meetings political
questions, and passed resolutions (Herod. i. 141,
170), as was usual at an amphictyonic panegyris
[see PANEGYRIS].
Diodorus (xv. 49) says that in later times the
Ionians used to hold their meeting in the neigh-
bourhood of Ephesus instead of at Mycale.
Strabo, on the other hand, who speaks of the
Panionic panegyris as still held in his own time,
not only does not mention any such change, but
appears to imply that the panegyris was at all
times held on the same spot, viz. on Mount
Mycale. Diodorus therefore seems to consider
the Ephesian panegyris [EPHESIA] as having
been instituted instead of the Panionia. But
both panegyreis existed simultaneously, and
were connected with the worship of two distinct
divinities, as is clear from a comparison of two
passages of Strabo, viii. p. 384, xiv. p. 639.
The truth probably is that the more splendid
festival of the Ephesia attracted a larger con-
course than the real Panionia and threw it in
later times into the shade; and although the
old festival continued, yet as early as Thuc.
iii. 104 the Ephesia was looked upon as the
representative Pan-Ionic gathering.
(Compare Tittmann's Griech. Staatsv, p. 668,
&c.; C. F. Hermann, Lehrb. der Gottesd. Alterth.
§ 66, n. 2, 3; Grote's Hist, of Greece, iii. p. 229
ff.
..) - |[L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PANOPLIA. [ARMA.] -
PANTOMI'MUS (travrépuptos) was the per-
former in that kind of dramatic piece in which
a story was represented by mere dancing and
rhythmical movement by a single dancer. The
word pantomimus is never, like mimus, applied /
to the piece represented, but only to the per-
former. The custom of pantomimic dancing is
almost entirely confined to the time of the
Roman Empire.
When the public lost interest in the full
acting out of tragedies, the separate parts of
those dramas used to be acted, especially those
parts which were cantica, i.e. what were not
mere iambic dialogues (diverbia), and among the
cantica chiefly monologues and choruses. Here
by increase of the expression in two directions
the action became dancing and the speech became
song; with the necessary result that the two
performances could not be combined by a single
actor, but had to be separated (Lucian, de Salt.
30). The result was artistically absurd, that
one person should sing and the other dance (not
more absurd, however, than say the chorus of
bathers in the Huguenots); but none the less
the practice became fashionable, especially when
Pylades of Cilicia and Bathyllus of Alexandria,
both very skilled dancers, about 22 B.C. (cf.
Roth’s Suetonius, p. 301, 25; Lucian, op. cit. 35)
succeeded in making this kind of dancing (called
afterwards 'Itaxiich êpxma'is) a fully recognised
species of amusement at Rome. It was honestly
enjoyed by the cultivated of all classes: the
rhetorician Seneca (Contr. earcerpt. iii. praef.)
calls it his “weakness” (morbum meum); Lucian
(if it is Lucian) has an enthusiastic encomium on
it (op. cit. § 35 to end), and Libanius has a long
treatise on it. Lucian finds all excellences in
this kind of dancing, even that it makes the
spectators know themselves better and leave the
theatre with clearer ideas of what to do and
what not to do; in fact, altogether morally im-
proved (op. cit. 69, 72, 81)—but this is the
judgment of an advocate, not of a sober critic.
We hear (Athen, i. 20: cf. Plut. Quaest.
Conviv. vii. 8, 3 = 711, 44; Senec. l. c.) that
the style of Pylades was of a sedate and tragic
nature, but that of Bathyllus more joyful
(i\apwtépa), representing a kind of Śrópxmua
[CHORUS], which was a generic name for any
expressive dance (Athen. i. 15; xiv. 628): and
so not without reason we may in a measure
infer with Sommerbrodt (De triplici genere
pantomimorum, in his Scaenica, p. 49) that the
different styles of dancing in the Greek theatre
were further developed by these performers
(Lucian, op. cit. 26 ft.), the tragic ēupéAeta by
Pylades, and the satyric oríkuvis and possibly
the comic kópèač by Bathyllus; the art of the
latter being, as . Plutarch (l. c.) says, more
commonplace (trégav) and not so pretentious
(3-ylcóðm) as that of Pylades. But probably the
képôač was not acted by the pantomimes; it
would rather belong to the mimes, for the
pantomimes, though very licentious, do not
appear to have been coarse, and the subjects of
the art of Bathyllus are mostly satyric subjects.
Even in the passage from Plutarch the subjects
are satyric, and he only says that the comic
style of dancing is related to the cordax (too
képôakos &m'rouévnv). The striking scenes in
the dramas came then to be acted for the most
part by mere dancing. This required on the
part of the spectator a considerable degree of
knowledge in the first place, so as to be fairly
*
PANTOMIMUS
PANTOMIMIUS 335
familiar with the story acted, and in the second
place a certain power of imagination to piece
the scenes together and a fineness of taste to
appreciate the refinements of the art, which was
nothing if not refined and full of delicate points.
So that this pantomimic dancing, and especially
the dancing of subjects from tragedy, became the
fashionable exhibition for the upper and more
cultivated classes to frequent, the lower classes
preferring the coarser mimes when they went
to the theatre at all. The rage for exhibitions
of dancing that arose about the time of the
Empire cannot be better exemplified than by the
fact that poems of Ovid’s, not written for the
theatre at all, were “pantomimised " (just as
our second-rate novels are dramatised), and
actually orations were set to music and adapted
for dancing (Ov. Trist. ii. 519, v. 7, 25; Plin.
Paneg. 54; Tac. Dial. 26).
But the best poets wrote pieces specially for
the pantomimes—fabulae salticae, as they were
called; e.g. Silo (Senec. Suas. ii. 19), Lucan
(Wit. Vaccae, in Teuffel, § 298, 4), Statius (Juv.
vii. 92), which artistically were probably about
on a level with the libretti of our Italian operas.
The subjects were most various, but were gene-
rally love adventures—Mars and Venus (Lucian,
op. cit. 63), Jupiter and Leda (Juv. vi. 63),
Cinyras and Myrrha (Joseph. Antiq. xix. 1, 3),
Phaedra and Hippolytus (Lucian, 49), Seleucus
and Stratonice (ib. 58); but sometimes others,
Hercules Furens (ib. 41), Isis and Osiris (ib. 59),
Polycrates (ib. 54), Turnus (Suet. Nero, 54),
Glaucus (Well. ii. 83). Lucian (37–61) indeed
says that all mythical and historical subjects,
from Chaos to the death of Cleopatra, were fit
subjects for pantomimes; and he gives in im-
mense detail a number of appropriate stories.
The dancing was performed by a single actor;
it was only very rarely that there was a second
(cf. Quint. vi. 3, 65). The actor would appear
successively as (say) Atreus, Thyestes, and
Aegisthus or Aerope—all in the one piece
(Lucian, op. cit. 67). There were sometimes as
many as five characters to be acted (ib. 66). A
chorus sang cantica, accompanying the various
dances. The text to bind together the various
scenes consisted probably in a sort of recitative
(Friedländer says, like that of our oratorios)
sung by the chorus, while the actor had time to
change his dress. When there was no change of
dress, the actor was said palliolatim saltare
(Fronto, p. 157, 3, ed. Naber), in which the
dancer with a single cloak used to represent the
most varied things — caudam cygni, capillum
Veneris, Furiae flagellum, &c. Friedländer com-
pares the shawl-dancing of Lady Hamilton, as
described by Goethe in his Italienische Reise (at
Caserta, March 16, 1787). The accompaniment
to the dancing and the chorus was performed by
an orchestra (which Pylades introduced instead
of the single flute accompaniment), consisting of
pipes and cymbals, harps, and zithers (Lucian,
68; Ov. Rem. Am. 753 ff.: cf. Macrobius, Sat.
ii. 7, 18, where Pylades is said to have declared
that the music suited to dancing was ai,xów
orvptyyov ºr ēvorºv ćuaôóv r" &věpárov, Hom.
Il. x. 13). The music appears to have been of a
florid and showy description (Lucian, op. cit. 2).
The time was given by scabillarii, who beat with
their feet a kind of wooden or iron instrument,
called scabillum or scabellum (kpotºrega); cf.
Lucian, ib. 2, 68, 83; Suet. Cal. 54; Poll. vii.
87 ; Liban. iii. 385, 13. There is a celebrated
statue of a Satyr with cymbals beating the
Scabilium in the Tribune of the Uffizi Gallery at
Florence. In the absence of any definite evidence
to the contrary, we may assume that the scenery
of the pantomimes was much the same as that
of the Greek tragedies.
The real charm lay in the performance of the
dancer. The art of dancing has sunk to such a
low level with us, and we are naturally so
incapable of appreciating the meaning of slight
looks and gestures, that it is only when very
forcibly brought before us that we can get a
faint idea of what “the poetry of motion."
means, and understand what the Romans implied
by “speaking hands” (manus loquacissimae,
linguosi digiti, Cassiod. War. iv. 51: cf. Lucian,
op. cit. 63, 69) and “the eloquence of dancing ”
(saltare diserte, Tac. Dial. 26). But the value
of action is great to the Southern nations; to
them it can signify most things without words
(Quint. xi. 3, 65). How important it was to
the orator we know from the story of Demosthe-
nes, who said that action was the first, second,
and third requisite of an orator; and Quintilian
(l.c.) devotes a great many pages to the subject,
full of injunctions which at times cannot be
appreciated by us, though we are not on that
account to accuse Quintilian of pedantry. But
the pantomimi in some cases aimed at repre-
senting even the very words of their texts, a
practice justly reprobated by Quintilian (ib. 88,
89) and the better pantomimi themselves (cf.
Macrob. Sat. ii. 7, 13 ff.). The whole art, how-
ever, came to be as conventional as possible,
neither performer attempting nor audience
desiring originality of treatment, but only
excellence of execution. This is shown by the
story in Lucian (op. cit. 80) of an actor who had
to dance the devouring of his children by Cronos,
and danced the traditional steps of the eating of
the children of Thyestes, misled by the similarity
of the subject; another danced the steps for the
burning of Glauce by Medea's poisoned robe
when representing the burning of Semele. But
with all the artificiality the effect of the per-
formances of the pantomimi on the audience was
most powerful; “so fascinating is the dancing,”
says Lucian (op. cit. 79), a passage well worth
reading, “ that the lover seeing the bitter end
of love is cured of his passion, and one who
enters the theatre in depression leaves it brighter
and happier just as if he had drunk Homer's
nepenthe.” Splendid robes (ib. 2, 63), attractive
masks (which had the mouth shut, not the
huge gaping things the actors in the drama had
to wear, ib. 29; see illustration in Baumeister's
JDenkmäler, fig. 1351, 1352), generally splendid
dress, the tunica talaris and the palla (Suet.
Cal. 54), all the grace and beauty of youth
which necessarily attached to the most famous
of the performers (their form, says Lucian, op.
cit. 75, should be that of the canon of Poly-
cletus), and which were enhanced by careful
training; the movements of the dance, now soft,
delicate and voluptuous, presently rising into
wild passionate outbursts, must have made the
whole exhibition most sensuously seductive and
intoxicating; and we can well believe the many
stories of the passions inspired in the Roman
ladies by the pantomimi, and of the disastrous
336 PANTOMIMUS
PARABOLON
effect the exhibitions had on the morals of the
community (cf. Juv. vi. 63 ff.; Plin. H. N.
vii. 184; Dio Cass. lvii. 21). The introduction
of the pantomimes at the commencement of the
Empire was the beginning of the moral corrup-
tion of the world, according to Zosimus (i. 6);
and St. Augustine considered the pantomimes a
far more insidious and destructive disease sent
by Satan than the more savage pest of the
circus (de Civ. Dei, i. 32).
But it was not on this ground that the law
generally proceeded against the actors, though
it was sometimes (Dio Cass. l. c.) put forward ;
it was owing to the disorder caused by the rival
factions of the different performers. The actors
(in Imperial times histrio virtually means one
who acts pantomimes) were banished from Italy
by Tiberius and Nero, and Domitian only allowed
them to perform in private (Suet. Tib. 37;
.Nero, 16; Dom. 7). But for the most part the
empérors were wise enough to let the people
busy themselves with the actors (Macrob. Sat.
ii. 7, 19), and thereby be kept clear of politics.
As to the legal position of the actors, they were
always infames (Cic. Rep. iv. 10; Nepos, Proem.
5; Tert. Spect. 22; Vopisc. Car. 16, 7 ; Dig. 3,
2, 1); in the municipalities they were not
eligible to magistracies (Lex Jul. Munic. l. 125).
Their children could not form legal marriages
with members of the senatorial families (Dig.
23, 2, 42, 44). The soldier who became an
actor was punished with death (ib. 48, 19, 14).
For further on this point, see Mayor on Juv.
viii. 188; Marquardt, Staatsr. iii. 516 ft. Au-
gustus only allowed the magistrates power to
scourge the actors during the games and inside
the precincts of the theatre (Suet. Aug. 45;
Tac. Ann. i. 77), though any violation of public
morals he visited on them most severely. The
actors were mostly slaves or freedmen, and, if
free-born, foreigners; and the nominal feeling
of the age as to the meanness of their calling
may be seen from the scathing satire of Juvenal
(viii. 183 ff.) on the Roman nobles who became
actors: it was much as if one in high circles
were to become a professional jockey. But still
the celebrated pantomimi were flattered and
petted (Senec. Q. N. vii. 32, 3; Ep. 47, 17).
Flowers and perfumes were strewn over the
place where Paris lay murdered (Dio Cass.
łxvii. 3), and Martial composed (xi. 13) a beau-
tiful epitaph for him. They became men of
considerable wealth and influence (Plut. Tran-
quill. Anim. 13 = 473, 10), especially when
they were court favourites like Mnester (Suet.
Cal. 56), Paris (Dig. 12, 4, 3, 5; Tac. Ann.
ziii. 19–22, 27), another Paris (Juv. vii. 87), Apo-
laustus, and Pylades (Dio Cass. lxviii. 10). A
very noticeable feature about the noms de theátre
of these pantomimi (and indeed of many other
kinds of artists also) is that they were assumed
£rom those of famous predecessors; see Fried-
länder, ii.” 608 ft. It is needless to say that in
the clubs and guilds of the actors celebrated
performers obtained the highest positions, and
were supported at the common expense (Wil-
"manns, 2619 ft.); but also, at least in later times,
we find an actor made a decurio (e.g. Acilius at
Tanuvium in 187 A.D., Wilm. 2625), another
set over the army in Armenia (Dio Cass. lxxvii.
21), a third made praefectus praetorio (Lampr.
Heliog. 12, 1)—though, to be sure, this was
only by the worst emperors. The pay given to
the performers, even in the time of Tiberius,
was thought too high, and M. Aurelius had to
fix a maximum (Capit, M. Aurel. 11, 4): yet
Pylades, in the time of Tiberius, made so much
money that he was able to give games on his
own account (Dio Cass. lv. 10, 11), and Pliny
(H. N. vii. § 128) says that slave actors with
their gains often bought their liberty for con-
siderably over 700,000 sesterces (more than
£7,000). There do not appear generally to
have been regular competitions of pantomimi,
their art forsooth being, according to Lucian
(op. cit. 32), too high for rivalry. But the
jealousies and squabbles of the actors were very
great (Tac. Ann. i. 54; Dio Cass. lvii. 14, 10).
The wealthy Romans (e.g. Quadratilla in Plin.
Epist. vii. 24) used to keep troops of pantomim?
and pantomimae (Senec. ad Helv. 12) for private
exhibitions; but pantomimae did not appear on
the public stage till later times, e.g. in Justinian's
time an actress Helladia danced the Hector (cf.
Anthol. Pal. iv. 75, ed. Jacobs), though even
then the performance was mostly by men (Liban.
iii. p. 372, 31, ed. Reiske).
The chief works to consult on the pantomimes
are Salmasius on Vopiscus, Carinus, c. 19
(= Hist. Aug. Script. ii. 828–844); Sommer-
brodt in his Scaenica, 35–50; Arnold in Bau-
meister's Denkmäler, s. v. Pantomimus, pp.
1158–1160; and especially Friedländer, Dar-
stellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms, ii.”
427–442. [L. C. P.]
PAR IMPAR LUDERE (&priaguás, &priá-
(elv, &pria treputrā or Çvy& # &@vya or Çvy&
Adva traigetv, troo'ívöa). The game at odd and even
was a favourite game among the Greeks and
Romans. A person held in his hands a number
of astragali, or other things (Pollux, ix. 101, says
beans, nuts, almonds, or coins), and his opponent
had to guess whether the number was odd
or even. The amount to be won or lost, whether
merely the articles played with or money staked
upon the guess, may have been variously
arranged : but probably the usual practice was
only to stake what was played with, not to bet
on the guess besides. Apollonius (iii. 115) re-
presents Cupid and Ganymede playing, and the
winnings are simply the astragali of the oppo-
ment: hence the playing with coins is a greater
risk (Aristoph. Plut. 816): the passage in Suet.
Aug. 71, however, implies staking a sum of
money on the guess at odd and even as well as
on the tali. The game troo'ſvöa differed slightly,
as it was necessary to guess the number held in
the hand, not merely whether it was odd or
even (Xen. Eq. Mag. 5, 10; cf. Aristoph. Plut.
1055). For further mention of par impar, see
Plat. Lys. p. 206 E; Lucian, Dial. 4; Hor. Sat.
ii. 3, 248; Nur, 79;-Becker-Göll, Charikles,
ii. 40; Gallus, iii. 477;-Marquardt, Privatleben,
p. 849. . [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PARABASIS. [CHORUs, Vol. I. p. 422.]
PARA'BOLON (rapá80Aov, trapaflóAtov:
&öökupov rodro, Phrynichus, ed. Lobeck, p. 238),
a fee paid by the appellant party, on an appeal
(#qegis), as Pollux (viii. 62 f) states, “from an
arbitrator, or a magistrate or the Smudrai to
the dicasts, or from the Senate of Five Hundred
to the popular assembly, or from the popular
assembly to a Heliastic court, or from such a
one to a foreign court.” An appeal from a
PARACATABOLE
PARACATATHECE 337
public arbitrator was allowable in all cases
except when i, ui, offora ötkm had to be resorted
to ; i.e. when the loser could prove that it was
not owing to negligence on his part that judg-
ment had gone by default. Cf. Harpocr. S. v.
Stairnrós : (oi Sukagral) kal Tàs ātrö Töv 6tal-
rmtöv ćpeatuovs Ékpivov, and Dem. c. Boeot, de
Dote, p. 1024, § 53; (Meier, Privatschiedsrichter,
etc. p. 28, n. 3, reads in Pollux, viii. 127,
rès trio reis ºug. ib. karépov rás Te toº ºpečy.
kai rās roº Suák. instead of ràs iſ fiqhovs éuša-
Aávres ióſg carépas toū petryovros kai Sté-
kovros.) An appeal from a magistrate might
arise when the érigoxh imposed by him was ob-
jected to by the person fined; for then the
magistrate had to lay the case before a court
[EPIBole]. When on the occasion of a 5tayi-
ºptots a person was struck off the lists of &muétat
and wished to upset such a decision, he might
appeal to a court (Sikmu Aayxávely tº Koiv6
Tav Šmuoróv), or to a public arbitrator (Isae.
pro Euphil. § 11; Schömann ad l.c. p. 479).
The next two kinds of appeal referred to by
Pollux are very doubtful indeed; when a
matter was referred to the popular assembly by
the Senate of Five Hundred, or to a Heliastic
court by the popular assembly, because the
latter were either unable or unwilling to decide
it themselves, this might be called épeaus, in-
asmuch as # 8ovA) éqímori to trpäypia eis Tov
67pov or 6 billos éqſmall to trpayug eis rows
Sukaards, but in that case éqeoris is not used in
its strictly technical sense of appeal. As to
appeals from an Athenian court to a foreign
court, cf. SYMBOLON DIKAI APO. We are
uninformed as to the amount to be paid, and
as to the occasions when such a sum was to
be paid. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 986–
991.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PARACATA’BOLE (rapakarafloafi), a sum
of money required of a plaintiff or petitioner in
certain cases, as a security that his complaint or
demand was not frivolous, or made on slight
and insufficient grounds. Such was the deposit
made in certain inheritance causes, viz. not only
by a person who claimed an inheritance already
adjudged ([Dem.] c. Macart. p. 1054, § 16;
Isae. Hagn. §§ 13, 27; Bunsen, de jure hered.
Ath. p. 92, limits the paracatabole to such
causes, and Boeckh, Sthh.* i. p. 430, explains
Harpocr. s. v. in the same sense), but also by a
person who entered a 6tapaprupta u% étlöukov
eival ºrby KAfipov (Isae. Philost. § 12, etc.), or who
claimed an inheritance as having a better title
than others by having been adopted (Dem. c.
Leoch. p. 1090, § 34) or by testament (Isae.
Nicostr. § 4): cf. Pollux, viii. 32, Šorris &vri-
Aéyet às airbs 8tratórepos &v éxeiv rov KAñpov
& &yxiatetas # 81a6mków. The amount of the
deposit in such causes was a tenth part of the
value of the property claimed: it was returned
to the petitioner, if successful ; otherwise it
went to the opponent, or in case of rival claims
to an inheritance to the state (Isae. Nicostr.
§ 11). In the proceeding termed Évertoºkmuua,
which was a suit instituted against the public
treasury by a creditor to obtain payment out of
his debtor's confiscated goods ([Dem.] c. Timoth.
p. 1198, § 46), a fifth part of the value was
deposited (Harpocr. s. vo. trapakatafloxh and
trpárepºrta), which sum went to the state in
case the petitioner was not successful (C. I. A.
WOL. II.
ii. No. 777). From this inscription it is like-
wise evident that the term éyyúms katafloxh
was used in the sense of trapakaraBox3 in this
proceeding (cf. Suid. s. v. čvetruokſijao 6al kal
éry'yūmv katağaxeiv- Etym. M. p. 340, 38, etc.).
The money was deposited either on the com-
mencement of the cause or at the āvākpions.
The word trapakatafloxi, signifies both the
paying of the deposit and the money deposited ;
and being a word of more general import, we
find it used to denote other kinds of deposits,
as the trpvraveſa and trapdorraorus (cf. Isocr. c.
Leoch. § 2); it is probably used in this wider
sense in Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 978, § 41, in
a bikm 8x48ms. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius,
pp. 800, 814–822.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PARACATATHE'CE (trapakara.0%km, tra-
paôňkm ; cf. Rutherford, New Phrynichus, p. 367)
generally signifies a deposit of something valu-
able with a friend or other person, for the
benefit of the owner. Thus, if I deliver my
goods to a friend, to be taken care of for me ;
or if I give a creditor something valuable as a
pledge; or if I deposit money with a banker
(āq oppºſi, Harpocr. s. v.; argum. Dem. pro Phorm.
p. 944), to receive interest for it and to draw
on him (Dem. c. Callip. p. 1236, § 4 ; Blümner,
Griech. Privatalt. p. 454 f.), such delivery or
bailment, or the gods bailed or delivered, or the
money deposited, may be called trapakata.0%km
(Herod. vi. 86; Dem. pro Phorm. p. 946, § 5 f.,
and c. Stephan, i. p. 1110, § 29 f.); and the
word is often applied metaphorically to any
important trust committed by one person to
another (Dem. c. Aphob. ii. p. 840, § 15; Aeschin.
c. Tim. $7 ; Dem. c. Mid. p. 572, § 177, etc.).
As every bailee is bound to restore to the bailor
the thing deposited, either on demand (in case
of a simple bailment) or on performance of the
conditions on which it was received, the Athe-
nians gave a trapakaraóñkms 6them against a bailee
who unjustly withheld his property from the
owner, &tearépmore rºy trapakara.0%kmu (Pollux,
vi. 154; Schol. to Aristoph. Plut. 373, etc.), or
who used it without the owner’s permission for
his own benefit. Examples of such an action
are Isocr. Trapez. and c. Euthyn.: a subject of
Satyrus, king of Bosporus, sues Pasion the
banker for money alleged to have been placed in
his hands (Trapez. §§ 11, 27, etc.); Nicias had
deposited three talents with Euthymus, and,
when he applied to him for the money, Euthy-
nus repaid only two and disclaimed knowledge
of the third (c. Euthyn. §§ 3, 7, 9, etc.). A
pledge given to a creditor could not be re-
covered, except on payment of the money owed
to him; but, after selling the article and satis-
fying his debt out of the proceeds, he would of
course be bound to restore the surplus (if any)
to the pledgor. It is not known whether beyond
restoring the thing deposited any penalty was
inflicted on a defendant who fraudulently denied
that he had ever received the deposit; so much
is certain from Dem. c. Mid. p. 528, § 44, that
&riuſa was not inflicted, as , Meursius, Them.
Attica, ii. c. 23, p. 120 (row u% àmočičávra rhy
trapakaraółkny &ruow elva) supposed. (Thal-
heim, Griech. Rechtsalt. p. 48, n. 5). The diffi:
culty of procuring safe custody for money, and
the general insecurity of movable property in
Greece, induced many rich persons to make
valuable deposits in the principal temples, such
Z.
338 PARADISUS
PARAGRAPHE
as that of Apollo at Delphi (Plut. Lysand. 18),
of Artemis at Ephesus (Dio Chrysost. xxxi. 54;
cf. Xenoph. Anab. v. 3, 6, and Plaut. Bacch. ii.
3,78), of Hera at Samus (Cic. de Legg. ii. 16,
41), etc. (Büchsenschütz, Besitz. u. Erwerb.
p. 508 f.; cf. Posidon. Apam. fr. 48, in Fragm.
IIist. Graec. iii. p. 48.) It may be observed that
Trapakataríðeoréal, in the middle voice, is always
used of a person making a deposit for his own
benefit, with the intention of taking it up again,
and trapakarakeforbal of the thing thus deposited;
kouſ ſearðat is to recover your property (Isocr.
c. Euthyn. § 4; Trapez. § 8, etc.). (Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, pp. 700 ft.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PARADI'SUS (rapáðetoros) was the name
given by the Greeks to the parks or pleasure-
grounds which surrounded the country residences
of the Persian kings and satraps. They were
generally stocked with animals for the chace,
were full of all kinds of trees, watered by
numerous streams, and enclosed with walls.
(Xen. Anab. i. 4, § 10; Cyr. i. 3, § 14, 4, § 5;
Hell. iv. 1, § 33; Oec. iv. 13; Diod. Sic. xvi. 41;
Curt. viii. 1, §§ 11, 12; Gell. ii. 20.) These
paradises were frequently of great extent; thus
Cyrus on one occasion reviewed the Greek army
in his paradise at Celaenae (Xen. Anab. i. 2,
§ 9), and on another occasion the Greeks were
alarmed by a report that there was a great
army in a neighbouring paradise (Id. ii. 4, § 16).
In many respects, except as regards their being
larger and used for hunting, they were like the
Latin vivarium, which was a park, warren, or
preserve. “Vivaria quae nunc vulgus dicit,
quos trapadeforous Graeci appellant, quae lepo-
raria Warro dicit, haud usquam memini apud
vetustiores scripta. . . ; ” but Scipio, the writer
goes on to say, called them roboraria, because
they were fenced round with wooden palings
(Gell. ii. 20; cf. AGRICULTURA, Vol. I. p. 80).
In Greece they were first borrowed from the
East in the time of the Diadochi (Iwan Müller,
Handbuch, iv. p. 468).
Pollux (ix. 13) says that trapdºeigos was a
Persian word, and there can be no doubt that
the Greeks obtained it from the Persians, whe-
ther its origin etymologically is to be found in
Indo-European or Semitic languages.
[W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PARAGAUDA. [VESTIS.]
PARA'GRAPHE (trapaypaqf). This word
does not exactly correspond with any term in
our language, but may without much impro-
priety be called “a plea.” It is an objection
raised by the defendant to the admissibility of
the plaintiff's action: “exceptio rei adversus
actorem, actionemve, querentis aut de ford haud
competente, aut de tempore, modove procedendi
illegitimo.” (Reiske, Index. Gr. in Oratt.) Sir
William Jones, in the preface to his translation
of Isaeus, compares it with a demurrer. But
this is not so correct; because a demurrer is an
objection arising out of the adversary’s own
statement of his case: whereas the trapaypaqi,
was an objection depending on facts stated by
the defendant himself, and therefore rather
resembles a plea, or (more strictly) a special
plea. This appears from the trapaypaqukol
Aóryot of Demosthenes, in which we find the
defendant introducing new allegations into the
cause, and supporting them by proof. Thus, in
the speech against Nausimachus and Xenopithes,
the ground of objection is, that the father of
the defendants having obtained a release from
the plaintiffs, it was no longer open to the
plaintiffs to bring an action for the same cause
(p. 984, § 1 ; p. 986, § 5, cf. pro Phorm. p. 951,
§ 23; p. 952, § 25;—c. Pantaen. p. 966, § 1 ;
p. 972, § 19). But the first mention of this
release is made by the defendants in their plea.
In the speech against Zenothemis the defendant
objects, that the épatropikh Strm does not lie,
because there was no written contract between
him and the plaintiff; and this (says he) appears
from the declaration itself (év tá, éykAñuati,
p. 882, § 1 f.; cf. c. Apatur. p. 892, § 2; see
also c. Pantaen. p. 976, § 35; c. Lacrit. p. 939,
§ 45 f.). As parties could not be defeated at
Athens by a technical objection to the pleadings,
the defendant in the above case, notwithstanding
the defective statement of the plaintiff in the
declaration, was compelled to bring forward his
objection by plea, and to support it before the
jury. In the speech against Phormio, the
plaintiff says that as the defendant only denies
that he has committed a breach of the contract,
there was no occasion for a trapaypaq ft : the
question merely was, whether the plaintiff's
charge was true (p. 908, § 4 f.). It seems that
a trapaypaſp?) might be put in, not only when
the defendant could show that the cause of action
was discharged, or that it was not maintainable
in point of law; but also when the form of
action was misconceived, or when it was com-
menced at a wrong time (pro Phorm. p. 952,
§ 26 f.), or brought before the wrong magistrate
(c. Pantaen. p. 976, § 33 f.). In the last case
the trapaypaqº) would answer to our pled to the
jurisdiction.
The trapaypaph, like every other answer
(āvriypaq'ſ) made by the defendant to the
plaintiff's charge, was given in writing, as the
word itself implies (Dem. c. Phorm. p. 912, § 17;
c. Pantaen. p. 976, § 34; tr. &vrixayzóvelv or
800val, or trapaypdqeoréal). If the defendant
merely denied the plaintiff's allegations, or (as
we might say) pleaded the general issue, he was
said eißvölkig eioiéval or eigépxeoréal (Isae.
Philoct. §§ 3, 43, 52; Dem. c. Stephan. i. p. 1103,
§ 6; eiðvölktav eioſiéval occurs only c. Phorm.
p. 908, § 4, and # ei6eia instead of ebøvölkſa is
late, argum. Dem. c. Zenoth. p. 881).” In this
case a court was at once held for the trial of the
cause. If, however, he put in a trapaypaqf
(trapsypájaro uh eioray67tuov eival rhv 3ſicnv),
and the plaintiff acquiesced in the ground of
objection raised, the action was either brought
before a different magistrate or in a different
form (i.e. not as Strm éutropurch, but as Strºm
£Adºms or xpéas), or it was dropped altogether;
if, however, the plaintiff did not acquiesce, a
court was held to try the preliminary question,
whether the cause could be brought into court
or not. Upon this previous trial the defendant
was considered the actor (Pollux, viii. 58), and
hence is said by Demosthenes (c. Phorm. p. 908,
§ 4) carmyopetv roſ, Suákovros: he began and
* Aeschylus (Eum. 433) similarly uses the term
sū9eia 6ixm as opposed to the oath of one or the other
party on which they might have agreed to rest the issue
(429): see Aesch. Ewm. ed. Müller, p. 159 f. Linwood
(Lex. to Aesch. s. v.) wrongly translates, “pass a
righteous sentence.” -
PARALUS
PARANOMON GRAPHE 339
had to maintain the ground of objection which
he relied upon (Dem. c. Stephan. i. p. 1103,
§ 5 ft.). If he succeeded, as Phormio did, by
bringing witnesses that he had obtained a release
from the plaintiff, the whole cause was at an
end; if however the objection was only to the
form of action, or some other such technicality,
the cause was recommenced in the proper manner.
If, however, the plaintiff succeeded, the jury
merely decided eigaydºylptov elval rºw Sikmu, and
then the original action, which in the meantime
had been suspepded, was proceeded with (Dem.
c. Zenoth. p. 888, § 22 f.; c. Lacrit. p. 939,
§ 45). Both parties on the trial of the trapa-
•ypaqi, were liable to the éma'8exta, on failure to
obtain a fifth part of the votes (Isocr. c. Callim.
2; Dem. c. Stephan. i. p. 1103, § 6). [EPO-
BELIA.]
The course of proceeding on a trapaypaqº was
obviously calculated to delay the progress of the
cause, and was therefore not looked on with
favour by the dicasts. “Tropoatai kal trapaypa-
qal (c. Mid. p. 541, § 84) and ooq ta'uara kal
trapaypapal kai trpoq’daeis (c. Lacrit. p. 924, § 2)
are classed together by the orator as being the
manoeuvres of defendants to defeat justice (cf.
c. Everg. et Mnes. p. 1151, § 39; p. 1153, $45;
Lea. Rhetor. Cantabr. p. 673 ff., and Meier ad
l. c.; Pollux, viii. 60). Hence we find in
the extant trapaypaquico! Aóryol, that the defen-
dant, in order to remove the prejudice of the
dicasts against himself, not only supports the
ground of the trapaypaqf, but discusses the
general merits of the cause, and endeavours to
show that there is no foundation for the plain-
tiff’s complaint. And there is no doubt that the
dicasts were materially influenced by such
discussion, however in strictness irrelevant (ar-
gum. pro Phorm. p. 944; c. Zenoth. p. 881).
There was no such thing as this proceeding
by trapaypaq ft, where the defendant had the
advantage of beginning, until after the expulsion
of the Thirty Tyrants, when a law was passed
on the proposal of Archinus, &v tis Šukáçntal
Trap& rows Śpkovs, éðeival Tó pećyouri trapaypd-
iyaobal, rows 88 &pxoviras trepi rotºtov ſparov
eio dyeiv, Aéyetv 8& rpárepov tow trapaypayáuevov,
6trörepos 3’ &v irrméſ, rºw étroflexſav Štefaeuv,
originally only for the special case that an
action was brought in violation of the amnesty,
but later on extended to other grounds of
defence. Before the time when this law was
passed, all special objections to the adversary's
course of proceeding seem to have been called
by the general term of &vriypaqat. Thus when
Pancleon was summoned before the polemarch
by the speaker of the 23rd speech of Lysias, as
being a resident alien, he put in a “plea to the
jurisdiction” on the ground that he was a
JPlataean by birth, and that therefore the action
ought not to have been brought before the
polemarch (§ 5, &vreypdikato whº eioray&ytuov
eival, cf. § 10; Jebb, Att. Oratt. i. p. 302, gives
wrpos trapaypatºv as title of the speech, but it
ought to run trpos rhv II. &vriypaſp#v); and in
this case it is clear from the tenor of the speech,
that the defendant did not address the court
first [cf. ExoMOSIA, 3]. (Att. Process, ed. Lip-
sius, pp. 849–854, 948.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PA'RALUS. [THEORIs.]
PARANOLAST DIKE (rapavoſas Sikm).
This proceeding may be compared to our com-
mission of lunacy, or writ de lunatico inquirendo.
It was a suit at Athens that might be instituted
by a son or other relative for a son against one
who, by reason of madness or mental imbecility,
had become incapable of managing his own
affairs. The intention was to take the manage-
ment of property out of the hands of such a
person—hence the suit might only be instituted
by the next heir, i.e. sons in the first instance
(Plat. Legg. xi. p. 928, D f.)—and not to provide
for his confinement (Aristoph. Nub. 845; Xen.
Memor. i. 2, § 49; Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 251).
Pollux (viii. 89) states that this Strm came
before the archon (as jºyeu&v Sukao rmptov), which
is very probable, as being a matter connected
with family rights, and from other sources we
learn that a court of dicasts decided the case.
The anonymous author of the Life of Sophocles
alone states that the decision of such a suit
rested with the phratores of the accused (kat
trore év 5páuart eigh'yaye Tov 'Io póvra airó
q6ovoivra kai trpos robs ppdropas, etc.); yet this
story of a prosecution of Sophocles by his son
on account of mental imbecility is extremely
doubtful. It would seem that a comic poet
introduced an arraignment of the aged Sophocles
by his son before the phratores in a contem-
porary comedy, the name of the poet being lost
(G. Hermann conjectured kaſ trore 'Aptorro-
q'dums év Apáuaoru eiohyaye, etc.). This in-
vented trial, Jebb suggests (Soph. ed. Jebb, ii.
p. xl. f.), was accepted by Satyrus, a collector of
biographies, whence Cicero (de Sen. 7, 22) and
later writers (Plut. Moral. p. 785 B; Lucian,
Macrob. 24), directly or indirectly, derived
their accounts. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius,
p. 566 ft.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PARA'NOMON GRAPHE (trapaváuov
opaq ft). An indictment instituted against a
person who had proposed or carried an illegal,
or rather unconstitutional, psephisma or law.
The illegality might consist either in its form
or in its contents, or in both. Thus a psephisma
might be impugned for matter of form, if it
was ārpogoſNevrov, i.e. had not been submitted
to the senate : such was the proposal of Andro-
tion (Dem. c. Androt, p. 594, § 5), to award a
crown to the outgoing senators as usual in spite
of their having failed to build the necessary
number of triremes (l.c. p. 596, § 10 f.), of Aris-
togiton against Hierocles ([Dem.] c. Aristog. i.
p. 767, argum.), of Thrasybulus to confer citi-
zenship upon Lysias ([Plut.] Wit. X. Oratt.
p. 835 F);-or a proposal to restore an āripos
or release a public debtor or admit him to com-
position with the state was illegal, if permission
(&öeia) had not first been granted by an assembly
at which not less than 6,000 Athenians had voted
(Dem. c. Timocr. p. 715, $46). As regards a law;
it was illegal if the rules had not been complied
with which regulated the introduction of new
laws: thus Timocrates had not put up his law
in the usual way for public perusal nor observed
the regulations as to the time when the nomo-
thetae should be appointed (Dem. C. Timoor.
p. 708, § 26: cf. c. Lept. p. 485, § 94). As to
the contents, a psephisma was illegal if incon-
sistent with a law, for pipiqua umbºv ºffre
Sova is a fire Shuow vöuov kvpiórepov elval
(Andoc. de Myst. § 87: cf. Dem. c. Aristocr:
p. 649, § 87, and c. Lept. p. 485, § 92, &AA&
évavrić repot [ved repoi MSS.] of wºugh aff offs
Z 22,
340 PARANOMON GRAPHE
PARANOMON GRAPHE
r& Jºnqfouara Set Ypátegéal), and it is clear that
this point was capable of very wide interpreta-
tion, from the fact that a proposal to confer
citizenship on a foreigner might be impugned if
the deserts of the foreigner could be called in
question, since the law stipulated that this hon-
our should be bestowed only on one deserving
it, 6 &vöpayabtav eis Tov Simov Tov 'A6mvaſav
([Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1375, § 89). A law might
be impugned as being inconsistent with some
other law that had not been repealed (Dem.
c. Timocr. p. 711, § 34;-c. Lept. p. 485, § 93;
p. 486, § 96): since a special law provided that
new laws should come into operation from the
day on which they were passed (unless a date
was expressly mentioned, usually the beginning
of the year following), Timocrates should have
repealed this law, Demosthenes argues (p. 714,
§ 43; p. 723, § 73), before proposing his own
with retrospective action. Some writers have
maintained that the Ypaph trapavópov lay not
merely against unconstitutional legislation, but
against bad legislation in general, so that a law
or psephisma might be assailed on the charge
of inexpediency (wh étruthbelov, Dem. c. Timocr.
p. 711, § 33, lea: ; cf. Pollux, viii. 56 and 44).
Madvig takes a different view (Kleine phil.
Schriften, p. 378 ft.). In his opinion a ypaqº,
trapaváuwv only lay against unconstitutional
legislation, i.e. against a law or psephisma in
proposing which certain regulations had not
been complied with (&s trapé, robs vówows to
Whqugua elpmrat, Dem. c. Aristocr'. p. 626, § 18 f.,
cf. p. 653, § 100; c. Timocr. p. 721, § 66: these
laws which had been contravened the prosecutor
wrote in parallel columns with the law or pse-
phisma indicted, trapaypáqeoréal, Dem. c. Androt.
p. 604, § 34, etc., cf. Dem. c. Aristocr. ed. Weber,
p. 221), and any arguments as to the expediency
of the law or psephisma in itself, which in prac-
tice played an important part, were beside the
legal point at issue, being cited merely as addi-
tional reasons for rejection. Lipsius adopts
Madvig's view, only separating objections based
on the contents, e.g. that a psephisma is incon-
sistent with a law, from objections of a purely
formal nature: cf. Gilbert, Handb.d. gr. Staatsalt.
p. 284, n. 1, and Busolt, Staats- u. Rechtsalt.
§ 193. Wayte (Dem. c. Androt, and c. Timocr.
p. xxxv.), on the other hand, holds that any
law, “however carefully all constitutional
forms had been observed, might be assailed on
the vague charge of inexpediency. The ypaqº,
trapavduov lay, therefore, not merely against
unconstitutional but against bad legislation in
general ; and any law might be pronounced
“bad” against which a majority, however small,
could be obtained in a court where the last
thing expected of the jurors was to leave their
politics behind them.” Schöll, too (Sitzungsber.
d. k. b. Akad., München, 1886, p. 136 f.),
contends that a law (not a psephisma) might be
impugned by means of a ypaſp?, trapavéuwv on the
ground of inexpediency, relying especially upon
Pollux, viii. 87, of uév 9eaſuo.6érat. ... eio &yovort
kal Täs róv trapavéuov ypaqās kal et ris u%
éritàbelow váuovºypdiketev.
Against the proposer of a psephisma a ypaqº,
trapavágov might be preferred either before the
taking of the votes (e.g. against Aristocrates and
Ctesiphon: hence their motions are called trpo-
8ovaetuata, Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 625, § 14, etc.;
de Cor. p. 228, § 9, cf. Xen. Hellen. i. 7, 12), or
after the voting had taken place and the people
had approved of it (Dem. c. Androt. p. 594, § 5,
etc.; [Dem.] c. Neaer, p. 1347, § 5, etc.). Ány
citizen might prefer this indictment; if he de-
clared in the popular assembly on oath (Öraptoaſta,
trouégaarðal, Xen. Hell. i. 7, 34, and Schömann,
de Comit. p. 161 f, whose explanation of the pas-
sage Grote, Hist. of Gr. vii. p. 445 n., does not
accept ; Lea. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 665, 3, etc.) that
he intended to proceed against the proposer by
means of a ypaph trapavéuwy, such a declaration
necessitated the postponement of the voting, or
had the effect of suspending the validity of the
psephisma, until the court had given its deci-
sion. The indictment which Aeschines preferred
against Ctesiphon’s proposal in B.C. 336 was not
brought to trial till six years later; since Ctesi-
phon’s proposal was a trpoSočAevga of the Senate,
it remained in force only a year (érévetov, Dem.
c. Aristocr. p. 651, § 92), but, as Schaefer (Dem.
w. S. Zeit, iii. p. 207 f) suggests, it was renewed
in B.C. 330 (hence Ctesiphon's personal responsi-
bility), and now Aeschines was compelled to
proceed with his indictment to escape the fine
of 1000 drachmas (Dem. c. Theocr. p. 1323, § 6).
The same proceeding might be instituted against
the proposer of a law, not, however, whilst the
law was in due form under consideration on the
part of the nomothetae (Schömann, Opusc. i.
p. 258 f.), but only when an attempt was made
to rush it through the popular assembly, or
when the law had been approved of by the
nomothetae to prevent its becoming kūpuos :
thus Leptines’ law had not come into opera-
tion in consequence of Bathippus's indictment:
cf. Dem. c. Lept. p. 497, § 134; p. 499, § 139;
p. 501, § 143 (Schömann, Opusc. i. p. 239f).
The indictment was directed against the mover
personally, who, if the court decided against
him, incurred more, or less punishment : death
(Dem. c. Timocr. p. 743, § 138) or a fine, 10
talents (c. Mid. p. 573, § 182; c. Theocr. p. 1332,
§ 31), 1 talent (instead of the 15 proposed by
the prosecutor, [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1348, § 8),
25 drachmas (Hyp. pro Euac. col. 31); and the
law or the psephisma was repealed. A person
thrice so convicted lost the right of making
proposals in the popular assembly in future
(Dem. de Cor. trierarch. p. 1231, § 12; Meier,
de Bon. Damnat. p. 130, n. 435). Aristophon
was seventy-five times indicted for having moved
illegal decrees, and every time acquitted; whilst
Cephalus could boast that, though he had pro-
posed more decrees than any one else, he had
not once been indicted (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 194).
The prosecutor who failed to obtain one-fifth of .
the votes at the trial, as Aeschines did (Plut.
Dem. 24), incurred a fine of 1000 drachmas, and
lost the right of instituting a ypaqº trapavóuav
in future (Theophr. tr. vöuov, Lex. Rhet. Cantabr.
p. 677, 8). After the expiration of a year from
the day when the psephisma or the law was
proposed or passed, the mover was free from
personal responsibility: this was the case with
Leptines (Dem. c. Lept. p. 501, § 144; argum.
p. 453, voubs yúp ºv row ypg}avra våuov h
tº hºpiopia puerò, Čviavrov ah sivat Streč6vvov),
though, as we learn from this instance, the law
itself might still be impeached before a jury,
and in such case the people appointed advocates
to defend it (five orivölkou, Leptines himself and
PARANYMPHUS
PARAPRESBEIA 341
the four named, p. 501, § 146; cf. Wolf,
p. cxxxvi.).
In Grote's opinion the ypaſp?l trapavéuov “was
probably introduced by Pericles at the same
time as the formalities of law-making by means
of specially delegated Nomothetae" (Hist. of Gr.
v. p. 430); cf. Gilbert, Handb. d. gr. Staatsalt.
i. p. 150, n. 2; Busolt, Gr. Staats- u. Rechtsalt.
§ 138. Mahaffy (Hermath. vii. 1881, p. 87 f.)
places it later: “Though it may have long
existed in the special form of an action against
direct verbal contradictions of particular laws
by new enactments, its importance dates only
from the disuse of ostracism (417 B.C.), and was
even a direct consequence of this disuse.” In
B.C. 411 it must have been firmly established as
a bulwark of the democratic constitution, or the
Four Hundred would not have repealed it before
proposing their revolutionary changes (Thuc.
viii. 67; Dem. c. Timocr. p. 748, § 154; Aeschin.
c. Ctes. § 191). (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius,
pp. 428–437.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PARANYMPHUS. [MATRIMONIUM, p.
136.]
PARAPETASMA. [VELUM.]
PARAPHERNA. [Dos.]
PARAPRESBEIA (trapatrpeggeta) signifies
any corrupt conduct, misfeasance, or neglect of
duty on the part of an ambassador; for which
he was liable to be called to account and pro-
secuted on his return home (Dem. F. L. p. 430,
§ 278 f.; p. 342, § 4 f.; c. Mid. p. 515, § 5).
Ambassadors were usually elected by the people
in assembly (C. I. A. ii. No. 17, 1. 72 ft. ; iv.
No. 27 a, l. 45 ft. ; Aeschin. F. L. § 18 f., etc.),
on rare occasions by the senate (Heydemann,
de Sen. Athen. p. 37; cf. Dem. F. L. p. 380,
§ 126). At the time of the Peloponnesian war
and before, only men above fifty years of age
were eligible as ambassadors (Plut. Per. 17;
C. I. A. i. No. 40, l. 16; cf. Plat. Legg. xii.
p. 950 D); later on this restriction was removed,
for Demosthenes had not reached that age when
he was sent to Philip in B.C. 346. Persons fit
for the post (§§to trio reas, Aeschin. F. L. § 23;
Aéyetv Švyduevoi, c. Ctes. § 139) and personae
gratae to the state to which the embassy was to
be sent (l.c. § 138 f.; Thuc. v. 44, etc.; usually
the trpáčevot, Schubert, de proac. Attic. p. 78)
were proposed by their friends (Aeschin. F. L.
§ 18) or might even propose themselves (Din.
c. Dem. § 81 ; Lys. c. Agor. § 9). In most cases
the ambassadors received definite instructions
(C. J. A. i. No. 40, l. 16 f.; Dem. F. L. p. 352,
§ 37; p. 392, § 162; Aeschin. F. J. § 98, etc.);
but sometimes this was, from the nature of the
case, not possible, and they had to act according
to their own judgment. Hence such instructions
as Aeschin. F. L. § 104, trpárretv 8& roys
trpéorgets kal &AA’ & ‘ri èv Ščvavrat āya.0óv:
cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 17, l. 74, and as an instance
of independent action on the part of ambassadors
may be cited the steps taken by Learchus and
Ameiniades against the Lacedaemonian envoys
(Thuc. ii. 67). Ambassadors who were em-
powered to make peace or conclude an alliance
without further reference to the popular assem-
bly were called abrokpáropes (Andoc. de Pac.
$33, atrokpáropas yúp trepiq6ival eis Aakeóatuova
Stå roj6’, ‘va u?, tróAlv ćiravaq’épauev, as con-
trasted with Thuc. v. 41, trply réAos ri airów
*xeiv, es to "Apyos trpárov ćiravaxophoravras
airobs Señal rig trafiðel, kal v špéokovt a j,
#kely €s rā ‘Taktv6ia robs àpkovs troumorouévows);
yet such ambassadors had no power to settle the
conditions on which peace was to be made, etc.,
these having been determined upon before they
were despatched. Egger's definition (Menoire
histor. sur les Traités Publics, p. 8) is therefore
too wide: “Les ambassadeurs prenaient quelque-
fois le titre de plénipotentiaires, quand on les
dispensait formellement d'en référer a leurs
commettants pour la conclusion du traité.”
That the power of the trpéo Beis airokpátopes
was such as described above is borne out, e.g. by
Lysias’ (c. Agor. § 8 ft.) and Xenophon's (Hell. ii.
2, 11 ff) accounts of Theramenes’ embassy to
Sparta. The Athenians had proposed to Agis to
become allies of Sparta, retaining their walls
and the Peiraeus, and Agis referred the am-
bassadors to the ephors at Sparta. This they
reported to the popular assembly, by whom
they were despatched to Sparta. On the
frontier the ephors asked what their proposi-
tions were; and hearing that they were the
same as those made to Agis, they desired
them to go back and come prepared with
something more admissible, informing them at
the same time that no proposition could be
received which did not include the demolition of
the Long Walls for a continuous length of ten
stadia. With this answer the envoys returned
to Athens; a senator advised the acceptance of
the terms, but was thrown into prison, and a
resolution was passed forbidding any such
motion in future. Then Theramenes offered to
go as envoy to Lysander, to find out the real
intentions of the Spartans as regards Athens;
and when after three months’ delay Lysander
referred him to the ephors, Theramenes returned
to Athens. He was now chosen Tpeogevrºs
airokpārap to Sparta, together with nine others,
i.e. empowered to conclude peace if the Spartans
accepted the conditions which he was prepared
to offer, these having been agreed on by the
people (enpauerns . . . Aéyet äri . . . trothorely
&ote užite Tāv retxàv Štexeiv uſite &AAo rhy
tróAlv čAarrógal umbév, etc. Lys. l. c. § 9). At
Sellasia these envoys informed the ephors that
they were airrokpdropes, and were therefore
permitted to come to Sparta; but when the
Spartans insisted upon the demolition of the
Long Walls, etc., the envoys could do nothing
but refer (éravaq’épetv, Xen. l. c. § 21) these
terms to the Athenians; in the popular assembly
they strongly recommended submission to Sparta,
and the terms were accepted by a large majority.
It is clear that if Theramenes and his colleagues
had been plenipotentiaries in the usual sense of
the word, i.e. empowered to make peace on the
best terms they could secure, they would have
done so at once at Sparta. See also Diod. xii. 4,
Suárep oi repl rov 'Apraśaſov kal Meyā8wſov
êtrepipav eis rās 'A6%ivas trpeg Sevr&s rows 5ta-
Aešopiévows repl ovXAögsws: irakovgåvrov be
rôv 'A6mvatov kal treatyčvrov trpéa Seis airokpá-
Topas &v jºyerto KaxAtas 6 ‘Introvíkov ćyévovto
ovv67kat repl rās siphums, etc. In Dem. F. L.
p. 395, § 173, airokpdrop has of course a
different sense (Schäfer, Dem. u. S. Zeit, ii.
p. 227, n. 1).
For ambassadors to act contrary to their
instructions (trapā to phºbia ua trpeggetely, Dem.
F. L. p. 346, § 17) was a high misdemeanour
342 PARAPRESBEIA
PARAPRESBEIA
(Plat. Legg. xii. init. p. 941 A). On their return
home they were required immediately to make
a report of their proceedings (&ngºyéAAew Thy
ºped Betav), first to the senate (éri kepawatov,
Aeschin. F. L. § 45) and afterwards to the
people in assembly (l.c. §§ 17, 25, 45 f.; Dem.
F. L. p. 342, § 4, etc.).” If the report made to
the senate seemed satisfactory and no complaint
was made against the ambassadors, a member of
the senate moved a vote of thanks to the envoys
and an invitation to dinner in the Prytaneum,
and this motion was afterwards submitted to
the popular assembly. Thus, after the return
of the first embassy to Philip, Demosthenes
moved in the senate ore pavāoral 9aWAoû ate-
pavá, ékaarov kai kaAéoral émil Seirvov eis To
trpuraveſov eis aiptov, and in the popular assem-
bly traivéoral kal kaxéa'ai ém, befrvov, etc.
(Aeschin. F. L. §§ 45, 53; cf. Dem. F. L. p. 414,
§ 234). When objections were raised to the
conduct of the ambassadors, as happened after
the second embassy, no such vote of thanks, etc.
was proposed in the senate (Dem. F. L. p. 350,
§ 31 ; cf. p. 355, § 45, etc.). This vote of thanks
had in course of time become a mere formality
(to véupov č60s trouáv, Dem. F. L. p. 414, § 234,
and argum. p. 338; cf. Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 178),
and to judge from the case of Timagoras, a
person, though thus honoured, might later on
be severely punished if misconduct in the
embassy could be proved against him (Xen.
Hellen. vii. 1, 38;-Dem. F. L. p. 400, § 191;
p. 383, § 137). Since it was forbidden by law
orreſpawotiv rows Śrev6úvows (Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 11), such a motion probably always contained
the clause êmetēśv ràs eißwas 63 (cf. C. I. A. ii.
No. 114 A ; Rangabé, Ant. Hell. ii. No. 425).
For that the ambassadors had to render an
official account of their conduct in the embassy
in the usual way [EUTHYNE] is clear (Aristotle
in Harpocr. s. v. e50wou: Pollux, viii. 45, etc.).
At the anakrisis held by the logistae, their
khpuš asked, if any one intended to accuse the
functionary who was rendering his account (Tſs
80üßeral karmyopeſv; Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 23;
cf. Dem. F. L. p. 341, § 2). If an accuser
appeared, he had to establish his complaint and
* Boeckh (Sthh.. i.3 p. 303) states that the state paid
the ambassadors their €4,68ta in advance, quoting
C. J. G. No. 107 = C. I. A. ii. No. 311, Ephem. arch.
No. 407=C. I. A. No. 64 (C. I. G. 2556 is a Cretan
inscr.), and Fränkel adds (vol. ii. p. 67, App.) that
sometimes the ambassadors received their pay after
their return. It would seem that to about the middle
of the fourth century the ambassadors received their
ëbóöta after their return (C. I. A. ii. No. 156, p. 423;
No. 64 = Olymp. 105, 4; No. 89 = Olymp. 106, No. 108
c. b. 1. 24 = c. Olymp. 107, 4, fifty drachmas), so much
per day; Aristophanes (Acharn. 66, cf. 602) speaks of
two drachmas, and the scholiast's remark is to the point,
satirrera, yāp tov "peggevrºv &s émirnēes xpovorpt-
§ouvrov čv rats ſpeogetats Öræp roß ràetova wagov
Aaſtfävetv. From Dem. F. L. p. 390, § 158, we may
conclude that the amount was less: each of the ten
ambassadors received a hundred drachmas for ninety
days, but in fact the journey lasted only seventy days.
At a later period the éð68ta were paid in advance: thus
for a journey to Byzantium fifty drachmas (C. I. A. ii.
No. 251 = Olymp. 118-120), cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 311 =
Olymp. 123, 3; to rerayuévov; and the Avaricious Man
in Theophrastus (Char. 26, ed. Jebb=30) leaves the
money allowed to him by the state at home and borrows
of his colleagues in the embassy.
reduce it to the form of a Ypaqf, and the pro-
secution would be conducted in the usual way,
stopping the proceedings of the effèvval. (This
explains why Aeschines had not rendered his
account before Demosthenes brought him to
trial, Dem. F. L. p. 374, § 104 f.) We do not
know within what time this account had to be
rendered, whether ambassadors were bound to
render it thirty days after their return, as most
magistrates had to do after the expiration of
their term of office. Thirlwall (Hist. of Greece,
vi. p. 31) can scarcely be right in saying that
the time for doing it was left to their discretion;
for the instance from which he draws this
inference must be explained differently. From
the way in which Demosthenes had attacked him
on his return from the second embassy to Philip
both in the senate and in the popular assembly,
Aeschines had reason to fear that charges would
be made against him on the occasion of his
rendering his account. He therefore tried at
first to escape it altogether; and with a view to
that, when Demosthenes wished to render his
account in due form, he presented himself before
the logistae and argued that there was no
occasion to render an account of this second
embassy, as it was for a matter of form only,
viz. to receive the oath of Philip (Aeschin. F. L.
§ 123). This objection was overruled, and
Demosthenes went through the necessary forms
and received his discharge, no one complaining
of his conduct, and probably some other envoys
likewise (Dem. F. L. p. 377, § 118; Aeschin.
F. L. § 178). Now Aeschines changed his
tactics, and professed to be eager to render his
account (c. Tim. § 168), and Demosthenes and
Timarchus brought charges of neglect of duty
against him (Dem. F. L. p. 343, § 8). Aeschines,
however, gained time by proceeding against
Timarchus: he demanded a judicial scrutiny
into Timarchus’ character, and thus in a sum-
mary way got rid of one of his accusers
(httpoorev Štrakoúgavrá ru' aſſroi, karżyopov,
Dem. F. L. p. 423, § 257). At last, more than
three years after the embassy (Dion. Halic.
Iºpist. i. ad Amm. 10, Špxov IIvöööoros, i.e.
B.C. 343-2... kal Töv kar’ Aio Xívov ovverdºaro
Aöyov, Šre ràs eißvas £6töow ris Sevrépas
Tpeogetas rās ér rows Śpkovs), Demosthenes
brought Aeschines to trial, when he, it is said,
was acquitted by a majority of only thirty
votes (Plut. Dem. 15; [Plut.] Witt. X. Oratt.
p. 840 B, C). The ypaſpi, traparpeg Betas which
might be brought only on occasion of the et:0vvat
was a tip.mtös &ydºv (Aeschin. F. L. § 5, etc.);
and as it might comprise charges of the most
serious kind, such as treachery and treason
against the state, the defendant might have to
apprehend the heaviest punishment. Callias
(Dem. F. L. p. 428, § 273) had to pay a fine of
fifty talents £v rais eş0övals (on his embassy:
cf. Duncker, Abh. a. d. Griech. Gesch. p. 121 ff.).
Aelian's story (W. H. vi. 5), that the Athenian
ambassadors sent to Arcadia, though successful
in the object of their mission, were condemned
to death because they had not travelled by the
prescribed route, wants confirmation. Besides
this Ypaph, an eio'ayyexta might be brought
against an ambassador (Dem. F. L. p. 374,
§ 104 f.), e.g. against Epicrates (Dem. F. L.
p. 429 f., § 276 f.), and probably against Philon
(Isocr. c. Callim. § 22; £vöetx0évra can scarcely be
PARASANGA
PARASITI 343
used here in its technical sense). (Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, p. 459 f., p. 290.) Aeschines (F. L.
§ 139) says that Demosthenes had threatened
to bring an eisangelia (eioray'yeſ'Aat trapamped-
Señoraoréal) against him for going as ambassador
to Philip and to the Amphictyonic council,
without being appointed as such (cf. Dem. F. L.
p. 379, § 125 f); it is true that Aeschines,
when elected to go on the third embassy,
declined under the pretext of ill-health (Dem.
F. L. p. 379, § 124), but the election was
renewed by a decree which Demosthenes passed
over (Aeschin. F. L. § 94, ſhºptopia to uév
ãvéyvos, scil. Dem. F. L. p. 381, § 130, to 8&
ūrépé8ms: cf. Dem. F. L. p. 395, § 172, Éri rhy
Tptºrmv trpeggetav Šís ue xelpotovnodvtov Šuðv
§ls éčapoordumv); cf. Plat. Legg. xii. p. 941 A.
Antiphon and Archeptolemus were proceeded
against by an eioray-yeata trpoãoaſtas ([Plut..] Witt.
X. Oratt. p. 833 E, F), and the impeachment of
Philocrates was not traparpeg|Seſa (Schömann,
de Com. p. 195), but phropa Śvra Aéyetv Ah rà
&ptorra ré à fluq, rö 'A6mvatov (Hyper. pro Euz.
c. 39). C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PARASANGA (trapaadyyms). According to
Herodotus, the parasang was the name given by
the Persians to a distance of 30 stades (trapa-
ordyyas, rods kaxeovot of IIéporal r& Tpińkovra
ordóta, vi. 42). It was never, properly speak-
ing, a Greek measure, but was simply employed
by Greek writers such as Herodotus and Xeno-
phon, who wrote about distances from one place
to another in Asia, just as Strabo employed the
word uſatov when describing distances in Italy,
and as the Romans, on the other hand, at times
employed the term ord Stov to describe distances
in Greece. The origin of the measure is not
very clear: some have sought to explain it as
the distance traversed by an active walker in an
hour of equinoctial time, during which the sun
traverses a distance in the heavens equal to
thirty times his own diameter. According to
those metrologists therefore, the Persians simply
borrowed the parasang from the Babylonians.
But it is probable that it had a much more
simple and rude origin, and is rather to be com-
pared with the Gallic leuga (league)=1} Roman
miles, and the German Rasta=2 Roman miles.
It will hardly be maintained that the latter
were based on astronomical observations. It is
more reasonable to suppose that the parasang
as well as the leuga and Rasta were multiples of
some native unit of land measure, such as the
length of the furrow [MENSURA]. This view is
supported by the fact that the Persians used
the parasang as their unit of measurement when
dealing with large tracts of country. (Herod.
vi. 42, kal Tês x&pas a péav perphaas karū.
trapaadyyas, k. T. A.) The scientific theory
of its origin is also rendered doubtful by the
fact that the parasang varied considerably
in extent in different times and places. For
instance, Agathias (ii. 21), who quotes the testi-
mony of Herodotus and Xenophon to the para-
sang being 30 stades, says that the Iberi and
Persians in his own time (A.D. 570) made it
only 21 stades. Strabo also states (xi. p. 518)
that some writers reckoned it at 60 stades,
others at 40, and others at 30. The evidence of
Pliny is to the same effect, as he complains
of the difficulty of giving accurate statements of
distances (H. N. vi. § 30). Distances in Asia
are still reckoned in parasangs (Persian farsang).
Modern travellers variously estimate it at from
3% to 4 English miles, which agrees closely with
the calculations of Herodotus. [W. R.I.]
PARASEMON (rapáanuov). [INSIGNE.]
PARASITI (trapdairol) properly denotes
those who dine with, or beside, others: of whose
position Athenaeus (vi. p. 34), commenting on
the later degradation of the word, says that it
was formerly iepāv ri xpiua kal rô avv6otvq?
trapéuotov. From the general sense of “dining
beside,” we have in the earlier times two
senses of the word, civil and sacred, and later a
quite different sense. It must be observed that
trapdovros differs from orégoiros in that it im-
plies a difference of rank and status; and,
whereas the origoritoi are those who dine
together ea officio, the ºrdpaorirot are those who
are invited to join them. Hence in the
original civil meaning the trapdoratot were those
who dined in the Prytaneum (or in the Tholos)
not being magistrates, but invited guests: that
this was originally the case is shown by the
fact that Solon forbade the same parasite.
oriteio 6al troXA&Kus (Plut. Sol. 25). After the
separate official dinners in the Tholos were
instituted, the terms trapdoºrot included those
subordinate clerks, &c. (“parasites” of the
Prytaneis) who were, some time after the Roman
conquest, termed &etatrol. [PRYTANEUM.] The
trapdoritoi of the priests were ministers in the
temples above the rank of mere temple servants
who assisted the priests in the sacred rites, and
dined with them after the sacrifice; and when
the word is used to denote a distinct office, it
has this meaning. Athenaeus (l. c.) in his
account quotes various laws and decrees, but he
is clearly not quite certain of their meaning.
From the obscurely-worded law on p. 235 c, we
should infer that the trapdoritoi had, besides
their ritual duties, to collect (as if sacred
ékAoyeſs) certain dues of corn for their temple,
that they stored the offerings of corn in a trapa-
oríretov (which, however, from analogy we
should have expected to mean the lodgings of
parasiti in the temple precincts), that they were
charged with providing food therefrom for those
who came for religious purposes to the temple,
and that out of funds committed to them they
had to pay for repairs of the temple buildings.
What the sense of éic ris Bovkońſas €kÅéyéiv
can be, it is impossible to say. There is no
warrant for giving to BovkoWſa the sense of a
“country district,” attached to the temple,
whence corn was due, which might give an
intelligible meaning. Schweighâuser's emenda-
tion ékrös Bovkoxias, “absque dolo malo,” is
ingenious, but not a probable expression.
Various deities are mentioned in the passages
cited by Athenaeus, in whose temples there
were parasiti, but there is no reason to suppose
that their employment was limited to those
temples. When it is said that the archons are
to choose parasiti from the demes, the civil
parasiti are probably meant (as in Špxovres tº
trapdorirot &vé6erav, p. 234, f). From the
analogy of ird peopot, the assistants of magis-
trates, we may imagine that the priest of the
temple chose his trapdourot.
From the fact that the priest received one-
third of the victim and the trapdoritot the same
amount, it is clear that there was always more
344 PARASTADES
PAREDRI
than one trapdoriros in a temple, since the priest's
share would certainly be larger than his sub-
ordinate's.
Parasites in the modern sense no doubt existed
in early times: the comedies of Aristophanes
testify to them, and Philippus, who is intro-
duced in the Symposium of Xenophon, is a good
specimen of the class (cf. Epicharm. ap. Athen.
vi. p. 235); but the name trapdoritos was only
so applied in writers of Middle and New
Comedy (the first who so used it is said to have
been Alexis), upon which the honourable sense
gradually fell into disuse. In these later
comedians (from whom numerous passages are
Quoted by Athenaeus, vi. pp. 236–248) the
parasites are standing characters.
The features common to all these parasites
are importunity, love of sensual pleasures, and
above all the desire of getting a good dinner
without paying for it. According to the various
means which they employed to attain this
object, they may be divided into three classes.
The first are yeawrotrotoſ, or jesters (cf. Theo-
phrast. xi. 4; Jebb ad loc.), who, in order to
get an invitation, not only tried to amuse, but
endured the grossest insults and even personal
maltreatment (Alciph. Ep. iii. 6, 7, 49). This
profession of voluntary enslavement was so
systematic that they had note-books with a
collection of jests (Plut. Stich. iii. 2, 1; Pers.
iii. 1,67). Among these we may class Philippus
in the Symposium of Xenophon, Ergastilus in
the Captivi, and Gelasimus in the Stichus. The
second class are the kóAakes or flatterers (see
Athen. vi. p. 248 d), who by praising vain
persons endeavoured to obtain an invitation.
Such were Gnatho in the Eunuchus, and Arto-
tragus in the Miles Gloriosus. The third class
are the 6epairevrikoſ, or the officious, who by
service even of the lowest and most degrading
description tried to win favour (Plut. de Adul.
23; de Educat. 17). Characters of this class
are the parasites in the Asinaria and Menaechmi,
and especially Curculio in the Persae and Saturio
in the Phormio. We find the parasites haunting
the market, the palaestrae, the baths, and other
public places in search of a patron. Some
examples of the disgusting humiliations which
parasites endured are mentioned by Athenaeus
(vi. p. 249) and Plutarch (Symp. vii. 6; cf.
Diog. Laert. ii. 67; Epictet. iv. 1, § 55; Dio
Chrys. vi. p. 602, Éamiçáuevo, kal aiorxpå Aéyov-
res). Under the Roman empire the parasite
seems to have been constantly at the tables of
the wealthy Roman, and to have been treated
in much the same way. (Hor. Sat. ii. 7, 102;
Mart. ii. 18, 53, 72; Lucian, de Parasit. 58.)
Their position is described particularly in
Juvenal, Sat. v. (where see Mayor's notes), and
Plin. Ep. ii. 6. (Becker-Göll, Charikles, i. 157;
Blümner, Privatalt. 502; Hermann, Gr. Alt.
ii.” 36.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PARASTADES. [ANTAE.]
PARA'STASIS (rapáorraoris), a fee of one
drachm paid to an arbitrator by the plaintiff, on
bringing his cause before him, and by the
defendant, on putting in his answer; likewise
on making an application for delay, and prob-
ably also on making a counter-affidavit (Pollux,
viii. 39, 127; Harpocr. s. v. ; cf. [Dem.] c.
Timoth. p. 1190, § 19; Photius and Etym. M.
S. v. trapakarágraqis). Meier (Privatschieds-
richter, etc. p. 13 f.) is of opinion that the state
received these fees, and out of them paid the
public arbitrators a drachm for every day they
were engaged in their official duties; yet both
Pollux and Harpocration use the expression
Aapabávelv of the arbitrator.
The same name was given to the fee (prob-
ably a drachm) paid to the state by the prose-
cutor in certain public causes. Aristotle (in
Harpocr. s. v.) mentions as ypaſpai to be laid
before the thesmothetae those in which this fee
had to be paid, viz. §evías, 8wpočevlas, bevöey-
'ypaſpiis, ſevöokAmreſas, Bouxeigeas, &Ypatíov
and uoixetas: and from Andoc. de Myst. § 120,
we learn that trapdorraorus had to be paid by one
who claimed an heiress in marriage as having a
better title than another. On the other hand,
this fee was not paid in an eigayyeata kakógews
érikAhpaw (Isae. Pyrrh. § 45), nor probably in a
ºpaqº iſºpeas (Isocr. Lochit. § 2). (Att. Process,
ed. Lipsius, p. 813 f.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PARA'STATAE. [HENDECA.]
PARAZO'NIUM. [ZonA.J
PARE'DRI (répeopol), assessors, whom we
find attached to the three superior archons, the
euthyni, and the Hellenotamiae. Each of the
three superior archons was at liberty to have two
assessors (trópeopol) chosen by himself, to assist
him by advice and otherwise in the performance
of his various duties. (Aeschin. c. Tim. § 158;
Poll. viii. 92.) That the magistrates who had a
right to trapeSpot appointed them, and that it was
not an appointment by lot, appears from Pollux,
l. c. and ch. 101, on which see Boeckh's comment
(Staatsaush. i.” p. 245) and Phot. s. v. The
assessor, like the magistrate himself, had to
undergo a 60kipaaría in the Senate of Five
Hundred and before a judicial tribunal, before
he could be permitted to enter upon his labours.
He was also to render an account (et:0uval) at
the end of the year. The office is called an
āpxi (CDem.] c. Neaer. p. 1369, § 72). The
duties of the archon, magisterial and judicial,
were so numerous, that one of the principal
objects of having assessors must have been to
enable them to get through their business. We
find the trópeãpos assisting the archon at the
Añéus Strms. ([Dem.] c. Theoc. p. 1332, § 32.)
He had authority to keep order at public
festivals and theatres, and to impose a fine on
the disorderly (Dem. c. Mid. p. 572, § 179).
As the archons were chosen by lot (k\mparoſ),
and might be persons of inferior capacity, and
not very well fitted for their station, it might
often be useful, or even necessary for them,
to procure the assistance of clever men of
business. ([Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1372, § 81.) And
perhaps it was intended that the trópeopol should
not only assist, but in some measure check and
control the power of their principals. They
are spoken of as being Bomboſ, oriºubovňou kal
qūAakes. Stephanus is accused of buying his
place of the "Apxov BagiNets (c. Neaer. p. 1369,
§ 72). It was usual to choose relations and
friends to be assessors; but they might at any
time be dismissed, at least for good cause (b.
p. 1373, § 84). The Thesmothetae had no
assessors: if they chose to have unofficial
advisers (ortugovao) as in [Dem.] c. Theoc.
p. 1330, § 27, it was their own private affair,
and had no state recognition. (Schömann,
Antiq. of Greece, p. 413.) The office of trópe-
PARENGRAPTOI
PARIES 345
àpos was called trapeSpía, and to exercise it
trapeãpečeiv.
Each of the Hellenotamiae had a trapeãpos to
assist him (C.I.A. i. 180–183): for the assessors
of the et:0uvot, see EUTHYNE, Vol. I. p. 763 b. (Gil-
bert, Staatsalterthümer, i. p. 240 ft.; Boeckh, op.
cit.; Schömann, op. cit.) [C. R. K.] [G. E. M.]
PARENGRAPTOI (mapéyypartol, Aeschin.
F. L. § 177, or rapéyypaqol, Philoch. fr. 90) is
the term applied to those who had their names
enrolled in the register of citizens without
being such either by birth or special grant
(pāore, or Sape?). Such a one was liable to a
ºypaſp? §evías which any Athenian citizen might
institute against him ; and if condemned, his
person and property was forfeited to the state
and he was sold for a slave (Dem. Epist. iii.
p. 1481, § 28; Schol. on c. Timocr. p. 741,
§ 131) [XENIAS GRAPHE], or he might be pro-
ceeded against by eio'ayyexía (Dinarch. c.
Agasicl. : cf. Hyper. pro Eu3. c. 19; Dinarch.
c. Pyth. etc.). Moreover the Önuéral might by
their 6taphºpious eject any person who was
illegally enrolled among them. If he acquiesced
in the verdict, his name was simply struck
from the register, and he himself was degraded
to the rank of an alien'; if he did not acquiesce,
but appealed to a court of dicasts, a heavier
punishment awaited him if the dicasts con-
firmed the decision of the Smuárat: he was sold
as a slave, and his property confiscated by the
state (Dem. c. Eubul. p. 1317, § 60 f.; Isae. pro
Euphil. § 11, and argum.). [DIAPSEPHISIS.]
Plutarch (Pericl. 37) says that in consequence
of a law of Pericles, when the Egyptian king
Psammetichus sent grain to Athens as a present,
proceedings were taken against the vö601, and
that nearly 5,000 were sold as slaves. In
Duncker's opinion (Ber. ii. d. Sitz. d. Berl.
Akad. 1883, p. 935 f = Abhandl. a. d. Griech.
Gesch. p. 124 f.) this Periclean law is a mere
invention of the rhetors, and was confounded
with Pericles' proposal of a 6tail-hºptoris (Müller-
Strübing, Aristoph. w. d, hist. Krit. p. 89),
occasioned by the distribution of grain sent
from Egypt, when 4760 were found to be
fraudulently enrolled as citizens (Philoch. fr.
90=schol. Aristoph. Vesp. 718). As stated
above, not all persons struck off the registers
were sold as slaves, but only those who un-
successfully appealed to a court of dicasts;
hence Plutarch's statement cannot possibly be
correct. The larger number does not allow us
to think of Ypaqal £evías (as Philippi, Beitr. 2.
Gesch. d. Att. Bürgerr. p. 34 ft., suggests); and
supposing that a 6tail/hquois was instituted, it is
inconceivable that so large a number should
have appealed unsuccessfully to the courts.
The idea of such a large number of persons
having been struck off the registers is probably
due to the following calculation:—The total
mumber of citizens was taken at 19,000; accord-
ing to Philochorus, 14,240 citizens received a
share of the grain: thus 4,760 remained over
who were looked upon as trapéyypaqot. Yet
14,240 does not represent the total of citizens
that remained after the 6talyſiquorus (Fränkel,
Att. Geschworenger. p. 3 ff.), but only the
number of those who received the grain, and
the 4,760 includes not only the spurious
citizens, but also all those citizens who for
reasons of their own did not apply for a share
(Busolt, Griech. Gesch. ii. p. 574 f.). The term
trapetorypaqis Strm (Plut. Amator. 13, p. 756 D)
is not Attic. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 438 ft.,
1030 f.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PARENTA'LIA. [FUNUs.]
PA'RIES (roixos), the wall of a roofed build-
ing, in contradistinction to MURUS (reixos), a
fence wall, and maceria, the wall of a small en-
closure, such as a garden or courtyard. For the
methods of construction of the more solid sorts
of parietes, see MURUs.
The wall of the primitive huts, used by many
races at an early stage of development, were
formed of wattled osiers daubed with clay (paries
cratitivis). (See CRATES: also cf. Festus, s. v.
solea; Pliny, H. N. xxxv. § 169; Vitruv. ii. 1; and
Ovid, Fast. iii. 183 and vi. 261.) In later times
thin party-walls were sometimes made of wood
framing covered with reeds, and then stuccoed,
like a modern lath-and-plaster partition. Walls
of sun-dried bricks (paries lateritius) have been
mentioned under MURUs: a variety of this
method, used for humbler purposes, was to
make the wall in one mass of beaten earth,
paries formaceus : see FORMA. In some districts
where timber was plentiful, log houses were
built: very curious representations of these
structures occur, carved in stone, in many of
the tombs of Lycia and Lydia; cf. Herod. iv.
108; and Viturv. ii. 1 and 9. Many of these
show carpentry of the most elaborate and skilful
kind, with long carefully formed tenons, passing
through the mortises and secured by wooden
pins or wedges. Even under the Roman Empire
wood was very largely used for the upper stories
of houses, which were frequently built project-
ing over the ground-floor, like a mediaeval half-
timbered structure. Many examples of this
have been traced at Pompeii, though in most
cases the charred beams fall to pieces as soon as
they are exposed to air. In one instance, how-
ever, it has been possible to prop up and preserve
an example of this overhanging upper story,
tabulatus or maenianum pensile. The metro-
politan building acts of Nero, Trajan, and other
emperors were specially framed so as to prevent
the use of these highly combustible structures
in the city of Rome, where constant fires com-
mitted the most fearful devastation (Suet.
Nero, 38; Aur. Victor, Epit. 13; and Vitruv.
ii. 8).
The paries solidus was a wall unbroken by
openings for doors or windows: as in modern
language, it was also called “a blind wall ”
(Verg. Aen. v. 589). The paries communis was
the party-wall common to two houses (Ovid,
Met. iv. 66): the koivos roixos of Thucyd. ii. 3.
The party-wall was also called intergerinus or
intergericus (see Festus, s. v.; and Plin. H. N.
xxxv. § 173); and in Greek uéorároixos or
piegórouxov (Athen. vii. p. 281, and Ephes. ii.
14). Cross walls for separating the rooms of
a house were called parietes directi. Cicero
(Topica, 4) distinguishes four kinds of wall—
the paries solidus as opposed to the paries formi-
catus, a wall pierced with arches; and the
communis or party-wall as distinguished from
the directus or private-room wall.
The decoration of the paries was very varied
and elaborate: for painting and mosaic, both of
which were very largely used for Roman mural
decoration, see PICTURA : cf. also DOMUS and
346 PARIES
PARIES
MURUs, and Encyc. Brit. s. v. “Mural Decora-
tion.”
Stucco (opus tectorium) was very largely used
by the Romans, both for exterior and internal
walls. Great care and skill were expended in
producing a hard durable substance, quite unlike
the soft friable material which we now call
stucco. Witruvius (vii. 2–6) gives an elaborate
description of the various methods of preparing
and applying stucco: as Pliny’s remarks on this
subject are copied from Vitruvius, it is needless
to refer to what he says about it. Existing
examples agree closely with Vitruvius’ advice.
For internal work, three to five coats of stucco
were laid on. If the wall were thought likely
to be damp, it was often covered with flanged
tiles, fixed with iron T-shaped cramps (Vitruv.
vii. 4). Many examples of this have been found
in Rome. The first coat was of lime and coarse
pozzolana (lapis Puteolanus), exactly like the
mortar used in the joints of brick facings. Over
this, another rough coat was spread, frequently
composed of lime, sand, and pounded pottery
(testae tunsae), which set as hard as rock, and
was impervious to moisture. The third coat
was of lime and coarsely pounded marble ; the
finishing coat was of pure white lime or gypsum,
mixed with marble ground to an impalpable
powder, which usually had some glutinous sub-
stance, size made of parchment or tree-sap,
mixed with it. The earlier coats were mixed
with water only. In some cases one or more
intermediate coats of similar composition were
added, the composition always growing finer in
grain as it approached the surface. The finished
surface of this stucco set to a very hard con-
sistency, and had a beautiful ivory-like texture,
capable of receiving a high degree of mechanical
polish. The final coats were called opus al-
barium or caementum marmoreum (Vitruv. vii.
16).
For external work, the same beautiful marble
cement was used, but as a rule with fewer under-
coats. A wall so treated was called paries de-
albatus. Brick and concrete buildings were in
this way made to look like white marble, and
the deception was increased by the common
Roman custom of forming incised lines in the
stucco, so as to imitate the joints of the blocks
of a solid marbie wall. The application of the
coats of stucco (trullissatio) was managed by a
small square board at the end of a long handle,
just like the modern plasterer's “float.” This
is shown in a painting from Pompeii represent-
ing a plasterer at work (see Ann. Inst. Arch.
Rom., vol. for 1881). The use of iron or bronze
nails and marble plugs to form a “key’” for the
stucco is mentioned in the article MURUs (see
also Middleton, Ancient Rome, pp. 36 and 412
seq.). Reliefs modelled in this fine stucco were
very largely used by the Romans as a decoration
for their walls and vaults. Some examples of
extraordinary beauty were recently discovered
in a house in the Farnesina gardens by the
Tiber, and then destroyed by the works carried
on during the formation of the new river
embankment in Rome. These reliefs, which
dated early in the first century A.D., were
modelled with marvellous spirit and refined
taste, executed rapidly by the artist in the
quick-setting wet stucco, which he applied in
lumps to the flat plaster ground, and then I surface like the frame of a picture.
rapidly, before it had time to harden, moulded
the figures into shape with his fingers and
thumb, aided by a few simple wooden tools.
The decision and unerring skill with which every
touch on the wet stucco was applied is most
admirable, and the result is that an amount of
vigour and life appears in these hastily-executed
reliefs, such as could hardly have been equalled
by the slower process of chiselling a hard sub-
stance. The only guide which the sculptor had
to help him was a mere sketch in outline, incised
on the flat background, on to which he was ap-
plying the reliefs. Scenes of very great beauty
occur among these reliefs: many are Dionysiac,
with fauns and nymphs playing and singing.
Some figures of winged Victories are marvels of
delicate grace in their pose, floating lightly
on large wings, with their onward movement
skilfully indicated by the flowing curves of the
drapery. The modelling of the nude is very
skilful, showing complete knowledge of the
human form: the play of the muscles under the
supple skin being rendered with perfect taste,
free from any of the usual Roman exaggeration.
These reliefs, and others of the same class, are
of pure Hellenic style, and most probably were
executed by Greek workmen; in fact, one Greek
artist had signed his name Seleukos on the walls
of the Farnesina house, and other Greek artists’
names occur in similar cases. Mouldings of
elaborate character were formed in the marble
cement by the use of long wooden stamps, the
work being finally touched up with the modelling
tool. Not only cornices of rooms were made in
this way, but very often the whole wall-surface
was divided up into panels framed with enriched
mouldings—the central space being decorated
by figure reliefs or by painting on the flat.
Gold, silver, and colours of all kinds were used
to increase the decorative effect of the reliefs,
which seem very rarely, if ever, to have been
left white.
The use of marble for decorative purposes in
Rome did not begin before the first century B.C.
Its introduction, especially into private houses,
was at first regarded as a thing savouring of
Greek luxury and unbecoming the stern re-
publican simplicity of a Roman citizen. The
earliest example of the use of thin marble wall-
linings (crustae), according to Cornelius Nepos,
quoted by Pliny, H. N. xxxvi. § 48, was in the
house of a knight named Mamurra, one of
Caesar's officials in Gaul. A few years later,
marble became very common, in the reign of
Augustus, who did all he could to make Rome
magnificent (Suet. Aug. 29); and all throughout
the imperial period immense quantities of the
most varied coloured marbles were poured into
Rome from countless quarries in Northern Africa,
Greece, Asia Minor, Arabia, and other countries.
Immense wall-surfaces were covered with costly
marbles, and in some cases even by the hard
basalts which only diamond or corundum could
work. The usual scheme was to have a moulded
plinth, a dado above that, and at the top of the
wall a richly-moulded cornice; marbles of dif-
ferent colours being used for all the various parts.
The main surface, between the dado and the
cornice, was often divided into panels of different
coloured marbles, each panel being framed with
a moulded strip, projecting in front of the sº
€Se
PARIES
PARILLA 347
marble linings were fixed with great care. They
were backed with a thick coating of cement or
mortar, made of lime and pozzolana, and each
piece of marble was then tied to the wall behind
by long hook-like clamps of iron or bronze, the
ends being run with melted lead, or wedged into
joints of the brick facing of the wall. Extra-
ordinary skill was shown by the extreme thinness
to which many of these marble slabs were sawn.
This was done with iron saws and sand and
water, or, in the case of the harder marbles, with
emery from Naxos (see Pliny, H. N. ×xxvi. §51).
The use of jewel-tipped drills, both solid and
tubular, was introduced into Rome from Egypt,
along with the Egyptian granites and basalts
(see Pliny, H.N. xxxvii. § 200). The Temple of
Concord and the House of the Westals in Rome
still have on their walls well-preserved examples
of these elaborate linings. A list of the various
ornamental marbles used for the walls of Rome
is given in Middleton, Ancient Rome, pp. 13–19
and p. 39. The annexed woodcut shows the
t====#"
Marble lining, from the Cella of the Temple of Concord.
- Slabs of Phrygian marble.
Plinth moulding of Numidian gºallo.
Slab of cipollino (Carystian marble).
Paving of Porta Santa.
. Nucleus and rudus of concrete bedding.
Iron clamps run with lead to fix marble lining.
Bronze clamp.
- Cement backing.
-:
-
--
-
-
J
H
method of fixing the marble linings in the
Temple of Concord, which was rebuilt in the
reign of Augustus by Tiberius and Drusus (Suet.
Tib. 20). The slabs used in this building and
others of the same period are from 1 inch to 13
inches thick. It was not till later times that a
mere veneer, in some cases not more than , inch
thick, was used.
In Italy, where the quarries of Luna supplied
unlimited quantities of white marble, the wall-
linings were usually of foreign coloured marbles;
but in Britain and other Roman provinces, where
white marble was rare or absent, we find it
treated in the same economical way. At Silches-
ter and other Roman sites wall-linings of white
marble only half an inch thick have been found.
This use of veneers to make a great show with
a small expenditure seems to have specially com-
mended itself to the degraded taste of the
Romans, who loved shams of every kind, and in
their common building used the most tawdry
and meretricious style of decoration that can
possibly be imagined. Sham marbling, painted
on stuccoed walls, was a favourite method
of decorating ordinary houses; and even public
buildings and temples, not in Rome itself,
but in the provincial towns, such as Pompeii,
were daubed with this trashy style of decora-
tion. [J. H. M.]
PARILIA or PALIDIA,a festival celebrated
at Rome and in the country on the 21st of April,
in honour of Pales. As regards the form of the
word, there is no doubt that Parlia is more
correct than Palilia (Marius Victorinus, p. 25;
Prob. ad Verg. Georg. 3, 1; Calend. Maff; Ephem.
Epigr. iii. 7): the derivation, however, is not,
as some ancient writers imagined, from parere,
a partu pecoris, but from Pales, the substitution
of Parilia for Palilia being by “dissimilation”
to prevent the repetition of the letter 1, just as
popularis, &c. are written instead of -alis, or as
caeruleus is formed from caelum. (Roby, Latin
Grammar, i. § 176; Peile, Lat. Etymology,
p. 280; Corssen, Lat. Sprache, i. 80.) The
festival was a lustral rite at the opening of
spring, for the lustration of the flocks and herds,
over which Pales presided. The 21st of April
was the day on which, according to tradition,
Romulus began the building of the city, and the
| festival was therefore also solemnised as the dies
natalitius of Rome (Fest. s. v. Parilibus; Cic. de
Div. ii. 47, 98; Varro, R. R. ii. 1; Plin. H. W.
xviii. § 247; Dionys. i. 88); and some of the
rites customary in later times were said to have
been performed by Romulus when he fixed the
pomerium. Ovid (Fast. iv. 731-805) gives a
description of the rites of the Parilia, which
clearly shows that he regarded it as a shepherd
festival, as it must originally have been when
the Romans really were shepherds and husband-
men, and still continued to be among the country
people (Dionys, l.c.; Varro, ap. Schol. Pers. i.
72), for in the city itself it must have come to
be regarded principally as the birthday feast of
Rome (cf. Ov. Fast. iv. 106).
The sacred rites were in old times directed by
the king, who made offerings for the people:
afterwards his place was taken by the Pontifex
Maximus. The first part of the solemnities, as
described by Ovid, was a public purification by
fire and smoke. The things burnt in order to
produce this purifying smoke were the blood of
the October-horse [October Equus], the ashes of
the calves sacrificed at the Forbicipia, and
bean-straw, which were all fetched from the
Atrium Westae. The people were also sprinkled
with water; they washed their hands in spring-
water, and drank milk mixed with must. (Ovid,
Fast. l.c.; compare Propert. v. 1, 20.) When
towards the evening the shepherds had fed their
flocks, laurel-branches were used as brooms for
cleaning the stables, and for sprinkling water
through them, and lastly the stables were adorned
with laurel-boughs. Hereupon the shepherds
burnt sulphur, rosemary, fir-wood, and incense,
and made the smoke pass through the stables to
purify them; the flocks themselves were like-
wise purified by this smoke. The sacrifices
which were offered on this day consisted of

348 PARMA
EPARTHENIAE
cakes, millet, and milk. The shepherds then
offered a prayer to Pales. After this heaps of
hay and straw were lighted, and the sheep were
more effectually purified by being compelled to
run through the fire, and the shepherds them-
selves did the same. The festival was concluded
by a feast in the open air. (Tibull. ii. 5, 87;
compare Propert. v. 4, 75.)
The ludi circenses on this day (mentioned in
the Calendars) were not properly a part of the
Farilia, but were instituted in honour of the
battle of Munda, fought on March 17th, B.C. 45,
the news of which reached Rome on April 20th :
these games were discontinued (Dio Cass. xlv. 6),
and, having been re-instituted by Hadrian, were
held annually till the fifth century (Mommsen,
C. J. L. i. 391). On this day also Hadrian
dedicated the temple of Rome and Venus, and,
as it was more than ever connected with the
birthday of the city, we find the festival called
‘Papuala (Athenaeus, viii. p. 361 f).
‘There is to this day in Rome a ceremony of
blessing the animals and sprinkling them with
1ustral water; but, though there is a certain
resemblance, it would be an error to treat it as
a survival of the Parilia. The Christian cere-
mony is on St. Anthony’s Day, in the middle of
January, nor is there any trace of continuity,
such as has been noticed in the case of the
Lupercalia. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PARMA, dim. PA'RMULA (Hor. Carm, ii.
7, 10), a round shield, three feet in diameter,
carried by the velites in the Roman army. Though
small compared with the CLIPEUS, it was suffi-
ciently large and strong to be a very effectual
protection (Polyb. vi. 22). This was probably
owing to the use of iron in its framework. In
the Pyrrhic dance it was raised above the head
and struck with a sword so as to emit a loud
ringing noise (Claud. de VI. Cons. Honor. 628).
The parma was also worn by the EQUITES
(Sallust. Frag. Hist. iv.); and for the sake of
state and fashion it was sometimes adorned with
precious stones
* A * * Propert. v. 10,21).
:::::::::::: (Prºp 2
Tº: & N22S2X^XXX^^{ZN We find the term
parma often ap-
gº plied to the target
= [CETRA], which
~ was also a small
round shield, and
the refore very
similar to the
parma (Propert. v.
10, 40; Mela, i. 5,
§ 1; Verg. Aen. x.
817). Virgil, in
like manner, ap-
plies the term to
the clipeus of the
Palladium, because,
the statue being
small, the shield
was small in pro-
Parma. (From a terra-cotta relief portion (Aen. ii.
in the Louvre.) 175).
The annexed
woodcut shows a votive parma, suspended in a
portico, represented on a terra-cotta relief in
the Louvre. [J. Y.] [A. H. S.]
PA'ROCHI were certain people who were
paid by the state to supply the Roman magis-
trates, ambassadors, and other official persons,
when they were travelling, with those neces-
saries which they could not conveniently carry
with them. They existed on all the principal
stations on the Roman roads in Italy and the
provinces, where persons were accustomed to
pass the night. But as many magistrates fre-
quently made extortionate demands from the
parochi, the Lex Julia de Repetundis of Julius
Caesar, B.C. 59, defined the things which the
parochi were bound to supply, of which hay, ,
fire-wood, salt, and a certain number of beds
appear to have been the most important. (Hor.
Sat. i. 5, 46; Cic. ad Att. v. 16, xiii. 2; Hein-
dorf, ad Hor. l. c.; Marquardt, Privatleben,
199.) [W. S.]
PAROPSIS. [CATINUs.]
PARRICIDA, PARRICI’DIUM. [LEx
CoRNELIA, Vol. I. p. 38; LEx PompeLA, p. 50.]
PARTHENIAE (rapòevía) are, according
to the literal meaning of the word, children
born from unmarried women (trap6éviol, Hom. Il.
xvi. 180). The partheniae, as a distinct class of
citizens, appear at Sparta after the first Mes-
senian war and in connexion with the foundation
of Tarentum; but the legends as to who they
were differ from one another. Hesychius says
that they were the children of Spartan citizens
and female slaves; Antiochus (ap. Strab. vi.
p. 278) states that they were the sons of those
Spartans who took no part in the war against
the Messenians. These Spartans were made
Helots, and their children were called partheniae,
and declared &riuot. When they grew up, and
were unable to bear their degrading position at
home, they emigrated, and became the founders
of Tarentum. Ephorus (ap. Strab. vi. p. 279),
again, related the story in a different manner.
When the Messenian war had lasted for a con-
siderable number of years, the Spartan women
sent an embassy to the camp of their husbands,
complained of their long absence, and stated
that the republic would suffer for want of an
increase in the number of citizens if the war
should continue much longer. Their husbands,
who were bound by an oath not to leave the
field until the Messenians were conquered, sent
home all the young men in the camp, who were
not bound by that oath, that they might cohabit
with the maidens at Sparta. The children thus
produced were called partheniae. On the
return of the Spartans from Messenia, these
partheniae were not treated as citizens, and
accordingly united with the Helots to wage war
against the Spartans. But when this plan was
found impracticable, they emigrated and founded
the colony of Tarentum. (Compare Theopomp.
ap. Athen. vi. p. 271; EPEUNACTAE.) Modern
writers have differed in their preference for one
or other of these accounts. Grote prefers to
follow Antiochus, while Gilbert gives more
weight to the narrative of Ephorus, remarking
with truth that the action of the husbands,
shocking to our ideas, would be less so to
Spartans of that age (see MATRIMONIUM, p. 132).
No doubt, as he says, Ephorus stands higher as
an authority than Antiochus; but, in dealing
with an ancient tradition, this does not go for
much. Aristotle (Pol. viii. 7), who is a better
authority than either, does not enter, into the
circumstances of the birth of the partheniae at
all. His statement, however, that they were

PASCUA PUBLICA.
PATERA 349
born ék Töv Šuotaſy would lead us to reject
Antiochus's version; but, on the other hand, it
favours the simpler story of Hesychius rather
than that of Ephorus. It may be added that
the somewhat similar account of degrading
marriage in the colonists of Locri Epizephyrii
(Polyb. xii. 5) might incline us to suspect the
traditions. Thus much seems certain that the
partheniae at Sparta, whether illegitimate or
not, were debarred from the rights of full
citizens, probably from the land-portions, by
the exclusive Spartiatae, and, as they formed a
dangerous faction, were forced into an emigra-
tion, which proved successful and of con-
siderable historical importance. (See Histories
of Greece: Thirlwall, i. p. 332; Grote, iii.
p. 519; Curtius, i. 218, E. T.;-Schömann,
Antiquities, p. 200; Gilbert, Staatsalterthümer,
i. 19.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PASCUA PU’BLICA. [SCRIPTURA.]
PASSUS (from pando), a measure of length,
which consisted of five Roman feet. (Colum.
v. 1; Vitruv. x. 14.) [MENSURA.] The passus
was not the single step (gradus), but the
double step; or, more exactly, it was not the
distance from heel to heel, when the feet were at
their utmost ordinary extension, but the distance
from the point which the heel leaves to that in
which it is set down. The mille passwum, or
thousand paces, was the common name of the
Roman mile. [MILLIARE.] In connecting the
Greek and Roman measures, the word passus
was sometimes applied to the eatension of the
arms, that is, the Greek ápyvić, which, how-
ever, differed from the true passus by half a
foot; and, conversely, the gradus was called by
Greek writers 874&, or rö 8%pia. To &m Aoûv, and
the passus ro 87ua ºrb bitraoüv. [P. S.]
PASTILLUS, PASTILLUM, strictly a
small round cake of fine meal (Plin. H. N. xviii.
§ 102), used in sacrificial offerings (Fest. p. 250).
Festus (p. 222) takes it to be a diminutive of
panis. For the making of these there was a
guild of pastillarii (C. I. L. vi. 9765, 9766). In
the masculine form the word was used for small
round lozenges (rpoxtoxol), compounded from
herbs or fruits, and used for medicines (Plin. xx.
§ 3) or sweetmeats (Id. xii. § 131); and
especially scented lozenges of aromatic herbs,
eaten to make the breath sweet. (Hor. Sat.
i. 2, 27; i. 4, 92;-Mart. i. 87; Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 367; Blümmer, Technologie,
i. 86.) [G. E. M.]
PASTO'PHORI were Egyptian priests, so
called because they carried in processions small
shrines (traoro) of their deity. They formed an
inferior order of the priesthood: according to
Diodorus (i. 29), the Egyptian ispe’s corre-
sponded in rank to the Eumolpidae, the tragro-
q6pot of Isis to the khpukes of the Eleusinian
worship. They were introduced into Italy along
with the worship of Isis, and formed into collegia
in various towns. Apuleius (Met. xi. 17),
speaking of pastophori, says, “quod sacrosancti
collegii nomen est.” In an inscription (C. J. L.
v. 2806) the tablet seems to be dedicated by a
“perpetuus sacerdos Isidis Augustae pasto-
phorus; ” and in another (C. 1. L. v. 7468)
we have a tablet of Industria in the plain of
the Po, dedicated to their patronus, the Curator
calendarii in that town, by the “Collegium
Pastophorum Industriensium.” Their lodgings,
attached to the temple which they served,
were called traorroq6ptov, whence this name
was sometimes given by the LXX. and by
Josephus to the priests’ apartments attached
to the Jewish temple. (Jer. xxv. 4; Joseph.
B. J. iv. 12.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PATELLA (Aekáviov, Aekavis, Aekavſölov,
Askavlakm, Aoiráðtov), a small dish or plate.
The word is a diminutive of PATINA : a sup-
posed connexion with patera has been a source
of error to some writers [PATERA]. 1. The
patella was used for holding solid food, meat or
yegetables, either in cooking (Plin. H. N. xix.
§ 171, xxx. § 68), or for serving up at table
(Hor. Ep. i. 5, 2; Mart. v. 78, xiii. 81; Juv.
v. 85). It was usually of earthenware (Mart.
xiv. 114), but sometimes of metal (Juv. x. 64).
Marquardt (Privatleben, p. 651) takes the patella
used for cooking to be identical with the
Sartago: it seems more probable that, though
of the same flat shape, it was smaller. [For the
deeper cooking vessels, see AENUM, LEBEs,
OLLA.] 2. The patella was also a sacred vessel
of the same shape as the ordinary patella, but
reserved for domestic sacred rites, especially for
the offering of food to the Lares, lances being
used when a larger dish was needed [LANx].
Hence it is called cultria, foci (Pers. iii. 26; cf.
Ov. Fast. vi. 310); and hence, too, every house-
hold ought to have one kept solely for religious
uses, and Cicero (de Fin. ii. 7, 22) notes it as a
mark of profanity, “ut edint de patella,” mean-
ing of course the patella used for offerings.
This sacred dish was, if possible, of silver; even
in comparatively poor households it was cus-
tomary to have at least a patella, patera,
salinum, and censer of silver (Cic. Verr. iv. 21,
46); and in B.C. 410, as is mentioned by Liv.
xxvi. 36, in the general contribution of silver
plate, it was provided that the householder
should retain a salinum and patella of silver
“deorum causa’’ (cf. Plin. H. N. xxx. § 153;
Val. Max. iv. 4, 3; Marquardt, Privatl. p. 318).
Of this offering Varro says, “Quocirca oportet
bonum civem legibus parere et deos colere, in
patellam dare ukpov kpéas' [see further under
LARARIUM), and the Lares are thence called by
Plautus patellarii dii (Cist. ii. 1,46). [G. E. M.]
PATER FAMILIAE. [PATRIA PorFSTAs.]
PATER PATRATUS. [FETIALEs.]
PA"TERA (pidAm), a round shallow vessel
like a large saucer, but somewhat deeper than
our ordinary saucer. Varro (L. L. v. 122) and
Macrobius (Sat. v. 21) derive its name from its
flat, expanded shape (“planum ac patens”). It
had neither the foot and stem nor the two
handles which belonged to the cylix [CALIx;
WAS]. It must be observed that alike in sacred
and common use it served only for liquids, and
those writers who have described it as also used
for solids have confounded it with patella, which
they have erroneously taken to be a diminutive
of patera. Another error to be avoided is the
confusion of the Homeric pud Am with the later
ºpidAm, which was identical with the Latin
patera. As Curtius points out (Etym. 498), the
Homeric pud Am was not used for drinking, but
as a kind of smaller Aé8ms or kettle, which
could be placed on the fire (whence the epithet
ārūporos for a new ‘pidAm, Il. xxiii. 270), and
also as an urn for ashes. Aristarchus teaches
this in the words 3ri pudamy (of Homer) oil to
350 PATERA
PATERA
rap' juſy rothplov, &AA& 'yāvos ºri Aé8mros
gicréraxov. From these words and from its use
in Homer we may conclude that, though shal-
lower than the Aé8ms and probably smaller, it
was still a deep vessel and not of that saucer
shape which belongs to the familiar patera.
The epithet &pſpí9eros of the Homeric pidam was
a puzzle to Athenaeus, a solution of which can-
not now be given with confidence. It is not
possible in etymology to accept the view that it
means round, nor the suggestion of Athenaeus
himself that it may mean “excellently made.”
We are left with the view of Aristarchus that it
was a vessel which could stand on either end.
Heyne understands this to mean a double cup of
the hour-glass or dice-box shape: more probably
it was so called because, whereas the ordinary
Homeric Aé8ms was rounded at the bottom so
that, if otherwise unsupported, it could only
stand inverted, the Homeric pud Am had a flat
bottom, and could stand either way (for the
discussion, see Athen. xi. p. 501).
The post-Homeric ºpidam was of the shape
described at the beginning of this article; it
never had a handle (differing in that respect
from one form of the Italian patera mentioned
below), nor any stem, but often, as in the ex-
aniples given below, a low base; sometimes, as
we are told, it had knobs or supports, which
were called āorrpáyaxoi : the pud Am with these
knobs at the bottom was called Bañavath or
kapwarh (Athen. xi. 502 b), the knobs being
, compared to nuts or acorns. Another feature
very common in pud Aal and paterae was the
ūupaxos. This was a hollow boss in the centre
of the interior or upper side, as shown in the
woodcut. Athenaeus distinguishes piéNai épºqa-
ºptiºn buſbaxorós. (From the British Museum.)
Awtot, and gives an equivalent name pëoſs.
The pidAm or patera was usually held in the
flat of the hand (though not always, as may be
seen in the famous Sosias-cylix, Baumeister,
Taf. xcii.), and it is easy to understand that the
§upaxos gave a better hold, the fingers catching
in the hollow of the boss underneath. The
material was either earthenware or metal,
bronze, silver and gold (&pyvpis and xpworts):
the ptáAal in Plat. Crit. 120 A are of gold.
(Examples of gold and silver paterae found in
Cyprus, are given in Cesnola, pp. 316, 337.)
The pidºm of post-Homeric times was used for
drinking (Plat. Symp. 223 C ; Pind. Nem. ix.
121), and so classed among ékráuara (Herod.
ix. 80); but its most characteristic use was for
pouring libations (Herod. ii. 151; Plat. Crit. l.c.,
&c.). The pićAm for libations, held by the
officiating person, was usually filled by an
attendant from an oivoxón: in the passage cited
from Plato's Crit, the wine seems to be dipped in
the piéAm from the kpathp.
The usual Italian patera was identical with
the bid an in shape [see SIMPULUM). One of
white marble found at Hadrian's villa is now
in the British Museum. It is 14 inches in
diameter and 13 high. It is cut with skill, the
§
Patera, from Hadrian’s Villa.
marble being not much more than a quarter of
an inch thick. In the centre is a female buc-
chante with a long tunic and a scarf floating
over her head, encircled by a wreath of ivy.
The decorations indicate a patera dedicated to
Bacchus. Some paterae, however, had one
handle (which the pidAm never had), as in the
woodcut below, a bronze patera found at
SNWy
Patera, from Pompeii.
Pompeii. This seems to have been commoner in
Etruscan paterae, of which there are several
in bronze and terracotta in the British Museum
with the single handle. An Etruscan relief in
Inghirami, Mon. Etrus. vi. pl. M, shows a youth
bringing for libation the two vessels, an oinochoe











PATIBULUM
PATRIA POTESTAS 351
and a patera, the latter having a handle. It is
possible that the addition of the handle may be
an Etruscan invention. The material was often
only earthenware (Hor. Sat. vi. 116); but often
also silver (Mart. iii. 41, vi. 13, viii. 33;
Plin. xxxiii. § 156); sometimes gold (Mart.
xiv. 95; Juv. v. 39—in both, the word phiala
is used; Verg. Aen. i. 729). It was originally
Rised as a drinking cup (Varro, L. L. v. 122),
but afterwards especially for libations (Hor.
Od. i. 31, 2; iv. 5, 34;—Ov. Met. ix. 160),
whence it became the insigne of the EPULONES,
though often it served both purposes, as in
the passage cited from Virgil. A representa-
tion of the libation, from Trajan’s Column, is
given under PAENULA. [For libations, see
SACRIFICIUM.] [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PATI’BULUM, from patere, seems to have
originally denoted any beam placed horizontally;
as the cross-bar of a door (Titin. ap. Non. p.
366, 16), or of a trellis for vines (Plin. H. N.
xvii. § 212), or the transverse beam of the cross
(CRUX, p. 568 a). The word, however, is almost
always used of an instrument of punishment,
and loosely as an equivalent to crua, or furca.
According to Marquardt (Privatl. 183), it was
a wooden collar in two pieces, opened to receive
the neck of the culprit and then closed upon it,
while his hands might be bound or nailed to its
extremities. This, he admits, is nowhere ex-
pressly stated; it is rather an inference from
the etymology of the word; and he has produced
no passage which does not point more clearly to
the furca than the patibulum. (Compare the
accounts of the slave driven through the Circus,
whereby the games were profaned, in Dion. Hal.
vii. 69, and Plut. Coriol. 24.) Others explain
the “opening” as a fork-shaped piece of wood,
such as was undoubtedly used for the same
purposes, as a prop for vines and a pillory for
the necks of criminals [FURCA]. It is scarcely
necessary to prove that patere is often applied
to simple lateral extension, to stretch or spread
as well as to be open (“Helvetiorum fines . . .
patebant,” Caes. B. G. i. 2; “qua terra patet,”
Ov. Met. i. 241); and on the whole it seems
likely that the patibulum was a straight piece
of wood, an explanation which covers all its
varieties of meaning. [W. W.]
PA"TINA (rpú8Atov), a deep dish used alike
for cooking (“patinarius,” stewed, opposed to
“assus,” roast, Plaut. Asin. i. 3, 27) and for
serving up food, as is seen from Plaut. Pseud.
iii. 2, 51, whence we gather also that it was
sometimes a covered dish: probably this was
generally the case when the food was brought
up in the patina in which it had been cooked
(cf. Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 43). The patina was, how-
ever, often the dish for serving up what had
been cooked in other vessels. This is clear from
our finding silver patinae, e.g. a “patina
argentea hederata” (with ivy-leaf chasing:
cf. filicata) in Trebell. Poll. Claud. 17, and the
patina of Aesopus valued at 100,000 sesterces
(Plin. H. N. xxxv. § 163). Among costly
patinae that of Vitellius holds the first place;
not, however, from its material, as it was of
earthenware, but because it was so large that a
special oven had to be built for it at a cost of
a million sesterces (Plin. l.c.; Suet. Vitell. 13).
As regards the Greek equivalents, the rpá-
RAtov perhaps comes nearest in shape and use
(Aristoph. Av. 77): it was of earthenware (Id.
Bccl. 252) and also of silver (Athen. vi. 230 e):
the Aoras was used both for cooking and serving
food, but it was ‘flatter and more like the
patella : the xúrpa, on the other hand, was
deeper and (serving also both purposes) is equiva-
lent to OLLA. The Askávn is often given as the
equivalent of patina, and it was probably of
much the same shape, but its uses were different:
a basin ºva èéeuodal (Poll. x. 76; cf. Ar.
Nub. 907); a trough for brick-makers (LATER,
p. 8). [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PATRES. _[PATRICII; SENATUs.]
PATRIA POTESTAS. Potestas in its
original meaning signified “mastery,” “domi-
nion” (Curtius, Gr. Etym. iii. 265), and hence it
came to mean a legal power or authority to
which a person was entitled. “Potestas,” says
Paulus (Dig. 50, 16, 215), “has several signifi-
cations: when applied to magistratus, it is
imperium; in the case of children, it is the
patria potestas; in the case of slaves, it is
dominium.” According to Paulus, then, potes-
tas, as applied to magistratus, is equivalent to
imperium. Thus we find potestas associated
with the adjectives praetoria, consularis. But
potestas is applied to magistratus who had not
the imperium [IMPERIUM), as, for instance, to
quaestors and tribuni plebis (Cic. pro Cluent. 27,
74); and potestas and imperium are often
opposed in Cicero. Both the expressions trični-
cium jus and tribunicia potestas are used (Tac.
Ann. i. 2, 3). Thus it seems that this word
potestas, like many other Roman terms, had both
a wider signification and a narrower one. In its
wider signification it might mean all the power
that was delegated to any person by the state,
whatever might be the extent of that power.
In its narrower signification, it was on the one
hand equivalent to imperium, and on the other it
expressed the power of those functionaries who
had not the imperium. Sometimes it was used
to express a magistratus as a person (Sueton.
Claud. 13; Juv. x. 100); and hence in the
Italian language the word podestà signifies a
magistrate. Potestas is also used to express the
authority of the head of a family over his children
and slaves, which was an authority analogous
in some respects to that of a magistrate. The
potestas is dominica, as exhibited in the rela-
tion of master and slave [SERVUs]; or patria,
as exhibited in the relation of father and
child.
The earliest and most comprehensive term for
the patriarchal power of the head of a Roman
family appears to have been manus, which came
to be more specially applied to express the power
to which a married woman might be subject in
her husband’s family. The mancipium, or power
over persons in a semi-servile state, was framed
after the analogy of the dominica potestas. The
tutela, in its origin an offshoot of the patria
potestas, was itself a kind of potestas (Inst. i.
13, 1; Cic. pro Mur. 12, 21, “mulieres—majores
in tutorum potestate esse voluerunt'). Patria
potestas, then, signifies the power of a Roman
paterfamilias over his children and descendants
through males in his familia (filiifamilias, filiae-
familias). [FAMILIA.] It is to be borne in
mind that grown-up children were subject to
this power as well as those who were of tender
years. The government of the family was
352 PATRIA POTESTAS
PATRIA POTESTAS
concentrated in the hands of its head, whose
powers were originally more like those of a
supreme magistrate than of a father at the
present time. Thus the paterfamilias had
originally absolute power over the persons of
filiifamilias, having the right of inflicting on
them the punishment of death (jus vitae necisque)
or any lesser punishment. It was customary
for him only to inflict capital or other serious
punishment on a filiusfamilias after the latter
had been condemned by a family tribunal (judi-
cium domesticum). (Cf. Münster, de domestic.
familiarum judicio; v. Walree, de antiq. juris
parricidi, &c.; Geib, Cr. Pr. 82, &c.; Zumpt,
Crim. Recht, i. 349). F. Voigt (Zwölf Tafeln,
ii. 94) enumerates the following instances of
persons being punished in this way:-
a. 245 A.U.C. L. Junius Brutus put his sons
to death (Plut. Pop!. 6, 7).
b. 531–536 A.U.C. M. Fabius Bruteo put his
son to death as a punishment for theft (Oros.
iv. 13).
c. 651 A.U.C. Q. Fabius Maximus Eburnus
punished his son by sending him into exile (Oros.
v. 16; Val. Max. vi. 1, 5).
d. 691 A.U.C. A. Fulvius Nobilior inflicted
the punishment of death on his son for taking
part in the Catiline conspiracy (Val. Max. v. 8,
5; Sal. Cat. 39; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 36).
e. Julius Arnus banished his son for attempted
parricide (Sen. de Clem. i. 15, 2).
f. Pontius Aufidianus put his daughter to
death for immorality (Val. Max. vi. 1, 3); as
did also
g. P. Alilius Philiscus (Val. Max. vi. 1, 6).
h. A father, named Tricho, put his son to
death (Sen. de Clem. i. 15, 1).
2. 752 A.U.C. Augustus punished the im-
morality of his daughter Julia by sending her
into exile (Suet. Aug. 65; Dio Cass. lv. 10).
The paterfamilias was not criminally re-
sponsible on account of the abuse of his powers.
But though the power of the father over the
persons of his children was almost unlimited in
early law, the nota censoria and religious censure
being the only sanctions to prevent its tyrannical
exercise, custom and public opinion kept it
within due bounds. As has been frequently
remarked, it would be a mistake to infer from
the legal absolutism of the head of a Roman
family, that his children were treated like slaves.
The fact of the long continuance of the patria
potestas without complaint seems to show that
this could not have been the case.
Under the Empire the occasional cruelty of
fathers was punished, and the powers of the
father over the persons of his children were
curtailed. Thus, in 112 A.D., Trajan compelled
a father who had treated his son with cruelty to
emancipate him (Val. Max. v. 8), and Hadrian
banished a father for killing a son out hunting,
who had committed adultery with his step-
mother (“patria potestas in pietate debet non
in atrocitate consistere”).
It became the rule that a father could not
kill his son unless the latter had been tried before
the praefectus or praeses and convicted (Dig. 48,
8, 2). Under Constantine a father was punished
for killing a son, as if he had committed parricide.
The power of the father was limited in the later
period of Roman law to moderate chastisement.
The father might sell his son into slavery or
mancipium (Cic. de Or. i. 40, 181; pro Caec. 34,
98). The provision of the Twelve Tables, that
a son sold by his father three times should be
free, was directed against the abuse of this power.
The sale of children was obsolete in the time of
the classical jurists, except as a mere formality,
and in the case of children surrendered by the
paterfamilias on account of their delicts (nozae
datio); for, in the case of delict by a filiusfamilias,
nowales actiones were allowed against the father
(Gaius, iv. 75). But Justinian abolished the
nowae datio in the case of a filius- or filiafamilias
(Inst. iv. 8, 7; Dig. 43, 29, 3, § 4). According
to early custom, the father had the right of
repudiating a new-born child. The child was
placed at the feet of the father immediately
after birth; and if, instead of being lifted up by
the father (liberum tollere, suscipere, recipere),
he was left on the ground, he was excluded from
the familia (Voigt, $ 97). Even under the
legislation of Justinian, it was lawful to sell
new-born children “propter nimiam paupertatem
egestatemque * (Cod. 4, 43, 1, 2). The father
was a party to the betrothal, marriage, or divorce
of his children in early times, and the consent of
the father was always an essential condition of
a valid marriage [MATRIMONIUM). If a marriage
was accompanied with the in manum conventio,
his wife came into the power of the father and
not into the power of the son. The father could
substitute another person as heir to his son,
if the latter died before attaining puberty,
[HERES], and he could by his will appoint him
a tutor. The father could give his child in
adoption and emancipate him. The father could
recover possession of the person of his son by
vindicatio in patriam potestatem, or by interdictum,
de liberis eachibendis.
The patria potestas did not interfere with
the public rights and duties of filiifamilias.
Thus a son could vote at the Comitia Tributa;
he could fill a magistratus; and he could be a
tutor, for the tutela was considered a part of jus
publicum (Dig. 6, 9; Liv. xxiv. 44; Gell. ii. 2).
The child had conubium and commercium like
any Roman citizen who was sui juris, but these
legal capacities brought to him no power or
ownership. Thus, although he had commercium,
and so could be witness to a transaction per aes
et libram, he could not hold property, being a
mere instrument of acquiring for his paterfami-
lias. A conveyance to him, or an inheritance
acquired by him, or an obligation in his favour,
would give rights, not to himself, but to the
person who had potestas over him, just as in the
case of a slave. The property of which the
filiusfamilias had actual enjoyment was his
peculium, and of this the paterfamilias was
owner. Having no property, the filiusfamilias
could maintain no actions which implied that
he was owner of property, e.g. vindicatio; there
were, however, some exceptions to this rule,
probably introduced by the praetor under the
form of actiones in factum [ACTIO). But a
filiusfamilias could maintain actions, such as the
actio injuriarum, which were not based on pro-
prietary claims. A filius pubes could incur
obligations and be sued like a paterfamilias,
though perhaps this was not so till about the
time when the principle of giving him inde-
pendent rights in his peculium was first estab-
lished. Between the paterfamilias and filius-
PATRIA POTESTAS
PATRICII 353
familias, or between filiifamilias of the same
familia, no actionable obligations could exist;
neither of them could have a right of action
against the other. But natural obligations could
be established between them. [OBLIGATIO.]
The rule as to the incapacity of a filiusfamilias
for acquiring property was first varied about
the time of Augustus, when the son was allowed
to dispose of by will whatever he had acquired
in active military service, and after a time to
treat such acquisitions as his own for all pur-
poses. This was the castrense peculium, with
respect to which the son was treated as a person
sui juris (Juv. xvi. 51 ; Gaius, ii. 106). But if
the filiusfamilias died without making any
disposition of this peculium, it came to the
father as peculium, i.e. as his own property,
and not as inheritance: this continued to be the
law till Justinian altered it (Nov. 118). The
privileges of a filiusfamilias miles as to the
acquisition of property were extended under
Constantine to his acquisitions made during the
discharge of civil and ecclesiastical offices; and
as this new privilege was framed after the
analogy of the castrense peculium, it was de-
signated by the name quasi-castrense peculium.
By changes in the law carried out by Con-
stantine and his successors, a filiusfamilias
became capable of acquiring property for himself
in ordinary cases. It was first enacted that a
filiusfamilias should acquire the inheritance of
his mother (bona materna) for himself and not
for his father; this rule was then extended so as
to apply to property derived from the maternal
line (bona materni generis), and finally under
Justinian to property derived from any one
except the paterfamilias himself, which was not
peculium castrense or quasi-castrense. According
to this new law, property which a filiusfamilias
derived from third parties, called bona adventicia,
belonged to him, but his paterfamilias had a life-
interest (ususfructus) in it, and the administration
of it. The filiusfamilias could not dispose of it
by will, and thus his rights in bona adventicia
were subject to restrictions which did not apply
to peculium castrense and quasi-castrense. The
person from whom the filiusfamilias acquired,
might exclude the paterfamilias from the usu-
fruct and administration of his property by an
express provision to that effect. In property
derived from his paterfamilias (ex re patris), the
filiusfamilias had no independent rights; such
property is called peculium profectitium.
Thus by the imperial legislation, and espe-
cially by that of the early Christian emperors,
the extent of the patria potestas was much
reduced. The patria potestas was acquired by
the birth of a child in a Roman marriage (justae
nuptiae). Children born of parents who had not
conubium, i.e. the capacity of entering into a
Roman marriage with one another, were not
subject to patria potestas; but in the time of
the classical jurists, if a Roman had by mistake
married a woman with whom he had no conu-
bium, thinking that conubium existed, he was
allowed to prove his case (causae erroris pro-
batio), upon doing which the child that had
been born and the wife also became Roman
citizens, and from that time the son was in the
power of the father (Gaius, i. 67). Other in-
stances of the causae probatio are mentioned by
Gaius.
WOL. II.
Patria potestas could be acquired by either of
the modes of adoption [ADOPTIO). Patria po-
testas could be acquired under the Christian
emperors by legitimation of children born out of
lawful wedlock.
1. Per subsequens matrimonium.—Constantine
introduced the rule that children born in con-
cubinage [CONCUBINAT, whose parents might
have been lawfully married at the time of the
birth of such children, should be legitimated by
the subsequent marriage of the parents. Even
at an earlier time it seems to have been the
fashion for the emperor as an act of grace to
place such children on the same footing as
legitimate children.
2. Per oblationem curiae.—In the time of
Theodosius II, the rule was established by which
a child was legitimated who was made a member
of a municipal senate by his father [DECURIO].
3. Per rescriptum principis.--To these two
modes of legitimation, Justinian added that of
imperial rescript.
The patria potestas was dissolved in various
ways. It was dissolved by the death of the
father, upon which event the grandchildren, if
there were any, who had hitherto been in the
power of their grandfather, came into the power
of their father, who was now sui juris. It could
also be dissolved in various ways during the life
of the father. A maxima, media, or minima
capitis deminutio, either of the pater- or filius-
familias, dissolved the patria potestas ; though
in the case of either party sustaining a capitis
deminutio by falling into the hands of an enemy,
the relation might be revived by postliminium.
A father who was arrogated, and consequently
sustained a minima capitis deminutio, came,
together with children who had hitherto been
in his power, into the power of his adoptive
father. [ADOPTIO.]
The commonest mode of dissolving the patria
potestas was by emancipation, which was a
capitis deminutio minima, having the effect of
making the emancipatus the head of a new
familia distinct from that of his father's. It is
probable that in early Roman law the emanci-
pation of children was not possible, but in
course of time a circuitous mode of effect-
ing it was established by the ingenuity of
lawyers. For an account of the forms of
emancipating a filiusfamilias, which consisted of
three mancipations, followed by vindicta, see
Gaius, i. 132. The process was simplified by the
law of Justinian (Inst. i. 12, 6). The parent
could emancipate his child at his pleasure, and
thus deprive him of the rights of agnation with-
out his own consent; but the law in this respect
was altered by Justinian (Nov. 89, c. 11), who
made the consent of the child necessary. The
child had no means of compelling his father to
emancipate him.
(Savigny, System, ii. 49, &c.; Mommsen, Röm.
Gesch. i. 59, &c.; Ihering, Geist des Röm.
Rechts, ii. 1, 151–155;-Voigt, Jus Naturale, ii.
228; Zwölf Tafeln, ii. § 93;-Mandry, Fam.
Güterrecht ; Rossbach, Röm. Ehe, 1–41 ; Lange,
Röm. Alterthüm. §§ 29, 30; Kuntze, Inst. i.
§§ 741-747, ii. §§ 505–507;-Maine's Ancient
Law, ch. v.; Early Law and Custom, ch. vii. and
p. 122, note a.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
PATRI'CII. The authorised version of
Roman History, as given in the narrative of
2 A
354 PATRICII
PATRICII
Livy and Dionysius and by Cicero in the de
Republica, represents the state as divided from
the first into ordinary citizens and a privileged
class who are generally described as patricii.
These are further stated to have been the
families of one hundred persons selected by
Romulus for his senate : “Patres certe ab
honore, patriciique progenies eorum appellati’”
(Liv. i. 8, 7). On the other hand, we find in
Festus a second tradition : “Patricios Cincius
ait in libro de Comitiis eos appellari solitos, qui
nunc ingenui vocentur.” It is connected with a
strange etymological guess, that the patricii
were originally those “qui patrem ciere pos-
seat ; ” that is to say, all freeborn persons
(Liv. x. 8, 10). The word has, of course, really
no connexion with ciere, but is simply the
adjectival form of pater. Nevertheless it is
certain that the explanation of Cincius is right
in referring patricius to pater, not in its sense of
senator, but in its original meaning of father
and head of a family. On no other supposition
can we account for the fact that the word
patres is sometimes used of the whole order as
synonomous with patricii (so in Liv. iv. 4, 5,
“ne conubium patribus cum plebe esset ’).
The true explanation is summed up by Momm-
sen (Staatsrecht, iii. p. 13): “They are called
either patres, inasmuch as they and they alone
are or can be fathers, or else in adjectival form
patricit, inasmuch as they and they alone have a
father.” If there ever were a time in Rome
when the word patricius was strictly and
etymologically significant, so that no one but a
patricius had a lawful father or could himself
become a paterfamilias, then at that time the
patricii were the only real citizens of Rome. It
is impossible to count as a full burgess anyone
who is incapable of becoming as paterfamilias a
person of the civil law, able to hold property
and to sue and be sued in his own right. The
old story, which represents the patricians as
from the first a nobility among their fellow-
citizens, appears however in a somewhat different
light, when we read that Romulus assigned the
whole of the plebs as clients to one or other of
the patres. According to this, there would be
in the state as originally constituted no one but
the patricii and their clients; as a client was at
first in a position hardly distinguishable from
that of a slave, this brings us round again to
the proposition that “patrician’” and “free-
born man” were originally synonymous.
The development of the rights and capacities
of citizens outside the patriciate will be dis-
cussed elsewhere [see PLEBS]. It is sufficient
here to say that in process of time certain out-
siders won their way to the position of patres-
familias. By analogy these persons, or at any
rate their children, should have been able to
claim the title of patricii. But this logical
conclusion was never drawn. The word patri-
cius survived as a token of an arrested develop-
ment: it was confined to the descendants of
those who once exclusively possessed the qualifi-
cations on which the title rested. From the
moment when plebeian patresfamilias come into
existence the patricii must be counted as a
nobility among their fellow-citizens. It is
possible that the power to vote in the assemblies
[see PopULUS] was for a time a privilege re-
served to these nobles. But such a situation, if
it ever existed, did not last long enough for the
patricians to consolidate into a corporation with
a general assembly and officers and powers of
separate action. The patriciate as a body never
gets free from the body of the Roman people.
“Magistratus patricius ” and “auspicia patri-
ciorum ” are always precisely the same as
“magistratus” and “auspicia Populi Romani”
[see MAGISTRATUS]. It may be noticed that
this fact in itself gives us strong reason to con-
clude that the patricii were the original stock
on which the other branches of the Roman
people were grafted.
For a long time the patricians alone were
eligible to the great offices of the state. The
struggle over this question of eligibility lasted
on into historical times. When it finally closed
about the year 300 B.C., the members of the two
orders were not left in a position of absolute
equality. The patrician was weighted in the
race for office with certain disqualifications,
which had been originally imposed as a means
of breaking the ancient monopoly of the order.
Both places in the consulship and the censorship
were open to plebeians, but only one to patricians.
The patricians were likewise, as a matter of
course, excluded from the offices of tribune and
plebeian aedile. On the other hand, the great
colleges of pontiffs, augurs, and decemviri
sacris faciundis were divided as equally as
possible between the two orders (in favour,
therefore, of the chances of a member of the
less numerous one), and certain other functions
still remained for which patricians alone were
qualified. The best list of these is derived from
Cicero’s description (pro Domo, 14, 38) of what
will happen if the patriciate suffers extinction
(a description closely followed by Liv. vi. 41) :
“Ita populus Romanus brevi tempore, neque
Regem sacrorum, neque flamines, neque salios
habebit, nec ex parte dimidia reliquos Sacerdotes,
neque auctores centuriatorum et curiatorum
comitiorum : auspiciaque Populi Romani, si
magistratus patricii creati non sint, intereant
necesse est, quum interrex nullus sit, quod et
ipsum patricium esse et a patriciis prodi necesse
est.”
There are other passages which casually con-
firm what Cicero here says about the exclusively
patrician character of the interregnum. For
instance, in Liv. vi. 41, Ap. Claudius says, “sed
nos quoque ipsi sine suffragio populi auspicato
interregem prodimus; ” and again we have in
Liv. iv. 43, “prohibentibus tribunis patricios
coire ad prodendum interregem,” and in later
times in Asconius (ad Cic. pro Mil.), “Tribuni
plebis referri ad senatum de patriciis convocan-
dis non essent passi.” On the other hand, the
elaborate descriptions of the first interregnum
by Livy (i. 17) and Dionysius (ii. 57) attribute
the whole proceeding to the senate, and the
same is distinctly stated by Appian (Bell. Civ. i.
98), tº 3& BovXà trpooérašev čAérôal rôv kaxoſ-
pevov Metašū Baqixéa : and above, Bovaevrºs
§repos trap' érepot &ml Trévre juépas àpxev, &c.
There seems no way of reconciling these very
clear statements on either side except by adopt-
ing Mommsen's hypothesis that the powers of
the interregnum were vested in the patrician
members of the senate, who met on such occasions
unsummoned and without the co-operation of
their plebeian brethren.
PATRICII
PATRICII 355
The same theory must serve to explain the
patrum awctoritas. The words are sometimes
used in a general sense for the approval or
recommendation of the senate (e.g. Liv. vii. 15,
12; 17, 9; xxxiii. 24, 4; xxxv. 7, 5), and the
single word auctoritas likewise bears the meaning
of a resolution of the senate which has been
vetoed by a magistrate. But patrum auctoritas
in its technical sense is quite distinct from this
later usage. It is a confirmatory act necessary
to give legal validity to the decrees and elections
made by the populus Romanus, and it survived
as a form down to the Augustan age. Livy
(i. 17), in speaking of the election of king
Numa, attributes the confirmation to the senate
which had just conducted the interregnum; and
we may trust him here, for he appeals to the
practice of his own time: “Hodie quoque in
legibus magistratibusque rogandis usurpatur
idem jus viadempta; priusquam populus suffra-
gium ineat in incertum eventum comitiorum
patres auctores fiunt.” Cicero likewise (Rep. ii.
32), after beginning with the words “Tenuit
igitur in hoc statu senatus rempublicam,”
proceeds to adduce, amongst other points,
“quodgue erat ad retinendam potentiam no-
bilium vel maximum, vehementer id retinebatur
populi comitia ne essent rata nisi ea patrum
approbavisset auctoritas.” On the other hand,
we have passages in which the established phrase
“patres auctores fiunt” is altered into “patri-
cii:” e.g. Liv. vi. 42, “quia patricii se auctores
futuros negabant ; ” and Sallust, Fragm. 82, 15,
“libera ab auctoribus patriciis majores vostri
suffragia paravere *—and Cicero, as we have
seen, distinctly says that the auctoritas will
lapse with the patriciate. The difficulty then
is precisely the same as in the case of the inter-
regnum, and may be solved by the same hypo-
thesis of a “patrician senate.”
Since the auctoritas patrum was reduced to a
mere form by being put before instead of after
the voting (as was ordered by the Lex Publilia
of B.C. 339 and the Lex Maenia), it can never
have amounted to the power of rejecting a
measure on its merits: such a power could be
exercised as easily, perhaps more easily, on a
bill before it came to the assembly. If, however,
the patrum auctoritas was limited to a con-
firmatory certificate that the law had been
passed in due form, it would be rendered
nugatory if it had to be given before any objec-
tions could possibly be raised to the procedure.
(For Mommsen's view, which differs slightly
from this, see Röm. Forsch. i. p. 242, and Staats-
recht, iii. p. 1041.)
In spite of the decay of their political privi-
leges, the patricians retained to the end of the
Republic the dignity which attached to the
oldest and purest blood in Rome. The number
of families known from the lists of magistrates
of the later Republic amounts to about 30
(Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 12). Dionysius,
however, gives 50 as the number of “Trojan
families '' which remained to his day. It would
seem to follow that outside the ranks of the
nobility of office there remained a certain
number of patricians in equestrian station,
though their ancient birth was fully recognised.
Their position would somewhat resemble that of
the more obscure Scottish peers in our time.
Like the Scottish peerage, the patriciate could
not be recruited. With the doubtful exception
of the Claudii, no instance is known in Repub-
lican times of any man or family attaining the
patriciate.
When Caesar as Dictator wished to increase
their numbers, there appears to have been no
machinery by which the patricians could act as
a body in admitting fresh members. This
admission was accomplished by a special law
(Lex Cassia) of the sovereign people, whose
mandate was of course absolute in all matters.
The same precedent was followed by Augustus,
who was authorised by the Lex Saenia to create
a fresh batch of patricians. Claudius seems to
have made such creations on the strength of his
power as censor (Tac. Ann. xi. 25), and after
him the emperors conferred the rank freely.
[Mommsen's view of the patrician senate (Röm.
Forsch. vol. i. p. 218 seq.; Staatsrecht, iii.
p. 1037 seq.), which is maintained in this article,
is disputed by Willems, Sénat de la République,
vol. ii. i. §§ 1–5.] [J. L. S. D.]
Period from the time of Constantine to the
Middle Ages.—From the time of Constantine the
dignity of patricius was a personal title, which
conferred on the person to whom it was granted
a very high rank and certain privileges. Hither-
to patricians had been only genuine Roman
citizens, and the dignity had descended from the
father to his children; but the new dignity was
created at Constantinople, and was not bestowed
on old Roman families; it was given, without
any regard to persons, to such men as had for
a long time distinguished themselves by good
and faithful services to the Empire or the em-
peror. This new dignity was not hereditary,
but became extinct with the death of the person
on whom it was conferred; and when during
this period we read of patrician families, the
meaning is only that the head of such a family
was a patricius. (Zosim. ii. 40; Cassiodor.
Patriar. vi. 2.) The name patricius during this
period assumed the conventional meaning of
father of the emperor (Ammian. Marcellin.
xxix. 2; Cod. 12, tit. 3, § 5), and those who
were thus distinguished occupied the highest
rank among the illustres; the consuls alone
ranked higher than a patricius. (Isidor. ix. 4,
1, 3; Cod. 3, tit. 24, s. 3; 12, tit. 3, s. 3.) The
titles by which a patricius was distinguished
were magnificentia, celsitudo, eminentia, and
magnitudo. They were either engaged in actual
service (for they generally held the highest
offices in the state, at the court, and in the pro-
vinces), and were then called patricii praesen-
tales, or they had only the title and were called
patricii codicillares or honorarii. (Cassiod. viii.
9; Savaron. ad Sidon. Apoll. i. 3.) All of them,
however, were distinguished in their appearance
and dress from ordinary persons, and seldom
appeared before the public otherwise than in a
carriage. The emperors were generally very
cautious in bestowing this great distinction,
though some of the most arbitrary despots con-
ferred the honour upon young men and even on
eunuchs. Zeno decreed that no one should be
made patricius who had not been consul, prae-
fect, or magister militum. (Cod. 3, tit. 24,
s. 3.) Justinian, however, did away with some
of these restrictions. The elevation to the rank
of patricius was testified to the person by a writ
called diploma. (Sidon. Apollin. v. 16; Suidas,
2 A 2
356 PATRIMI ET MATRIMI
PATRONUS
s. v. Toauparefölov; compare Cassiodor. vi. 2,
viii. 21, &c.)
This new dignity was not confined to Romans
or subjects of the Empire, but was sometimes
granted to foreign princes, such as Odoacer, the
chief of the Heruli, and others. When the
popes of Rome had established their authority,
they also assumed the right of bestowing the
title of patricius on eminent persons and
princes, and many of the German emperors
were thus distinguished by the popes. In
several of the Germanic kingdoms the sove-
reigns imitated the Roman emperors and popes
by giving to their most distinguished subjects
the title of patricius, but these patricii were at
all times much lower in rank than the Roman
patricii, a title of which kings and emperors
themselves were proud. (See Gibbon, vols. ii.
109, vi. 158; Bryce, Holy Roman Empire, p. 40;
Rein, in Ersch und Gruber's Encyclopädie, s. v.
Patricier.) L. S.]
PATRI'MI ET MATRI'MI, also called Pa-
trimes et Matrimes, were those children whose
parents were both alive (Festus, s. v.v. Flaminia,
Matrimes; called by Dionysius, ii. 22, &apuða-
Aets), in the same way as pater patrimus
signifies a father whose own fatner is still
alive (Festus, p. 234). Servius (ad Verg. Georg.
i. 32), however, confines the term patrimi et
matrimi to children born of parents who had
been married by the religious ceremony called
confarreatio, and who were still alive; it
appears probable that this is the correct use of
the term. We know that the flamines majores
were obliged to have been born of parents who
had been married by confarreatio (Tac. Ann. iv.16;
Gaius, i. 112); and as the children called patrimi
et matrimi are almost always mentioned in con-
nexion with religious rites and ceremonies (Cic.
de Har. resp. 11; Liv. xxxvii. 3; Gell. i. 12;
Tac. Hist. iv. 53; Macrob. Saturn. 6; Vopisc.
Aurel. 19 ; Orelli, Inscr. n. 2270), the statement
of Servius is rendered more probable, since the
same reason which confined the office of the
flamines majores to those born of parents who had
been married by confarreatio, would also apply
to the children of such marriages, who would
probably be thought more suitable for the service
of the gods than the offspring of other marriages.
If this restriction ceased when confarreatio fell
into disuse, it was at least still necessary that
the mother should not have been divorced : in
such a case the children would obviously cease
to be patrimi et matrimi. There is, however,
reason to think that the rite of confarreatio was
retained so far as to provide persons qualified
for priestly office [MATRIMONIUM, p. 140 b),
and so the patrimi et matrini of late times may
still have been born from parents so married,
though it is clear, from the statement of
Macrobius (l.c.) that after the 3rd century B.C.
the service was no longer restricted to patrimi
et matrimi, since the children of libertini served
also. For the religious functions which required
attendance of patrini et matrimi, see CAMILLUS;
ARVALES; MATRIMONIUM, p. 143 b. (Rein, Das
röm. Privatrecht, p. 177; Göttling, Gesch. d, röm.
Staatsperf. p. 90; Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.
227; Privatleben, p. 70.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PATRONOMI (Tarpováuoi) were magis-
trates established by Cleomenes III. at Sparta
in his reformed constitution, when he abolished
both the yepovata and the ephorate, and set up
the trarpováuot to exercise, as it were, a paternal
control over the whole state (Pausan. ii. 9, 1).
His constitution came to an end after the battle
of Sellasia, B.C. 221; and we find ephors and
ºyepovaſa again (Pausan. iii. 11, 2), but with
diminished powers; for the rarpovówou were
retained as the chief magistrates (called ovváp-
xovres rās tarpovouſas, C. I. G. 1356). Ap-
parently they were six in number; the chief, or
trpéagus rôv trarpovénøv, was the étrévvuos of
the state, that is, he gave his name to the
year, which the first ephor had formerly done.
(Compare Philostr. Wit. Apoll. iv. 32; Plut. An
seni sit resp. ger. 24; Gilbert, Staatsalterth. i.
24, 26.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PATRO'NUS. The act of manumission gave
birth, as it were, to a free person, and created a
new relation between the manumissor and the
slave, which was analogous to that between
father and son. In respect of this new relation
the manumissor was called patronus (from pater),
and the manumitted person libertus or liberta.
If the manumissor was a woman, she became
patrona; and the use of this word instead of
matrona appears to be explained by the want of
a special word to distinguish her position in
respect of her freedmen. Viewed with reference
to the early ages of Rome, this patronal rela-
tion must be considered a part of the ancient
clientela ; but from the time of the Twelve
Tables at least, which contained legislative pro-
visions generally on the subject of patronal
rights, we may consider the relation of patronus
and libertus as the same both in the case of
patrician and plebeian manumissores.
The libertus was attached to the family, and
adopted the gentile name of his manumissor
(Lactant. Inst. iv. 3, “servus liberatus patroni
nomen accipit tamguam filius ”). Cicero's freed-
man Tiro was called M. Tullius Tiro. [NOMEN.]
The patronus and libertus owed reciprocal duties
to one another, the one being bound to afford
protection and support (cf. Twelve Tables, “Pa-
tronus si clienti fraudem fecerit, sacer est''), the
other to show loyalty (obsequium et reverentia)
to and render such other services as were due.
In early times it is probable that the libertus was
represented by his patronus in courts of justice,
suits being maintained by the latter on his
behalf. The patron was the statutory guardian
(tutor legitimus) of his freedman who was under
age. It was the duty of the patron to support
his freedman in case of necessity, and, if he did
not, he lost his patronal rights: the consequence
was the same if he brought a capital charge
against him.
The libertus owed respect and gratitude to
his patron, and had to perform all services which
were regarded as tokens of this duty (operae
officiales). In ancient times he was subject to a
kind of domestic imperium, and might be
punished in a summary way by his patron, who
frequently made a tyrannical use of his autho-
rity. In later times the patron had the power
of relegating an ungrateful freedman to a certain
distance from Rome, under a law probably passed
in the time of Augustus (Tac. Ann. xiii. 26;
Dio Cass. lv. 13). In the time of Nero it was
proposed to pass a senatusconsultum which
should give a patron the power of reducing his
freedman to slavery, if he misconducted himself
PATRONUS
TATRONUS 357
towards his patron. The measure was not
enacted, but this power was given by a consti-
tution of Commodus, A.D. 180–192. (Dig. 25,
3, 6, § 1 : “Cum probatum sit, contumeliis pa-
tronos a libertis esse violatos, vel illata manu
atroci esse pulsatos, aut etiam paupertate vel
corporis valetudine laborantes relictos: primum
eos in potestatem patronorum redigi et minis-
terium dominis pracbere cogi; sin autem nec hoc
modo admoneantur, vel a Praeside emptori addi-
centur, et pretium patronis tribuetur.”) The
right of a patron to prosecute his freedman for
ingratitude (ut ingratum accusare), and so to
revoke his manumission, appears to have been
recognised by the Lex Aelia Sentia (Dig. 40, 9,
30: cf. Inst. i. 16, 1). An ingratus was also
called libertus impius, as being deficient in pietas.
If the libertus brought an action against the
patronus (in jus vocavit) without the leave of
the praetor, he was himself liable to a special
action on the case; and he could not, as a general
rule, institute a capital charge against his
patron. Disputes between patrons and freed-
men were subject to the extraordinary juris-
diction of the praetor. [Jurisdictio.] The
libertus was bound to support the patron and
his children in case of necessity, and to under-
take the management of his property and the
tutela of his children ; if he refused, he was
ingratus (Dig. 37, 14, 19). If a slave were the
property of several masters, and were manumitted
by all of them and became a Roman citizen, all
of them were his patroni.
In early times freedmen were instruments
of acquiring property for their patrons, like
slaves. P. Rutilius Rufus provided that in cases
of dispute between them as to property they
should be regarded as co-proprietors of it (Dig.
38, 2, 1); but the oath of a freedman by which
he bound himself to share his property with his
manumissor was subsequently declared void.
The manumissor could, however, secure to him-
self certain rights over his libertus by taking
an oath from him (see H. Brocher, de Operis
Libertorum, pp. 38–42), and by stipulationes.
The subjects of such promises were gifts from
the libertus to the patronus (dona et munera)
and services (operae). The oath was not legally
valid, unless the person was a libertus when he
took it. If then he took the oath as a slave, he
had to repeat it as a freeman, which seems to be
the meaning of the passage of Cicero, in which
he speaks of his freedman Chrysogonus (ad Att.
vii. 2; compare Dig. 38, 1, 7). These operae
were of two kinds: officiales, which consisted in
customary tokens of respect and affection, which
were due apart from contract; and fabriles,
which are explained by the term itself, and
which required an express stipulation. The
officiales determined by the death of the patronus
unless there was an agreement to the contrary;
but the fabriles, being of the nature of money
or money’s worth, passed to the heredes of the
patronus, like any other property. The patronus,
when he commanded the operae of his libertus,
was said ei operas indicere or imponere (Gaius,
iv. 162; Dig. 38, 2, 29). -
The patron could not command any services
which might have the effect of imposing a
burden on the liberty of the slave (Dig. 38, 2, 1,
§ 1 ; 38, 1, 2, § 1), or any services which were
disgraceful (turpes) or dangerous to life, such as
prostitution or fighting in the amphitheatre;
but if the libertus exercised any art or calling
(artificium), even if he learned it after his manu-
mission, operae in respect to it might be reserved
for the benefit of the patron. The Lex Julia
et Papia Poppaea released freedmen (except
those who followed the ars ludicra, or hired
themselves to fight with beasts) from all obliga-
tions as to gifts or operae (imposed libertatis
causa), who had begotten two children and had
them in their power, or one child five years old
(Dig. 38, 1; de Operis Libertorum, i. 37).
If liberty was given directly by a testament,
the testator was the manumissor, and his
patronal rights would belong by the law of the
Twelve Tables to his children; if it was given
indirectly—that is, per fideicommissum—the per-
son who performed the act of manumission was
the patronus. In those cases where a slave
obtained his freedom under the S. C. Silanianum
for having discovered his master's murderer, the
praetor could assign him a patronus; and if this
was not done, that person was the patron of
whom the libertus had last been the slave
(Dig. 38, 16, 3).
The patronal rights were somewhat restricted,
when the act of manumission was not altogether
the free act of the manumissor. For instance,
a person under a trust to manumit [FIDEI-
COMMISSUMJ had all the patronal rights, except
the power to prosecute for ingratitude, the right
to be supported by the libertus, and to stipulate
for munera and special operae ; his rights against
the property of the libertus were, however, the
same as those of any other manumissor. (Frag.
Wat. § 225; Dig. 38, 2, 29.) If a slave had
given money to another person in order that this
other person might purchase and manumit him,
the manumissor had no patronal rights, and he
lost even the name of patron, if he refused to
perform the act for which he had received the
money, and allowed the slave to compel him to
perform his agreement, which the slave could
do by a constitution of M. Aurelius and L. Verus
(Dig. 40, 1, 4 and 5). If a master manumitted
his slave in consideration of a sum of money, he
retained all patronal rights, but he could not
stipulate for special operae. A person who pur-
chased a slave, and on the occasion of the
purchase agreed to manumit him, had all
patronal rights, except the right of prosecuting
for ingratitude, in case the slave compelled him
to manumit pursuant to the constitution of
M. Aurelius and L. Verus (Dig. 40, 9, 30).
A capitis deminutio, either of the patron or the
libertus, dissolved the relation between them
[CAPUT]. (See Tac. Hist. ii. 92, where “jura
libertorum ” means jura patronorum or jura in
libertos.) The relation was dissolved when the
libertus obtained ingenuitas by the natalium
restitutio, but not when he merely obtained the
jus aureorum anulorum [INGENUUs]. Justinian
gave jus anulorum and the natalium restitutio to
all freedmen (Nov. 78, 1, 2, 5.) The children
of a freedman were ingenui.
The most important of the patronal rights
related to the property of liberti who died
intestate or having made a will. The subject,
so far as concerns the ante-Justinian period,
may be distributed under the following heads:-.
1. The rules of the old civil law (Jus Civile);
2. The rules of praetorian law, comprehending
358 PATRONUS
PATRONUS
the bonorum possessio intestati and the bonorum
possessio contra tabulas ; and 3. The rules of the
Lex Papia Poppaea relating to the rights of
patrons.
1. By the law of the Twelve Tables, if a
freedman died intestate, without sui heredes, the
patronus was his heir. A freedman could have
no agnates except children, but his patron was
in the position of an agnate as regards his suc-
cession. The legitima patronorum tutela was not
expressly mentioned in the Twelve Tables, but
it was a legal consequence of the rule as to
inheritance (Ulp. Fragm. xi. 3). In the case
of an intestate liberta, as she could not have a
suus heres, the patron was her heres in any
event. The Senatusconsultum Orfitianum,
which was passed after Gaius wrote his In-
stitutes (iii. 51), and in the last year but one of
the reign of Marcus Aurelius, made an alteration
in this respect, since it gave children a right
to the succession of their mother, whether the
latter was ingenua or libertina (Dig. 38, 17, 1).
These patronal rights belonged both to a
patronus and a patrona, and to the liberi of a
patronus (Ulp. xxvii.), whether natural or
adoptive. It seems that the children of a
patrona had not by the Twelve Tables the same
rights as the children of a patronus, since they
were not in her power; but the Lex Papia
Poppaea probably made some change in this
respect (Unterholzner, Zeitsch. f. R. G. p. 43,
&c.). The succession to the property of a
freedman belonged to the liberi of a patronus
according to proximity of degree, as in the
agmatic order of succession. Thus a son of a
patron excluded a grandson. If there were
several patroni or patronae, they divided the
inheritance equally, though their shares in the
libertus, when a slave, might have been unequal.
These patronal rights resembled a joint tenancy
in English law, for the survivor or survivors of
the patroni had all the patronal rights to the
exclusion of any children of a deceased patronus.
If the patroni were all dead, leaving several
children, the hereditas was divided among all
the children equally (in capita), pursuant to the
law of succession in the case of agnation (Gaius,
iii. 16, 59, &c.). If the patron left no liberi,
and the freedman died intestate without sui
heredes, the inheritance of the latter probably
devolved on the gens of the patronus. A freed-
man had free power of disposing of his property
by will, according to the Twelve Tables, and so
of excluding his patron from the succession
(Gaius, iii. 40). A patron could not transfer
his interest in the patronatus by will or other-
wise, except that by a senatusconsultum, which
was passed in the time of Claudius, he was
entitled to assign his patronal rights to the
inheritance of a libertus, to any of his children
he had in his power, to the exclusion of the rest
(Dig. 38, 4, de assignandis libertis). In order
that the above patronal rights should exist, it
was necessary that the libertus should have been
made free by a Roman citizen, and have become
a Roman citizen by the act of manumission.
Accordingly, if a free person obtained the citizen-
ship, it was necessary that he should have a
special grant of the jus patronatus, in order that
he might have these patronal rights against his
freedmen who had been previously manumitted,
and it was necessary that they should have
become Roman citizens at the time of manu-
mission (Plin. Ep. x. 6). A capitis deminutio,
loss of citizenship or change of familia, either of
the patron or the libertus, destroyed the patronal
rights to the inheritance, as already observed
(Gaius, iii. 51).
2. The law regulating the succession to the
property of deceased freedmen was supplemented
and amended by the edict of the praetor, who
extended the rights of patrons. The edict called
to the succession (bonorum possessio) of liberti
who died intestate: (1) the liberi of the
deceased freedman (bonorum possessio whde liberi)
[but if the deceased only left adoptive children
or a wife in manu, the patron had bonorum
possessio to one-half the property against these
sui heredes]; (2) the patron and his agnatic
descendants (bonorum possessio unde legitimi);
(3) the cognatic descendants of the deceased
freedman (bonorum possessio unde cognati); (4)
the agnates of the patronus and patrona (bonorum
possessio tamguam ea familia); (5) the patronus,
patrona, liberi, et parentes patroni patronaequé,
i.e. the patron of the patron, in case the patron
was himself a freedman, the children of the
superior patron, and the parents of the im-
mediate patron, if the latter had been manu-
mitted from their mancipium ; (6) the husband
or wife of the freed woman or freedman (unde vir
et wror); (7) the cognates of the patronus or
patrona to the sixth, or in one case to the
seventh, degree (bonorum possessio unde cognati
manumissoris).
A manumissor of a person ea causa mancipii
was quasi-patronus of the manumissus and had
the same rights of succession to his property as
a patronus; but if a filiusfamilias was manu-
mitted by an extraneus manumissor instead of
by his own father, the praetor postponed the
claims of the manumissor, giving a preference
to the father and certain other near relations of
the manumissus (bonorum possessio unde decem
personae). [MANCIPII CAUSA.] -
We have seen that by the law of the Twelve
Tables, if the freedman made a will, he could
pass over his patron altogether. But by the
edict, unless he left his patron as much as half
of his property, the patron or his male children
could obtain bonorum possessio contra tabulas of
one-half of the property, from any persons
instituted heirs by him, other than children of
his own blood (naturales). An adopted child of
the freedman or his wife in his manus could not
defeat this claim of the patron. The patron
was not excluded if the children of the freedman
were exheredated (Gaius, iii. 40; Dio Cass. li.
15, and the note of Reimarus).
3. The Lex Papia Poppaea further extended
the rights of patrons by providing that, if a
freedman had a property amounting to a hundred
thousand sestertii and fewer than three children,
the patronus should have an equal share with
the children, whether the freedman died testate
or intestate. A patrona, before the Lex Papia
was passed, had only the same rights as a
patronus under the Twelve Tables, not having
been allowed by the praetor the bonorum possessio
dimidiae partis contra suos non naturales in case
of intestacy, or the bonorum possessio contra
tabulas. By this lex a patrona ingenua who
had two children, or a patrona libertina having
three children, were given nearly the same
PATRONUS
PAUPERIES 359
rights as a patron had under the edict: and a
patrona ingenua having three children, was
given the same privileges as belonged to a
patron under the statute. The lex also gave to
patrona filia, mother of three children, the same
rights as the patron had by the edict; that is, a
right to half the property of the freedman against
any heirs except naturales liberos. The son of a
patrona who had a child was put in almost the
same position as a patronus (Gaius, iii. 42, &c.).
According to the old law, as the liberta was
in the legitima tutela of her patron, she could
make no disposition of her property by will
without his sanction (patrono auctore). The
Lex Papia freed a liberta from this tutela, if she
had four children, and she could consequently
then make a will without the sanction of her
patronus, but the law provided that the patronus
should have an equal share (pars virilis) with
her surviving children. In the case of a liberta
dying intestate, the Lex Papia gave no further
rights to a patrona who had children (liberis
honoratae) than she had before; and therefore
if there had been no capitis deminutio of the
patrona or the liberta, the patrona inherited the
property, even if she had no children, to the
exclusion of the children of the liberta. If the
liberta made a will, the Lex Papia gave to the
patrona, who had the number of children re-
quired by that law, the same rights which the
edict gave to the patronus contra tabulas liberti,
It is to be noticed that though rights of
patronatus under the Twelve Tables were put
an end to by capitis deminutio, this was not the
case with rights given by the Lex Papia Poppaea
(Inst. iii. 4, 2).
By the actio Fabiana or Faviana and actio
Calvisiana the claims of patrons to the succession
of their freedmen were protected against aliena-
tion inter vivos on the part of freedmen. Under
the later emperors the above rules as to the
succession of freedmen were considerably changed,
more especially by Justinian. According to his
legislation, if a freedman or freedwoman died
intestate, their natural children succeeded to
the entire exclusion of the patron. In default
of children of the freedman or freedwoman, came
(1) the patron or patroness, (2) their children,
(3) their collateral relations to the fifth degree.
If a freedman left a will, and had property of
less value than 100 aurei, his power of passing
over his patron was unrestricted. If he had
property of this amount and was childless, or
had disinherited his children, the patronus or
patrona and their descendants to the fifth degree
had a right to a third of his property.
The rules of law as to the succession of the
patronus to the property of Latini liberti differed
in various respects from those that have been
explained respecting liberti cives. Their pro-
perty was regarded as peculium on their death,
and so belonged to the patron as if he had pre-
viously been owner of it, and not by title of
inheritance. Hence it came to his extranei
heredes, not to his exheredated children, who
would have taken it if the freedman had been
civis Romanus. If there were several patrons,
it came to them in proportion to their interests
in the former slave, and it was consistent with
this doctrine that the share of a deceased
patronus should go to his heir. A Latinus
Junianus could not make a will (tamguam servus
moritur). The Senatusconsultum Largianum,
which was passed in the time of Claudius, assimi-
lated to some extent the devolution of the pro-
perty of Latini with that which took place in the
case of cives liberti. It enacted that the property
of Latini should go first to those who had manu-
mitted them ; then tº their liberi who were not
expressly disinherited, according to proximity;
and then, according to the old law, to the heredes
of the manumissor. The only effect of this sena-
tusconsultum was to prefer liberi who were not
expressly disinherited to extranei heredes.
As to the lowest class of freedmen, called
dediticii, there were two rules. The property of
those who on their manumission would have
become Roman citizens but for their having
suffered some infamous punishment, came to
their patroni as if they had been Roman citizens.
The property of those who on their manumis-
sion would have become Latini but for the im-
pediments thereto, came to their patroni as if
they had been Latini. In the time of Justinian
all freedmen were cives Romani.
As to the other meanings of patronus, see
CLIENS, CoLoRUs, ORATOR. (Gaius, iii. 39–76;
Ulpian, Frag. xxvii., xxix. ;-Dig. 37, 14, 15;
38, 1, 2, 3;—Institutes, iii. 8; Unterholzner,
Ueber das patronatische Erbrecht. Zeitsch.;
Huschke, Studien des Röm. Rechts, i. 59, and in
Rhein. Mus. vi. 95, &c.; A. Schmidt, Das
Pflichttheilsrecht des Patronus, &c.; Walter,
Geschichte des Röm. Rechts, $$ 494–500; Rein,
Das Röm. Privatrecht, 597, &c.; Kuntze, Cursus
des Röm. Rechts, i. §§ 801-805, ii. §§ 531-533;
Keller, Inst. § 254; Puchta, Inst. ii. § 215, iii.
§ 296.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
PAVIMENTUM. [Domus, Vol. I. pp. 656,
685; PICTURA.
PAVONA/CEUM. [TEGULA.]
PAUPE’RIES was the legal term for damage
to property done to a person by a domesticated
animal belonging to another person, contrary to
the nature of the animal causing the damage
and without any fault of its owner. According
to the law of the Twelve Tables, the animal
must be a quadrupes pecus, to be able to give
rise to pauperies; but a Lex Pesulania extended
the law to dogs, and the praetorian law com-
prised under this head all domesticated animals.
If the damage done by such animal was due to
the fault of the owner, it was not pauperies, but
unlawful damage to property [DAMNUM IN-
JURIA DATUM). Pauperies excluded the notion
of unlawful conduct ; it is defined as “damnum
sine injuria facientis factum,” for an animal
“quod sensu caret’’ could not be said to have
done a thing injuria. It was required that the
damage should be contrary to the ordinary nature
of the animal: thus, if a horse was incited by
some one, as by his striking it, or kicked by
another animal, the damage it did to a person in
consequence was not pauperies on its part. In
case of pauperies arising, the law of the Twelve
Tables gave the injured person an action against
anyone who was owner of the animal at the
time of action being brought, the liability pass-
ing to a transferee if the animal was alienated
after it had done the damage (nowa caput
sequitur). The right of action ceased if the
animal died. By this action the owner of the
animal was required either to give up the
animal to the injured party (noacae dare), or to
360 PAUSARIUS
PECULATUS
pay the full amount of damages. Thus the
actio de pauperie belonged to the class of nocales
actiones—such as were brought against a house-
father on account of the delicts of his sons and
slaves. (There was probably a special action of
pauperies called actio de pastu pecoris, on account
of cattle grazing on a neighbour's crops.) The
actio de pauperie and other noxal actions seem
to have been first given in order to prevent an
injured party taking the law into his own hands,
as he was likely to do if he had no other remedy.
Noxal surrender originated in an archaic state
of society, and traces of it are widespread. (Cf.
the Greek 8X48m Terparööwy kal &vöporóöwy,
Meier and Schömann, Att. Proc. 477; Platner,
Proc. ii. 371 ; Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln, ii. § 143,
n. 2; and see Holmes's Common Law, Lecture I.,
as to the suggestion that noxal liability arose
out of a primitive notion of vengeance.)
Wild animals could not make their owner
liable for pauperies, but an owner of such animal
was liable under the Aquilian law for any
damage it caused owing to his negligence, while
in his custody; but if a wild animal got away
from his master, he was not liable according to
Jus Civile, because, when the animal got away,
it ceased to be his property. The aedile's edict,
however, made a person liable to an actio popu-
laris for damage done in a place of public resort
to a free person by a dog, boar, wild boar, bear,
or lion, which he had neglected to keep under
proper control (Inst. iv. 9; — Dig. 21, 1, 40,
§ 1 ; 41, 42, de aed. Ed.).
(Inst. iv. 9; Dig. 9, 1, si quadrupes pauperiem
fecisse dicatur; Thibaut, Versuche, ii. 8; Zim-
mern, System der römischen Nozalklagen, 79–
117; Gesterding, Zeitsch. f. Civilrecht und Proc.
iv. 261–288; Vangerow, iii. § 689; C. Sell, Aus
dem Nozalrechte der Römer ; Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln,
§ 143.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
PAUSA'RIUS. [PopTISCULUs.]
PECTEN (kreis). The use of the comb is
almost universal, for it is known to all tribes who
have learnt to weave. It is of pre-historic origin,
since combs have been found in the cave-dwell-
ings of the early Stone Age (Boyd Dawkins, Early
Man, p. 267); while specimens made of bone,
horn, and wood turn up in considerable numbers
in the remains of the Swiss lake-villages (Reller,
Lake Dwellings, pp. 119, 385, and 638, E. T.).
Most of these early combs seem to have been
used for weaving, or for the subsidiary processes
of carding wool or heckling flax, and it would
seem that they were employed for such purposes
at least as soon as, if not sooner than, for dress-
ing the hair. For its use in weaving, see TELA.
It was also used for carding, a process which
is mentioned by Homer (eipia £aivetv, Od. xxii.
423; and eſpia treſkeiv, Od. xviii. 316), as one of
the ordinary household occupations. Naturally
enough, mention of such menial every-day work
is not common in literature, but there can be no
doubt about the use of the comb for these pur-
poses throughout the whole of antiquity. Thus
Pliny says that it was used for working flax
(H. W. xix. § 17) and silk (ib. xviii. § 297), and
from inscriptions (Gruter, 648, 2) we learn of
the existence of a guild of pectinarii lanarii
sodules. Elsewhere the heckler or carder is
called pectinator (krevioths), or carminator.
Combs used for heckling and carding do not
seem to have been as yet discovered in Greece or
Italy, but iron heckling combs with a large
number of sharp teeth have been found in
Egyptian graves (Wilkinson, iii. 140, No. 537).
Much more common are the combs for hair-
dressing, which have been found in considerable
numbers on almost every ancient site. Litera-
ture gives but little information of their use,
except that it was considered a mark of boorish-
ness to go about with uncombed hair (Juv. xiv.
194). The elaborate head-dresses shown on
works of art, both Roman and Greek, are, how-
ever, in themselves quite sufficient to prove that
the comb was an indispensable article of the
toilet, especially in early times, when both men
and women wore their hair long and carefully
dressed. For the Spartan custom of combing
their hair before a battle, see Herod. vii. 208.
Combs are not often shown on the monuments.
but appear on some Roman portrait busts of
ladies stuck as an ornament into an elaborate
head-dress (Kurz and Weisser, Lebensbilder,
pl. ix. fig. 17). On a sepulchral slab in Gori,
Inscript. pl. i. p. 10 (Baumeister, Denkmäler,
fig. 827), a double fine-toothed comb is shown
along with other toilet articles. Such combs
have been found in great numbers in Greece
proper, the Crimea, Etruria, Pompeii, &c., made
of wood, bone, and ivory, all of the same pattern,
being precisely similar to those found in Egypt,
and to those used in the present day. Boxwood
was a favourite material, and the comb is fre-
quently spoken of as buſeum simply (Ovid. Fast-
vi. 229; Juv. l.c.). Ivory, however, and bronze
were also used ; but this latter, at any rate, in
most cases only for combs with one row of teeth,
which had highly-decorated handles, and were
evidently intended to be worn in the hair. These
are not unlike combs used for the same purpose
now, but have, as a rule, triangular or semi-
circular handles. Barbers were in the habit of
cutting hair per pectinem, to ersure its not being
too short (Plaut. Capt. ii. 2, 18).
Dictionaries will supply some other meanings
of the words kreis and pecten which need
not be specified here. (See also Marquardt,
Privatleben, p. 601 ; Baumeister, Denkmäler,
p. 775; COMA.) [W. C. F. A.]
PECUA’RIſ. . [SCRIPTURA.]
PECULATUS is the misappropriation or
theft of public or sacred property, whether it
was done by a public functionary or by a private
person. Labeo (Dig. 50, 9, 2) defines it thus:
“pecuniae publicae aut sacrae furtum, non ab.
eo factum cujus periculum est,” the qualifying
part of the definition meaning that there could
not be peculatus in respect of property entrusted
to an official to hold at his own risk. The
person guilty of this offence was peculator-
Cicero (de Off. iii. 18, 73) enumerates peculatores
with sicarii, venefici, testamentarii (forgers of
wills), and fures. Peculatus, derived from pecus,
a term which originally denoted that kind of
movable property which was the chief sign of
wealth [PECUNIA], seems to have signified in
early times the theft of cattle, peculatus publicus
having been the offence of stealing cattle from a
magistratus which he had taken as multa or as
poena sacramenti (Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln, ii. § 137,
n. 17; cf. Varro, L. L. v. 19, 95, “hinc [i.e. a
pecude] peculatum publicum primo tum, cum
pecore diceretur multa et id esset coactum ni
publicum, si erat aversum ; ”—Festus, 237 a, 13;
PECULIO, ACTIO DE
PEGMA 361
211 a, 18; 202 b, 13; — Paul. Diac. 75, 11).
Peculatus was punished in early times by the
infliction of a heavy multa on the offender (Liv.
i. 37, xxv. 37, xxxvii. 58; Gell. vii. 19). Origin-
ally trials for peculatus were before the
populus or before the senate (Liv. v. 32, xxxvii.
51, xxxviii. 54). In the time of Cicero matters
of peculatus were one of the quaestiones perpetuae
(pro Cluent. 53, 147; pro Mur. 20, 42), which
implies some Lex de Peculatu, though there is
no mention of such a lex in our sources.
Two leges relating to peculatus are cited in
the Digest, Lex Julia peculatus and Lex Julia de
residuis, but these may perhaps be two chapters
of the same lex, just as the Lex Julia de adul-
teriis comprised a provision de fundo dotali, which
chapter is often quoted as if it were a separate
lex. The Lex de residuis applied to those who
had received public money for public purposes,
and had retained it when they ought to have
paid it over (“apud quem pecunia publica
resedit ’). The offence differs from ordinary
peculatus in that it is constituted by a mere
omission. The penalty under this lex on con-
viction, borrowed from the Lex Silia, was a third
part of the sum retained besides liability to
restitution. Sacrilegium is treated as a kind of
peculatus under the Lex Julia, a sacrilegus being
one who plunders sacred property of a public
kind (so excluding Sacra privata). For an
account of the special punishments with which
this offence was visited, see art. SACRILEGIUM.
The Lex Julia peculatus embraced or was ex-
tended by interpretation to various species of
public frauds, some of which also belong to the
crimen falsi, as certain coinage offences, falsi-
fication of public accounts or of documents of
title to public land, &c. The punishment for
peculatus, which under the Lex Julia was aquac
et ignis interdictio, was subsequently changed
into deportatio: the property of the offender
was forfeited. Special punishments were in-
flicted in the case of particular species of pecu-
latus. (Dig. 48, 13, ad legem Juliam peculatus
et de Sacrilegis et de residuis; Cod. 9, 28; Inst.
iv. 18, 9; Paul. Sent. 5, 27; Rein, Das Criminal-
recht der Römer, p. 672; Rudorff, Römische
Rechtsgeschichte, ii. § 118; Walter, Römische
Rechtsgeschichte, § 813.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
PECU'LIO, ACTIO DE. [SERvus.]
PECU'LIUM. TSERVUS.
PECU'LIUM CASTRENSE. [PATRIA Po-
TESTAS.]
PECU’NIA. In the use of this word for
“money,” we have a record of the fact that in
prinitive times in Greece and Italy values were
calculated in sheep and oxen. Stamped money
was introduced into Asia Minor and Greece in
the 7th century; into Rome in the 5th. For
the history of Greek coins, see PoxDERA; for
that of Roman coins, see As; while a few
general remarks as to the use of money in
antiquity will be found under NUMUs. [P. G.]
PECU’NIA CERTA. [OBLIGATIONEs.]
PECUNIAE REPETUNDAE. [REPE-
TUNDAE.]
PEDA'NEUS JUDEX.
NEUs.]
PEDA'RII. [SENATUS.]
PEDI'SEQUI, a class of slaves, whose duty
was to follow their master when he went out of
his house, while the anteambulo preceded him.
[JUDEX PEDA-
The pedisequi seem to have formed a special
class of slaves, which was almost the lowest of
all (Nep. Attic. 13; Plaut. Mil. Glor. iv. 2,
18; Ter. Andr. i. 1, 96; Cic, ad Att. ii. 16).
There was a similar class of female slaves, called
pedisequae (Plaut. Asin. i. 3, 31). Several in-
scriptions bearing on this point are cited in
Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 148; compare Becker-
Göll, Gallus, ii. 154. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PEDUM (kopúvm, Theoc. vii. 43), a crook.
The accompanying woodcut is taken from a
l’edum. (From a painting.)
painting found at Civita Vecchia (Ant. d’Erco-
lano, vol. iii. tav. 53). It shows the crook in
the hand of a shepherdess. (See also woodcut to
OSCILLUM.)
The crook is continually seen in works of
ancient art in the hands of Pan (Sil. Ital. Pum.
xiii. 334), and is also the usual attribute of Thalia,
as the Muse of Pastoral poetry. The Aayw86Xov
(Theoc. iv. 49, vii. 128, prob. = kaxatipop, Il.
xxiii. 841) was a stick thrown to collect cattle
(originally to kill hares, &c.), somewhat like a
“boomerang” (Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1867;
Fritzsche ad Theoc. l.c.). [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PEGMA (trfiyua), a structure of planks
joined together, and so in its simplest form
shelves in the atrium for imagines (Auson. Epigr.
26, 10) or book-shelves (Cic. ad Att. iv. 8); but
in a special sense the origin of our word
pageant, an edifice of wood consisting of two or
more stages (pegmata of four stages appeared in
the triumph of Titus: Jos. B. J. vii. 5, 5),
which were raised or depressed, expanded or
closed at pleasure by means of weights acting
with ropes and pulleys (“ponderibus reductis,”
Claudian, de Mall. Theod. Cons. 323–328;
Senec. Ep. 89; Prudent. Trepl Xreq. x. 1016).
These great machines were used in the Roman
amphitheatres, and for spectacles in general, and
to some extent resembled the contrivances for
transformation scenes in a modern pantomime
(Juv. iv. 121; Mart. i. 2; Suet. Claud. 34).
They were moved on wheels: sometimes they
were richly decorated; overlaid with silver
(Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 53). At other times they
exhibited a magnificent, though dangerous, dis-
play of fireworks (Claudian, l.c.; Vopisc. Carin.
15). Gladiators or other performers were borne
aloft upon them, and some editors give peg-
mares as signifying hence gladiators; but in the
passage of Suetonius (Calig. 26), where alone
the word is supposed to occur, the reading
paegniaris is more probable. Strabo saw in

362 PELANOR
PELLIS
the forum a Sicilian brigand-chief placed on a the poor, Odysseus, for instance, dons a hair-
pegma representing Aetna. The machine was
so constructed as suddenly to fall asunder and
precipitate him among the wild beasts (Strab.
vi. p. 273; Mayor on Juv. l. c.). Phaedrus
(v. 7, 7) mentions an accident to a tibicen on a
pegma. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PE'LANOR (tréAavop) is mentioned by Hesy-
chius (s. v.) as a coin in use at Sparta, equivalent
to four XaAkoi or half an Attic obol. Plu-
tarch (Apophtheg. Lacon. p. 903) says that it
was an iron coin of the weight of an Aeginetan
mina (20 Troy ounces). These cumbrous coins
seem to have constituted the coinage of Sparta
down to the time of Alexander the Great ; at
least, no gold, silver, or copper coins of Sparta
df an earlier date than B.C. 310 are extant.
(Brit. Mus. Catalogue of Coins, Peloponnesus,
p. xlvii.) P. G.]
PE'LATAE (rexdral) are defined by Pollux
(iii. 82) and other authorities to be free labourers
working for hire, like the 67tes, in contradis-
tinction to the Helots and Penestae, who were
bondsmen or serfs, having lost their freedom by
conquest or otherwise. Aristotle (ap. Phot. s. v.
IIeX&rat) thus connects their name with tréAas:
IIeX&ral, he says, from tréAas, oiov čyyuota 81&
Treviav trpoo ſovres : i.e. persons who are obliged
by poverty to attach themselves to others.
Timaeus (Lew. Plat. s. v.) gives the same ex-
inlanation. IIeX&rms, 6 ávri ºrpoqāv Šrmperóv cal
Tpoor read.gov. Its origin is therefore something
like that of irétms, but it has more complete-
ly the notion of dependence, for sustenance as
well as for protection. This will explain how
some later Greek writers came to use it to
translate the Latin cliens, though the relations
expressed by the two words are by no means
similar (Dionys. i. 83; Plut. Rom. 13). The
work of the treadtms was probably as a rule, if
not always, field labour: whether a groom who
was utorðarás, not a slave, as in Plat. Lys.
p. 208 A, could rightly be called trexérms, cannot
be determined. In Plat. Euthyphr. p. 4, we
find a trexérms working in the fields along with
the slaves, and the word 6mrečeiv is applied
more than once in that dialogue as the proper
term for his labour [cf. THETES]. Its proper
sense of free labour was not, however, always
preserved in later Greek. Plutarch (Ages. c. 6)
also uses the word rather loosely for Helots,
and we are told of a nation of Illyrians (the
Ardiaei) who possessed 300,000 prospelatae,
compared by Theopompus (ap. Ath. vi. p. 271,
d, e) with the Helots of Laconia. (Müller, Dor.
iii. 4, § 7; Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterthumsk.
vol. i. pp. 361, 811, 2nd ed.: Hermann, Griech.
Staatsalterth. § 101, n. 9; Becker-Göll, Charikles,
iii. 46.) [R. W.] [G. E. M.]
PELLEX. [ConcUBINA.]
PELLIS. There can be no doubt that the
oldest inhabitants of Italy and Greece, no less
than those of the rest of Europe, were clad
mainly, if not entirely, in skins. The period,
however, when skins were thus universally worn,
though the ancients assumed its existence just
as we do (cf. Varro, R. R. ii. 11, 11; Propert.
v. 1, 12), has left no trace in literature or art,
except perhaps in the costume of certain gods,
who, like Herakles with his lion-skin, remained
true to primitive fashion. In Homeric times
skins were worn as a mantle over the shirt by
less deer-skin over the rags of a beggar (Od. xiii.
436; cf. Hesiod. Op. 545),=by archers (Paris,
Il. iii. 16), and by warriors when reconnoitring,
as by the Greeks in the Doloneia (Il. x. 23,
29, 197, 334). The manner
in which such skins were
worn is very possibly shown
by the figure of Hermes on
the François vase, where he
wears a skin fastened closely
and symmetrically on his
body by two clasps, the fore-
legs at his shoulders, the
hind-legs hanging down his
thighs.
Besides their use as gar-
ments, skins of wild and
domestic animals, especially
fleeces, were used as rugs
and bedding. Leather, too,
of some kind or other was Figure of Hermes.
employed for the manufac- (From François vase.)
ture of shoes, caps, harness,
armour, and the other manifold uses to which
leather is put.
The picture given by the literature of classical
times is not far different from the Epic, for
there, too, the use of skins as garments is
confined to shepherds or folk in out-of-the-way
parts. Pausanias tells of people in Euboea and
Phocis who wore tunics of pig-skins (viii. 1, 2),
and says that the Ozolian Locrians owed their
name to the evil smell of the undressed skins
which they wore (x. 38, 2).
A number of the orkörival éarðūres are cata-
logued and described by Pollux (vii. 68,70). The
best known are those which are mentioned in Ari-
stophanes, where they occur as the garments of
the poor, or as bed-clothes and rugs. They are:—
(1) The Sup6épa, which was a shepherd's cloak
or coat of goat-skins sewn together (Aristoph.
Wub. 71: cf. Eccl. 80; Plato, Crit. p. 53).
According to Pollux (vii. 70), it had a hood and
could be pulled over the head. The garment
worn by the shepherd in the Museo Pio Clem.
iii. 34 seems to answer to this description and
to be a Sup6épa.
(2) The erugipa, according to Pollux, was a
tunic with sleeves of skins, with the hair turned
inwards (a ſavpua xutºv orkötivos évrpixos
xeiptówrós). It seems, however, to have been
more of a cloak than a tunic, and was worn for
warmth (Arist. Ran. 1459), but was apparently
even more frequently used to sleep in (Id. Av.
122) as a blanket (Id. Eccl. 421). The Baſtm,
the cloak of shepherds in Sicily (Theoc. iii. 25;
v. 15), and elsewhere, seems to have been
practically identical with the Attic origipa (cf.
Schol. ad Arist. Vesp. 738), both being doubt-
less of goat- or sheep-skin. In late authors the
term oria ſpa may possibly mean a piece of cloth
(Lucian, Rhet. Praec. 16; Longus, Past. ii. 3).
(3) The karavākm was a coarse tunic trimmed
with sheep-skin, and was worn by slaves and
labourers in the country (Arist. Lys. 1151,
1155; Athen. vi. p. 271). Slaves at Sicyon
went by the name of karavakopópot (Theopomp.
Hist. 195).
(4) The grox&s was a leather jerkin worn by
slaves over their tunic (0%paš Čk 8épuatos, karð.
rows &uovs épartóuevos, Pollux, vii. 70; cf.

PELLIS
PELTA. 363
Arist. Av. 933, 935, 944). It was also worn by
soldiers (Xen. Anab. iii. 3, 20; iv. 1, 18).
Besides these garments, Dio Chrysostom
mentions (ii. 382) the kooroºpſºm as a shaggy
shepherd's coat, and Hesychius says kóoroos was
used with the same meaning.
Greek art gives very little information about
the use of skins. Herakles appears in early art
closely enveloped in his lion-skin, in later art
wearing it hanging from his arm or shoulder,
and Dionysus and his train are represented in
spotted fawn-skins [NEBRIS]; but there is
nothing in either case to lead one to suppose
that the costume represented is one of ordinary
use. In the same way the skins which cover
chairs in mythological scenes, like the assembly
of the gods on the Sosias cylix of the Berlin
Museum (Mon. d. Inst. i. 25), do not seem to
occur in representations borrowed from actual
life. In fact, the only articles of dress of this
material which may reasonably be considered
actual are the fox-skin caps which some of the
riders on the Parthenon frieze wear, and the
hunting-boots, which show the paws and tail of
the skin from which they were roughly made.
In Roman literature garments made of skins
are not very often mentioned. Yet the shep-
herds and goat-herds wore, as they do to this
day (particularly in the malarious regions of the
Campagna), skin coats with sleeves (pelles mani-
catae, Colum. R. R. i. 89). The specific names
of such garments have not survived except in
the case of the mastruca, a sheep-skin coat worn
in Sardinia (Quinct. i. 5, 8).
Keller has collected several passages illus-
trating the use of bear-skins. They are worn
by Arcadian auxiliaries in the first Messenian
war, and by the signiferi in the later Roman
army (Veget. ii. 16, borne out by many monu-
ments): in Statius (Theb. iv. 304) the Arcadians
have a bear’s head on their shields: in Silius
Ital. iv. 558, an Apulian horseman in the Second
Punic War wears a bear-skin instead of a cuirass;
so, too, Ancaeus the Arcadian (Orph. Argon. 199;
cf. Acestes in Verg. Aen. v. 37): according to
Strabo, xvii. p. 828, the people of Mauritania
wore skins of lions, panthers, and bears : for beds
we have bear-skins mentioned in Verg. Aen. viii.
368, Ov. Met. xii. 319.
One of the most important uses of skins at
Rome was as a covering for military tents
[TABERNACULUM), whence sub pellibus, “under
canvas” (Caes. B. G. iii. 29, &c.). The
pelliones (Plaut. Men. ii. 3, 54, 400), pelliarii
(Varro, L. L. viii. 55), and pellionarii were
important enough to form guilds, for a collegium
pellionariorium is mentioned in an inscription
(Reines. i. 283; Donat. p. 235, 2). These
craftsmen probably, even in early times, pre-
pared furs as well as goat-skins and sheep-skins.
The custom of using furs, both as rugs
(stragula pellicia, Dig. 34, 2, 25) and as articles
of dress (pelles indutoriae), though furriers' shops
are spoken of by Varro (L. L. viii. 55), did not
become customary until the time of the Empire,
when contact with fur-wearing peoples, such as
the Germans (cf. rheno, a German coat of rein-
deer skin afterwards adopted at Rome: Caes.
B. G. vi. 21) brought them in. They speedily
were recognised as ordinary articles of dress
(“vestis etenim ex pellibus constahit,” Dig. 34,
2; 23, § 3), and the growing demand for them
supported a lively trade at the factories in
Southern Russia (e. g. Tanais on the Don, Strab.
ii. p. 493), as well as in Cappadocia (Tot. Orbis
Descr. § 40). The importance of furs as an
article of commerce is shown by the Edict of
Diocletian, in which skins of oxen, goats, sheep,
lambs, deer, wild sheep, stags, martens, beavers,
bear, wolves, foxes, leopards, hyaenas, lions, and
seals are enumerated, as well as Morocco leather
of different kinds. Tanning, or at any rate the
careful dressing of skins, was known as early as
the Homeric age, when we find various kinds of
leather in use for harness, armour, and clothing.
Even in the case of skins used as bed-clothes it
was apparently the exception to have any not
tanned, for the 386/mros Boém on which Odysseus
slept (Od. xx. 2, 142) was used by poor folk.
Among the common people many doubtless,
like Eumaeus (Od. xiv. 34: cf. Hes. Op. 519),
made their own shoes and garments from raw
hide, dressing them roughly with oil to render
them soft. However, there were even at this
period professional workers in leather, such as
was Tychios, orkurorópov Špiotos (Il. vii. 322),
who made Ajax's shield. Shoe-making and
tanning seem to have been carried on by the
same man even in classical times (Aristoph. Eq.
314, 869; Theophr. Char. 16). [For the
process of tanning, see CORIARIUS.]
Literature.—Blümmer, Technologie, i.p.254 sq.;
Hermann-Blümner, Lehrbuch, iv. pp. 175–6;
Iwan Müller, Handbuch, iv. pp. 396,806, 880,
931; Albert Müller, Bühnenalterthümer, pp. 237,
250, 252; Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 260. f.;
Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 587; Keller, Thiere
des klass. Alterth. 1887. [W. C. F. A.]
PELO'RIA (TeAépta), a festival celebrated
by the Thessalians, which is compared to the
Roman Saturnalia. Its origin was traced to
the ancient Pelasgian times. Sacrifices were
offered to Zeus Pelorios; and to the splendid
banquets any strangers were admitted, prisoners
were set free, slaves enjoyed the greatest liberty
and were even waited upon by their masters.
(Athen. xiv. p. 639; cf. Panofka, Abhandl. der
Berlin. Akad. 1839, p. 35.) [L. S.]
PELTA (tréArm), a small shield. Iphicrates,
observing that the ancient CLIPEUs was cumbrous
and inconvenient, introduced among the Greeks
a much smaller and lighter shield, from which
those who bore it took the name of peltastac
[ExERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 776]. It consisted prin-
cipally of a frame of wood or wickerwork (Xen.
Anab. ii. 1, § 6), covered with skin or leather,
without the metallic rim. [ANTYx]. (Timaeus,
Lew. Plat. s. v.) Light and small shields of a
great variety of shapes were used by numerous
nations before the adoption of them by the
Greeks. The round target or cetra was a
species of the pelta, and was used especially by
the people of Spain and Mauretania. [CETRA.]
The pelta is also said to have been quadrangular
(Schol. in Thuc. ii. 29). A light shield of
similar construction was part of the national
armour of Thrace (Thuc. ii. 29; Eurip. Alces.
498, Rhes. 410; Max. Tyr. Diss. xix. 1, xxiii. 2)
and of various parts of Asia, and was on this
account attributed to the Amazons, in whose
hands it appears on the works of ancient art
sometimes elliptic, as in the bronzes of Siris
(woodcut, p. 79), and at other times variously
sinuated on the margin, but most commonly
364 PELTASTAE
PENTATHLON
with a semicircular indentation on one side
(“lunatis peltis,” Verg. Aen. i. 490, xi. 663).
Varro, L. L. vii. 43, compares this to the
uncile. [SALII.] A vase fragment in the
Peltae, from a vase in the British Museum.
British Museum (No. E 793) shows clearly
the form and construction of the lunata pelta ;
two Persians exhibit the two sides of the
shield. [W. S.] [A. H. S.]
PELTASTAE. [ExERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 776.]
PELVIS (troöavurthp), a vessel for washing
the feet. Thus much is clear from Varro's deri-
vation, “pedelvis a pedum lavatione * (L. L. v.
119), though etymologically the word should be
connected with tréAAus; to which Pollux (x. 78)
gives much the same meaning (see Lexicons, s. v.
TréAAa). It was sometimes of earthenware
(Schol. ad Juv. iii. 277), but probably more
often of bronze (Juv. x. 64); also of the more
costly Corinthian bronze (Orell. 3838; see AES,
p. 39): in Petron. 70 we find a silver pelvis;
but that is for holding ointment. The words
pelluvia and pelluvium are other names for the
same vessel (Fest. p. 161 ; Id. Ep. 207); but
the pollubrum was used either for hands or feet:
in Fest. p. 247 it = pelvis; in Livius And, and
Fabius Pict. (ap. Non. 544) it is used to express
the Greek x&pwill (or xepví8tov) and = trullewin,
a basin for washing the hands (Non. 547): no
doubt, like the Greek Aé8ms (Od. i. 137, xix. 386),
it might be used for either purpose. It must
be observed that in both cases the water was
ordinarily poured from the jug (ºrpáxovs, wroeo-
(us) over the feet or hands into the basin. As a
special name for the wash-hand basin, we have
the malluvium (Fest. p. 161) = xeipóvirtpov
(Poll. x. 90). The pelvis was also used for
washing up cups and dishes (Non. 544). As
regards the ordinary shape of the pelvis, we
may gather from the patulae pelves of Juv.
iii. 167 that it was wide and shallow. The
relief of the washing of Ulysses’ feet (Bau-
meister, Denkmäler, fig. 1257) shows a somewhat
deeper vessel. The malluvium in the Aldobrandini
marriage picture (ib. 946) is like a washing-
basin of the present day. (Becker-Göll, Gallus,
ii. 371 ; Mayor on Juv. x. 64.) [G. E. M.]
PENA"TES. See Dict. of Gr. and Rom.
Biogr. and Myth.
PENESTAE (revéara), Thessalian serfs.
The word is no doubt from the root of trévouai,
trévos, révns (Dionys. ii. 9; Curtius, Gr. Etym.
272), and we must reject the ancient derivation
quoted below. The Penestae of Thessaly were old
inhabitants of the land conquered and reduced
to villenage by the Thesprotians: according to
Theopompus, they were Perrhaebians and Mag-
netes (Athen. vi. p. 265); but Aristotle (Pol,
ii. 9, 3) distinguishes these tribes from the
Penestae, speaking of them rather as Perioeci
than as serfs. Others call them Pelasgi, or, in
other words, regarded them as the primitive
indigenous people of Thessaly; while Arche-
machus (ap. Athen. vi. p. 264) gives the following
account of them :—“The Aeolian Boeotians who
did not emigrate when their country Thessaly
was conquered (compare Thuc. i. 12), but from
love of home surrendered themselves to serve the
victors, on condition that they should not be
carried out of the country (whence, he adds,
they were formerly called Mevéarat, but after-
wards IIevéarrat), nor be put to death, but should
cultivate the land for the new owners of the
soil, paying by way of rent a portion of the
produce of it; and many of them are richer
than their masters.” It appears, then, that they
occupied an intermediate position between
purchased slaves and freemen, being reduced to
serfdom by conquest, and they are generally
conceived to have stood in the same relation to
their Thessalian lords as the Helots did to the
Spartiatae; but this is not exactly the case, for
they were apparently not, like the Helots, serfs
of the state, but belonged each to some family
for whom the personal service was performed,
for which reason they were sometimes called
©eTraxoukétat (Athen. vi. p. 264 a). They were
very numerous, for instance, in the families of the
Aleuadae and Scopadae (Theoc. xvi. 35 ; Müller,
Dor. iii. 4, § 6), but they were not only tillers
of the soil; they formed the retainers of these
great families, and served under their masters
as cavalry: a body of 300 Penestae under
Menon of Pharsalus assisted the Athenians in
the Peloponnesian war (Dem. c. Arist. p. 687,
§ 199; [Dem.] trepl Xuvrač. p. 173, § 23).
They resembled the Helots, however, in the fact
that they often rose against their masters
(Arist. Pol. l. c.). (See also Grote, Hist. of
Greece, ii. pp. 373–376; Gilbert, Staatsalterthii-
mer, ii. 16 f.) [R. W.] [G. E. M.]
PENICILLUS. TPICTURA.
PENTACOSIOMEDIMNI. [CENSUs, Wol.
I. p. 403.]
PENTADORON. [LATER.]
rºstarrents (revraermpts).
PIA.
PENTALITHUS. [TALUs.]
PENTASPASTON. [MACHINAE, p. 108.]
PENTATHLON (trévraðAov, quinquertium).
The pentathlon was one of the competitive
games of the great festivals of Hellas, in which,
as the name denotes, the competitors entered
for a group of five contests. These five were
leaping (#Apia), the foot-race (8péuos), throwing
the quoit (6ſorkos), throwing the spear (&rww or
ākóvrtov), and wrestling (tréAm). They are in-
cluded in the compact and convenient penta-
meter of Simonides:
[OLYM-
&Auo, Troödokeimv, Storkov, Škovra, tróAmv.
And Eustathius, commenting on Hom. I. xxiii.
621, quotes the following distich :—
ăAua močºv 8torkov re BoAn kai äkovros épon
Kai Spópos #8& TráAm, wig 8" &m Aero traort teNeutſi-
In these lines the contests are placed in a
slightly different order, the foot-race being last

PENTATHLON
PENTATHLON 365
but one, instead of second. This is also the
order given by the Scholiasts on Pindar (ad
Isthm. i. 35) and on Sophocles (ad Elect. 691),
who are not trammelled by metre. We may
therefore, and for other reasons to be touched
on later, suppose this order to be the right one.
Of these five contests the 6takos, Spóuos, and
tréAm are described elsewhere (see DISCUS,
STADIUM, and LUCTA). The leaping (āAua)
was what we call “the long jump,” measured by
distance on the ground, and not by height. The
jumper habitually aided himself by holding in
his hands &Atàpes, weights of metal or stone,
something like our dumb-bells (see art. HAL-
TERES), which he dropped when he took off,
thereby gaining additional impetus. But even
if we take these áAråpes into account, and even
imagine the further assistance of a spring-board
(for which there is no authority), we can never
feel absolutely satisfied as to the enormous
leaps mentioned by Greek writers. The greatest
is that attributed to Phayllus of Kroton, who is
said to have cleared a distance of fifty-five feet.
The Scholiast on Lucian (ad Somn. s. Gall. 6)
writes: röv trpo airoi, orkarrávrov v' tróðas kal
Totºrovs trmöövrov, 6 $4i/AAos ūrºp rows v' révv
éráðmorev. Among modern athletes the longest
jumps recorded scarcely attain to even half this
distance (the Hellenic foot differing little from
ours: see MENSURA), without the use of arti-
ficial aid. With the assistance of weights
(àAripes), a leap of 29 ft. 7 in. was made at
Chester in 1854. We are almost driven to
think that the āApſa must have been rather a
succession of bounds than a single one—possibly
such a contest as that known in modern sports
as “the hop, step, and jump,” where each foot
touches the ground once between taking off and
alighting finally. The best “hop, step, and
jump” on record is 49 ft. 3 in., which closely
approaches the feat of Phayllus.* But this is
of course a purely conjectural inference, and a
somewhat bold one, though not without con-
siderable plausibility.
In the passage quoted above from the
Scholiast on Lucian the word orkarrávrov will
be observed. So Pindar (Nem. v. 19, ed. Boeckh)
writes:
Pakpá plot
&n airó9ev #Awaé inookám rot ris' éxo yovárov ćAaſhpov
§puáv.
It will hardly do to say with the Scholiast on this
passage that t& éakaupuéva are the scratches on
the ground marking the length of the other
competitors' leaps, for it would seem that they
are to be made before the leaps are taken—as
indeed the words of the Scholiast on Lucian
imply: tá čokaupéva, then, were probably a
space of broken-up soil prepared in order to
break the shock of alighting, besides giving the
jumpers a mark to jump towards, and facili-
tating the after-measurement of the distance
cleared.
The ākóvriov, a spear or javelin, was probably
thrown at a mark, but definite details of this
* This suggestion was made to the writer of this
article by Mr. J. B. Martin, then President of the
London Athletic Club. According to a recent traveller,
the “hop, step, and jump" is practised by modern
Greek youths.
contest are wanting. In vase representations
the weapon is thrown by a thong (see figure in
article HASTA), which gave it a rotatory motion
and thus increased the steadiness of its flight,
on the principle of our rifled guns.
There remains the perplexing question of how
the total competition of the pentathlon was
regulated and decided ; and with this is con-
nected the question, already touched on, of the
order of the five distinct but component events.
We may say with some confidence that the
order was that accepted above, viz. leaping,
throwing the quoit, throwing the spear, the foot-
race, wrestling. . This order is supported not
only by the authority of Eustathius and the
Scholiasts already quoted, but also by the follow-
ing most important passage in an ode of Pindar
(Nem. vii. 70–73), written in honour of a boy
who had won the prize in this competition at
the Nemean Games. The passage contains,
according to a habit of Pindar's, a simile allusive
to the victory celebrated. He writes:
âtropºvića,
pºſſ tépua trpośās ākov6’ &re XaXkomépaov Šparat
60āv ya&ororav, Ös éééreºſev traXavouárov
avXéva kai abévos &ötavrov, atóove trpiv &Atº yuſov
éputreasiv.
(“I swear that without overstepping the bound
I have sent forth the swift speech of my tongue
as it were a bronze-headed javelin, such as
saveth from the wrestling the strong neck
sweatless yet, or ever the limbs be plunged in
the sun's fire.”) This seems plainly to imply
that if a competitor proved himself the best man
in the three first contests he was then exempt
from contending in the two last (which would
also naturally be the most exhausting of the
five). Of two matched competitors, therefore,
the winner was the one who “scored the odd
event.” This leads to the further conclusion
that at the beginning the competitors were
drawn in ties—A against B, C against D, E
against F, and so on. Then suppose A, C, and
E each to have won three out of five contests in
their respective matches; these winners would
be drawn again. Suppose A to be drawn
against C; then E would be an éqeópos, or bye,
and would be matched with either A or C for
the final heat (or rāšis). This is illustrated by
the story in Pausanias (iii. 2, 6) of Tisamenos, a
descendant of the Eleian seer Iamos, who settled
among the Lacedaemonians. Misinterpreting an
oracle which promised him success “in five
glorious contests,” he thought himself destined
to win the pentathlon, and trained and entered
for it accordingly, but átāA6ev irrméeſs. Katrol
tà Sào ye iv trpátos' Kal yèp opówº te ékpáret
kai trnöhuari Iepióvvuov "Avôptov, kararaxal-
0.6els ö, ür' airoi, kal épapt&v Tijs víkms—he came
to understand that the oracle had foretold his
success not in games, but in battles. Here it is
implied, though Pausanias thinks it needless to
say, that though Tisamenos won in the leap and
the foot-race, he was beaten in the two throw-
ing competitions, and therefore lost the total
match by being finally beaten also in the
wrestling (kataraxatorêets).
Of course, if there were many entries for the
pentathlon, the labour for the best competitors
would be very great, and also the successive ties
would take a long time. Probably, however,
366 PENTECOSTE
PER CONDICTIONEM
the first consideration would make the field
small, and the second accounts for the fact that
in the Olympian games three Hellanodikai were
appointed to judge in the pentathlon. Thus
three matches could be going on at once.
The pentathlon was highly esteemed in Hellas
for its influence on both health and comeliness,
as promoting a completer development of the
body than any of the single contests; and it
was in especial favour among the Spartans, who
disapproved the injuries and disfigurements
incidental to boxing and the pancration. [A full
and able discussion of most of the points here
touched on will be found in an article by Prof.
P. Gardner in the Journal of Hellenic Studies,
vol. i. p. 210. Some further remarks by the
writer of the present article occur in the next
volume of the Journal, vol. ii. p. 217. For
explanations differing from those here given, see
A. Holwerda's Zum Pentathlon (Archaeol.
Zeitung, 1881, p. 206); and Fedde's Der Fünf-
kampf der Hellen. may be consulted.] [E. M.]
PENTECOSTE (trevrmkoorth), a customs-
duty of 2 per cent. levied probably upon all
exports and imports at Athens (Harpoc. s. v.).
It is known to have been levied on woollen cloth
and other manufactured goods (Demosth. Meid.
p. 558, § 133), on ruddle (C. I. A. 2, 546=
Hicks, No. 108), on cattle (C. I. A. 2, 814 a,
A 39 = Dittenberger, No. 70; Hicks, No. 82),
and on corn [Demosth.] Neaer. p. 1353, § 27.
Corn, however, could only be imported, ex-
portation being prohibited (Plut. Solon, 24).
On imports the duty was payable on the un-
loading (Demosth. Lacrit. p. 932, § 29); on
exports, probably when the goods were shipped.
In paying the duty the merchant was said trevrm-
kovrećea 6at (Demosth. l. c.). The customs were
farmed out, probably from year to year. They
were let to the highest bidders by the troxmrat
[POLETAE] acting under the authority of the
senate. The farmers were called texãval
[TELONES], and were said &veforéal rºw revrm-
rootiv. The chairman or principal of a com-
pany of TeXàval was called åpx6vms (Andoc.
17. Boeckh, Staatshawshaltung, is apparently
wrong in Bk. iii. 6 about the &pxévms ris
trevrmkooths in this passage of Andocides; the
Trevtmkooth meant must be the import-duty, as
Bk. iii. 4 takes it). Whether the customs on
different articles of merchandise were farmed
together or separately does not appear. The
corn-duty, at least, was kept distinct ([Demosth.]
Neaer. l.c.). But Andocides speaks (p. 17) as if
all the revtmkoort) was farmed at once. The
collectors of the duty (trevrmkoortoxgyo) kept
books, to entries in which (&toypaqf) Demo-
sthenes appeals (Phorm. p. 909, § 7). For
calculations as to the amount of revenue derived
at Athens from this source, or in Macedonia,
Thrace, or Rhodes, the reader may consult
Boeckh, vol. i. pp. 384–7. Pollux (viii. 132)
appears to identify the revrmkoorth with a
charge called the éAAtgeviov; but it is more
probable that the latter was merely a duty
paid for the use of the harbour. Another tax
at the Piraeus was the ékatoath, or 1 per cent.
(cf. Xen. Rep. Ath. i. 17), but it is impossible
to discover what the tax was. It may have
been identical with the éAAprévuov, but there is
no proof. For the speculations on its nature of
Boeckh and of his editor Fränkel, see the Staats-
**
haushaltung, edit. 3, vol. i. p. 390, and vol. ii.
p. 77*. Aristophanes (Vespae, 658) mentions
many taxes of 1 per cent. Smuggling was
practised in Attica at the papóv Alpív (Demosth.
Lacr. p. 932, § 28): see Dict. Geog. i. 325 b.
[ELLIMENION ; TELONES.]
Nothing seems to be known of customs-duties
imposed by the Athenians by land. . . [F. T. R.]
PENTECOSTYS (tevrmkooris). [ExER-
CITUS, Vol. I. p. 769 a.]
PEPLUS. TPALLIUM.
PER CONDICTIO'NEM. This form of
statute process (legis actio), says Gaius (iv. 18),
was so called because the plaintiff gave notice to
the defendant to be present in court on the
thirtieth day after the notice, in order that a
judex might be appointed (“condicere autem
denuntiare est prisca lingua:” compare Gell.
x. 24; Paul. ex Festo, s. v. condicere; Bruns,
p. 239). It was a form of personal action, that
is, an action founded on an obligation between
the parties to it, and applicable in those cases in
which the plaintiff claimed that the defendant
was bound to trausfer to him ownership of a
thing (qua intendit dari oportere). This legis
actio was introduced by a Lex Silia, the date of
which is uncertain (according to Voigt it was
between 325 and 329 A.U.C.; see on this subject
Muirhead’s Intr. 1, § 40, n. 3), in the case of a
money debt, and by a Lex Calpurnia, the date of
which is also uncertain, in the case of any other
definite thing (certa res). Gaius, who wrote
long after the legis actio had ceased to be the
ordinary procedure, observes that it does not
appear why this form of action was needed, for
in the case of an obligation to transfer (dari
oportere) there were the forms of action by
sacramentum and per judicis postulationem.
The best conjectural explanation of this difficulty
seems to be that the judicis postulatio was only
applicable to particular obligations defined by
statute, and was not, like the legis actio per
condictionem, a general action for the recovery
of a debt, and that the process of condictio was
less formal and more convenient to suitors than
that by sacramentum.
According to Keller (Civ. Proc. 2, § 18, ed.
Wach) and some other modern writers (cf.
Eisele, Except. p. 158; Bekker, Act. 1, 75), the
notice in condictio was an informal proceeding
executed out of court, the parties being thus
saved the preliminary appearance before the
magistrate, and the necessity of using solemnia
verba. But that the notice did not require the
presence of the magistrate seems improbable,
considering the formal character of the legis
actio, and the statement of Gaius (iv. 29) that in
all legis actiones except pignoris capio, the pro-
ceedings took place “apud praetorem praesente
adversario’’ (for other reasons, see Keller, op.
cit., note by Wach). The denuntiatio would,
however, be a summary proceeding; and when
the parties reappeared on the thirtieth day to
receive a judex, the plaintiff would simply state
that he claimed certa pecunia or certa res from
the defendant without giving the ground of his
claim at this stage, and thus the action would
be allowed, not only on account of money lent
(pecunia credita), but in all cases where the
property of the defendant had been unjustifiably
increased at the expense of the plaintiff (see
Baron, Die Condictionem, and Muirhead, Intr
PER JUDICIS POSTULATIONEM
p. 234). But it was necessary that certa
pecunia or certa res should be claimed, and thus
the plaintiff ran the risk of plus petitio. [ACTIO,
Vol. I. p. 19.]
A party to condictio escaped the liability of
having to pay a summa sacramenti to the
magistratus [SACRAMENTUM); but it seems
probable that a sponsio and restipulatio, a kind
of judicial wager, had to be entered by the
parties when they came to receive a judex, at
least in the case of pecunia credita; the sum
staked was a third part of the object of conten-
tion. Sir Henry Maine (Early Inst. Lecture
ix.) regards the sponsio and restipulatio as
the essential feature of condictio, and the
sponsio and restipulatio as a means adopted by
litigants of settling disputes, instead of having
recourse to violence. According to his view of
the condictio, the wager was entered into by the
parties immediately on notice being given, and
not, as is generally supposed, on the appearance
of the parties before the magistrate to receive a
judex. The action called condictio under the
formulary procedure developed out of the legis
actio per condictionem, but the notice whence
the legis actio took its name was discontinued.
The condictio was either an actio de certa
pecunia with a sponsio tertiae partis, or an actio
de certa re, called condictio triticaria, an ex-
pression probably in use in the legis actio
period, or, which was an extension of the action,
condictio incerti, i.e. where the obligation was
not in respect of certa pecunia or certa res.
The condictio was the ordinary personal action
when the formulary system was established, and
was considered in later times as the typical
actio in personam. As actio stricti juris,
condictio was opposed to actio bonae fidei.
(Keller, Der röm. Civilprocess, ed. by Wach;
Bethmann-Hollweg, Der röm. Civilprocess;
Karlowa, Der röm. Civilprocess zur Zeit d.
Legis actiones; Baron, Die Condictionem ; Muir-
head, Introduction to the Private Law of Rome,
§§ 40, 41.) [E. A. W.]
PER JU’DICIS POSTULATIO'NEM was
one of the legis actiones. The passage in Gaius
(iv. 17) is wanting in which this form of action
is described, and the only direct reference to it
is the following note of Valerius Probus (iv.
8):—“T. PR. I. A. W. P. V. D.; ” that is—te,
praetor, judicem arbitrumve postulo uti des; I
pray you, praetor, to appoint an arbiter or
judge (for the technical meaning of postulare,
See art. ACTIO). The procedure probably
derived its name from the fact that when the
parties to it first appeared before the praetor
they might request the immediate appointment
of a judex, instead of having to wait till the
thirtieth day for such appointment, as the Lex
Pinaria required in the process of sacramentum
(Gaius, iv. 15), and the Lex Silia in that of per
condictionem (Gaius, iv. 18).
Judicis postulatio must have been used in
actions under the Twelve Tables to which sacra-
mentum was inapplicable, as would be the case
in arbitria as opposed to judicia, e.g. actio
familiae erciscundae, de arboribus succisis, actio
fiduciae. We may infer, however, from a
remark of Gaius (iv. 20) that it was to some
extent an alternative proceeding to the actio
sacramenti in personam. Its application was,
perhaps, limited by statute to certain cases of
PER PIGNORIS CAPIONEM 367
contract and delict. [PER CONDICTIONEM.]
(Keller, Der röm. Civilprocess, $17; Bethmann-
Hollweg, Der röm. Civilprocess, i. p. 62;
Bekker, Die Aktionen, &c. i. pp. 18–74; Karlowa,
Der röm. Civilprocess zur Zeit. d. Legis Actiones;
Schmidt, in Zeitsch. der Sav. Stift. 2, 155, &c.;
Voigt, Zwölf Taf. 1, § 62; Muirhead, Intr. to
Private Roman Law, § 35.) [E. A. W.]
PER PI'GNORIS CAPIO'NEM. This legis
actio, or form of statute process, was a legal
mode of self-redress, by which certain privi-
leged creditors could distrain on the property of
their debtors who were in default. The obliga-
tions mentioned by Gaius (iv. 27, 28) as being
enforceable in this way, were of a religious or
public character, and probably did not give rise
to any civil action (for a Greek parallel to
pignoris capio, see Plato, Legg. xii. p. 54; Poste’s
Gaius, iv. §§ 26–29, comm.).
Pignoris capio, Gaius says, depended in some
cases on custom (moribus), and in others on
statute (lege). I. It was founded on custom in
obligations relating to military service. A
soldier might seize as a pledge (pignus capere)
anything belonging to his paymaster or person
who had to furnish the aes militare (qui stipen-
dium distribuebat), in case he did not make the
proper payments (Gell. vii. 10; cf. Bruns,
Cession, p. 36; Karlowa, Der Civilproc. p. 208 f.;
Huschke, Multa, 401 f.): he might also make a
seizure in respect of the money due to him for
the purchase of a horse (aes equestre) (Fest. s. v.
Equestre; Liv. i. 43; Cic. Rep. ii. 20, 36), and
also in respect of the allowance for the food of
his horse (aes hordearium, Fest. s. v. Hordearium)
upon what belonged to the person whose duty it
was to make the payment. Originally such
payments were fixed upon particular persons,
and not made out of the aerarium (Liv. i. 43;
Gaius, iv. 27).
2. The law of the Twelve Tables made liable
to pignoris capio, on default of payment, the
buyer of a victim (hostia), and the hirer of a
beast of burden, when the hire money was
intended for a sacrifice (in dapem) (Huschke,
Multa, p. 402). By a lex censoria the publicani
had the right pignoris capionis in respect of
vectigalia publica which were due by any lex.
(Cic. Verr. iii. 11, 28; cf. Degerkolb, Lex.
Bieronica, 93; Karlowa, 212, &c.)
Some modern writers think that pignoris
capio was also the process in the case of damnum
infectum (Gaius, iv. 31 ; Bethmann-Hollweg, i.
204, Anm. 13; Karlowa, p. 216). The thing
was seized with certain formal words (as to the
importance of the formalities by which the
right of distraint had to be carried out and the
wide extent of distress in primitive law, see
Maine's Early Inst. Lecture ix.), and for this
reason pignoris capio was generally considered
to be a legis actio; but Gaius adds, that some
doubted whether it was so, since it was per-
formed out of court (“extra jus id est mon
apud praetorem ’’), and in most cases in the
absence of the debtor, and moreover it could
take place on a dies nefastus, or day on which
a legis actio could not be carried on. º
Thus the distress itself was not an action in
the ordinary sense, but a kind of self-redress; it
must, however, have very frequently given rise
to an action in court, where the right to distrain
was disputed. Ihering even suggests that the
368 PERA
PERGULA.
•ºr
distrainer was bound in all cases to justify his
proceeding before the praetor. . Thus it is
possible that this subsequent action in court
may have been the actual legis actio per
pignoris capionem, and not the preliminary
distress.
There is no statement in Gaius or elsewhere
as to the rights of the distrainer in the thing he
had taken as a pledge. Most modern writers
suppose that if the debtor did not redeem the
pignus (relueré) within two months (Dig. 42, 1,
31) it became the property of the distrainer, or
that the latter had the right to sell it (caedere
pignus, Cic. de Or. iii. 1, 4 ; Tib. iv. 13, 17).
This right of distress came to an end with the
abolition of the legis actio procedure. The
pignus in causa judicati captum of later times
was a means of execution carried out by officials
under an order of the court. (Gaius, iv.
§§ 26–29, 32; Keller, Der röm. Civilprocess,
§ 20; Bethmann-Hollweg, vol. i. 95; Karlowa,
JDer röm. Civilprocess, 201, &c.; Bekker, Akt.
1, 44; Voigt, Zwölf Taf, i. 502; Ihering, Geist.
d. r. R. 1, § 11 c ; Muirhead, Introduction,
&c. § 37.) [E. A. W.]
PERA (tripa), a wallet for carrying provi-
sions and a drinking cup, worn either slung over
the shoulder and under one arm, or hanging
from a belt. It was used by travellers and
country-folk (Hom. Od. xiii. 437, xvii. 197, &c.),
and was part of a beggar's outfit (part of
the garb of Telephus, Arist. Nub. 923). In
later Greek times it was adopted, along with
the beggar's staff (8aktmpta) and rags, as their
professional costume by the Cynics (Mart. iv. 53,
3, “cum baculo peraque senex: ” cf. Diog.
Laert. vi. 13; Brunck, Analect. i. 223, ii. 22, 28 ;
Auson. Epig. 53). A similar wallet was worn
by the sower, who slung it over his right
shoulder and under his left arm (Brunck, Anal.
ii. 215); though a basket (cophinus) hanging
from the left arm (cf. vase of Nikosthenes in
Berlin Museum : Blümner, Leben wrºd Sitten, iii.
p. 150) was used for this as well as the other
purposes which the wallet served.
In art the pera is most often seen in repre-
sentations of Perseus slaying the Gorgon (cf.
British Museum Wases, Nos. 548 and 641*). The
wallet he wears was given him by the daughters
of Phorcys, and is called by Hesiod (Scut. 224),
Pindar, and other authors kiguous, meaning, ac-
cording to Apollodorus (Biblioth. ii. 4, 2, 4),
Tripa : the word being explained as Cypriote by
Hesychius. W. C. F. A.]
PERDUELLIO. [MAJESTAs, p. 114.]
PERDUELLIO'NIS DUOVIRI (or, as
Mommsen shows, more correctly called duoviri
perduellioni judicandae) were two officers or
judges appointed for the purpose of trying
persons who were accused of the crime of
perduellio. Niebuhr held that they were the
same as the quaestores parricidii; but this view
is undoubtedly erroneous, arising from the mis-
taken view that the latter term was the title for
an office distinct from the ordinary quaestorship,
whereas it was really only the full official title
of that magistracy (Mommsen. Staatsr. ii. 525).
But while the quaestores were elected annually,
the duoviri perduellionis were appointed only for
a special occasion. We have very little infor-
mation as to the duoviral process: only three
cases of its employment are recorded; and there
are difficulties attaching to all of them. In the
first, the trial of P. Horatius under Tullius
Hostilius (Liv. i. 26), while Livy expressly
mentions the nomination of duo viri by the king,
the account given from Ulpian in the Digest
(i.13) assumes that they were quaestors, named
by him after a vote of the people; while Festus,
S. v. sororium, p. 297 M., agrees with Livy. In
the second, that of M. Manlius, in B.C. 384,
Livy (vi. 20), while describing it as a prosecution
by the tribunes before a concilium plebis, adds,
“sunt qui per duoviros qui de perduellione
anquirerent creatos auctores sint damnatum.”
Lange (i. 278) proposes to reconcile the accounts,
by supposing that the tribunes were elected to
prosecute. Mommsen (Hermes, v. 253) assumes
that Livy’s second alternative rests on the older
tradition. In the third case, the prosecution of
C. Rabirius in B.C. 63 for the murder of
Saturninus, thirty-six years before, we have an
attempt to revive a long-disused procedure, in
the interests of the democratic party, led by
Caesar. Other cases of perduellio were con-
ducted by tribunes or quaestors, but it is not
expressly mentioned that they acted as duo viri.
Whether duo viri were appointed, appears to
have been determined in each instance by a
special resolution of the people (Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 599). Sometimes they were elected
by the people (cf. Dio Cass. xxxvii. 27); but in
the case of Rabirius the praetor appointed two
taken by lot, but from what body we are not
told, doubtless by the direction of the law
specially enacted (Cic. pro Rab. perd. reo, 4, 12).
The duo viri received a commission to try the
case of perduellio, and to pass sentence if they
found the prisoner guilty: both Livy, and still
more strangely Cicero, seem to think that this
commission assumed the guilt of the accused,
and excluded the possibility of an acquittal,—an
impossible view. But the sentence passed was
liable to an appeal to the people, and in this case
the duo viri appeared to support their decision,
viz. virtually to act as prosecutors.
Trials for perduellio, if not previously obso-
lescent, as Mommsen thinks, in consequence of
the growing practice of the tribunes to impeach
before the centuries, certainly became quite
obsolete after the more convenient quaestio
perpetua dealt with offences of the same nature,
under the more precise definition of majestas.
But the term perduellio is found even in the
Digest, though as a loose expression for the
more serious kinds of majestas. (Cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 598 ft. ; Clark, Early Roman Law,
§ 12, and especially Cicero's oration pro Gaio
Rabirio perduellionis reo, with Heitland’s intro-
duction and notes.) [A. S. W.]
PEREGRI'NUS. [CiviTAs, Vol. I. p. 449.]
PE’RGULA was a kind of annexe to a house,
whether at the top or the side. We find it
therefore resembling (1) our verandah, roofed
but open at the sides: hence used as a painter's
studio (Plin. H. N. xxxv. § 84; Lactant. i. 22,
13; Cod. Theod. xiii. 4, 4). Being not very
different from a taberna, or booth, it was also
used to express the same things, viz.: a shop for
selling wares (Auson. Epist. iv. 6) and a school
(Juv. xi. 137; Suet. de Gram. 18), both being
in open sheds or verandahs; and so we find
“magistrales pergulae " (Vopisc. Saturn. 10).
But (2) the pergula was also raised above the
PERLAOTOS
PERIOECI 369
ground-floor, like a covered balcony, resting on
the top of the tabernae (“tabernae cum pergulis
suis,” C. I. L. iv. 138; or quite on the top of
the house, not as an upper room, but an erection
with roof and open sides on the house-top, and
used for painting (Tertull. adv. Valent. 7; Dig.
9, 3, 8, § 12), or as an observatory where
astrologers taught (Suet. Aug. 94). (3) An
arbour or trellised walk with open ends (Plin.
H. N. xiv. § 11, xix. § 69; Colum. iv. 21);
whence the modern Italian pergola. This sense
is illustrated by the word pergulana (a vine
trained over a trellis; Colum. iii. 2.) (4)=the
cella lupanaria, partly open to the street (Plaut.
pseud. i. 2, 78). All these uses probably came
from pergo, in the sense of something continued
or projecting forward from the main building.
(Marquardt, Privatl. 93.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PERIACTOS. [THEATRUM.]
PERIDEIPNON. [FUNUs.]
PERIDROMIDES. [Xystus.]
PERIMERI’DIA, or PARAMERI’DIA
(treptºmpiöta, Arrian. Tact. 4; trapaumptôua more
usually), armour for the thighs, cuisses. These
articles of armour, though not in common use
in the ordinary Greek panoply, are shown
sufficiently often on the monuments as occa-
sionally employed by Greek warriors at least as
far back as the fifth century B.C.
illustrations
The accom-
panying show what may be
IIapapunpötov. (From a vase in British Museum.)
gathered as to their general form. They seem
to have been adapted to the shape of the thigh,
clasping it round in the same way as the greave
clasped the leg. The lower edge is in some
cases curved out in such a way as to allow
room for that part of the greave which pro-
tected the knee (see fig. 1). Like the greave,
too, the parameridia seem to have been con-
structed of metal, as is probable both from the
character of the decorations traced upon them
in the vase pictures, and also from the fact that
they are usually there coloured like the greave.
In the British Museum is a bronze object which
from its form would be adapted to the parame-
WOL. II.
ridion, and may have been actually intended for
this purpose.
For instances of its occurrence in vase-paint-
ings, see Brit. Mus, Cat. of Vases, Nos. 473, 557,
591, 608; vase in Brit. Mus. B 50; Gerhard.
Aus. Vas. ii. pl. cxxii.; Mon. Ined. vi. 78; and
Mus. Greg. ii. liii.
IIapapºmpiölov. (From Mus. Greg.)
All these instances occur upon black-figured
vases; at present no illustration of these
weapons is known in art later than the fifth
century B.C. In Greek writers, however, of
the third century B.C. and downwards, they are
frequently mentioned, but here almost exclu-
sively as employed by cavalry, both for the
rider and his horse. Xenophon (Anab. i. 8, 6)
describes the armour of the 600 horsemen with
Cyrus as consisting of thorax, parameridia, and
helmet. The same writer (de Re Eq. 12, 8 and
10) speaks of them as among the necessary
equipment of a cavalry, soldier: cf. especially
Id. Cyr. Inst. vii. 1, 2, where they are described
as of bronze, alike for horses and riders; and
Arrian, Tact. 4, where the riders have trepipin-
píðia, the horses trapatraeuptbia. For parameridia
as part of the protective armour of the horse
in action, see also Xen. de Re Eq. 12, 8, and
Pollux, i. 140. Xenophon (Cyr. Inst. vi. 4)
makes a further distinction of trapatraeupíðua for
horses driven in chariots and trapaumpföta for
those ridden by the cavalry. [C. S.
PERIOECI (repfolkoi). This word primarily
denotes the inhabitants of a district lying around
some particular locality, but is generally used
to describe a dependent population, living with-
out the walls or in the country provinces of a
dominant city, and, although personally free,
deprived of the enjoyment of citizenship and the
political rights conferred by it. The words
orêvoukoi and uéroukou are in some degree ana-
logous; like treptoirot, they imply co-residence
with a population of higher position and gene-
rally of different nationality. Of the three
words, however, uéroucou, meaning “resident
aliens,” has the most definite connotation
attached to it, while orivolkot is the most inde-
terminate [METOECI]. It was probably from
the Spartan use of the term Perioed that the
ad B


370 PERIOECI
PERIOECI
notion of “subject population” became so closely
attached to it. We have no evidence to show
that this word was employed by any other state
than Sparta to denote its local dependencies, a
great deal to show that it was not. But the
Lacedaemonian system of Perioeci was so much
the most marked in Greece, that writers often
translated the titles given to other subject
populations into this Lacedaemonian nomen-
clature.
A political condition such as that of the
Perioeci of Greece, in some measure resembling
the vassalage of the Germanic nations, could
hardly have originated in anything else than
foreign conquest; and the Perioeci of Laconia
furnish a striking illustration of this. The
question of their origin as a subject population
is intimately connected with the question of
their nationality; and as the two main accounts
of the origin of the Perioeci which have come
down to us, that of Ephorus and that of Iso-
crates, differ both in the description of the
causes of their subjection and in the statements
as to their original nationality, we must be
content to accept the modified conclusions
which scholars have supposed may be drawn
from such accounts, from other chance notices,
and from the probabilities of the case. Ephorus
(ap. Strab. viii. p. 364) states that they were
the original Achaean inhabitants of the terri-
tory, which the Lacedaemonian branch of the
Dorians had invaded; that, during the first
generation which followed on the invasion, they
not only remained possessed of all private rights,
but even shared the political franchise of the
invaders.
these political privileges were taken from them;
they were made into a dependent population,
and even forced to pay tribute to the dominant
Dorians. Isocrates (Panath. § 177) draws no
such distinction of race between the Spartans
and the Perioeci. On the contrary; he repre-
sents the Perioeci as in their origin the 67 pios
of the Spartan state, which, expelled after a
period of ordaris, was reduced to the grade of a
subject population by the victorious oligarchy,
and scattered through the many small town-
ships of Laconia. These accounts agree in re-
presenting the condition of the Perioeci as
having been originally better than it was in
historic times. The different accounts of their
nationality also give us a clue to the fact, which
Grote has so strongly insisted on, that in
historic times there was no recognisable differ-
ence between the nationality of the Perioeci
and that of the Spartans themselves. The
suggestion, however, that the Perioecic popu-
lation was in a large degree tinged with the old
Achaean element is more than probable; and
perhaps the safest theory to accept as to
the origin of this people is that stated by
E. Curtius in his History of Greece (bk, ii.
ch. 1); namely, that, on the first Dorian immi-
gration into Laconia, the Dorians mingled with
the original Achaean populations, with whom
they continued to live for some time, the original
Hexapolis which they established in Laconia not
being peculiarly Dorian. The second stage of
Dorian history is marked by two of the ruling
families (the originators of the double Spartan
kingship) “succeeding in gaining over to their
side the central body of the Dorian people, in
In the next generation, however,
eliminating it from its intermixture with the
rest of the population, collecting its scattered
elements at one point, and, supported by the
power of the Dorians, establishing this point as
the centre of the district and the seat of their
government” (Curtius, l. c.). With this re-
action to pure Dorism the Perioeci originate, and
their nationality would thus be a mixed one,
their civilisation in particular being affected
by the strongly impressive character of Dorian
life, precisely in the way in which Herodotus
tells us that the original population of Cynuria,
which was Ionian, had been “Dorised by the
Argives and by time” (Herod. viii. 73). The
Perioeci of Laconia in historical times were of
still more varied nationality than this mixture
of race implies. Amongst them we must class
the Cynurians, and possibly the Sciritae, the
inhabitants of the mountainous country of South
Arcadia (Hesych. s. v. Gricetpa: Arnold, in Thuc.
v. 67); and, although the latter are sometimes
called a ſupwaxoi of the Spartans, and thus dis-
tinguished from the Perioeci, perhaps they were
only distinguishable from the main body of the
Perioecic population as a higher from a lower
grade, and would have been included in the
widest meaning of this term, which is a de-
pendent population, not sharing in the political
rights of the state on which it is dependent.
After this reduction of the larger part of the
population of Laconia from freedom to partial
dependence on the central state, we are told
that it was forced to pay tribute to Sparta
(Ephorus, ap. Strab. l. c., avvrexel v Tà Xtréprim).
Of the nature of this tribute we know nothing :
but a reference of Aristotle's to the eio popal or
property taxes of the Spartans, which, though
understood to exist, were not paid by the pure
Spartans themselves, has been interpreted as
meaning that the tax which the Perioeci paid
was merely of this nature, a land tax to the
state, also understood as affecting the Spartans
but evaded by them, and not therefore a tribute
paid in token of subservience by a dependent
population (Arist. Pol. ii. 6, 23). Sir G. C.
Lewis, on the other hand, held that this tax was
based on the theory of territorial sovereignty;
that the land was supposed to belong to the
Spartans by right of conquest; and that the
Perioeci paid a revenue to them for the right of
possessio (Phil. Mus. vol. ii.). Other tokens of
dependence were the absence of all civic privi-
leges in the central state, and the fact that no
jus conubii existed between them and Spartan
citizens. So entirely were they regarded as
something external to the Spartan state, that it
is even said that the Ephors could put Perioeci
to death without trial (Isocr. Panath. § 181).
This is on the whole what we should expect
from the characteristic disregard of the Spartans
for rights other than civic, but the statement is
rendered improbable from the difficulty of
reconciling it with their general treatment of
this subject population. For it does not appear
that the Perioeci (especially in historic times)
were generally an oppressed people, though
kept in a state of political inferiority to their
conquerors. They served in the Spartan armies
as heavy-armed soldiers of the line, and not
like the helots, as light-armed only; while at
the battle of Plataea we find each of these
Perioecic hoplites furnished with an attendant
PERIOECI
PERIOECI 371
helot (Herod. viii. 61). Again, at Sphacteria
292 prisoners were taken, of whom 120 were
Spartans, and the rest in all probability trept-
oucou (Thuc. iv. 38). We also read of kaxoi.
acăyaôoſ, or “accomplished and well-born ‘’
gentlemen, amongst the Perioeci serving as
volunteers in the Spartan service (Xen. Hell. v.
3, 9). We occasionally find a Perioecus in high
command (Thuc. viii. 6), and on one occasion we
find one filling the responsible post of admiral,
so highly esteemed by Spartans as a source of
power during the closing years of the Pelopon-
nesian war (Id. viii. 22). But we never find a
Perioecus in command of a Spartan; in the
above case, for instance, in which the Perioecus
held a high naval command, the fleet he com-
manded was not a Spartan but an allied fleet
from Chios. But, in spite of these possibilities
of attaining to high position within their own
circle, it was not to be expected that men com-
petent to the discharge of high functions in a
state, and bearing its burdens, should patiently
submit to an exclusion from all political rights.
Accordingly we find that on the rising of the
Helots in B.C. 464, some of the Perioeci joined
them (Thuc. i. 101). When the Thebans
invaded Laconia (B.C. 369), the Perioeci were
ready to help them (Xen. Hell. vi. 5, 25). In
connexion with the insurrection of Cinadon we
are told that the Perioeci were most bitter
against the ruling Spartans (Id. iii. 3, 6). From
these and other facts (Clinton, F. H. Append.
22) it appears that the Perioeci of Laconia, if
not an oppressed, were sometimes a disaffected
and discontented class; though in cases of
strong excitement, or of general danger to the
whole of Greece, they identified themselves with
their conquerors. The very relation, indeed,
which subsisted between them, was sufficient to
produce in Sparta a jealousy of her subjects,
with corresponding feelings on their part. Nor
can we suppose that the Dorians would willingly
permit the Perioeci to acquire strength and
opulence, or even to settle in large towns. In
fact, it is stated by Isocrates (Panath. § 177)
that the Spartan Dorians intentionally weakened
the other inhabitants of Laconia by dispersing
them over a great number of hamlets (uukpot
Tótrol) which they called tróAets, though they
were less powerful than the country parishes of
Attica, and were situated in the most unpro-
ductive parts of Laconia, the best land of which
was reserved for the Spartans. This last state-
ment probably has some reference to the land
distribution of Laconia attributed to Lycurgus
(Plut. Lyc, 8). The 30,000 allotments which,
we are told, were made to the Perioeci, are prob-
ably as mythical as the 9,000 equal allotments
said to have been made to the Spartans (Grote,
Hist. Gr. ch. 6); but Isocrates’ statement points
to the fact that, while the Spartans possessed
the rich plateau of the interior, the lands of the
Perioeci were mostly in the rugged territory
that fringed this plain. :
Still, the grievances of the Perioeci were no
after all intolerable, nor do they seem to have
been treated with wantonness or insolence.
The distance at which many of them lived from
Sparta must have rendered it impossible for
them to share in the administration of the
state, or to attend the public assemblies: a
circumstance which must in some measure have
blunted their sense of their political inferiority :
nor were they subjected to the restraints and
severe discipline which the necessity of main-
taining their political supremacy imposed upon
the Spartans (Sosib. ap. Athen. xv. p. 674).
By way of compensation, too, the Perioeci en-
joyed many advantages (though not considered
as privileges) which the Spartans did not. The
trade and manufactures of the country were ex-
clusively in their hands, and carried on by them
with the more facility and profit as they
occupied maritime towns. Similarly the island
of Cythera, the nucleus of the maritime trade of
Laconia, and the port at which the merchants
trading from Egypt and Libya usually touched,
was a Perioecic settlement (Thuc. iv. 53; vii.
57). The cultivation of the arts, also, as well
in the higher as in the lower departments, was
confined to the Perioeci, the Spartans consider-
ing it beneath themselves; and many dis-
tinguished artists, such as embossers and brass-
founders, were found in the Laconian schools,
all of whom were probably Perioeci (Müller,
Dor. iii. 2, 3). Nor is there wanting other
evidence, though not altogether free from doubt,
to show that the Spartan provincials were not
in the least checked or shackled in the develop-
ment of their intellectual powers (Müller, l.c.).
Moreover, it seems natural to suppose that they
enjoyed civil rights in the communities to which
they belonged, and which otherwise would
scarcely have been called tróAets: but whether
or no these cities had the power of electing
their own chief magistrate or magistrates, what
was the form of their constitution or whether
it was in all cases uniform, can only be a matter
of conjecture. It has been thought possible that
the 20 harmosts mentioned by the Scholiast on
Pindar (Ol. vi. 154) were Spartan governors sent
to preside over Perioecic districts (Schömann,
Antiq. jur. publ. Gr. iv. 1, 5). [HARMOSTES.]
From the single instance of Cythera, to which
we know a magistrate was sent from Sparta with
the title kvěmpoèticms (Thuc. iv. 53), no general
conclusion can be drawn; but in any case it is
probable that, if governors were appointed from
Sparta, they were governors, not of the several
tróAets, but of districts amongst which these
tróAets were distributed for administrative pur-
poses. Such a theory does not necessarily
imply that the internal administration of each
tróAus was not in the hands of its Perioecic
inhabitants themselves. -
The number of Laconian (as they are called)
or subject cities is said to have formerly
amounted to 100 (Aakeóatuav ŠkarðuroMus,
Strab. viii. p. 557; Steph. Byz. s. v.v. Aibata
and Airwāta). Several of these lay on the
coast, as Gythium, the port of Sparta, whence
the whole coast of Laconia is called # trepiourts
(Thuc. iii. 16). Many, however, lay more
inland, as Thyrea, the chief town of the Thy-
reatid as it is often called, a part of Cynuria,
which was a comparatively late acquisition of
the Spartans, not having been finally wrested
from Argos until about the year 550 B.C. It was
a long and fertile strip of territory east of the
Eurotas, extending down to Cape Malea, and in-
cluding the island of Cythera (Herod. i. 82).
But besides the fact, known to historic times, of
the late acquisition of Cynuria, there is a great
deal of evidence to show that the pºin of
2 B
372 PERIOECI
PERIOECI
the Perioecic territory by Sparta was a slow
and gradual process. It has been noticed that
some of the towns mentioned by Strabo as
belonging to the Lacedaemonian ékarðutroAis
were in Messenia, and cannot therefore have
been settled until after the conquest of that
territory, about 635 B.C. (Schömann, l. c.).
When we remember further that it was not
until the reign of king Teleclus, about three
centuries after the original foundation of Sparta,
that such towns as Amyclae, Pharis, and Geron-
thrae on the Eurotas were conquered (Paus. iii.
2, 6), it is impossible to believe that the distri-
bution of the Perioecic territory was such a
rapid and easily completed process as the state-
ments of Ephorus and Isocrates would lead us to
believe.
Connected with the accounts of the conquest
of the Perioecic territory, there are some state-
ments which would lead us to conjecture that
there was some difference of status amongst the
Perioecic towns themselves. Amyclae, Pharis,
and Geronthrae, for instance, are said to have
been colonised from Sparta (Paus. iii. 22, 5).
Boeae, which Curtius supposes to have been one
of the cities forming the original Hexapolis of
Laconia, was said to have been founded by a
Heracleid chief (Strabo, viii. p. 364). Whether
such considerations led to a difference of political
status in the case of such towns, it is impossible
to say; but still it seems probable that a town
like Amyclae, in which was the temple of the
Hyacinthian Apollo, and which was one of the
great religious centres of Dorian worship (Thuc.
iv. 18), would claim a preference, based on
religious sentiment, over other Perioecic towns;
and there is some evidence to show that the in-
habitants of such towns received more con-
siderate treatment than the general mass of
Perioeci (Xen. Hell. iv. 5, 11).
The number of the Perioecic population of
Laconia is not known; but an attempt has been
made by Clinton to determinate it approxi-
mately at one stage of its history: namely, at
the time of the Persian war (F. H. App. c. 22).
He says, “At the battle of Plataea in B.C. 479,
the Perioeci supplied 10,000 men. If we assume
this proportion to be the same as that which
the Spartan force bore to the whole number on
the same occasion, or five-eighths of the whole
number of citizens, this would give 16,000 for
the males of full age, and the total population
of this class of the inhabitants of Laconia would
amount to about 66,000 persons.” It will be
seen, however, that this conclusion, somewhat
doubtful in itself, is based on the supposition
that the 10,000 Lacedaemonians who served
with the Spartans at Plataea were all Perioeci.
It seems more probable, however, on a com-
parison of two passages in Herodotus (ix. 11
with 61), that the 5,000 whom it is so difficult
to account for, and who are only mentioned as
making up the total sum, were Helots, and that
each Perioecic hoplite was attended by one light-
armed helot, just as each Spartan hoplite was
attended by seven of the same class.
In the later times of Spartan history, the
Perioecic towns of the coast (Laconicae orae
castella et vici) were detached from Sparta by T.
Quinctius Flaminius, and placed under the pro-
tection of the Achaean league (Müller, Dor. iii.
2, 1; Liv. xxxiv. 29, 30, and xxxviii. 31).
Subsequently to this the Emperor Augustus
released 24 towns from their subjection to
Sparta, and formed them into separate com-
munities under laws of their own. They were
consequently called Eleuthero-Lacones (Paus. iii.
21, 6). But even in the time of Pausanias some
of the Laconian towns were not airóvouot, but
dependent upon Sparta (avvrexotia at eis Xtráp-
rmv).
From the account given above of the probable
origin of the Perioeci of Sparta we should
naturally expect to find a subject population of
this kind existing in most Greek states, which
are known to have experienced immigrations not
resulting in a total change of population, but in
a combined residence of populations of different
nationality. Immigrations of this kind, which
resulted in combined settlements, were in a
high degree the characteristic of Dorian move-
ments ; and accordingly we should expect to
find a Perioecic population as the basis of the
early Dorian states. This is in the main verified
by facts. In Argos, for instance, we have an
undoubted Perioecic population; and although
no true Perioeci can be identified in cities like
Sicyon and Corinth, or most of the later Dorian
colonies, this is easily explained by the fact that
these states were created after the movement of
the great Dorian migration was over. The
Perioeci of Argos were called Orneatae from the
town of Orneae, apparently the first or the most
important town reduced to this condition by the
Argives (Herod. viii. 73). These Orneatae are
called a ſupaxoi of the Argives by Thucydides
(v. 67, and Arnold’s note), and with them are
classed the inhabitants of Cleonae; but that
they were Perioeci appears from the passage of
Herodotus, in which he is evidently translating
the less familiar Argive term Orneatae into the
more familiar Spartan one Perioeci, to show the
status of the Cynurian population he is de-
scribing. How large the Perioecic population
of Argolis was we do not know. A large part
of it, Cynuria, was taken by the Spartans (Herod.
i. 82); and the two great Achaean townships,
Mycenae and Tiryns, were certainly not Perioecic
towns at the time of the Persian war (Id. vii.
102, ix. 28). After their destruction by Argos
about 468 B.C. (Diod. xi. 65), they may possibly
have been reduced to this condition.
Amongst Dorian states outside Greek proper,
we find Perioeci on the largest scale connected
with the cities of Crete, which resembled Sparta
in having a large subject population. But
whether the so-called “Perioeciº” of Crete were
closely analogous to those of Sparta is an open
question. [See CoSMI.] Amongst the later
Dorian foundations there is some evidence of the
existence of Perioeci in Leucadia and Anactorium
(Thuc. ii. 81, oi però rotºrwu, Arnold); and in a
non-Dorian country, but one that resembled a
Dorian state in its foundation, namely Elis, we
have evidence of a Perioecic population (Thuc.
ii. 25).
There were various other classes of de-
pendent communities in Greece, which we find
described as Perioeci; and others that bear a
strong resemblance to the Perioeci of Laconia in
being permanent dependencies on other states :
but neither of these are we quite justified in
calling “Perioeci" in the Dorian sense. Of the
former class, for instance, are the native popula-
PERIPOLI
PERPENDICULUM 373
tions surrounding Greek colonies like Cyrene
(Herod. iv. 159); and among dependent popula-
tions of the latter kind we may class many of
the states of Thessaly. These are called Ürikool
(Thuc. iv. 78; Arist. Pol. ii. 9, 3), and include
the populations of what was in historical times
Thessaly, such as the Perrhaebi, Magnetes, and
Achaeans (of Phthiotis), which were subdued
after the Thessalian migration.
[References for fuller particulars on this
question may be made to Arnold's Thucydides,
vol. i. app. ii., “On the Constitution of Sparta,”
and to a review of this work by Sir G. C. Lewis
in the second volume of the Philological Museum,
p. 39. The most exhaustive treatment of the
subject will be found in O. Müller's History of
the Dorians, bk. iii. See also Schömann,
Antiquit. Juris Pub. Graec. iv. 1, § 5; A. Kop-
stadt, De rerum Laconicarum Constitutionis Ly-
curgeae Origine et Indole; Gilbert, Staatsalterth.
i. 37. The nationality of the Perioeci is dis-
cussed chiefly in Curtius, Hist. of Greece,
bk. ii. ch. 1, and Grote, Hist. of Greece, part ii.
ch. 6.] [R. W.] [A. H. G.]
PERI'POLI. [EPHEBUs.]
PERIPTEROS. [TEMPLUM.]
PERI'SCELIS. Greek and Roman women,
like those in the East of to-day, wore anklets
and bangles. These are frequently shown on
the monuments, appearing not only on vase- and
wall-paintings (cf. the following illustration
from a Pompeian wall-painting, Museo Borbonico,
vi. tav. xxxiv.), but on statuettes (cf. two bronze
Pompeian painting showing Periscelides.
statuettes of the Portici Collection, Barré, Herc.
and Pomp. vi. pl. 13). In literature the custom
of wearing them is spoken of by the Scholiast
on Horace, Ep. i. 17, 56, and by Isidorus (xix. 31,
“crurum ornamenta mulierum quo gressus
earum ornantur”); while, as late as the third
century after Christ, Cyprian inveighs against
it (Hab. Virg. 16).
Pliny (H. N. xxxiii. §§ 39, 152) says that the
plebeian women wore anklets of silver, whereas
the patricians wore them of gold. Such anklets
were sometimes called compedes (Plin. l.c.), but
the Romans borrowed also the Greek name rept-
orke?\{s, a word which occurs in inscriptions as
part of the catalogue of the jewellery of a
temple (Dittenb. Nos. 367–401), as well as in
Menander (Incert. 405) and other passages
(Longus, i. 5; Plut. ii. 145 C). Periscelis is
mentioned in Horace (Ep. i. 17, 56) and Petro-
nius (67, 4), and periscelium in Tertullian (de
Cultu Fem. ii. 13). A certain amount of con-
fusion as to the meaning of the word has been
caused by the use of the kindred words treptakeX?
and reptorkéAta, which were interpreted by the
lexicographers as being 8pákkia pepuváxia, i.e.
drawers reaching from the navel to the knee (cf.
Hieron. Epist. ad Fabiol.), a use which is found
in the Septuagint (Exod. xxviii. 42, xxxix. 28;
Levit. vi. 10, xvi. 4), but the two words are
distinct in meaning. These ornaments are also
called trepio pöpia (Clem. Al. Paed. ii. 12, 122;
cf. Herod. iv. 176), but elsewhere are referred to
by more general names, such as tréSal (Aristoph.
Fragm. 320, 11 K.), or àuquðéal (Hesych. s. v.).
[Cf. Iwan Müller, Handbuch, iv. p. 435; Mar-
quardt, Privatleben, p. 705; Hübner in Hermes,
i. p. 354.] W. R.] [W. C. F. A.]
PERISTY'LIUM or PERISTYLUM. The
Greek adjective reptorvXos is applied either to
a court surrounded by colonnades on the inside,
or to a building surrounded by them on the
outside, as a temple. It is then used alone, in
all three genders, with a substantive under-
stood, for a court with colonnades: hence the
Latin peristylum, or more commonly the sub-
stantive form peristylium. It is especially
used for the courts of a Greek dwelling-
house, and for that introduced into Roman
houses in imitation of them. [DOMUs, Vol. I.
p. 671.] [E. A. G.]
PERO. The boots worn by shepherds and
labourers in rough and muddy weather were
usually of untanned leather and made at home.
The Greek épéðAm was of this kind, for the
epithet trmXotratls is given to it (Hipp. Art. 828),
and it was used by travellers, hunters, and
country-folk. It was apparently a low boot, or,
at any rate, not so high as the évôpopuíðes, which
were worn by horsemen and hunters and covered
the calves. The épéðAm in Eur, Hippol. 1189 is
merely a boot of this kind (see Monk ad loc.).
The Roman pero was much the same; it was of
untanned leather (crudus, Verg. Aen. vii. 690),
worn by ploughmen (peronatus arator, Pers. v.
102) and by country-folk in general (Serv. ad
Verg. l. c.). Cato (in Fest. p. 142) says that
they were used by the old Romans. Sidonius
Apollinaris describes the boots worn by Sigismer,
a royal youth of Gaul, as being made with the
hair remaining upon them (Ep. iv. 20, “primi
pedes perone setoso talos adusque vinciebantur”),
but it seems unlikely that these were identical
with the perones of classical times. On the
monuments, among the many varieties of boot
shown, several roughly answer to the descrip-
tion given above, but no satisfactory identifica-
tion seems possible. (Cf. Daremberg and Saglio,
Dict, d. Antiq. S. v. Arbylè; Mayor on Juv.
xiv. 186.) W. C. F. A.]
PERPENDI’CULUM (ká9eros, uoxv65ts,
orráðum), a plumb-line, a string with a piece of
metal attached, used by masons, carpenters, &c.
to test the correctness of their perpendicular
lines (Vitruv. vii. 3, 5; Isid. Or. xix. 18):
hence the expression ad perpendiculum of the
correct line (Cic. Verr. i. 51, 133; Caes. B. G.
iv. 17, &c.). Cicero (ad Qu. Fr. iii. 1, 2) dis-
tinguishes it from linea (= kava'u), the line for
measuring horizontally. This linea was called
in Greek also oxoivos and oriraptſov, and, from
its being coloured to make a mark, putateſov.
Blümner, wrongly we think, excludes ord Bum
from this sense, and makes it altogether equiva-
lent to perpendiculum. There is no doubt that

374 PERPETUA, ACTIO
PERSONA
it was sometimes a plumb-line, as in Anth. Pal.
vi. 103, orráðumv uox13&x6éa: but that it was
also (perhaps more commonly) a horizontal line
is clear from its use to make a straight rôqpos
in Hom. 0d. xxi. 121. It was probably a line
getting the true direction either way; and the
expressions trapū ord 6amv, étrl ord 9amv would
come from either use. We have also the phrases
Trpos Ká6erov, eis ká9erov = ad perpendiculum.
(Blümmer, Technologie, ii. 235.) [G. E. M.]
PERPETUA ACTIO; PERSECUTORLA
ACTIO. [ACTIO.] -
PERSO'NA (larva, trpóororov or irpoo wreſov),
a mask. Masks were worn by Greek and Roman
actors in nearly all dramatic representations.
This custom arose undoubtedly from the practice
of smearing the face with certain juices (Hor.
ad Pis. 277) and colours, and of appearing in
disguise, at the festivals of Dionysus [DIONYSIA].
The red colouring was appropriate to that
worship (Paus. ii. 2, 6; vii. 26, 11). But
leaves were also used as coverings for the face
before masks (Suidas, s. v. 6pfaubos : cf. Athen.
xiv. 622); and we hear, too, of masks made
of tree-bark (Verg. Georg. ii. 387). Now, as
the Greek drama arose out of these festivals,
it is highly probable that some mode of dis-
guising the face was as old as the drama
itself. Thespis (Suidas, s. v. Oéatris) is said
to have smeared the face with white lead
(pluv616), afterwards with purslane (àvěpáxvn);
and finally to have introduced the linen mask.
Choerilus of Samos, however, is said to have
been the first who introduced regular masks
(Suid. s. v. Xolpixos). The invention of masks
is elsewhere attributed to Aeschylus (Suid. s. v.
AfoxvAos: Hor. ad Pis. 278), though the latter
had probably only the merit of perfecting and
completing the whole theatrical apparatus and
costume. Phrynichus is said to have first intro-
duced female masks (Suid. s. v. ppúvixos).
Aristotle (Poèt. 5 = 1449 b, 4) was unable to
discover who had first introduced the use of
masks in comedy. Some masks covered, like the
masks of modern times, only the face, but they
appear more generally to have covered the
whole head like a visor, fastened with bands
under the chin, for we find always the hair
belonging to a mask described as being a part of
it ; and this must have been the case in tragedy
more especially, as it was necessary to make the
head correspond to the stature of an actor which
was heightened by the cothurnus. The terms
for having a mask put on are trepitſbeoréal, éti-
reſorbat, trepuceſo 0a: for putting off, &moríðegºat,
āqexeiv (Lucian. Tim. 28, Nigr. 11, de Salt. 27,
pro Merc. Cond. 5, Icaromenipp. 29). The masks
were made by a kevoirotoſ. Aristotle (Poet. 6=
1450 b,;19) notices how important their art was
for the stage effect.
I. TRAGIC MASKs. It may at first seem
strange to us, that the ancients, with their
refined taste in the perception of the beautiful
in form and expression, should by the use of
masks have deprived the spectators in their
theatres of the possibility of observing the
various expressions of which the human face is
capable, and which with us contribute so much
to theatrical illusion. But it must be remem-
bered that in the large theatres of the ancients
it would have been impossible for the greater
part of the audience to distinguish the natural
features of an actor. The features of the masks
were for this same reason very strong and
marked. Again, the dramatis personae of most
of the ancient tragedies were heroes or gods, and
their characters were so well known to the
spectators, that they were perfectly typical.
Every one therefore knew, immediately on the
appearance of such a character on the stage,
who it was, and it would have been difficult for
a Greek audience to imagine that a god or hero.
should have had a face like that of an ordinary
actor. The use of the cothurnus also rendered
a proportionate enlargement of the countenance
absolutely necessary, or else the figure of an
actor would have been ridiculously dispropor-
tionate. Lastly, the solemn character of ancient
tragedy did not admit of such a variety of
expressions of the countenance as modern tra-
gedies; the object of which seems to be to
exhibit the whole range of human passions in
all their wild and self-devouring play. How
widely different are the characters of ancient
tragedy It is, as Müller (Hist. of the Lit. of
Anc. Greece, i. p. 298) justly remarks, perfectly
possible to imagine, for example, the Orestes of
Aeschylus, the Ajax of Sophocles, or the Medea
of Euripides, throughout the whole tragedy
with the same countenance, though it would be
difficult to assert the same of a character in
any modern drama. But there is no necessity
for supposing that the actors appeared through-
out a whole piece with the same countenance;
for if circumstances required it, they might
surely change masks during the intervals be-
tween the acts of a piece. Whether the open or
half-open mouth of a tragic mask also contri-
buted to raise the voice of the actor, as Gellius
(v. 7) thinks, cannot be decided here, though we
know that all circumstances united to compel a
tragic actor to acquire a loud and sonorous
voice. The kaº, trpáorwira appear to have had
masks (Lucian, Towar. 9; de hist. conscr. 4),
also the chorus in Comedy (Schol. on Ar. Nub.
344; Theophr. Char. 6), and most probably the
chorus in Tragedy, both because it was likely
that all the performers should be fairly uniform
in appearance, and also we are told that the
Eumenides in Aeschylus's play had masks with
snakes in their hair (Paus. i. 28, 6). Yet in
certain illustrations, such as in Baumeister’s
Denkmäler, fig. 910, the kaº, trpóo wira appear
without masks.
The masks used in ancient tragedies were
thus, for the most part, typical of certain cha-
racters, and consequently differed according to
the age, sex, rank, and other peculiarities of the
beings who were represented. Pollux, from
whom we derive most of our information on
this subject, enumerates (iv. 133, &c.) 28 typical
or standing masks of tragedy: six for old men,
eight for young men, eleven for females, and three
for slaves. The number of masks was indefinite,
which were not typical, but represented certain
individuals with their personal peculiarities, such
as the horned Actaeon, the blind Thamyris with
one eye black and the other grey, the myriad-
eyed Argus, Tyro with cheeks all bruised from
the blows of Sidero; the representations of
River and Mountain Gods, Centaurs, Titans,
Giants, Indians, Tritons, the Minotaur, &c.; and
such allegorical figures as Justice, Death, Mad-
ness, Drunkenness, Deceit, &c. See Pollux, iv.
PERSONA.
PERSONA. 375
141, 142, who mentions many more such ékorkeva
trpóo wira, as they were called. The only example
of an ékokévov trpóa arov which we possess is
from a very beautiful wall-painting from Pom-
peii, reproduced in Baumeister’s Denkmäler, fig.
1947, p. 1851. It is Perseus with his Cap of
Darkness and its griffin crest. The standing
masks of tragedy are divided by Pollux (iv. 133–
140) into five classes.
1. Tragic masks for old men (133–135).-The
mask for the oldest man on the stage was called
Čupias &váp, from the circumstance of the beard
being smoothly shaved. The hair, which was in
most cases attached to the masks, was white,
and hung down with the exception of a part
above the forehead, which was raised by a pro-
jection on the mask. This projection rose either
into an acute angle (Aa350etēs is the word
Pollux uses), or was rounded at the top. It
was called čºykos. The size of it varied chiefly
according to the social position of the person
represented. The chin of this mask was close
shaved, the cheeks flat and hanging downwards.
This would be the mask worn by Cadmus, and
perhaps Priam (Suidas, s. v. Trpiapia,67val). 2. A
second mask for old men, called Aevrbs &vłip,
had grey hair, floating around the head in locks,
the beard fixed to the mask and immovable
(ºyévetov retrmyós). It had drooping eyes and a
palish colour (trapáAevkos). This was perhaps
the mask Tiresias would wear or the trauðaywyös
in Sophocles' Electra (43). 3. A third mask,
called a raptoiróxios, had black hair interspersed
with grey, and was somewhat pale. It probably
represented a hero of from 40 to 50 years,
perhaps the mask of Oedipus (cf. Soph. O. T.
742 f.). 4. The fourth mask, uéAas āvhp, repre-
sented a hero in his full vigour, with dark curly
hair and beard, strong features and a high &ykos.
This was probably the mask for most of the
tragić heroes who were not very much advanced
in age. 5, 6. For a secondary class of heroes
there were two other masks, the Šav60s and the
§av06Tepos &vłip: the former represented a fair
man with floating locks, a low & Vicos, and a
good colour in his countenance; the second or
fairer man was pale and of a sickly appearance.
2. Tragic masks for young men (135–137).-
Among these are mentioned: 1. The veavío kos
trøyxpmatos, a mask intended to represent a
man who had just entered the age of manhood,
and was yet unbearded, but of a blooming and
Mask of a young man. (Mus. Borb. xi. Tav. xlii.)
brownish complexion, and with a rich head of
black hair. This is the mask to be given to
such a character as Achilles in the Iphigénia in
Aulis. The word träyxpmorros, “all-excellent,”
is used possibly for the virtuous hero of the
piece. 2. The veaviorkos of Aos, a fair youth of a
haughty character; his hair was curly and
attached to a high &ykos: his character was
indicated by his raised eyebrows. A specimen
of the očAos weaviorkos is given above from a
statue of Melpomene (Mus. Borb. xi. Tav. xlii.).
3. Neaviorkos trapovXos: resembled the preceding
mask, but was somewhat younger. The coun-
terpart of these two was (4) the āraxós, a young
man of a delicate and white complexion, with
fair locks and a cheerful countenance, like that
of a youthful god. 5, 6. IIIvapós. There were
two masks of this name, both representing
young men of a severe appearance, of yellow
complexion and fair hair, gloomy and squalid
(karmſpís, 8vo trivăs); the one, however, was
thinner and younger. 7. 'Qxpós, a mask quite
pale, with hollow cheeks and fair floating hair.
It was used to represent sick or wounded
persons. 8. The trapoxpos might be used for
the trifyxpmaros if this character was to be
represented in a suffering condition or in love.
3. Tragic masks for male slaves. – Pollux
(137, 138) mentions three—viz.: 1. The 8140e-
pías, “leather jerkined,” which had no &ykos,
but some sort of a covering (trepticpavov) round
the smoothly-combed white hair. The coun-
tenance was pale, the beard grey, the nose sharp,
the eyebrows raised, and the expression of the
eyes gloomy. Perhaps like the 6epdtrav in the
Bacchae. 2. The gºnvoirévoy, “wedge-like-
bearded,” represented a man in the prime of life
with a high and broad forehead, a large &ykos,
broad and rounded inwards at the top (kotNai-
vöuevov čv Tà trepiq'opé), hard-featured and red
like a messenger. 3. The āvāortuos, or snub-
nosed, had a high 5-yrcos (Örépoykos) with fair
hair rising up on it ; had a reddish face and no
beard. He, too, acted as a messenger.
4. Tragic masks for female slaves (139).-Of
these five specimens are given. 1. IIoxià kard-
kopios (i.e. with long grey hair), originally called
trapáxpop.os (with altered colour). It repre-
sented an old woman with long grey hair, a
small &ykos, pale and dignified to indicate one
who had seen better days. 2. To €xeč6epov
'ypatówov, an old freed-woman with fair hair
turning grey, hanging over a small &ykos down
to the shoulders. She was apparently in
mourning. 3. To oireturby Ypatówov had a
covering for the head of sheep-skin instead of an
âykos; was very wrinkled. 4. To oiketticov
Megåkovpov (“with a tonsure,” like that of
monks) had a small tºykos, white skin, rather
pallid; was not quite grey-haired. 5. Aiq,0e-
pºrts represented a young slave-girl without any
ūykos.
5. Tragic masks for free women (140, 141).-
Of these seven specimens are given. 1. Kardicoptos
&xpå represented a pale lady with long black hair
and a sad expression. She generally shared the
sufferings of the principal hero in the play.
On the next column is an example taken from
Baumeister, op. cit. fig. 1945, p. 1849. 2. Me-
gékoupos &xpå resembled the former, only that
she had a tonsure and was pale, as well acquainted
with sorrow. 3. Meadºcoupos irpóa paros probably
represented one who was just new to some great
sorrow. Hence it had the tonsure for mourning,

376
PERSONA
PERSONA.
*
but not the paleness of 2. 4. Kočptuos trap6évos
had no 5-ykos, but hair smoothly combed down
Woman's Tragic Mask. (From a painting at
Herculaneum.)
on each side of the head with a little cut off in
front (kal 8paxéa év kūkāq, trepulcércaptai).
This was the mask of Antigone and Electra (see
Brunck, Analect. i. 500). 5. "Etepa kočptuos
trap6évos, like the other, except that her hair was
floating about as if she was in the most violent
grief. 6. The kópm, or beautiful young girl,
e.g. a daughter of Danaus. ,
The account which Pollux gives of the tragic
masks comprehends a great number, but it is
small in comparison with the great variety of
masks which the Greeks must have used in their
various tragedies; for the distorted masks with
widely open mouths, which are seen in great
numbers among the paintings of Herculaneum
and Pompeii (see
the annexed wood-
cut from Museo
Porbon. vol. i. tab.
20), would give
but a very inade-
Quate notion of
the masks used at
Athens during the
most flourishing
period of the arts.
All the represen-
tations of tragic
masks belonging to this period do not show the
slightest trace of exaggeration or distortion in
the features of the countenance, and the mouth
is not opened wider than would be necessary to
enable a person to pronounce such sounds as oh
or ha. In later times, however, distortions and
exaggerations were carried to a very great
extent, but more particularly
in comic masks, so that they
Mask, from a painting at
Pompeii.
catures than representations
of ideal or real countenances
(Philostr. Wit. Apollon. v. 9,
89, Kayser ; Lucian, de
iº. 27, Anach. 23, Nigrin.
The annexed woodcut repre-
sents some masks, one appa-
rently comic and the other
tragic, which are placed at
the feet of the choragus in
the celebrated mosaic found at Pompeii (Museo
Borbon. vol. ii. tab. 56; Gell, Pomp. vol. i.
Masks, Tragic and
omic, from
Pompeii.
in some degree were more cari-
pl. 45). The Öykos is fairly well
sented.
II. CoMIC MASRS.-In the Old Attic Comedy,
in which living and distinguished persons were
so often brought upon the stage, it was necessary
that the masks, though to some extent they may
have been caricatures, should in the main points
be faithful portraits of the individuals whom
they were intended to represent, as otherwise
the object of the comic poets could not have
been attained (Platon. de Diff. Com. p. xiv. v. 80,
Dübner; Aristoph. Eq. 230, and Schol.). We
know that no aſkevoirotos ventured to make
Cleon's mask; Aelian (W. H. ii. 13) says that the
mask of Socrates in the Clouds was a faithful
representation. Of course, the chorus of Birds
and Clouds and such like had peculiar masks of
their own, as also such out-of-the-way characters
as Pseudartabas in the Acharnians. The masks
of the characters in the Old Attic Comedy were
therefore, on the whole, faithful to life, and free
from the burlesque exaggerations which we see
in the masks of later times. A change was made
in the comic masks when it was forbidden to
represent in comedy the archon by imitating his
person upon the stage (Schol. ad Aristoph. Nub.
31); and still more, shortly after, by the ex-
tension of this law to all Athenian citizens
(Schol. ad Aristoph. Ach. 1150, Av. 1297; Suid.
s. v. 'Avrſuaxos). The consequence of such laws .
was, that the masks henceforth, instead of in-
dividuals, represented classes of men, i.e. they
were masks typical of men of certain professions
or trades, of a particular age or station in life,
and some were grotesque caricatures. A num-
ber of standing characters or masks was thus
introduced in comedy. In the New Comedy
they were very ridiculous and unnatural-look-
ing, with enormously wide and distorted mouths
(Platon. de Diff. Com. p. xiv. 83–91), at least
for the characters representing the lower orders.
and old men. Platonius says the reason was .
fear of caricaturing any influential Macedonian.
Pollux gives a list of such standing masks, which
repre-
are divided, like those of tragedy, into five
classes.
1. Comic masks for old men (143-145).-Nine
masks of this class are mentioned. The mask
representing the oldest man was called trättros
ºrpáros : his head was shaved to the skin, he had
a mild expression about his eyebrows, his beard
was thick, his cheeks hollow, and his eyes
melancholy. His complexion was pale, and the
whole expression of the countenance was mild.
2. The trantos érepos was of a more emaciated
and more vehement appearance, sad and pale;
he had hair on his head and a beard, but the
hair was red and his ears broken from boxing.
3. The jºyeuðv trpeggirms, likewise an old man,
with a thin crown of hair round his head, an
aquiline nose, and a flat countenance. His right
eyebrow was higher than the left. (Cf. Quintil.
xi. 3, 74: “alter erecto alter composito est
supercilio; atque id ostendere maxime latus
actoribus moris est quod cum iis quas, agunt
partibus congruat.”) An example of the fiveMºv
irpeggårms is given below from Müller, fig. xxi. 1
== Baumeister, fig. 905 a. 4. The trpso flûtms
aakporáyov had a long and floating beard, and
likewise a crown of hair round his head ; his
eyebrows were raised, but his whole aspect was
that of a dull man. 5. The ‘Eppadºvetos was that



PERSONA.
PERSONA
377
of a man getting bald (āvaqaxavrías, different
from pawakpás, actually bald, Bekk. Anecd. 16,
31), but it had a beard and raised eyebrows and
‘Hyeuðv rpeggºrms. (From a terra-cotta mask
found at Vulci.)
was of a grim appearance. The name of the
mask was derived either from an actor or a
orkevoirotós, as was also that called Avkoujičevos,
No. 7. 6. The aqºmvoirá)ov, or wedge-like bearded
mask, was likewise bald, had raised eyebrows,
and looked rather ill-tempered (§roööorrporos).
7. The Avkoujibetos (cf. No. 5) had a thick
long beard and had one eyebrow raised, as
if absorbed in business. 8. The tropwogookös
was somewhat like the latter, but his lips
were contorted to a
grin, his eyebrows con-
tracted, and his head
either bald or getting
bald. 9...The Seárepos
‘Eppadºvetos had a pointed
beard, but otherwise no
hair.
The annexed comic
mask, representing an old
man, is taken from the
Museo Borbon. vol. i.
* tab. A.
2. Comic masks for young men (146–148).-
Pollux enumerates, eleven masks of this kind.
1. The trayzpmorros formed the transition from
the old to the young men; he had but few
wrinkles on his forehead, showed a muscular
constitution (Yuuvaorrukós), was rather red in
the face, and slightly sun-burnt (§rokexpano-
Hévos); the upper part of his head was bald, his
hair was red, and his eyebrows raised. 2. The
weavío kos uéAas was younger than the preceding
one, and with low eyebrows. He represented
a young man of good education and fond of
gymnastic exercises. 3. The veavíorkos 08Xos,
or the thick-haired young man, was young and
handsome, and of a blooming countenance, his
eyebrows were extended, and there was only one
wrinkle upon his forehead. 4. The veavío icos
&raxós : his hair was like that of the trayzpmorros,
but he was the youngest of all, and represented
a tender and effeminate youth. 5. The āypotkos,
or rustic young man, had a dark complexion,
broad lips, a pug-nose, and a crown of hair round
his head. 6. The étforeworros orpartórms was of
dark complexion, and had long dark hair waving
about. This would be the mask of the Miles
Gloriosus. 7. The érforetorros Seárepos was the
same as the preceding, only younger and of a
Comic Mask for an old
II].8 Il.
fair complexion. 8. The kóAaš or the flatterer,
and 9. the trapdoritos or parasite, were dark
(compare Athen. vi. p. 237), and had aquiline
noses. Both presented a luxurious and well-
fed appearance (etra6eſs); the parasite, however,
had broken ears, was merry-looking, and had a
wicked expression about his eyebrows. 10. The
eikovikós (i.e. like a statue) had a few grey hairs
spread over his head, a close-shaved chin: the
wearer was got up in splendid attire (eiträpvpos)
and represented a stranger. He could also act
a kind of parasite. Böttiger thinks we should
read Xukvavikós. 11. The XuceXukös was a third
kind of parasite.
3. Comic masks for male slaves (149, 150).—
Of this class seven masks are mentioned. 1. The
mask representing a very old man was called
trárros : it had grey hair, and indicated that
he had obtained his liberty. 2. The jºysplöv
6epárov had his red hair plaited, raised eye-
brows, and a contracted forehead. He was
among slaves the same character as the trpeg-
8úrms among freemen. 3. The kāra, rpixtas, or
kāra, retplxapiévos, was half bald-headed, had
red hair and raised eyebrows. 4. The očAos
6spárav, or the thick-haired slave, had red hair
and a red countenance; he was without eyebrows,
half-bald, and with squinting eyes. 5. The 6epá-
trav Maígav was bald-headed and had red hair.
Maſorov was a character in a farce, like Maccus
in the Atellanae, though Athenaeus (xiv. 659)
and Festus (s. v. Moeson) say he was an actor.
6. The 6epārav retrić was bald-headed and dark,
but had two or three slips of hair on his head
and on his chin, and he also had squinting
eyes. Why he was called rérrić is not plain.
Athenaeus (l. c.) says, ékáNovv of traxalol rov
pºv troAvrikov učyeupov Mata'ova, row 5’ &cróniov
Tétrºya. 7. The étrío’etortos jºyeudºv, or the
audacious slave, resembled the #yeuðv 9epáray
with the exception of the hair.
4. Comic masks for old women (150, 151).—
Pollux, mentions three, viz.: 1. The ypatotov
iorxvöv or Awkaïvtov, the wolfish old woman,
who was tall with many but small wrinkles,
pale, and with squinting eyes. 2. The traxeia
ºypads, or the old woman with large wrinkles,
and a band round her head keeping the hair to-
gether. 3. The ypatówev oikovpdv, or the domestic
old woman. Her cheeks were hollow, and she
had only two teeth on each side of her mouth.
5. Comic masks for young women (152–154).-
Pollux mentions fourteen, viz.: 1. The yuv}
Aekrurch, or the talking woman; her hair was
smoothly combed down, the eyebrows rather
raised, and the complexion white. 2. The yuvh
očAm was distinguished from the preceding only
by the way she wore her hair, 3. The kópm
had her hair combed smoothly, had high and
black eyebrows, and a white complexion. 4. The
yevòokápm had a whiter complexion than the
former, her hair was bound up on the top of the
head, and she was intended to represent a young
woman who had been lately married. 5. Another
mask of the same name was only distinguished
from the former by the fact that the hair was
not divided (ré à5uakpírº ris köpins). 6. The
atraprotróAtos Aekirikh, an elderly woman who
had once been a prostitute, and whose hair was .
partly grey. 7. The raxxakh resembled the
former, but had a better head of hair (replkopios).
8. The réAetov ćratoikov was more red in the


378 PERSONA.
PERSONA
face than the pewöokópm, and had locks about
her ears. 9. The épalov ćrauptătov was less got
up (äkaAAdriatov), and wore a band fastened
round her head. 10. The bidžpvaos étalpa
derived the name from the gold with which her
hair was adorned. 11. The Stäuirpos étalpa,
from the variegated band wound around her
head. 12. The Aaputróðtov, from the circum-
stance of her hair being dressed in such a man-
mer that it stood upright upon the head in the
form of a lampas. 13. The ā8på trepikovpos
represented a young female slave with her hair
cut round (trepticekapuévov), wearing only a
white tucked-up chiton. 14. The trapálºmorrow
(with straight hair) was that of a slave dis-
tinguished by her hair, and by a somewhat snub-
nose : she wore a crocus-coloured chiton and
represented an hetaera's servant.
It will be seen from the foregoing
that the chief points of distinction in
masks lay in the colour of the face, in
the colour and arrangement of the hair,
in the size of the Öykos, and in the eye-
brows. It is to be noticed that the iris as
well as the whites of the eyes must have
been represented in the mask, as e.g. the
buq6eptas (i. 3, 1) is said to have had
âq,62xplows orkv6patroës, the trainſtros trpáros
(ii. 1, 1) to have been rºv čviv karmſpás,
the ypatolov ioxvöv (ii. 4, 1) to have had
squinting eyes, &c. Also it is to be noticed
that the teeth are very rarely found in
masks, and only once mentioned in Pollux’s
list (the Ypatówov oikoupév, ii. 4, 3).
Numerous as these masks are, the list
cannot by any means be considered as com-
plete, for we know that there were other
standing masks for persons following par-
ticular kinds of trade, which are not
mentioned in Pollux. Maeson of Megara,
for example, is said to have invented a
peculiar mask called after his own name uatorov,
another for a slave, and a third to represent a
cook (Athen. xiv. p. 659). Compare Lucian,
Salt. 27, for reference to special masks for cooks.
These were a most prominent class in the New
Comedy. From Athenaeus (l. c.) we also learn
that Stephanus of Byzantium wrote a work repl
Trpoor&mov.
III. MASKS USED IN THE SATYRIC DRAMA
(141).--The masks used in this species of the
Greek drama were intended to represent Satyrs,
list
the
º
- º “ ſº
§
º 4% , 2/
a
*
º
jº 4/7 % %.
* º,4%. , a
W . .
º
..";
º
ſ/j.
ſInſ
* W
Masks in British Museum.
Silenus, and similar companions of Dionysus,
whence the expressions of the countenances and
the form of their heads may easily be imagined.
The other characters wore the ordinary tragic
masks. Pollux only mentions the grey-headed
Satyr, the bearded Satyr, the unbearded Satyr,
and the Xel'Amvös traintros. The latter (who
perhaps occurs in the Cyclops) represented an
old man, probably bald (Eur, Cycl. 227), rather
like a brute (6mpia Séa repov). There appear to
have been more than one kind of Silenus (Xen.
Symp. 4, 19). All the Satyric characters appear
to have had the ordinary snub-nose and pointed
ears of Satyrs. The dress of the Silenus was
called xopraſos (Poll. iv. 118). A grotesque
mask of a Satyr, together with one of the
finest specimens of a tragic mask, is contained in
the Townley Gallery in the British Museum,
and is represented here. Another Satyric mask,
probably that of the Silenus, is also repro-
Satyric Mask in front and profile, found in a grave at Vulci.
duced from Müller, fig. 20, i. = Baumeister,
fig. 1630.
As regards the earliest representations of the
regular drama among the Romans, it is expressly
stated by Diomedes (i. 489, 10 Keil), that masks
were not used, but merely the galerus or wig,
so that the colour of the hair alone indicated in
a way who the character was, according as it
was white (for the old), black (for the young),
or red (for slaves). In the time of Terence there
appear to have been no masks used [cf. such
a scene as Ter. Phorm. i. 4, 32 ft., and the
numerous passages in which a remark is said to
be made voltu laeto or moesto (e.g. Andr. iii.
3, 20) given by Hoffer, de personarum usu in
Terentii Comoediis, 23–30, cf. 34]; and it was
not till about 110 B.C. that Roscius, as he was
not good-looking and had a squint, and his
manager Minucius Prothymus, introduced them
into tragedy. One Cincius Faliscus is said to
have introduced them into comedy (Diomed. l.c.;
Donat. de Com. et Trag. p. 10, 1, Reiff); it
was some time, however, before they met with
approval (Cic. de Orat. iii. 59, 221). Aesopus
sometimes acted without a mask (Cic. de Div. i.
37, 80). It should, however, be remembered
that masks had been used long before that time
in the Atellanae (Fest. s. v. Personata), so that
the innovation of Roscius must have been con-
fined to the regular drama; that is, to tragedy
and comedy. As for the forms of Roman masks,
it may be presumed that, being introduced from

























PERTICA
PHALANGAE 879
Greece at so late a period, they had the same
defects as those used in Greece at the time when
the arts were in their decline, and this sup-
position is confirmed by all works of art, and
the paintings of Herculaneum and Pompeii, in
which masks are represented; for the masks
appear unnaturally distorted and the mouth
always wide open. The expressions of Roman
writers also support this supposition. (Gellius, v.
7; Juv. iii. 175.) We may mention here that
some of the oldest MSS. of Terence contain
representations of Roman masks, and from these
MSS, they have been copied in several modern
editions of that poet, as in the edition published
at Urbino in 1726, fol., and in that of Dacier.
The cut annexed contains representations of four
of these masks prefixed to the Andria.
Masks from the Andria.
When actors at Rome displeased their audience
and were hissed, they were obliged to take off
their masks; but those who acted in the Atel-
lanae were not obliged to do so (Fest. s. v. Per-
sonata fabula ; Macrob. Sat. ii. 7). The Roman
mimes never wore masks. [MIMUS.] (Com-
pare Ficoroni, Dissertatio de Larvis scenicis et
Piguris comicis ant. Rom., Rome 1786 and 1750,
4to; Fr. Stieve, Dissertatio de rei scenicae apud
Romanos Origine; Witzschel in Pauly, v. 1373–
1380, s. v. Persona ; F. Wieseler, Theatergebäude
wnd Denkmäler des Bühnenwesens; Sommerbrodt,
Scaenica, pp. 199—205; A. Müller, Die Griechi-
schen Bühnenalterthümer, 270–289; Bernard
Arnold in Baumeister’s Denkmäler, s. v.v. Lust-
spiel, Satyrspiel, Schauspieler und Schauspielkunst,
and Trauerspiel.) [L. S.] [L. C. P.]
PERTICA. [MENSURA, p. 162; DECEM-
PEDA.] - .
PES. [MENSURA, pp. 161, 162.] .
PESSI (reororoſ). [LATRUNCULI.]
PESSULUS. [JANUA..] -
PETALISMUS. [Exsilium, Vol. I. p. 819.]
PETASUS. [PILLEUs.] -
PETAURISTAE. [PETAURUM.]
PETAURUM (tréraupov, tréreupov) was,
firstly, a pole or perch upon which fowls roosted
(Theoc. xiii. 13; Pollux, x. 156): hence the
better known use, a spring-board for acrobats
(petauristae); in its simplest form a board
balanced like a seesaw, from which the per-
formers threw themselves (“corpora jactata
petauro,” Juv. xiv. 265; cf. Lucil. fr. 100);
but it might be greatly elaborated, so that they
sprang off through hoops, and performed as on
a trapeze. The hoops were sometimes on fire,
to increase the sensational character of the feat
(Petron. 53). On Manilius v. 439–443 Pro-
fessor Mayor says, “Perhaps a wheel hanging
loose in the air, seated on which two jugglers
keep the wheel in motion, alternately rising and
falling: if either were thrown off, he must leap
through flames and burning hoops.” This does
not give a very plain sense, and it seems pretty
derives the word from four, is conclusive.
Cruq. ad Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 192).
generally drawn by a pair of mules, as in both
clear that the petaurum was not itself a wheel.
In the lines referred to we seem rather to see
two acrobats springing from an oscillating
board, as above described, through the “flammas
orbesque * ( := the “circulos flammantes” of
Petronius): when one has thus leapt off, the
other remains for a moment with no one to
balance him, while the board is just swinging
back, and then he also leaps off. In Mart. xi.
21, one end of the springboard rests on a re-
volving wheel (“rota impacta petauro"), and
the acrobat has apparently to pass on to the
wheel, which may be the “graciles viae pe-
tauri’’ of Mart. ii. 86. Pollux (l.c.) seems to
compare the tréraupov to the contrivance in
which Socrates appeared aloft in the Clouds of
Aristophanes. This will favour the connexion
suggested with ueréopos. (See further authori-
ties in Mayor's note on Juvenal, l.c.; Gras-
berger, Erziehung, i. 120.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PETITOR. [AcroR.]
PETO'RRITUM or PETORITUM, a four-
wheeled carriage, which, like the Essedum, was
adopted by the Romans in imitation of the
Gauls (Quint. i. 5, 57; Plin. H. N. xxxiv. § 163;
Gell. xv. 30). Its name is with probability
derived from the Celtic petvar or petwar,
“four,” and rit, “a wheel.” Festus (s. v.) ob-
serves that petor meant “four” in Oscan and in
Aeolic Greek. There is no reason to question
this statement; but it is probable that Gellius
is right in saying that the name as well as the
fashion came from Gaul. Ginzrot (who curi-
ously confuses ducenda with ducenta in Hor.
Sat. i. 6, 104) asserts that the petorritum was a
two-wheeled carriage, on the ground that Auso-
nius (Ep. 8, 5) uses the expression “imposta
petorrita: ” he omits to notice that the same
author in Ep. 5, 35 writes, “subjuncta petor-
rita.” In truth, the carriage can be said to be
impostum through the yoke as well as through
the shafts; and the evidence from Festus, who
It
differed from the REDA in being of rougher and
commoner construction and in having no cover.
From its less luxurious make, it was intended
specially (though probably not exclusively) to
convey the household of servants on journeys,
while the master travelled in a reda (Schol.
It was perhaps
the passages cited from Ausonius. (Ginzrot,
Wagen der Alten Völker, i. 224; Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 21; Marquardt, Privatleben,
734.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PEZETAERI (reçéralpol). [ExERCITUS,
Vol. I. p. 777.]
PHAECA'SIA. (CALCEUs, Vol. I. p. 333.]
PHALANGAE (pāAayyes), any long
cylindrical pieces of wood, such as trunks of
trees (Herod. iii. 97; Plin. H. N. xii; $ 17),
truncheons (Plin. H. N. vii. § 200). Hence it
had two special meanings: (1) poles used to
carry burdens, being supported on the shoulders
of the carriers with the burden hanging below
by ropes. The carriers were called phalangarii,
and also hexaphori, tetraphori, &c., according to
their number (C. I. L. vi. 1785; Non. p. 163,
26; Vitruv. x. 8). (2) The word also signified
rollers placed under ships to move them on dry
land, so as to draw them up on shore (subducere)
or down into the water (deducere). They are

380 PHALANX
PHALERAE
the machinae of Hor. Od. i. 4, 2 (cf. Soupéreot
icºſalvöpot, Brunck, Anal. iii. 89; Apoll. Rhod. i.
375–389). The rollers were aided by levers
(for which the oars were sometimes used) and
ropes, often doubled so that the sailors pressed
with their breasts, as in ordinary towing (Orph.
Arg. 239-273). They were employed in the
same manner to move military engines (Caes.
Bell. Civ. ii. 10). [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PHALANX. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. pp. 768–
779.]
PHALA'RICA. [HASTA.]
PHA'LERAE. The Latin word is probably
derived from its Greek equivalent, pāAapa (ºrd).
Oddly enough, the singular, both in Latin and
Greek, only occurs once in literature, pd{Aapov,
in Aeschylus, Persae, 661, and phalera, in a
quotation from an old annalist given by Pliny
(H. N. xxxiii. § 8). (Some commentators
regard it as neut. plur. ; others amend the
text.)
The only passage in Homer where rà paxapa
are mentioned is in the description of the
Trojan attack on the Achaean ships (Il. xvi.
105). The poet says that the helm of Ajax
rang out, as it was struck ever and anon, kêtr
qdaapa eitroſmra,_a use of the word very
different from that of classical Greek, where it
is only used of the ornaments of horses’ harness.
The old grammarians understood the meaning to
be somewhat the same as in later times, and
interpreted it as denoting disks worn as orna-
ments on the vizor of the helmet. Buttmann,
however, maintained that they ornamented the
strap of the helmet; but this, as Helbig shows
(Das homerische Epos, ed. 1887, p. 305), assumes
a form of helmet not known to Homer. Com-
mentators since Buttmann have been inclined to
connect the word, as synonymous, with pāAoi,
meaning the ridges to which the crest was
fixed; but as the same helmet could be terpa-
‘pdampos and yet &Aqſqaxos, this must be wrong.
Helbig, from the analogy of ancient Italian and
Phoenician helmets, decides (op. cit. p. 307)
that they were studs or bosses, not on the
vizor, as the grammarians said, but on the
lower part of the casque near the cheek-pieces.
There may possibly be a reminiscence of this old
meaning in Aeschylus (Pers. 661), when he
speaks of the pdaapov of the tiara of the great
king. With these exceptions, the word is
always used of the metal disks or crescents with
which a horse's harness was ornamented. These
ornaments, which were used not only in Greece
but all over the ancient world, are frequently
mentioned, and received different names accord-
ing to the part of the harness to which they
were attached. Thus, the trpoueroríðua (= fron-
talia) were on the brow (Xen. Cyrop. vi. 4, 1;
vii. 1, 2), the map#ia (Hom. Il. iv. 141) and the
arapayva676es on the cheeks, the &v6%Xia and
wapárta near the eyes, while the trpoo repvíðta
(Xen. Anab. i. 8, 7; de Re Eq. 12, 8) and trpo-
atmötöta were on the breast. They were occa-
sionally worn by other animals, as, for instance,
by the asses and bulls in the great pompa of
Ptolemy II. and by the elephants of Antiochus
(Liv. xxxvii. 40 ; and Plin. H. N. viii. § 12).
They were made not only of bronze, but of
silver (Liv. xxii. 52), and even of gold (Herod. i.
215, speaking of the Scythians). They were
sometimes jewelled (Appian, Mithrad. 115), and
were as a rule covered with most artistic
designs, so that they were often of great value
(cf. Cic. in Verr. iv. 12, 29). One of the most
favourite ornamentations was the well-known
Gorgon's head (Eur. Rhesus, 306).
Phalerae, from statue of Alexander. (Naples Museum.)
The Romans attached even more importance
to phalerae than the Greeks, and Juvenal sar-
castically describes the soldier of the old school
who cut up masterpieces of chased work “ut
phaleris gauderet ecus’’ (Sat. xi. 103). This
was no doubt, to a large extent, owing to the
Roman custom of bestowing them as dona
militaria, not only to the cavalry, but also to
the infantry. Polybius (vi. 29) says that qugAat
were given to the infantry and pāAapa to the
cavalry, the difference being probably that the
former were without, the latter with ornament.
In any case, though there is no distinction in
Latin, it would be straining Greek usage to
apply the word to ornaments worn by a soldier.
However this may be, both kinds of phalerae
were worn by the soldiers themselves along with
the torques, armillae, catellae, fibulae, and other
military decorations, and as such are men-
tioned frequently in Latin literature (Verg. Aem.
ix. 359; Florus, iii. 10, 26; Liv. ix.46). These,
like the Greek påAapa, were made of gold and
silver no less than bronze (Polyb. xxxi. 3; Plin.
H. N. xxxvii. § 74). Necklaces worn by women
were also occasionally called phalerae (P. Syrus
quoted by Petronius, 55), as were, too, those
worn by the slaves of rich Romans (Suet. Ner.
30). In later writers it was used of any kind
of external ornament (cf. Pers. iii. 21; Symmach.
Ep. init. § 222).
In art not only are påAapa and phalerae
shown on monuments of all ages, but the actual
ornaments have been frequently found all over
the ancient world. The most important of these
finds have been made in the Crimea, where, at
Great Blisnitza alone, no less than four complete
sets of harness were found. The phalerae con-
sisted of 20 round disks (&ortótorkot, Pollux and
Suidas), four lenticular plates, and several
crescents. All are of the same make, consisting
of a bronze plate, to the top of which a thin
piece of metal with a design in hammered work

PHALERAE
PHARETRA,
381
is soldered. In spite of their being crushed, the
beauty of the designs, representing Greeks and
Amazons and gods and giants in single combat,
is very apparent. As a rule, however, such
phalerae are ornamented with busts of Aphrodite,
Athene, and other deities. The Gorgon's head
is the most favourite design, and is interesting
as showing that the figures were intended to be
prophylactic (&morpóraia). The crescents which
are frequently found with the other forms have
doubtless the same purpose. One of the most
curious varieties is that in which two boar’s or
other curved teeth are joined together at the
base, forming a crescent. This is not only
common on monuments and in the graves, but is
mentioned in literature, as when Statius (Theb.
ix. 689) speaks of “niveo lunata monilia dente ”
(for other references see Stephani, Compte
Rendu, 1865, p. 180). These crescents of teeth
are also seen in antique necklaces, have been
found in Saxon graves, and are still in use for
the same purpose in parts of Europe, Africa, and
Asia. The monuments show that the phalerae
were worn not only at the joints of the harness,
but in long strings round the breast of the
horse. The horse of the celebrated bronze
equestrian statue from Herculaneum in the
Naples Museum, generally known as Alexander
the Great, is one of the best instances, showing
particularly well the Gorgon's head at the
horse's breast. There is a fine chain of pendent
phalerae (pensilia) in the British Museum, and
a very similar one in Vienna (see Arneth, Die
antiken Gold u. Silber Monumente, S. 1, 1 ;
Vienna, 1850).
String of Phalerae. (From British Museum.)
Roman phalerae as worn by soldiers are shown
on many gravestones of veterans, who are repre-
sented as seated on rearing chargers with
enormous phalerae, or as wearing the phalerae
on their breast, with the other dona militaria.
These were of considerable weight, and were
worn on a framework of leather straps, which
hung from the shoulders, was braced across the
chest with three or four straps, and supported
the phalerae. On many coins these leather
frameworks are represented without a wearer.
The best examples of such ornaments are those
found near Lanersfort, now in the Museum at
Berlin. Like the Greek, they consist of bronze
disks covered with a thin plate of hammered
silver, ornamented with heads of deities and
genii, in high relief; the space underneath the
silver being filled up with bitumen. On the
back is a stout hasp, by which they were
attached to the harness or the leather frame-
work just mentioned. In many cases phalerae
of this description have pendants in the shape of
leaves hanging from them, and specimens of
these are very numerous. Besides these un-
doubted phalerae, there are many brooches and
{
*
|
!/26 sº
*=º
Cippus of M. Caelius.
necklaces of so similar a description that there
seems to be no good reason to refuse them the
name, since we know that women occasionally
wore them.
The custom of giving phalerae as rewards for
good service seems to have been discontinued
in the time of Caracalla, who began the custom
of giving large gold medals with the em-
peror's bust in relief instead, especially to
the semi-barbarous chieftains on the Danube
frontier.
[The best account of pdaapa, both literary
and monumental, is given by Stephani in the
Compte Rendu de la Commission Imperiale for
1865 (St. Petersburg, 1866); the best of the
Roman phalerae in Otto Jahn's Die Lanersforter
Phalerae, Bonn, 1860, and Marquardt, Handbuch,
vii. p. 655 foll., where references to the later
literature will be found. The best illustrations
are in the Atlas of the Compte Rendu and in
Lindenschmidt's Tracht wnd Bewaffnung des
römischen Heeres wiihrend der Kaiserzeit,
1882.] [W. C. F. A.]
PHARETRA (papérpa, ap. Herod. pape-
rpedºv), a quiver. A quiver, full of arrows, was
the usual accompaniment of the bow. [ARCUs.]
It was consequently part of the attire of every
nation addicted to archery. Virgil applies to
it the epithets Cressa, Lycia (Georg. iii. 345;
Aen. vii. 816); Ovid mentions the pharetratus
Geta (Epist, de Ponto, i. 8, 6); Herodotus
represents it as part of the ordinary armour
of the Persians (vii. 61). The quiver, like the
bow-case (corytus), was principally made of
hide or leather (Herod. ii. 141), but also of
wood or metal. It was adorned with gold
(Anacr. xiv. 6; Werg. Aen. iv. 138, xi. 858),
painting (Ovid, Epist. Her. xxi. 173), and
braiding (roxipparrow, Theocr. xxv. 265). It
had a lid (trópia, Hom. Il. iv. 116; Od. ix. 314).
Among the Scythians the quiver and bow-case
formed one object (cf. Antiq. du Bosp. Cimm, i.
pl. 33).

382
PHARMACOPOLA.
PHARMACON GRAPHE
Scythians with bow-case and quiver.
The form of the Greek quiver is shown in the
cut below. It was suspended from the right
shoulder by a belt [BALTEUs], passing over the
breast and behind the back. Its most common
position was on the left hip, in the usual place
Pharetrae. (Left-hand figure from the Aeginetan
Marbles; right-hand figure from a Greek vase.)
of the modern sword, and consequently, as
Pindar says, “under the elbow ’” (Ol. ii. 151,
s. 92) or “under the arm " (Öroxéviov, Theocr.
xvii. 30). It was worn thus by the Scythians
(Schol. in Pind. l. c.) and by the Egyptians, and
is so represented in the preceding figure of the
Amazon Dinomache, copied from a Greek vase
(Hope, Costume of the Ancients, i. 22). The
left-hand figure in the same woodcut is from
one of the Aegina marbles. It is the statue of
an Asiatic archer, probably Paris, whose quiver
(fractured in the original) is suspended equally
low, but with the opening towards his right
elbow, so that it would be necessary for him in
taking, the arrows to pass his hand behind his
body instead of before it. To this fashion was
opposed the Cretan method of carrying the
quiver, which is exemplified in the woodcut,
Vol. I. p. 416, and is uniformly seen in the
ancient statues of Artemis. . [J. Y.] [A. H. S.]
PHARMACON GRAPHE (papuákov
'ypaph, Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 627, § 22, etc.;
‘papuaketas karmyopſa, only in argum. Antiph.
c. Noverc.), an indictment against one who
caused the death of another by poison, given
either by himself or by another person at his
instigation (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 628, § 24=
p. 627, § 22 lea, and Andoc. Myst. § 94, rov
Bouxeūgavra év tái airá, évéxeoréal kai Tov tí
xeupl épyao duevov : it was under this latter law
that the charge of poisoning was brought
against the stepmother (Antiph. Or, i, ; cf. § 20,
# 8% airta #8m, kal évôvumbeſora kal xelpovp-
Thoraga, i.e. h tréubaora to pāpuakov ſcal keNet-
oaoa €keſvg, Souvai trieſv, § 26). It was tried
by the court of Areiopagus (Dem. l. c., and
Pollux, viii. 117). That the malicious intent
(rpávoia) was a necessary ingredient in the
crime follows from Arist. Magn. Mor. i. 17,
p. 1188 b, 31, whence we learn that the Areio-
pagus once acquitted a woman who had given a
love potion with fatal results to a man, Ört rhy
660 w rod ptarpov oë wer& 6tavotas roß &toxéotal
airov č6(öov (the woman in Antiph. c. Nov. § 20
was put to death for the same offence, but she
was a slave). Hence the case in Antiph. Sup.
Choreut, is not an instance of the indictment
under discussion, for the boy Diodotus was
poisoned by a draught given him to improve his
voice (sūqavías xàpiv čtrue papuakov kal trièv
réðvmkey, argum). The punishment was death
(Aelian, V. H. v. 18; Plut. de Ser. Numin.
vindic. 7, p. 552 D). Poisonous drugs were fre-
quently administered as love potions or for other
purposes of a similar nature (Alciphr. Ep. i. 37).
Men whose minds were affected by them were
said pappakāv. Wills made by a man under
the influence of drugs (Örö pappudkøv) were
void at Athens (Dem. c. Steph. p. 1133, § 16).
Women who practised sorcery were called pap-
Pakiöes or pappakevrpiai (Lucian, Dial. Mer. 4;
Theocr. ii.). Demosthenes, as we learn from
Philochorus (Harpocr. s. v. Gewpts), brought a
'ypaq))) &oregetas against the Lemnian Theoris;
she was put to death (Plut. Dem. 14; [Dem.]
c. Aristog, i. p. 793, § 79), and Ninus suffered a
like fate (Dem. F. L. p. 431, § 281) on a charge
brought by Menecles, &s ptarpa trotočarms roſs
véous (Schol. to Dem. l. c.; cf. c. Boeot. i.
p. 995, § 2; ii. p. 1010, § 9); see also Plat.
Legg. xi. p. 933 D. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius,
p. 382 f.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PHARMACOPO'LA (pappakoréAms), quack
doctors and drug-sellers who not only kept shops
or booths for their goods, but also hawked them
about. Lucian (pro Merc. Cond. 7) describes one
as hawking (&tokmpúrrow) his cough-mixture in
the streets, and promising an immediate cure to
all sufferers (cf. Aristoph. Thesm. 504). Plu-
tarch (de Prof. in Virt. 8) distinguishes the
iarpetºwv, or trained physician, from the mere
charlatan, t& pápuaka 3) rà iſ yuara troxáv.
From Aristoph. Nub. 766, and Lucian, Amor. 39,
we gather that they sold other wares also. In
Rome there were many quacks of this sort, who,
besides the sale of drugs, professed to cure
patients also, whence Pliny complains of the
want of a law to punish ignorance in doctors
(H. N. xxix. § 18; MEDICUs). Regular medi-
cines under the Empire were sold with a label
(éray-yeafa) affixed, which specified the name of
the drug, of its inventor, the illnesses which it
cured, the component parts, and the method of
taking it. These were no doubt generally


PHAROS
PHASIS 383
written in a perishable form, but some for eye
medicines, engraved on stone, have been pre-
served (Mommsen, Epig. ii. 450). The drugs
for compounding the medicines were often
brought from distant places (see Marquardt,
Privatleben, p. 781) and obtained from drug-
sellers (whom Galen, xii. 587, calls uwporóAal
as well as papaakoróAal, since a great part
were cosmetics). The physicians, however,
commonly bought not merely the materials but
the drugs ready compounded, and the pharma-
copola traded on his own account, selling to the
public his own compounds, often no doubt coun-
terfeit, inducing the credulous to put themselves
under his treatment (Hor. Sat. i. 2, 1; Gell, i.
15, 9), and carrying his drugs about to country
towns as the pharmacopola circumforaneus of
Cic. pro Cluent. 14, 40, who is not scrupulous
about selling poisons as well. (Becker-Göll,
Charikles, iii. 59; Marquardt, Privatleben, 780;
Blümner, Technologie, i. 354; Friedländer,
S. G. i. 317.) [G. E. M.]
PHAROS or PHARUS (pópos), a light-
house. The most celebrated lighthouse of
antiquity was that situated at the entrance to
the port of Alexandria. It was built by Sos-
tratus of Cnidos on an island, which bore the
same name, by command of one of the Ptolemies,
and at an expense of 800 talents (Plin. H. N.
xxxvi. § 83; Steph. Byz. s. v. Pépos; Achill.
Tat. v. 6). It was square, constructed of white
stone, and with admirable art; exceedingly
lofty, and in all respects of great dimensions
(Caesar, Bell. Civ. iii. 112). It contained many
stories (troAvépoqov, Strabo, xvii. p. 791), which
diminished in width from below upwards (He-
rodian, iv. 3). The upper stories had windows
looking seawards, and torches or fires were kept
burning in them by night in order to guide
vessels into the harbour (Val. Flacc. vii. 84;
see Bartoli, Luc. Ant. iii. 12).
Pliny (l.c.) mentions the lighthouses of Ostia
and Ravenna, and says that there were similar
towers at many other places. They are repre-
sented on the medals of Apamea and other
maritime cities. The name of Pharos was given
to them in allusion to that of Alexandria, which
was the model for their construction (Herodian,
l. c.; Sueton. Claud. 20). The Pharos of Brun-
dusium, for example, was, like that of Alexan-
dria, an island with a lighthouse upon it (Mela,
ii. 7, § 13; Steph. Byz. l.c.). Suetonius (Tiber.
74) mentions another pharos at Capreae. Tra-
jan's breakwater at Centum Cellae (Civita
Vecchia) had a lighthouse at each end (Plin.
Ep. vi. 31), to which Merivale (Hist. vii. 253)
seems to refer the “Pharos Tyrrhena” in Juv.
xii. 75. This is, however, probably the lighthouse
at the Portus Romanus or Portus Augusti formed
by Claudius two miles N. of Ostia and improved
by Trajan (Suet. Claud. 20; Dio Cass. lx. 11;
Mayor’s note ad Juv. l. c.).
The annexed woodcut shows two phari re-
maining in Britain. The first is within the
precincts of Dover Castle. It is about 40 feet
high, octagonal externally, tapering from below
upwards, and built with narrow courses of brick
and much wider courses of stone in alternate
portions. The space within the tower is square,
the sides of the octagon without and of the
square within being equal, viz., each 15 Roman
Itin. Curios. p. 129). A similar pharos formerly
existed at Boulogne, and is supposed to have
been built by Caligula (Sueton. Calig. 46; Mont-
faucon, Supplem. vol. iv. L. vi. 3, 4). The
round tower here introduced is on the summit
º
Fº
s
s
s
§
* tº R tº
gº:###$$$.
Bºšš º-H -
º: Esº's $5 P+->
=# #: ; ; º-FEEEEE-
Fº ºf Stº Eºfºº
[-. :: Tit-ºs-
º:#EEE #UE: Eğris
ÉÉÉ ############
ºt: 2:ESEFS *:::Pºp! fºr rº
####### ºfºS
Agº Eºs *º- Fº Gº-E Cr.
&########3 #|}|##| ||É| ||#
AECyß B: ; E E | Tº
Æ##########s à|| ||=|| |##| ||És
ɺ:##### 2-}} EP-L |HD
########## 25 ºs-Lºſ HS
Hºt CC Nºtºs C-º-º-º-sº-
rºº-º-º: tºº-º-º-º-º-º- Sºś
EE EEEEEEEE É-ºšāºš
ºr-º-º-Bºº-ºº: - - Sãº
EEsºx tº: YEREEESS
#########! KºśćS.
tº EEE EE ºc Eää.EE
SººHºº-EFº: ºffl
Hºº-º-º-º: Fº: ºfºrtſ E-T
ºº: C- ºfflººr- &Bºº: E. ſº C
ÉÉ ES-I-P-P-
Cº-Fº fºLA —- t::===º
º [º º [. º - ?- º EE::=º:
š#### Aºtº. |- -
SSÉ #ºšº
Roman Lighthouses in Britain.
of a hill on the coast of Flintshire (Pennant,
Par. of Whiteford and Holywell, p. 112). .
Baumeister (Denkmäler, fig. 1688) shows
a relief from the Torlonia Museum of the
lighthouse at the Roman Port, a round tower
at the edge of the quay with beacon flames
rising from its summit. A tower without
flames is shown on a denarius of Sext. Pom-
peius as the lighthouse at Messina (Id. ib.
p. 957). [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PHASIS (pdoris) was often used in a general
sense to denote any kind of information (Pollux,
viii. 47, kolvös 8& p. Škaxoov to traorai ai pum-
vögels róv Aav6avóvrov &öukmuátov), but tech-
nically it was one of the various methods by
which public offenders at Athens might be
prosecuted (Andoc. de Myst. § 88, 3) Ypapal #
q&orets?) évôeffeis?&maywyaſ: cf.[Dem.]c. Aristog.
i. p. 793, § 78, etc.). The charge, as in the ypaſpſ,
was made in writing (also called pdorus), with
the names of the prosecutor and defendant, the
proposed penalty (ttumua), and the names of
the kAmråpes affixed (Pollux, l. c.; [Dem.] c.
Theocr. p. 1323, § 5 ft.). The peculiarity by
which the pâa is was distinguished from other
methods of prosecution seems to have been that,
if the prosecution was one of a purely public
nature, i.e. where the offence immediately affected
the state, the prosecutor received half the
penalty (rù haſorm Tów pav6évrov, [Dem.] c.
Theocr. p. 1325, § 13;-C. I. A. ii. No. 203 b ;
cf. No. 17, 1.41 ff.; No. 546, ll. 18, 28;-Plat.
Legg. v. p. 745 A). According to Pollux (l.c.), it
might be brought against five classes of offenders:
viz. 1st, against those who committed offences
against the mining laws, e.g. those who en-
croached in their mining operations, on the
district reserved by the state as its own (Övròs
róv uérpov, Hyper. pro Eua, c. 44 f.; 4tt.
Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 1020 f.), those working
unregistered mines (āvaró)papa uérawaa, Hyper.
l, c. c. 43; Heffter, Athen. Gerichtsverf. p. 188);
cf. Photius, s. v.; Lea. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 676, 23,
emended by Meier, etc.;-2nd, against those
who committed offences against the laws and
customs, e.g. those who conveyed corn anywhere
but to Athens, or lent money for any other mart
but Athens ([Dem.] c. Lacr. p. 940, § 50 f.;
Dem. c. Phorm. p. 918, 37; Lyc. c. Leocr. § 27;
feet. The door is seen at the bottom (Stukeley,
Dem. c. Dionysod. p. 1284, § 6, cf. Platner, Proc.














































































384 PHEIDITLA
PHONOS
w. Klag. ii. p. 358 ft.), or who contravened the
regulations of import and export (C. I. A. i. No.
31, i. A ; ii. No. 546) by importing goods from
hostile countries (Aristoph. Acharn. 819 f., 908 f.;
Isocr. Trap. § 42), or exporting arms and ship-
building material to the enemy (Dem. F. L.
p. 433, § 286; Aristoph. Eq. 278, Ran. 362) or by
defrauding the customs (Aristoph. Jºg. 300);-
3rd, against those who appropriated state pro-
perty sine justo titulo (Isocr. c. Callim. § 6; Lea.
Rhet. Cantabr. p. 676, 23. Harpocration’s defi-
nition is too narrow, §Tav ris &moqatvm rāv
6muootww #xovta whº trpuduevov : see also Bekk.
Anecd. 315, 16, catá têv &ötkoëvrov xwptov
3) oikiav # ti Tôv Šmuoqiaov);—4th, against
avkoqdural—i.e. those who brought false ac-
cusations against others, not in general, but for
the offences enumerated above (Schömann, de
Com. p. 178, n. 19):—5th, against guardians
who wronged their wards (Dem. c. Naus. et Xen.
p. 991, § 23; Harpocr. s. v.). Pollux (l. c.)
goes on to say, q'atvovro 5& Trpos Tov špxovira:
here as in the following paragraphs &pxav is
used in a more general sense, denoting any
magistrate to whom a jurisdiction belonged.
Before the archon only a paris against guardians
might be preferred; but the orévôukoi were the
presiding magistrates in all cases of appro-
priation of public property sine justo titulo
[SYNDIKOI, 2], and the émiuexmºral rod utroptov
in all cases of offences against the import and
export laws, whilst offences relating to the
mines and customs and cases of false accusations
came before the thesmothetae. All qqorets were
Tipantol &yóves. In prosecutions against fraudu-
lent guardians the tſumua went to the wards
(Pollux, l.c. To rum0&v éytyvero Töv &öukovué-
vov ei kaf ris &AAos ūrép airóv påvelev: Schö-
mann, Antiq. Jur. Publ. p. 271, n. 4, the prose-
cutor probably receiving a share of it); in other
cases it was shared by the state and the prose-
cutor; sometimes a severer punishment than a
fine was inflicted (Dem. c. Phorm. p. 918, § 37,
tà éoxara étritſuta ; cf. Lyc. c. Leocr. § 27), and
the cargoes and ships of those contravening the
export and import laws were confiscated (Boeckh,
Seeurk. p. 230; cf. Dem. c. Mid, p. 558, § 133).
The prosecutor was probably liable to the pay-
ment of irpvraveta, inasmuch as he might reap
advantage from the result ; if he failed to obtain
a fifth part of the votes, he was subject to the
fine of a thousand drachmas and partial dis-
franchisement (Dem. c. Theocr. p. 1326, § 6;
Lea'. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 677, 10). Pollux (l.c.),
it is true, says that in that case he was liable to
the érw8exia, but he very probably confounds
the two fines. We have no speech left us by
the Orators on the subject of a ptions, but only
mention of a lost speech of Lysias, trpós rºv qiāoriv
toū āppavikot, oftcov (Harpocr. s. v. = fragm. 203).
The proceedings taken against those who cut
down more olive-trees than the law permitted
resembled much those of the pdaris: the offender
had to pay for each tree a fine of a hundred
drachmas to the state, and a like sum rò ibidºrm
tà èrešićvri, and the prosecutor had to pay
ºrpuraveta row airo5 Aépous ([Dem.] c. Macart.
p. 1074, § 71, lea). (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius,
pp. 294-302, 812). [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PHEIDITIA. [Syssºtia.]
PHENACE (pepäkm). [CoMA, Vol. I. p.
498 b.]
PHERNE (pepvá). [Dos.]
PHI’ALA. [PATERA.]
PHONOS (póvos), homicide. The feelings
and customs of the Greeks with regard to homi-
cide in general underwent a great change during
the early historical period. From the Heroic
age downwards, two primitive notions may be
traced at work, yielding in different degrees to
more modern and civilised ideas: the right and
duty of private revenge, passing subsequently
into public prosecution and punishment; and the
feeling that all homicide, however justifiable or
accidental, required a ceremonial purification
(cf. Antiph. de Caed. Herod. § 11; DICASTERION).
Both these institutions are common to primitive
societies in general; they are represented by
the “avenger of blood” and the “cities of
refuge ’’ in the Mosaic law ; and the former, at
least, is not yet extinct where society fails in
the duty of repressing violence. There are still,
in America, “parts of the Southern States in
which homicide goes unpunished, except by the
relatives of the slain '' (Bryce, Amer. Com-
monwealth, iii. 150). The parallel between early
Greece and early Germany, whether as described
by Tacitus or in the post-Roman Teutonic codes,
is instructively worked out by Grote (pt. i.
ch. 20 = i. 483 ff.).
At Athens the right of private vengeance was
discountenanced and driven into the background
as early as the Draconian legislation. It sur-
vived only in a few special cases: the adulterer
caught in the act might be put to death by the
injured husband ; and personal chastity might
be defended, even by bloodshed, against the
worst form of iſ 8pts. The kinsmen of the
deceased were no longer allowed to take the law
into their own hands, but they were the legiti-
mate and authorised prosecutors.
By the Attic law of historic times, homicide
was either ékoúatos or &koúaios, a distinction
which corresponds in some measure, but not
exactly, with our murder and manslaughter; for
the póvos ékoúatos might fall within the descrip-
tion of justifiable homicide, while dévos &Koč-
orios might be excusable homicide (Att. Process,
pp. 377–8, Lips.). According to the different
circumstances under which the homicide was
committed, the tribunal to which the case was
referred, and the modes of proceeding at Athens,
varied. All povukal 6tral belonged to the juris-
diction of the Špxwv 8aaixebs as āryeudºv Šuka-
armptov. He was anciently the sole judge in cases.
of unintentional homicide ; for such an act was
considered in a religious point of view, as being
a pollution of the city; and it became his duty,
as guardian of religion, to take care that the pollu-
tion (&yos) was duly expiated. On the éq,éral,
by whom the āpxov Baori.Net's was assisted, see
EPHETAE in Vol. I. In discussing this subject
we have to consider the various courts esta-
blished at Athens for the trial of homicide, the
different species of crime therein respectively
prosecuted, the manner of proceeding against
the criminal, and the nature of the punishment
to which he was liable.
Solon, who seems to have remodelled the
court of Areiopagus, enacted that this court
should try cases of murder and , malicious
wounding, besides arson and poisoning (Dem.
c. Aristocr. p. 627, § 22). One would be deemed
a murderer who instigated another to commit
PHONOS
PHONOS 385
the deed, provided the purpose were accomplished
(Dem. c. Conon. p. 1264, § 25; Matthiae, de Jud.
Ath. p. 148). Besides the court of Areiopagus,
there were four other courts, of which the épérat
were judges: to éirl IIaxxasíº, rb érl AeApw£4,
To €rl IIpvraveſq., and rb év ppearrot (Harpocr.
et Suid. s. v. 'Eqāra). To the court ér IIax-
Aačíg, belonged cases of accidental homicide,
manslaughter, and attempts to commit murder
(8ovXečareis). Such a case as that mentioned
by Demosthenes (c. Neaer. p. 1348, § 9), of an
unlawful blow followed by death, would be man-
slaughter. It seems also that this court had a
concurrent jurisdiction with the Areiopagus in
charges of murderous conspiracy, which was
carried into effect. The law perhaps allowed
the prosecutor to waive the heavier charge, and
proceed against the offender for the conspiracy
only. (Harpocr. s. v. Bovastorea's: Antiph. Te-
tral. iii. 8, § 5 ; Matt. p. 150.) As to the sup-
posed origin of this court, see Harpocr. s. v. 'Earl
IIaxxačíq : Pollux, viii. 118. To the court étrº
AeApwig were referred cases where the party
confessed the deed, but justified it; &v ris
ôuoAoyff uèv kretval, évvéuws 8% pſi Sebpakéval.
Demosthenes calls it āyuáratov kal ppukočé-
orrarov (c. Aristocr. p. 644, § 74; Harpocr. s. v.
*Earl AeAquíq : Pollux, viii. 119). In the court
étrº IIpvraveſq, the objects of prosecution were
inanimate things, as wood, stone, or iron, which
had caused the death of a man by falling on
him (APSYCHON DIKá; add to references Att.
Process, p. 131, Lips. ; Suidas, s. v. Nſkov: Aes-
chin. c. Ctes. § 244). Matthiae (p. 154) thinks
there was an ulterior object in the investiga-
tion, viz. that, by the production of the instru-
ment by which death was inflicted, a clue might
be found to the discovery of the real murderer,
if any. The court év ppearroſ was reserved for
a peculiar case; where a man, after going into
exile for an unintentional homicide, and before
he had appeased the relations of the deceased,
was charged with having committed murder.
He was brought in a ship to a place in the
inarbour called ‘ppeatró, and there pleaded
his cause on board ship, while the judges re-
mained on land. If he was convicted, he suf-
fered the punishment of murder; if acquitted,
he suffered the remainder of his former punish-
ment. The object of this contrivance was to
avoid pollution (for the crime of the first act
had not yet been expiated), and at the same time
to bring the second offence to trial. (Dem.
c. Aristocr. p. 646, §§ 77–79; Harpocr. s. v. 'Ev
$peartoſ: Pollux, viii. 120; Matth. p. 155.)
To one or other of these courts all povukal
6tral were sent for trial; and it was the busi-
ness of the #pxwv Bagińebs to decide which,
The task of prosecution devolved upon the near-
est relatives of the deceased ; and in case of a
slave, upon the master. To neglect to prose-
cute, without good cause, was deemed an offence
against religion; that is, in any relation not fur-
ther removed than a second cousin (&velytaboos).
Within that degree the law enjoined the rela-
tions to prosecute, under penalty of an āoreBetas
ºpaqſh, if they failed to do so. (Dem. c. Androt.
p. 593, § 2; c. Macart. p. 1069, § 57; c. Everg. et
Mnes. pp. 1160, 1161, §§ 68–73; Antiph. de caede
Herod. § 48.) They might, however (without
incurring censure), forbear to prosecute, where
the murdered man had forgiven the murderer
WOL. II.
before he died (Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 983, § 59);
or, in cases of involuntary homicide, where the
offender gave the satisfaction which the law
required; unless the deceased had given a special
injunction to avenge him. (Lysias, c. Agor.
§§ 41, 78; Matth. p. 170.) The meaning of the
phrase évros &ve blaðiðv in these cases has been
disputed, some thinking that the limit was
drawn at a first cousin's son, or what is usually
called a first cousin once removed. It is simpler
and better to take it as including second cousins,
i.e. all the descendants of a common great-grand-
father. The distinction is not noticed in L. and
S. s. v. (Cf. Thalheim, Rechtsalterth. p. 59; Att.
Process, p. 199, n. 10, Lips.)
The first step taken by the prosecutor was
to give notice to the accused to keep away from
all public places and sacrifices. This was called
trpóppnoſis, and was given at the funeral of the
deceased (Antiph. de caed. Her. §§ 10, 88; de
Chor. §§ 4, 34;-Dem, c. Lept. p. 505, § 158;
c. Aristocr. p. 632, § 38; c. Everg. et Mnes.
p. 1160, § 69). After this, he gave a public
notice in the market-place, warning the accused
to appear and answer to the charge : here he
was said trpoetre?v or ºrpoayopsieuw (póvov (Dem.
c. Macart. p. 1068, § 69; [Dem.] c. Neaer.
p. 1348, § 9). The next thing was to prefer the
charge before the king-archon. To such charge
the term émigrkårreoréal or étrečnéval was pecu-
liarly applied (Pollux, viii. 33, 118; Harpocr.
s. v. 'Etreak%ipato: Antiph. de Venef. § 1). The
charge was delivered in writing ; the prosecutor
was said &mo'ypéqeoréal Stromy pévov (Antiph. de
Chor. § 36). The king-archon having received
it, after first warning the defendant &méxeoróat
rów avarmptov kal rôv &AAoy wouluov (Pollux,
viii. 66, 90), proceeded in due form to the &vá-
kptorus. The main thing to be inquired into was
the nature of the offence, and the court to which
the cognisance appertained. The evidence and
other matters were to be prepared in the usual
way. Three months were allowed for this pre-
liminary inquiry, and there were three special
hearings, one in each month, called 6tabukaarlat,
or (as now read after Pollux, viii. 24) ºrpoët-
kaatai (Antiph. de Chor. § 42); after which, in
the fourth month, the king-archon eio five rhy
6írmv (Matth. p. 160). The defendant was
allowed to put in a rapaypaq'ſ, if he contended
that the charge ought to be tried in one of the
minor courts (Pollux, viii. 57).
All the povukö, Öukaothpia were held in the
open air, in order that the judges might not be
under the same roof with one suspected of im-
piety; nor the prosecutor with his adversary
(Antiph. de caed. Her. § 11). The king-archon
presided, with his garland taken off (Pollux,
viii. 90 ; cf. Lycurg. c. Leocr. § 122; Boulié,
Vol. I. p. 310 a). The parties were bound by
the most solemn oaths: the one swearing that
the charge was true, that he bore such a rela-
tionship to the deceased, and that he would in
conducting his case confine himself to the ques-
tion at issue ; the other declaring the charge to
be false (Antiph. de caed. Herod. §§ 11, 90 ; de
Chor. §§ 14, 16;-Dem. c. Everg. et Mnes.
p. 1161, § 73; Matth. p. 163). The witnesses
on both sides were sworn in like manner (Antiph.
de caed. Herod. §§ 12, 15; Att. Process, pp. 884–
7, Lips.); and slaves were allowed to appear as
witnesses (Att. Process, p. 875, Lipº Either
C
386 PHONos
PHONOS
party was at liberty to make two speeches, the
prosecutor beginning, as may be seen from the
rerpañoyła of Antiphon; but both were obliged
to confine themselves to the point at issue (Lys.
c. Simon. § 46; Antiph. de Chor. § 16). Advo-
cates (oruvhyopoi) were not admitted to speak for
the parties anciently, but in later times they
were (Matth. p. 164). Two days were occupied
in the trial. After the first day the defendant,
if fearful of the result, was at liberty to fly the
country, except in the case of parricide.
but the property of the exile was confiscated
(Pollux, viii. 117; Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 634,
§ 45; p. 643, § 69; Matth. p. 167). On the third
day the judges proceeded to give their yotes;
for which two boxes or urns were provided (58pſal
or &uſpopeſs), one of brass, the other of wood;
the former for the condemning ballots, the latter
for those of acquittal. An equal number of
votes was an acquittal; a point first established
(according to the old tradition) upon the trial
of Orestes (Aeschyl. Eumen. 752; Matth.
p. 165). • * * . • .
As the defence might consist either in a simple
denial of the killing or of the intention to kill,
or in a justification of the act, it is necessary to
inquire what circumstances amounted to a legal
justification or excuse. We learn from Demo-
sthenes (c. Aristocr. p. 637, § 54) that it was
excusable to kill another unintentionally in a
gymnastic combat, or to kill a friend in battle
or ambuscade, mistaking him for an enemy;
that it was justifiable to slay an adulterer if
caught in the act, or a paramour, caught in the
same way with a sister or daughter, or even
with a concubine, if her children would be free.
(As to an adulterer, see Lys, de caed. Eratosth.
§§.25, 26; Plut. Sol. 23.) It was lawful to
kill a robber at the time when he made his
attack (sü6ts &pluvéuevos), but not after (Dem.
c. Aristocr. p. 639, $.60). By a special decree
of the people, made after the expulsion of the
thirty tyrants, it was lawful to kill any man
who attempted to establish a tyranny, or put
down the democracy, or committed treason
against the state (Lycurg. c. Leocr.. $ 125;
Andoc. de Myst. § 96). A physician was excused
who caused the death of a patient by mistake or
professional ignorance (Antiph, Tetral. § 5).
This distinction, however, must be observed.
Justifiable homicide left the perpetrator entirely
free from pollution (kaðapáv). That which,
though unintentional, was not perfectly free
from blame, required to be expiated. See the
remarks of Antiphon in the Tetralogia, B. § 11.
(Cf. Thalheim, p. 42; Att. Process, p. 377 ff.)
It remains to speak of the punishment.
The courts were not invested with a discre-
tionary power in awarding punishment; the law
determined this according to the nature of the
crime. Wilful murder was punished with
death (Antiph, de caed. Her. § 10; Dem. c. Mid.
p. 528, § 43). It was the duty of the Thesmo-
thetae to see that the sentence was executed, and
of the Eleven to execute it (Dem. c. Aristocr.
p. 630, § 31; Meier, Att. Proc. p. 84; Schömann,
Ant. Jur, Publ. p. 246). We have seen that the
criminal...might, avoid it by flying before the
sentence was passed. Malicious wounding was
punished with banishment and confiscation of
goods (Lys. c. Simon, § 42; Matth. p. 148). So
Such
flight could not be prevented by the adversary,
to expiate their offence by certain rites.
term of absence was called åreviavriopiós :
were attempts to murder (BowAečasis). How
far incitements to murder, by one who did not
strike the blow himself, were liable to a pávov
ºpaqfi, is a point of some difficulty. Of a case
of this kind Demosthenes says (c. Conon. p. 1264,
§ 25), áčéBaAev ji Bovah ii éé, 'Apetov trgyov.
The usual explanation of éé8axev is “banished ”
(A. Schaefer, Dem. u, seine Zeit, iii. 2, 114 n. ;
Sandys ad loc.; Meier, in Att. Process); Lipsius
pronounces this a mistake, and insists that the
word means only “expelled,” i.e. not from the
country, but from the Areiopagus. Probability,
as it seems to us, from the analogy of Athenian
practice and its well-known aversion to crimes
of violence, is all in favour of the former view.
Whenever such a crime was treated as murder,
it might be punished with death, at least if it
was tried in the Areiopagus; for it is doubtful
whether the minor courts (except that év
‘ppearrot) had the power of inflicting capital
punishment (Matth. p. 150; Schömann, Ant.
Jur. Publ. p. 294; Att. Proc. p. 386, Lips.). If
the criminal who was banished, or who avoided
his sentence by voluntary exile, returned to the
country, an évôeišis might forthwith be laid
against him, or he might be arrested and taken
before the Thesmothetae, or even slain on the
spot (Suidas, s. v. 'Evêeišis: Matth. p. 168).
The proceedings by ätraywyh (arrest) might
perhaps be taken against a murderer in the first
instance, if the murder was attended with rob-
bery, in which case the prosecutor was liable to
the penalty of a thousand draehmas if he failed
to get a fifth of the votes (Dem. c. Aristocr.
p. 647, § 80; Meier, Att. Proc. p. 278, Lips.).
But no murderer, even after conviction, could
lawfully be killed, or even arrested, in a foreign
country (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 631, § 35; p. 632,
§ 38). The Greek notion of humanity forbade
such a practice; it was a principle of inter-
national law that the exile had a safe asylum in
a foreign land. If an Athenian was killed by a
foreigner abroad, the only method by which his
relations could obtain redress was to seize
natives of the murderer's country (not more
than three), and keep them until the murderer
was given up for judgment. [ANDROLEPSIA.]
Those who were convicted of unintentional
homicide, not perfectly excusable, were con-
demned to leave the country for a year. They
were obliged to go out (Éépxeoréal) by a certain
time, and by a certain route (rakthy 6ööv), and
Their
which probably does not mean, as the gram-
marians took it, banishment for a year only, but
for a longer period [ExSILIUM, p. 817 al. It
was their duty also to appease (aideſorðal) the
relations of the deceased, or, if he had none
within the prescribed degree (évros ...;
see above), the members of his clan (ppátopes),
either by presents or by humble entreaty, and
submission. If the convict could prevail on
them, he might even return before his time had
expired. The word aibeiròat is used not only of
the criminal humbling himself to the relations,
but also of their forgiving him (Harpocr; S. v.
‘Troqāvia : Demosth. c. Pantaen. p. 983, § 59;
c. Macart. p. 1069, § 57; c. Aristocr. p. 643,
§ 72;-Matth. p. 170). The property of such a
criminal was not forfeited, and it was unlawful
to do any injury to him either on his leaving
PHOROS
PHOROS 387
the country or during his absence (Demosth. c.
Aristocr. p. 634, § 44). -
Such was the constitution of the courts, and
the state of the law, as established by Solon, and
mostly indeed by Draco; for Solon retained
most of Draco's povikol véuoi (Demosth; c. Everg.
p. 1161, $71; c. Aristocr. p. 636, § 51). But
it appears that the jurisdiction of the épérat in
later times, if not soon after the legislation of
Solon, was greatly abridged [EPHETAE]; and
that: most of the povikal 6tral were tried by a
common jury. With the progress of democratic
ideas, the ordinary method of trial was, as has
been seen under EPHETAE, preferred to the
ancient aristocratical constitution of that court.
In an inscription of the year 409–8 B.C. we find
that Sikáſsiv (here meaning, the fiveMovía Sika-
oriptov) is the function of the Bagińečs, 8ta-
ovæval (i.e. to give a verdict, the ordinary sense'
of Sukáçeiv) that of the épéra (C. I. A. i. 61 ;
Att. Process, pp. 16, 17, Lips.). ' Their jurisdic-
diction in the courts Év ſpearrot and éirl
IIpvravetº was, no doubt, still retained; and
there seem to havé been other "peculiar cases
reserved for their cognisanče (Pöllux, viii. 125;
Matth. p. 158; Schömann, Ant. Jur. Pub. p. 296).
Whether the powers. of the Areiopagus, as a
criminal court, were curtailed by the proceedings.
of Pericles and Ephialtes, or only their adminis-
trative and censorial authority as a council, has
been discussed under AREIOPAGUS. "The strong
language of Demosthenes (c. Aristocr. p. 641,
§ 65) inclines one to the latter opinion. See
also Dinarchus (c. Aristog: init.), from which it
appears there was no appeal from the decision
of that court (Matth. ió6; Platner, Proc. whd
Klag. i. 27; Schömann, Ant. Jür. Pub. p. 301;
Thirlwall; Gr. Hist, vol. iii. c. 17, p. 24)." . . "
No extraordinary punishment was imposed by
the Athenian legislator on parricide. Suicide
was not considered a crime in point of law,
though it seems to have been deemed an offence
against religion; for by the custom of the
country the hand of the suicide was buried
apart from his body. (Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 244;
Aristot. Eth. Wic. v. 15 (11) = p. 1138 a, 12;
Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 164 f.; 'Att. Process,
p. 881, Lips.) . . . *
Little is known as to the povikol vépoi of
other states. At Sparta, it would seem, the law
of pévos &koúaios was more 'severe than at
Athens: one Dracontius is mentioned as banished
for life for an involuntary homicide committed
when a boy (Xen. Anab. iv. 8, § 25; cf. Grote,
pt. i. ch. 20, p. 486 m.). .
(Thalheim, Rechtsalterth. pp. 42 f., 106, 109,
125. The references in Att. Process are spread
through the whole work, and must be found
from the Index.) [C. R. K.] [W. W.]
PHOROS (pópos), the tribute paid to Athens
by her allies in the 5th century B.C. Upon the
formation of the Confederacy of Delos in B.C. 476,
the Asiatic and insular allies undertook, with a
view to carrying on the war with Persia, to pay
to the Confederacy a fixed amount of ships,
money, or men, as settled by Aristeides. It is
not clear whether states which sent ships and
men were also to send money. [Thuc. i. 96 speaks
as if some were to supply the one, and some
the other; so in vi. 85, vii. 57. But in vii. 57 we
find states which supplied money also sending
contingents (compare the inscription in C. J. A.
suppl. to vol. i. p. 10, given in Mr. Hicks'
Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions, No. 28):
and if the important states which at first cer-
tainly supplied ships be deducted, how could the .
remaining states have made up so large a sum
of money as Aristeides imposed ?) Be that as it
may, the total annual pápos was fixed at starting
at no less than 460 talents (Thuc. i. 96); and
this amount, as apportioned between the allies.
seems to have been thought a fair one (Thuc. v.
18. Plut. Arist. 24 says that the allies called
the pópos so arranged eitroruţa ris rās ‘EA-
Adãos). The treasury was to be at Delos (an
old religious centre, Thuc. i. 104), where also
the delegates of the Confederation were to meet.
'But the delegates soon ceased to meet anywhere;’
the League was kept together by the firmness
'of Athens, the strongest state in it; and
the treasury was removed to Athens on the .
suggestion of the Samians, probably the next
‘strongest state (Plut. Aristid. 25; Diod. xii. 38).
Delos was probably not thought a safe place for
the accumulation of bullion. The date of the
removal is said to have been 461 (Justin. iii. 6);
but it seems more likely to have been about 454,
when the stone tables of accounts, to be men-,
tioned below, begin. The Hellenotamiae, and
Lógistae took charge of the funds at Athens'
[HELLENOTAMIAE]. - ... " .
Athens now of course, if not earlier, charged
herself with collecting the tribute. Many
states were now sending money instead of their
original contingents (Thuc. i. 99; Plut. Cimon,
11). The League was complete in numbers and
in organisation by 454; and the only states
which were then still sending contingents of
ships and men on the original footing were pro-
j Chios, and Lesbos. ‘We may fairly
say that by that time the Confederacy of Delos.
under the hegemony of Athens had been changed.
into an empire of Athéns (rupavvſöa yūp #xers'
Thu äpxiv, Thuc. ii. 63). Aristophanes (Vesp.
| 707) speaks of 1000 allies; the names of states:
actually learnt from inscriptions or other sources
only amount to about 300; but many: little:
states may havé been grouped into ovvréAetal.
The “empire ‘pretty well enclosed the Aegean.
It included more of less completely the coasts of
Asia Miñor (from the Propontis to Lycia), Mace-
don, and Thrace, and most of the Aegean islands.
‘Loosely connected with it were the Western
islands of Cephallenia, Corcyra, and Zacynthos
(Thuc. vi. 85), and the Peloponnésian states of
Troezen and Achaia (Thuc. i. 111,115): to these,
however, the organisation of the League or
empire härdly applies, nor” does" it seem that
they paid pápos. -
More states joined the League, as more states'
were set free from Persia, and states were
presently allowed to send money instead of
ships, or even (as "Thasos) compelled to do so
after the failure of attempts to secede. In these
ways, as the gross amount of the pópos re-
mained the same, the quotas of single states
fell, till a re-assessment in 442 cancelled most
of such abatements and so raised the total.
That this was the policy of Pericles may per-
haps be inferred from Plut. Arist. 24. * *
At the time of the outbreak of the Pelopon-
nesian War (B.C. 431) the pāpos amounted to
an average of 600 talents (Thuc. ii.13). With
this fund Athens had triumphantly brought the
2 C 2
388 PHRATRIA
PHYLOBASILEIS
Persian wars to an end, and had since expended
a great deal of money in embellishing the city.
The money was at first brought by the allies;
later, probably collected by äpyvpoxóyot väes.
The tribute, for such it had now become, was
no doubt thought a grievance (Aristoph. Paz,
621): but (except in accidental cases) it cannot
really have been oppressive, if a 5 per cent. tax
on exports and imports was thought likely to
produce more than even a double pópos (Thuc.
vii. 28). In 425 the sum was doubled, and the
q6pos raised to 1200 talents or more (Andoc. de
Pace, § 9; Aeschin. F. L. § 175, confirmed by
inscriptions; 1300 talents, Plut. Arist. 24). The
assessments, however, of each state do not seem
to have been uniformly doubled; some were
raised more, some less.
Certain stone tables of accounts, found in
pieces at Athens and since put together, give us
a great deal of information on the constitution
of the empire, and especially on the pópos. They
have been printed in the C. I. A., and edited
with explanation by U. Köhler, Urkunden und
Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des delisch-atti-
schen Bundes, 1870: see, too, Mr. Hicks’ Manual.
The accounts only register a percentage of the
whole amount received, which percentage was
handed over to Athene Parthenos, at the rate of
1 mina per talent: but we can reconstruct from
them a tolerably complete table of what each
ally or subject paid. The League or Empire was
divided into five financial provinces, and we
hear of the Ionic pópos, the Hellespontine,
the insular, Carian, and Thracian. (See the
language of Thuc. ii. 9, and of Plut. Perikles, 17,
for traces of this arrangement.) Thuc. iii. 31
speaks as if the Ionic were the most productive.
The tribute was re-assessed every four years (cf.
Xen. de Rep. Ath. iii. 5), with elaborate forms
apparently borrowed from the process of legisla-
tion, and the allies affected by proposed changes
were heard in defence of their interests (see
Hicks’ Manual, p. 79).
In B.C. 413 the direct tribute was turned into
an indirect one, and an eikoor?) or tax of 5 per
cent. was imposed on all exports and imports, to
be collected by Athenian agents in the harbours
of the allies. By this the Athenians, then
pressed for money, expected to make more (Thuc.
vii. 28); but the arrangement, if ever properly
carried out, did not last long. [EICOSTE.]
When an Athenian league or empire was re-
wived about B.C. 378, the term orávračis was used
instead of pépos for the contributions of the allies
(Harpocrat. Xúvratus). The necessity of enforcing
these again made the empire unpopular.
'Eriºpopâ was an extra charge which could be
imposed under the first empire.
(On the pópos generally, see Boeckh's Staats-
haushaltung der Athener, edit. 3.) [F. T. R.]
PHRATRIA, [CIVITAs; TRIBUs.]
PHTHORATON ELEUTHERON (p60px
rôv ČAev6épav) is only mentioned in a spurious
law in Aesch. c. Tim. § 12, according to which
the yuplvaoridpxai who did not keep those above
the age of boys out of the palaestra at the cele-
bration of the Hermaea were liable to this
charge; cf. § 10 (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius,
p. 411). This very feast was the occasion on
which Socrates was introduced to the young Lysis
(Plat. Lys. p. 206 D f.). [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PHYLARCHI (pêxapxol, puxapxal). In
ancient times the tribal system prevailed every-
where in Greece; the Dorians having a three-
fold, the Ionians a fourfold, division of this kind.
[TRIBUS.] This institution remained till the latest
period, with certain modifications. The phylarchs
seem originally to have been the chiefs of the
various tribes (puxaſ), whether in peace or war.
We have direct proofs that they discharged civil
functions, from the case of Epidamnus, a colony
of Corcyra. The latter as a Dorian city had
the three Dorian tribes, and we may infer that
its colony retained them likewise. In earlier
times Epidamnus was oligarchic in constitution.
The strength of the oligarchy lay in the phyl-
archs of the three Dorian tribes, and accord-
ingly, when the revolution came, the oligarchic
phylarchs were supplanted by a democratic
boule (Aristot. Pol. 1301 b, 22). They probably
were the same as the trpá8ovXot, whom Aristotle
(Pol. 1299 b, 31) describes performing under an
oligarchy the functions discharged by the boule
under a democracy. How many of these phyl-
archs there were, we have no means of deciding.
There were probably several from each tribe,
possibly the representatives of the yévn within
each tribe. We know that at Ilion each tribe
had several phylarchs (C. I. G. 3599). When
the phylarchs in the change from oligarchy to
democracy lost their important civil functions,
they not unnaturally retained a remnant of their
military importance. As they were oligarchs
they naturally represented that branch of the
military organisation which was especially oli-
garchic, and thus it is that we find them still
appearing as the commanders of the cavalry of
the tribes. At Athens we do not know how many
there were in early times, but probably each of
the four old tribes had originally several phyl-
archs, but subsequently had only one each under
the constitution of Solon. When Cleisthenes
made his ten new tribes, he increased the number
of the phylarchs from four to ten, according to
Herodotus (v. 19). It has been thought that
the historian should have said ten phylarchs
instead of the old phylobasileis, who were four
in number, one for each of the old tribes (Titt-
mann, Staatsv. 274–5). But as Herodotus pro-
bably identified phylobasileis with phylarchi,
there is no difficulty in the passage. Under the
constitution of Cleisthenes there were ten phyl-
archi: one tribe (Pollux, viii. 94) commanded
the cavalry contingent (100 men) of each tribe.
(Cf. ai puxal rôv intréov, Xen. Hipp. 3, 11.)
They were under the control of the two hip-
parchi. According to Pollux (viii. 94), they
were chosen from each tribe by the archons col-
lectively. This can hardly be regarded as con-
clusive even on his great authority. It is more
probable that they were elected by Cheirotonia,
like the strategi, hipparchi, and taxiarchi. As
the cavalry were citizens of the two highest
classes (pentacosiomedimni and hippeis), we may
infer that the phylarchs always belonged to
either of these classes. The office also existed at
Cyzicus (cf. Inscription in Rev. Arch. xxx. 93),
and is mentioned as next in order after the
strategi.
At Methymna likewise each tribe has its
qvXápxms (inscript. in Bull. iv. 439). [W. R.I.]
PHYLOBASILEIS (q.vxogaorixels). ... The
origin and functions of the Athenian officials
called “tribe-kings” are involved in great
PHYLOBASILEIS
PICTURA 389
obscurity. Unfortunately the data are ex-
ceedingly scanty; all that we know about the
office being drawn from the four or five meagre
references here given. Our oldest notice is that
contained in Plutarch (Sol. 19), who quotes the
words of the Thirteenth Axon of Solon, êritſuovs
eival trajiv Šool é; 'Apetov IIáyov # 60 or ér táv
'Eqerāv 3) &r IIpvravetov Karaölkao'6évres àrb
Töv Baqixéov ćirl pávº, ) étl orgayatoriv h éml
Tvpavvíði épuyov. Next comes the phºtoua of
Patrocleides, quoted by Andocides (de Myst, § 11),
the wording of which is evidently framed
after the Solonian law, 3) # 'Apetov IIdyov h
Töv 'Eqerāv h ék IIpvravetov h AeApuſov
éöukáo 6m # 5to róv 8agiXéov, A €ml póvº t(s
éori putyh, # 6&varos kareyvá0.6m, à oðayeñoriv
% rvpdvvous. There can be no doubt that the
Baari?\ets mentioned in these two passages cannot
refer to the Archon Basileus; for in the same
passage Plutarch calls them by the name
trpáravels: and in the decree of Patrocleides,
when reference is made to the épxov Bagińets,
he is called in the singular 6 Baoixets. That
these 8aorixels are the same functionaries as the
qvXogaoruńeſs will be made clear by Pollux,
viii. 111, of 8& pvXo3aoruńets, é; eitrarpióðv čvres,
Audatora rāv iepāv émeplexoëvro, ovvečpečovres
év tá, Bagińette rà rapi, ro Bovkoxeſov: and
further (viii. 120), to éirl IIpvraveſq Sukáget repl
Töv štrokretvávrov, käv &oiv &daveis, kal repl
Töv čháxav Tóv éuteoróvrov kal &tokretvávrov.
trpoetortfireoav Šē rotºrov rod Sukaa’rmptov puxo-
Bagińeſs, offs #6ei rb éputreaſov & ºvyov Štrepoptoal.
Finally, Hesychius says, puxoSaoriae’s ék Töv
qvāāv aiperoí, oi rās 6vaſtas Štrurexotivres.
The connexion between the Baoruńeſs of Solon
and the puxoSaorixeſs of Pollux is proved by the
connexion of the Baoruxels in the one case, and
that of the puxogaaixels in the other, with the
Prytaneion. We have no information as regards
their number; but as they existed before the
time of Cleisthenes and were elected from the
tribes, and as the name itself implies that there
was only one for each tribe, it is not unreasonable
to infer that they were four in number. As
regards their functions, we may gather something
from the lex of Solon and the decree of Patro-
cleides. In the former three distinct tribunals
are mentioned—Areopagus, Ephetae, and Basileis;
and also three distinct crimes—murder, man-
slaughter, and aiming at sovereignty. As the
Areopagus tried murder cases, and the Ephetae
(in the courts called Delphinion and Palladion)
cases of manslaughter, it would seem that the
crime which specially fell under the jurisdiction
of the 8aoixets was that of attempting to become
a despot. The same three tribunals and the
same three crimes are mentioned in the same
order in the decree of Patrocleides. Solon had
left to the Ephetae the duty of sitting as judges
in certain ancient courts, the Delphinion, the
Palladion, the Court at Phreatto, and the Pry-
taneion. In the Prytaneion the Ephetae solemnly
tried inanimate objects which had taken a human
life, and over the Ephetae in this court the
Phylobasileis presided; and if the object was
found guilty, it was their duty to convey the
polluted object beyond the frontier. This, of
course, was much more a religious than a legal
function. Similarly, too, they acted as assessors
to the Archon Basileus, sitting along with him
in the Basileion. Now, as the Archon Basileus
dealt with all cases of blood-guiltiness, whether
murder or homicide, it is evident that the
functions of his assessors would be priestly rather
than judicial. The fact that the Phylobasileis
were Eupatrids is of importance, when we recol-
lect that in cases of death by violence members
of certain Eupatrid families were consulted as
émºymrat (cf. Plato, Euthyphro, p. 4, D). From
the priestly nature of their functions it was
natural that they were left untouched, both by
the reforms of Solon and of Cleisthenes.
Whether their number was increased to ten by
Cleisthenes when he made his ten new tribes,
we cannot now tell. Hesychius seems to refer
merely to their office of offering sacrifices on
behalf of their tribes. That such sacrifices were
offered on behalf of the tribe (just as they were
offered for the phratry and genos) is very
probable. With reference to their origin we may
suggest that just as the Archon Basileus [cf.
REX SACRORUM] represented the religious
functions of the ancient king of united Attica,
so these “tribe-kings” represented the priestly
functions of the ancient chieftains of the several
separate tribes which were ultimately fused into
a single community. In Homer the title
BagiNews seems given to the chief of a tribe or
clan; so, for instance, Antinous and Eurymachus
and other suitors are called 8aaixães (Od. i. 394).
Many traces of these ancient chieftains can be
found elsewhere in Greece as well as in Athens.
For example, at Elis, there were magistrates called
Baaixães (I. G. A. 112), who had plainly judicial
functions. So also at Cyme there was a body
called Bagińeſs under the aesymmetes with
judicial functions. Similar bodies likewise ex-
isted in the islands of Mitylene and Siphnos,
but as regards their numbers we have no infor-
mation. [W. R.I.]
PHYLON (p5Aov). [TRIBUS.]
PICTU’RA (ypaq ft, ypaquch, ſºypaqia),
painting. 1. Definition of terms.-The word
ºypdq,w originally implies the engraving of signs
of any kind, and from this it came to be used
both for painting and writing : as in Greece the
art of painting was known long before the
introduction of writing, it is probable that the
second meaning was derived from the first, the
pictorial origin of writing being an obvious con-
nexion. The same double usage was applied to
ºpaqº and Ypdupa : while ypaquch indicated
painting as art in the abstract. As the repre-
sentation of the living thing is the farthest
removed from the mere signs which constitute
writing, painting as distinguished from writing
came to be called @ypapta (@a ypáqeiv) or
goypaquch: with special names for the various
branches of the art, as pleyaxonypaqta, for large
subjects; Éwtroypaq'ía, for trivial or miniature
subjects; eikovoypaqta, portraiture; and oxnvo-
ºpaqſa, scene-painting. In Latin we have not
these distinctive terms, pingere and its deriva-
tives (originally applied to embroidery) doing
duty for all requirements. !
It is evident that the rooted idea of the word
Ypápa, includes both the elements of drawing
and also that of colouring: of the two it seems
natural to suppose that drawing is the earlier
in point of origin, seeing that it forms the basis
of painting: and this abstract idea is probably
what we are intended to understand by the
ancient legends of the origin of painting in
390 PICTURA
PICTURA
Greece. These legends, to which we shall pre-
sently refer, seem to suggest, that the earliest
“paintings” were really only outline drawings,
— a fact which is, however, not borne out by
the evidence of the monuments. It has been
suggested that what Pliny (xxxv. 15) alludes to
as the earliest form of art, “Monochrome
painting,” monochromaton, consisted in the fill-
ing in of such outline drawings with colour, and
thus forming a silhouette, similar in idea to the
paintings on the earliest vases. Donner, on the
other hand, suggests that the art of writing
preceded that of drawing; tablets of wax,
pugillares, and the stilus may be traced, he says,
back to the time of Homer. Pliny states (xxi.
$ 85) that the wax was coloured black with
paper ash, and red with anchusa. From writing:
on these tablets people took to drawing: this,
in. Donner's view, is the explanation of the
earliest form of art, Pliny’s monochromaton.
This explanation is obviously untenable : for one
thing we have no evidence to show that such
red and black drawings existed in early times:
the theory that writing preceded drawing is
contrary to all our preconceived notions of
development; and, besides, another statement of
Pliny (xxxiii. § 117; xxxv. § 64) proves that in
his time monochromata meant something quite
different, the pictures being executed in various
tones of the same colour. Blümner suggests
that the mere outline drawings should rather
be, called monogrammata, because uovéºpauaos
is the term for a very lean man.
Another word which indicates outline rather
than complete drawing is replypaph ; and since
outline, must to a certain extent be said to .
underlie all design, it is further called Ölaypaſph,
âtraypaq.fi.
such terms as to leave it in doubt as to whether
the word implies the actual shadow, or merely
the outline of a shadow : in some instances it
means, certainly the outline of a shadow; more
usually, when referring to the art of a good
period, it applies to painting in strong light and
shade, or is another expression for a knvoypaſpía.
A special word for a hasty, inefficient shadow
outline or sketch is orkuapiq moraćs. What we
in painting call the “drawing ” as opposed to
the “colouring,” the Greeks called ypaupuſ :
hence Ypaupiðs éAkūeiv, &rotſveiv, &c. (Blüm-
ner, iv, pp. 414–24). . . . . . ... "
The importance of deciding the exact applica-
f
tion of these various terms will be seen when
We approach the question of the early history of |
painting as given in the ancient authorities:
where, as we shall see, there is good reason for
supposing that the various stages of develop-
ment as described by Pliny are partly at least.
based on his interpretations of the terms used
in . the, Greek authorities which formed his
sources of information.
In Latin, the art of drawing in the abstract.
was graphica, and the practice of it adumbrare
or delineare; what we call outlining was circum-
scribere. The outline of a picture, or even the
drawing, was linea (hence lineas ducere, linea-
menta); outline drawing, linearis pictura.
For the practice of drawing, various materials.
were used : the most general would be the
tablet of wood, which was covered with wax,
and the stilus, Ypapis or Ypaq'sſov: Ypapis was
also used for a fine brush, the penicillus, which
toning of one colour into another.
Pollux gives orkuzypaqta, but in
was employed either on wood, such as box or
cedar, or on parchment; the silver point, seems
alluded to in Pliny (xxxiii. 98); and the usage
of red pencil and of charcoal is likewise attested.
. By the addition of colour, drawing becomes
painting. For colouring matter, the ancients
spoke of pdpuakov, medicamentum, pigmentum,
as distinguished from, xpóła, color, the actual
colour prepared for use. Pollux speaks further
of évôm, xpdºuara &v0mpá: a further distinction
is made in the art., writers between colores
floridi and colores austeri. The laying on of
colour is xpéeiv, xpatvely (with compounds);
also #v6eori palēpēvely. In a bad sense of
“daubing,” kararotictaxely , and évaxeſpeiv,
inlinere: the Latin word, however, need not
always signify the derogatory sense. Circum-
linere is the working-up of the background from
which the subject stands.out. . . . T. ,
. For shading, Pollux gives orktav irorviróa'aobal
or orkudgetv. In artistic criticism we-find lumen
et winbra used in the modern sense: Splendor,
probably for strong gleaming lights or reflexion :
Távos, the “assistance of light and shade, per-
haps the general ground tone of the picture: ”
āpployā, commissurae et transitus colorum, the
These terms
will give some idea of the kind of effects which
an ancient art-critic would probably have had
principally in his mind.
2. Technique.—With a view to a clearer under-
standing of the usage of terms in the descrip-
tions which follow, it will be well to define first
of all those terms mentioned in connexion with
the various classes of ancient painting; to
describe the technical processes which distin-
guish these classes; and to enumerate the
materials used, as far as they can be identified
either from ancient literature or from the actual
monuments. - - -
. The most convenient division of the subject
is that which depends on the ground upon which
Athe painting is laid: the principal headings will
be as follows, viz. Wall Painting, Easel Paint-
ing, and Encaustic. Of these the first two may
be treated together, inasmuch as in both we
have the employment of water-colour and the
brush. The subject of encaustic, in which wax
and a metal tool, the cestrum, are the distin-
guishing materials, involves numerous, difficult
and complicated questions, and will be best
treated separately in connexion with the monu-
ments which illustrate this branch of art.
For wall and easel painting the materials of
the artist in antiquity were very much the
same as those of a modern painter: of brushes,
ºpaqetov, ypaſpís, penicillus (or -um), he would
have every variety at his disposal, the coarser
ones made of bristles, saeta, the finer of a close-
textured sponge; a larger piece of sponge
would serve to erase errors or wash out the
brush: a palette, or set of palettes, of which
the existence is proved by numerous representa-
tions of ancient studios, but of which the ancient
name is not known; and lastly, an easel pre-
cisely similar to those of to-day, called ěkpfflas
or kixx{Bas: the Latin equivalent is machina,
but this word is also applied to the scaffold on
which the fresco-painter worked. - .
3. Wall Painting.—The practice of decorating
walls with coloured designs in fresco obtained
in Greece long before the time at which actual
PICTURA
PICTURA 391
authentic records may be said to begin. The ex-
cavations at Tiryns and Mycenae, which illustrate
a civilisation of origin probably considerably
earlier than the poems of Homer, have brought
to light specimens of wall-painting which show
us that at that period, whenever it was, artists
‘on these sites were working in a technique very
similar to that of the Egyptians. The walls
were plastered with clay, and covered with a
coating of lime; over this a design in spirited
freehand has been drawn al fresco. In the
Tiryns specimens five colours were used, as
against six which are found in Egyptian art;
but the omission of the green may here be
merely accidental, and in point of fact the use
of green seems to be indicated in the specimens
found more recently at Mycenae. Of fresco-
painting in Greece proper we hear nothing fur-
ther until the time of Polygnotos: that it was
kept up, however, in Italy at least, we know
from the wall-paintings of the tombs in some of
the early Etruscan sites, such as Veii, which
must date from the end of the seventh century -
B.C.: some of these paintings show a decided
connexion with Mycenaean art, both in the style
and in the character of their ornamentation.
It was not until the fifth century that the
great historical compositions of Polygnotos and
his contemporaries raised this art to its highest
level; so that in this era we hear very little of
any other kind of pāinting. In the fourth cen-
tury, the work of the greater artists, such as
Zeuxis and Parrhasiós, lay almost-entirely in the
execution of easel pictures, and henceforward
wall-decoration was reduced to a subordinate
position, from which it never again rose.
In the literary accounts of ancient pictures it
is, often extremely difficult to decide whether
the description refers to a wall- or an easel-
picture, because the writers have no system of
terminology to distinguish the two methods. The
words riva; and tabula, which originally applied
to an easel-painting on wood, came in course of
time to be loosely applied to the general mean-
ing of “picture,” without distinction of species;
and to increase the difficulty, we know that
the ancients both hung pictures on, and also let
them into, their walls: so that Ypépeiv ćrl
rotxov or étrº rotxº can and certainly does
mean any of these methods; on the other
hand, it seems probable that rotxo'ypaſpia is
strictly only applied to fresco. The real dis-
tinction between fresco and other methods is in
reality the fact that fresco demands a “fresh ’’
or wet surface; and this is indicated by the
expression éq’ 5-ypoſs Corypa pelv, udo (tectorio)
2ingere or illinere. -
The following account of the preparation of
the wall and of the method of fresco-painting is
taken from Blümner (iv. p. 432).
The groundwork for fresco-painting is formed
by a wet stucco, kovſapia or tectorium, laid on
the wall. This stucco for fresco was specially
prepared: both ancient literature and modern
research show that the ancients expended
greater care on this than we do in modern
times. Pliny says that three layers of sand
mortar and two of marble stucco were em-
ployed; but Vitruvius gives the process in
fuller detail. The wall is first treated with a
rough-cast of coarse mortar; then follow three
layers of sand mortar, so arranged that with the
aid of ruler, plummet, and square, the due level
is preserved; each fresh layer being put on
when the lower “one is dry. On these three
layers of sand mortar follow three of marble
mortar (i.e. mortar mixed with pounded marble
in such a way as to detach freely from the
trowel), varying in degree from coarse to fine.
This is pressed down and smoothed with wood;
special care being taken that it should be
durable and not liable to crack, and, above all
things, that the colours laid on it while wet
should bind firmly with the lime. For the
adhesion of these colours depends on a chemical
process, in which the water of the water-colours,
combining with that already existing in the
mortar, releases a part of the hydrate of lime
(into which the lime in the mortar has changed
by slaking); and pressing through all the layers
of colour, after an interval returns to the
surface; here it attracts to itself carbonic acid
from the air, changes again into carbonic acid
lime, and is deposited over the colours in the
form of a thin crystal skin, which is hard to
dissolve, and strengthens and 'protects them in
such a way that washing (without friction)
causes no injury. - -
The thickness of the mortar has yet another
advantage. The modern fresco-painter, who
works on a much thinner layer of mortar, is
obliged every morning to have only just so
much fresh mortar laid on as he expects to
cover in the day: when he breaks off his work,
he cuts away all that he has not painted on, and
next morning the mason must bring his new
mortar up to this mark. This system involves
all sorts of inconveniences: the artist cannot
work so freely as on a large space; the seams
remain visible, and the new stucco has never
the same surface as the old. The ancient
method avoided these difficulties, since the thick
mortar lasted damp much longer. The re-
searches into the wall-paintings of 'Pompeii,
where fresco is certainly used,' show that the
walls there are not made with so much care as
Vitruvius prescribes; but they are nevertheless
generally thicker and more carefully constructed
than the modern examples. 4 =
On this surface the painting was laid with
a brush and water-colours. Certain colours,
however, do not suit the fresco method; in such
cases, a binding medium was necessary which
was otherwise not employed in fresco, such as
milk or gum :: thus, for purpurissum it is
expressly stated that the ground must be
painted al fresco with red sandyx or blue, and
the purpurissum is laid on this with egg as a
binding, a tempera. Another special process
for cinnabar, which readily sets up chemical
action and changes colour in sunlight, was the
kajous, which will be described under Encaustic.
In Pompeii the cinnabar does not seem to have
undergone this treatment, and consequently
changes colour rapidly in the sunlight. A
peculiar process, which has not been rightly
understood, is attributed by Pliny to Panaenus:
in the decoration of the temple of Athene at
Elis he is said to have mixed the stucco ground
with milk and saffron; but whether the saffron
had also binding properties does not appear.
4. Easel Pictures—The generality of easel
pictures (excluding of course those painted in the
encaustic method) were probably executed on a
392 PICTURA
PICTURA
dry ground a tempera in water-colours. The
materials for this ground were various: the
most usual was a thin slab of wood (trivač,
rivariov, sometimes oavis, tabula, tabella),
usually of box or cedar, also of cypress, pine, or
larch; this was carefully dried, and, as a rule,
constructed in several pieces, so as to guard
against warping; finally it was primed with
whitening (AeAevkapiévos).
Canvas such as we now employ was pro-
bably rare; but that the ancients both knew of
and used it, we see from the mention in Pliny,
xxxv. § 51, of a colossal portrait which Nero
ordered to be painted of himself on “linen”
(pingi in linteo). Blümner suggests that this was
either a unique instance, where the unwonted
size of the portrait rendered some such material
necessary, or that the portrait may have been
executed in embroidery, to which the term
pingi would equally apply. We have however,
among the mummy portraits from the Fayoum,
which were executed under Greek influence and
date from the second and third centuries A.D.,
undoubted instances of paintings executed on
canvas: in these cases the canvas appears to be
primed with whitening of a similar character to
that which was used in preparing the wood.
The canvas in one case has been stretched upon
a wooden panel ; in another case it is formed of
several sheets stuck one over the other: these
instances are both painted in tempera; but the
material seems also to have been in requisition
for encaustic.
Lastly, we have stone and marble: the
colouring of architectural mouldings and reliefs
may have suggested the substitution of these
members in colour alone: at any rate we have
instances as early as the first half of the sixth
century B.C., in which the decoration of a
funeral stele is indicated in colour alone, and
consists of a portrait of the deceased or other
scenes which would otherwise have been
chiselled. That this work was not always
delegated to mere handicraftsmen we see from
a statement of Pausanias (vii. 22, 6), who says
that the painter Nicias executed the picture on
a stele which in his time was to be found at
Triteia in Achaia. The Florence sarcophagus
from Corneto (Hellenic Journal, iv. p. 354,
pll. 36–38) is an instance in which painted
scenes are introduced in lieu of sculpture; on
the sides are contests of Greeks and Amazons
painted with great beauty in tempera directly
upon the unsmoothed surface of the marble, but
with only a plain tinted background. Pictures
on marble or stone were used in the decoration of
rooms, where they were either hung or inserted
in the walls: and to this practice we owe some
of the finest examples which have come down to
us from Herculaneum.
The colours of the ancients were kept in a dry
and firm condition, and when required for use
would be pounded (pdpuaka TpíBeiv, colores
terere) in a stone mortar by the assistants, in
preparation for the mixing (xpºpara kepdoragóa,
ovuſuſéagèal, colores miscere), done by the
master himself according to the tints he re-
quired, [COLORES..]
A binding material was necessary for fixing
the colours: for this purpose they employed
gum (Pliny, xiii. § 67, “Gummis fit e sarcocolla
. . . utilissima pictoribus ”), glue (ib. xxviii.
§ 236, “Rhodiacum glutinum fidelissimum ”),
and egg, which was also used in fresco for the
same purpose.
Undoubtedly the ancient paintings in water-
colour lacked durability, so that we meet with
frequent complaints in literature of their fading
and destruction : varnish as a protection of the
surface was unknown, so was also the use of
glass. Pliny tells us that Apelles used to lay a
very fine coating of “atramentum ” over his
pictures after their completion : this toned
down the over-bright colours, and lent reflexion
to the outward appearance of the picture, besides
protecting it against dust. What exactly this
atramentum was, is uncertain, as it cannot
imply here the ordinary sense of the word,
“lampblack ’’: Pliny says that it was a secret
of Apelles, which no one after him was able to
discover. Possibly he is merely repeating
studio gossip, as he certainly is when he relates
of Protogenes, that this artist painted his
celebrated picture of Ialysos four times over, “in
order that if by age or by any other injury one
of the upper strata of colouring were lost, the
under stratum would replace it !” The only
method of protection for pictures which is
known to have existed was the practice of con-
structing folding doors, which fitted over the
picture like the triptychs of early Italian art;
on Pompeian paintings the open doors of such
pictures are frequently represented in per-
spective.
5. Encaustic. — If the brilliant effects and
deeper tones of our modern oil-paintings were be-
yond the sphere of the ancient artist in tempera
and fresco, these qualities were more nearly ac-
cessible to the encaustic painter; but unfortu-
nately it happens that this branch of ancient art
is precisely the method of which we know least.
When Donner wrote his great work on the wall-
paintings of Campania, he was unable to point
to a single specimen of ancient painting which
could be definitely attributed to encaustic;
while, on the other hand, the statements of
ancient authors, which show us how extensive
and developed the practice was, leave us in
doubt as to important details. It is only within
the last two years that a considerable series of
encaustic mummy-portraits of the Roman period
have been found in Egypt, which have enabled
us to examine these statements with some hope
of solution.
The principal sources of our literary authori-
ties on this subject are two passages in Pliny,
H. N. xxxv. In the first of these (§ 122) he
says, “It has not been ascertained who first
devised the art of painting in wax-colours and
of burning in the painting ” (ac picturam
inurere). Donner takes this as implying two
distinct operations, i.e. first the painting with
variously coloured wax; and when this is done,
the burning-in of that which has been painted,
from which latter process originated the name
of encaustic, i.e. burned-in painting. If this is
so, then heat was not employed in the actual
painting, and the wax must have been rendered
ductile by the admixture of some solvent.
The second passage is in § 149, and runs as
follows: “Encausto pingendi duo fuere, anti-
quitus genera, cera, et in ebore, cestro id est
vericulo, donec classes pingi coepere. Hoc
tertium accessit resolutis igni ceris penicillo
PICTURA
PICTURA 393
utendi, quae pictura navibus nec sole nec sale
ventisque corrumpitur.” This Donner, in keeping
with his theory, translates, “There have been,
time out of mind, two kinds of encaustic painting:
with wax—also on ivory—by means of the
cestrum, i.e. until men began to paint also the
ships of war; then was adopted the third kind,
that of causing the wax colours to melt over the
fire, so as to lay them on with the brush.” By
this he understands that in the first two pro-
cesses—viz. (i.) on wood (the ordinary material,
and therefore not here specified), and (ii.) on
ivory—ductile wax and the cestrum alone are
employed, no heat being required; also that in
these the brush was not used, because he thinks
that Pliny lays special stress on the fact that it
was only in the third process that liquid wax
colour melted over the fire was employed and
laid on with the brush.
The wax paste, he thinks, is laid on with the
cestrum. This word has usually been described
as a cutting or graving instrument (from caedo,
“to cut ’’ or “engrave”). Donner, however,
takes it as the Latinized form of kéorpov or
kégrpos, the Greek term for the betony plant,
named by the Latins serratula, i.e. “finely
dentated,” because it has a lancet-shaped, den-
tated leaf with a long stalk. The alternative
word in Pliny, ver(r)iculum, which had been
interpreted as “a small spit” (veruculum), he
derives from verro, “to furrow’’ or “scrape.”
The cestrum is therefore, according to him, “a
lancet-shaped spatula, with a finely dentated
edge and rather long handle, the point some-
what curved. The toothing of this instrument
enables any agglomeration of the wax pastes to
be equalised and smoothed by furrowing or
scraping.”
Pliny and Vitruvius (vii. 9) both describe a
process which Donner thinks has some bearing
on the present question, viz. the so-called kaijoris,
by which the vermilion fresco paint on walls was
protected from damage by sun or air. The
painting was spread with a mixture of olive-oil
and “Punic wax * melted, and, this done, the
burning (katois) took place: a cauterium, filled
with hot wood-ashes, or a heated metal rod
(5a56tov), was passed over the surface to level it
(ut peraequetur).
Here, Donner thinks, we have the key to the
burning-in : it is merely required for the pur-
pose of levelling down the surface of the wax,
which, whether laid on with brush or cestrum,
would present an uneven appearance; in his
cestrum painting, moreover, it would soften the
tones into one another. What “Punic wax * was,
Pliny tells us (xxi. § 84): it was obtained by
boiling the natural yellow beeswax three times
in sea-water with an addition of a little nitrum,
i.e. natural mineral soda, and then skimming it.
The addition of the olive-oil prevents the wax
from too rapidly congealing. But here comes the
difficulty: too much oil would prevent the wax
from drying, while a little would not render the
wax sufficiently ductile. If Donner's theory is
to hold good, there must have been something
further added in order to make the wax in a
cold state soft enough to lay on in the form of
paste, while possessing at the same time the
quality of hardening in a given time. This
volatile matter he assumes to have been balm of |
Chios, the liquid resin of the Pistacia terebinthus,
well known to the ancients. But for this
assumption he can adduce no proof whatever.
It will be seen that Donner's somewhat far-
fetched and elaborate explanations arise out of his
supposition that Pliny’s statement in xxxv. § 149 :
precludes the use of the brush and of heat in the
first two processes there described : he there-
fore is forced to imagine a kind of painting in
which a pasty compound is laid on with a sort
of spatula, a clumsy method at best. Now, it
so happens that the evidence of the mummy-
portraits goes entirely against his theory; for
in these pictures it is absolutely certain that
the brush was used, and that the wax was laid
on in a melted condition.
The difficulty is surmounted if we interpret
the passage in Pliny somewhat differently. The
key to its solution seems to lie in another state-
ment of the same author. In Xxxv. § 147, or
only a few lines previously, he has been discuss-
ing the works of the lady painter Jaia (or Laia):
“Et penicillo pinxit et cestro in ebore imagines
mulierum maxume et Neapoli anum in grandi
tabula, suam quoque imaginem ad speculum.”
Here there is no question but that the words
cestro in ebore are to be taken together as
opposed to penicillo: her two methods of por-
trait-painting are (i.) with the brush, i.e. pro-
bably in tempera, as Pliny elsewhere uses
penicillum in this application; and (ii.) with the
cestrum on ivory. It seems obvious that the
usage of cestro in ebore in § 147 is the same as
that of in ebore cestro in § 149, and that Welcker
was so far-right in supposing that these words
in both cases must be taken together. We thus,
in the two passages, have three methods of
painting mentioned, viz. (i.) cera, i.e. encaustic
painting proper; (ii.) cestro in ebore, encaustic
painting on ivory; (iii.) penicillo or tempera.
None of these terms as used by Pliny can pos-
sibly be taken as exclusive: the classification
is merely popular, according to the prominent
feature of each method; thus, though (i.) is
called “wax,” it does not necessarily imply that
wax was not used in (ii.), just as the cestrum
may be used in both (i.) and (ii.), and so
penicillum may equally be used in (i.) and (iii.)*
The following account of the process adopted
for the Egyptian portraits is given by Mr. Petrie
(Hawara, &c., p. 18) as the result of close ex-
amination of over sixty originals, and consul-
tation with various experts and artists:–“The
colours in powder were ground in thoroughly
with the wax (which may have been bleached
by heating it to boiling-point, as I, have found),
and they were then placed out in the sunshine
when required, so as to fuse them, or a hot-
water bath may have been used in cooler
weather. The wooden panel was of cedar
* This explanation renders unnecessary the assump-
tion of Klein (Mittheil. aws Oest. 1887, p. 219) that
Pliny, in xxxv. § 149, did not understand his own state-
ment. Klein considers “with wax and also on ivory”
as implying only one method, and that the simplified
mode of painting is nothing more than the abandoning
of the cestrum and therewith of the tarda picturae
ratio (Pliny, xxxv. § 124). He takes the passage about
Jaia as meaning, “Jaia painted both in tempera (perº-
cillo) and also in encaustic (cestro); in encaustic, she
painted both in ivory, smaller pictures, and also larger zº
(in grandi tabula, i.e. on wood).
394 PICTURA
PICTURA
usually, sometimes of a pine wood, and about
# inch. thick, or occasionally as much as # inch ;
it was about 9×17 inches in size. On this was
laid, a priming of distemper; then a grounding
varied in tint, lead colour for the background
and, draperies, and flesh colour for the face; and
then, the surface colour was worked on, some-
times in a pasty state, more usually creamy and
free-flowing. . These details are shown by an
unfinished attempt, on a panel, which was after-
wards turned and re-used.; now at South
Kensington. . The broad surfaces of flesh were
often laid on in thick creamy colour with zig-
zag strokes of the brush, about ; inch apart, just
joining up and uniting in an almost smooth
surface : the draperies were usually laid on
freely in very flowing colour, with long strokes
of a full brush; in one case we see where the
full drop of purple wax at the first touch of the
brush thinned out as it went down, until at the
rend of the long stroke the brush was pressed
flat out, and every hair has left its streak of
wax on the panel. In Egypt one sees white bees-
wax not only softened, but fused on its surface by
the ordinary sun of April and May : it is there-
fore evident that the wax used in painting
might be worked in a flowing state without any
artificial means during nearly half the year, by
the mere heat of the sun. It is needless to
Suppose a solvent of the wax to have been used,
Such as turpentine or oils : and the perfect
freedom from yellowing in the well-preserved
pictures, or indeed of any change in the tints
beyond superficial decomposition, makes it ap-
parently impossible for any changeable organic
material to have been added to the wax.”
It will be observed, then, that in these
Egyptian examples both the brush and a stump,
possibly the cestrum, are used: the wax is laid
on in a fluid condition; and apparently no
solvent or drying compound is added. This
method, as Mr. Petrie points out, would answer
in the hot sun, of Egypt; but for the cooler
climate of Italy and Greece artificial substitutes
for the sun’s heat would have to be adopted.
In these climates it was necessary, as Varro
(iii. 17, 4) says, for the encaustes to have large
boxes, divided into compartments (loculatas
‘magnas arculas) in which the different coloured
waxes were kept, doubtless in a fluid condition,
as, Varro's simile of the fish-ponds (ibid.) shows.
No wonder that under such difficulties encaustic
painting was looked upon as a tedious process
(tarda ratio), that only small pictures were
attempted in it, and that the portrait of a boy
by Pausias was esteemed as a wonderful feat and
was known as “Hemeresios,” from the reason
that it was painted in a single day. #
. . The fact is, that this technique probably ori-
ginated in Egypt, a climate where it presented
little difficulty; and here throughout antiquity
it was principally practised. The Egyptians
made use of preparations of wax at least as early
as the Eighteenth Dynasty for preserving paint-
ings; and so we find that the names of most of
the encaustic painters of antiquity may be
traced to Alexandria or an Egyptian origin.
We find a, mention of the process in Greece
proper in the ode, of doubtful date, falsely
attributed to Anacreon: “Paint me my mistress
with her soft black tresses, and, if the war can
do it, paint them breathing of myrrh.” Other-
wise it does not seem to have been mentioned in
literaturé until the conquests of Alexander had
opened a closer communication between East
and West. The practice continued in use late
into mediaeval times: in Eusebius it is called
kmpéxvros.'ypapſi; but from the ninth century
downwards its usage seems to have declined. . "
To return to the preparation of the waz : we
saw that Pliny, describing the application of
encaustic to walls, spoke of “Punic wax melted
on the fire and mixed with a little oil.” What
was this oil 2. Pollux (Onom. vii. 128) describes
the implements of the painter as consisting of
wax, colours, papuaka, and pigments: this word
pépuakov is described by Suidas, s. v., as Śrep
M750 väg,0av kaxodori, “EXAmves -68 Mºbeias
*Aatov: and it may be that in Greeee and Italy
it was usual to add some such material as
naphtha to the compound, so as to enable the
colours and wax to combine more readily.
As to the colours wsed, Mr. Petrie found in
one grave at Hawara a set of six paint saucers,
which seemed to have been the xpáuara of an
artist, and are now in the British Museum :
although these are water colours, it is probable
that they would be similar to the pigments
used by the encaustic painter (Hawara, p. 11).
According to Dr. Russell’s' examination, they
consist of (1) a dark red, oxide of iron with a
little sand; a good burnt sienna : (2) yellow,
ochre, oxide of iron, with hardly' any alu-
mina; becomes dark-reddish brown on heating:
(3) white, sulphate of lime, amorphous powder:
(4) pink, organic colour in a medium of sulphate
of lime; probably madder, and can be exactly
matched by that: (5) blue, glass coloured by
copper : (6) red, minium, oxide of lead, with
apparently some alumina. - e
In some of the Egyptian pictures Donner notes
that a process is adopted which is a mixture of
the pure wax-encaustic and egg-distemper: here
he thinks the wax has been mixed with the yolk
and a little white of egg, also a drop of olive-
oil; and this enables the artist to add finishing
strokes to the encaustic by means of the ordinary
egg-distemper. * ' , .
As regards the encaustic painting on ivory,
our knowledge is very 'limited : it may be
assumed that such pictures were 'small, and
possibly, as has been suggested, in the nature of
our miniature painting. The instance already
quoted of the lady painter Jaia is the only
mention of this technique in antiquity: There
again the use of ivory seems to point to Africa,
and the only specimen of work which it has as
yet been proposed to identify with this technique
is an ivory box from Egypt now in the British
Museum. On the panels of this box are designs
which are formed by engraving or hollowing
out certain portions and filling in these spaces
with a wax paste in various tones of colour.
The specimen is rough in execution, but it shows
that the process, if well treated, could be made
very attractive. Donner thinks that this cannot
be called encaustic, but that the second en-
caustic process attributed by Pliny to Jaia must
have been something of which at present we
have no representation. {
The use of encaustic for the painting of ships
was referred to in the statement quoted above
from Pliny. In spite of the late date that he
assigns to its use, there is no doubt that the
PICTURA
PICTURA 395
colouring of ships is alluded to in Homer's
frequent epithet of ships as fuxºrorópmot: a frag-
ment of Hipponax (Bergk, Poet. Lyr. Gr. p. 519)
alludes to a serpent painted along the whole
length of a trireme; and in a fragment of the
Myrmidons of Aeschylus (130 Dind.), according
to one interpretation of a corrupt passage, the
poet describes how in the burning of a vessel
the sign, a Hippalektryon painted with much
trouble in wax colours, drops off. The wood was
probably first treated with pitch and tar, and
then had the wax colours laid on. Pliny states
that Protogenes was a painter of ships until his
fiftieth year; whence it is argued that this was
not a mechanical process: but see p. 415.
6. Encaustic of Statues.—After the marble
statue left the sculptor's hands, it was usually
handed over to an assistant or another artist to
undergo the processes of waxing and colouring.
In the description of the process for protecting
wall-painting by Vitruvius (vii. 9, 3) already
quoted, the remark is added that “it is the same
process as is adopted for the preservation of
nude marble statues (uti signa marmorea nuda
curantur), and which in Greek = ydvooris.” As
to this ydvooris, Plutarch (Quaest. Rom. ch. 98,
p. 287 B) remarks that the first duties of the
Roman Censors were to provide for the feeding
of the sacred geese and the yávooris of the statue
in the temple of Capitoline Jupiter: “for the
vermilion with which statues were anciently
coloured quickly fades.” Blümner thinks that
the process of waxing is therefore separate from
that of colouring, and intended to preserve it;
or in cases, where no colour is used, to soften
the tone of the marble : the word nuda imply-
ing that only the flesh of statues, and not the
drapery, was, so treated. He thinks that the
colouring of the flesh was a habit only found on
the older statues, or, if on the later statues at-
all, only in isolated cases: while Von Rohden
(in Baumeister's Denkmäler, p. 1345) denies
altogether the colouring of the flesh. With
regard to the mere toning of the marble by
means of wax, it is pointed out that the “Punic”
wax ordinarily used, as Vitruvius (vii. 9, 3)
says, for the yávaloris of statues, had undergone
a special bleaching process; such wax would
therefore not perceptibly affect the gleaming
whiteness of marble. Treu, who has made a
special study of the subject, considers that the
toning of the marble by wax alone is out of the
question; that the alternative lies between a
dazzling whiteness, or, as is more probable, a
transparent or opaque tone of colour for the
flesh: these tones may be sometimes found side
by side, or even one over the other, on the same
statue. We shall have to consider this question
further under the head of
7. Polychromy of Sculpture. — The question,
formerly much discussed, as to whether the
Greeks coloured their statuary, is no longer open’
to doubt : it is generally admitted that a statue
in flawless 'white marble could never have
suited Greek ideas, and that the chill and staring
effect of modern sculpture is mainly due to the
fact that the ancient originals which inspired
the art of the Renaissance had, at the time of
their discovery, retained no evidence of their
former colouring. But while the Greeks cer-
tainly employed colour, this was only done
within the strictest limits of artistic require-
ment, and never with the idea of aping nature
or a wax figure. The surface of marble, as they
treated it, presented a warm transparency of
effect which recalled, without imitation, the
human skin, a slight toning indicating the
difference between the various surfaces of the
body. It is evident that the prudent application
of these laws demanded an artistic sense and
experience of high order. Hence we can under-
stand the point of the remark attributed to
Praxiteles, who, when he was asked which of
his statues he most admired, answered, “Those
to which Nicias (the great painter) had lent his
hand ” (“quibus Nicias manum admovisset”);
so highly, says Pliny (xxxv. § 133), did Praxi-
teles esteem the circumlitio of that painter.
We know from other passages, that this word
circumlito implied, not a process like yavajoris,
the mechanical treatment of the entire surface
alike, but the decoration of details such as the
borders of dress, &c. (Quintil. i. 11, 6). Plato
(de Republ. iv. p. 420 C) speaks of oi. &vöpiávras
ºpéqovves, “the statue painters,” as a well-
known profession: the word āvöpiès no doubt
implied originally any kind of portrait, but in
the time of Plato it could only have meant a
statue; and the scope of the art is well defined
in the remarks which follow : he says, that it is
not by applying a rich or beautiful colour to
any particular part, but by giving its local
colour to each part that the whole is made
beautiful (&AA’ &6pei ei Tà trpoofirovira ékágrous
&Toëtóóvres, rb Šxov kaAöv trouot usv). The
colouring was in fact applied only to certain
parts, such as the lips; eyes, hair, and decoration
of the dress, while the remaining surface of the
flesh was treated with a toning of wax; and
this is borne out by the dialogue in Lucian
(Imag. 5–8), where it is clearly, though indi-
rectly stated, that the Cnidian Aphrodite of
Praxiteles, and other celebrated statues, were
not coloured, although they were ornamented in
parts and covered with an encaustic varnish.
In Anthol. Pal. vii. 730, yparrès rêtros evidently
refers to a painted relief; and there are frequent
passages in ancient literature in which certain
parts of a statue are mentioned as coloured.
The distinct process of toning, yºvogrus, is
alluded to in Plutarch (de Gloria Ath. 6) as
&yaxpúrwv čykavoris: where it is expressly
distinguished from the colouring, &yaxuárov
éykavoºral kal Xpworwtal kal Baqºs, i.e. “the
waxers, gilders, and painters of statues.” . That
a sculptor sometimes did the waxing himself we
see from the inscription of an artist Aphrodisios
(in Loewy, Inschr. Gr. Bildh. No. 551), who
signs his name as āyaaparotrotos éykavaths. ,
Turning now to the monuments, we see that
the earliest traditions of the Greeks, strongly
influenced as they were by the gay colouring of
the East, were naturally in favour of a system
of polychromy; and further, that the meanness
of the materials in which the earliest sculptures
were executed, such as wood, terra-cotta, and
limestone, rendered necessary a scheme of colour
which should conceal this inferiority. A third
important reason was the close connexion that
existed between the arts of the sculptor and the
architect. Greek architecture, as we shall
show, was invariably coloured, more or less;
and in order to adapt a statue or relief to the
temple or other building for which it was
396 PICTURA
PICTURA
intended, it was necessary to bring it also into
the general scheme of the colouring of its
surroundings. One result of this was an en-
tirely conventional system of colour for sculp-
ture, often far removed from that of nature:
thus in the early pedimental sculptures in poros
stone recently discovered on the Acropolis, the
beards of two of the figures are coloured a
bright blue, and the iris of their eyes green.
Herein the advantages of colour were manifold:
thus, for figures intended to stand in the back-
ground, painting often took the place of the
more detailed modelling ; and on reliefs such as
the frieze of the Parthenon, details of dress,
weapons, &c., could be indicated in this method.
The sculptor was thus enabled to dispense with
trivialities, and his work gained proportionately
in breadth of style. The colouring of archi-
tectural marbles was necessarily subject to strict
laws, dependent upon that of the architecture
of the time: in these cases probably even the
flesh was usually coloured, and the general
effect was very much what we have in the
terra-cotta statuettes of Tanagra. In case of
independent sculpture, which had no tectonic
intention, the artist had freer scope; and here
probably, in the best period at any rate, most
sculptors were content with circumlitio : thus
the Hermes of Praxiteles, when it was first
discovered, showed only traces of red and gold
on the sandals.
The scale of colours employed in sculpture, ori-
ginally restricted, became enlarged in later times,
especially when under the Ptolemaic rule inter-
course with the East became more established ;
and in Roman times it was no longer restrained
by the prudent reserve of the Greeks. In
Etruria, again, where from the earliest period
sculpture had principally been executed in terra-
cotta, a separate scheme of colours obtained;
the more Oriental tastes of the Etruscans lead-
ing them to prefer lively primary colours, as
we see in their wall-paintings and in the series
of sarcophagi with reliefs which have come
down to us from them. While for the yávaloris
a wax process was employed, it seems clear that
the colour was laid on usually in tempera; and
this probably accounts for the fact that so few
traces of it have survived. The surfaces in-
tended for this colour were generally left un-
polished; thus in the head of Athene (Ant.
Denkm. Taf. 3) the white skin is left unpainted
and is polished smooth, while the coloured por-
tions are worked with the tool and left rough.
Gilding played an important part in poly-
chromy; some have gone so far as to say that
in the Parthenon, for instance, all the colour
was laid on a ground which had been gilt.
Probably the work of the xpvaaris (see above)
lay principally with bronzes, but certain por-
tions of the marble, such as jewellery, as we
see also in the Tanagra statuettes, were gilded :
the Eros of Thespiae by Praxiteles had gilt
wings; and we read frequently of the renewal
of faded gilding on cult-statues, the cost of
which had been borne as an ea voto by some
pious devotee. Polychrome effects in bronzes
were produced principally by this method, or
by inlaying; and here only to distinguish those
parts from one another which demanded it, such
as the decoration of dress, the lips, and the
eyes. The stories in the classics bearing on this
point are misleading; thus we cannot credit the
statement of Plutarch (Qu. Conv. v. 1, 2), who -
says of the statue of Iocasta that the face was
rendered so as to represent a dying person, by
the admixture of silver with the bronze: such
stories were probably due to a misunderstanding
of the terms applied to plating or inlaying. In
sculpture also, inlaying was sometimes applied
to give polychrome effect: the chryselephantine
statues of gold and ivory had early given the
idea of a mixture of materials, and we find in
the marble statues such details as wings and
armour sometimes added in metal. In Roman
times realistic effects were frequently attained
by composition in marbles of different colours;
so that, as in a cameo, the helmet of a figure
might be in one marble, the flesh in a second,
and the drapery in a third: such processes did
more credit to their ingenuity than to their taste.
8. Polychromy of Architecture.—As in the pre-
vious subject, so here also the main difficulty
lies in the lack of material: one thing only
seems certain, that while no Greek temple was
left uncoloured, the colouring was applied only
to certain parts and under strict laws of distri-
bution. As in sculpture too, the usage differed
considerably according to period and locality:
in the best period, when marble was the prin-
cipal material employed, very little colour was
added ; in the early period, and again in the
later when stucco was freely introduced, colour
was necessary in order to conceal the poverty or
dissimilarity of materials. Broadly speaking,
colour was reserved throughout for those mem-
bers which projected from the surface, such as
the cymatium, triglyphs, &c., and for those
parts of the actual surface which gave a back-
ground for the sculptures: the background of a
frieze or tympanum of a pediment being usually
either red or blue. In the interior, the wooden
roof was certainly coloured; but what these
colours were, we cannot now judge, except from
the imitations in stone which have come down
to us, principally in Athens. Of the colouring
of Ionic architecture still less is known than
that of Doric ; in such few traces as have sur-
vived, it seems to accord mainly with the princi-
ples of Doric. The colouring serves principally
as a background for moulding; and as the
moulding grows richer and higher in relief, the
more compensation in colour is demanded. In
Corinthian architecture, with its richer capitals
due possibly to the Egyptian palm capitals, the
colouring is still further enriched : a tendency
which in Roman architecture shows itself in the
use of mosaics, wall-paintings, and variously
coloured marbles. The colours were probably
for the most part laid on in the encaustic pro-
cess: in the inscription from Athens which
records the building accounts of the Erechtheion
(C. I. A. i. 324 a, l. 42) occurs the entry of a
sum paid to the encaustic painters for having
painted the cymatium on the epistylium of the
interior: éykavrais' ro kupićriov čykéavrt to
étrº ró ério rvXtº ró évrós.
9. Mosaic.—This subject is most naturally
included under the head of Painting, for it is
upon the major art that it depends for its
inspiration as well as its intention, which is the
representation of decorative and pictorial effects
in floors and walls by the arrangement in them
of coloured stones and glass.
PICTURA
PICTURA 397
In Greek we meet with no term for this
branch of art until quite a late period, descrip-
tions of mosaics in Greek authors usually show-
ing, by the roundabout phrases employed, that
there was no such term known. In Roman
writers we find the words Šugamua and A166-
orporov, which they seem to have adopted, with
the process, from the Greeks; but it is a ques-
tion whether these were not specially applied to
distinct classes of mosaic.
The best known term is opus musivum or
pictura de musivo (also museum or musium, hence
musiarii, musivarii, and our “mosaic *); but
this does not appear until late, and its deriva-
tion is unknown.
Of the history of mosaic little is known: the
Romans certainly borrowed the idea from the
Greeks, probably in the time of Sulla ; but
there is no evidence as to whence, or when, the
Greeks themselves adopted the process. It is
natural to connect it with the brick and tile
constructious of Egypt and Mesopotamia. In-
laying in various coloured glazes was of course
known to the Egyptians from an early period,
as the tiles of Tell el Yahoudiyeh show (Birch,
Anc. Pottery,” p. 50): it was equally familiar
to the Assyrians and the Persians. The recent
researches into the architecture of Persepolis
have moreover shown that the bricks in these
buildings were made in two tones of colour, and
so disposed as to form a literal mosaic pattern.
In all probability, then, Greek mosaic was in-
spired from the East, after the conquests of
Alexander. The evidence for this date rests
upon the fact that neither in literature nor the
monuments can we prove the existence of any
mosaic in Greece before this time. The earliest
mosaic as yet known is that which decorates
the floor of the pronaos of the temple of Zeus
at Olympia, which, as has been shown (Arch.
Zeit. 1879, p. 153), cannot be earlier than the
first half of the fourth century B.C., and is pro-
bably considerably later. An anecdote of the
cynic Diogenes mentioned by Galen (i. p. 19 k)
refers to a floor in which the likenesses of gods
were represented by arrangements of different
Rinds of tesserae (#6apos ék ºf pay troAvreaſov
. . . 0eóv eikóvas #xov č; airów Ślatervira-
Hévas); but probably this, in common with
most of the anecdotes of Diogenes, is a late
invention. On the other hand, most of the
literary notices of mosaic point to the period of
the Diadochi: we hear of it in connexion with
the names of Demetrius Phalereus and Hieron II.,
and with the Pergamene empire. In Greece
proper a noted instance is given at Delphi: the
Scholiast to Lucian repl 3pxhorea's, 38, says
that beside the omphalos at Delphi two eagles
were represented in mosaic (yeypdq6al &mb
ovv6éorews Atówv); and Wieseler has suggested
with great probability that this decoration must
have originated at the restoration of the shrine
after the Phocian War, when the golden eagles
that formerly stood there had been looted and
the ground torn up by treasure-seekers. Every-
thing then points to the third century B.C. for
the introduction of mosaic into Greece: probably
it was never practised to any great extent there;
we do not even know whether the Greeks were
familiar with the various classes of mosaic which
the Romans distinguished from each other.
The only artist in mosaic whose name is men-
tioned in ancient literature is Sosos of Perga-
mon (probably about the middle of the third
century B.C.; Pliny, xxxvi. § 184), who made
a mosaic which became famous as the oikos
ãoráparros, “the unswept house,” representing a
floor covered with the remnants of a banquet:
several reproductions of this have come down
to us; one of these, now in Rome, is signed by
the artist, ‘Hpékxeiros hpyáoraro. It is possible
that representations of the objects likely to be
found on an actual floor may have led to the
imitation of figured scenes in mosaic: one such
mosaic in the British Museum represents strewn
leaves. On the other hand, it has been sug-
gested that these floor pictures were due to
another reason : in the time of the Diadochi in
Alexandria the practice grew up of decorating
the walls with marble slabs of different colours;
and as there was in this case no space for pic-
tures on the walls, these were supplied in the
floor. One of the finest Pompeian mosaics, signed
by Dioscorides of Samos, reproduces a wall-
painting found at Pompeii; and the great mosaic
at Naples of the Battle of Issus was probably
inspired by the painting by a Graeco-Egyptian
lady Helena. The Egyptian origin of the art is
further marked by the occurrence of Egyptian
landscapes reproduced in ancient mosaics: the
finest is the Palestrina mosaic, ascribed to the
first century A.D.
The connexion between wall-painting and
tapestry hanging is obvious: and the same con-
nexion may be traced between mosaic and tex-
tiles; both directly, from carpets, and indirectly,
as at Pompeii, through wall-paintings. This
connexion is further illustrated when we examine
the Egyptian textiles, of which the design,
colouring, and even the treatment are often
exactly parallel to those of mosaic work.
The successive stages of the development of
mosaic are well illustrated at Pompeii: the
simplest kind is that in which different geome-
tric or floral patterns of white rectangular
stones are set in a floor of pounded brick and
lime; gradually the inlaid portion becomes
larger and richer, the tesserae smaller and more
coloured, and less of the actual floor is seen;
until finally the ground, as well as the design,
is constructed also of mosaic tesserae.
The simplest kind of mosaic consisted in lay-
ing in a simple pounded cement a pavimentum
testaceum or opus signinum, i.e. a series of
patterns, figures, or inscriptions in white or
coloured tesserae or tessellae. These tesserae
are in later Greek called #74 ot, /mpſées (hence
ympox60mua, a mosaic pavement ; ºnq'o6érms,
a mosaic worker) : we also have à8aktorkou,
which however seems to correspond more to
abaculi or crustae, i.e. slabs of marble for inlay-
ing. They were made of all kinds of material:
besides marble, stone of different kinds and
colours, terra-cotta of various degrees of baking
and mixed with other substances, glass of all
shades of colour; the gilding of glass tesserae,
frequent in Byzantine work, was only rarely
employed in Roman mosaic. In the earlier and
simpler kind they are as a rule square in form,
but the imitation of elaborate designs made
special cutting necessary.
In preparing the ground, Vitruvius recom-
mends the employment of three layers, Viz.
(i.) the lowest foundation, statumen; (ii.) on
398 PICTURA
PICTURA
this a rough mass of mortar, rudus ; and (iii.)
topmost of all, the cement proper, nucleus, of
pounded brick and lime, in which the tesserae
are laid: this seems to have been mixed further
with a binding material such as bitumen.
Of the ordinary mosaic, the finest kind was
the opus vermiculatum, so called probably be-
cause in this work tesserae of the minutest
proportions are arranged in long wavy lines
suggesting the movement of worms, permes.
Possibly the Greek A166aºrporov corresponds to
this finest work, inasmuch as the passages in
which it occurs invariably refer to a luxurious
pavement. It was used not only for floors, but
also for walls, columns, and even vaults, where
the difficulty of attachment made special pre-
parations necessary. 4. . . . .
Opus sectile was, broadly speaking, a mosaic
made...of slabs of different coloured marbles:
these, slabs were of different sizes, and cut in
triangles, shields, squares, and other geometric
forms. A special kind of this class was 'the
opus Alexandrinum, in which only two kinds of
marble... were used, generally speaking red and
green, porphyry and Lacedaemonian marble.
This is said to have been introduced by Alex-
ander Severus, and to have been named after
him ; but there is no doubt that it was of much
older origin: probably it came originally from
Alexandria.
process of mosaic in which figures, &c., are
imitated, not with tesserae, but with variously
coloured slabs: the flesh for instance of a figure
being cut out in one stone, the clothes in
another, and the hair in another. A notable
instance of this class is given in a mosaic repre-
senting the Rape of Hylas, from the Basilica of
Junius Bassus (Consul A.D. 317), engraved in the
Archaeologia, xlv. (1880), pl.:47. .
10. Mosaic reliefs. – Raoul-Rochette, in his
Peintures antiques, pl.xii., gives a specimen of a
mosaic figure in relief, said to have been found
at Metapontum : he pronounces it to be of pure
Greek style, intended for insertion in a wall. A
similar specimen is in the Wilton House Collec-
tion, of which Michaelis (Ancient Marbles,
p. 678) remarks: “After the thorough dis-
quisition of R. Engelmann (Rhein, Mus.’ xxix.
pp. 561-589) it can no longer be doubted that
mosaic relief is an invention of the last century.
only, and that all the known examples are
impostures, forged at that period. Again, the
style of the setting of the several stones, so
that broad white seams of cement are to be seen
between them, is not antique.” •
11. Vase. Painting.—The art of painting fictile
vases with decorative subjects was in antiquity
a separate art, peculiar to the Greeks; although
the idea may have been in the first place
borrowed from the Egyptians, it was never.
extensively practised except among the Greeks,
and may be said to have lived and died among
that people. The Etruscans, it is true, were large
importers of Greek vases, and produced occasional
imitations of their ware; and recent evidence
seems to show that, for a brief period, Latin
(possibly Roman) artists were following their
example: but these imitations were as a rule
clumsy or vulgar, and, can be readily dis-
tinguished from the ware to which they owed
their origin. The figured scenes on Greek vases
commence towards the end of the seventh
Under this head is also included a |
the Greeks. t – - “ r
pompa of Ptolemy Philadelphus, says that among
century B.C., and continue down to the first
half of the third century B.C.; and within this
period we now have, scattered in the different.
museums and private collections, many thousands
of examples, which form a most important run-
ning commentary on every conceivable phase of
Greek life and thought. Of the mine of infor-
mation thus afforded, much yet remains to be
explored : and the history of Painting, in the
earlier stages at any rate, looks to ceramography
as' its principal witness. While therefore we
must fully recognise the importance of this
, branch of the subject, it must not be forgotten
that vase-painting among the Greeks was only
a subsidiary art, or rather a handicraft.; and
that, of the century or so of vase-painters whose
signed works we possess, there is not one name
mentioned in the whole field of classic literature.
Their works were mainly intended for the
temple, for sacred or semi-sacred functions such
as the great games, and for the tomb : vase
artists and painted vases, alike were a class.
apart. For this reason, and in order to prevent
overcrowding this article, with a separate volu-
minous subject, Greek ceramography is treated
in a distinct article, WAS; to which the reader
must be referred for the numerous, allusions
which will be found in the course of the present
article. , -
12. Vases paintéd in Encaustic.—There is, how-
ever, one class of vase-paintings mentioned in
Athenaeus (v. 200 b), which, if the passage is
rightly understood, seem to have been a separate
| class, distinct from the true ceramography of
That writer, in describing the
other elements of the procession were 300 boys
carrying képéuta keknpoypaq muéva xpéuaqi trav-
rotots (vessels painted in wax with colours
of all kinds). It does not seem at all clear,
however, what these vessels were. . Birch (Hist.
of Pottery, p. 427) proposes to identify them
with ‘a fabric of which specimens were found
at Centorbi and elsewhere.: the specimen he
describes is of terra-cotta,” “the colours on
which are prepared in wax and laid upon a rose-
coloured ground ; it is ornamented with gilding,
and is of a late style and period.” Raoul-Rochette
(Peintures antiques, p. 430, pl. xiii.) gives a
specimen of this fabric: but even supposing that
this process is, really encaustic, it is not likely
, that it was ever extensively practised, nor does
it seem certain that these examples illustrate
the passage in Athenaeus: the “vessels "there
alluded to are probably of wood; the habit of
painting polychrome decorations on vases of
wood was common in Egypt in later times, and
the encaustic process would be more appro-
priately applied to wood than to terra-cotta.
Blümner suggests that the knpay-yées of Maneth.
iv. 332 are to be explained as the painters of
such vessels. n a
13. Drawings on other Materials: Bronze.—The
outline drawings on bronze must be referred to
hère, as giving important evidence of the ancient.
art of design, although the subject is more,
fully treated under SCALPTURA. The earliest
examples of engraved design on bronze are the
celebrated swords found at Mycenae, of which
the blades are decorated with lion-hunts and
other scenes in engraving. These, however,
form a class by themselves, being inlaid as well
PICTURA
PICTURA 399
in various metals; a process which as yet is
unknown in subsequent Greek art. Of engraved
design pure and simple we have a fine specimen
of Greek work of the sixth century B.C. in the
bronze cuirass (Bulletin de Cor. Hell. vii. pp. 1–5,
pll. 1–3), and smaller specimens from Olympia :
there is no doubt that the art flourished in Greece,
although very few examples have been found
there, while great numbers have come from
Etruria. These Etruscan specimens consist
mainly of mirrors and cistae dating from the
fourth century B.C. downwards; principal among
the latter being the Ficoroni cista, of which an
engraving is given in Vol. I. p. 440, Vol. II. p. 213:
the subjects represented on these mirrors are for
the most part of Greek origin, though treated in
an Etruscan dress and accompanied by Etruscan
inscriptions. ... Probably, if more specimens of
the pure Greek engraving had survived, we
should recognise the qualities of spirited and
firm drawing, which are reflected in the best
Etruscan specimens, and which ancient critics
admired in the works of the great Greek artists.
: 14. Boavood.—Pliny, tells us that the great
painter Pamphilus gave lessons in drawing on
boxwood; and the words truštov., (named by
Pollux, .x. 59, among the implements of the
painter) and Tuč0)ſpapeiv, (Artemid, i. 53) are
referred to as further evidence of this process:
but neither of these words in themselves neces-
sarily imply, reference to a distinct art; they
may allude merely, to the tablet of box which,
as was before mentioned, was one of the principal
grounds on which the easel painter worked. In
a tomb in the Crimea (Ant, de Bosp. Cimm,
pl. 79) certain, slabs, were, found, which were
engraved with fine drawings in the style of the
early part of the fourth century B.C., the lines.
being filled with colour. . The material of these
slabs. was supposed ,to be boxwood, and they
were adduced as illustrations of the process of
Pamphilus : but Stephani, (Compte Rendu, 1866,
p. 6, n. 2) says that, this is an error, and that they
are in reality slabs of ivory. It is quite possible
that the Greeks practised the art of engraving
designs on boxwood, just as they did graving
upon ivory (see also above, under Encaustic) and
on bronze ; but it, does not seem , necessary
at present to consider that the teaching of
Pamphilus... meant... more than, the rudiments
which every easel painter, would have to know
as a preliminary to painting on boxwood.
15. Parchment. — It would appear from a
statement of Pliny that sketches or cartoons for
pictures were sometimes executed by the great
masters, on parchment, and, as in the subsequent
history of art, were handed down for the tuition
and profit of successive ages of artists (xxxv.
§ 68: “et alia, multa graphidis, vestigia extant
in tabulis ac membranis.ejus, ex quibus proficere
dicuntur artifices; ” see infra, p. 412). Here
also belongs the subject of illustrated MSS. :
aunfortunately, we have scarcely any illustrated
classical MS. which does not date from a
debased age: “although we know that doctors
and architects were in the habit of adding
explanatory illustrations to, their, scientific
works, and that M. Varro, for, instance, adorned
his great biographical work the Imagines with
700 portraits of Greek and Roman celebrities.”
16. History.—The history of Painting in clas-
sical antiquity is one which is difficult to treat
comprehensively within the limits of an article
like the present, on account of the wide field
of speculation which it offers, and with which a
close student of the subject must necessarily be
familiar. As in the case of Sculpture, so here,
our knowledge must be based upon the examina-
tion of the statements of ancient authors in the
light of modern remains: but whereas in the
study of Sculpture we have before us an almost
complete series of the works of the greatest
masters, in that of Painting we are met by the
fact that no single example of a great master-
piece has come down to us; nay more, that of
one great branch of the art, that of easel-painting,
not a single specimen (if we except a few late
Roman portraits) has survived. "And yet we
have every reason to believe that the Greeks
achieved as signal success in Painting as they
had done in the sister art: the art critics of
antiquity, whose judgment we can test, in the
light of the actual monuments, are no whit less
enthusiastic, nor less explicit, about their
painting; and although in some branches the
ancient painters may not have attained to the
technical perfection of modern times, yet we may
be sure that, within the limits which they set
themselves, the masterpieces of , the Greek
painters were worthy to rank beside the marbles
of Pheidias or the bronzes of Lysippus.
In default therefore of any evidence at first
hand, we are forced to accept such other monu-
mental evidence as we can collect of objects
which illustrate or reflect the major art. Of such
fortunately a fairly large supply has come down
to us. This secondary evidence consists of
painted vases, painted works in stone or marble,
mosaics, and principally the large store of
mural paintings which have been rescued, mainly
from the buried cities of Pompeii, and Hercu-
laneum. It is true that the great majority of
these echoes of Greek painting are of a late daté
and were executed under Roman influence; but
as both in sculpture and in painting the art of
the Romans is hardly separable from that which
Greek artists had taught and were still teaching,
it will be convenient in this article to treat the
two nationalities together. . * . . " , ; ,
With regard to the other peoples of Italy, such
as the Etruscans, the same system will equally
hold good. If Etruscan painting had for a brief
period an independent existence, it was never-
theless subject to much the same influences, and
exhibits a similar development during this period
to that of the Greeks; while in any case the
time soon came when it was first impregnated,
and finally absorbed, in the influence which
spread abroad from the Greek colonies in Magna
Graecia: and though both in Italian and Etrus-
can art there are certain local elements always
separable, these are not of sufficient importance
to demand a separate treatment here."
In studying ancient painting, it is necessary
to keep constantly in view the parallel between
it and sculpture. The problems which are
involved in the questions as to which was the
earlier art of the two, and as to how much the
Greeks borrowed from the Egyptians and
Assyrians, are out of the present sphere, and
not much is gained by their elucidation. It is
sufficient to know that the Greeks were the first
people to raise to the level of independent arts
what had previously been merely descriptive and
400 PICTURA
PICTURA
decorative processes; and though in Greece
sculpture may be said to have reached its
culminating point more than a century sooner
than painting, yet both are throughout closely
allied, and are constantly acting and reacting
upon each other. In reliefs especially painting
plays a prominent part, and in statuary even of
the best period its growing influence is clear:
painting was in fact of the sister arts that which
Ted the way in the whole history of Greek
development; and when Winckelmann, follow-
ing Pliny’s statement that there was no painting
in Greece at the time of the Trojan War, says
that sculpture has the earlier origin, this state-
ment is true only in so far that painting did not
attain its full development until the end of the
fourth century, whereas the bloom of sculpture
is assigned to the middle of the fifth century B.C.
The great difficulty of our inquiry is that of
reconciling the literary records with the monu-
mental remains, and of establishing accurately
the continuous connexion between them. The
wealth of new material which has accumulated,
especially during the past ten years, and the
more scientific methods of investigation which
have thus been rendered possible, have together
produced this result—that we are now in many
respects in a better position to judge of Greek
art than were the art critics and historians of
antiquity. The literary records of painting
indeed, scanty as they are, are not to be accepted
without the closest scrutiny: thus it is now
generally accepted that Pliny, our chief in-
formant as to the early history of Painting,
adopted without criticism and often without
understanding the statements of his authorities;
these authorities being apparently for the most
part certain Greek works trepi sãpmudraw: that
he seems to ignore everything but easel pictures:
and that his historical arrangement is altogether
untenable. Pliny connects each successive im-
provement in the early history of Painting with
the name of a master: even when these names
have an appearance of reality, it is probable that
they represent, not the inventors of definite steps,
but pictures associated with their names which
showed the first instances of these improvements.
Under these circumstances, it is obvious that
the traditions of ancient writers as to the com-"
mencement and earliest development of the art
of painting in Greece must not be taken as
literal contributions to the history of our sub-
ject: in some points, indeed, it is quite impossible
to reconcile them with the evidence of the
monuments of this period which are before us.
The principal authority is Pliny in his H. W.
xxxv. § 15 foll, who himself acknowledges the
uncertainty of his subject. “The Egyptians,” he
says, “falsely claim to have invented painting
6000 years before it crossed into Greece: of
the Greeks, some ascribe the invention to Sicyon,
others to Corinth, but all agree that the first
step consisted in tracing the shadow of a man
with lines. This was followed by the introduc-
tion of single colours, so called menochromaton;
and even after the art had advanced, this style was
still carried on. Linear drawing was invented by
Philocles the Egyptian or Cleanthes of Corinth,
and was first practised by Aridices of Corinth
and Telephanes of Sicyon : even these made no
use of colour, but scattered lines within their
paintings (spargenţes lineas intra), and attached
the names to the figures of their paintings. It
was Ecphantus of Corinth who first invented
those (pictures 2) of the colour of pounded pots-
herd: this was not the Ecphantus who is said
by Cornelius Nepos to have followed Demaratus
into Italy.”
Painting had already an independent footing
in Italy. “Even to this day there are pictures in
the temples of Ardea of which the date is earlier
than the foundation of Rome; also at Lanuvium
are two pictures of Atalante and Helena by the
same artist; and at Caere some still earlier : so
that the connoisseur may well say that no art
was more speedily brought to perfection (con-
summata), seeing that in Trojan times it appears
to have had no existence.” Pliny then proceeds
briefly to note celebrated painters or works of
art: the picture of Bularchus, in which was a
battle of the Magnetes, of such merit that
Candaules paid for it its weight in gold (repen-
Sam auro): the painters of monochrome (mono-
chromatis) Hygiainon, Dinias, Charmadas, who
must have lived shortly before, but whose period
is not given: Eumarus of Athens, who first in
painting distinguished male from female and
dared to imitate every sort of figure (“qui primus
in pictura marem a femina discreverit, . . . .
figuras omnis imitari ausum ”); and lastly, Cimon
of Cleonae, who developed the inventions of his
predecessor: he found out “catagrapha, hoc
est obliquas imagines, et varie formare voltus,
respicientis, suspicientisve vel despicientis. Arti-
culis membra distinxit, venas protulit praeterque
in veste rugas et sinus invenit.” (The difficulties
of this passage will be referred to later on.)
In H. W. vii. § 205, Pliny says further, that
painting was a discovery of the Egyptians, but
was in Greece invented by Eucheir, kinsman of
Daedalus: so also says Aristotle: Theophrastus,
however, ascribes it to Polygnotus of Athens.
Athenagoras (Leg. pro Chr. 14, p. 59, ed. Dechair)
relates how in the days before sculpture and
painting and statuary were Saurias of Samos,
and Craton of Sicyon, and Cleanthes of Corinth,
and a Corinthian maiden: shadow-pictures,
orkiaypaſpía, were invented by Saurias of Samos,
who traced the outline of his horse in the sun :
and painting (ypaſpik?) by Craton, who smeared
in (évaxeſhavros) the shadow of a man and
woman on a whitened slab (év triváki AeAev-
kwuévº). The legend of the “Corinthian maiden”
is referred to by him (ibid.) as the origin of the
koroplastic art; and Pliny (H. W. xxxv. § 151)
refers to the same story: the legend related how
the daughter of a certain Butades, a Sicyonian
potter at Corinth, struck by the shadow of her
lover's face cast by her lamp upon the wall,
drew its outline (umbram ea: facie lineis circum-
scripsit) with such force and fidelity that her
father cut away the plaster within the outline
and took an impression from the wall in clay,
which he baked with the rest of his pottery.
The main difficulty which confronts us in
these various descriptions is that of distinguish-
ing between linear (i.e. outline) drawing and
silhouette. It will be best to take the statements
as to the inventions first, and afterwards to ex-
amine in detail the artists' names. We may for
the present disregard the reference to Egypt :
the name Philocles being a Greek and not an
Egyptian name, it is suggested that the author
of this statement had seen the work of an
PICTURA
PICTURA 401
Egyptising Greek, possibly that of an inhabitant
of Naucratis, a Greek colony founded in Egypt
in the seventh century; or that some such work,
originally painted by Philocles in Greece, had
been exported to Naucratis, and, being still on
view there, had caused the mistake of describing
the artist as an Egyptian. We may also dis-
regard the name of Polygnotus in this connexion,
wrongly introduced here by Pliny: Theophrastus
only meant that Polygnotus was the first who
developed monumental painting. The remaining
list of inventors points almost exclusively to
Corinth and Sicyon: this is in keeping with the
intimate connexion which we know existed be-
tween these two cities, and the importance of
their art, in the sixth century B.C.; they lay
close together, and used almost identical alpha-
bets; and the rule of a powerful dynasty of
tyranni in each place gave scope for the artistic
activity of the “Daedalidae” to flourish there.
The extensive spread of this Corinthian-Sicyonian
art may well account for such legendary wander-
ings of artists as that of Eucheir, Eugrammus,
Diopus, and Ecphantus (Pliny, H. N. xxxv, § 152)
into Italy: on the other hand, there is no reason
why these artists should belong wholly to legend:
we know of the actual existence of a Eucheir in
antiquity; and the other names present no
further difficulty. There is no reason to suppose
the priority of either city: in fact the Butades
legend suggests an attempt to compromise this
question, by making him a potter of Sicyon
working at Corinth.
Pliny says, “All agree that the first step
.consisted in tracing the shadow of a man with
lines”: it is evident that in the various accounts
no distinction is intended as to the priority of
drawing over painting or vice versá; on the
other hand, the expression umbra lineis circum-
ducta certainly seems to imply outline drawing ;
and all the accounts except that of Craton seem
to refer to the priority of linear drawing, a fact
which is not borne out by the evidence of the
monuments. The best suggestion for the ex-
planation of this difficulty is that of Klein, who
points out that the real distinction between
these various “inventions ° lies, not in the
nethod, but in the subject adopted by the legend-
ary artists; and shows that each legend may be
respectively traced to one of the different terms
applied in Greek to “painting.” Thus, the
existence of a term a kuaypaſpía would suggest
a general basis for the various shadow-theories:
(wypapta, as distinguished from Ypapuch, might
mean the drawing of animals, Gºa, as opposed to
the drawing of the human figure, and hence the
legends of the horse of Saurias, and the man and
woman of Craton. The story of the Corinthian
maiden is really more connected with fictile art
than with painting, though drawing is doubtless
equally at the basis of such works in terra-cotta
as are here referred to : the elements of this
legend are all supplied in the term for terra-
cotta modelling, icoporâaa’rikh. As to this
Corinthian maiden, we have two conflicting
accounts: Athenagoras says that the lover was
asleep, and that the terra-cotta was in his time
still preserved in Corinth: whereas Pliny de-
scribes the lover as departing, says that the face
only was outlined, and that it fell a victim in
the sacking of Corinth in B.C. 146: it has been
thought, therefore, that the source of Athena-
WOL. II.
goras' information must have been earlier, that
of Pliny later, than B.C. 146: but probably there
is no need for supposing the work to have existed
except in legend: the circumstantial character
of the narrative, as is demonstrable in other
similar cases, proves nothing.
With the names of Cleanthes, Aridices, and
Telephanes, we come to more definite ground,
apparently of the seventh and sixth centuries;
before however we approach this period, wherein
literary and monumental evidence are both
available, we must first go back to the far
earlier period which we know only from the
actual monuments.
As to the actual origin of painting in Greece,
various theories have equally been advanced in
modern times. One critic argues that the idea
was originally suggested by polychrome em-
broidery or textile work, and points to the fact
that in Homer no mention of painting occurs,
while on the other hand mention is more than
once made of scenes woven on garments, such as
the robe of Helen and of Odysseus, and the veil
of Hera; and that two of the earliest recorded
names of artists are those of Acesas and Helicon,
weavers of Salamis in Cyprus. In this con-
nexion we shall see that the influence of Oriental
tapestries is largely felt in the Greek paintings,
especially of the coast and islands of Asia Minor,
but this probably did not take effect until the
end of the seventh century B.C. [see WAS].
Another theory is that of Klein and Milch-
höfer, who suggest that both sculpture and
painting are jointly preceded by coloured relief.
Klein says, “Sculpture and painting are in the
earliest period united in a coloured and flat style
of relief, which Greece received from Asia Minor
and developed (e.g. the Cypselus chest and the
throne at Amyclae). Painting is at first in-
tended to do no more than replace the actual
colour of the metal or wood stuff, in the charac-
ter of a surrogate. The technical process of
engraving (where this is unnecessary) of the
painted figure and its surroundings, points still
more clearly to an imitation of the hammered,
beaten out, and inlaid work: and this explains
the striving after gaudiness; ” herein referring
to the class of “Protocorinthian * paintings in
which these characteristics occur, and which he
suggests are the result of imitation of inlaid
metal. The suggestion may be perfectly true
of this particular class of paintings: but these
by no means represent the first beginnings of the
art in Greece.
Strictly speaking, the subject of Painting
embraces every material, even to the humblest,
to which it is applied; and for the earliest
beginnings of the art, we may accept the evidence
of vases where other evidence fails. The earliest
painted vases in Greece are a class which come
at the end of the Hissarlik and at the commence-
ment of the Mycenae period [WAS]. These show
the first introduction of painted ornament, at
the point where it takes the place of the primi-
tive engraved patterns with which the decora-
tion of Greek pottery begins. First it occupies
itself with decorative devices borrowed from
marine fauna and flora; afterwards, in the bloom
of Mycenaean art, a wonderful dexterity is
attained, which leaves little in the range of
nature unattempted. In Mycenaean art we see
for the first time the elements of that artistic
2 D
402 PICTURA
PICTURA
selection and dramatic force which it was the
mission of the Greeks first to introduce ; we see
these qualities strongly marked in the scenes inlaid
and engraved on the famous bronze swords found
at Mycenae: especially on one which represents a
scene of panther-like animals chasing birds by a
river-side; although executed in metals, this is
a complete picture of animal life, of which even
the requisite colours are indicated by the various
metals employed. But the more recent exca-
vations at Tiryns and Mycenae have given us
still clearer evidence of the pictorial art of this
period. In both these sites fragments have been
discovered of wall-paintings which seem to
have formed parts of extensive compositions in
fresco. The largest fragment represents a bull
charging, coloured white with red spots on a
blue background: above the bull’s back is the
figure of a man, whose peculiar position has been
explained as that of an acrobat, but is more
probably due to a defect of perspective. Besides
this are on other fragments part of a frieze of
figures with animals' heads, warriors, female
figures, &c. The range of subjects is that which
we are accustomed to meet with on the so-called
“island gems” which begin in this period
[SCALPTURA], and which perhaps more than
anything show us the connexion between
Mycenaean art and the art of later Greece.
These subjects are marked by a strong native
originality, tinged with the influence partly of
Egypt, partly of Asia Minor: in the bronze
swords and the wall-paintings the influence of
Egypt is especially noticeable, both in point of
technique and in the treatment of subject; so
that perhaps Pliny’s authority was unconsciously
correct when he asserted that the art of painting
had crossed from Egypt into Greece ; though it
is certain that his information could never have
extended so far back as the times of Mycenae
and Tiryns.
With the downfall of the Mycenaean power,
the progress of art in Greece doubtless received
a check. We see this especially in the vases:
the brilliant ware of Mycenae gives place to the
rude Geometric system of the conquerors, and
survives only in a degraded ware which repre-
sents the decadence of the earlier art. In Greece
proper the heritage of Argos and Mycenae was
doubtless passed on to the neighbouring towns
of Corinth and Sicyon ; a process which is re-
flected in the legends narrated by Pliny and
others referred to above. On the other hand,
the traditions of Mycenae had passed to Asia
Minor and the islands: the early pottery of
Rhodes shows that late down into the seventh
century B.C. vase-painters were still employing a
floral system which was a direct survival from
Mycenae; and the Euphorbus pinax found at
Camirus in Rhodes shows, in the Argive in-
scriptions which it bears, a direct connexion of
this style with Argolis. Unfortunately, we
know as yet very little of the early painting in
the Greek cities of Asia Minor; but the little
evidence which we do possess seems to show that
in the seventh century B.C. this style of painting
was practised throughout an extensive area of
Eastern Hellas. Probably, as the early Greek
sites of Asia Minor become more thoroughly
explored, we shall see that the painting of this
period, like the sculpture and the poetry,
centred in some one or more of these cities of
the border. Recent excavations at Naucratis, a
city in Egypt colonised principally from this
district, have shown us what the conditions of
this art were in the end of the seventh century;
and we have still further important evidence
from the locality in question. From Clazomenae
has come a series of terra-cotta sarcophagi
painted with figured decorations in the style of
these schools. These sarcophagi are of various
dates, which cover a considerable period; the
earliest was probably not made before the first
half of the sixth century B.C.; but it seems to
represent a tradition which traces its origin
back to a period considerably earlier. In these
paintings the reddish clay is first covered with
a yellowish white pigment, upon which the
design is first outlined, and afterwards filled in,
in a brownish black. The subjects are for the
most part friezes of animals, combats of war-
riors, and hunting scenes.
The technique of the sarcophagi corresponds
with that of the earliest class of the so-called
Protocorinthian and Corinthian vases, in which,
if their attributions to Corinth are correct, we
may trace an unbroken line of connexion between
the art of Corinth and that of Mycenae. The
most important evidence of this art is afforded
by the painted pinakes found at Penteskuphia
[FICTILE]. Here we have a series of actual
pictures, painted as pictures and not as mere
decoration, which throw an interesting light on
the various branches of art in the seventh
century, and illustrate the close connexion then
existing among them. These, dedicated princi-
pally to Poseidon, are the combined product of
the painter and the potter; one of them is signed
by an artist already otherwise known to us as a
vase-painter; some of the plaques have moulded
decoration; and the scenes represent episodes in
the arts of the potter, the painter, the sculptor,
and possibly also the bronze worker. This close
connexion is very much what is reflected in the
versatility imputed to the Daedalidae in the
early traditions respecting the first art-workers,
wherein the members of one family furnish the
representatives of all the various branches of art.
The range of myths here depicted is as yet
small, as in the Hesiodic shield; the time is not
yet come for that fulness of mythological
material which is set forth in the famous de-
scription of the Chest of Cypselus [STATUARIA],
equally a work of Corinthian origin.
With the end of the seventh century we reach
a more definite standpoint, and it is here that
we seem for the first time to find a historical
background for the early artists of literary
record. Again, in the absence of other evidence,
we are obliged to turn to vase-paintings; but
inasmuch as vase-painting in its later history
certainly reflects the influence and the progress
of the major art, we may take this analogy as
true of the earlier periods also.
After the invention of linear drawing, Pliny
mentions ARIDICEs of Corinth and TELEPHANES
of Sicyon, spargentes lineas intra, and who also
attached the names to their figures; the term
lineas has usually been misunderstood as an
allusion to the inner markings of the figure,
giving the “drawing of the eyes, nostrils, all in
short which goes beyond mere silhouette.” We
cannot, however, suppose that all previous artists
drew their figures as blind; and it is obvious
PICTURA
PICTURA 403
moreover from vases, that inner markings must
have been adopted long before the practice of
writing in the names. Klein therefore suggests
that this expression in Pliny refers to the linear
ornaments, borrowed probably from the imitation
of textile fabrics, which fill in the background in
the designs of the end of the seventh and be-
ginning of the sixth centuries B.C. And though
this explanation upsets the chronological se-
quence of Pliny’s statements, we need not reject
it on that ground, for in this, as well as many
other points, Pliny is demonstrably incorrect.
Next comes ECPHANTUs of Corinth, with whose
name are associated the pictures of the colour
of pounded potsherd : probably this expression
merely refers to the deep purple colour which is
added in the earliest vase-paintings of Corinthian
style, and which to Pliny’s authority may have
seemed their most striking characteristic: that
writer may have seen some early painting signed
by Ecphantus, and was thus led to connect this
improvement with his name. Like Eucheir and
Eugrammus, he is said to have come out of Corinth
with Demaratus. Pliny tries to explain away
this difficulty by the stock method of imagining
two Ecphanti; but while the journey is of course
legendary, there is no reason why we should not
accept Ecphantus as a real personality; it is
even possible that we possess a monumental
record of this very artist in the Columna Naniana
(Löwy, Inschr. Gr. Bildh. No. 5), of which the
inscription runs thus:–
IIa. Atós, "Ek bávrº Séâat rô8’ &piepipès āyaxpa.
Xol yáp Štreuxóptevos rotºr’ &réAeorore yptiqov.
It seems likely that this column, which was
found at Melos, and which, from its inscription,
dates from the seventh century, supported a
painting; possibly this was a Melian vase-
painting, by the artist Ecphantus, who thus
dedicates his own handiwork.”
CLEANTHEs of Corinth is by Pliny ranked
among the inventors of linear drawing; but
Pliny’s order cannot be accepted here, for it
seems clear that the place of Cleanthes is at
least posterior to that of Ecphantus. In this
case we are not left to Pliny’s information alone.
Strabo (viii. 343) notes two works by this master
in the temple of Artemis Alpheia : an Iliupersis,
and a Birth of Athene. Of the first of these
pictures we know nothing more : the Birth of
Athene, however, is further mentioned by
Athenaeus (viii. 346 c), who describes in this
picture the figure of Poseidon “offering a tunny
fish to Zeus in travail.” This is of course an
error; the tunny is merely the attribute of
Poseidon, whose type is thus distinguished on
the Penteskuphia pinakes; and the whole de-
scription seems to point to a votive pinax of this
kind, dating probably from the seventh century.
In all probability it was one among many
in this temple. Strabo couples with this pic-
ture another from the same temple by AREGON,
representing Artemis on a Gryphon; this
type, however, seems inconsistent with what
we know of the methods of this period, and
it is likely that either Aregon was of a much
later date, or that Strabo's information was
incorrect.
CRATON of Sicyon painted a man and woman
on a whitened pinax; we are naturally led to
think of the vase-paintings in black figures on a
white ground: the term AeAeukoplévos, however,
need not imply more than the practice common
to all the paintings of this period, which obtains
equally in the Penteskuphia tablets and in the
Clazomenae sarcophagi, of preparing the ground
of the design with a yellowish-white pigment.
The “man and woman’” of Pliny’s statement
suggests the symmetrical pairs of figures which
are commonly mentioned in the descriptions of
works of this period, such as the Chest of
Cypselus and the Spartan basis.
Of HYGIAINoN, DINIAs, and CHARMADAs, Pliny
tells us that his information supplies no date ;
they are painters in “monochrome,” a technique
which is mentioned nowhere except in Pliny, and
which he himself does not seem to understand:
if it means anything, it may mean that the
colouring of their pictures had faded, or else that
they worked in one colour with the natural
background, as in the vases with black or red
figures. In the latter case, these artists must
necessarily range much later in date.
Among the painters of this period we may
now include those whose names we know from
monuments which they "have signed, and who
are apparently Corinthian artists of the first
half of the sixth century, BIAS, CHARES the son
of Bias, and TIMONIDAs, who signed one of the
Penteskuphia pinakes.
EUMAEUs of Athens was the first who dis-
tinguished male from female, and who “dared
to imitate every sort of figure.” On the vases
with black figures we can trace the epoch at
which a white colour is gradually introduced to
indicate the flesh of female figures. It is not
necessary that this should be precisely the
change initiated by Eumarus, but it must evi-
dently have been something analogous to this.”
The two facts we are told of Eumarus thus lead
us naturally to think of the early Athenian vases
with black figures. While the Corinthian and
Chalcidian painters probably went on using their
creamy white background, the Athenians used
for background the natural brilliant red of their
clay, and laid the white in their design on a
surface of black paint. The white on these
vases is a feature sufficiently striking to have
attracted Pliny’s informant; and the wealth of
mythological material lavished on the François
vase by CLITIAS and ERGOTIMUS, and their bold-
ness in attempting difficult motives, may well
have justified his expression figuras omnis. Like
these two artists, Eumarus was also an Athenian;
and in the recent excavations on the Acro-
polis an inscription has been found which seems
to mention his name, and fixes his date, if this
identification be correct, at the Solonic period in
which Athenian art is beginning to take a fore-
most place. The vases and pinakes show us the
influence of Corinthian painting on Athens at
this period.
Pliny’s description of CIMON of Cleonae pre-
sents grave difficulties. Most critics agree to
the general conclusion that the inventions
ascribed to him are represented broadly by
what we see in the red-figured vases of the
* No. 25 ibid. is the fragment of a similar dedication
by a Melian (vase) painter Ka ---.
* See, however, Murray in Hellenic Journal, X.
p. 243.
2 D 2
404 PICTURA
PICTURA
school of EPICTETUS, the date of which is now
assigned to the age of the Peisistratidae. With
the growing popularity of the athletic exercises
of the palaestra, comes in the preference for
representation of the nude figure, in attitudes
and movements hitherto untried; the innova-
tions in the drawing of dress, the improved
treatment of the eye, the fine inner markings
indicating veins and muscles, are all to be traced
to these vases.
Catagrapha in this connexion is difficult to
explain. Pliny’s interpretation, which repre-
sents Cimon as the inventor of profile drawing,
seems altogether untenable ; in early sculptures
in relief, figures which would naturally be in
profile are frequently represented in full face;
but there is no evidence of any such priority of
full-face treatment in Painting. On the other
hand, it is probable that the great paintings of
this time must have consisted of outline drawings
with washes of colour, as on the alabastos of
Pasiades in the British Museum. One explana-
tion refers it to linear perspective, or what we
should term “projection l’” The most generally
accepted interpretation refers it to the practice,
common in the vase-paintings of this period, of
indicating the outline of the body underneath
the dress, which adapts itself to the movements
of the figure.
A notable monument of this period is the
Stele of Lyseas, an inscribed marble shaft of
about 550–525 B.C., with an inscription stating
that it is the tombstone and portrait of Lyseas;
on the front is painted the full-length figure of
the deceased, holding in one hand a cantharus,
in the other the twigs of lustration; the chiton
is purple, the himation white with a coloured
edge, the twigs green, the cantharus black.
The outline was first drawn in a dark colour,
and the background is red. Below is a minute
figure of a galloping horseman. The similarity
of this figure to the carved stele of Aristion
shows the close connexion that then existed
between marble painting and marble relief.
Probably such paintings were much in vogue,
though naturally very little beyond mere frag-
ments of them have come down to us. The
technique corresponds most nearly to that of
the black-figured vases. Loeschcke has tried to
show that the change from black to red figures
in vase-painting was brought about by the
influence of marble paintings, such as the Stele
of Lyseas; but this suggestion has been generally
opposed (see Klein, Euphronios,” p. 30, and
Arch.-Epig. Mitth. 1887, p. 209). We referred
above to the statement of Pausanias (vii. 22, 6)
that the great artist Nicias painted a sepulchral
stele at Triteia: this is important as showing
that, even if the Stele of Lyseas is not by a
great master, it belongs to a class of work which
was not beneath the dignity, and probably
reflects the methods, of the great masters.
Another interesting monument, which may
probably be referred to this period, has recently
been discovered in or near Athens; it is a disk
of white marble pierced with two bronze nails
for attachment to a wall; on it is painted” a
* In the 'Ap Y. A e A r to v, 1889, p. 151, this portrait is
said to be painted in encaustic, but this is certainly an
error; it is probably painted in tempera, like the Stele
of Lyseas.
bearded man seated in a chair, and around the
picture is an archaic inscription recording that
this is the monument of the excellent physician
Aineos or Aineios. The name is an uncommon
one, and has been identified with that of the
great uncle of the famous Hippocrates ; assum-
ing this to be a contemporary portrait, the date
would thus fall at about 520 B.C.
The decoration of walls by designs painted
on them had probably a direct descent in Greece
from the time of Mycenae; unfortunately we
have no Greek Pompeii to tell us in what this
decoration in early times consisted. . There have
recently been found at Athens two fragments of
a marble painting intended for insertion into the
wall, probably of a tomb, which give us, per-
haps better than anything else, an idea of the
methods employed in decorative painting
previously to Polygnotos; it also offers strong
confirmation of the close connexion between
those methods and the methods of vase-painters.
The groundwork is a creamy yellow, on which
is painted a warrior charging; his figure is
drawn in outline, and filled in with different-
coloured washes for the various parts and for
the drapery. The drawing is strong and spirited,
though still retaining traces of archaism ; in
the field is an inscription which seems to connect
it with the vase-painters of the last quarter of
the sixth century ('Eq. ‘Apx. 1887, pl. 6).
But if wall-paintings are thus seldom found
in Greece, this lack of material is in some degree
compensated for when we turn to Italy. It is
true that, here again, the actual houses and
temples of early times have not survived ; but
the Etruscans were accustomed to decorate the
chamber of their dead as much as possible to
resemble that of the living ; and the tombs of
Weii, Caere, and Tarquinii have given us valuable
series of early wall-paintings. These paintings,
if not always the work of Greeks, are the living
reflection of Greek art. All internal evidence
goes to show this, and it further enables us to
control the statement of Pliny. In order to
show that the Ecphantus of Cornelius Nepos
cannot be the same as that early painter of
Corinth, he says that already (in the time of
Demaratus) painting had attained an independent
footing in Italy, and mentions a series of fully-
coloured paintings at Ardea, Lanuvium, and
Caere, which existed before the foundation of
Rome. Pliny’s statement is here affected by his
sense of patriotism; the vases found in Italy
show us beyond a doubt that the earliest Italian
paintings were executed under foreign influence.
The wall-paintings of Italy are the only class of
remains beside vases which enable us to trace
the development of the art continuously through
all phases; allowance being of course made for
the time which must elapse before each innova-
tion of the Greeks could make way among the
tomb decorators of Italy.
It is generally accepted that the earliest
examples of the art in Italy are the wall-paintings
from tombs at Veii; these consist principally of
friezes of animals, conventionally or fantastically
drawn with long bodies and long slender legs, –
a style of art which we know to be essentially
Oriental, and which is doubtless connected with
the tapestry work of Mesopotamia. In keeping
with this textile idea, the groundwork is filled in
with conventional designs, which at Veii take the
PICTURA
PICTURA 405
form of floral devices: these floral devices are
drawn in many respects identical with the flora
of Mycenaean art; it seems therefore that the
art of Veii represents the same stage as that
which we saw in the vase-paintings of Eastern
Hellas at the end of the seventh century B.C.,
in which the traditions of Mycenae were being
combined with the lessons derived from Oriental
tapestry. The presence of Mycenaean elements
may imply that this form of art traced its
origin to a much earlier date, as it certainly
also lasted down to a much later period in
Etruria. In the Polledrara tomb at Vulci were
found a series of imported objects of Egyptian
character, including a scarab of Psammetichus I.,
which probably fixes the date to B.C. 656–611.
Among these objects was a large amphora
painted in a developed form of the Veii style,
and a hydria of a ware which is apparently
Graeco-Egyptian, painted in red and blue with
a Graeco-Egyptian rendering of the Minotaur
legend; a connexion with the Egyptian town of
Naucratis, which this same Psammetichus gave
to the Greek traders, seems an obvious deduc-
tion. The Naucratian traders came principally
from the coasts of Asia Minor; so that we have,
at the end of the seventh century, evidence of
a combined Egypto-Asiatic influence on Italian
art. It is this influence which we may
suppose reflected in Pliny’s statement about
Philocles quoted above, p. 400.
The same influence was also communicated
through another channel, that of Phoenician
trade. The site of Caere in Etruria marked a
Phoenician settlement, and had been known in
earlier times by the Phoenician name Agylla;
and the general character of Phoenician impor-
tations would be very much what is found in the
Polledrara tomb. At present the earliest paint-
ings which we have from Caere are certain
terra-cotta slabs, of which a series of five is in
the British Museum ; another series, somewhat
later in date, is in the Louvre. These slabs
served as the wall-decorations of a tomb, so that
they may be considered in reality as wall-paint-
ings. The surface is covered with a white slip,
on which the design is laid in outline, with
washes in reds and blacks; the white ground is
left to stand for the flesh of women, while that
of the men is coloured red. The technique is
thus very much the same as that which we have
on the Corinthian vases of the seventh century.
The subject consists of a frieze of figures who
seem to represent mourners, and carry various
offerings to the dead. On each side of the door-
way stood a slab painted with a large Sphinx,
the drawing of which bears an analogy to that
of the animals of Veii, while that of the human
figures seems to show the artist’s want of
familiarity with this class of subject. It would
seem then that these slabs must be very little,
if at all, later than the Polledrara hydria, and in
publishing them Mr. Murray suggests B.C. 600
as an approximate date for them (Hellenic
Journal, x. p. 247). This date brings us to
the period when Etruscan art may have been
stimulated by the advent of the artists escaping
from the rule of the Cypselidae at Corinth,
always supposing that this journey had any
ground in fact. In any case, these artists pro-
bably chose Etruria as being a district already
advanced in art; and this would be some ground
for crediting Pliny’s statement (xxxv. § 17) as to
the antiquity of the art at Caere. In the details
of these paintings Mr. Murray finds traces of a
marked Asiatic influence, which, coming pri-
marily from Assyria and Chaldaea, was commu-
nicated either by the Asiatic Greeks settled in
Egypt, or, more directly, from the Greeks of
Asia Minor. The Etruscans themselves claimed
a Lydian origin, and some such influence is at
least apparent in their early art. Dümmler has
tried to establish a connexion with Aeolis in
the early pottery of Caere. From this site has
come a series of vases which are closely related
to certain fragments from Cyme, and which
seem to have been imported, possibly from
Phocaea ; in Etruria they gave rise to a local
fabric [VAS], which represents the decadence of
this imported style.
Though Etruscan art is everywhere charac-
terised by a certain sturdy realism which is
unmistakable, it is always based upon the con-
ceptions and technique which it borrowed
principally from the Greeks; it has justly been
compared with the art of the Tuscan School of
the Renaissance, “which sought to bring its
own realistic feeling for form into harmony with
the results of a renewed study of classical
antiquity.” The transition from native realism
to Greek idealism is especially marked in the
comparison between the earlier and later paint-
ings of Corneto (Tarquinii), the best of which
seem to point to a period corresponding to,
though not necessarily contemporary with, the
art of Polygnotus. Of this painter, and of
the school of Greek painters who followed
him, an account will be found below on pages
407 and 408.
From the dawn of the fifth century we begin
to hear the names of painters in Italy, but at
first, at any rate, these are exclusively Greeks.
In the time of the kings at Rome, painting
seems to have been principally in use for the
decoration of works in terra-cotta, an example
of which has been already mentioned, the
vermilion-coloured Jupiter of the Capitol. The
earliest painters named in connexion with Rome
are DAMOPHILUs and GORGASUs (Plin. H. W.
xxxv. § 154): these were both painters and
modellers, and decorated in both branches of
their art the temple of Ceres at the Circus
Maximus; this temple was dedicated in 493 B.C.,
and this date has consequently been assigned to
them; Urlichs, however, thinks that Damo-
philus is to be identified with the teacher of
Zeuxis (mentioned ib. § 61), and in this case his
date would be about 460 B.C., or contemporary
with Polygnotus. Pliny’s description leaves us
uncertain as to the nature of the paintings of
Damophilus and Gorgasus: he says that when
the temple was restored crustas parietum excisas
tabulis marginatis inclusas esse, an expression
which certainly seems to imply that they were
wall-paintings which were at a later date cut
out and framed. That this plan of preserving
the works of old masters was not unusual in
antiquity we know from examples at Pompeii
and elsewhere. From this time forward we
hear little of painting in Rome: there were no
local artists of any importance, and communi-
cation with the outside world was cut off on the
one hand by the wars with Veii, on the other
by the Volsci. Nothing further is heard of
406 PICTURA
PICTURA
Roman painting until the middle of the third
century B.C.
Returning now to the history of the art
among the Greeks themselves, we have seen that
in the sixth century B.C. the most important
centres were in, or bordering upon, Asia Minor,
and that it was only towards the end of this
century that Athens began to take a foremost
part. This is borne out in the little that we
know from literary sources of the painters of
the sixth century. Candaules, king of Lydia
(died B.C. 708), is said to have purchased at a
high price a painting of BULARCHUS, which
represented a Battle of the Magnetes (xxxv.
§ 55). It would appear from the expres-
sion of Pliny (vii. § 126) that Candaules
paid the painter as much gold as would cover
the picture (repensam auro). The tradition,
however, is very doubtful: it was probably
borrowed without understanding from a book
by Cornelius Nepos, and is mentioned by Pliny
on account of the correspondence between the
dates of the death of Candaules and that of
Romulus.
The old Ionic or Asiatic painting, the “genus
picturae Asiaticum,” as Pliny terms it, most pro-
bably flourished at the same time with the Ionian
architecture, and continued as an independent
school until the middle of the sixth century B.C.,
when the Ionians lost their liberty. Herodotus
(i. 164) mentions that when Harpagus besieged
the town of Phocaea (B.C. 548) the inhabitants
collected into their ships all their valuables,
their statues and votive offerings from the
temples, leaving only their paintings, and such
works in metal or of stone as could not easily be
removed, and fled with them to the island of
Chios; from which we may conclude that paint-
ings (probably wall-paintings) were not only
valued by the Phocaeans, but were also common
among them. Long, however, before the con-
quest of Ionia, Samos seems to have become a
prominent seat of the arts (Herod. iii. 60, iv.
152). We know that a school of sculpture was
early in existence there ; and although the so-
called “invention” of Saurias of Samos is
legendary, he may well have had a real existence
as a painter. Painting and sculpture went
hand in hand in those early times, and the
island that boasted the sculptor Theodorus would
probably have made its mark in painting as
well. Pausanias indeed twice mentions cursorily
a celebrated Samiote painter CALLIPHON, who
painted the Homeric battle of the ships in the
Artemision at Ephesus: the terms used by
Pausanias clearly point to the art of the first
half of the sixth century B.C. In the temple of
Hera at Samos was the celebrated picture
dedicated by Mandrocles, a native of the place ;
we are not told the name of the (doubtless
local) artist ; it was painted for Mandrocles,
who had constructed for Darius Hystaspes the
bridge of boats across the Bosporus, and repre-
sented the passage of Darius’ army, with the
king seated on a throne reviewing the troops as
they passed. Such a dedication would be quite
in keeping with what we know of Samian art
tradition, and there is nothing in the epic
character of the subject which would make it
impracticable. The date of the bridging of the
Bosporus must fall between 516–514 B.C., and
the picture must have been nearly contemporary
with this date. Another painter, possibly also
a Samian,” is mentioned by Athenaeus (v.
p. 210 b)—SILLAX, OF RHEGIUM, whose pictures
in the Stoa at Phlius had been described by
Polemo; his importance is marked by the fact
that his name is recorded in the poetry both of
Epicharmos and Simonides ; and this fact would
mark his date at about B.C. 470. The contem-
porary sculptor Pythagoras of Samos (Rhegium)
is stated to have begun life as a painter (ab
initio pictor); another instance of the close con-
nexion then existing between the arts. We
may conclude the list of Samian painters in the
fifth century with the name of AGATHARCHUS,
SON OF EUDEMUs; unfortunately of this painter
not a single work is described in literature, and
we know no more of him than what can be
inferred from the three anecdotes which different
writers associate with his name. The first is
given in Vitruvius (vii. praef. 10), who says
that Agatharchus “primum Athenis, Aeschylo
docente tragoediam, scaenam fecit et de ea com-
mentarium reliquit.” From this it has been
supposed that this artist invented scene-paint-
ing, and that from him, therefore, dates the
feeling for landscape in art and the striving
after pictorial illusion. On the other hand, this
statement does not coincide with that of
Aristotle (Poet. 4), that Sophocles invented
scene-painting; nor with what we know of the
later painter Apollodorus. Klein , proposes, in
the light of recent discoveries as to the history
of the Greek theatre, to refer Scaenam fecit to
the innovation brought about by the addition of
the orkmv) (the stage proper) to the old dancing
ring: this expression might well have been
misunderstood by Vitruvius, whose references to
treatises left by artists and architects are rarely
to be trusted. The second anecdote represents
him as set down by a reply of the celebrated
younger master Zeuxis, to whom he had boasted
of his rapid rate of work (Plut. Pericl. 13).
The third anecdote relates how Agatharchus,
refusing on the score of overwork to decorate
the house of Alcibiades, was locked up by him
until the decoration was completed; or, accord-
ing to another version, until the artist escaped.
We thus see, at any rate, that Agatharchus
was a contemporary of Aeschylus, of Zeuxis, and
of Alcibiades; Aeschylus died in B.C. 456, and
the speech of Andocides recording the Alcibiades
story was probably delivered in B.C. 416. It
has therefore been supposed that there must
have been two Agatharchi (see Dict. Biogr. s. v.),
but this supposition is not generally accepted.
Here for the present ends our information
about the Samian School : between this time and
the period of the Diadochi, when Theon comes
forward, Samos is only represented by one or
two insignificant names. But that Samos pre-
served always the tradition of a great school of
painting, we see from the act that the famous
contest between Parrhasius and Timanthes took
place there; moreover, the temple of the Samian
Hera was a perfect storehouse of pictures, which
lasted even down to the time of Strabo (xiv.
p. 637 C), who says, “The ancient shrine and
* Klein (Arch.-Epig. Mitth. xii. p. 87) claims. Sillax
as a Samian, but on no very strong grounds. He is con-
temporary with Pythagoras and Clearchus, both of whom
are called “of Rhegium,” but are in reality of Samos.
PICTURA
PICTURA 407
large temple of Hera is now a picture gallery
[PINACOTHECA]; and besides the quantity of
pictures here exhibited, there are also other
galleries and little shrines which are full of
specimens of ancient art.” We saw that
Agatharchus’ sphere of activity lay in Athens,
and it is to Athens on the one hand, to Colophon
and Ephesus on the other, that the heritage of
Samian painting is now passed.
The art of the sixth century at Athens has
unfortunately offered hitherto but little direct
monumental evidence either to the ancients or
ourselves. The recent excavations on the Acro-
polis have brought to light, however, monu-
ments which, fragmentary as they are, yet
throw a brilliant light upon a period of which
the ancients knew but little. The sack of the
Acropolis by the Persians in B.C. 480 must have
destroyed most of what would otherwise have
served for the art history of pre-Persian times.
Possibly some scattered pieces were saved from
the wreck, and may have been set up at the
time of Cimon's administration in the pinaco-
theca of the Propylaea; and on these chance
survivals the knowledge of the ancients was
principally based. “If therefore such a painter
as Clitias is not named by Pliny as well as
Eumarus, this is merely owing to the chance
that the father of art history found no picture
by this artist on the Acropolis.” Art and
handicraft are originally, as we have seen at
Corinth, not separated; and probably the early
red-figured vases, made at Athens and exported
thence to various sites, reflect the art of the
painters of Peisistratid times; a developed
drama did not yet exist; and it would appear
that these artists, both great and small, drew
their inspiration from the Cyclic and the Lyric
poets. As time went on, the gulf between art
and handicraft gradually widened; and the
genius of POLYGNOTUS, in the middle of the
fifth century, finally raised painting to a level
far above that of the handicraftsmen.
With Polygnotus the history of Greek painting
as an independent art may be said to begin, and
in this sense we may accept the statement of
Theophrastus (ante) that this artist was the
“inventor” of painting. It is the period of the
great reaction at Athens succeeding to the
Persian wars, and for the first time we hear of
great historical compositions, and of painters
recognised as public characters. The limited
space of this article necessarily precludes any-
thing like a general notice of all the various
productions of Greek painters incidentally men-
tioned in ancient writers. With the exception,
therefore, of occasionally mentioning works of
extraordinary celebrity, the notices of the
various Greek painters of whom we have any
satisfactory knowledge will be restricted to
those who, by the quality or peculiar character
of their works, have contributed towards the
establishment of any of the various styles of
painting practised by the ancients. A fuller
account of each artist will be found under their
respective names in the Dictionary of Greek and
Roman Biography.
The fame of Polygnotus is chiefly associated
with Athens; he was born at Thasos, and came
of a family of Thasiote artists; his father
Aglophon, and his brother Aristophon, being
both recorded as painters of note. Of the
details of his life we know very little ; just as
his great contemporary Pheidias started life as
a painter, so Polygnotus is spoken of as having
had some experience in sculpture: an association
between the two arts which is clearly reflected
in the sculpture of the time. His period of
activity seems to have lain between B.C. 475
and 430. Attracted to Athens among the
artists whom Cimon was employing for the
reconstruction and adornment of the city, he
won for himself the freedom of that city, and a
special honour from the Amphictyons, by his
gratuitous work at Athens and at Delphi. He
became the leader of a school of painters who
worked on the same monuments, and probably
much in the same manner, as himself; principal
among these were Panaenus, a relation of
Pheidias, and Micon, like his leader both sculptor
and painter, and, like him too, of Ionic origin.
Unfortunately, in many cases where these
artists were employed conjointly, we cannot
always decide which subjects to assign to each
of the respective masters. In all probability,
the earliest works which can with certainty be
attributed to Polygnotus were the large com-
positions with which he decorated the Lesche or
assembly hall of the Cnidians at Delphi, repre-
senting the Sack of Troy and the Vision of
Hades. These paintings are celebrated in an
epigram of Simonides: now we know that in
B.C. 477 the poet went to Sicily, and that in
B.C. 467 he died ; so that the paintings were
probably executed at least before B.C. 470.
Pausanias devotes seven chapters (x, 25–31) to
their description, and from this we can gather a
very fair idea of the general character of the
compositions. The figures were arranged in an
extended form of frieze, but grouped on different
levels, and lacking that pictorial unity which a
definitive background supplies in modern paint-
ing. Each figure had the name written over it,
and the wall was covered with distinct groups,
each telling its own story, but all contributing
together to relate the tale of the general com-
position. They were in fact painted histories,
and each group was no further connected with
the contiguous groups, than that they all
tended to illustrate different facts of the same
story. Intended as they were for the decoration
of architecture, they were subservient to tectonic
laws; as in sculpture in relief, what was not
absolutely necessary to illustrate the principal
object was indicated merely by symbolism: thus,
in default of more elaborate scenery, locality
was suggested rather than expressed,—a tree, a
house, or a piece of water representing what the
knowledge of each spectator would easily supply
for himself.
If we consider the narrow limits thus imposed
on Polygnotos by his obedience to ancient laws
and canons not yet broken through, we shall
expect to find his real claims to the advance-
ment of art more set forth in the details of his
style and treatment of his subject; and this is
precisely what is most noted of him by ancient
writers. While he inherits the strength and
firmness of his more archaic predecessors, he
adds a breadth of style and an aesthetic beauty
which is less external than inherent within the
character of his subject. This is what Aristotle
means when he (Poet. c. 6) speaks of him as an
&yaôos #00)pápos, an excellent delineator of
408 PICTURA
PICTURA
moral character, and assigns to him in this respect
a complete superiority over Zeuxis; and again
(ibid. c. 2), speaking of imitation, when he re-
marks that it must be either superior, inferior, or
equal to its model, illustrating his point by the
cases of three painters: “Polygnotus,” he says,
“paints men better than they are, Pauson
worse than they are, and Dionysius as they are.”
Pliny says (xxxv. § 58) that he was “the
first to paint women with translucent drapery,
and to decorate their heads with various coloured
head-dresses; but that his greatest contribu-
tions to painting were those of opening the
mouth, showing the teeth, and that he gave
expression to the countenance by altering its
archaic stiffness.” It is in these last character-
istics that we see the revolution brought about
by Polygnotus; he endeavours, in the whole
treatment of the body, to impart an individual
character; especially in the face, so that a poet
of the Anthology (Anth. Gr. iii. 147 B) might
say of his Polyxena that “in her eyelids lay the
whole of the Trojan war.” It is probably more
than a coincidence that in his works we have
the first glimpse of portrait painting in the
modern sense. The artist loved Elpinice, the
sister of the great Cimon; and her portrait, as
Laodice, figured among the Trojan women re-
presented by him in the Stoa.
With Polygnotus the art of Painting was in
point of conception and spiritual beauty at its
zenith; but, unlike sculpture, it was as yet
lacking in technical power; as Woermann
(p. 43) says, “It truly entered into possession of
its full technical means in a later generation,
when the arts of Greece were no longer bent
upon their ideal mission in the same high
earnest as of old.” The range of colours was
scanty;” and though we hear of special local
tints being applied (e.g. the Eurynomus in the
Nekyia coloured blue-black, like a carrion fly,
as Pausanias says), there is no suggestion of a
transition of tones or of local light and shade.
Indeed, this is the more natural when we
remember that no determinate background was
used, but probably the figures stood out on the
white ground of the wall.
If we wish to realise the spirit of Polygnotus'
paintings, it is principally to the sculptures of
the time that we must look; and specially to
the series of reliefs upon the marble lekythi
and sepulchral stelae, which breathe the same
qualities of pathos that underlay the paintings
of this master, and the bloom of which art falls
just in his time. Possibly even the motives of
these sculptures may suggest the types which
Polygnotus had created for his great picture of
Hades. The influence which his art exercised
upon sculpture is best shown in the frieze of
the Graeco-Lycian monument of Gjölbaschi,
where more than one motive (e.g. the Slaying of
the Suitors by Odysseus) is directly inspired by
the painting of the same subject. But as far as
mere types are concerned, much is probably still
to be obtained from the study of vases. The
gulf between art and handicraft is widening, and
“the polychrome vase-paintings (on a white
ground) are a last attempt to keep pace with
the greater art, but for the most part are not
* Cicero says he used only four colours; Plutarch
names &xpa, awomis, uéAas, pºmatás.
worthy of the simple colouring of Polygnotus.”
On some red-figured vases, however, of the time
of Meidias,” it is now shown that the scenes
depicted have a close relationship with the
painter, a fact borne out by the inscriptions
which they bear, and which are written in the
Parian-Thasian, and not the Attic, alphabet.
Dummler has collected as many as six such in-
stances, and more will doubtless be now identified.
For a list of the various works of Polygnotus
and his contemporaries, we must refer the reader
to Overbeck’s Schriftguellen. It is sufficient to
say here that their principal sphere seems to
have been Athens, and the wealth of Athenian
local myths supplied them with the most varied
and extensive themes. It was a time when the
luxuriance of Ionic art was taking a hold upon
Athens, not in painting alone, but in the whole
range of Attic culture; and this movement is
continued in the greatest of the colleagues of
Polygnotus, Micon and Panaenus.
Both had, like their leader, strong instincts in
the direction of sculpture. Panaenus was of the
family of Pheidias; MICON was himself a sculp-
tor. He is the only great painter of whom we
have as yet a direct monumental record ; and,
curiously enough, this record is concerned, not
with a picture, but with a statue. At Olympia a
square base was found (Löwy, Inschr. Gr. Bildh.
No. 41) which had supported a bronze statue ;
the inscription showed that this statue had re-
corded the victory in the pancration of “Callias,
son of Didymion, an Athenian ; ” and added
Míkav ćrotmarev 'A6mvaſos. This very statue is
described by Pausanias (vi. 6, 1), who gives
further in another passage (v. 9, 3) the date of
Callias’ victory as the 77th Olympiad (B.C. 472–
469); the statue must have been set up soon after
this date. Another inscribed base (Löwy, No.
42), found at Athens, records a statue made by
“Micon, son of Phanomachus,” thus correcting
the form of the name (Phanochus) given in the
Scholiast to Aristoph. Lysist. 679. These statues
of Athletes remind us of Pliny’s statement that
Micon was specially esteemed for this class of
work (“Micon athletis spectatur’).
Of Micon's birth and life we know otherwise
very little. In spite of the evidence afforded by
the Olympia base, he has usually been considered
as of un-Attic origin, on account of the Ionic
character of his writing. But the evidence of
his work all points to his being an Athenian ;
the subjects both of his sculpture and of his
painting are Attic, and it is here that his ac-
tivity was chiefly displayed. Six of his works
are known to us, viz. (1) Battle of Amazons,
and (2) Battle of Marathon, both in the Stoa
Poikile; (3) an Argonautic scene, possibly the
funeral games of Pelias, in the Anakeion ; (4)
Battle of Amazons, (5) Battle of Centaurs, and
(6) The Recognition of Theseus, all in the
Theseion. In describing this last, Pausanias goes
on to relate the end of Theseus; and this has
generally been considered as the description of a
seventh picture : Klein, however, shows, good
reason for the opinion that this is merely an
excursus of the garrulous topographer, and must
not be included among Micon’s paintings. The
* It is worth noting that one vase-painter of this
period is named Polygnotus: a vase signed by him is in
the British Museum.
PICTURA
PICTURA 4.09
close connexion existing between the great
artists of this period, and the probable similarity
of their style, is shown in the fact that the
Marathon ascribed to Micon (No. 2) was probably
painted by Panaenus, and that some of the works
in the Theseion are in one author attributed to
Polygnotus.
PANAENUs, if, as is nearly certain, he was
the brother” of Pheidias, probably in that case
began his training under their father Char-
mides, who must have been also a painter.
His personality is overshadowed somewhat by
the superior claims of his greater brother; but
the fact of his being chosen to paint the Battle
of Marathon, and to decorate the throne rails
and walls of the great temple of Olympian Zeus,
show the high esteem in which his art was held.
From the description which Pausanias gives
(v. 11, 5) of his Olympian paintings, it is
evident that his method corresponded to that of
his contemporaries already described. With him
we hear for the first time of those contests of
painters which seem to have attracted the great
masters in subsequent times to exhibit compe-
titive works usually at the great games or
religious festivals. Panaenus is recorded by
Pliny (xxxv. § 58) as having been defeated in such
a competition at the Pythia by Timagoras of
Chalkis, an Ionic master who is otherwise un-
known. Probably Pliny had derived this story
from a copy that he may have seen of a metrical
inscription of Timagoras, and this would explain
the “Timagorae vetusto carmine * in the passage
of Pliny.
Of ARISTOPHON the brother of Polygnotus, and
by Plato reckoned as his equal, some well-known
pictures are quoted in Pliny and Plutarch : of
these a numerosa tabula is probably to be
identified as the principal scene of an Iliupersis,
in which Priamus, Helena and IIeu66, Ulixes and
'Atrárm, and Deiphobus appear, possibly (as
numerosa would seem to imply) as an excerpt
from a large composition. Besides this, we
have an Astypalaea grieving for her son Ancaeus,
wounded by a boar (suggestive of Adonis and
Aphrodite); a Philoctetes (probably the same
which Pliny saw in the Pinacotheca of the
Propylaea at Athens); and a picture commemo-
rating the agonistic victories of Alcibiades. This
last subject has given rise to much discussion;
one author (Satyrus) makes of it two pictures,
the one representing Olympias and Pythias
crowning Alcibiades, the other Nemea sitting
with Alcibiades in her lap. The other authority
(Plutarch) names simply Nemea seated with
Alcibiades in her arms, and adds that it caused
quite a furore in Athens; but “the elders took
it ill, as savouring of tyrannia and lawlessness
(trapavópois).” Klein explains the trapavówous
as referring to a psephisma of the Athenians
forbidding any one from attaching to a female
slave or hetaira the name of a Penteteris. The
terms of the description make it clear that it
was one picture. Satyrus says that the painting
was 'AyAaoqāvros Ypapfiv; if this is so, we must
* Strabo calls him the 36exptôods, which would seem
to mean “nephew,” of Pheidias. Pausanias, Pliny, and
Plutarch, on the other hand, call him the “brother; ”
and this would seem better to suit the chronology, seeing
that he painted in the Stoa Poikile contemporaneously
with Polygnotus and Micon. -
imagine an Aglophon the second, for it is not
possible that the father of Polygnotus could have
lived so long. Probably either Satyrus or his
quoter (Athenaeus) must have omitted the name
of the son, and the quotation should run
'Aptortoq àvros roßJ’Aºyaaoqāvros.
Two more painters must be named here, the
tragedian EURIPIDES (B.C. 480–406), who began
life in this profession, and whose pictures were
to be seen at Megara ; and PAUSON, whose name
is thrice mentioned by Aristophanes in plays
which give for him a margin of date between
B.C. 426-389; only one work of Pauson is
recorded, a horse painted to order, which from
one aspect appeared to be galloping, and when
inverted seemed to be rolling in the dust; but he
is brought by Aristotle into comparison with
Polygnotus in the passage already quoted (Poet.
2), where he says that Polygnotus painted men.
as better, Pauson as worse than reality, while
DIONYSIUS (of Colophon) represented them as
they are. Of this last painter, we learn from
Aelian (War. Hist. iv. 3) that he imitated the
technique and style of Polygnotus in everything
except its grandeur (ueyé6ous); while from
Plutarch (Timol. 36) it would seem that his
method was lacking in ease.
With APOLLODORUs of Athens a new epoch is
commenced, of such importance that Pliny says
of him that he was “the first to give the
appearance of reality to his pictures (eaſprimere
species), and to bring the brush into just repute.”
The great discovery here alluded to is the in-
vention of ačrial perspective, the treatment of
different planes, the right management of
chiaroscuro and the fusion of colours (Plut. de
gloria Ath. 2, ££evpov péopâv kal &mdžpoorly
orkiás), so that he earned the title of okaypdqos,
and Pliny can say that before him no easel
picture (tabula) had existed fit to charm the
eyes of the spectator. Doubtless the school of
Polygnotus had paved the way for this change:
such a detail as that in the “Vision of Hades *
by Polygnotus, representing the river of Acheron
with fish and pebbly bed seen through the water;
his practice of placing his figures on different
levels; and the figures on upper levels half
hidden by a line of hill,—these seem to bespeak
a step immediately preceding that of true per-
spective; and it was Apollodorus who took this
step. The scarcity of actual records of his works
prevents our knowing whether his great fame
(6 kAelvös àv’ ‘EAAdôa traorav, says Nicomachus
the painter-historian) is due to their individual
excellence as much as to the value of his new
discovery. Two of his works are recorded ; a
priest in prayer, and an “Ajax struck by light-
ning, at Pergamon.” This last picture has been
quoted as an example of the pictorial treatment
of Apollodorus; as if it had shown Ajax in his
ship, with startling effects of light and shade.
Furtwängler, however, is probably right in
suggesting that it was not Ajax, but the picture
itself, that had suffered disaster; the same thing
had happened to a painting of Parrhasius: Pliny
records (xxxv. § 69) that a painting of this artist
at Rhodes had been thrice struck by lightning
and not consumed (miraculo). Possibly the Ajax
picture also contained the picture of Odysseus,
of which the Scholiast to Il. x. 265 says that
this artist was the first to represent him wearing
a seaman's cap, pilos (rpáros éypale trºop
410 PICTURA
PICTURA
*OSvorore?). His date is specially given by Pliny
(xxxv. § 60) as the 93rd Olympiad (B.C. 408–
405); but if we may judge from his relations
with Zeuxis, it must go back considerably before
that time. It is from this age that the estab-
lishment of easel-painting may be supposed to
date; for although paintings on slabs of marble
and terra-cotta were naturally in vogue from
early times, it is only now that they begin to
occupy the front place, hitherto held by the
monumental paintings of Polygnotus; and this
is the meaning of Pliny’s statement, “neque
ante eum tabula ullius,” &c.; apart from which,
Pliny’s sources of information seem to deal with
easel pictures alone, and to practically ignore
the great epoch of monumental painting.
During the period which now terminates,
Athens takes the lead in painting, under Poly-
gnotus and Apollodorus, as she had done under
Pheidias in sculpture. Though the artists who
brought this about were not all Athenians by
birth, Athens was the chief seat of their in-
dustry; and even afterwards, when by the
Peloponnesian wars Athens had lost her supre-
macy, she still continued an important centre,
although the art of painting now branches off
into other directions, and is no longer so cen-
tralised. It has been customary to consider
the sequence of the new schools as (1) Ionian,
(2) Sicyonian, and (3) Theban-Attic. But since
Athens continues to have an important share, it
is better to accept two main branches only, viz.
(1) the Helladic, of which Athens is the centre,
as opposed to (2) the Asiatic.
Chief of the successors of Apollodorus was
ZEUXIs of “Heraclea.” Of the many towns of
this name, we cannot be sure which one is meant.
Most critics have explained it as the town in
Lucania, on account of the subsequent connexion
of Zeuxis with that region, the pictures he
painted for Agrigentum and Kroton, and because
his teacher is named Damophilus of Himera.
Klein, however, points out that this Heraclea was
not founded until B.C. 432, whereas Aristophanes
already in the Acharmians (l. 991) names a
picture by Zeuxis; the date of this play is B.C.
426, so that the picture mentioned must have
been painted in the seventh year of his age.
Klein thinks that the Heraclea in Pontus is
referred to, the “Heraclea” par eacellence, and
that would account for his being taught by a
Thasian, Neseas. At any rate, he came early to
Athens, and Xenophon tells us of the warm
interest which Socrates felt in the young artist.
In the Protagoras of Plato he is spoken of as a
weaviorkos, just arrived at Athens from Heraclea;
this would give us a date for the youth of Zeuxis
as between Ol. 89–90 (B.C. 424–417). Pliny,
following some chronological authority, says
that Zeuxis “entered the doors of art which had
been opened by Apollodorus in Ol. 95.4;
others assert falsely Ol. 89.”* It is evident at
* The same idea in a poetic form is expressed in a
verse of Babrius (see Rhein. Mus. 1850, p. 479). Klein
suggests that the Apollodorus mentioned in the second
part of Pliny’s passage, “in eum Apollodorus supra
Scriptus versum fecit,” was not the painter, but the
chronologist of that name ; this does away with the
necessity of supposing personal relations to have existed
between the painter Apollodorus and Zeuxis, and dis-
poses of the grave difficulties which remain in the
passage even if we accept the emendation ipsi for ipsis.
any rate that he belongs to the last years of the
fifth and beginning of the fourth century. That
he adopted and extended the improved methods
of Apollodorus is evident; and that he won for
his art a social standing far above what had
hitherto been attained, is shown by the anecdotes
recorded of him: how that he gave away his
works as being beyond all price (usually, it is
true, to the most influential patrons); how he
composed an epigram uwaño’etat ris HaAAov #
pupiñorerai, “easier to carp than to copy;” and
how he acquired so much wealth “ut in osten-
tatione earum (opum) Olympiae aureis litteris
in palliorum tesseris intextum nomen suum
ostentaret.” This has usually been explained as
implying that Zeuxis wore at Olympia a robe in
which his name was woven in gold letters.
Such an interpretation involves a difficulty, both
in the ablative ostentatione of the MSS. (which
must then be altered to the accusative), and also
in the plural palliorum. Klein's explanation gets
rid of this difficulty: Zeuxis really exhibited his
treasures at Olympia, and the pallia allude to
the curtains hung in front of his pictures there.
That curtains were thus used is shown by the
well-known story of the curtain painted by
Parrhasius, and by the passage in Lucian where
Zeuxis, indignant at the dull comprehension of
his picture by the public, tells Miccion his pupil
to draw the curtain over it (trept&axe #öm rºw
eikóva). º
Of the style of Zeuxis we have one excellent
criterion in the detailed description of one of his
paintings by Lucian, a Centauress nursing her
young upon a meadow : the Centaur, half seen
upon an elevation overlooking the scene, looks
smilingly down, holding in his right hand, up-
lifted above his head, a lion cub to frighten the
children. Two monuments have come down to
us, which, though they do not bear out the
actual words of this passage, yet seem un-
doubtedly inspired by the style of Zeuxis, and
possibly by some such picture. The one, a
Centauress suckling her young, is known only
from the description of Philostratus, ii. 3; the
other is a fine mosaic of the Alexandrine time
from the villa of Hadrian (Mon. iv. 50). This
also represents a scene from Centaur life, but in
this case we have, as it were, the antithesis of
Zeuxis' picture: a lion and tiger have overthrown
and killed the Centauress; the Centaur, rushing
up, has killed the lion, and swings over his head
with both hands a mass of rock to strike the
tiger which growls over its victim. On a rocky
ledge above the scene on the left is a second
tiger couched ready to spring. The mixture of
idyllic and heroic motive combined in these
pictures, in a strikingly novel situation, cor-
responds perfectly with what we can otherwise
gather of the method of Zeuxis.
The most famous perhaps of his paintings was
the Helena, executed for the temple of Hera
Lakinia at Croton; in Cicero's time this picture
was in Rome. Urlichs thinks that Pyrrhus must
have removed it from Croton to Ambracia, that
Fulvius Nobilior brought it thence to Rome (cf.
Pliny, xxxv. § 66), and that it was removed from
the temple of Hercules there by Philippus, and
placed in the colonnade (porticus) built by him,
where in Pliny’s time it still was standing. In
Cicero (de Invent. ii. 1, 1) we have the story in
full. Zeuxis wished to paint a consummate pic-
PICTURA
PICTURA 411
ture, and asked the Crotoniates for the five most
beautiful of their maidens, in order that he might
combine the fairest qualities of each in his pic-
ture. Like Rosalind, his Helena
“ of many parts
By heavenly synod was devised ;
Of many faces, eyes and hearts,
To have the touches dearest prized.”
He was therefore allowed to choose out of all
the maidens the five whose names, Cicero says,
“many poets have handed down to memory.”
In Cicero's account there are apparently two
versions combined; in the one case Zeuxis in-
spects all the maidens, in the other he only sees
their brothers in the palaestra. Probably both
stories are legendary. Klein suggests that they
may have arisen in this way. We cannot, he
says, suppose that the Helena picture was a
solitary figure; no one woman, however com-
posed, could represent her adequately to the
Greek mind; in the Iliupersis of Polygnotus
Helena is accompanied by five women (Paus. x.
25, 4); and on a vase-painting from Kerteh,
which is certainly influenced by the style of
Zeuxis (Compte Rendu, 1861, pl. v. 1), we have
a representation of her among her women, who
are drawn in various stages of nudity. “If
we imagine some such picture painted for the
people of Croton, if we think of names written
over the figures of the maidens, if we conceive
them clothed as in the Kerteh vase, we have the
elements together of which the Crotoniate legend
might be, I might almost say, must be, com-
posed.”*
It seems certain that there existed a second
Helena by Zeuxis, which stood in the Corn Ex-
change (orroè &Aq frow) at Athens (Eustath. ad
Il. p. 868, 37); and it is difficult to say to which
of the two some of the references in literature,
which are not distinctly specified, apply. It was
doubtless the Athenian picture which was exhi-
bited for gate-money, and which therefore re-
ceived the nickname “Hetaira : ” such an exhi-
bition would certainly be better suited to a stoa
than to a temple; and it was this to which Plu-
tarch and Aelian must allude in the anecdote of
the carping critic who did not admire the pic-
ture, and was set down by the reply of Nico-
machus, “Take my eyes, and the godhead will be
manifested to you.” Brunn suggests that the
Athenian picture was a copy, or else a replica
by Zeuxis of the original at Croton ; at any rate
we have no means of deciding whether it was
different in any particular.
In Pliny, xxxv. § 62, an Alcmene is mentioned
which the artist gave to the people of Agri-
gentum ; and an Infant Heracles strangling the
Snakes. Most critics had been led to make two
distinct pictures out of this sentence, especially
on the strength of a Pompeian painting of the
latter subject (Arch. Zeit. 1868, Taf. 4). The
question seems to be finally settled, however, by
a vase-painting recently acquired by the British
Museum (see Murray in the Classical Review,
1888, p. 327), which represents the infants and
snakes, the Zeus (magnificus Juppiter), the as-
sembly of gods (adstantibus dis), and the Alcmene
* A vase in the British Museum (E241) of this period
shows EAENH at her toilet assisted by a small Eros
and seven maidens.
who throws one arm around the neck of Zeus
and with the other points vigorously down to
the scene below, an action which may well cor-
respond with the matre pavente of Pliny. The
nagnificus Juppiter in throno at first sounds out
of keeping with the homely natural touch of
Zeuxis ; but in the vase-painting the Olympus
is treated with just this absence of stiffness which
we may well imagine is inspired by the painting
of Zeuxis. *
From other pictures mentioned as of Zeuxis,
the Pan, Marsyas, and Eros crowned with roses,
Brunn seeks to show that his easel pictures seem
to have been confined to a few figures and isolated
situations. But there is nothing to prove that
these figures are not merely extracts from larger
subjects; and this would suit better the method
of the artist as we know it from the few pictures
already identified, and also the vase-paintings of
the time, in which as a rule preference is shown
for elaborate compositions. When Zeuxis first
reached Athens, the traditions of Polygnotus
were giving place to the more purely pictorial
technique of Apollodorus; to an imaginative
genius such as his, a new world of art was dis-
closing itself; it was natural that he should open
up new paths, new ways of looking at the real
and at the unreal. Lucian says that he did not
paint rô &mpidºm kal tă Kouvè travra, such as his
predecessors had done, heroes, or gods, or wars,
but was always trying some new creation, āel 5&
Kaworowe’v étréºpâto. Aristotle sets him up as
an instance of the triðavöv &övvárov : the old
fantastic creations of mythology, which had
existed as little more than abstract ideas either in
poetry or in art, have henceforward imparted to
them a new life of their own; the same idyllic
treatment will soon be applied to the world of
gods as of men; and in Zeuxis we see already
the germ of the ideas which are later to blossom
out into the art of the Alexandrine age.
Beside the other painted works of Zeuxis, Pliny
mentions specimens of his work in two other
classes of art : his monochromata ea albo, which
probably simply means pictures from which the
colours had perished, leaving only the outlines
sketched in; the same mistake had been made
in modern times. At Herculaneum were found
a series of drawings in red upon stone, the finest
of which is signed by Alexander, an Athenian.
It was always supposed that these represented a
special technique, but in 1872 a similar slab was
found at Pompeii, which showed within red out-
lines the perfectly distinct remains of a complete
painting in colours: these colours have since
almost entirely vanished. Besides these mono-
chromata, Pliny also mentions certain plastic
works of Zeuxis (figlina opera), which were alone
left behind in Ambracia when Fulvius transferred
the other art treasures thence to Rome (cf. Liv.
xxxviii. 9, and xxxix. 5). Klein thinks that
these were probably paintings on terra-cotta
slabs, let into the wall, and therefore difficult to
remove. They may have been, like the picture
of Pan, painted for the decoration of the palace
of Archelaus at Pella, and taken by Pyrrhus to
Ambracia when he became master of Macedonia.
The greatest rival of Zeuxis was PARRHASIUS
of Ephesus. It is true that some late authors
represent him as an Athenian, but there seems
no ground for supposing that, like Polygnotus,
he obtained the freedom of Athens. He began
412 PICTURA
PICTURA
life at Ephesus under his father's (Euenor's) tui-
tion, and went early to Athens, which was the
principal sphere of his activity. It was doubt-
less here that he came into contact with Zeuxis;
their rivalry, which is by some authors declared
to have been in favour of Parrhasius, appears to
have been based principally on the difference in
their methods of art. After the Peloponnesian
wars, he seems to have left Athens, for we hear
of him at Rhodes and Samos. About twenty
pictures in all are attributed to him, among
which some appear to have been of the character
of genre, others mythological; in the latter class
he seems to have come under the influence of
Euripidean tragedy (Robert, Bild und Lied, 35);
as, for instance, in the pictures representing the
Healing of Telephus, the Madness of Odysseus,
and Philoctetes on Lemnos.
In the personal traits recorded of Parrhasius,
his Ionian character is strongly marked. His
genial self-consciousness comes out in his love
of luxury, in his purple mantle and gold crown;
his wit, and his gift of poetry. In his own verse
he calls himself &8poötavros &váp f which is turned
by a contemporary into Éagö06tavros, “living by
his pencil”; and he says that he is Apollinis radice
ortum, that is, through Ion, founder of the Ionian
race, sprung from the god. As to his artistic
style, Brunn thinks that he can trace a radical
contrast to that of Zeuxis : in Zeuxis the pic-
torial element had predominated; Parrhasius dis-
played a treatment of form highly finished in
the drawing and modelling. Milchhöfer draws
attention to his partiality for subjects depicting
the emotion of pain, and points out the peculiar
power which such a picture as his “Demos of
Athens” must have demanded, of representing
in one and the same figure the most contrary
psychological effects.
In Pliny, xxxv. § 68, it is stated that Par-
rhasius left behind “et alia multa graphidis ves-
tigia in tabulis ac membranis eius ex quibus pro-
ficere dicuntur artifices.”* The passage has given
rise to much discussion; that traces of the gra-
phis should remain in the easel pictures does not
surprise us, but what are the membrana 2 Klein
proposes to refer them to the sketches which
Parrhasius is known to have made for works of
toreutic art; from Pausanias and Athenaeus we
learn that more than one metal-worker were oc-
cupied in reproducing in his craft the designs of
this artist. Athenaeus further gives (xi. p. 782 b)
the epigram on a skyphos of Heraclea, which
represented the Iliupersis:
2. º p z. *
Toéſuſta IIaññaoriouo, réxva Mués, éppu 8& eixiov
º º a t
'IAšov airetvas &v éAov Ataxièat.
Moreover Pausanias (i. 28, 2), in describing the
work on the shield of Athene Promachos, says
that it was executed by Mys (ropejoral Mºv):
“the designs of Mys for this and all other of his
works were drawn by Parrhasius son of Euenor.”
It is clear, then, that there was a close connexion
between the great painter and the toreutic art,
e * Brunn thinks that this was the reason why Pliny
includes Parrhasius in the list of authors which he
gives in the 35th Book, since no writing by him is
otherwise alluded to. Klein supposes that Piny must
have had in mind the verses which Parrhasius wrote
about himself and his works, and for this reason con-
sidered him as an author.
and it is probable that the emphatic stress laid
on the excellence of Parrhasius' drawing is mainly
due to the existence of these graphidis vestigia.
Pliny especially praises his skill in terms which
would suit drawings of this nature, and quotes
as his authority two writers who are known to
have published books on the toreutic art. It is
therefore highly probable that the eulogia be-
stowed upon Parrhasius for his drawing refer
specially to this branch, and are not to be taken
as detracting from his merit in the other branches
of his profession. The evidence indeed is rather
to the contrary. Of his colouring we learn from
Diodorus (xxvi. 1) that “Apelles and Parrhasius
in the skilful mixing of colours brought Painting
to its highest point; ” Parrhasius is in fact the
immediate predecessor of the perfected colouring
of Apelles; not yet indeed absolutely perfect
himself, so that he is not included among those
in quibus iam perfecta sunt omnia; but, on the
other hand, not to be classed in this respect with
Zeuxis, Polygnotus, and Timanthes, “who did
not use more than four colours” (Cicero, Brutus,
18, 70).
Quintilian, in a comparison between Zeuxis
and Parrhasius, says of the latter that “he
so circumscribed everything that they call
him the Lawgiver, because the types which he
has handed down of gods and heroes are followed,
as of necessity, by all other artists.” Klein seeks
to show that gods and heroes were in fact his
principal theme; his heroes, in the mentions of
them that have come down to us, appear to have
been mainly single portrait figures; of his gods,
only two are named, a Dionysus with Arete
(the artist’s favourite patroness) and a Hermes.
Whether or no this Hermes was painted by the
artist from his own portrait, it shows us at any
rate the close relation which obtains now between
the portrait and the ideal type.
The main difficulties of technique are now
overcome, and the period of struggling with
material is well-nigh past; with the new faci-
lities opening out, it is natural that we should
now hear of a number of new claimants to fame:
principal among these stand the representatives
of the Sicyonian school. We saw already that
Sicyon had been one of the earliest afoot in the
field of Painting ; and there seems no doubt that
the tradition had been carried on there uninter-
ruptedly; but it is in the age following Zeuxis
and Parrhasius that its sphere of activity is most
strongly marked. The great sculptor Polycleitus
had been a Sicyonian, and doubtless had left
his mark on the character of the training which
was imparted, for high prices, at the Sicyonian
school. -
In this school we may include the name of
TIMANTHES, who is indeed expressly called “the
Sicyonian painter” by Eustathius (ad Îl. p. 1343,
60).* Pliny tells us that he successfully com-
peted at Samos (doubtless at one of the annual
art exhibitions already mentioned) with Par-
* Quintilian (Inst. Orat. ii. 13, 12) speaks of him as
Cythmius, which Brunn and others have taken to mean
that he originally hailed from Cythnos; Klein suggests
that this writer misread his authority, taking XE-
KYONIOx for KVeNIOX. It is possible that
the painter Timanthes of Sikyon recorded in Plut. Arat.
32, 3, and who must have lived towards the end of the
third century B.C., was a descendant of this artist.
PICTURA
PICTURA 413
rhasius. Parrhasius' picture on this occasion re-
presented the contest between Ajax and Odysseus
for the arms of Achilles; and when beaten, he
complained that Ajax had again been defeated
by an unworthy opponent (i.e. in Homer, by
Odysseus, and at Samos, by Timanthes). We
are not told what was the subject of Timanthes’
picture on this occasion; but it is clear that it
could not have been, as Brunn supposes, the
same as that of Parrhasius. Of the four other
pictures ascribed to him, the Palamedes is un-
certain, the “hero” in the temple of Pax at
Rome tells us nothing, and the Sleeping Cyclops
is probably not by him: Pliny (xxxv. § 74) de-
scribes it as “a Cyclops sleeping, a tiny picture;
to bring out the colossal size of the monster, the
artist inserted figures of Satyrs, measuring his
thumb with a thyrsos.” The whole idea of this
picture seems out of keeping with the age of our
artist, and to belong rather to that idyllic time
which treats the Cyclops from the idyllic point
of view as the lover of Galatea. The “Timan-
thes” therefore who painted this may have been
some much later artist of the same name.
We are thus left, for our estimate of Timan-
thes, to the most famous of his pictures, the
Sacrifice of Iphigeneia, and the one with which
he overcame in competition Colotes of Teos.
The maiden was represented standing before the
altar on which she was about to be offered up,
and grief is exhibited in the faces of the by-
standers. The intensity of emotion is graduated
in the different faces, culminating in the climax
with the father Agamemnon, whose head is veiled
from view. More than one monument has come
down to us which seems to have been inspired
|by this picture (see Wiener Worlegebl. v. 8–10;
the mosaic in Arch. Zeit. 1869, pl. 14; and
Overbeck, Her. Bildw. p. 314 fol.): the most
important of these is the Pompeian wall-painting
(Overbeck, ib. pl. xiv. 10), which agrees in most
of the important details with the description.
The detail which appears constant throughout,
the veiled grief of Agamemnon, is what seems
most to have caught the fancy of the ancients;
and it is possibly this fact which has inspired
Pliny’s estimate of his ingenium, so that he says
of Timanthes that in his works the spectator sees
more than is actually there (intelligitur plus sem-
per quam pingitur). Apart, however, from ora-
torical gush, we may obtain a real idea of the
grandeur of Timanthes’ conception, which would
seem to place him on a level higher than that of
his contemporaries.
EUPOMPUs of Sicyon is named by Pliny as
belonging to this period (hac aetate), but that
he was later than Timanthes we see from the
fact that his pupils belong to a considerably
later date. Of his pictures we know scarcely
anything; but his importance is emphasised by
the statement of Pliny, who says that “on his
account” the schools of painting were now
reckoned as three—viz. Ionic, Sicyonic, and
Attic. It is evident from what has gone before
that this cannot mean that Eupompus “founded”
the Sicyonic school; it had existed from time
immemorial; it merely means that from this
time the Sicyonic painters begin to raise them-
selves as a separate class above the level of the
rest of the “Helladic” school. The fame of the
Sicyonic training spread so much that under
PAMPHILUs the fee was raised to a talent for
twelve years' instruction, and even the great
Apelles was among his pupils. It is difficult to
say wherein this great local superiority con-
sisted, which tempted, moreover, wealthy
amateurs like Ptolemy II. and Attalus to pur-
chase at enormous prices galleries of specially
Sicyonian old masters. Plutarch uses a special
term for it, xpmorroypapſa, which is usually
explained as indicating the reaction in art
against the methods of Zeuxis and his contem-
poraries. Klein thinks that the special revolu-
tion effected by the Sicyonic masters was their
development of the encaustic method. It is
certain, at any rate, that it was only from
the time of Pamphilus that encaustic took its
place on equal terms beside the ordinary methods.
We have seen that under the Ptolemies the
method found favour in Egypt; and that it took
a lasting hold there we saw on p. 392 in the
large series of such pictures which have been
found in the Fayoum. It is thus that we shall
understand the tirade of Petronius against the
audacia of the Egyptians, which invented a
shortened method (compendiariam) of obtaining
the effects belonging to the great art of painting.
This shortened method Klein understands as the
abandonment of the use of the cestrum, and
therewith of the tarda picturae ratio which
encaustic had hitherto involved. If this is so,
it is natural that the fame of these first re-
formers should rest more upon their method
and their teaching powers than on their actual
paintings. Of Pamphilus we only know four
works, and these only by the barest mention of
their subjects.
The same estimate is true also of his pupil
MELANTHIUS, whose superiority in composition
is said to have been conceded by his fellow-
pupil Apelles ; of him, again, we only know one
picture, which represented Aristratus, the Tyrant
of Sicyon in Philip's time, standing beside the
chariot of Nike : when under Aratus all effigies
of Tyrants were subsequently destroyed, the
figure of Aristratus was scraped out, and a
palm-tree inserted in its place.
Another of the pupils of Pamphilus, PAUSIAs,
may be considered to have done most to develop
the capabilities of the new method (Pliny, xxxv.
§ 123, “primum in hoc genere nobilem”).
Striking effects of transparency, such as the
face of his Methe visible through the glass out
of which she drank; of gradations of single
colours, so that in his famous Sacrifice picture
the entire body of a bull seen in foreshortening
was coloured black: such were the features of
his work ; which, moreover, seems to have been
limited in other directions by the tediousness of
the encaustic method; so that his pictures were
almost all on a small scale, and occupied with
subjects appropriate to the size, such as scenes
of child life (pueri) and even (for the first time)
flower subjects. Pliny tells a story of his
restoring the mural paintings of Polygnotus at
Thespiae, and adds that he was not very success-
ful, “quoniam non suo genere certasset.” We
have, however, seen that Pliny neither knew
nor cared anything about the great mural
paintings; the “Thespiae" here is a mistake
for Delphi, so that we can place no reliance on
this evidence of Pausias’ practice with the
brush.
From this point the history of Painting seems
414 PICTURA
PICTURA
to branch off. Brunn, and most critics following
him, have thought to be able to trace a new
school existing side by side with the Sicyonian,
of which the name of Aristeides stands at the
head, and which includes Nicomachus, Euphra-
nor, and Nicias. This school was termed the
“Theban Attic,” for this reason: Aristeides is
frequently termed Thebanus, and we hear of a
picture by him in Thebes; after the decline of
Theban power the school is supposed to have
taken root at Athens; and a contrast is drawn
between the “severe academic exactness and
thoroughness” (xpmaroypaſpía) of the Sicyonian
school, and the “greater ease and versatility,
and invention more intent upon the expression
of human emotion” of the Theban-Attic. This
conclusion, which has been generally accepted,
certainly appears to rest on very insufficient
grounds, and it leaves us with an impression of
the narrowness and one-sidedness of the Sicyo-
nic school which is hardly warrantable in fact.
Klein, who has subjected each of the artists of
the period now succeeding to a searching exami-
nation, advances a theory which seems to do
away with the difficulty. He traces the whole
of these artists back in two pedigrees to the
tutelage of the two artists, Aristeides and
Pausias; he finds that Aristeides the “Theban"
belongs no less to the Sicyonic school than
Pausias or than Pamphilus “of Amphipolis;”
that most of these artists can be more or less
directly associated with Sicyon. “The powerful.
reaction which tradition, intelligibly enough,
connects with Sicyon, . . . is only comprehensible
by the knowledge that it was preceded by a
freshening and permeation of the ancestral
parent stock with Northern Greek blood. From
North Greece it acquired the technique of
encaustic, which it developed to the highest
perfection; and thence arose the idea that
Aristides and Pamphilus were the first artists in
encaustic.” From what we know of these
artists it would appear that all spheres of art,
from the highest to the lowest, were handled
by them; but there is no reason to suppose that
the traditions of technique and style which
marked the Sicyonic school were not preserved
in painting as they were in sculpture.
The most important figure is now ARISTEIDEs,
Thebanus. The facts which Pliny gives point to
two masters of this name, of whom the one is
the father (formerly read as Aristiaeus), the
other the son, of Nicomachus. The statements
in Pliny concerning these two Aristeidae are so
hopelessly confused that it is impossible to
distinguish between them with any certainty.
If the grandfather can be identified with the
pupil of Polycleitus, we may take about B.C. 330
as a convenient date for him, and about B.C. 280
for that of his grandson. It is possible that the
epithet Thebanus is intended to distinguish the
older Aristeides; but even here Pliny is con-
fused, for he sometimes calls one and the same
person Thebanus and contemporary with Apelles.
The same confusion is probably traceable in his
estimate of style : “is omnium primus animum
pinxit et sensus hominis expressit, quae vocant
Graeci ethe, item perturbationis (tré0m).”
. Perhaps we should assign to the elder the
quality of ethos, to the younger that of tra:00s
and of being durior paulo in coloribus; and
according to these qualities we may assign some
of the pictures. The Dionysus was probably
painted by the older and more famous of the two;
its great estimation is shown by the fact that
Attalus is said to have paid 100 talents for it,
and Mummius afterwards sent it to Rome: also
the picture of a sacked town, which Alexander
acquired at the looting of Thebes, and of which
one episode represented a dying mother, with
her infant still suckling her breast. To the
younger may be assigned the Battle with
Persians, the Leontion Epicuri and the anapaw-
omene (see Arch. Zeit. 1883, p. 41).
Of NICOMACHUs, the son of the elder Ari-
steides, we know very little. He painted, like
Melanthius and his pupils, for the Tyrant Ari-
stratus of Sicyon, who was a contemporary of
Philip of Macedon; also a portrait of Anti-
patros, probably about Ol. 115. Among his
other works we read of a Rape of Persephone;
a Sleeping Maenad surprised by Satyrs (Arch.
Zeit. 1880, p. 149); a Victory driving a quad-
riga heavenwards; and other pictures of gods
and mythological scenes.
EUPHRANOR, the Isthmian, is mentioned as a
pupil of Aristeides (probably about B.C. 360),
and, like others of his predecessors, worked
both in sculpture and painting; according to
Pliny (xxxv. § 128), he was docilis ac laboriosus
ante omnis, and in both branches of art excelled
all his contemporaries. Of his pictures we hear
specially of three great compositions for a stoa
in the Ceramicus, representing the charge of
the Athenians against the Thebans before the
battle of Mantineia, pictures of the twelve gods,
and a Theseus. Of this last, Pliny says in quo
diacit that “the Theseus of Parrhasius looked as
though fed on roses, while that of Euphranor
seemed fed on beef.” The dia.it is usually taken
as alluding to Euphranor; Klein suggests that
it was a remark more appropriate to Parrhasius;
the same confusion of Pliny comes out in his
attribution of a “madness of Odysseus” to
Euphranor in the same passage. After de-
scribing the three works in the Stoa, he adds,
“nobilis eius tabula Ephesiest, Ulixes . . .” Now
we know from Plutarch that Parrhasius painted
a picture of this subject, and it seems absurd to
suppose that Euphranor would have painted the
same idea for the home of Parrhasius, Ephesus.
The eius should properly refer to Parrhasius,
who alone painted this subject, and the whole
passage has been inserted here by Pliny in error.
Of Euphranor's style we cannot judge; we only
know that he devoted his attention to the canon
of proportions, and is said to have written on
this subject; but it remains uncertain whether
or no he is to be considered as the predecessor of
Lysippus in this study.
With NICIAs of Athens we are brought fully
into the Alexandrine age. Plutarch narrates a
story of his having refused to sell one of his
pictures (the Nekyia) at sixty talents to king
Ptolemy; on the other hand, we hear of him
as a contemporary of Praxiteles: so that his
sphere of activity must have lain between about
B.C. 340–300. From a statement in Demetr.
Phaler. (de Elocut. 76) we gather that he tried
to bring about a reaction in style against the
follies of contemporary artists, who “frittered
away their art in painting birds and flower
pieces; ” and laid down the principle of the
importance of choosing a fine subject, such as a
PICTURA
PICTURA 415
battle-piece. Following this principle himself,
we find him occupied with more than one
subject of the Polygnotan school: the Nemea,
probably a personification of the Nemean games,
whom he represented bearing a palm and seated
on a lion ; and a Vision of Hades (Pliny, xxxv.
§ 132, necyomantea Homeri), the picture which
he refused to Ptolemy and presented to Athens.
It is interesting in connexion with this last to
note that an ancient treatment of this subject
has come down to us in the famous Odyssey
landscapes excavated on the Esquiline in 1848–
50 (Woermann, Antiken Odysseelandschaften):
these six pictures are almost exact illustrations
of the Homeric text (Od. x. 80 to xi. 600), and
though decorative in idea are examples of com-
plete landscape painting, showing due observance
of aerial perspective. Their execution dates, as
the masonry of the walls on which they were
found shows, from the last years of the Re-
public; but from their style the designs may
probably be referred to the Hellenistic period.
Among the grandis tabulas of Nicias, Pliny men-
tions an Io, a subject of which several replicas
exist at Pompeii; it is probable that the largest
and finest of these, found on the Palatine, repro-
duces the general form of the composition of
Nicias (see Woltmann, p. 56). Besides his large
pictures, principally of heroines (“diligentissime
mulieres pinxit”), he seems to have worked in
encaustic ; the Nemea was a specimen of this
technique, on which the artist inscribed the
statement that he had “burned it in” (inussisse);
and to this style we may perhaps refer his
pictures of animals and dogs, as well as the
chiaroscuro and quality of relief for which he
is praised. Connected also with his encaustic
work was doubtless the circumlitio of the statues
of Praxiteles which has already been dealt with
on p. 395; and the painted scene on the sepul-
chral monument at Triteia which Pausanias
describes (vii. 22, 6).
We now enter definitely upon the new phase
of Hellenistic life in Greece, and among the
many painters of this epoch one stands unques-
tionably at the head, APELLES, son of Pytheas
of Colophon. His father was apparently not a
painter, for he was sent to receive his first
instruction from Ephorus of Ephesus; at a later
age, when he was already beginning to be
famous, he went to Sicyon, attracted there by
the fame of the teaching of Pamphilus. Under
Philip of Macedon he took up his residence at
Pella, and continued as “court painter” under
Alexander; when Alexander started on his
Asiatic campaigns, he returned again to Ephesus.
After this we hear of him at various times in
Rhodes, where he is brought into contact with
Protogenes; at Alexandria, at the court of
Ptolemy Soter; and possibly at Cos. The
numerous anecdotes and sayings attributed to
him, such as manum de tabula, nulla dies sine
linea, ne sutor ultra crepidam, must be considered
merely as indications of his extensive popularity
rather than as detailed evidence of his style.
We cannot with certainty connect any picture
by him with the material that has come down
to us, so that we are left to the scraps of art
criticism in ancient authors for an estimate of
his style. As might be expected, by far the
majority of his works seem to have been in the
sphere of portraiture. Pliny says that it is
useless to try and enumerate the many portraits
by him of Alexander and Philip : besides these
we hear of a Cleitos putting on his helmet; an
Archelaus in a family group; an Antigonus
arranged in profile, so that his defective eye was
not seen; besides many others, principally of
people connected with the Macedonian court.
Perhaps most characteristic of him were the
series of personifications of abstract ideas of the
mind, represented generally as female figures in
action. Such a picture was the Calumnia,
which he painted at the court of Ptolemy in
Alexandria, in punishment of his detractors
there, and of which we have a detailed descrip-
tion in Lucian. To the same category may be
referred the pictures of Charis and of Tyche;
and the allegorical personifications of the phe-
nomena of nature, as Bronte (thunder), Astrape
(lightning), and the thunderbolt, Keraunobolia.
His mythological pieces are comparatively few ;
by far the most important was doubtless the
Aphrodite Anadyomene painted for the people of
Cos: she was seen rising from the water, a type
which may be compared with numerous marbles
which have come down to us. Augustus carried
the picture to Rome, remitting to the Coans a
hundred talents of the tribute due, as compen-
sation; by the time of Nero it had suffered so
much that it had to be restored, a work which
was carried out by a certain Dorotheus. As we
should expect from an artist whose bent lay in
portraiture, his talent lay less in large or
elaborate compositions than in refinement and
the complete study of nature. The stories that
we are told of him seem to point to a great
dexterity and lightness of touch, with the charm
and grace of manner which was the natural
outcome of his period.
His greatest contemporary was PROTOGENES
of Caunus, an insignificant town on the Carian
coast, subject to Rhodes, where the artist took
up his abode (see supra, p. 395). Mr. Torr
(Classical Review, 1890, p. 231) suggests that
the artist had been accustomed to paint pictures
of ships, as thank-offerings for escapes at sea.
At any rate, it was probably mainly due to
Apelles that his work came to be known and
appreciated : on the other hand, this seems in-
consistent with the fact that Pliny places him
among those who practised sculpture as well as
painting. Besides a few portraits, of Philiscus,
Antigonus, and the mother of Aristotle, and
one work in Athens, his chief themes seem to
have been drawn from the local traditions of
Rhodes; an often repeated anecdote records his
presence at the sacking of Rhodes by Demetrius
in B.C. 304, which we may take as a central point
of his chronology. Demetrius spared the town
from burning in order to save the picture by
Protogenes of the Rhodian hero Ialysus. In this
picture occurred the dog, the effect of whose
foaming mouth was said to have been attained
by Protogenes throwing his sponge in despera-
tion at the picture; and the partridge, which
though a mere detail attracted so much atten-
tion that the artist, in annoyance, erased it. To
attain this high degree of realism, he is said to
have worked very slowly, and it was against
this impression of laboriousness that the criti-
cisms of Apelles were directed.
ANTIPHILUs was by birth an Hellenistic
Egyptian, who was already established at Alex-
416 PICTURA
PICTURA
andria when Apelles went there. Quintilian
calls him facilitate praestantissimus, and his
versatility is shown in the subjects of his works:
these included large pictures in tempera, genre
pictures, such as a boy blowing the fire (pro-
bably encaustic), and even caricature. The type
of one of his works, a Satyr probably dancing,
with a panther-skin, and snapping his fingers
(quem aposcopewonta appellant), is probably re-
flected in statuary, for example in the bronze
“Dancing Faun” found in the “Casa del Fauno’”
at Pompeii (Overbeck, Pompeii," p. 550).
The principle of illusion was now becoming
an end in itself, and the higher aims of art
were neglected in the reproduction of ignoble
and unworthy themes: a representative of the
age was THEON of Samos, of whose phantasies
the most famous is described by Aelian; it
represented a warrior fully armed, charging out
of the panel ; when exhibiting this picture, the
artist would have a flourish of trumpets sounded,
and then draw the curtain. Other painters of
this time are: AñTION, who painted a marriage
of Alexander and Roxane,” which has been fully
described by Lucian; in this picture little
Erotes are introduced, playing with the king's
armour, a motive thoroughly characteristic of
the Hellenistic age;—HELENA, daughter of
Timon the Egyptian, said to have painted the
Battle of Issos which has inspired the famous
Pompeian mosaic; and the school of painters in
little, which, like the Dutch school of the same
kind, occupied itself with genre and still life.
Chief of these was PEIRAfcUs, whose speciality
was “barbers’ shops, cobblers’ booths, asses,
eatables,” and the like, from which he received
the nickname rhyparographos (i.e. rag and tatter
painter, a parody on rhopographos, a painter of
small and trivial objects): in spite of the con-
tempt felt for such art, it seems to have com-
manded high prices, probably on the score of
technical finish.
In the centuries following B.C. 300 few artists
stand out with any individuality: to study the
ideas of this time, we must look at the Hellen-
istic reliefs, and at the wall-paintings, as they
are reflected in Roman imitations. The only
artist of the period who won considerable fame
is TIMOMACHUs of Byzantium, of whom Pliny
says that Julius Caesar paid a large sum for two
of his pictures; but we cannot follow Pliny in
making Timomachus contemporary with Caesar:
he probably belongs to an earlier century. The
most famous of his pictures were: the Madness
of Ajax, a Medea about to kill her children, and
his Orestes and Iphigeneia in Tauris. Of the
Medea picture, celebrated in antiquity no less
than the Aphrodite of Apelles, we have several
suggestions in wall-paintings, sarcophagi, and
elsewhere; perhaps the finest is the picture of
Medea herself in Mus. Borb. x. 21, in which the
conflict of emotions in the mother's mind is ad-
mirably represented. It is this power of express-
ing the emotions and character with delicacy and
depth that seems to characterise the works of
Timomachus, and probably earned him his fame.
* It is natural to think of the so-called “Aldobrandini
marriage,” one of the most famous of the ancient paint-
ings which have come down to us; but the conception
and style of this picture seem to reflect an original type
belonging to a time far earlier than the period of Aëtion.
With Timomachus the history of Greek
painting proper may be said to have come to
an end. Under the successors of Alexander, the
art had become cosmopolitan, and under the
Romans the chief interest was finally transferred
to Italian soil. During the last years of the
Republic, and under the Emperors, the art
treasures of ransacked Greece poured with a
steady flow into Italy, and it is here that we
must study its latest developments. But
throughout antiquity, painting continued to be
an essentially Hellenic art. It is true that we
hear occasionally the names of Roman artists:–
FABIUS PICTOR (B.C. 304), a member of the
illustrious Fabia gens whose wall-paintings in
the temple of Salus are praised, but whose
profession was considered to have degraded his
caste; PACUVIUS, the tragedian (B.C. 219–129);
JAIA or LALA, whose work in encaustic has been
already mentioned (about B.C. 100); TURPILIUS,
who painted with his left hand; TITIDIUS LABEO,
a former praetor and proconsul, who made him-
self ridiculous with his parvis tabellis; Q.
PEDIUS, a boy of good family, who, being born
dumb, was put to learn painting—he became
proficient, but died young; and, lastly, FABUL-
LUS (Amulius), who lived in the time of Nero,
and whom Pliny describes as gravis ac severus
idemque floridus pictor. But even in Roman
times the majority of the names are Greek in
form, and it is quite certain that the majority
of the subjects painted are referable to pictorial
originals of Greek and Hellenistic art. It is
true that in only a very few instances we are
able to trace these Italian paintings back to an
original described in literature; but Helbig’s
researches have proved beyond a doubt that such
an origin is to be sought for them. The Greek
creations were everywhere circulated and repro-
duced, in the form of cheap frescoes, and occa-
sionally as the leading motive in works of
sculpture.
The large number of scenes from daily life
which occur in Italian paintings are divided by
Helbig into two main classes, the Hellenistic
genre pictures and the Romano-Campanian real-
istic scenes. The Hellenistic group, the most
charming of all these pictures, are probably the
nearest reflections we have of the genre spirit of
the painters of the Alexandrine period. The
subjects are ideal treatments of daily life, prin-
cipally of women, youths, and children; girls
with Erotes, or with Pan ; toilet scenes and
love scenes: much the same range of subjects
in fact as those which we have in the idyllic
poetry of the time, and in the terra-cotta
statuettes; and filled with the same fresh and
simple beauty.
The other class, which represent more directly
the art of the time to which they belong, were
subjects apparently inspired by the fancy of the
handicraftsman; mechanics at their occupations,
incidents of the market, bakers, fishmongers,
gladiatorial scenes, usually appropriate to the
locality in which they stand, and painted with a
certain rough realistic dexterity. In these two
classes we see reflected the two main styles of
the Alexandrine painters, the ideal sensual style
of Aëtion and the rhyparography of Peiraicus.
Of mythological scenes in Italian painting we
have not many examples. The most important
of these have been already noted in connexion
PICTURA
PICTURA 417
with the Greek artists whom they illustrate ;
we may specially mention here the series of four
paintings on marble slabs from Herculaneum
(Helbig, Wandgem. Nos. 170 b, 1241, 1405,
1464), of which the colours have faded, but the
fine drawing in red outlines still survives (see
ante, p. 411). On the finest of these, which
represents five maidens inscribed with mythical
names, of whom two are kneeling at the game
of astragali, the artist has inscribed his name,
'AAéfavópos’A6mvaſos éypapev.” Marble paint-
ings such as these (and possibly also paintings
on wood) were at one period of Italian art used
in the decoration of walls, being let into the sur-
face of the wall amidst the other purely decora-
tive designs; sometimes, as in the Roman house
on the Palatine, with the object of imitating
real views seen through open windows in the
wall.
The majority of the mythological scenes now
in use are chosen principally from the point of
view of their affording scope for the insertion of
landscape: such as Mount Ida, with the Judg-
ment of Paris; the Caucasos, with the Freeing
of Prometheus; Ariadne on Naxos; the Icarian
Sea, with Daedalus and Icarus; and the Odyssey
landscapes already quoted. The gradual growth
of a feeling for landscape has been traceable
through the history of the Greek painters. The
tectonic, semi-sculptural painting of Polygnotus,
with its anthropomorphic ideas and formulae
of suggesting locality, had given way to the
introduction of a definitive background, until
finally, in the Hellenistic time of the Diadochi,
landscape had become an end in itself. We see
how strong this growing influence was, in the
effect it had upon sculpture: from the pictorial
scenes on the Gjölbaschi frieze to the Hellenistic
reliefs, and such wall-decorations in sculpture as
the Destruction of the Niobides, or the Apotheosis
of Homer, both in the British, Museum : in both
these cases the side of a mountain is represented,
with the figures, of diminutive size, placed at
various levels. The art of landscape painting,
first made possible by Apollodorus, was brought
into repute by Antiphilus. Commencing with
such mythological subjects which easily lent
themselves to it, it soon came to the idyllic
scenes of mere decoration ; shrines in the open
air, from the simple tree hung with dedications,
to great temples and elaborate buildings, vistas
of city architecture thronged with people, village
landscapes with goatherds and sheep, and coast
scenes; among which, as a reminiscence doubt-
less of the originals by the Greek painters of
Alexandria, Egyptian landscapes also occur.
As an instance of this last, we may quote the
celebrated Palestrina mosaic; here, in a bird's-
eye view, is a town flooded by the Nile, with a
background of desert; negroes hunting fabulous
monsters, islands with palms and cypresses, and
covered with buildings of all kinds, hippopotami
and crocodiles. In this connexion we have the
name of a Roman painter, contemporary of
Augustus, in an interesting passage of Pliny
(xxxv. § 116); he says that LUDIUS (or Sextus
* Helbig points out that this signature may possibly
refer to the original painter who designed the composi-
tion; it is clear, at any rate, that all four of these paint-
ings are copies of earlier pictures, possibly by the same
hand.
VOL. II.
Tadius?) was “the first * to bring in a singularly
delightful fashion of wall-painting ; villas, colon-
nades, examples of landscape gardening, woods
and sacred groves, reservoirs, straits, rivers,
coasts, all according to the heart's desire; and
amidst them passengers of all kinds on foot, in
boats, driving in carriages or riding on asses to
visit their country properties; furthermore,
fishermen, bird-catchers, hunters, vintagers;
or again, he exhibits stately villas, to which
the approach is through a swamp, with men
staggering under the weight of the frightened
women whom they have bargained to carry on
their shoulders; and many another excellent
and entertaining device of the same kind. The
same artist also set the fashion of painting views,
and that wonderfully cheap, of seaside towns in
broad daylight.” The name of Ludius has a
special interest in the fact that he is the only
artist mentioned in antiquity of whose painting
a specimen has probably come down to us. In
the Villa of Livia at Rome were found in 1863
the four walls of a room on which taken to-
gether the entire plan of a garden is painted
(one of the walls is given in colours in Antike
Denkmäler, i. Taf. 11; another in outline,
ib. Taf. 24). “As this kind of garden piece
is emphatically attributed to Ludius by Pliny,
and as the villa belonged to the Imperial family
in his time, and would doubtless therefore have
been put into the hands of the decorator most
in repute; and lastly, as the technical finish of
the work surpasses that of all other existing
antique wall-paintings, the opinion advanced by
Brunn, that it is from the hand of Ludius him-
self, must not be hastily set aside” (Woltmann).
If we examine ancient landscapes in the light
of our modern knowledge, the great difference.
that strikes us is the ancient lack of feeling for
the charm of atmosphere. As a rule the horizon
was placed abnormally high, and the various.
parts of the subject were distributed over the
space in clear and equable light : this is generally
toned off towards the sky-line, but special effects
of light are rare. In an Endymion subject we
have rays of moonlight; in the Odyssey under-
world a special ray of light is introduced through
an aperture in the rock; and in one case we
have a sunset effect: but these are isolated
instances, Moreover, the perspective, both
aërial and linear, is seldom perfect. But in all
these cases we must remember that the specimens
before us are merely the work of decorators and
handicraftsmen, usually executed in fresco, and
that possibly in the works of the great Greek
masters these criticisms would not apply.
It will be seen that almost all the paintings
by which we can test the Hellenic art were
executed in Italy. Very few have as yet been
found there of the Republican period. In Rome
the pictures found mostly belong to one style.
In Pompeii the majority belong to the last ten
years before the destruction of the city in A.D. 79,
* Pliny's zeal for the honour of his countrymen has
led him into an exaggeration here: Ludius was certainly
not the first; he may have revived the art in Rome,
and perhaps have invented some of the motives which
Pliny mentions and which Vitruvius (vii. 5) does not
allude to as belonging to the “ancient” style of decora-
tion. The translation of the Pliny passage is taken
...] from Woltmann and Woermann.
2 E
418 PICTURA
PICTURA
but within this limit of date there is great
variety of style. Vitruvius (vii. 5), writing at
about the time of Augustus, gives a sketch of
the history of mural decoration from the Alex-
andrian age. Formerly, he says, the ancients
used to imitate marble incrustations * in com-
bination sometimes with architectural members.
Later, it had been customary to paint upon the
walls imitation buildings, columns and pedi-
ments, landscapes and mythological subjects:
such as “harbours, promontories, shores, rivers,
fountains, aqueducts, temples, groves, mountains,
herds and herdsmen; or in some places speci-
mens of Megalographia, such as mythological
scenes, Trojan battles, or wanderings of Odysseus
arranged in panels” (see the Odyssey landscapes
above quoted). All these subjects were suit-
able, “because Painting is the representation of
what exists or might exist.” But now subjects
taken from reality are despised. “We see upon
our walls nowadays not so much copies of actual
things, as fantastic monstrosities: thus reeds
take the place of columns in a design; ribboned
and streamered ornaments, with curling leaves
and spiral tendrils, take the place of pediments;
diminutive temples are supported upon can-
delabra ; vegetable shapes spring from the top of
pediments and send forth multitudes of delicate
stems, with twining tendrils and figures seated
meaninglessly among them ; nay, from the very
flowers which the stalks sustain are made to
issue demi-figures having the heads sometimes of
human beings and sometimes of brutes.”
Assisted by this criticism of Vitruvius, we
are able to trace differences of style in the
development of wall decoration, corresponding
to the different epochs. (1) The regular and
stable painted semi-columns and pilasters, the
topia of Vitruvius, like the Odyssey scenes.
(2) Reed-like supports, which are gradually
developed until (3) a network of these con-
structions covers the whole intermediate space,
the structural idea being lost sight of.
Taken all in all, our direct monumental
evidence of Greek painting is very small ; for
our literary evidence, we have mainly to rely on
Pliny, who, as we have seen, is as a recorder of
bare facts often untrustworthy, and as an
independent art critic deplorable. The true art
critic of antiquity, Lucian, who in matters of
taste and understanding shows excellent judg-
ment, has left a few precious descriptions which
give a real insight as far as they go. If Pliny
had been gifted with the critical faculty and
insight of Lucian, we should now be better able
to decide the question as to how far the standard
of painting of the ancients was worthy to
compare with that of their sculptures. If in
technical correctness they were imperfect, we
may be sure that their artistic instinct would
have served in a great measure to cover this
defect, and that in drawing and composition, at
least, they did not fall short of the greatest
masterpieces of modern times.
17. Authorities. - The principal literary
sources of information upon the history, methods,
and achievements of ancient painting are Pliny
the elder, in his Naturalis Historia, Pausanias, and
Quintilian; the writings also of Lucian, Plutarch,
* Crustas parietum; the marble slabs with paintings,
which were let into walls.
Athenaeus, Aristotle, Aelian, Cicero, the elder
and younger Philostratus, and Vitruvius, con-
tain many incidental remarks which are of great
value in the history of a subject like Painting,
in which so little has survived to us from
antiquity.
The whole of the ANCIENT PASSAGES relating to
Painting are catalogued under the names of the
artists or of the period to which they refer, in Over-
beck's Die antiken Schriftguellen, Leipzig, 1868.
Of the numerous tracts which have been
devoted to the elucidation and emendation of
these texts, we may select the following:—
Urlichs, Chrestomathia Pliniana, 1857, and the
same author in Rhein. Mus. xxv. p. 507, &c.;
Oehmichen, Plinianische Studien, Erlangen, 1880;
Furtwängler in Fleckeisen's Jahrbücher für cl.
Ph. Spbd. 9; Kroker, Gleichnamige Künstler,
Leipzig, 1883; Robert, Archäologische Märchen,
Berlin, 1887; Holwerda in Mnemosyne, “De
Pictorum historia apud Plinium,” 1888; and
especially Klein’s two articles in Arch-Epig. Mit-
theilungen aus Oesterreich-Ungarn, xi. pp. 193–
233, “Die Sikyonische Schule,” and xii. pp. 85–
127, “Die Helladische und Asiatische Schule.”
In the following works a more or less GENERAL
TREATMENT of the subject has been attempted:
—Raoul-Rochette, Peintures antiques Inédites,
Paris, 1836 (somewhat out of date); Brunn,
Geschichte der Griechischen Künstler, 2nd edit.,
vol. ii., 1889; Woltmann and Woermann, His-
tory of Painting (English edition, edited by
Sidney Colvin), 1880; and the article “Malerei”
in Baumeister's Denkmäler.
For the study of individual details, see the
following:—
TECHNIQUE-Blümmer, Technologie und Ter-
minologie der Gewerbe und Künste bei Griechen
und Römern, 1874–87, esp. iv. p. 414 fol.;
the article in Baumeister, already quoted; and
Helbig und Donner, Untersuchungen über die
Campanische Wandmalerei, 1873.
ENCAUSTIC.—Helbig und Donner, loc. cit.;
Blümmer, loc. cit. iii. p. 200 fol. ; Cros et Henry,
L'Encaustique, 1884; Donner in Beilage zur
Allgemeine Zeitung (Munich), 1888, pp. 2641–3;
Petrie, Hawara, Biahmu, and Arsinoe, 1889,
pp. 17–21, 37–46.
POLYCHROMY OF SCULPTURE AND ARCHI-
TECTURE.-Baumeister's Denkmäler, s. v. “Poly-
chromie; ” Boeckler, Die Polychromie in der
antiken Sculptur, 1882; Treu, Sollen wir unsere
Statuen bemalen? Berlin, 1884, and in Arch.
Jahrbuch, 1889, p. 18.
MOSAIC.—Raoul-Rochette, loc. cit. pp. 345–6;
Engelmann in Rhein. Mus. xxix. pp. 561–89;
Blümner, loc. cit. iii. p. 323; and Baumeister's
Denkmäler, s. v. “Mosaik.”
HISTORY..—Studniczka in Arch. Jahrb. 1887,
pp. 135–168; Dümmler in the same, 1887,
pp. 168–178 (on Polygnotus); Wiener Worlege-
blåtter for 1888, pll. x-xii. (for restorations
of the Iliupersis of Polygnotus); Schreiber, Die
Hellenistischen Reliefbilder, 1890; Wustmann,
Apelles' Leben und Werke, Leipzig, 1870; Woer-
mann, Die Landschaft in der Kunst der antiken
Völker, 1876; Helbig und Donner, Wandgemälde
der vom Vesuv verschütteten Städte, 1868; Urlichs,
Die Malerei in Rom vor Căsar's Dictatur, Würz-
burg, 1876; Woermann, Die antiken Odysse-
landschaften (six plates in colour), Munich,
1875; Mau, Geschichte der decorativen Wand-
PIGNUS
PIGNUS 419
malerei in Pompeii, 1882; Niccolini, Le Case ed
& Monumenti di Pompeii, 1854, fol.; Overbeck,
Pompei, 4th edition. For the Galleries of the
Philostrati, see Fleckeisen's Jahrbücher, Spbd. 4,
pp. 179–306, and Spbd. 5, pp. 135–181; Philo-
(ogus, xxxi. p. 585; Bougot, Philostrate l’ancien;
and Magazine of Art,”v. p. 371. For repro-
ductions of Mural Paintings, see Monumenti dell’;
Inst. Arch. throughout; Bartoli and Bellori,
Le Pitture antiche della Grotta di Roma, 1706;
Bartoli, Gli antichi Sepolcri, 1727; Barré et Roux,
Pompei et Herculaneum, 1840, &c. (7 vols.).
For a fuller bibliography of the subject, see
Brunet's Manuel du Libraire, tom. vi. pp. 1688–
9, and especially E. Hubner's Bibliographie
der klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft, Berlin,
1889. e ºf tº
PIGNUS. A thing is said to be pledged to
a man when it is made security to him for the
satisfaction of some debt or obligation due to
him, the creditor acquiring a right in the thing
pledged available against third parties as well
as against the pledger, though the latter remains
owner of the thing. Thus the right of pignus or
pledge belongs to the class of jura in re alienā.
The progress of the Roman law of pledge can
be clearly traced. In the law of the Twelve
Tables there was no independent right of pledge
as distinct from a right of ownership, the only
mode of giving security in early times being by
a transfer of Quiritarian ownership of the thing
to the creditor by mancipation or in jure cessio,
on condition of its being re-conveyed when the
debt was paid (ut remancipetur, in jure cedatur).
[FIDUCIA.] The creditor who failed to re-convey
when the debt was paid might be sued by a
personal action, called actio fiduciae, for breach
of faith; but as the debtor had parted with the
ownership of the thing, he had no real action
against third parties in respect of it. The first
step in advance from this clumsy contrivance of
a conveyance and a re-conveyance was the es-
tablishment of pignus, using this term in its
strict sense: pignus was constituted by the
simple delivery of a thing to the creditor as
security for his debt without conveying the
ownership of it to him. The creditor acquired
by the delivery legal possession of the thing, being
protected by possessory interdicts, but he had no
real action (actio in rem) against third parties;
moreover he could not dispose of the pignus to
obtain satisfaction of his claim, nor could he
make use of it while in his possession, but had
simply a right of retention. It was a common
practice, however, for the parties to a pledge to
make a condition, called Lex Commissoria, by
which, if the debt was not paid, the thing
became the property of the pledgee. It will be
seen that this form of security was less ad-
vantageous to a creditor than that of a convey-
ance with a fiducia, and that, on the other hand, it
did not interfere so much with the rights of the
debtor, since he remained owner of the pignus
and was able to vindicate it from any third party.
Ultimately the praetor made a great reform
in the law of pledge by allowing a pledge to be
constituted by simple agreement (nuda con-
ventio); thus making delivery a matter of
option, and by giving an actio in rem to a
pledgee without depriving the pledger of his
ownership. This change was first instituted to
enable a landlord to recover the property (in-
vecta et illata) of his farming tenant (colonus)
which had been pledged to him for his rent (pro
nercedibus fundi), the remedies for this purpose
being the interdictum Salvianum [INTERDICTUM)
and the actio Serviana in rem. The latter
remedy was extended under the name of actio
quasi-Serviana or hypothecaria, generally to
creditors who had things pignerated or hypothe-
cated to them, whether by delivery or simple
agreement. The creditor also acquired the power
of selling the thing pledged if his debt was not
satisfied.
The term pignus may signify generally a thing
pledged in any way, but in a strict sense it
means a thing pledged by delivery, hypotheca
being the proper term for a thing pledged by
mere agreement (Dig. 13, 7, 9, § 2; Isid. Orig.
5, 25; see also Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 56). Gaius
(Dig. 50, 16, 238) says that pignus is derived
from pugnus “quia quae pignori dantur, manu
traduntur.” This is one of several instances of
the failure of the Roman jurists when they
attempted etymological explanation of words
[MUTUUM.]. The element of pignus (pig) is
contained in the word paſn]go (Gr. trāyvvut)
and its cognate forms. -
Having traced the history of pledge, we pro-
ceed to give some account of the law on the
subject as it appears in Justinian’s legislation.
A right of pledge or mortgage cannot arise or
continue unless there is some principal obligation
to which it is accessory. The principal obliga-
tion may be of any kind, as for money borrowed
(mutua pecunia), or for dos, letting and hiring,
mandate; it may be conditional or unconditional,
for part of a sum of money as well as for the
whole (Dig. 20, 1, 5). It could be one not en-
forceable by action, but only binding naturaliter
(Dig. 20, 1, 14, § 1). [OPIIGATIO.] The amount
for which a pledge was security depended on the
agreement: it might be for principal and interest
or for either; or it might comprehend principal
and interest, and all costs and expenses which the
pledgee might be put to on account of the thing
pledged (Dig. 13, 17, 8, § 25). Anything could
be the object of pignus which could be an object
of commerce (Dig. 20, 1, 9; Dig. 20, 3, “quae res
pignori vel hypothecae datae obligari non pos-
sunt”), movable as well as immovable things,
even things which are consumed by the use.
It might be a thing corporeal or incorporeal,
a single thing or an entire property. If a
single thing was pledged, the thing with all its
increase was the security, as in the case of a
piece of land increased by alluvio. If a shop
(taberna) was pledged, all the goods in it were
pledged; and if some of these were sold and
others bought in, and the pledger died, the
pledgee's security was the shop and all that it
contained at the time of the pledger's death
(Dig. 20, 1, 34). If all a man’s property was
pledged, the pledge comprehended also his future
property, unless such property was clearly ex-
cepted. A man might also pledge any claim or
demand that he had against another. It is to
be noticed that the objects of pledge were much
extended by the establishment of the principle
of hypotheca, since previously only such property
could be pledged as was capable of delivery.
The act of pledging required no particular form.
Nothing more was requisite to establish the
validity of a pledge than proof of the agree-
- 2 E 2
420 PIGNUS
PIGNUS
ment of the parties to it. It was called con-
fractus pigneratitius when it was a case of
pignus; and pactum hypothecae, when it was a
case of hypotheca : in the former case, as we
have seen, delivery was necessary. A man might
also by his testament make a pignus (Dig. 13, 7,
26). A man could only pledge a thing when he
was the owner and had full power of disposing
of it. If a man pledged a thing which was not
his, he did not make the thing a pignus, but the
creditor had the right of bringing an actio Publi-
ciana for its recovery, if the pledger could main-
tain this action. If the pledger afterwards
became owner of the thing, the pledge became
a valid one under certain circumstances (Dig. 13,
7, 20; 20, 2, 5; cf. Windscheid, Pandekten, 1,
§ 230).
A pignus might be created by law; that is,
there was among the Romans an implied hy-
pothec (tacita hypotheca, pignora tacite Con-
tracta), which existed not by consent of the
parties but by rule of law (ipso jure), in respect
of particular kinds of obligations (Dig. 20, 2,
“In quibus causis pignus vel hypotheca tacite
contrahitur”). These hypothecae had either for
their object some particular things belonging
to the debtor—special hypothec; or his entire
property, present and future—general hypothec.
The following are instances of special hypo-
thecae:–1. The lessor of a building or land
not intended to be used for agricultural purposes
had a hypotheca, in respect of his claims arising
out of the contract of hiring, on everything which
the lessee (inquilinus) brought upon the premises
for constant use (invecta et illata). 2. The lessor
of agricultural land had an hypotheca on the
farm as soon as they were collected by the lessee
(colonus) for claims arising from the lease
(Dig. 20, 2, 7; 19, 2, 24. From this rule of
Roman law the old Scotch law of hypothec
seems to have been derived). 3. A person who
lent money to repair a ruinous house had an
hypotheca on the house for the amount of his
money which had been laid out on such repair.
(This hypothec was established by a senatus-
consultum under the Emperor Marcus.) 4. Pupilli
had a hypotheca on things which were bought
with their money, but not in their name. (Con-
stitution of Severus and Caracalla.) 5. A legatee
had a hypothec on any property which the person
charged with the legacy had derived from the
estate of the testator.
The following are the cases of general hy-
pothecae:–1. The fiscus had a general hypotheca
on the property of its debtors in respect of all
claims for penalties. (For the history of the law
on this subject, see Dernburg, i. §§ 41, 43.) 2. The
Emperor personally and the Empress on goods of
their debtors (Dig. 49, 14, 6, § 1). 3. The hus-
band on the property of him who promised a dos.
4. The wife on the property of her husband for
recovery of dos and parapherna in her husband's
possession, and in respect of claims arising from
donatio propter nuptias. 5. Minors and lunatics
on the property of their guardians. 6. Children
under certain circumstances against the estates of
their father or mother (Windscheid, Pandekten, ii.
§ 232). 7. Churches on the property of their
emphyteutic tenants for enforcing liabilities on
account of waste (Nov. 1, c. 3, 2).
Pignus might be created by a judicial sen-
tence, as for instance by the decree of the
praetor giving to a creditor power to take pos-
session of his debtor's property (missio creditoris
in bona debitoris); either a single thing or all his
property, as the case might be. But the per-
mission or command of the magistratus did not
effect a pledge, unless the person actually took
possession of the thing. The following are
instances:—The immissio damni infecti causa,
[DAMNUM INFECTUM); legatorum servandorum
causa, which had for its object the securing of a
legacy which had been left sub conditione or die
(Dig. 36, 4); missio ventris nomine in posses-
sionem, when the pregnant widow was allowed
to take possession of the inheritance for the pro-
tection of a postumus. The right which a person
obtained by such immissio was called pigmus
praetorium. Pignus judiciale was when the judex
ordered the goods of a person to be taken as
security for the satisfaction of a judgment (ex:
causa judicati).
The person who had given a pledge was still
owner of the thing that was pledged. He could
therefore use the thing and enjoy its fructus,
if he had not given up possession. But the
agreement might be that the creditor should
have the use or profit of the thing instead of
interest, which kind of contract was called
antichresis or mutual use : if there was no.
agreement as to use, the creditor could not use
the thing even if it was in his possession. The
pledger could also sell the thing pledged, unless.
there was some agreement to the contrary, but
such sale could not affect the right of the
pledgee (Dig. 13, 7, 18, § 2). If the pledger
sold and delivered a movable thing that was
pignerated or was specially hypothecated,
without the knowledge and consent of the
creditor, he was guilty of furtum (Dig. 20, 1,
13, 2; 47, 19, 6; 66, 4). If the pledger at.
the time of a pignus being given was not the
owner of a thing, but had the possession of it,
he could still acquire the property of the thing
by usucapion, while it was in the possession of
the pledgee, for the pledging was not an inter-
ruption of the usucapion [POSSESSIO). The
pledgee might either have possession of the
thing from the first by delivery, or might have
taken possession subsequently on account of the
default of the debtor. In either case he was
entitled to keep possession till his demand was
fully satisfied. For the purpose of obtaining
possession of the pledge he had the actio hypo-
thecaria or actio quasi-Serviana against every
person who was in possession of it; his right
to recover in this action was derived from the
title of the person who had pledged the thing to
him. If a pledgee could not obtain possession
of the thing pledged, or was evicted on account
of some defect in the title of the pledger, his
only remedy was a personal action against the
latter. A creditor who had a pignus had also
a right to the interdicta retinendae et recupe-
randae possessionis. [INTERDICTUM.]
A pledgee could pledge the thing that was
pledged to him; that is, he could transfer the
pignus (Dig. 20, 1, 13, § 2). In case his demand
was not satisfied at the time agreed on, the
pledgee had a right to sell the thing and pay
himself out of the proceeds (jus distrahend; sive
vendendi pignus). (Dig. 20, 5; Cod. 8, 27, 28.)
This power of sale might be qualified by the
terms of the agreement; but the creditor could
PIGNUS
PILA 421
aot be deprived of all power of sale, nor could
he be compelled to exercise his power of sale.
'Gaius (ii. 64) illustrates the proposition that a
person who was not owner of a thing could in
Some cases alienate it, by the example of the
right of a pledgee to sell the thing pledged;
but he adds that the right of sale in this case
may perhaps be referred to the consent of the
debtor or owner, who by entering into a con-
tract of pledge agreed that the pledgee should
have such right. In case of a sale the creditor,
according to the later law, must give the debtor
three separate notices of his intention to sell ;
and after the last of such notices, he must wait
two years before he could legally make a sale.
If anything remained over after satisfying the
creditor, it was his duty to give it to the debtor ;
and if the price was insufficient to satisfy the
creditor's demand, his debtor was still debtor
for the remainder. If no purchaser at a reason-
able price could be found, the creditor might
become the purchaser, but still the debtor had
a right to redeem the thing within two years
on condition of fully satisfying the creditor
(Cod. 8, 34, 3).
An agreement that a pledge should be for-
feited in case the demand was not paid at the
time agreed on was originally very common;
but it was declared by Constantine, A.D. 326, to
be illegal. [COMMISSORIA LEX.]
A pledgee who had acquired possession of a
pignus was under an obligation to restore it to
the pledger on payment of the debt for which
it had been given; and up to that time he was
Bound to take such care of it as a careful person
would take. On payment of the debt, he might
be sued by the pledger in a personal action called
actio pignoratitia, for the restoration of the
thing, and for any damage that it had sustained
through his neglect. The remedy of the
pledgee against the pledger for his proper costs
and charges in respect of the pledge, and for
any dolus or culpa on the part of the pledger
relating thereto, was by an actio pignoratitia
contraria.
If there were several creditors to whom a
thing was pledged which was insufficient to
satisfy them all, he whose pledge was prior in
time had a preference over the rest (“potiorest
in pignore qui prius credidit pecuniam et accepit
hypothecam,” Dig. 20, 4, 11). There were
some exceptions to this rule : for instance, when
a subsequent pledgee had lent his money to save
the thing pledged from destruction, he had a
preference over a prior pledgee (Dig. 20, 4,
‘S$ 5, 6). This rule has been adopted in the
English law as to money lent on ships and
secured by bottomry bonds. Certain hypo-
thecae had a preference or priority (privilegium)
over all other claims. Of these claimants, the
Fiscus came first in respect of taxes and con-
tracts; then the wife in respect of her dos; and
then those who had been put to some expense
in repairing or restoring a thing. In the case
of unprivileged creditors, the general rule, as
already observed, was that priority in time
gave priority of right. But a hypotheca
which could be proved by a writing executed in
a certain public form (instrumentum publice con-
fectum), or which was proved by the signatures
of three reputable persons (instrumentum quasi
publice confectum), had a priority over all those
which could not be so proved. If several hypo-
thecae of the same kind were of the same date,
he who was in possession of the thing had a
priority. The creditor who had for any reason
the priority over the rest was entitled to be
satisfied to the full amount of his claim out of
the proceeds of the thing pledged. A subse-
quent creditor could obtain the rights of a prior
creditor in several ways. If he furnished the
debtor with money to pay off the debt, on the
condition of standing in his place, and the
money was actually paid to the prior creditor,
the subsequent creditor stepped into the place
of the prior creditor (Dig. 20, 3, 3). Also if he
purchased a thing on the condition that the
purchase money should go to satisfy a prior
creditor, he thereby stepped into his place. A
subsequent creditor could also, without the con-
sent either of a prior creditor or of the debtor,
pay off a prior creditor, and stand in his place
to the amount of the sum so paid. This
arrangement, however, did not affect the rights
of an intermediate pledgee (Dig. 20, 4, 16).
The pledge was extinguished by a release of
it on the part of the creditor, also by the
destruction of the thing, for the loss was the
owner's; it was also extinguished if the thing
was changed so as no longer to be the same,
and not capable of being restored to its former
state (Dig. 13, 7, 18, § 3); further, it was
extinguished by confusio — that is, when the
right of ownership and right of pledge were
merged in the same person, and lastly by a pre-
scription of ten or twenty years under certain
conditions.
(Dig. 20; Cod. 8, 14–35; Gesterding, Die
Lehre vom Pfandrecht, &c.; Sintenis, Handbuch
des gemeinen Pfandrechts ; Bachofen, Das
römische Pfandrecht, &c.; Dernburg, Das
Pfandrecht mach den Grundsätzen des heutigen
römischen Rechts; Windscheid, Pandekten,
§ 224, &c.; Puchta, Inst. i. § 246, &c. There is
an English treatise entitled The Law of Pledges
or Pawns as it was in use among the Romans, &c.,
by John Ayliffe, London, 1732, &c.) [E. A. W.]
PILA, PILA LUSORIA (orpalpa), a ball.
In this article it is proposed to include an account,
not merely of the different kinds of balls, but of
the exercises and also the games for which they
were used by the Greeks and Romans. The
subject has been somewhat complicated in
modern treatises by regarding as games what
what were merely gymnastic or medico-gym-
nastic exercises. It will be more convenient to
keep them apart. Exercise merely for the sake
of bodily health and vigour and grace of move-
ment was more commonly sought at all times of
life among these nations than exercise primarily
for the sake of amusement, whereas the converse
is now the case: and there can be no doubt that
the majority of Greeks and Romans who in-
dulged in so-called “games’ at ball were
practising and exercising their muscles, not,
as we should say, “playing ”: still, there were
some notable exceptions, which will be classed
as games.
As regards the historical view of these exer-
cises and games, we find the earliest mention in
two passages of the Odyssey (vi. 100; viii. 379).
In the former, where Nausicaa is playing with
her attendant maidens, the ball is merely
tossed from one to the other, as a graceful and
422 PILA
PILA
healthy exercise, while (probably) they danced
in measured time (Athen, i. p. 14 d): in the
passage of Apollonius (iv. 952), who no doubt
had this scene in his mind, he speaks of maidens
playing a palp; tepinyé, where Becq de Fou-
quières is certainly right in taking the adjective
to mean, not round, but circulating from hand
to hand. In the other passage of the Odyssey
we have two performers dancing rhythmically,
throwing up a ball, and catching it as they
danced: in fact, they may be classed as jugglers.
As far as we can trace the earliest Greek ball-
play, it seems to have been of the nature above
described, a sort of adjunct to the dance and
music, forming, in fact, part of what we may call
the figures of the dance. According to Athe-
naeus, the practice long remained; for he cites
(i. 24 b) Carystius of Pergamum as saying that
it was still in vogue among the women of
Corcyra. It seems likely that the name Bax-
Aaxpſióal, applied to Argive boys keeping festival,
had something to do with this choric ball-play
(see Krause, Gymnastik, i. p. 300; Grasberger,
Erziehung, i. p. 89). It is useless to discuss the
question whence came these amusements or
exercises to the Greeks: various opinions are
given in Herod. i. 68, Athen. i. 14 d. Without,
however, accepting as better than any other the
theory that the Spartans invented it (Athen. l.c.),
we may notice that it early had a strong hold,
with other gymnastic exercises, at Sparta. This
is also indicated by the term orqaipei's applied to
Spartan youths, i.e. those who were passing
out of the stage of ÉqºmSol, and were not yet
reckoned as &vöpes. The name was, no doubt,
applied to them because the ball-play formed an
important element in the gymnastic training at
that precise age, probably accompanied with
music, as part of the choric exercise of the
Spartans (Pausan. iii. 14; C. I. G. 1386, 1432;
Gilbert, Staatsalt. i. 68; Schömann, Antiq. 264).
From whatever country it was introduced the
exercise was highly regarded by the Athenians,
who recognised the value for general bodily
health and development, afterwards elaborately
insisted upon by Galen and other medical
authorities. The gymnasia had therefore a
special room (or palpurrãptov) for the purpose
[GYMNASIUM.J.; and Athenaeus (i. 19 a) tells of
the distinction given to Aristonicus of Carystus,
the avorq'alpioths of Alexander, who was made
a citizen of Athens and honoured with a statue.
The fondness of Dionysius of Syracuse for the
exercise is noticed by Cicero (Tusc. v. 20, 60).
That it took root quite as strongly at Rome is
abundantly shown in Latin literature. It was,
as Krause, Becker, and many others particularly
notice, played by all ages: men, and even old
men, as well as boys, “without loss of dignity.”
This fact cannot, however, at any rate now, be
made, as even recent writers make it, a point of
distinction between ancient and modern customs.
Among notable instances we may mention
Augustus, who took exercise with the pila and
folliculus, until he was too old for anything
but the litter or a gentle walk (Suet. Aug. 83).
(For similar record of other emperors cf. Suet.
Vesp. 20; [Capitol.] M. Ant. 4; Lamprid. Alex.
Sev. 30.) Pliny (Ep. iii. 1, 8) tells us of
Spurinna, who made this exercise one of his
careful methods for preserving a green old age:
Seneca (de brev. Wit. 13) complains that many
made such exercises the main object of their life.
In the well-known line of Horace (Sat. i. 5),
when Maecenas goes to play at ball, Horace and
Virgil do not join him, on the ground that “pila
lippis inimicum et ludere crudis.” It is a
curious comment on this passage, that Galen
specially notes that those who use other gym-
nastic exercises become, “like the Litae of
Homer, xoxoſ re fivoroſ re trapaśāstrés t”
ôq6aApid, while those who play judiciously at
ball escape such maladies.” It is necessary to
point out that the exercise was not indigenous
at Rome. The old Roman followed the severer
exercises of hunting and riding: the pila came
in with Greek customs (Hor. Sat. ii. 2, 10).
The Byzantine emperors combined the two in a
sort of “polo,” which will be described below.
The Thermae at Rome had their sphaeristerium
for games at ball [BALNEAE, Vol. I. p. 283 al.:
this exercise was taken before the bath (Hor.
Sat. i. 6, 125; Mart. vii. 32, xiv. 163). Attached
to large country-houses there was a similar
court (cf. Plin. Ep. ii. 17, v. 6; WILLA). Where
greater space was wanted, the play was in the
Campus Martius.
The Apparatus for playing.—In Oribasius, i.
p. 529, we find five kinds of balls mentioned,
purpá, p.éorm, ueydam, eiueyeóñs, kevä. Mistakes
have been made in the endeavour to construe
the description which is there given of the uses
of these balls as though they were games,
whereas they are merely medical gymnastics: in
many cases something like extension exercises
with dumb-bells, since the ball does not leave
the hand at all. It is probable, however, that
we may assume the five sizes of balls to have
been used in different games as well as for ex-
ercises, and may possibly take five Roman names
for balls—(i.) harpastum, (ii) pila trigonalis or
trigon, the pila par excellence, (iii.) arenaria,
(iv.) paganica, (v.) follis to correspond; but it is
more probable that arenaria is only another name
for the harpastum, the name being given because
the rules of the game permitted taking it at the
rebound, which was not allowed in trigon.
Martial, in the Apophoreta, mentions only the
other four without naming the arenaria. The
ordinary ball was stuffed with hair; see Anth.
Pal. iv. 291 :
Aimv čvrpuxós eiut rà ºða 6' plot, karaxpúrret
rås rotxas # 88 rpiórm baiveral otöapuá6ev.
, troAAots trauðapiots wraigouat ei Šć ris €orruv
ets rô Baxeſv čºvils torrarat āormep Švos.
The last line does not, as some writers state
refer to a term belonging especially to orgaupt-
orrukh : the word úvos is used of the vanquished
in many trials of skill. [BASILINDA ; OSTRA-
KINDA.] The “quarters” or lappets (here
called pºaxa) were often coloured (Ov. Met. x.
262, pictae; Petron. 27, prasina). Seneca
uses the word commissurae for the seams where
they were sewn together (Q. N. iv. 11). The
hair-stuffed ball was no doubt either of the two
smallest sizes: the utºp& gºpalpa was the smallest
and hardest of the balls, and is in Latin the
harpastum (Pollux, ix. 105); and the pila
arenaria probably – the “pulverulentum har-
pastum.” The next in size, also a hard ball, is
the especial pila, the pila trigonalis; and then
follows the paganica (probably the Agadiem of
Pollux), which was stuffed with feathers, and
PILA.
PILA 423
according to Martial (xiv. 45) was “tighter”
(i.e. harder as well as smaller) “than the follis
and less so than the pila.” Its name was
probably, as Marquardt thinks, derived from its
being used at games between the country pagani,
though it was not confined to them (Mart. vii.
32). Lastly we have the follis, the kevil, or
air-blown ball, in its construction like our foot-
ball, but not so used; for there is no trace of
football among the Romans.”
Beyond the balls and the court, or the
measured space out of doors, and perhaps arm-
guards for the follis, neither Greeks nor Romans
had any apparatus for ball-play, as far as we
know, until the late Byzantine age. There is
no trace of any sort of racquet or bat; for in the
passage of Ovid, Art. Am. iii. 361, the reticulum
is a network bag holding balls. , Galen in his
treatise repl ris outkpás orgapas makes a
special point of its economy as needing nothing
TAhv or patpas advns, and in contrasting the
amusements which require more apparatus he
does not mention any game at ball : all our
accounts speak of striking with the hand or arm;
and Martial, if any sort of bat had existed, would
have mentioned it in the Apophoreta. It may
also be noticed that the game of tennis was
called “ lusus pilae cum palma" in 1356 (Littré,
s. v. paume), whence our deduction would be
that the use of the racquet is later, and that the
name (cum palma) was given to the game when
“fiving,” or striking with the palm, was the
only stroke, to distinguish it from those in which
catching was allowed. Possibly the arm-guards,
before referred to, may have been the genesis of
a bat in later times; but whether the “polo”
which existed at Byzantium before the 11th
century (see below) was the first game in which
the ball was struck with any implement, it is
impossible to say.
Technical Words.--It is necessary to explain
shortly certain words used technically of these
exercises in Greek and Latin, and the more so
because many writers have imagined separate
games in words which are merely descriptive of
the method in which the ball was thrown,
whatever game might be played. Many terms
also which are distinguished should really be
taken as synonymous. Thus, to throw a ball to
another is 616oval, 84AAelv, & puéval, dare, mittere,
jactare: to catch it, Aapºdively, Séxeoréal, acci-
pere, earcipere, captare : and so datatin ludere
means “to play at catch,” i.e. merely toss
backwards and forwards (Plaut. Curc. ii. 13, 17;
Naev, ap. Non. 96, 15). The words remittere
and reddere (āvritréutreiv, &vraquéval) mean to
throw the ball back to the sender. But there is
a totally different stroke when the ball is
“fived; ” that is, is struck with the palm of the
* For the use of this ball, see Follis: probably its
fitness for the old (Mart. xiv. 47) depended on the fact
that there was little running about, and no grappling
(as in the harpastum), and not so quick a return (since
the ball was much less elastic) as in the trigon. Though
absolute proof is lacking, it is probable that the game
was played with an arm-guard, as shown on a coin of
Gordian; and it is a fair inference that the modern
pallone, played with similar blown balls and with arm-
guards, is a descendant of the follis, though possibly
with altered and more elaborate rules. For an account
of pallone, see Story, Roba di Roma.
hand and either returned or sent sideways, with-
out being first caught and then thrown : in
Latin this is expressed by repercutere (Sen. de
Ben. ii. 17); when the ball is “fived” back to the
sender—(Marquardt in the Privatleben wrongly,
we think, renders it zurückwerfen)—and when
the ball is struck sideways to a fresh player, by
the words expulsare (Mart. xiv. 56) or expellere
(Petron. 27). One would naturally suppose
that the Greek word āróppačis had the same
meaning; and though Pollux (ix. 105) and
Eustathius (ad Od. ix. 376) limit its use to
making the ball rebound from the floor, it seems
to us that there can be little doubt that the
primary technical 'sense was striking with the
hand instead of throwing, and that it belonged
to that sort of stroke applied variously in various
games or exercises, whether making the ball
rebound against floor or wall, or “fiving” it to
other players. We must also differ from other
writers who limit the words expulsim ludere to
this striking against a wall. (Johann Marquardt
is still further from the truth in making it=the
8axeſv eiróvos of Galen, for that is simply a
strong throw.) Eacpulsim ludere expresses the
stroke with the palm or the fore-arm : in its
simplest form it is the hitting repeatedly against
a wall (one sort of &mdppašis); as in the picture
given by Varro (ap. Non. 104, 27), “videbis
Romae in foro ante lanienas pueros pila expulsim.
ludere”: but it refers to the method of the
stroke, not to the game, and it means therefore
to strike the ball in that way of which the
words expulsare or expellere and also repercutere
are used. Similarly “raptim ludere” merely
expresses the method of play adopted by one
who (like the medicurrens in harpastum) rapit or
ãpräſei: that is, catches the ball while it is
flying between two other players. Lastly, the
feint of pretending to throw the ball to one
person and actually throwing it to another is
probably expressed by the word pewſvöa (which
also gave one name to a game : see below), and
also by éickpoiſelv (Athen. i. p. 15 a), and in
Latin by fallere (Prop. iii. 4, 5). In the lines of
Saleius Bassus (?), de laud. Pis. 172 (Poet. Lat.
Min. i. 233), “volantem aut geminare pilam
juvat aut revocare cadentem, Et non sperato
fugientem reddere gestu,” the geminare must =
repercutere, to return to the sender by a stroke
with the hand (cf. Ter. Ad. ii. 1, 19); the
“revocare cadentem” to catch it near the ground,
and the last line to throw it back after a difficult
catch when the return had not been expected
(not = pewivea, where mittere rather than reddere
would be used).
Ball-exercises.—Here wenust class(i.) oëpavía,
datatim ludere, which is the simple practice of
“catch,” and has its name because the ball is
usually thrown high in the air (Pollux, ix. 106;
Eustath. l.c.; Phot. s. v.), just as a high throw
is now sometimes called a “skier " : it might
or might not be made a rhythmical exercise by
accompanying music and dance, as often is the
Greek otpavta; (ii.) various forms of making the
ball rebound against a floor or wall, as described
above; (iii.) various kinds of posturing with the
ball or throwing it forward with no object,
except muscular exercise and extension, which
Antyllus describes (ap. Oribas. i. p. 528: see
Becq de Fouquières, Jeua, des Anciens, 195.)
| Sphaeromachiae or games at ball: i.e. those in
424 PILA
PILA
which there are sides which win or lose.
(i.) The game called éirígkupos (also pmbuch
and étríkovos: Poll. ix. 104, Eustath. l.c.). In
this game the ground was marked by two base
lines (ypaupai katóriv) and another line drawn
parallel to them through the middle of the
ground, presumably more than a stone's throw
from them, which was called orcüpos or Aarðrm,
because it was marked with finely-broken stones.
The ball was placed upon this line (whence the
name étrforkvpos), and the players started at the
same moment from their respective base lines.
The player who could first seize the ball threw
it as far as he could towards the enemy's base
line”: the object was to force the line of
enemies back by constantly returning the ball
further and further over their heads until they
were driven over their own base line. Clearly,
getting the first throw by fast running at the
start must have been an enormous advantage
(cf. Schol. ad Plat. Legg. i. p. 633 C). It
is not improbable, though there is no proof
of it, that the contest of the pagani (whence
the name paganica for the third-sized Roman
ball) was a game of this kind. It seems to
have been regarded as a game for the young
(épmSikh), and for large numbers (érſkoivos).
Nothing can have been less like golf, to which
Becq de Fouquières (p. 203) seems to compare
it, when he says, “on le retrouve encore en
Ecosse.”
(ii.) Harpastum (or, by the older name, Phe-
minda; in Athen. and Eustath. qawſvöa; in Clem.
Alex. pewſvöa; in Etym. Mag. pewvis, pewſvöa,
q evaklvöa),—This game cannot with certainty
be reconstructed, but the following seems to us
an outline most consistent with our authorities.
(Galen, trepl rās opukpás orºaſpas : Sidon. Apoll.
v. 17; Mart. iv. 19, vii. 32, xiv. 48; Athen.
i. p. 25 ; Eustath. l. c. ; Poll. ix. 105.) We
have clearly two sides (i.e. it was a sphaeroma-
chia), for Galen lays stress on the fact that there
is emulation (pixotipula), which exercises the
Juxh, as well as movements which exercise the
limbs and the eye: there are presumably base
lines as goals, without which it is hard to under-
stand what he says about generalship (atpa-
tnyta), and positions won and lost (q.vxdºttetv
To krmøév 3) &vaoréſelv to ple6e6év). The ground
was then probably rectangular, the two ends
being base lines, and it was divided by a line
in the centre (the trames of Sidonius) into two
equal camps. There was always one “mid-
dle player,” a special feature of the game, called
medicurrens (Sidon.), or à pieračá (Galen: cf.
vagus, Mart. vii. 32), each side being probably
so represented in turn : how the “innings” of
the medicurrens ended, we do not know, but per-
haps he gave up his place to one of the other
* This is clearly the sense of trpoavexãuevot pirrovartv
in Pollux, which Johann Marquardt misunderstands;
he is also in error when he says that the players might
kick the ball as well as throw it (he strangely cites as
his authority Becq de Fouquières, though that writer
quotes no passage to prove it). . We must repeat that
we cannot discover any trace of “football ” in Greek
or Latin writers; and, further than this, Galen speaks
of the exercise in these games, to the muscles of the
arms by throwing, but of the legs by running: had
kicking the ball been within the rules, he would
certainly have mentioned it. . .
side whenever a point was scored against his
side. One would fain imagine two “middle
players,” one for each side, but the persistent
use of the singular both in Greek and Latin
authorities would seem to preclude this, and to
necessitate some such explanation as is here at-
tempted. It is probable that (as also in the quite
distinct modern pallone) a ball dropping dead
(i.e. falling again after the first rebound) was a
point against that side in whose camp it dropped,
and that a point was scored by that side which
could send it so as to drop over the base line of
the enemy: whether a certain number of points,
or the highest score in a given time, decided the
victory, we do not know. That the ball could
be caught, either as a volley or at the first
rebound, is clear from Mart. xiv. 48, and agrees
with the epithets pulverulenta and arenaria.
The ball was, no doubt, started from one of the
base lines, and the object of the medicurrens
was to catch it as it went past (“praetervolantem
aut superjectam,” Sidon.), in which case he
would have a great advantage in either throw-
ing it over the enemies’ line or into some un-
guarded spot of their camp, where it would fall
dead, or throwing it to some friend who was
advantageously posted. The feint of throwing,
expressed by pewſvöa, would clearly often be em-
ployed, as also the puty” (Eustath.) or kara-
otpoſp?) (Antiphanes and Sidon.), i.e. turning
hastily back after an advance, so as to defend an
unguarded spot; for, as seems clear from Galen,
the rest of the players could post themselves
forward or back as seemed best. They were
also permitted to rush upon the medicurrens, and
‘grapple or wrestle with him, or one another, in
any way they chose, one side trying to spoil his
catch, the other to protect him and foil his
assailants (cf. Galen, §rav avvurráuevot trpos
&AAñAous kal &mokwxwovres à paprágal row
Metašū, K.T.A.). For this purpose they may use
TpaxmAtopiós, òvrixhipels traXatorpukaſ, &c. The
Tpaxmxtapºos [LUCTATIO, p. 84] explains Mar-
tial’s description of the game, “grandia qui vano
colla labore facit.” The view here proposed
will explain Galen's words when he eulogises
this game for all ages, on the ground that you
can choose what sort of muscles, and to what
amount, you wish to exert:—“It exercises one
set of muscles in the advance, another in the
retreat, another in the spring sideways. . . also
the hands when they try in various postures
to catch the balls. . . it also practises the eye,
for if one does not accurately mark the course of
the ball one must miss the catch . . . while in
the wrestling part of it the 0%pač, Šarpús, &c.,
are exerted, or you can take running ... but
if you are old and want milder exercise (ro
trpáov) you may exercise your arms and rest
your legs by throwing from a distance” (i.e. by
playing back), “and you can take as little of the
wrestling as you please.” The org/05pórarov,
which involves throwing, running and wrest-
ling, is the place of medicurrens; the wrestling
alone is the part of those who try to thwart
him: for the rest of the players the advance
and the karaorrpop) supply the running, with-
out much throwing, while others can stand
almost at rest near their base and merely throw
when the ball comes to them. It is illustrated
by the description of Sidonius, where a by-
| stander at the side is jostled into the middle of
PILA
PILA 425
the game, “medicurrentis impulsu,” and then
knocked over by a rush in the catastropha. We
have ventured to differ altogether on this point
from Johann Marquardt, who imagines three
distinct games for three ages and strengths:
Galen's language points to one game in which
different parts are taken; and it is clear from
Pollux ix. 105 and from Clem. Alex. Paed. iii. 10,
50, that h utºp& orgaípa is regarded as a definite
well-known game, not several games. As to the
identity of pheninda with harpastum we have
the positive statement of Athenaeus that it was
the old name of harpastum, the belief of Pollux
that it was, and the fact that in some places
(Clem. Alex., l.c.) it still went by that name ;
and, moreover, no writer mentions both games
as distinct. It is no doubt possible that the
harpastum which Athenaeus played may have
been more elaborate in its rules than the
pheninda, of which he quotes a description from
Antiphanes. It seems sometimes to be forgotten
that the interval between these two writers was
as long as between Chaucer and our own time.
The play in Antiphanes seems to be as fol-
łows:—
There are several players; A (possibly =
medicurrens) has caught the ball and intends to
throw it to B, which he eventually does, but
meantime he slips away from C (rby 8° pewye),
misleads D (tov 6’ &ékpovge), and calls E's name
as a feint (TAaykraſot povaſs), though he has
no intention of throwing it to him : the last
two lines express the flight of the ball passing
over and beside the medicurrens, and the verbs
should probably be imperatives, giving the actual
cries of the players. It gives only a fragmen-
tary view of the game, but so far as it goes
might be describing a portion of the harpastum
of later authors. For the spelling pewſvöa and
its connexion with pewak{{w, see Johann Mar-
guardt, p. 15, note ; Hermes, iii. p. 455; Gras-
berger.
(iii.) The Trigon. — This favourite Roman
game was not strictly a sphaeromachia (cf.
Stat. Silv. praef.), since there were not sides,
but each played for himself; still it was a
łegitimate game, played for winning and losing.
The following description may, as it seems to
us, best meet the accounts which we have.
There were three players standing in the form of
an equilateral triangle: each player had one
ball to start with, and played for his own score;
he would wish both his fellow-players to miss
their strokes, and drop the ball as often as pos-
sible. He might send his ball to either player
(presumably there was some rule about sending
it fairly within their reach), and he might do so
either by catching the ball which came to him
and throwing it, or by “fiving ” it, so as either
to strike it back to the sender (repercutere) or
sideways to the third player (expulsare). Ob-
viously the most disastrous position would be
receiving three balls nearly at the same time—
if, for instance, his own ball is smartly “fived.”
back to him, and almost simultaneously the two
others have been sent to him; obviously, also,
his easiest position was to receive only one ball
at a time with a fair interval before the next,
This may explain the vexed passage of Mart.
xii. 82 about the flatterer Menogenes—
“Captabit tepidum dextra laevaque trigonem
Imputet acceptas ut tibi saepe pilas.”
To say, with Becker, that Menogenes was show-
ing off his own skill must be wrong; that would
be the worst flattery; but, by catching right and
left two balls (not, of course, simultaneously,
but as nearly so as possible), instead of return-
ing them sharply he could throw them gently at
certain intervals to his patron, so giving him
time to deal with the stroke of the third player,
without dropping any of them. It is an often
repeated error, founded on a misconception of
Mart. vii. 72, xiv. 46, that the stroke in the
trigon was necessarily left-handed. The left-
handed strokes are merely the test of a good
player. Probably all players who can make a
good stroke left-handed, can do so also with the
right hand, but the converse does not hold good.
In this game the pilicrepus, or juggler (see
below), was employed somewhat like a marker
at tennis or racquets, to count the won and lost
strokes at the end of a “rest” or “rally ”
(“non quidem eas quae inter manus lusu ex-
pellente vibrabant, sed eas quae in terram deci-
debant,” Petron. 27). The inference is that the
catches had not a positive value, but the winner
was he who least often allowed the ball to drop.
As is the case with our markers, the pilicrepus,
whose profession led him to exhibit in the
Thermae, often gave instruction to the inex-
perienced ; and in games he was probably the
umpire of doubtful strokes. This is, we think,
the true explanation of the cut from the baths
of Titus, which represents four players and six
balls. It is not a game at all, but the pilicrepus,
who alone is a bearded man, is teaching the art
of playing trigon to three young players, throw-
ing in balls in succession, to practise hand and
eye; one of his pupils is learning to catch two
balls “dextra laevaque.” The game would be
much faster than this lesson to tirones, and the
pilicrepus would stand aside, and count the
failures aloud. Seneca, complaining of the noise
of ball-play at the baths, says, “Si vero pili-
crepus supervenit et numerare cocpit, actum
est.”
~ - £º.
! -- ~~ \ _ſ’ — ºf º
_9 \ ~~. ~~~
: ſº t Q º \—-
==&—º-º-º-
Fº SºHº
º º
ſºſºl
ſº ñº
K_{\
- º
**~~
-- - - -
* *
• *-ºs
... *---. ... *** * *
Lesson in Trigon. (From the Baths of Titus.)
(iv.) The Equestrian Sphaeromachia.--From *
Cinnamus (Hist. vi. 4) it will be seen that the
game played on horseback by the Byzantine
princes differed little from polo as it is now
played. The Emperor Manuel Comnenus (A.D.
1143–1180) plays at this game, “an exercise
customary for emperors and princes for a long
time past” (ävéka9ev), in which a number of






426 PILA
PILLEUS
mounted players, divided into two equal sides,
throw down a leathern ball, “about the size of
an apple,” into a measured ground. The ball
is placed in the middle : the players start at full
speed from their base lines towards it, “each
holding in his right hand a long stick of a cer-
tain length, with a broad curved end * (kaputrī);
this kaurh has a network of catgut ; the object
is to strike the ball over the base line (trépas).
The game is “dangerous, as the rider has to
stoop low (ärtić (eiv) from his horse and turn
quickly according to the turns of the ball.”
Manuel's horse fell and rolled upon him, and,
though he tried to remount and continue the
game, he was forced to take to his bed and defer
an intended campaign. [See also FOLLIS.]
It remains only to speak of the pilicrepus, or
juggler with balls (also called pilarius), who,
as shown above, also acted as marker. We have
many representations of single performers, male
and female, tossing up several balls; even
throwing and catching them with the feet
(“reddere planta,” Manil. v. 165). A mis-
understanding of this has perhaps caused the
utterly erroneous notion that the Romans played
football. Ursus Togatus (Momms. Ephem. Epigr.
i. 55) was a juggler of this kind (“vitrea qui
primus pila lusi decenter”). It is an error of
Krause (Gymnastik, p. 303) to deduce (with
Burette) from this passage that the pilicrepus
merely = “joueur de paume ; ” and a still
greater error to suppose that the games of
trigon, &c., could be played with glass balls.
Ursus Togatus (as Marquardt and Becq de
Fouquières rightly point out) was a juggler
who introduced glass balls in his performance
as a novelty. As a pilicrepus he tells us that
he not only showed off his skill in the Thermae,
but also taught the art of playing at ball.
[On this whole subject many different opinions
may be found in Krause, Gymnastik, 299–315;
Grasberger, Erziehung, 88 ft.; Marquardt,
Privatleben, 841–847; Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii.
169–183; Becq de Fouquières, Jeua, des Anciens,
176—211; Johann Marquardt, de Sphaeromachiis
Veterum (1876).] [G. E. M.]
PILA. [MoRTARIUM.]
PILENTUM, a state four-wheeled carriage
with cushions, which conveyed the Roman
matrons, flamines, and Westals in sacred pro-
cessions and to the public games (Verg. Aen. viii.
666; Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 192; Claudian, de Nupt.
Fion. 285; Isid. Or. xx. 12). It had a covered
roof (as a currus arcuatus) similar no doubt in
shape to that which is represented in the wood-
cut of LECTICA on p. 15 (see also under CAR-
PENTUM and CAMERA); but it was open all
round. The well, or body of the carriage, was
called arca (Macrob. Sai. i. 6, 15), or capsus
(Vitruvºx. 9, 2; Isid. l.c.), which corresponds to
the Gallic word plorenum of the small Gallic
carriage [CISIUMJ: here were placed cushions for
the occupants, and also any sacred vessels which
they were conveying. This explains the account
in Macrob. l.c., of a boy looking at the pro-
cession out of a garret window and seeing how
the Secreta sacrorum were set out in arca pilenti.
The distinction of using the pilentum was
granted to the Roman matrons by the senate on
account of their giving gold and jewels to the
state at the time of the fall of Veii (Liv. v. 25;
cf. CARPENTUM). As regards the use of it by
the flamines, see Liv. i. 21; for the Westals,
Prudentius, contra Symm. ii. 1089. The pilentum
is distinguished from the carpentum by having
four wheels (Isidore, l.c.) and by its not being
covered in with curtains at the sides, as was, at
any rate sometimes, the case with the carpentum.
The two-wheeled carriage drawn by lions which
Rich gives as a pilentum from a medal of the
Empress Faustina must be a carpentum ; and
its explanation may be found in the fact that
in the pompa circensis the figures of deceased
empresses were taken in a carpentum (Mar-
quardt, Staatsverw. iii. 511). Suetonius (Claud.
ii.) mentions that Livia's was drawn by elephants.
It is possible, however, that the lions may be
merely a fanciful emblem. (Ginzrot, Wagen, cap.
liv.; Marquardt, Privatleben, 735; Becker-Göll,
Gallus, iii. 17.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PILI'CREPUS. [PILA.]
PILL'EUS or PILL'EUM. The art of.
making felt by beating hair or flocks of wool
into a compact mass seems to be at least as old
as the art of weaving. It was practised in
antiquity by the peoples of Greece and Italy, and
in fact seems to have been known over the
greater part of both Europe and Asia. No
details of the processes of manufacture itself
have come down to us, though the products are
frequently mentioned by Greek and Roman
writers from the earliest time. The art (i.
trixmrukh, Plato, Polit. p. 280 C.; ars coactilaria,
Capitol. Pertin. 3, 3) was a recognised industry
for a “maker of woollen felt ’’ (lanarius coacti.
larius, Orelli, 4206 [I. R. N. 6848]; lanarius
coactor, Gruter, 648, 3) and is mentioned in
Roman inscriptions.
Felt was put to a large number of different
uses, such as to provide not only a covering for
the sheds of military engines (Aen. Tact. 33),
but also garments (cf. Plato, Polit. l.c.; Pliny,
H. N. viii. § 191), as Caesar's soldiers did when
they were in need of arrow-proof jerkins
(B. C. iii. 44). Boots or socks [UDONES] were
also made from felt. By far the most impor-
tant use of it, however, was to provide a
covering for the head in the shape of hats and
caps. Among the Greeks and Romans of the
classical period it was most unfashionable to
wear anything, except perhaps a helmet, when
out-of-doors, at any rate in a town. Doubtless
this was partly due to the prevailing custom of
taking a siesta or remaining in the shade during
the hottest time of the day, but the reason
Lucian puts in the mouth of Solon seems still
more plausible. Anacharsis had complained that,
wishing not to appear a stranger at Athens, he
had left his hat at home and was feeling the
heat (de Gymn. 16, row yop trixóv uot & peaeiv
ëöošev, &s u% uévos év Šuiv čevićout tº oxh-
part), and Solon explains that it was their
gymnastic training which enabled the Greeks to
do without any head-gear.
The practice, however, of going bare-headed
was, as we shall see, far from, universal, and
apparently characteristic of the well-to-do and
leisured rather than of the labouring classes,
who for the most part wore caps. Even the
upper classes, when hunting or travelling, or
otherwise exposed to rough weather, resorted
to them, as did sickly or delicate folk. The
general name for all such hats was triNos or
revvi, both words being applied not only to caps
PILLEUS
PILLEUS 427
of felt and skin respectively, but even to helmets
of metal.
In Homer trºxos is used of the felt which
lined the helmet (kuvém) of hide which Odysseus
wore. Elsewhere the kuvém is of bronze, or, if
nothing else, strengthened and protected with it
(cf. Liddell and Scott, s. v.); but in the Odyssey
we find Laertes wearing a kvuém of goatskin
while working on the farm (Od. xxiv. 231).
This was probably not far different from the
TriAos &alcºnrös which Hesiod recommends for
rainy weather (Op. 546), and indeed peasants
of every period wore caps of this kind often of
skin, but also of felt. (Cf. Athen. vi. p. 274 :
the Romans wore trpošaréav Šepp.drov trixovs
6aoreis).
They were like a fez, of a conical or sugar-
loaf shape, with a crown like the end of an egg,
and were loose enough to be dragged over one's
ears to keep off the cold or rain (Hesiod, l.c.).
A sower in the painting of a cylix of Nicosthenes
in the Berlin Museum (Catalogue, No. 1806;
cf. Gerhard, Trinkschalen w. Gefässe, Taf. 1;
Blümner, Leben w. Sitten, iii. fig. 48) is repre-
sented in a hat of this description. The cele-
brated cylix by Sosias in the same collection
(Catalogue, No. 2278; Mon. d. I. i. 24, 25;
Blümner, ib. iii. fig. 22) shows the wounded
Patroclus, who has taken off his helmet, wearing
a skull-cap of felt, which unmistakably acts as a
lining, reminding one irresistibly of the trixos
in the kvyém of Odysseus.
This sugar-loaf or fez-like shape of felt cap
seems to have been known as the trix têtov
(= pilleolum), though modern archaeologists are
in the habit of giving it the name triNos, which,
when we consider the very general way in
which this word is used, can scarcely be said
to have classical warrant. -
The cap itself was worn universally by
artisans and sailors, along with the ééopºts, and
accordingly appears with it in art as their
characteristic costume; and, in the case of
Odysseus offering wine to the Cyclops.
|
mythological persons, is worn by Hephaestus
and Daedalus as craftsmen and by Charon and
Odysseus as seafarers (cf. preceding cut from a
statuette in Winckelmann’s Mon. Ined. ii. 154).
In the case of Odysseus, we are told by Pliny
that Nicomachus was the first to give him the
trixos (H. W. xxxv. § 109, “Ulixi primus addidit
pilleum ”); but Schöne maintains (Hermes,
vi. 125) that this was to represent him feigning
to be mad, and not necessarily as a sailor.
However this may be, it is difficult, with the
evidence of vase-paintings of the perfect Attic
style before us, to believe that there can have
been any novelty in giving him a cap at such a
late date.
Sailors with triatówov. (From a vase-painting.)
The triatówov or fez-shaped trºxos was fre-
quently worn with a band, which made it fit
tighter on the head. Below the band there is
naturally a piece of the edge left free, and by a
perfectly natural process this becomes a brim.
As a result we see on the monuments hats with
brims of every conceivable width, from those
that are little more than a fez, with a band tied
round, to the broadest of wide-awakes.
Those with the incipient brim are frequently
seen on the monuments as worn by warriors,
but it is in most cases difficult to say if it was
really of felt and not of bronze. Both were
worn, for we hear of triXol Aakovikol % 'Apka-
bucot, which were doubtless of felt, as were the
TriAoi, which protected the Spartans at Pylos so
badly from the Athenian arrows (Thuc. iv. 34, 3:
cf. Iwan Müller, Handbuch, iv. p. 254); while,
on the other hand, a tr?Aos XaAkoos is mentioned
in Aristophanes (Lys. 562). A good instance of
a trixos worn by a warrior which might possibly
be felt is the relief from a tomb in Bullet. de
Corr. Hell, pt. 7 (cf. Blümner, ib. i. fig. 6), while
Warrior in triXos and Čšopits, from a relief. (Bltimner.)
brazen triNot are worn by the soldiers on the
frieze from Xanthus in the British Museum
(Nos. 32 and 37).



428 PILLEUS
PILLEUS
The wide-awake was known by the distinctive
name of réraoros, and the fashion of wearing it
came from Thessaly along with the XAguès,
which it accompanies almost as invariably as
the gºouls does the triatówov, the two forming
the characteristic costume of the Athenian youth
when serving in the cavalry. Many of the
Apngot in the Panathenaic procession on the
Parthenon frieze
wear this dress,
which is also
one of the com-
monest in Greek
vase-paintings of
the perfect style,
a figure from
one of which is
given in the ac-
companying cut.
From the
earliest time the
trétaros was the
constant attri-
bute of Hermes
in art, though
frequently its
brim is so nar-
row that it
scarcely deserves
its name. In
Greek art of the
later part of the
fifth century
Hermes’ hat is
occasion a 1 ly
winged, in later
times more fre-
quently and in Roman art invariably so. In
early art it is only the cuvén aldov worn by
Perseus that is winged. From a passage in the
Oedipus Coloneus of Sophocles, where Ismene
wears a 6erraxis kvvi, which can only mean a
tréraoros, it would seem as if women occasionally
wore it when travelling.
The tréraoros, as worn by travellers and
#hunters, had not only a band which fastened it
tightly round the head, but a strap which
passed under the chin, and enabled the wearer,
who, not being accustomed to it, naturally felt
its weight, to let it hang down his back. This
is very frequent in works of art, often doubtless
because it enables the artist to show the outline
of the head more sharply.
a The Hermes on the cele-
brated drum of a column
from the temple of Artemis
at Ephesus is a familiar
instance of the fashion.
The brim of the tréraoros
was usually not even all
round, but cut into various
convenient or fantastical
shapes, of which examples
from ancient vase-paintings
are here given, after Blüm-
ner, the most common
being one of quatrefoil
shape, in which the two
side leaves, if one may use
the term, could be used as
lappets tied over the ears by a chin strap. The
brim could also be turned up behind, at one or
Tréraoros and x\aſtºs.
(From a vase.)
both sides, giving it quite as many picturesque
forms as a sombrero or other modern felt hat.
In Hellenistic times a
Macedonian variety of the
tréraoros, called kavata,
was worn, but chiefly
as an emblem of power
[CAUSIA].
The pilleus, which was
practically identical with
the conical rºos, was
worn by the Etruscans,
and frequently appears
both on men and women
on their monuments. (Cf.
for this and other detailed
information, Helbig in
Sitzungsberichte der phil.
Classeder Münchener Akad.,
1880, pp. 487–554.)
It must have been used
in very early times at
Rome, for it was the cha-
racteristic headgear of the
Pontifices, Flamines, and
Salii on solemn occasions.
It is, however, even better
known as the symbol of
Liberty, occurring as such g
on many coins, but especially on the denarius of
Brutus and L. Plaetorius Cestianus, where it is
represented on the reverse
standing between two daggers,
with the inscription EID. MAR.
below (cf. Dio Cass. xlvii. 25).
This use must not be con
founded with the pair of pille:
surmounted by twin stars
which also appear on coins,
but as the attributes of Castor and Pollux
(pilleati fratres, Catullus, 37, 2). The symbol
is doubtless derived from the fact that it was
the garb of slaves who had been freed, on
leaving the temple (cf. Serv. ad Aen. viii. 564:
“(Feronia) etiam libertorum dea est in cuius
templo capite raso pilleum accipiunt”). Hence
pilleum Capere (Plautus, Amph. 462) means to
gain freedom. Saturninus raised a pilleum in
modum vezilli (Val. Max. viii. 6, 2) as a signal
for the slaves to take up arms, and vocare ad
pilleum (Liv. xxiv. 34, 9; Sen. Ep. 47; Suet.
Tib. 4) was a recognised expression for raising a
revolt. Gladiators on being discharged were
given the pilleus, two years after they had
received the rudis (Ulpian, Coll. leg. mos. tit. 11,
leg. 7). It was in fact so well understood to be
a symbol of recovered liberty that foreign kings
like Prusias (Liv. xlv. 44), who wished to
display themselves as liberti of the Roman
people, appeared in public with shaven head
wearing the pilleus (cf. Plut. de Alex. fort. 2, 3).
So too, after the death of Nero, the whole plebs
wore it (Suet. Nero, 57), just as they were accus-
tomed to, during the Saturnalia (Mart. xi. 6, 4;
xiv. 1, 2). Among other customs connected
with the pilleus is the curious one of selling
slaves whom the master did not wish to Warrant
with it on (Gell. vii. 4, 1). -
The meaning of pilleus was a very general
one, like trixos, not confined to felt caps alone.
Thus, Suetonius (ap. Serv. ad Aen. ii. 683) says
that the apex tutulus and galerus worn by the
§5°MAR





PILUM
DISCINA 429.
priests were all pillei. Pilleolum, however, like
rixſºtov, was the specific name for ordinary
caps. [APEx..] As to caps of skin, apart from
the galerus, Vegetius tells us that soldiers, when
not using their helmets, wore pillei pannonic of
skin (Milit. i. 20), and Polybius (c. supra loc. cit.)
mentions the same. Caps of cloth made from
old cloaks (Statius, Silv. iv. 9, 13, “usque
adeone defuerunt caesis pillea suta de lacernis.”)
seem to have been the pillei worn at the Satur-
malia; and Martial sends a friend one as a
present, with the jocular regret that he cannot
afford to give away the whole cloak (xiv. 132).
The Romans, like the Greeks, seldom wore
any covering on the head, though this is truer
of the upper than the lower classes. Horace,
for instance, speaks of a tribesman carrying his
slippers along with his cap on the way to a
feast (“ut cum pilleolo soleas conviva tribulis,”
Ep. i. 13, 15); and Nero used to wear one as a
disguise at night (Suet. Nero, 26). In Imperial
times the custom of using hats became much
more common; and Augustus in his later life
never went out of doors without a petasus (Suet.
Aug. 82), and Caligula allowed them to be worn
in the theatre as a protection against the sun
(Dio Cass, lix. 7). Even in Cicero's time mes-
sengers wore the Greek petasus (ad Fam. xv.
17, 1), which, as well as the causia, is mentioned
in Plautus, so that the Greek forms must have
been well known, even if not worn, at Rome.
There does not seem to be anything to show
that the pilleus differed in shape from the
Trixſºtov, except the fact that those shown on
Etruscan monuments are longer and more
peaked than the Greek forms. The varieties
seen on coins with the virga and chin-straps are
the ceremonial caps of priests, rather than those
worn in every-day life. [APEX.] -
(Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 262, and Gallus, iii.
p.224; Hermann-Blümmer, Privatalterth. p. 180;
Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 554; Iwan Müller,
Handbuch, iv. pp. 405, 805, 879, and 929;
Daremberg and Saglio, arts. Causia and Cilicium;
Helbig in Sitzungsberichte d. Bayr. Akad, d.
Wissensch, Hist, phil. Klasse, 1880, iv. p. 487;
Blümmer, Technologie, i. p. 211 f ; Yates, Tex-
trinum Antiquorum, pp. 388–411; Blümmer
in Baumeister, Denkmäler, art. Kopfhe-
deckung.) [W. F. C. A.]
PILUM. THASTA.
PINACOTHECA (rivako%km, Strab. xiv.
p. 367), a picture-gallery. Marcellus, after the
capture of Syracuse, first displayed the works of
Greek painters and sculptors to his countrymen,
whose taste for the fine arts was gradually
matured by the conquests of L. Scipio, Flamin-
inus, and L. Paullus, and grew into a passion
after the spoils of Achaia had been transported
by Mummius to Rome. Objects of this de-
scription were at first employed exclusively for
the decoration of temples and places of public
resort (Cic. Verr, i. 21, 55); but private col-
lections were soon formed, and towards the close
of the Republic we find that in the houses of the
more opulent a room was devoted to the re-
ception of paintings and statues (Varro, R. R. i.
2, 59: Cic. Tusc. v.-35, 102). In the time of
Augustus, Vitruvius includes the pinacotheca
among the apartments of a complete house for a
rich man, and gives directions that it should be
large and lofty, facing the north, in order that
the light might be equable and not too strong
(Vitruv. i. 2; vi. 5, 7; cf. Plin. H. N. xxxv. §4).
The pictures were either let into the wall or
hung against it (Cic. Verr. iv. 55, 122; Plin.
xxxv, $26, 118). A special attendant, called
a pinacotheca, was employed to look after the
collection in great houses (C. I. L. x. 692,
6638). (Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 275; Mar-
quardt, Privatleben, 611; Friedländer, S. G.
ii. 168.) [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
PIPER (ºré regi) was used as a seasoning both
by Greeks and Romans, though not, as far as
our evidence goes, among the former before the
period of the Middle Comedy, and it is unlikely
that we should hear nothing of it in Aristo-
phanes if it was in common use in his time.
The Romans probably began to use it after their
conquest of Greece. It was brought from India
(Plin. H. N. xii. §§ 26–29), but by way of
Alexandria, where it was transferred from
camels and sent by sea to Rome (Pers. v. 136;
Mayor on Juv. xiv. 293). The two kinds of
pepper, black and white, were obtained merely
by different treatment of the berry (Plin. l.c.;
cf. Hor. Sat. ii. 4,74). The pepper-box (pipera-
torium) is mentioned by Paulus (Sent. iii. 6, 86)
among vasa argentea. The woodcut represents
Piperatorium. (British Museum.)
a small silver piperatorium, probably of the 2nd
century A.D. (see Gazette Archeologique, 1885.
p. 335) found at Chaourse in France, and
recently (1889) acquired by the British Museum.
It is formed of the figure of a negro slave clad
in a paenula with a hood, having small hºles
drilled in the head. [G. E. M.]
PISCATORIILUDI. [Lupt Piscatorm.
PISCINA (roxvughºpa, Sefauevº) is prº-
perly a fish-pond, either of salt water or of fresh;
see the passages in Forcellini and the Diction”
ries. It denotes also any kind of reservoir, espe:
cially those connected with the aqueducts and
the baths (Aquaeductus, p. 149 as Baisº,

430. PISTILLUMI
PISTOR
p. 275 b, note). Conversely, the Greek koxvu-
§40pa was by no means confined to its original
meaning of a swimming-bath, but included the
various senses of piscina. -
Reservoirs were made, as in modern times, by
damming up the lower end of a valley. One of
the largest and finest was constructed at Agri-
gentum and is described by Diodorus (xi. 25),
though in his time it had ceased to exist; it was
seven stadia in circumference, twenty cubits
deep, an ornamental sheet of water abounding
with fish and swans: he calls it koxupgå0pa, a
good example of this use of the word. The
hollow of the hill which this reservoir occupied
is still plainly to be distinguished, especially
from the Temple of Castor and Pollux (cf.
EMISSARIUM).
The Romans, with their unbounded command
of water-tight cement, were particularly suc-
cessful in the excavation of underground reser-
voirs; and having to deal with the highly
calcareous water from the Apennines, they had
learnt how to get rid of the sedimentary
deposits. In the so-called Sette Sale on the
Esquiline, a still existing reservoir attached at
first to the Golden House of Nero, afterwards to
the Baths of Titus, the water was made to flow
through no less than eighteen subdivisions, in as
devious a course as possible, so that any sedi-
ment it contained might be deposited on the
way (Middleton, Anc. Rome in 1885, p. 352).
An unrivalled work of this description is the
Piscina Mirabile as it is now called, on the road
between Baiae and the promontory of Misenum,
and still in perfect preservation. This reservoir
is excavated out of the tufa rocks on the sea-
coast, and was used for watering the fleet in
days when the naval head-quarters were at
Misenum; it is not mentioned by Pliny or any
other Latin writer, but it is referred by Winckel-
mann with great probability to the time of
Augustus, and to Agrippa as its constructor. It
is 223 feet long and 83 broad, with a vaulted
roof of massive masonry, supported by 48 large
cruciform pilasters, arranged in regular lines of
12 each, and forming 5 distinct galleries or
compartments. It is entered at the two ex-
tremities by stairs of 40 steps each, one of
which has been repaired and made accessible.
In the middle of the piscina is a depression or
sink, extending nearly from wall to wall, for
collecting the sediment from the water. The
roof is perforated by square openings, which
probably served for ventilating the interior.
The walls and pilasters are covered with a
calcareous deposit as high as the spring of the
arches. It was supplied by the Julian aqueduct
from Lake Serino in the Apennines, whose
waters have within the last few years been
re-introduced into Naples; the traces of the
aqueduct entering the piscina may be seen
near the entrance.
(Murray's Handbook of Southern Italy, ed.
1883, p. 330; Handbook of Sicily, s. v. Agrigen-
tum; personal observation.) W.
PISTILLUM. [MoRTARIUM.]
PISTOR (àprotrotés), a baker. Both with
the Greeks and Romans the bread was originally
prepared and baked at home. In large house-
holds this practice was long continued. In the
Hellenistic period and under the Roman Empire
there were numerous slaves skilled as bakers
and confectioners (cf. Athen. iii. 112 c); and
several of the private houses at Pompeii have
baking-rooms on the premises (see Overbeck-
Mau, Pompeii, 4th ed., pp. 301, 385, Casa di
Sallustio; pp. 328 f, 386, Casa di Pansa; p.
343, Casa del Laberinto). There is no mention.
of the baker's trade in Homer. The flour
mentioned in the Homeric poems is of two kinds:
coarse barley-flour (&Aqura) and wheat-flour
(&Aetata=&Aeupa). It was from the latter that
bread was generally made (see Buchholz, Die hom.
Realien, ii. pt. 1, p. 108 f.; ii. pt. 2, p. 168 f.;
cp. Riedenauer, Handwerk in den hom. Zeiten,
§ 5). Schliemann (Troja, p. 44; Ilios, pp. 234,
235) appears to assert that grain could not have
been made into bread into Homeric times, but it
is difficult to see the grounds for such a view.
The Homeric words for bread are aºros, Šptos,
and tripvov (specially wheaten-bread). "Apros
seems to signify the baked loaves; o'ºros is a
more general term, used e.g. for food in opposi-
tion to drink. -
At Athens as early as the 5th century B.C.
we find working-bakers (àprokórow) who sold
their wares in the market and streets through
female vendors (àprotréAtóes), who enjoyed a
reputation for abusive language (Aristoph. Ran.
858; Vesp. 1389, &c.). At Rome (according to
Pliny, H. W. xviii. § 107) there was no baker's
trade till about B.C. 172. Many freedmen are
found engaged in the trade, and under the Re-
public it was one of the duties of the aediles to
see that the bread was properly prepared and
correct in weight. A bakers’ guild (corpus or
collegium pistorum), which long existed, was
organised by Trajan, and this body, through its
connexion with the cura annonae, became of
much importance and enjoyed various privileges.
There were guilds of pistores and clibanarii at
Pompeii (Overbeck-Mau, Pompeii, 4th ed., p.
470). A great increase in the number of bakeries
(pistrinae, officinae pistoriae) afterwards took
place at Rome, owing probably to the action of
Aurelian in introducing a daily distribution of
bread instead of the old monthly distribution of
grain that had been usual since the time of the
Gracchi. This daily distribution also took place
at Constantinople. The businesses of the miller
and baker were usually combined: cf. Serv. ad
Aen. i. 179 (pistores, pinsores, from pinsere, to
pound the grain); and authorities in Blümner,
Technol. i. p. 16, note.
Confectioners and makers of the finer kinds of
bread-stuff are distinguished by various names,
as traokovurotroiás, repuarovpyós, trotravotroués,
pistores candidarii (Orelli, 4263), siliquiarii
(C. I. L. vi. 22), clibanarii (C. I. L. iv. 677),
(pistor) Persianus (Orelli, 4264; cf. Plin. H. N.
xviii. § 105), dulciarii (Mart. xiv. 222, &c.),
libarii, crustularii (Senec. Ep. 56, 2), fictores
(makers of sacrificial cakes), &c. The cakes and
confectionery of the pastrycooks had already a
literature of their own in antiquity, and are
described in Athenaeus, xiv. 643 e, f, and Pollux,
vi. 75 fſ. Some were made specially for religious
festivals and sacrifices (see Lobeck, De Graecorum
placentis sacris).
A Pompeian painting (Jahn, Abh. der Sächs.
Ges, der Wissensch. v. pl. 3 = Baumeister,
Denkmäler, “Bäckerei,” fig. 225) shows us a
baker's shop-table or counter, and shelves behind
piled with loaves of circular form. The shopman
PISTOR
PLAGIUM 431
sits raised up behind the counter, giving a loaf
to a customer. A baker's shop at Pompeii has
as its sign a relief of a mill turned by a mule
(Overbeck-Mau, op. cit., p. 379, fig. 186). The
plan of a bakery at Pompeii is given in Overbeck-
Mau, op. cit., p. 386, fig. 189 (cf. also the view,
ib. p. 385, fig. 188). The working-rooms are
there situated in the back part of a tolerably
large building. Four large mills have been
found there, and on the right is the oven, con-
nected with two rooms, in one of which the
kneading of the dough probably took place.
Other rooms in the house are shops, sleeping-
apartments, &c.
Wheat was the grain chiefly used for bread
by the Greeks and Romans. Barley was also
used, but at Rome barley-bread (panis hordeaceus)
was the food only of slaves, soldiers, and bar-
barians (cf. Plin. H. W. xviii. § 74). Spelt
(Čelá, far) was also sometimes used for bread,
especially by the Romans at an early period . A
coarse bread was made from alica, a kind of
spelt (corresponding to the Greek xóvãpos), which
was grown in Verona, Campania, and many
parts of Italy (cf. Plin. H. W. xviii. § 106).
Rye (secale) was considered unwholesome by the
Romans.
As with us, several kinds of flour were produced
from the same grain, differing according to the
action of the mill and the use of sieves (köorkiva,
kpmorépal, cribra) of greater or less fineness.
Bread made of pure and finely sifted wheat-flour
was called by the Greeks &Aeupírms, yupírms,
tºpmorepirms, &c., and was described as “white”
bread (Aevkás, ka9após). By the Romans the
bread made of pure wheat-flour (simila, simi-
lago) was called panis siligineus. If the bran
was mixed with the wheat-flour, the bread was
called by the Greeks ovykoutorós, airóirvpos,
Tripwov (or trurupſas = bread of bran only), and
was spoken of as ākā0aptos, Švirapés, &c. By
the Romans, bread made of coarse flour or of
flour with the bran was called panis cibarius,
plebeius, castrensis, Sordidus, rusticus, Secundus,
furfureus, &c.
The dough was prepared by moistening the
flour with water (Senec. Ep. 90, &c.), by adding
salt, and by careful kneading (uárto, pvpáw,
Subigo, depso) in a kneading-trough (ſudºktpa,
wayſs, ord pm, kāpāoros, alveus), which was gene-
rally made of wood, but sometimes of stone or
pottery (Phot. p. 243, 17, s. v. Adkirpa). The
kneading seems usually to have been done with
the hand, though from some monumental repre-
sentations (see Blümmer, Technol. i. p. 63) it
would appear that a simple machine worked by
men or by an animal was sometimes used for
the work.
Both fermented and unfermented bread were
known to the ancients, but the fermented was
the kind usually made. The leaven (Çüpım,
gºawaa, fermentum) for mixing with the dough
was produced in several ways (see Plin. H. N.
xviii. § 102, &c.). If required in small quantities
for immediate use, it was prepared from cakes
of barley and water which were roasted on the
hearth, and then put in covered vessels till the
fermentation took place; or, the baked dough
from the previous day's baking was taken and
kneaded with salt, and a decoction made from
it, which was allowed to stand till it became
fermented, Leaven in large quantities, which
could be kept for a year, was made during the
vintage time by kneading millet with must, or
by kneading wheat-bran with must and drying .
it in the sun. The dough when prepared was
placed on a board and shaped, generally with
the hand, but sometimes in moulds (arioptae).
It was then by means of a shovel (pala) placed
in the oven (invés, furnus: for the shape cf.
an oven at Pompeii, Overbeck-Mau, 4th ed., fig.
192; Blümner, Technol. i. 65, 66). The dough
was occasionally baked on the hearth among
the embers, or on a spit; or it was sometimes
placed in a vessel (kW/6avos or kpſgavos), usually
of pottery, provided with a cover and pierced
with small holes. Hot embers were then heaped
up round it till the heat penetrated.
The loaves of the Greeks and Romans were
usually flat, circular, and indented into four
or more parts (§pros 8Awulafos, retpárpvipos,
- . , 1/ ill
J-v-/ſiſts -
Loaves found at Pompeii.
~/ -
/~ T-
panis quadratus). Loaves were also made in
other forms, such as cubes (köðol). The shape
of the Roman loaf is well known to us from the
Pompeian paintings, and from actual specimens
discovered at Pompeii (Baumeister, Denkmäler,
“Bäckerei,” fig. 225; Overbeck-Mau, op. cit.,
p. 385).
A representation of the bread-making pro-
cesses is to be found on the relief of the tomb-
stone of Eurysaces, a large baker at Rome of
the Augustan period or earlier (Monum. d. Inst.
ii. 58; O. Jahn, Annali, X. p. 231 ff.; C. I. L. i.
n. 1013–1017). Here is shown the grinding of
the corn, the sifting of the flour, the kneading
and shaping of the dough, the depositing of the
dough in the oven, and finally the bringing out
of the loaves in baskets to be weighed.
(Authorities.—Full references to the ancient
authorities are given in an excellent chapter of
Blümmer’s Technologie, i. 1 ff. ; see also Momm-
sen-Marquardt, Handbuch der röm. Alt. vii.
p. 398 ft., and Blümmer, art. “Bäckerei” in
Baumeister's Denkmäler.) [W–K W H.]
PISTRINUM. . [MoI.A.; MoRTARIUM.]
PITHUS (rſ90s). [DoDIUM.]
PLAGA. [RETE.]
PLA'GIUM. This crime was the subject of
a Lex Fabia, which is mentioned by Cicero (pro
Rabirio Perd. 3, 8), and is assigned by some
writers to the consulship of Quintus Fabius and
M. Claudius Marcellus, B.C. 183; but without
sufficient reason. The chief provisions of the
lex are collected from the Digest (48, 15, 6:
cf. Paul. Sent. Rec. v. 30, 13): “If a freeman
concealed, kept confined, or knowingly with
dolus malus purchased an ingenuus or libertinus
against his will, or participated in any such
acts; or if he persuaded another person's male
or female slave to run away from a master or
mistress, or without the consent or knowledge

432 PLANETAE
PLANETAE
of the master or mistress concealed, kept con-
fined, or purchased knowingly with dolus malus
such male or female slave, or participated in
any such acts, he was liable to the penalties of
the Lex Fabia.” The penalty of the lex was
pecuniary, and the consequence was infamia;
but this fell into disuse, and persons who
offended against the lex were punished, either
by being sent to work in the mines or by
crucifixion if they were humiliores, or with
confiscation of half of their property or per-
petual relegation if they were homestiores. These
punishments were imposed by the praefectus
urbi and the praesides provinciarum (Paul. l. c.
and Coll. xiv. 2, 2: “Et olim quidem hujus legis
poena nummaria fuit ; sed translata est cognitio
in praefectos urbis; itemque praesidis provinciae
extra ordinem meruit animadversionem ’). The
crime of kidnapping men became a common
practice, and required vigilant pursuit (Suet.
Aug. 32). For a remarkable instance, which
has been introduced in modern romance, see
Socrates, Hist. Eccl. v. 8, cited by Marquardt.
A senatusconsultum ad legem Fabiam did not
allow a master to give or sell a runaway slave,
which was technically called fugam vendere;
but the provision did not apply to a slave who
was merely absent. A bonā-fide possessor of a
slave or freeman could not be made liable on
account of plagium. The name of the senatuscon-
Sultum by which the Lex Fabia was amended,
does not appear. The word plagium is said to
have come from the Greek tradyios, “oblique,”
“indirect,” dolosus. But this is doubtful.
Schrader (Inst. iv. 18, § 10) thinks that the
derivation from plaga (a net) is more probable.
He who committed plagium was plagiarius, a
word which Martial (i. 53) applies to a person
who falsely gave himself out as the author of
a book; and in this sense the word has come
into common use in our language. (Dig. 48,
15; Cod. 9, 20; Paulus, ll. cc.; Geib, Das Röm.
Strafrecht, p. 52; Rein, Das Criminalrecht,
p. 386; Rudorff, Rom. Rechtsg. ii. § 117;
Mizerski, de Crimine Plagii, Berol. 1865; Mar-
quardt, Privatleben, i. 168.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
PLANETAE, s. STELLAE ERRANTEs (mAa-
vital S. TAavºuevo &otépes as opposed to rò.
&TAavi Tôv &otpav). The popular astronomy
of the early Greeks was chiefly confined, as is
pointed out elsewhere [ASTRONOMIA], to a know-
ledge of the morning and evening risings and
settings of the brightest stars and most remark-
able constellations, since upon these observa-
tions the formation and regulation of the
primitive calendars in a great measure depended.
No single star was more likely to attract atten-
tion under such circumstances than the planet
Venus, and accordingly The Morning Star ('Eag-
bópos) is placed first among the stellar progeny
of Erigeneia in the Theogony (381)—
* * *_2 *
toºs & ºr' (sc. &véuous) &a répa ríkrew ‘Eoorbópov
3. z
Hptyéveta -
* A z * 3 - ? w º º
aorpa Te Aguireroovra rā tº otpavos forreóðvørat,
While, both the Morning Star ('Ewoºpópos) and
the Evening Star ('Earépos) are named in the
Homeric poems (/l. xxii. 318, xxiii. 226 : cf.
Od. xiii. 93), where they are evidently regarded
as distinct from one another, and there is no
hint that they are unlike the other stars in
their nature. According to Apollodorus, in the
second book of his work IIepl 9eów, Pythagoras
(about B.C. 612) was the first who surmised that
*wo pópos and "Eatrepos were one and the same,
but by Favorinus the honour of this discovery
is ascribed to Parmenides. The latter certainly
looked upon this body, which he called both ‘Egos
and "Eatrepos, as altogether different in its
nature from the fixed stars, for he placed it in
his highest region, or aether; below it, but also
in the aether, was the sun, and below the sun,
in the fiery region (év tá, trupgåel) which he
calls oëpavös, were the fixed stars. Achilles
Tatius assigns the discovery to Ibycus (circ. B.C.
540). The term tr}\avīral seems, if we can
trust Plutarch and Stobaeus (Ecl. Phys. i. 24),
to have been recognised as early as the epoch of
Anaximander, according to whom the sun stood
highest in the universe; next below was the moon,
and then the fixed stars and the planets (Örö
8è airroès rê &txavī rôv šarpov kal robs
TAavāras). Empedocles supposed the fixed stars
to be imbedded in the crystalline sphere which,
according to his system, enveloped all things,
but the planets to be detached from it, thus
implying the necessity felt for some theory
which should account for their erratic course.
Democritus wrote a treatise IIepl rôv traavnróv,
among which he reckoned the sun, the moon,
and Poorq6pos, but, as yet, their number had
not been determined. This is expressly affirmed
by Seneca (Quaest. Nat. vii. 3), “Democritus
subtilissimus antiquorum omnium suspicari ait
se plures stellas esse quae currant; sed nec
numerum illarum posuit, nec nomina, nondum
comprehensis quinque siderum cursibus. Eu-
doxus ab Aegypto hos motus in Graeciam trans-
tulit.” But, although Eudoxus may have been
the first to communicate scientific details with
respect to the orbits and movements of the
planets, Philolaus, a Pythagorean, who flourished
more than a century earlier, was certainly ac-
quainted with the whole five, for he maintained
that there was a central fire around which the
ten heavenly bodies (6éka orduara 9eia) revolved.
Of these, the most remote from the centre was
oùpavés, that is, the sphere containing the fixed
stars, next in order were the planets, then the
sun, then the moon, then the earth, and, below
the earth, the Antichthon (āvrtzôov, see Arist.
de Caelo, ii. 13), thus completing the number
ten if we reckon the planets as five. In the
Timaeus of Plato (p. 38), the planets are men-
tioned specifically as five in number (#xios ka?
orexhvm ral révre &AAa &arpa ericany ºxovra
T^avnrá), and, in the same passage, we for the
first time meet with the name Hermes as con-
nected with one of these (‘Eoorqāpov & ral rov
ispbu. Epuot Aeyóuevov). It is not, however,
until we come down to the Epinomis (p. 987),
the work of some disciple of Plato, that the
whole five are enumerated, each with a distin-
guishing appellation derived from a god: row
toū Kpóvov, röv rod Atés, rov toº "Apeos, rov
tfis, 'Appoëtrms, rov roſ, ‘Eppot. In the tract
IIepl kóo wov, found among the writings of Aris-
totle, although probably not from his pen, we
are furnished with a second set of names
(p. 392a, 23)—patvov for the star of Kronus;
baé0ov, for that of Zeus; IIvpéets, for that of
Ares; poordópos, for that of Aphrodite; XríA8wv,
for that of Hermes: and these seem to have
been the ordinary designations employed by men
PLANETAE
PLAUSTRUM 433
of science. It is here stated also, that IIvpdets
was by some termed the star of Herakles, and
that XtíABøv was by some termed the star of
Apollo. Pliny gives additional variations, for in
his list they are catalogued as SIDUs SATURNI,
JOVIS, MARTIs s. HERCULIS, WENERISs. JUNONIS
s. ISIDIS s. MATRIS DEUM (Lucifer, Vesper),
MERCURI s. APOLLINIs; and these may be still
further increased from Achilles Tatius, the
grammarians and the lexicographers.
The Pythagoreans, regarding the earth as the
centre of the universe, assumed the place of the
five planets to be between that of the fixed stars
on the one hand, and the sun and moon on the
other, a doctrine followed by Plato (cf. Martin,
Timée de Platon, ii. p. 64), Eudoxus and Aris-
totle (cf. Proclus, in Tim. p. 257 F). Archi-
medes, however, employing a fuller knowledge
of mathematics (Macrob. in Somn. Scip, i. 19,
§ 2), assigned the following order:-1. Saturn;
2. Jupiter; 3. Mars; 4. The Sun; 5. Venus;
6. Mercury; 7. The Moon; and this order was
generally adopted, e.g. by Cicero (de Div. ii. 43,
91), Manilius (i. 803, 6), Pliny (H. N. ii. § 6),
&c. Macrobius says that the Pythagoreans
learnt their doctrine from the Egyptians, whereas
the latter was the view of the Chaldaeans (cf.
Lewis, p. 246 f.).
Saturnus was believed to perform a complete
revolution in thirty solar years, Jupiter in
twelve, calculations approaching very nearly to
the truth. The period of Mars was fixed at two
years, a , determination less accurate than the
two former, but not very wide of the truth.
As to Venus and Mercury, not even an approxi-
mation was made, for they were both believed
to perform their revolution in exactly or very
nearly the same time as the sun (cf. Cicero,
Somn. Scip. 4). Pliny, who affects great pre-
cision in this matter, fixes 348 days for Venus
and 339 days for Mercury, the true period being
nearly 225 days for the former, and about 88
days for the latter.
Saturnus being thus removed to a great dis-
tance from the source of heat was naturally
viewed as possessing a cold and icy character
(gelidae ac rigentis naturae ; frigida stella
Saturni); Mars, on the other hand, as of a hot
and fiery nature; while Jupiter, which lay be-
tween them, enjoyed a temperature made up by
the combination of the extremes. The astrologers
caught up these notions, and, uniting them with
the legends of mythology, adapted them to their
own purpose, uniformly representing the influ-
ence of Saturnus as malign, and that of Jupiter
as propitious.
“Haec tamen ignorat, quid sidus triste minetur
Saturni.”—(Juv. vi. 569.)
“Saturnumque gravem nostro Jove frangimus una.”
(Pers. v. 48.)
“Te Jovis impio
Tutela Saturno refulgens
Eripuit.”—(Hor. Carm. ii. 16, 22.)
It must be understood that, in the above re-
marks, we have confined ourselves entirely to
the popular motions which prevailed among the
ancients, without attempting to trace the pro-
gress of scientific observation, a subject which
belongs to a formal history of astronomy, but
does not fall within our limits. (Plut. de
Placitis Philos. ii. 14–16; Stob. Ecl. Phys. i. 23,
WOL. II.
§ 1 ; 25, § 1; Diog. Laert. viii. 14, ix. 23;
Arat. Phaen. 454; Gemini, Elementa Astron.
c. 1; Achill. Tat. Isag. ad Arat. Phaen. xvii.;
Lydus, de Mens. v., &c.; Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii.
20, 51–54, with Mayor's notes; Plin. H. N. ii. 6,
8; Tac. Hist, v. 4; Macrob. Somn. Scip. 4;
cf. Lewis, Astronomy of the Ancients, pp. 62,
144, 152,245, &c.) [W. R.] [A. S. W.]
PLANIPES. [MIMUs, p. 172.]
PLA'STICA. TſSTATUARIA.
PLAUSTRUM or PLOSTRUM, a cart or
Waggon. The plaustrum, strictly so called, was
a heavy two-wheeled cart (Isid. Or, xx. 12):
the four-wheeled waggon was properly dis-
tinguished as plaustrum majus (Cato, R. R. x. 2;
Varro, R. R. i. 20). The plaustrum was of
simple construction—a platform of boards, with
a strong pole projecting from it, fastened upon
the pair of wheels and axle. The blocks of
stone or other things to be carried were either
laid upon this platform without any other
support, or were secured by upright boards
forming sides to the platform (§reprepta, Hom.
Od. vi. 70; Plat. Theaet. p. 270 A), or open-
work rails (palae, Warr. L. L. v. 140); or a
large wicker basket was fastened on the platform
(Scirpéa, treipus). The annexed woodcut shows
a cart the body of which is supplied by a
basket.
gººses;
- --- sº
~2.22-rººf
Fº
L
as , , -- ~~
Plaustrum, from a Roman bas-relief. (Ginzrot.)
The wheels ordinarily had no spokes (non sunt
radiatae, Prob. ad Verg. Georg. i. 165), but were
solid, of the kind called tympana or “drums,”
nearly a foot in thickness, and made either by
sawing them whole from the trunk of a tree or
by nailing together boards of the requisite shapes
and size. These wheels were fastened to the
axle, which moved within wooden rings (arbuscu-
lae, šuašátroöes) attached to the under-side of the
platform (Vitruv. x. 20, 14; Warro, R. R. iii. 5;
Verg. Georg. ii. 444). Although these wheels
were excellent for the preservation of the roads,
they turned with a long circuit, and advanced
slowly and with a creaking sound (stridentia,
gementia, Verg. Georg. iii. 536, Aen. xi. 138).
They were drawn usually by oxen, but some-
times by mules (Oppian. Hal. v. 20). They
could, of course, upon a necessity, be used for
transporting people as well as goods, but we
are not to conclude from Liv. v. 40, that it was
constructed for that purpose, nor (as Ginzrot
does) that the plaustrum there mentioned dif-
fered from the ordinary kind. The plaustrum
majus, or four-wheeled waggon, had sometimes
solid wheels, sometimes spoked wheels, and some-
times also a body of open-work rails (palae), as
shown in the cut under AMPHORA, representing
part of a plaustrum majus carrying wine-skins.
The Greek áuača corresponded º to the
F



434 PLEBEII LUDI
PLEBES
plaustrum and the plaustrum majus. The four-
wheeled äuača is mentioned in Od. ix. 241;
Herod. i. 188: but the word also was used to
express a vehicle to convey people (Herod. i. 31,
&c.). . [HARMAMAXA.] Probably it had usually
four wheels, differing little from the ām‘āvm
[APENE], used for travelling (e.g. Diog. Laert.
viii. 73), for the use of the bride in weddings
(Poll. x. 33, &c.), in processions [DIONYSIA,
Vol. I. p. 639]. Baumeister (Denkm. Taf, Xc.)
shows boat-shaped Šuačai, which he conceives to
have been used at some time in processions.
(Ginzrot, Wagen, i. 166, 228; Guhl and Koner,
277; Marquardt, Privatleben, 732; Becker-Göll,
Charikles, ii. 16.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PLEBE'II LUDI. [LUDI PLEBEII.]
PLEBES or PLEBS, PLEBE/II. The
word plebes is formed from the same root as
appears in compleo, impleo, plenus, trañ60s, &c. It
properly signifies “the multitude,” “the com-
mon people,” as opposed to any eminent or
privileged classes. This, its natural sense, was
to a certain extent obscured (as in the case of
our own “Commons”) by the circumstance that
many of the noblest and most powerful men in
Rome belonged to the plebeian order, in its
technical sense of non-patrician : this order was
indeed in later days the whole state less two or
three score of families. Nevertheless the natural
sense of the word survives, as when Livy says
(xxxix. 17, 6) that certain of the Bacchanalian
ringleaders were “ex plebe Romana,” or when
Cicero speaks of Verres as “solitus virgis plebem
Romanam concidere’” (in Verr. i. 47, 122). Under
the Empire, after the functions of the plebs as a
political corporation had fallen into disuse, the
word was used very nearly in its etymological
sense of the poorer citizens who were qualified
to receive corn largesses (plebs frumentaria), as
when Augustus is said by Tacitus (Ann. i. 8) to
have bequeathed money “populo et plebi" (i.e.
partly to the state-chest, partly to the needy
citizens); and again more generally of the
common people in distinction from senators and
knights, as when Pliny (H. N. xxxiii. § 29) says,
“anuli distinxere alterum ordinem a plebe,”
and Horace (Ep. i. 1, 57), “Si quadringentis sex
septem millia desunt, Plebs eris.”
The , origin of such a multitude of non-
privileged citizens at Rome is wrapped in
obscurity. Our ancient authorities, on the one
hand, give us a plebs as coeval with Romulus,
and, on the other hand, represent it as consisting
wholly of the clients of the patricians. Now
the term plebs implies citizens, but citizens
excluded from a privileged class. It is therefore
not applicable to the days when the word
patricius actually meant what it says, and a
patricius alone was capable of becoming a pater-
familias. In those days the patricius was the
only citizen, because he alone could exercise the
rights of a father over his legitimate child, or
of a master over his property, and he alone was
recognised as having a standing in the Roman
law-courts. The client while he remains in his
original position, though he may be protected by
religion or custom from the actual treatment of
a slave, is not really a free man, but rather to
be assimilated to those informally emancipated
persons who in later times were said “domini
voluntate in libertate morati, et tantum metu
serviendi liberari" (from the “Consultatio
veteris Jurisconsulti,” quoted by Ortolan, Inst.
Just. ii. § 55).
The subsequent process is best described in
the words of Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. p. 66):
“Out of a condition destitute of rights there
was developed a capacity for rights, a guaranteed
freedom, which was recognised by the state and
its courts, ordinarily with the co-operation of
the patron, but which in the last resort was
enforced even against him. It was a legal status
which, though at every given moment definite,
seems as we look back on it continually in flux.
Even though we had fuller knowledge of it, we
could only characterise it as wavering between
two extremes, so that the element of servitude,
the clientship, is always waning; that of free-
dom, the plebeiate, always increasing ; until the
process ends with the conversion of the half-free
into the full freeman.” If we reckon up all the
legal capacities which the freeman possesses
while they are denied to the slave, the acquisi-
tion of each will serve to mark a possible stage
in this development. The freeman has a legal
right to property, whereas the slave holds a.
peculium merely on the sufferance of his lord.
A corollary to the possession of property is the
power to alienate it, and to make binding con-
tracts regarding it. The next step is a recog-
nised standing in the law-courts, the power to
sue and be sued in one's own person. On another
line we have the power to contract a legal
marriage; from this would follow the patria
potestas over the children born of such a mar-
riage, and from thence the agnatic relationship and
the rights of succession bound up with it. Next
comes the right and duty of serving in the
armies of the state, and probably in close con-
nexion with this the right to vote in the comitia.
Last of all we have the eligibility to office. It
is possible that, in spite of the hereditary nature
of clientship, these rights were acquired first of
all by clients who had been born in that station,
and that they were only afterwards claimed by
those who had been themselves released from
actual slavery or who had placed themselves as
homeless strangers under the protection of a
citizen. It is possible likewise, as Mommsen
suggests, that some of these privileges may
have been exercised first in fact, and only after-
wards have obtained formal recognition. In any
case it is difficult to draw the line, and to lay
down that here a man ceases to be a client and
becomes a free plebeian. Perhaps we may say,
that in the sphere of private rights the most
distinctive characteristic of independence is the
capacity to sue and be sued in one’s own person,
and that of public rights the most significant
indication of citizenship is that of voting as a
member of the sovereign populus. We have no
means of ascertaining when the descendants of
the clients attained to the first of these privi-
leges, but of the second we can say with con-
fidence that it was assured to them at least as
early as the era known by the name of Servius
Tullius, when the Comitia Centuriata with its
elaborate grades of military service was or-
ganised. The arrangement of the infantry, at
least, recognises no distinction in fighting or in
voting between patricians, plebeians, and clients.
Though the clients undoubtedly won their
way to the position of plebeians, it does not
follow that the clients were the only or the
PLEBES
PLEBES 435
most important element of the plebs. We find
in very early times two relationships established
amongst the kindred communities of Latium,
the jus commercii and the jus exulandi. The
first relates to the privileges mutually accorded
to the citizens of the contracting states, when
trading or temporarily sojourning in each other's
territory. The second grants the right of per-
manent settlement and transfer of civic alle-
giance to those who wish to renounce their old
state and to migrate to a new home (“solum
vertere exilii causa’’). The legal position of
such an eacul after his transfer of domicile is a
matter of dispute, and the question will best be
considered in connexion with the privileges
enjoyed by such persons before their migration.
A Praenestine, while he remains a Praenestine,
has the full right of commercium with Rome.
This right is explained by the clause in the
second Treaty of Rome with Carthage (Polyb.
iii. 24, 12), regarding the Romans who go to
trade in Sicily: travra kal troteſta, kal iroxetra,
ãora kal rô troAfrn ééeorriv. čarađºra's 63 kal 6
Kapxmöövlos trouetta év Páum. The privileged
foreigner then has the same right to acquire
property and the same standing in the law-
Courts as a citizen. He is thus in a different
position from the hostis in the old sense of the
word (Warr. L. L. v. § 3), “peregrinus qui suis
legibus uteretur.” The latter has a status only
under the laws of his own country, which of
course are not enforceable at Rome (see, how-
ever, the contrary view in Mommsen, Röm.
Forsch. i. p. 349): he is incapable of using
Roman law, and if he is wronged can sue only
in the name of some citizen. He must secure
this representation either by entering into an
‘equal contract of hospitality with a Roman, in
case he can promise him in turn similar assist-
ance in his own home, or else by subjecting
himself to the protection of the Roman, if he
be a homeless outcast (see Mommsen, Röm.
Forsch. i. p. 357). From any such necessities
the privileged foreigner who has an independent
standing in the Roman law-courts is free. Now
let us suppose that our Praenestine by virtue of
his jus commercii has acquired land in Roman
territory, which he can hold, alienate by Roman
Tmethods, and defend in his own person in a
lawsuit. Suppose next that the Praenestine
afterwards finds it convenient to exercise his
jus eacwlandi, to renounce his connexion with
Praeneste, and to settle in Rome. Are we to
believe that he thereby forfeits all his previous
rights? Mommsen answers the question in the
affirmative (Staatsr. iii. p. 58). The rights, he
contends, belonged to the man as a guest of the
community, and “a domiciled guest is an ab-
surdity.” What the jus exulandi, he argues
above (p. 50, n. 1), guarantees to the fugitive is
not the full citizenship, but protection. This
may be true in the sense that political as distinct
from private rights would not necessarily accrue
to the exul; but it seems difficult to uphold
that the granting of protection consisted in the
withdrawal of the privileges which he had pre-
viously possessed. Mommsen holds (ib. p. 64)
that every such eaſul would be obliged to put
himself under the protection of a Roman citizen
as his client. He defends this view (ib. p. 57)
by the well-known passage from Cicero, de Or.
i. 39, 177: “quid quod item in centumvirali
judicio certatum esse accepimus, qui Romam in
exilium venisset, cui Romae exulare jus esset, si
se ad aliquem quasi patronum applicavisset,
intestatoque esset mortuus . . . . nonne in ea
causa jus applicationis,” &c. Now this passage
shows that applicatio was possible for an earul,
not that it was obligatory. “Si se applica-
visset ’’ is put parallel to the death without a
will, as something which might, not which must
occur, and the phrase “quasi-patronum ” seems
to indicate something irregular in the transac-
tion. It is probable that the legal controversy
in this case turned on the inconsistency between
eaſilium and applicatio, and that it was this
which made the patron's claim to the inherit-
ance doubtful. As the deceased had the jus
exulandi, which guaranteed him the rights of a
freeman in Rome, was not his act in placing
himself in the quasi-servile position of a client
void ab initio? or, on the other hand, was his
voluntary applicatio to be taken as a valid
renunciation of his rights as an exul ? Cicero
does not inform us what was the answer.
If Mommsen's view be correct, the erules
would merely swell the numbers of the clients:
if the opposite theory be maintained, we have
here an independent and more honourable source
for the plebs. While the mass of fugitives who
come from whence no man knew, would arrive
in Rome without rights, and could gain pro-
tection only by subjecting themselves to a
citizen, those who were openly exercising the
jus exulandi, secured to them by the common
law of Latium, would be under no such neces-
sity. They might set up at once as patres-
familias on their own account, and we must
consider them as from the first citizens, though
citizens of an inferior order. It is obvious that
the existence of such a class, distinct from and
yet personally independent of the ruling citizens,
would render more easy the acquisition of a
similar status by the clients of the latter.
The same question occurs with regard to the
people of conquered towns deported to Rome.
One of the best attested facts of the Regal
period is the destruction of Alba and the
transfer of its inhabitants to Rome. Mommsen
believes (Staatsr. iii. pp. 57 and 67) that in
such cases the new comers would necessarily
undergo an applicatio to some Roman citizen
of their choice. This seems hardly probable.
The existence of such families as that of the
Julii shows that some Albans were, as Livy
(i. 28, 7) says, admitted to the patriciate, and it
is difficult to believe that the civitas which he
ascribes to the rest was nothing more than the
choice of a master.
Closely connected with the question, whether
the original plebeians were all clients, is the
question whether a plebeian can be a gentilis.
According to Scaevola's definition (Cic. Top.
6, 29), the descendant of a slave (or client),
though he may belong to a gens and so have
gentiles, can never himself be a gentilis: he is
excluded by the clause “quorum majorum nemo
servitutem serviret" (see Ortolan, Inst. Just.
iii. § 1038). But Scaevola's definition says
nothing about the patriciate as a qualification
for gentilitas. Many of the later plebeian
families could trace a descent in which there
was no taint of servile blood. Marius could
never (according to the definition) * to
2 F
436 PLEBES
PLEBES
gentilitas, because his family had been clients of
the Herennii (Plut. Marius, 5); but there is no
reason why Cicero (who claimed to spring from
a Volscian royal family) should not have been a
gentilis. We have the undoubted cases of the
plebeian Minucii, who had a right to gentile
inheritances (Cic. in Verr. i. 45, 115), and of
the plebeian Popillii, who supplied the leading
case (Cic. de Leg. ii. 22, 55) in the law of gentile
sepulchre. There seems no reason to follow
Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. pp. 66 and 74) in ascrib-
ing only a quasi-gentilitas to these plebeian
houses, and in asserting that they had only a
stirps and not a real gens of their own. If the
view maintained above as to eacilium be correct,
the descendants of the first eacul would satisfy
every point of Scaevola's definition. They
would therefore have a gens of their own; and
if their house ever came in turn to have its own
freedmen and clients, its pure-born members
would be gentiles to the descendants of these,
and have rights of succession and guardianship
over them. The same would be the case with
those patricians who had renounced their birth-
right and had been admitted as members of the
plebeian order (see below). When Livy (x. 8, 9)
makes Decius Mus say, “Semper ista audita
sunt eaden . . . . vos solos gentem habere,” he is
not to be taken as admitting the claim, but
rather as illustrating the insolence of the
patricians, who spoke as, if all the plebeians
were their clients and ignored the more respect-
able origin which belonged to many of them.
The famous lawsuit mentioned in Cicero, de Or.
i. 39, 176, “Quum Marcelli ab liberti filio stirpe,
Claudii patricii ejusdem hominis hereditatem
gente ad se rediisse dicerent,” illustrates an
exception which proves the rule. When there
was a patrician and a plebeian family of the
same name, it seems to have been the legal
presumption that the latter had once been the
clients of the former. The Claudii Marcelli had
of course long ago extinguished their clientship
by attaining to curule office (Plut. Marius, 5),
but the original taint in their blood precluded
the possibility of their ever being gentiles. It
is obvious from Cicero’s statement that the
Marcelli lodged no claim to succeed patronatus
jure, as they would undoubtedly have done had
the deceased been their freedman. The right of
the patron to inherit extended in the later
Republic only over the actual freedman or
applicant, not over his descendants (see Ortolan,
op. cit. iii. § 1045). The inheritance of the son
of a freedman would therefore be determined by
the legitima successio of the Twelve Tables, which
provided, “si agnatus nec sit gentiles familiam
habento.” The patrician Claudii were clearly
the only persons who could claim gente, but the
Marcelli seem to have maintained that, when
they attained to independence of their patrician
namesakes, they founded a stirps which had
rights of inheritance similar to those of the gens
over the descendants of their own clients. It is
not known whether the patricians in this case
made good their claim ; but even if they did, it
would prove nothing against the gentilitas of
plebeians in whose case no ancestral clientship
could be established.
It was probably owing to the admixture of
servile blood in their order, that the plebeians
were so long debarred from the right of inter-
marriage with the patricians. The prohibition
of conubium is first mentioned as part of the
law of the Twelve Tables; but there can be no.
doubt that this law only formulated and con-
firmed a more ancient disqualification. Marriage
between the orders was soon afterwards legalised
by the Lex Canuleia of B.C. 445.
The struggle of the plebeians for admission to
the magistracies of the Roman People occupies a
large portion of the internal history for the
first two centuries of the Republic. The quaes-
torship was held for the first time by a plebeian
in B.C. 409, the consulship in B.C. 366, the
dictatorship in B.C. 356, the censorship in B.C.
351, and the praetorship in B.C. 337. The
priestly colleges were not opened to plebeians
till B.C. 300. From that time onwards, though
certain disqualifications survived on the one
side and on the other [see PATRICII], the
members of the two orders were on a footing of
practical equality, and the distinction between
them remained only as an historical reminiscence
with the smallest possible effect upon practical
politics.
But in the meantime the plebeians had
formed themselves (on their secession to the
Mons Sacer in B.C. 494) into an exclusive order,
with magistrates and assemblies and powers of
corporate action of their own. From that time
to the end of the Republic plebs generally means
not so much the vague and lowly multitude as
this clearly defined body, which comprised
families as honourable and powerful, though not
as ancient, as those of the purest patrician stock.
The constitution and political powers of the
plebs in its corporate capacity will be more
conveniently discussed in the articles PLEBI-
SCITUM and POPULUS. Here it will be sufficient
to say a few words on the qualifications for
membership.
Every Roman who was not a patrician be-
longed to this order, so that, unlike the patri-
ciate, the plebeiate was constantly being re-
cruited. All newly-made citizens, whether
they had formerly been slaves or foreigners,
passed at once and without any special act of
admission into this body. A person born a
patrician became a plebeian if he underwent the
“minima capitis deminutio’” by being dismissed
from his ancestral house by emancipatio. The
same result would of course occur if he became
by adoption the son of a plebeian. But besides
these indirect methods of transfer, the plebeians
had (unlike the patricians) a corporate assembly
of their own, and so were able to admit new
members by their own act. This is the process
properly called “transitio ad plebem,” by which
a patrician renounces his old order and sues for
admission to a new one. It is best described by
Zonaras (vii. 15), ei Šá ris to rot, yāvows &étopia
ēśwaôorato kal trpos rºv rod TAñ6ous uéréatm
vöutoiv, &opévos airby irpooreščxoviro. Kal
ovXvol rôv orgööpa eitrarpiðáv &tetravro thw
eū-yévetav šport roß werya Suvm.07val kal éðmudp-
xmorav. As far as can be gathered from the
somewhat obscure notices, Clodius at first
attempted to become a plebeian in this way;
but finding opposition too powerful, he after-
wards effected his object by the machinery of
adoption. Some genealogists of the time of
Augustus invented for the plebeian Octavii a
history of this sort, which the emperor himself
PLEBISCITUM
PLEBISCITUM 437
was sensible enough to ignore; see Suet. Aug. 2:
“Ea gens a Tarquinio Prisco rege inter minores
gentis adlecta in senatum, mox a Servio Tullio
in patricias traducta, procedente tempore ad
plebem se contulit.”
(The best modern authorities on the points
discussed in this article are Mommsen, Römische
Forschungen, vol. i., and Staatsrecht, vol. iii.;
and Ortolan, Explication historique des Instituts
de l’Empereur Justinien. The principal refer-
ences have been given passim.) [J. L. S. D.]
PLEBISCI'TUM is the name for the decrees
passed by the corporation of the plebs in answer
to the rogatio of one of their own magistrates.
When in later times these decrees acquired the
force of law, the term lea, was likewise applied
to them: so we have repeatedly in the Agrarian
Law of B.C. 111 (C. I. L. i. p. 175), “ex lege
plebive scito quod C. Sempronius Ti. f. tr. pl.
rog.” But, though sanctioned by official usage,
this identification was always recognised as not
strictly correct: “ne leges quidem proprie sed
plebiscita appellantur, quae tribunis plebis feren-
tibus accepta sunt” (Laelius Felix in Aul. Gell.
xv. 27).
The plebs as a self-governing, corporation
asserted from the first the power to pass decrees
binding on all its members: “evenit ut plebs in
discordiam cum patribus perveniret et secederet
sibique jura constitueret, quae jura plebiscita
vocantur” (Pomponius in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 8). The
most important of these were the leges sacratae
by which the plebeians affirmed the Sacrosanc-
titas of their officers, and bound themselves
every man to avenge instantly any outrage
directed against them. Another clause of the
same shows that the plebeians claimed from
the first a recognition from the whole state that
obedience to these rules must override the
ordinary course of law: “Nam lege tribunicia
prima cavetur “Si quis eum qui eo plebiscito
sacer sit, occiderit, parricida ne sit.’” (Festus,
p. 318, s. v. Sacer.) These ordinances were
held to have binding force down to the last days
of the Republic, for Cicero (post Red. in Sen. 13,
33) complains that Clodius and he were not
fighting on equal terms: “tribuniciique san-
guinis ultores esse praesentes, meae mortis
poenas judicio et posteritati reservari.” The
plebeians also claimed to be judges in their own
quarrels and to direct the vengeance of their
order against its enemies. The story of Corio-
lanus represents the tribunes as attempting at
first to try him for his life before the plebeian
assembly, and there are several instances later
on where consuls who have opposed its interests
are fined by the plebs after they go out of office
(Liv. ii. 52, 54, 61 ; v. 12). All such matters
may be held to come within the somewhat
elastic category of self-regarding acts, and in
the earliest times the plebs seems not to have
gone beyond this, and never to have claimed the
right to legislate in matters relating to the
whole nation.
The history of the later Roman republic pre-
sents us with a widely different picture. We
find that by the time of the Punic wars the
whole power of sovereignty has been delegated
to the plebeian assembly. Side by side with the
old sovereign, the populus, a new sovereign, the
plebs, exercises in its exclusive concilium, under
its own magistrates and with its own forms of
procedure, precisely the same powers of legisla-
tion as the first : “et ite factum est ut inter
plebiscita et legem species constituendi inter-
esset, potestas autem eagem esset ’’ (Pomponius,
ib.). All the legal writers, our best authorities
on such a point, ascribe the delegation of these
enormous powers to a law of the dictator Hor-
tensius, B.C. 287, “pro legibus placuit et ea
observari lege Hortensia” (Pomponius, ib.), and
“lex Hortensia lata est, qua cautum est ut
plebiscita universum populum teneret, itaque
eo modo legibus exaequatu sunt " (Gaius, Inst.
i. 3).
The difficulty is that Livy gives us, beside the
Hortensian law, two previous enactments to
precisely the same effect, “ut plebiscita omnes
Quirites tenerent,” or “ut quod tributim plebs
jussisset populum teneret” (Liv. iii. 55, viii. 12).
These are attributed to the consuls Valerius and
Horatius, B.C. 449, and to the dictator Publilius
Philo, B.C. 339.
Mommsen (Röm. Forsch. vol. i. p. 211) has
sufficiently disposed of the theory that the
decrees of the plebs were equal to those of the
populus from the consulship of Valerius and
Horatius onwards, and that the Lex Publilia and
the Lex Hortensia were mere re-enactments of
the ordinance of B.C. 449. Mommsen's own
conjecture is that the laws of B.C. 449 and of
B.C. 339 should be struck out of the history or
plebiscita altogether: he thinks that they really
referred to the “comitia populi tributa,” and
were applied to the plebs by a mere blunder of
Livy [see COMITIA]. This hypothesis seems very
hazardous. Such a blunder on Livy’s part is
not indeed impossible, but there is not a particle
of evidence that he was actually guilty of it.
Apart from the respect due to the ancient
authority, we should expect from the nature of
the case to find successive enactments on this
subject, and to see some share in legislation for
the community allowed to the plebs under
checks and conditions, before it attained the
unlimited power conferred by the Lex Hortensia.
This opinion is confirmed by a glance at the
history. We find numerous laws called by the
names of the tribunes who proposed them
(which they could only do of course in a ple-
beian assembly) which nevertheless relate to
matters obviously of national concern. Such,
to take a single instance, was the proposal to
remove the habitation of the Roman people to
Weii. Most of these laws fall in the century
between the Valerio-Horatian and the Publilian
Law (B.C. 449–339); but two—the Terentilian
proposal de legibus conscribendis, which led to
the codifying of the Roman law in the Twelve
Tables, and the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando
—are previous to the earliest of our three
epochs. The protracted contests over these laws
seem, however, to point to some power possessed
by the patricians of checking and limiting the
force of the decrees which originated with the
tribunes.
The “answer to the riddle * is to be found,
according to Mommsen (Röm. Forsch. i. 211), in
the words in which Appian describes Sulla's law
about the powers of the tribunes (Bell. Civ. i.
59): eiomyojvro uměv črt ärpoéoùevrov is toº
Shaow égipépegºat, vevoutguévov učv offre ka?
tráAat trapaxexvuévov 3’ &K troAAoû. He takes
this to mean that, in forbidding for the future
438 PLEBISCITUM
PLEBISCITUM
any measures to be brought before the plebs
without consent of the senate, Sulla revived a
definite law which had existed in early times;
that is to say, before the dictatorship of Hor-
...tensius. “It is probable,” says Mommsen
(Staatsr. iii. p. 157), “that (we know not when,
but some time previous to the law of the
Twelve Tables) it was enacted by a decree of
the populus analogous to that afterwards car-
Tied by Hortensius, that a bill brought before
the plebs with the assent of the senate, if
accepted by the former, bound the whole body
of the citizens just as if the populus had com-
manded it in its comitia.” This view is accepted
by Soltau, and with some modifications by
Willems and Borgeaud. It seems, however, to
rest on a very slight foundation. The historical
reference in the passage of Appian (vewouloručvor
pºv oita kal tróAal, &c.) applies more naturally,
not to the days of the early Republic, but to
the century of the Punic wars. During this
period the senate had asserted, not by positive
enactments, but by indirect means, a customary
and constitutional right to be consulted before
any magistrate proposed a measure for the
acceptance of the popular assemblies. For
generations this claim was enforced by means of
the tribunician veto; but Sulla had been taught
by the record of Gracchus, of Saturninus, and
of Sulpicius, that the employment of the veto
was an insufficient sanction. It had repeatedly
failed to guard this most necessary prerogative
of the senate against the attacks of a popular
tribune. Sulla therefore naturally wished to
establish the constitutional claim of the senate
on the firmer basis of definite enactment. Ap-
pian’s reference to an ancient precedent being
thus abundantly justified by the usage of which
we have ample independent evidence, it seems
wrong to invent for its explanation a supposed
legal right otherwise unknown to us. The
silence of Cicero in the passage of the de Legibus
(iii. 11, 26) in which he criticises the tribunician
power, is a strong negative argument against
the existence of any such legal right of the
senate over plebiscita. . .
Nor does the assumption of the modern his-
torians seem to be necessary in order to explain
the historical development of plebeian legisla-
tion. The known powers of the sovereign
populus, of its officers the consuls, and of their
advisers the senate, supply sufficient material
for a probable answer to the question how the
legislative capacity of the plebs may have been
gradually established.
A record of the process of tribunician legis-
lation in early times has fortunately been
preserved to us in a single case, in which
Dionysius has followed the account derived by
him from an ancient document. The case is
that of the Lex Icilia de Aventino publicando
(B.C. 456), which was preserved on a brazen
column in the temple of Diana on the Aventine.
“Icilius,” says Dionysius (x. 31), “approached
the consuls then in office and the senate, and
requested them to pass the preliminary decree
for the law that he proposed, and to bring it
before the people.” By threatening to arrest
the consuls he compelled them to assemble the
senate, and Icilius addressed it on behalf of his
bill. Finally the senate consented; #60;e
3.869at rô Shug, rov rátrov (Dionys. x. 32).
Then, after auspices and sacrifices, “the law
was passed by the Comitia Centuriata which
were convened by the consuls.” Where, then,
does the vote of the plebs come in 2 It is not
mentioned by Dionysius, nor is there any place
for it in the proceedings after Icilius has ap-
proached the consuls. It seems to follow that
it must be placed at the very beginning before
the detail of Dionysius’ story begins. Icilius
must have been armed already with the petition
of the plebs when he demanded to plead their
cause before the senate.
In this order of proceedings, the formal
legislative power lies solely with the populus
Romanus. The vote of the corporation of the
plebs is not then in early times a legislative act
at all. It is merely a strong and formal petition,
an appeal to the sovereign assembly to grant
their request. But this sovereign assembly can
be convened and the question put to it only by
a consul. The consul may refuse to put any
such bill to the vote, or even so much as to
entertain the question as an open one, by taking
the opinion of his authorised advisers, the
senate, as to how he ought to act. Thus the
consultation of the senate, not as a legally
necessary preliminary, but as a means of stimu-
lating the official action of the consul, becomes
a point on which the reformers are bound to
insist; and to bring it about the tribunes must
use their powers of compulsion over the consul.
After the matter has been thus forced on the
consideration of the Senate, an adverse vote in
that body would of course justify the consuls in
their resistance, and the delay might be pro-
longed until the plebeians were reduced to their
last resort, the threat of secession. In practice
the senate commonly yields before this crisis
is reached. The petition of the plebs is backed
by the recommendation of the senate ; and the
consuls, though under no legal obligation, can-
not, without grave responsibility, now refuse to
put the question to the populus. By this time
the controversy has been long ago threshed out.
All the powers which the nobles could bring to
bear against the carrying of the proposal in a
popular assembly, whether by tribunician inter-
cession, or by alarms of war, or by violent
interference, or by their own influence with the
voters (Liv. v. 30), would naturally have been
exhausted at an earlier stage of the proceeding
while the proposal was still before the plebeian
assembly. No instance is recorded of the
sovereign populus negativing a bill so brought
before it. -
The chief objection to our accepting this as
the order of proceeding is that Livy seems some-
times (cf. iv. 1, 6 with 3, 4) to represent the
conflict over the tribunician bills, the negotia-
tions with the senate, and the compromises
frequently arrived at, as all matters which
occurred before the voting of the plebs. It
may be replied that in Liv. v. 30 we have a
proposal, which had certainly not received the
sanction of the senate, actually brought to the
vote of the plebs and rejected by them ; in
another case (iv. 49) the refusal of the senate to
approve a measure gains effect only by means of
the intercessio of a tribune. It may also be
urged that Dionysius repeatedly speaks of the
efforts made to induce the senate trpošovaeboat
Töv vöuov (x. 26, 48, 52; xi. 54, 59, 60), and
PLEBISCITUM
PLUTEUS 439
that he cannot be understood to mean that such
a trpoBoöAevua was to be followed by a vote in
the plebeian assembly, because he has clearly
laid down (ix. 41) that no rpoSoſſaevua was
necessary for that assembly as organised by
Publilius Volero in B.C. 471. The truer answer,
however, probably is that neither Livy nor
Dionysius really intend to commit themselves
at all definitely regarding the legal procedure.
They seem rather to desire to reproduce as far
as possible in their picture of these early con-
tests a copy of the dissensions between optimates
and populares which vexed the later Republic.
This tendency may have led them somewhat to
mix up the order of events, and so to leave it
doubtful whether the vote of the plebs was,
or was not, in the earlier time final and con-
clusive. Yº-
If the process of legislation before the age of
the decemvirs were really such as has been
sketched in the preceding paragraphs, it is not
difficult to see that it might be assisted by a.
series of laws which rendered one or other of its
stages more easy. Any of these laws might be
roughly described as giving legislative power to
the plebs. What precise obstacles were removed
by each law can only be conjecturally deter-
mined. We may perhaps say that the mere
right of petitioning required no legal sanction,
and that the powers of the tribunate were
sufficient (as the story of Icilius makes them) to
force the consuls to advise with the senate
about the petition. Possibly the law of Valerius
and Horatius formally recognised this position,
and laid down that the consul must so consult
the senate, or it may even have forbidden him
arbitrarily to disregard a recommendation of
the senate (should such be obtained) that he
should put the question to the populus. It is a
reasonable conjecture likewise that the law of
Publilius Philo (B.C. 339) may have struck out
the intervening consultation of the senate, and
may have required the consul to bring the
petition of the plebs at once before the populus.
If such were the tenor of the Publilian law, it
would be only a very slight inaccuracy to
describe it as conferring legislative power on
the plebs. The majority in the two assemblies
being substantially the same persons, the
reference to the one of a proposal already
affirmed by the other would be little more than
the repetition of a foregone conclusion. The
Hortensian law, which formally transferred the
sovereign power to the plebs, would thus be
a change greater de jure than de facto. In
formal law it was a mighty revolution. It was
natural and even necessary that the jurists
should refer to this law as the source of the
legislative power of the plebs. On the other
hand, historians and politicians might with equal
reason refer the change to the time when it
practically took place—to the time, that is,
when a vote of the plebs really decided the
fate of a measure beyond the possibility of
effective appeal. This power, if the theory
here put forward be correct, was placed within
the reach of the plebeians by the law of Valerius
and Horatius, and was fully secured to them by
the law of Publilius Philo.
(The view of plebiscita maintained in this
article is more fully explained in the English
Historical Review, Nos. 2 and 19. The question
is fully discussed in Mommsen's Römische For-
Schwngen, vol. i., and in the Staatsrecht, vol. iii.
It has been the subject of special treatises by
Soltau, Gültigkeit der Plebiscite, and by Borgeaud,
Histoire du Plébiscite.) [J. L. S. D.]
PLECTRUM. [LYRA.]
rºochose [ELEUSINIA,
p. 720.
PLETHRON. [MENSURA, p. 162.]
PLINTHUS(txiv60s), a brick or tileſ LATER.],
or a squared stone for building; so of the marble
blocks for the walls of the Erechtheum (C. I. G.
160, l.. 10). The word is especially used by
Vitruvius (also plinthis) and in modern archi-
tectural works, to denote the square block that
sometimes forms the lower member of the base
in the Ionic and Corinthian orders. In the best
known Attic instances of the Ionic order no
plinth exists. See SPIRA, COLUMNA. [E. A. G.]
PLUMA'RII were understood by Becker
(whom Göll now corrects) to be persons who
made stuffs of feather embroidery, presumably
like those for which the Aztecs were famous:
but Marquardt has shown that the opus plumatum
or opus plumarium, which these workers made,
was embroidery of needlework in plain stitch as
opposed to the embroidery of the Phrygiones,
which was in cross stitch. In the opus plumatum
the stitches were laid lengthwise, so that they
seemed to overlap one another, like the feathers
in the plumage of a bird: it might therefore be
translated “feather-stitch work ’’ (Rock, Textile
Fabrics, 116). An analogous use of pluma
appears in Verg. Aen. xi. 770, of the lorica
“in plumam squamis auro conserta.” The idea of
Georges (Philolog. xxxii. 530) that it was woven
work is founded on certain passages where the
words tecere, teatrina are used loosely, and is
disproved by an edict of Diocletian (xvi. 38),
where the plumarius works at stuffs already
woven, obviously embroidering them by hand.
The work is mentioned first by Varro (ap. Non.
p. 162, 27): it was often, though not necessarily,
in gold thread, as “pars auro plumata” (Lucan,
Phars. x. 125; cf. Procop. Just. iii. 1, p. 53).
The plumarii (trouxtaths by Aéryouev traowudpuov,
Schol. ad Aeschin. Tim. § 97) are mentioned in
many inscriptions (C. I. L. vi. 98.13, &c.). (Mar-
quardt, Privatleben, p. 538; Blümmer, Techno-
logie, vol. i. p. 210; Becker-Göll, Charikles,
vol. ii. p. 338.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PLUMBUM ALBUM, PLUMBUM NI-
GRUM. [METALLUM, p. 168 a.]
PLU'TEUS signified in general any kind of
upright, unroofed protection or shelter, and was
hence used in the following special significations.
1. A fixed breastwork, whether of planking or
of wicker work, and sometimes covered with
hides to prevent it from catching fire. These
breastworks, mantlets, or blinds were used to
shelter combatants onboardship (= trapappijpara),
Caes. Bell. Civ. iii. 24: on towers, where they
sheltered the soldiers in the various tabulata, or
stories, the battlements or shelter on the top
being, strictly, pinnae (Caes. B. G. vii. 25): on
ramparts, as in Caes. B. G. vii. 41 and 72. In
the latter passage the plutei include the whole
breastwork of loricae and pinnae and the vallum
behind them, the whole shelter in fact placed on
the agger, and the commissurae pluteorum are
the points where this work of wood and wattles
rose from the earthen agger. 2. A movable
Wol. I.
440 PLYNTERIA
POENA
shelter for the besiegers, distinguished from the
cineae and musculi by being unroofed (Liv. xxi.
61, xxxiv. 17; Fest. s. v.; Ammian. xxi. 11;
Isid. Or. xviii. 18). It is particularly described
in Veget. iv. 15, as being semicircular (in the
form of an apse), of wicker work covered with
hides, and with three wheels, one in the fore-
part or middle of the curve, and two at the
extremities: it was thus rolled towards the
walls, the working party advancing under its
cover (cf. Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii. 530).
3. The board at the side of a bed [IECTUS, p. 18].
4. Some kind of shelf for holding busts and
other ornaments (Juv. ii. 7), or books (Sidon.
Apoll. Ep. ii. 9): it probably had a high
ledge to prevent the article placed there from
falling off, and so gained its name. Some
refer the “pluteum caedit ’’ of Pers. i. 106 to a
bookshelf or a desk, but it is probably merely
the ordinary pluteus of the reading couch
[LECTUS, p. 19). 5. A low wall like a breast-
work, closing up spaces between columns (Vitruv.
iv. 4). “[W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PLYNTERIA (travvržipta), a festival cele-
brated at Athens in the month Thargelion, in
honour of Athena (Phot, s. v. KaNAuvrápua : Plut.
Alcib. 34; Harpocr., Suid. s. v.). Dodwell (de
Cyclis, p. 349) gives the 22nd of the month as
the day: A. Mommsen, with more probability,
takes the ékºrn pôtvovros of Plutarch to mean
that the 25th was the great day of a festival
which lasted several days, probably from the
21st to the 25th, as the 20th was the torch-race
of Bendis. (He conjectures a date about three
weeks earlier, at the rising of the Pleiads, for
the prehistoric Plynteria, as a festival for the
beginning of the corn harvest: Heort. p. 11.)
The festival, traditionally connected with the
death of Agraulos, who had during her life
performed these duties for the goddess, was
really a rite partly of purification, partly of
expiation, at the beginning of the harvest, to
propitiate the favour of the goddess. The
temple (Erechtheum) was shut off by a rope
(Poll. viii. 141, reptorxoivía'at), to guard it from
profane entrance; the sacred image of Athena
Polias (ro traMatov 8péras or &yaxaa, to 3pxalov
§50s, Müller, Eum. p. 171) was stripped, the
Trpaštepytöal taking off the helmet and spear
(Hesych. s. v.), and the two female attendants
called Aoutpíðes or travvrpíðes (Phot.) removing
the dress (trétraos), which it was their duty to
wash, and covering over the statue in the mean-
time (cf. Plut. Alcib. 34, where the trpaştep-
'yūai have the general direction of the whole
ceremony). The image itself was bathed,—some
think within the Erechtheum, others at the
fountain of Callirrhoe—but against this we have
the statements of Suidas (s. v. voudſpäxakes), who
says that the nomophylaces arranged the pro-
cession &re coutgoiro to $6avov čari Tºv 6&Aaorgav,
of Xenophon (Hell. i. 4, 12), and of an inscrip-
tion (Ephem. 4098) cited by Mommsen, which
gives Phalerum as the place. The statue and
the clothes were taken in a chariot attended by
the priests and priestesses and followed by
ephebi and the general crowd: late in the
evening it was brought back by torchlight. In
the procession strings of figs were carried
(raxá0m hymrmpía or #ymtopſa), which may
merely symbolise fruitfulness, or may, as Momm-
sen thinks, have also a more mystical reference
to an ancient sacrifice of maidens to Athena, as
in the Thargelia the victims were garlanded
with figs. The pedestal of the image was
washed by a karavitrns (Etym. Mag.). We
hear also of a TAvvrhpia at Paros (C. I. 2265);
and we may compare also the Argive Aoutpā
IIaMAá60s in the Inachus, described by Callima-
chus, and the later Roman ceremony of the
Megalesia. The day of the procession at Athens
was one of the juépat &roppéðes (dies néfasti), on
which no legal business could be done, as though
the city were on that day without its protecting
deity. (A. Mommsen, Heort. 436 f.; Preller, Gr.
Myth. i. 166.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PNYX. [ECCLESIA.]
PO'CULUM. [CALIX.]
PO'DIUM is the name given to the continuous
base that forms the lower part of a wall or
building. Thus it is used for the side of the
substructure on which a temple is raised (Vitruv.
iii. 3), for the marble panelling or “dado” round
the lower part of a wall (Vitruv. vii. 4; Plin.
Ep. v. 6, 22), for the lower part of the scena-wall
in a theatre, on which columns rested (Vitruv,
v. 7), or for the wall surrounding the arena in an
amphitheatre, and forming a basis for the seats of
the spectators [AMPHITHEATRUMl. [E. A. G.]
POENA. The original sense of this word,
which is derived from the Greek trouvh (Curtius,
Gr. Etym. No. 373), seems to have been composi-
tion paid by a delinquent to the party injured
by him, or to his kinsmen, in order to escape
vengeance (Dig. 50, 16, 131 pr., “poena est
noxae vindicta; ” cf. the expressions “poenas
solvere, pendere’”). (Rubino, Untersuchungen
iiber röm. Perfassung, p. 460; Ihering, Geist. d.
R. R. i. 126.) When crimes came to be visited
with punishment by the state, the word poena
meant a penalty or punishment threatened by
the law on account of offences, whether such
penalty was exacted at the suit of the injured
party, as in the case of theft, or was a con-
sequence of a judicium publicum.
The conception of poena differs from that of
multa, as Ulpian exclaims in a well-known pas-
sage of the Digest (Dig. 50, 16, 131, § 1). Multa
or mulcta was a pecuniary penalty (“cujus ani-
madversio hodie pecuniaria est”), though by
the law of the Twelve Tables it had been
pecuaria or a certain number of oxen and sheep.
(Plin. H. N. xviii. § 12; Festus, s. v.v. Multam,
Peculatus.) It was one of the modes of punish-
ment by which the higher magistrates enforced
their supreme executive authority, but the
right of imposing a multa on offenders was
extended to inferior magistrates, and in Ulpian’s
time belonged to every person who was invested
with judicial power in civil or administrative
matters, such as municipal magistrates and
praesides provinciarum (“item multam is dicere
potest, cui judicatio data est”). A multa was
imposed according to the discretion of the magi-
strate, and its amount was determined by the
pleasure of him who imposed it, unless, a
maximum amount was fixed by law. On the
other hand, a poena was only inflicted when it
was imposed by some lex or some other legal
authority (quo alio jure). (Cf. Paulus in Dig.
50, 16, 244 (Labeo) : “Si qua poena est, multa
est; si qua multa est, poena est.” (Paulus):
“Utrumque eorum falsum est; namdue harum
rerum dissimilitudo ex hoc quoque apparet,
POLEMARCHUS
POLEMARCHUS 441
quod de poena provocatio non est. Ex hoc quo-
que earum rerum dissimilitudo apparere poterit,
quia poenae certae singulorum peccatorum sunt,
multae contra, quia ejus judicis potestas est,
quantum dicat, nisi cum lege est constitutum
quantum dicat.”) A poena was not necessarily
pecuniary, but might affect a person's caput and
existimatio. Cicero enumerates the following
kinds of poenae, viz. damnum, vincula, verbera,
talio, ignominia, easilium, mors, and Servitus (Cic.
de Leg. Aug. C. D. xxi. 12; de Or, i, 43, 194; de
Off. iii. 5, 23; pro Caec. 34, 100). A poena
might be inflicted by any one whose function it
was to take cognisance of crimes. When no
poena was imposed, then a multa might be the
punishment. [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
POLEMARCHUS (roxéuapxos). There is
probably no official title which was more widely
diffused in Greece than that of Polemarchus. It
is known at Athens as the name of the third
archon [ARCHON], among the Dorians of Sparta,
the Aeolian peoples of Thessaly and Boeotia, in
Aetolia, Arcadia, and Euboea. It does not
appear to have existed (at least, we have no
evidence as yet) in any of the cities of Magna
Graecia on the one hand, or in those of Asia
Minor on the other ; in other words, the title
does not seem to have struck root in colonies.
As its name implies, it originally meant a leader
in war (cf. troAéuapxos 'Axalov, Aesch. Cho.
1072); and, as we shall see, probably was an off-
shoot of the office of the king in his capacity of
commander-in-chief of the forces of the state.
Everywhere alike we see its original military
character continuing to attach itself to the
office, for we find the polemarchs either hold-
ing actual commands in war, or superintending
the military organisation and defence of the
state in time of peace. As the polemarch at
Athens was the survival of the military side of
the ancient kingly office, so we find at Sparta
the polemarchs playing an important part in its
organisation. When we first hear of them, they
appear as forming the immediate military staff
of the king. They have no particular body of
men under them; for the Aóxos is under its
Aoxayás. But in cases where a force took the
field, of which the king in person did not hold
the command, one of the polemarchs was ap-
pointed to lead it in his place. Thus the Spartan
force sent to Tempe before the advance of Xerxes
was commanded by Evaenetus, one of the pole-
marchs (éotpathyet 8& rôv Aakečatuovíov
Eüaivetos é Kapfivov, Šk Töv troAeudºpxwy &paipm-
Auévos, yéveos uévrov čaw oi, too Bao'lantov,
Herod. vii. 173). From this passage we may
likewise infer that it was not usual to appoint
any of the polemarchs to such a command unless
they were of the blood royal, and at the same
time that, whilst the polemarchs were usually
members of the kingly house, they were not
necessarily so. It was natural that, when the
duties of the kings as commanders-in-chief in-
creased, they would find it necessary to have
lieutenants or adjutants to aid in organising the
forces, and for such important duties they would
naturally employ persons connected with them-
selves by the close tie of clanship. The pole-
marchs continued in this position until the re-
organisation of the Spartan army into six morae
in 404 B.C. Thus Thucydides (v. 66), when
describing the organisation of the Spartan army
when in the field, says that the supreme com-
mand was vested in the king if he was with the
troops; the king gave the necessary orders to
the polemarchs, and they in turn gave them to
the lochagi. Thus they evidently came next to
the king, and were superior to the lochagi, over .
whom they were placed to command lochi on
important occasions. Thus, at the battle of
Mantinea (418 B.C.), we find two polemarchs in
command of two lochi, doubtless detailed by
king Agis for this special occasion (Thuc.
V, 71). From this occasional supersession of
the Aoxayol by the polemarchs, the change to
the new organisation (in 404 B.C.) is the natural
step, when the polemarchs are now made the
regular commanders of the new morae (six in
number), each mora containing two lochi under
lochagi. Thus we find the polemarch Praxitas
with his mora garrisoning Sicyon (Xen. Hell. iv.
4, 7). Xenophon (Resp. Lac. 12, 6) speaks of a
trpótos troAépapxos, who may possibly be the
same officer whom he calls (op. cit. 13, 7) trpeg-
Bötaros Táv repl Sauooriav. That they formed
part of the damosia, or king's body-guard, we
may perhaps infer from Xen. Hell. vi. 4, 14.
The polemarch was assisted by officers called
orvpubopets (Xen. l. C.) When not in active ser-
vice, the polemarchs had to superintend the
Phiditia or public messes at home. We infer
from Xenophon (Resp. Lac. 13, 6) that they
were six in number under the organisation which
existed in his time, as there was one for each
mora. As the Spartans of the same lochi messed
together, we may infer that the polemarch ex-
ercised a general control over the commissariat
of the men who formed his own mora. In the
various cities of Boeotia the office of polemarch
was universal. There were usually three in
number, though in some cases two only appear.
For instance, at Thebes, at the time when
Phoebidas the Spartan general got possession of
the Cadmeia (482 B.C.) by the aid of Leontiades,
one of the polemarchs, Xenophon speaks as if
there were only two (troAspapxoëvres uévérôy-
Xavov Igumvías re kal Aeovrić6ms, Štá?opot 8&
&AAñAous kal &pxmºyos ékárepos Tóv Štaiptów,
Hell. v. 2, 25).
We can infer from Xenophon (Hell. v. 4, 30)
that the polemarchs had the control of the
military organisation, having under them the
Aoxayot, who commanded the Aóxot, into which,
as we know from Thucydides (iv. 91), the army
was divided. The troAéuapxos had a secretary
(ypaupatets, 6 ypauplatfööwu, Xen. Hell. v. 4, 2;
Plut. Pelop. 7; Larfeld, Inscript. 169). At
Thebes the polemarchs had the power of arrest-
ing any one who had done an act worthy of
death (Xen. Hell. v. 2, 30). We know of
the existence of troAéuapxot at Thespiae from
Plutarch (Demetr. 39), and from an inscription
(Bullet. viii. 413). At Acraephium there
were three troAépapy ſovtes and their 'ypappa-
T{ööwy (Larfeld, 184), and a similar board at
Hyettus (Id. 144); at Copae (Id. 170), where
there were only two in number ; at Orchomenus
(Id. 13, 17, 18, 21, 22); and at Chaeronea
(Mittheil. viii. 355). They seemed to have had
certain financial duties at Orchomenus, and to
have presided in the popular assembly. They
commanded the contingents from their several
towns, being under the control of the boeotarchs,
who were the highest officers of the League.
442 , POLENTA
POLUS
There were also polemarchs at Aegisthena
and Megara, at the latter place probably repre-
senting the orparayol of an earlier date. We
likewise find three troAéuapxot at Eretria in
Euboea (C. I. G. 2144). In Thessaly the League
(ro kowbv táv Óerrañóv) consisted of four
ancient divisions, called terpáðes. Each terpès
had its polemarch, who with the tréapxot under
him commanded the contingent of infantry
which his rerpès contributed to the army of the
League. We may infer the existence of the
office of polemarch (or polemarchs) at Phlius
from the existence in that city of a troAepidp-
xelos arod (Müller, Fragm. H. G. iii. 133). The
office also existed at Phigalia (rb troAepidpxetov,
Polyb. iv. 79), at Mantinea (Thuc. v. 47), and
at Cynaetha, where their functions were de-
scribed by Polybius (iv. 189): kāeiew ràs röAas
Ical row uerači, Xpóvov kvpletely rôv kxetów,
troueſo'0at 58 kal to ka? inépaw thv 5taurav Čiri
táv rvXóvov). In the days of the Achaean
League there were still troAéuapxot at Dyme,
whilst there is also evidence for the office at
Thuria in Messenia. That there was a pole-
march in the island of Paros, we know from
inscriptions (C. I. G. 2374, 2379).
Finally, the office seems to have existed both
in Ambracia (C. I. G. 1797) and in Aetolia
(Polyb. iv. 79). As in many of these places
above specified we find mention likewise of an
archon, we may, on the whole, infer that the
duties of the polemarchi corresponded very
closely to those of the strategi at Athens, and,
in fact, we saw that at Megara they were called
otpatayoi at an earlier period. [W. R.I.]
POLENTA. [PUIs.]
POLETAE (roxmraſ). The poletae at
Athens were a board of ten officials or magis-
trates which formed one of the departments of
the Treasury. They were chosen by lot, one
from each tribe (Harpocration, s. v. troAmraſ).
They were under the supervision of the Boule of
Five Hundred, and its ratification was required
to give validity to their proceedings. It was
their duty to let out to farmers by a kind of
auction the revenues arising from all tolls,
customs, and taxes; to let on lease public lands,
and plots of ground for mining purposes at
Laurium. They superintended the Architecton
in giving out the contracts for works to be done
for the state, such as the building and repairing
of the walls (C. I. A. ii. 167). They likewise
put up to public sale the property of public
debtors who had failed to discharge their obliga-
tions to the state within the appointed time,
and of those who were in arrears with their
income-tax (sia popd), as well as the property
and persons of such aliens who had been con-
victed on a ypaſp? §evías of usurping the rights
of citizenship, and of metoeci, who had been
convicted on a charge of not having enrolled
themselves under a trpoor&rms (ypaſp) &rpoora-
ofov), or on a charge of having failed to perform
their obligations to their ºrporrárms (ypaqº,
&rograortov), and for not having paid the resi-
dent alien tax of 12 drachms (ro ueroticlov).
[METOECI.] They likewise put up for sale all
property confiscated (Smutórpara, Önüevöueva).
They had also the duty of setting up public
inscriptions (orixal, C. I. A. i. 61), and under
the direction of the Archon Eponymus, who
supervised the property of orphans, let out on
leases the property of minors. They elected
a president (trpºravis); and their office, where
they put up for auction the various kinds of
property, was called to travanthpiov (cf. [Dem.]
º Aristog, 787, § 57, to troxmtāptov rod uerol-
klov).
We find the office of troxmrºs in other parts
of Greece, as, for instance, at Halicarnassus
(Bullet. v. 212), where there seems to have been
but a single poletes instead of a board; whilst
at Cos we find on an inscription a board of
poletae letting out the contract for the setting
up of a proxenia-decree on a pillar (Cauer,”
160), and a similar board of poletae giving out
a contract for the engraving of a similar pillar
accords to the agreement drawn up by the
Architecton (Cauer,” 181). Finally, we find
at Epidamnus, the colony of Corcyra, a
functionary called poletes, elected annually.
Plutarch (Quaest. Gr. 29) says that the Epi-
damnians being neighbours of the Illyrians, and
finding that their citizens became corrupted in
their trading with the barbarians, elected a
poletes through whom all bargains and barter-
ings were carried out. [W. R.I.]
POLITEIA, POLITES (roxireſa, troxt-
tns). [CIVITAs.
POLITOPHY'LACES. [TAGUs.]
POLLICITATIO. [OBLIGATIONES.]
POLLINCTOR. [FUNUs.]
POLUS (réAos), a word of various meanings,
all however connected in some way with a
sphere of revolution, the root of the word being
the same which appears in troAéa, and tréAoual,
which implies motion, especially motion round a
centre. It is only the scientific meanings which
will here be noticed, of which the best known is
that which has reference to astronomy; the
other, much rarer and derived from the former,
referring to a part of the sun-dial [HOROLOGIUM).
In astronomy, again, by far the most common
meaning of polus or tróAos is the heavenly sphere
or spheres, or vault of the sky, originally con-
ceived of as solid: thus in the earliest passage
in which tróAos occurs (Aesch. Prom. 427) Atlas
is represented as supporting this sphere on his
shoulders. Probably the word was not very
ancient in the time of Aeschylus, for in Aristo-
phanes (Av. 179–182) there is a formal explana-
tion of it, and it is in his contemporary,
Euripides, that it first becomes frequent (Orest.
1685; Ion, 1154, &c.). The account of the
heaven accepted among Greek philosophers
generally (though with variations) represented
it as formed of concentric spheres, the outside
sphere being that which contained the fixed stars,
while the inner spheres, each having its own
proper motion, contained the sun, moon, and five
principal planets (which alone are visible to the
naked eye). See Plato, Timaeus, p. 38, and the
second book of Aristotle, de Caelo ; in which
book, especially in the latter half, are to be
found acute observations, mixed with obscure
reasonings. But it is to be remarked that both
in Timaeus, 40 B, and de Caelo, ii. 14, tróAos is
used, not for the entire heaven, but for the axis
of heaven and earth, around which the whole
revolved. Again, in the de Caelo, ii. 2, the
tróAoi are the poles, north and south, in our
sense of the word; and the same meaning is
common in Latin, when the entire heaven is not
| intended (Plin. H. N. ii. § 63). Another mean-
POLYMITA
POMERIUM 443
ing altogether, the orbit of a star, is found in
[Plat..] Epin. 986 C. (Cf. [Plat..] Awioch. p.
371 B ; Alex, ap. Athen. p. 60 a ; Ukert, Geog.
d. Griech. v. Röm. vol. i. pt. ii. p. 115; and for
the conception of heaven among the Greeks,
Whewell, Hist. of the Inductive Sciences, vol. i.
pp. 153 sqq.; Cornewall Lewis, Astronomy of the
Ancients, which moreover takes notice of the
point next to be mentioned.)
Connected with the most common astronomi-
cal meaning of tróAos, the revolving heavenly
sphere, is the use of the word to mean a dial.
The first scientific attempt to mark the time of
day with exactitude was by constructing a hollow
hemisphere, so placed as to catch the sun's rays
on its interior surface, the axis of the hemisphere
being parallel to the polar axis of the heavens.
Then on this interior surface the path of the
sun was marked by means of the shadow of a
bead fixed on the axis of the hemisphere, or
(which comes to the same thing) by the ex-
tremity of an index (yvápav) reaching to the
same point.
sense of an upright rod, had no doubt been used
from very early times as a means of roughly
measuring the time of day, by the length and
direction of the shadows. But when to the
'yvágav was added the above-described hemi-
sphere, or tróAos as it was naturally called, from
its being the counterpart of the heavenly tróAos,
the result was a scientific sun-dial. Herodotus
(ii. 109) uses the two words, tróxov kal ywópova,
together, to describe the compound instrument,
and he tells us, no doubt correctly, that the
Greeks derived it from the Babylonians. (See
Ideler, Handbuch der Chronologie, vol. i. p. 233,
referred to by Grote, vol. ii. p. 155, in editions
after the first ; also Bahr’s note on Herodotus
ad loc., with his references to Bailly, Delambre,
Letronne, and Creuzer.) Vitruvius (ix. 9) tells
us that this form of sun-dial (hemicyclium) was
invented by Berosus, who lived at Babylon at
the end of the fourth, and during the first part
of the third, century B.C. But this, considering
the passage in Herodotus, can hardly be correct;
though Berosus may no doubt have improved
the instrument, and his bust is represented on
the base of a dial found at Palestrina. Besides
Herodotus, Aristophanes mentions the tróAos in
a fragment of the Gerytades, where it clearly
means, a sun-dial, and is explained as such
(ópoxórylov) by Pollux (ix. 46), to whom we owe
the fragment. Lucian (Lewiphan. 4) speaks of
the yugºuov as overshadowing the middle of the
tróAos, which shows clearly the relation between
the two. (See also Alciphron, Ep. iii. 4.) Some
interesting remarks on ancient sun-dials, with
pictures in which the tróAos and its hour-lines
are well illustrated, and another of a different
make of dial, will be found in Mrs. Alfred
Gatty’s Book of Sun-dials (London, 1889), pp.
1–13, 391–404. [P. S.] [J. R. M.]
POLY'MITA. [TELA.]
POME’RIUM or POMOE’RIUM. As re-
gards the spelling of the word, the latter, which
accords more nearly with the etymology, is
retained by Madvig, but most modern authorities
have agreed that pomerium is the more correct
(see Mommsen in Hermes, x. 40). The pomerium
was a space left vacant on the inner side of a
city wall (post-moerium): it did not, however,
necessarily run parallel with the line of fortifica-
The simple index or yvápov, in the
tion ; where it did not do so, and preserved only
a religious significance, it was marked by a line
of stone pillars (cippi pomerii, Varro, L. L. v.
143; lapides, Tac. Ann. xii. 24), which indeed,
no doubt, were placed at intervals over its whole
course. The original pomeria, it may be con-
jectured, followed the original ring-walls of
associated bodies of citizens: hence if by conquest
or federation new citizens were brought in and
a larger urbs became necessary, the ring-wall,
and with it the pomerium, was enlarged. It is
probable that the first intention was to leave a
clear space immediately within the walls for
military reasons, that the defenders might have
freedom of movement: and that what had
become an invariable custom in the builders of
walled cities, became a religion. The custom
was common to Latins and Etruscans, and a
town in the earliest times was founded as follows:
—a bullock and a heifer were yoked to a plough,
and a furrow was drawn round the place which
was to be occupied by the new town, in such a
way that the clods fell inwards: the furrow
marked the ditch, the mound the ring-wall
within it, and within that again was a certain
space called the pomerium, its width marked by
cippi, upon which no buildings could be erected.
It is true that Livy (i. 44) states the pomerium
to have been a space left vacant both within and
without the wall; but Mommsen has shown
good reason for rejecting this view, which rests.
on Livy alone, and for imagining that author to
have been misled about a point of antiquarian
knowledge (Mommsen in Hermes, x, 40; Röm.
Forschung. ii. 23; Staatsrecht, i.” 63). The
language of Varro, “qui (orbis) quia erat post
murum,” &c., is decidedly against Livy's view;
and so is the “per totius urbis circuitum pome
muros’ of Gellius, xiii. 14: the word itself can
be only naturally explained on the theory that
it was something “behind * the walls, i.e. pro-
tected by them (with which postliminium is
probably to be compared); and moreover the
fact that the Aventine, though within the
Servian walls, remained outside the pomerium,
can hardly allow us to conceive the pomerium
as on the outer side of the fortifications.
Whatever may have been its first intention,
the aspect in which the pomerium comes before
us is its religious aspect. The space within it
was called ager effatus, so named, according to
Varro, vi. 53, “because the augurs have declared
thereby where the limit for urban auspices
should be in the direction of the fields without
the city” (such is Mommsen's rendering), i.e.
beyond what point the auspices would no longer
be urbana auspicia (cf. Gell. xiii. 14; Varro, v.
143). The distinction is seen in the auspices
for Comitia Curiata being within the pomerium,
those for Comitia Centuriata outside, because
this in its origin was a military levy: the
general starting for a campaign must take them
within the pomerium, but the bellica auspicia
after his imperium began must be taken outside,
in the camp, on the field of battle, &c. Crossing
the pomerium did away with the effect of the
military auspices; hence, if he came back to
Rome, he must take the urbana auspicia over
again for his return, and the bellica auspicia
after he reached his army. This explains the
obscure expression in Tac. Ann. iii. 19 (see
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i.” 99; AUSPICIA). The
444
PONDERA
POMERIUM
pomerium then included in its circle the dwell-
ings of the urbs proper, but practically Rome soon
went further, and was expressed technically by
“urbs et urbi continentia aedificia.”
The antiquissimum pomerium.—This ran within
the old walls of the Palatine city, taking there-
fore a somewhat square form, and Mommsen is
of opinion that this shape belonging to the
templum was to some extent preserved in the
subsequent pomeria, from their connexion with
auspices; so that, when the Servian walls became
more circular, the cippi left wider spaces here
and there, even excluding great portions (such
as the Aventine), and gave a more rectangular
shape to the ager effatus. Tacitus (Ann.
xii. 24) describes the pomerium of Romulus by
four points—Ara Maxima, Ara Consi, Curiae
veteres, and Sacellum Larium : the first three
seem to mark the S.E., S.W., and N.E. corners
of the Palatine (O. Richter). There is some
difficulty in the “sulcus * including the Ara
Maxima which seems to be outside the actual
walls of the Palatine city ; and it is also strange
that if Servius extended the pomerium, he left
the old cippi standing. Mommsen inclines to
the opinion in Jordan, Top. ii. 26, that the cippi
which Tacitus describes were placed later, to
show the boundaries used for the lustration of
the Palatine [LUPERCALIA]. Of the Servian
cippi we have neither remains nor record, except
that they did not include the Aventine,
though his walls did : Gellius (xiii. 14) says
that Remus made the Aventine unlucky for
auspices: Varro (v. 43), that on this hill stood
the temple of Diana common to Latins and
Romans: Mommsen's theory, mentioned above,
suggests another cause.
Enlargement of the Pomerium.—The jus pro-
ferendi pomerii belonged to the king who had
added territory to Rome, and, even if this passed
theoretically to dictator or consuls who “auxe-
runt fines imperii,” it was never exercised after
Servius until the dictatorship of Sulla (Dionys.
iv.: 13; cf. Liv. i. 44). It is true that some
Latin writers speak as if we might expect it
after any conquest (Sen. de brev. vit. 3; Tac.
Ann. xii. 23; Gell. xiii. 14): but Tacitus him-
self in the next chapter mentions Sulla as the
only conqueror under the Republic who did so.
What his extension was, we do not know.
Caesar professed to follow his example (Cic, ad
Att. xiii. 20), but, if we believe Tacitus, did not
do so, prevented perhaps by death. Detlefsen
(Hermes, xxi. 513) takes Gell. l. c. and Dio Cass.
xliii. 50, xliv. 49, to show that he carried
out his proposal: see, however, on the other
side, Mommsen, Staatsrecht, il.” 738. The same
writer (ii.” 1072) gives good reasons for holding
that Augustus did not enlarge the pomerium :
if so, it may have been from reluctance to assume
the kingly state ; and so he instead constituted
the fourteen regions. Of the emperors:–1. Clau-
dius, after adding Britain and Commagene to
the Empire, proceeded to enlarge the pomerium,
including within it the Aventine, probably with
a view of determining afresh the templum of the
city (cf. Hulsen in Hermes, xxii. 615). Four of
his cippi have been discovered (C. I. L. vi. 1231):
they seem to bring his line nearly up to Mons
Testaceus, to the inner border of the Campus
Martius, and to the Porta Salaria. An inscription
gives his claim “auctis populi Romani finibus
pomerium ampliavit terminavitgue.” 2. Nero
(Vopisc. Aurel. 21). 3. Vespasian and Titus, two
of whose stones have been found with a similar
inscription and numbered xxxi. and xlvii., one
beyond the Pincian gate, the other near the
Porta Ostiensis (C. I. L. vi. 1232). Hadrian
did not extend the pomerium, but only marked
it afresh (C. I. L. vi. 1233); one of his cippi
was found not far from that of Claudius on the
edge of the Campus Martius, and another near
the Pantheon: it would appear that the Campus
Martius was, at least till after Hadrian, outside
the pomerium. The inscription tells us that
the limits of a pomerium were arranged by the
college of augurs, which agrees with Cic. de
Div. ii. 35, 75. It will be seen that these
extended pomeria, from Claudius onwards, were
an ideal unwalled city; their limits were in
some places beyond even the site of the later
Aurelian walls, though in others considerably
short of it. (Jordan, Topog. i. 323 ff.; Mommsen
in Hermes, x. 40 ft. ; Röm. Forsch. ii. 23 ff. ;
Staatsrecht, ll. cc.; O. Richter in Baumeister,
Denkmäler, s. v. Rom.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PO'NDERA (arraðuoſ). In recent years the
subject of Greek and Roman weights has received
much attention, especially in connexion with
the history of the coinage; and the researches
of Boeckh, Hultsch, Mommsen, and Brandis have
thrown light over what was before their time a
most obscure field. The method of these inquirers,
especially that of the two latter, has been
scientific induction. In the ancient world coins
were always struck on one or another of the
weight-standards in use for commercial purposes,
and in Greece the stater of gold or silver always
bore a simple and definite relation to the talent
and mina in use in the state where they were
struck. In Rome the as was originally merely
a pound of copper. Thus it is by weighing
great quantities of coins that we are enabled to
recover the weights in use in Greece and Italy,
and trace the historical succession and the
derivation of the various standards. When we
have thus reached definite results, we can turn
to the works of ancient writers on metrology
with better hope of understanding them.
Weights of Babylon.—It is known from the
testimony of cuneiform inscriptions that at a
very remote period the people of that city
developed an elaborate and scientific system of
numerical notation, and applied it to the
reckoning of time, of weights, and of measures.
The basis of this system of notation was neither
decimal nor duodecimal, but sexagesimal; that
is to say, the first figure in the line represented
units, the second sixties, the third 60 × 60,
three thousand six hundreds, and so forth. The
convenience of this system will be clear if we
consider that sixty is divisible by both ten and
twelve.
Of the sexagesimal division introduced by the
Babylonians into the reckoning of time, traces
remain to our own day: still sixty seconds make
a minute and sixty minutes an hour. We also
inherit from the Babylonians the division of a
foot into twelve inches. This system of division
was used by the Babylonians, and after them by
the Greeks in the case of weights.
For the verification of Babylonic standards,
we are not left to conjecture. Mr. Layard
brought from the ruins of Nineveh a number of
PONDERA
PONDERA 445
weights, some in the shape of a lion and some in
that of a goose or duck. These weights bear
upon them complete and satisfactory legends,
stating what they are, partly written in the
cuneiform character, and partly in the Aramaic
character which was commonly used in Asia
Minor at the time of the Assyrian dominion. The
name of the king in whose reign they were
made is added, so that our information regarding
them is of the most definite character.
A detailed account of these weights is given
by Mr. E. Norris in the Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society, vol. xvi., by Dr. Brandis (pp. 43
sqq.), and in the ninth Report of the Warden of
the Standards. The facts established by them
may be briefly put. They show that under the
Assyrian Empire there were in use in Mesopo-
tamia, Syria, and Asia Minor two principal
standards of weight. The minas of these two
standards were related one to the other in the
proportion of 2 to 1. The mina of the heavier
standard weighed about 1010 grammes or 15,600
grains troy; the mina of the lighter standard,
505 grammes or 7,800 grains. Whether the
two standards had different origins, or repre-
sent only a different mode of calculation, is
obscure.
It can scarcely be a coincidence that the
sixtieth parts of these two minae, the heavier
sixtieth weighing 260 grains (16’ 8 grammes) and
the lighter weighing 130 grains (8° 4 grammes),
were the weights according to which many of
the earliest gold coins of Asia Minor were struck.
This fact seems to prove that the weights in
question had long been in use in that district
for the precious metals, before coins were in-
vented. According to the view of Brandis,
accepted by Mr. Head, the heavier sixtieth was
the accepted unit in Phoenicia; whereas the
lighter travelled overland to Lydia, and thence
reached the Greek colonies of the coast of Asia
Minor.
On the ground of Homer's mention of the
talent, which mention proves at any rate that
fixed standards of weight for gold and other
metals were in his time current, Mr. Ridgeway
has maintained (Journal of Hellenic Studies,
viii. 133) that by the Greeks, even in the
Homeric age, gold bars of the weight of 130
grains were regarded as the equivalent of an
ox, and gold bars of 260 grains as the equivalent
of a yoke of oxen. But granting the probability
of the fact, it seems most likely that the Greeks
did not arrive at the gold bar of 130 grains
by an empirical process, but derived it directly
from some metrological system in force among
their neighbours, and perhaps arbitrarily re-
garded it as equivalent to an ox under ordinary
circumstances. If either gold or oxen became
abnormally scarce, of course the equation would
no longer hold good.
From the gold shekel of 130 or 260 grains,
whencesoever the weight was derived, the
peoples of Asia Minor and of Syria seem to
have formed metrological systems. By multi-
plying by 50, they formed minae of 6,500 and
of 13,000 grains, and from these minae again
talents of sixty times those weights. All this
appears to have taken place before coins were
in use, while the currency of the precious
metals consisted only of bars or rings.
It is clear that in the circulation of the
precious metals two plans might be adopted.
Either bars both of gold and of silver might be
current of the weight of the shekel, which
would exchange against one another at any
time or place according to the proportion
between the value of silver and that of gold;
or else different standards of weight might be
adopted for the two metals, and bars of gold and
of silver issued of such weight that a round
number of the silver bars would exchange for
one of the gold. In point of fact, both these
courses were adopted at various periods in the
countries of Western Asia and Europe.
In his list of the Persian tribute (iii. 89 sqq.),
Herodotus reckons the proportionate value of
gold to silver as 13 to 1. This proportion
seems to have been fixed by custom, and not to
have changed during the Assyrian and Persian
empires. Mommsen and Brandis, however, agree
that the relation would be more exactly ex-
pressed by the figures 13:1 or 40: 3. In
practice the rule of Herodotus might be main-
tained in small transactions, but there seem to
be grounds for holding that in dealing with
large sums the fraction was taken into account.
Had the fixed proportion been 12:1 or 10:1,
bars of gold and silver of the same weight
would have exchanged conveniently one against
the other. Indeed, in Greece at various periods,
this did take place. But the awkwardness
of the relation 13 or 13% to 1 necessitated in
Asia the adoption of a different standard for
silver, in order that a round number of the
current bars of silver should exchange for one
of gold.
According to the theory of Brandis the
Phoenician standard for silver, which was
certainly in use from early times to late times,
was formed on this principle from bars of gold
weighing 260 grains. Multiply 260 by 13%, and
we get the weight of the silver equivalent of
this unit, 3466 grains. Dividing this again
by 15, we get a convenient bar of silver of the
weight of 231 or 230 grains of the value of the
fifteenth part of a gold shekel. Thus four gold
shekels would be equivalent to 60 bars of silver
formed on this new unit. We have reason to
believe that the silver currency in Syria and
Phoenicia before the invention of coining was,
in accordance with the standard afterwards
followed in the earliest coins, composed of bars
of metal of about 230 grains each, of which
fifteen went to a gold shekel.
In Asia Minor and Lydia the ordinary unit of
value in gold weighed but half this amount,
130 grains. Its silver equivalent was 1720 or
1730 grains. This sum was represented in the
currency by ten bars of about 172 grains each,
which would together be equal in value to a
bar in gold. From this new silver unit, 172
grains, were formed, by multiplying by 50,
a mina of about 8,600 grains and a talent of
516,000 grains, which were known among the
Greeks as the Babylonian silver talent and
mina. Dr. Brandis tries to show that these
were in use in Mesopotamia as early as the 16th
century before our era. In any case, it is clear
from the testimony of Herodotus that they were
in use in Persia for estimating the tribute paid
in silver by subject nations. The passage, indeed,
in which Herodotus sums this tribute (iii. 89) is
perplexing, and certainly corrupt, since his
446 PONI) ERA.
PONDERA
totals do not represent the sum of his items.
As the passage stands, the Babylonian talent is
said to be equivalent to 70 Euboic minae. But
Mommsen, by an emendation universally ac-
cepted (Röm. Münzwesen, p. 22), alters the
figures to 78, so making Herodotus consistent.
78 Euboic minae give a weight nearly equal
to that above attributed to the Babylonic silver
talent.
In Egypt, in early times, the weights used
were the kat and the Outen or ten, which was
its tenfold. Various metrologists have given
different values of the kat ; and as existing
Egyptian weights vary considerably in force,
no accurate determination is possible. The
generally received values are, for the kat about
9 grammes or 140 grains, and for the ten 90
grammes or 1400 grains. Various attempts
have been made to derive from these Egyptian
weights those current in historical times in
Greece. And in fact the smallness of the
difference between the kat and the lighter
shekel of Babylon seems to indicate that they
had either a common or a parallel origin. We
cannot, however, prove that Egyptian weights
were used out of Egypt, while the Aramaic
inscriptions on the Assyrian weights prove
that they were in use in countries where the
Aramaic writing was used; that is to say, in
Asia Minor or N. Syria. Brandis also has
argued that when certain weights of precious
metal are recorded in Egyptian inscriptions as
paid by way of tribute by the peoples of Syria,
the sum, though expressed in Egyptian weights,
almost always consists of a round number of
Babylonish shekels. So far therefore as re-
search has at present gone, it would seem that
the monetary systems of Syria, Asia Minor,

HEAVY SYSTEM. T.IGHT SYSTEM.
Part of Avoirdupois. Avoirdupois.
Talent. Grammes. Grains. lbs. oz. Grammes. | Grains. lbs. oz.
I. Babylonic Talent for
weighing goods. -
Talent. • * * * l 60,600 936,000 1335. 30,300 468,000 66%
Mina . . . . a's 1,010 15,600 2 33 505 7,800 l 1;
Sixtieth . . . . . . Hºss 16 °83 260 # 8° 41 130 #;
II. Babylonic Gold
Talent.
* Talent • * * * * , H. 50,490 780,000 1113. 25,245 390,000 55;
Mina . . . . . . # 841 ° 5 13,000 1 13; 420 - 7 6,500 || 14;
Shekel. . . . . såså 16 °83 260 # 8° 41 130 . #
III. Babylonic Silver
Talent.
Talent . . . . . 1 67,320 1032,000 || 1473. 33,660 516,000 73;
Mina . . . . . . is 1,122 17,200 73. 561 8,600 l 33
Shekel. . . adº, 22° 4 344 # 11 - 2 172 #
IV. Phoenician Silver
Talent. *
Talent * . . . . . I 44,700 690,000 984 22,350 345,000 || 49%
Mina. . . . . . . d's 745 11,500 1 10% 372 - 5 5,750 13].
Shekel . . . . . | ##5 I4 - 9 230 # 7 * 45 115 *
* Brandis (p. 103) reckons the Phoenician talent at 43,650 grammes, remarking that the Phoenician standards
were somewhat debased from those of Babylon; but as a matter of fact the coins struck on the Phoenician
standard often weigh for the shekel 230 grains.
Greece, and Italy were derived rather from
Babylon than from Egypt. -
The silver talent in use among the Jews was
that of the Phoenicians in its heavier form.
To quite a late date the Jewish mina weighed
11,500 grains and the shekel 230. This is
sufficiently proved by the statements of Epi-
phanius (Hultsch, Metrolog. Script. reliqq.
p. 265) as well as from the testimony of a
Jewish stone weight with the legend PoWDo.
CXXV. TALENTVM SICLORVM III. : whence it
appears that the Jewish talent weighed even
in Roman times as much as 125 Roman pounds,
637,500 grains, which is but a little below
the heavy Phoenician standard (see table); and
contained 3,000 shekels.
We have reason to believe that the Phoe-
nician weight was in use also at Carthage;
having doubtless accompanied the emigrants
from the mother-country. For the coinage of
Carthage, which does not however begin at an
early period, is chiefly struck on the Phoe-
nician standard, and slightly heavier than the
money of Tyre and Sidon. And no doubt the
Carthaginians, like the Phoenicians, applied the
same standard they used for money in weigh-
ing other articles. - -
Derivation of Greek Monetary Standards.-
We have already seen what were, before the
invention of coinage, the principal monetary
standards in use in Western Asia. These we
will briefly recapitulate, and assign them names,
in order that we may cite them with more
convenience hereafter. First, there was the
heavy Babylonian gold standard, with its
shekel of 260 grains. Next there was the
light Babylonian gold standard, with its shekel
of 130 grains. Next there was the Babylonian
silver standard, of which the unit weighed 172
grains. . Last, there was the standard called by
Brandis Graeco-Asiatic, but which, as it ori-
ginally spread from Phoenicia, we shall prefer
IPONDERA.
{} PONDERA 447
to call the Phoenician. It was used only for
silver, and its unit weighed about 230 grains.
It is probable that from one or other of these
four units all monetary systems, except those of
the ancient Chinese and the modern French,
have been derived. -
Considering the vigorous commercial activity
of the Phoenicians in the eighth and ninth cen-
turies before our era, it cannot appear Sur-
prising if the standards adopted by them spread
more rapidly and obtained wider currency than
the standards which were transmitted by land
only. In particular they spread to the Greek
cities of the Asiatic coast, which were at this
time far superior in wealth and splendour to
the cities of Greece proper. Ephesus and
Miletus, Phocaea and Smyrna, learned to accept
as units of value the heavy Babylonian gold
shekel of 260 grains, and the Phoenician silver
shekel of 230 grains. And from Ephesus and
Smyrna the Phoenician silver standard passed
to Sardis, the wealthy capital of the Lydian
kings, though the greater part of the Lydian
money was minted on the Babylonian standard
which reached the country by land.
The credit of inventing the idea of money—
that is, of stamping an Ingot of metal of fixed
weight with an official die, which should gua-
rantee its quality and value—belongs to the
Lydians. Herodotus (i. 94) states that this
people were the first to strike coin in gold and
silver. But probably the earliest coins were
neither of gold nor of silver, but of electrum,
which is a natural mixture of those two metals,
found in the bed of the Pactolus and other
rivers of Asia Minor, and reckoned by the
Greeks as a separate metal. [See ELECTRUM.]
Whether ingots of electrum unstamped had pre-
viously been current, we cannot say; but it is
likely. If we are to suppose, with Brandis, that
by a fixed convention the value of the Lydian
electrum was regarded as # of that of gold, gold
standing to silver in the relation of 13% to 1 as
regards value, electrum would appear to have
stood to silver in the relation of 10 to 1. In
this proportion recent metrologists have found
an explanation of the fact that the electrum was
struck upon the standard used for silver and
not that used for gold, each of the new coins of
electrum passing for ten of the previously used
bars of silver. We must, however, observe that
the proportion of value between gold and elec-
trum cannot be regarded as ascertained fact.
The claim of the people of Lydia to have in-
vented money is usually allowed by numismatists.
The invention appears to belong to the seventh
century, when Lydia was ruled by the Mermnadae.
It spread to the towns of the Ionian coast, and
thence with decreased rapidity south and west.
The great bulk of the early electrum coins are
struck on the Phoenician silver standard. In
their division the duodecimal system prevails;
the third, fourth, sixth, twelfth, and twenty-
fourth parts of the stater being usual. Some of
the early coins of Lydia are on the Babylonic
silver standard. This, however, was not used
out of Lydia. Electrum pieces on the Phoenician
standard, on the contrary, were struck in a
host of cities; including Sardes, Miletus, Chios,
Samos, Lampsacus, and even the distant Aegina.
A few cities, such as Samos and Eretria, seem in
the earliest times to have struck electrum coins
on the Babylonic gold standard. For further
details as to the early electrum coinage, see
ELECTRUM and the authorities there cited.
The city of Phocaea, which enjoyed great
wealth and prosperity during the half-century
previous to its destruction by Harpagus, the
general of Cyrus, issued at that period coins of
dark electrum, containing a considerable pro-
portion of gold, minted on the heavy Babylonian
gold standard, coins which seem during the
earlier half of the sixth century to have pushed
their way on the Asiatic coast, and in many
places to have taken the place of the Milesian
electrum. (Head, Numismatic Chronicle, xv.
272.)
The Supersession in Asia of the electrum coin-
age by one of gold and silver has been generally
regarded as the work of Croesus. This able and
wealthy monarch is supposed to have recog-
nised the fact that electrum, in consequence of
its varying purity and value, is ill-fitted to be
a measure of value, and so to have stopped the
issue of electrum coins in the mint of Sardes,
and in the place of them to have substituted
pieces of pure gold struck on the light Baby-
lonian gold standard (126 grains) and pieces of
fine silver struck on the Babylonian silver
standard (168 grains). Of these coins, which
bear as type the head of a lion and the head of
a bull, many specimens survive to our day.
Ten of the silver pieces were equal in value to
one of the gold, being considerably heavier. It
is, however, the view of M. Six that this mone-
tary reform was the work not of Croesus, but
of his Persian conqueror, Cyrus (Head, Historia
Numorum, p. 546). Darius, son of Hystaspes,
regulated the internal affairs of the Persian
Empire, and introduced a state coinage on the
model of that of Lydia, which continued un-
changed until the overthrow of the Persian
Empire by Alexander the Great.
The coinage of gold he claimed as his own
peculiar privilege, and insisted on his exclusive
right in this matter with so much vigour that
it became a settled principle of Persian rule
that no power in Asia, save the Great King
only, had the right to issue money of gold.
The staters of Darius were in weight identical
with those of Croesus (128–130 grains). They
were called Darics, perhaps from the king who
instituted them; also roëórat. [See DARICU.S.]
Darius issued also silver coin, in shape and type
similar to the gold. He adopted as his mone-
tary unit the half of that of Croesus, at the
same time somewhat raising the standard. Thus
the silver pieces called aſ yaoi or shekels weighed
about 86 grains, and twenty of them were
equivalent in value to a Daric. [See SIGLUS.]
But the right of issuing silver money was not
reserved exclusively to the king. Satraps, es-
pecially when in command of military expe-
ditions, were allowed to strike in silver, to
adopt any types or devices they might think
proper, and even to place their names on the
coin. The cities of the Asiatic coast, of Lycia,
and of Cyprus were allowed to have coins of
their own. In these cases the standard was
the same as that of the siglos, but the pieces
issued were usually of the weight of two sigli
(about 172 grains). The cities of Phoenicia, on
the other hand, which issued silver coin in
great abundance, retained, Aradus excepted,
448 PONDERA {
IPONDERA
their ancient silver standard. Such was the
general nature of the Asiatic issues of coin
until the Persian Empire fell.
But we must now trace the rise of coining in
Greece proper; and for this purpose return to a
period before the date of Darius. We have
already mentioned that, probably as early as
the seventh century B.C., the cities of Euboea
minted electrum on the Babylonian gold stan-
dard (130 grains), and Aegina on the Phoenician
silver standard (230 grains). At this period
the cities of Euboea, together with Corinth and
Aegina, were the great commercial states of
Greece. So it is not surprising that with these
issues in electrum all the coinage of Greece
proper took its rise. A coinage in electrum,
however, could not exist long in Greece, for the
substance of which it was formed had to be im-
ported from Asia Minor. Silver, on the con-
trary, was abundant in Hellas, being procured
in large quantities and many places, especially
in Thrace. [See ARGENTUM.] It was therefore
natural that the cities of Greece proper should
have adopted silver for their currencies. But
in so doing they adhered in the main, as we
shall see, to the standards which had reached
them from Asia.
Herodotus states that it was Pheidon, king
of Argos, who regulated the measures of the
Peloponnese (Herod. vi. 127); and Ephorus,
quoted by Strabo (viii. pp. 358 and 376), says
that he struck v6 atopia to re &AAo kal to
&pyvpoov at the island of Aegina. Certainly
some of the earliest of the coins of Greece
proper were the electrum and silver money of
Aegina, bearing the type of a tortoise. Accord-
ing to Herodotus (vi. 127), Pheidon’s son was
one of the suitors of Agariste, daughter of
Cleisthenes of Sicyon. If this be true, his date
must be brought down to that of Cleisthenes,
about 600–580 B.C.; and we agree with Unger,
who has discussed the whole question of the
date of Pheidon in the Philologus (vols. 28, 29),
that there is good reason to believe that there
was a Pheidon ruling in Argos at that period.
The testimony of Herodotus is too clear and
explicit to be rejected. And this king it must
certainly have been who introduced coins into
Greece. It is contrary to all evidence to place
that introduction at so early a period as the
eighth Olympiad.
Whether it was this Pheidon who also regu-
lated the measures of the Peloponnese may be
considered more doubtful. That the same
ruler regulated the weights also is not stated
by Herodotus, but is probable. That there
was an earlier Pheidon is proved by a mass
of testimony; and the explicit statement of
Pausanias (vi. 22, 2) that he presided at the
eighth Olympic festival appears too definite to
be disputed. The conjecture of Weissenborn,
who wishes to substitute twenty-eighth for
eighth, is rightly rejected by Unger, and has
indeed nothing in its favour, besides being quite
inconsistent with the testimony of Herodotus;
and it may be this earlier Pheidon who regu-
lated Peloponnesian weights and measures.
In any case we may allow the truth of the
tradition that silver coin was first struck in
Hellas proper in the island of Aegina. Of this
very primitive coinage we possess many speci-
mens. Their type is a turtle, the emblem of
the Phoenician goddess of trade. One specimen
in the British Museum weighs 211 grains, but
few weigh more than 200 grains. It is difficult
to determine whence the Aeginetans or Argives
derived this standard, which is called the Aegi-
netan. It is possible that it is merely a
Šlightly degraded form of the Phoenician. Argos
had been from early times in constant commer-
cial intercourse with the Phoenicians, and long
before the invention of coinage the Argives
must have been in the habit of using bars of
metal of fixed weight. It is possible that
Pheidon, in regulating the weight of the Aegine-
tan stater, thought best to adapt it to the Baby-
lonic gold standard, which was already in use,
as we shall see, in some parts of Greece for
silver. The Babylonic stater weighing 130
grains, he may have lowered the standard of
Phoenicia (supposing that to have been in use at
Argos) so that his new staters should weigh 195.
grains, and two of them exchange for three of
the Babylonic staters. Of late years attempts
have been made to deduce the Aeginetic mina
from the water-weight of the cube of the
Olympic foot, and so to connect it with Hellenic
systems of metrology.
These, however, are speculations; what is
certain is, that the scale of the coins with the
tortoise on them, a scale henceforward called
Aeginetan, spread with great rapidity over
Greece. It was in the sixth century used every-
where in Peloponnesus except at Corinth, and
was the customary standard in the Cyclades; in
Thessaly, Boeotia, and the whole of Northern
Greece, except Euboea; and some parts of
Macedon. Its weights are as follows:–
Grammes. Grains.
Talent . * • 37,800 585,000
Mina . & 630 9,750
Stater (didrachm). I2 - 60 195
Drachm 6 °30 97
Obol 1 * 05 I6
It will be seen that we here reach new terms,
—stater, drachm, and obol. The first is but a
rendering of the Semitic word shekel [see
STATER). But the other terms are of Greek
origin. The drachm became in Greece the unit
in which calculations of weight and of money
were made, and the obol, which was the sixth
part of the drachm, was the coin used for small
payments. [See DRACHMA.]
The only other standard in use in Greece
proper before the time of Solon was the Euboic.
This was identical with the light Babylonian
gold standard. The silver staters struck on the
Euboic standard at Chalcis and Eretria weighed
about 130 grains. This Euboic standard ob-
tained currency in some other parts, such as the
island of Chios. Herodotus in his account of
the tribute paid by the Persian Satrapies (iii. 89)
states that the gold was measured by the Euboic.
standard, clearly identifying it with the Persian
official standard according to which the Darics
were coined. In the course of the fifth century
B.C. we find Cumae in Campania and other
Euboean colonies striking on a standard which
is apparently the Euboic, the coins weighing
from 120 to 110 grains. But about the middle
of the sixth century B.C. the Attic standard
arose, and it is impossible to distinguish hence-
forth the history of the Euboic from that of the
Attic standard.
PONDERA
PONDERA 449)
In the time of Solon the standard used at
Athens for weighing both merchandise and the
precious metals was the Aeginetan. Whether
actual coins were minted then at Athens is un-
certain; at all events, none survive to our day.
It is probable that Athens was still trading with
bars of silver of Aeginetan weight, or adopting
the rude coins issued in quantities by Aegina
and copied in all parts of Greece. Solon, as we
are told by Plutarch (Solon, 15), introducing his
laws for the relief of debtors, the celebrated
oretoráx6eta, ordered that the standard of the
drachm should be lowered to ſº; of what it had
previously been; that is to say, that the weight
of the drachm should be lowered from 95 grains
to 68, but that debts contracted in the old cur-
rency might be discharged in the new, the
debtors thus gaining 27 per cent. The Aegine-
tan mina was still retained as a weight for
merchandise, as we know both from several
surviving specimens of Athenian weights, and
from the testimony of a popular decree of later
time (Boeckh, C. I. 123), which reckons the
commercial mina at 138 silver drachmas. Fur-
ther, Priscian states the larger Attic (commer-
cial) talent, which was of course equal to 60 of
its own minae, to be equivalent to 83% of the
ordinary minae. These three testimonies agree
then accurately as to the relations of the pre-
Solonic and the Solonic weights of Attica; and
as the coins of Athens of the Solonic standard
survive in great quantities, there is nothing in
the above account which admits of any doubt.
It may indeed excite surprise that Solon should
have lighted on so strange a proportion as # for
the reduction of the coin. Most recent writers
have supposed that his motive was to assimilate
the new standard to the Euboic, which it only
slightly exceeds in weight; but there is here
room for doubt. For it does not appear why, if
such were his intention, he should not have at
once adopted a depreciation of 33 per cent. If
he had issued the new coin of two-thirds the
weight of the old coins or bars, he would have
given greater ease to debtors, have lighted on
an easy and simple proportion, and almost
exactly adopted the existing Euboic weight.
Attention is due to an ingenious suggestion put
forth by Mr. Poole (Dict, of the Bible, art.
“Weights and Measures”) that the new Solonic
standard is more likely to have been borrowed
from Egypt than from Asia Minor. We have
already seen that the Egyptian unit of weight,
the kat, weighed about 9 grammes or 140
grains, and the Solonic drachms of Athens are
thus nearly of the weight of half a kat.
The intercourse between Egypt and Attica was
in Solon's time very close; and it is far from
improbable that in departing from the national
standard of the Greeks he should adopt that of
Egypt.
The weights of the units of the Solonic
standard, henceforward known as the Attic, are
as follows:–
Grammes. Grains.
Talent . 26,400 405,000
Mina . 440 6,750
Drachm . 4 * 40 67 - 5
Obol e e •73 11 * 25
The ordinary coin was the tetradrachm of about
270 grains.
The only remaining standard early used in
WOL. II.
Greece proper was the Corinthian. This has the
same unit of value as the Euboic; namely, a
stater of 130 grains, the weight of which rises
under Athenian influence to 135 grains. But in
the subdivisions of this stater the Corinthian
mint took a line peculiar to itself. With it the
drachm was not half but a third of this unit,
and the obol again a sixth part of that:—
Grammes. Grains.
Stater . e º 8 - 80 135
Drachm º º 2 ° 93 45
Obol . "49 7 - 5
As many of the Corinthian coins bear marks
of value, this fact cannot be disputed. Also
Thucydides (i. 27) mentions the Corinthian
drachm as a thing apart. The reason of this
method of division has been disputed. Mommsen
(p. 61) is inclined to see in it a reminiscence of
the Asiatic origin of the weight. But it is not
improbable that the Corinthian drachms of
45 grains were intended to pass as Aeginetan
hemidrachms, of which the weight was about
the same. The money of Aegina and Athens
would naturally meet in the market of Corinth ;
and the Corinthian coin seems to have been
specially adapted to mediate between the two.
We must now follow the course of the
invention of money westwards to Italy and
Sicily. It is almost certain that when the
people of Phocaea migrated to Velia in Italy,
about B.C. 543, they took with them the art of
coinage. But at about this period the Achaean
cities of Southern Italy—Sybaris and Poseidonia,
Rhegium and Caulonia, with Croton, Tarentum,
and other towns—were already issuing money
much of which still remains in our Museums,
and is remarkable for bearing the same type on
both sides; on one side in relief, on the other in
intaglio. This money is apparently struck on
the Euboic standard which the people of Chalcis
and Corinth had already introduced in these
regions. At some cities the drachm is half the
stater, as in Euboea; in some a third of it, as
at Corinth. Its date is certain, for we have
specimens minted at Sybaris and Siris, which
were destroyed not later than B.C. 510. At
about the latter date Syracuse as well as
Zancle, Naxos, and other Chalcidian colonies
in Sicily began to issue coin. The Chalcidian
cities, for some unexplained reason, began by
issuing pieces weighing about 90 grains, which
must therefore either be drachms of the
Aeginetan, or, more probably, didrachms of the
Corinthian standard. But they soon adopted—
as Syracuse, Gela, and Leontini did from the
first—the Attic standard, and struck coins as
follows:—
Tetradrachm . & . 270 grains.
I)idrachm e º • 135 3 y
Drachm . g tº . 67' 5 3 y
Hemidrachm . e . 33°75 , ,
Obol • . . . 11 °25 s,
But, in addition to the obol, we find at Syracuse
a litra weighing about 13% grains. In order to
explain its relation to the other coins, it is
necessary to give some account of the systems
of weighing and the monetary systems of Italy
and Sicily. (See below, p. 455.) Among the
purely Greek cities of these regions we do not
find, until a comparatively late period, any
2 G
450 TONDERA
PONDERA
standards in use for money except the Euboic
and the Attic. - -
Monetary Standards of Greece at the time of
the Peloponnesian War.—If we attempt a general
survey of the standards employed by the Greeks
for money, say at about the year B.C. 420, we
must confine ourselves carefully to generalities.
The monetary history of each city is a study,
sometimes an intricate one, and we might often
fail to find reasons for the adoption of this or
that standard in turn. But a more general
survey is not impossible. In Sicily, as has
already been stated, the Attic standard was
universal; the ordinary coin was the tetra-
drachm; didrachms, hemidrachms, and obols
were in use, and decadrachms occasionally
struck. [See DAMARETEION.] In Italy, that
is, the Greek colonies of S. Italy, the Euboic
standard, appreciably lower than the Attic, was
in general use; but the standard coin was not
the tetradrachm, but the didrachm, which is said
at Tarentum to have been called voduplos. [See
NUMMUS.] In Hellas proper, including Epirus
and Thessaly, the Aeginetan standard was
almost universal. The exceptions were Athens,
where the Attic standard prevailed; and Corinth,
together with the Corinthian colonies in Acar-
mania, which minted as was natural on the
Corinthian standard, The iron money of Laconia
was of Aeginetan standard, the tréAavop being
of the weight of an Aeginetan mina. Crete
and the islands near the European coast also
used the Aeginetan weights. In Macedonia
several standards were in use. The kings of
Macedon in the fifth century used the Persian
silver standard for their coins; but the cities
of Chalcidice mostly used the standard of their
Euboean mother-city, somewhat raised, in fact
raised nearly to the Attic level; and the rude
tribes of Mount Pangaeum, who coined very
largely, used a somewhat degraded form of the
Persian or Babylonian silver standard, their
staters not weighing more than 160 grains.
On the shores of the Black Sea the Persian
standard was almost universally in use ; Sinope,
Amisus, and other cities issuing large numbers
of coins of the weight of the Persian siglus,
that is, of about 86 grains. Probably three of
these prices went in exchange for an Attic
tetradrachm. In other parts of Asia Minor, in
some of the Ionian cities, as Colophon, in Lycia
and Cyprus, the same Persian standard was in
use; but in the southern district the double
siglus of 170 grains or thereabouts was more
usual than, the single one. Some of the great
cities of the west coast retained the Phoenician
silver standard, which, however, varied some-
what from place to place. At Ephesus the
stater sometimes exceeded 230 grains; at Samos
it seldom weighed more than 205 grains. The
Samian standard ruled in the African colony of
Cyrene. The cities of Phoenicia about this time
began to strike coins on their original standard.
At this time no gold coin except the Persian
Darics was anywhere current. But electrum
coin was issued in great quantities by the city
of Cyzicus. The standard used by that city was
the Phocaic of 260–250 grains, and the denomi-
nations issued were the stater and the hecte or
sixth. [See STATER and HECTE.] Lampsacus
also issued electrum coin.
History of Coinage in the Levant after B.C. 420.
—In 408 B.C. the city of Rhodes was founded.
The origin of this city coinciding so nearly with
the humiliation of Athens by Lysander, the
commerce of Rhodes spread rapidly over all
seas. The Rhodians adopted from , the first a
standard of their own, which seems to have been
a variety of the Phoenician. Their tetradrachm
weighed at first 240 grains, though in the course
of a century it sank to 220 grains. This standard
made its way in the , fourth century, rapidly
among Greek states. King Mausolus of Caria
adopted it. And even the distant Olynthus,
head of the Chalcidian league, struck money on
the same standard: thence it was adopted by
Philip of Macedon for his silver coin.
The early years of the fourth century saw a
copper or rather bronze coinage spring up in
most cities of Greece proper and the Greek
colonies in Italy and Sicily. Hitherto for small
change the Greeks had used minute pieces of
silver. Pieces of the weight of two grains troy,
representing two chalci or the fourth part of an
obol, were commonly used at Athens, and
survive to our day. Copper money was at first
scouted, as we see from the language of
Aristophanes (Eccles. 818), but it gradually
made its way by its superior convenience. At
about the same time gold was first minted by
Greeks. Small pieces first make their appearance
in Sicily; but before the middle of the fourth
century gold staters struck on the Attic standard
were issued in considerable numbers by Olynthus,
Panticapaeum, Athens, Lampsacus, Cius, Rhodes,
and other cities, eventually driving out of
circulation the electrum money of Cyzicus and
Lampsacus. - -
When Philip of Macedon acquired the gold
mines of Thrace, he began issuing large quanti-
ties of gold coins with his own types. And as
in the case of his issues in silver, so in those
in gold, he adopted the standard already current
in Chalcidice, the wealthiest and most civilised
part of his dominions. That is to say, he minted
gold didrachms of the Attic standard, those
didrachms which soon became motorious all
over the world. They opened to Philip the
gates of many a Greek city, they constituted
the greater part of the wealth of the capitalists
in Greece and Italy, and they were copied, by
the barbarous nations on the northern frontiers
of Greece and even by the remote tribes of Gaul
and Britain. .
But, as in other departments of Greek activity,
so in the coinage, the greatest of epochs is
furnished by the life of Alexander the Great.
Alexander adopted throughout his vast dominions
the Attic standard of weight for both silver
coins and gold. We must pause for a moment
to consider his objects in taking this measure.
Hitherto almost all cities which issued both
gold and silver, Athens excepted, had used, a
different standard for the two metals. The
ratio of value between gold and silver being, as
we have above seen, as 13% to 1, it was necessary
that the standards should be different in order
that a round number of silver staters should
exchange for one gold stater. In Asia the
Euboic standard was in use for gold, and either
the Babylonic silver standard or the Phoenician
for silver. Gold was seldom minted in Europe;
but the states, such as the Olynthian league
and Macedon, which did issue gold coin, minted
PONDERA
PONDERA 451
it of Attic weight, at the same time that they time of Philip of Macedon, consequently on
adopted for their, silver one of the Asiatic
standards. This procedure was obviously desir-
able so long as the old relation of value between
gold and silver was maintained. But in the
the active use made by that king of the rich
gold mines of Thrace, the value of gold in
proportion to . that of silver fell. Alexander
seems to have perceived that in consequence it
GREEK COINAGE.
No. of e g
Phoeni- tº Aegine- º
*: º cian, º, Samian. tan, Cis- Euboic. Attic. §.
drachm. Rhodian. tophoric. *se
Dodecadrachm. 12 690 - i
Decadrachm . 10 575 675
Octadrachm . 8 460 -
Tetradrachm . 4 230 210 260 270
Tridrachm . 3. - . . . . 135
Didrachm . . 2 115 172 . 105 • 194 , 130 135
Trihemidrachm 1% - - - 67 - 5
Drachm . . I 57-5 86 52* 5 97 65 67 - 5 45.
Tetrobol . . # 38° 3 .57-3 35 43°3 45
Hemidrachm # 28° 7 43 26 - 2 48° 5 32 - 5 33.7 22°5
Diobol . . . # 19 - 2 28 - 6 17 - 5 32° 3 21 * 6 22 - 5 15
Trihemiobol . # 14 °3 21 - 5 I3 - 1 24 ° 2 16-8 II •2.
Obol . . . . . . # 9 • 6 14' 3 8 - 7 16° t 10-8 11 ° 2 7 °5 . .
Tritartemorion # 7 - 2 10 - 7 12 * 1 , 8’4 2 *
Hemiobol . . # 4 * 8 7 - I 4-3 8 5*4 5'6 . 3 - 7
Tetartemorion ºr 2' 4 3' 6 4 2°8 1-8
-- was impossible to maintain a double standard
Attic Standard. and to secure that a certain number of silver
staters should always pass for a gold one. He
... • .. therefore minted both metals on one standard
Gold. Electrum. Silver. * e ---,
- il in order that when the ratio of value of silver
f d. I * d a to gold was 1:12 a gold didrachm should ex-
- - - - . S. ſº S. ºvs f S. t s * * wº *: .
Talent . . . .3375 0 0 |2531 5 0 || 210 18 9 change for ... "...i wº the
iſ.” . . . .”; ; ; “; ; ; “... i., § ratio was 1:10 a gold didrachm should exchange
Decadrachm 5 12 6 || 4 - 4 44| 0 || 7 |0}| for 5 tetradrachms, and so forth. It was no
ſººn • 2 5 9 || 1 13 9, Q 2 93 | doubt stated or else implied in all promises of
#º ; : : 1: : 1: *; ! i # payment whether gold or silver was to be the
| Hemidrachm . 0 5 #| || 0 4 2: o 0 44|| metal employed. ” . . . .
Obol . . . . . . 0 1 10#| 0 | 1 5 0 0 13. Gold continued to be minted in the name and
Hemiobol . . 0 0 11+ 0, 0 & 0 0 0#| with the types of Alexander in many cities of
* . . | Asia for many years after his death, and silver
• , - - for more than a century longer, . .
sº Phoenician. The successors of Alexander coined in their
- various cities immense, quantities of money in
. -- * gold and silver. The Ptolemies of Egypt used
Silver. . | Electrum. Silver. the Phoenician standard for both gold and silver,
- - - - - - but the Attic standard was the one in general
| £, s, d. | #. s. d. £, s. d. || use by the kings of Macedon, Syria, Pergamus,
ſº * 2 º' e sº i. *:: i. º it; # it, | Bithynia, Bactria, and India, as well as by the
jrachm . . , 10 || “... i. 1; 3 ‘’’ Parthians. ... But it would be a mistake to sup-
Tetradrachm . 0 4 oil 1 8 9 || 0 2 4 pose that all issues except regal ones came to an
Hºm gº e º : 0 º 1; 4}| 0 1 # end, either in Asia or Europe. In Asia we find
| Hemidrachm . o 0 &l 3 # ; : § cities like Ephesus, Miletus, Colophon, and
Qbol . . . . . . . 0 0 2 5 i 24 o 0 if | Rhodes, continuing their old coinages, with types
| Hemiobol . . 0 0 1 || 0 0 7+| 0 0 0# and even standards unchanged. In European
. e —J | Greece some cities, such as Athens, Corinth, and
- - . Elis, continue their issues as of old, altering the
Persian (silver standard). style of their coins to suit the taste of the age.
* But a new feature is presented by the federal coin-
sp yºne lege
• - tº ages of the new political leagues. The cities of the
Gold. Electrum. | Silver. Achaean league issue a uniform series of coins,
- only bearing at each city a different monogram
£ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. || or mint-mark. Their silver coins are Aeginetan
Talent . . . º 1. ! *:: 0 0 || 268 l; 0 || hemidrachms, or, which is the same thing,
iºnſ . . .'; ; ; : 1: º t : 1. # Corinthian drachms. The Acarnanian and Aeto-
Tetradrachm . 2 17 4 || 2 3 0 || 0 3 7"||lian leagues follow the Aegimetan standard.
H." • * ; i. : t i. ; ; ; 1: The only great innovation which takes place
I’8,C/1 DI] e : , . 0 10%| afte: i.e. e . A ci inor is the
Hemidrachm . 0 7 2 || 0 5 4} 0 0 54 after this in the coinage of Asia Minor is
3.”“ . . ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;|| introduction of the coins called Cistophori,9n
|Hemiobol . . . 0 1 2: 0 0 10i o 0 oil |account of their type, which is the cista mystica
. . . . . of Dionysiac worship. These coins were first


2 G 2
452 PONDERA.
PONDERA
struck in the times of the later kings of Per-
gamus, and were peculiar to the West and Inte-
rior of Asia Minor. They follow the Aeginetan
standard, with the variety that what was called
a didrachm in the case of the Aeginetan coins
was usually called a tetradrachm in the case of
the Cistophori. The Cistophoric drachm was
therefore equivalent to an Aeginetan hemi-
drachm, or a Corinthian drachm. How this
standard originated is not known, but the coins.
struck on it formed the main part, together
with the drachms of Rhodes, of the currency of
Asia Minor during the first century B.C., and
pieces of the same class were issued even under
the earlier Roman emperors. And by this time
the drachms of Rhodes had sunk to the weight
of the quarter of a Cistophoric tetradrachm.
When the Romans conquered Asia, they intro-
duced a tariff according to which the various coins
in circulation exchanged against the denarius.
The first set of the preceding tables gives the
approximate weights of the Greek coins in
general use; the others give the values of those
coins, roughly, in English money; reckoning gold
at the value of 2d. a grain Troy, silver at 5s.
an ounce Troy, and electrum at 1%d, a grain:
for although as a matter of fact electrum seldom
contains # of gold, yet it is supposed that the
ancients valued it on that basis.
In this way we get the metal equivalents of
the ancient coins. Their equivalents in purchas-
ing power cannot be determined. We can only
say quite roughly that in many respects a silver
drachm in Greece would go almost as far as a
sovereign with us. The daily pay of a mer-
cenary in later Greece was four Attic obols,
equal in weight to a sixpence. The younger
Cyrus gave his soldiers a daric (£1 1s. 6d.) a
month. Probably these mercenaries were able
after a few years' service to retire on a com-
petency. Any attempt at closer comparison
between ancient and modern prices can only
serve to mislead.
Greek Systems of Weight for Commodities.—
The history of the weights used by the various
states of Greece can thus be established by in-
duction. From the testimony of a few coins we
can easily discover the weight of the talent and
mina according to which they were minted.
And as a rule the talents and minae used for
coins were those used for other goods. But to
this rule the exceptions were very numerous.
There is no reason to think that peculiar mone-
tary standards, such as those of Rhodes and of
Samos, were ever applied to the weighing of
merchandise. And there are reasons for sup-
posing that whereas the standard used for coins
had at all times a tendency to fall, the standard
used for merchandise had often a tendency to
rise. So even if originally at any place money and
merchandise were governed by the same weights,
a process of differentiation would soon set in.
There is indeed, for determining the weights
in use in the Greek markets, a mass of material
available in the shape of extant Greek weights
of lead or bronze. But hitherto, this material
has not been used in a sufficiently methodical
manner. And there are very great difficulties
inherent in its use. Firstly, weights of lead,
unlike gold and silver coins, lose weight in the
course of ages by decay or , gain weight by
oxidation or accretion, so that the original
weight of any extant specimen is very hard to
determine. Secondly, very few existing weights
have inscriptions sufficiently exact to determine
their date, locality, and denomination. And,
thirdly, we have reason to believe that the
standards which prevailed in any city or district
were not carefully adhered to by the shop-
keepers, who used considerable licence.
The statements of ancient writers on metro-
logy are useful to us in the case of two cities,
Athens and Alexandria. But they are of little
authority unless we can verify them by an
appeal to extant monuments, since the autho-
rity of these writers is small, and numbers are
notoriously liable to alteration and corruption
in the MSS.
Under these circumstances we shall venture
to do little beyond giving a sketch of the metro-
logical systems of Athens and Alexandria. Lists
of extant weights will be found in the papers of
Schillbach (Annali dell’Instituto; 1865), Murray
(Numismatic Chronicle, 1868), Longpérier (An-
mali dell' Inst., 1847), R. S. Poole (Dict, of the
Bible, art. “Weights”), and elsewhere.
Athens.—In the case of this city we know
from existing inscriptions and extant weights
what standards were used for weighing various
articles. -
First, there was the usual Attic or Solonic
standard, corresponding in use to our Troy
weight. This is the standard on which all the
coins of Athens from first to last were struck.
It was also used for weighing all precious
articles of gold and silver. This we know from
the lists of the treasure stored in the Parthenon,
which are still preserved. The same standard
was used for their drugs, not only by the phy-
sicians of Attica, but by those of Alexandria
and other cities. In the writings of Galen, for
example, the weights are given according to the
Solonic standard. Of the extant leaden weights
of Athens, many conform to this standard.
Others among the existing weights of Athens
are regulated according to a standard just
double the weight of the Solonic. One of
them marked TPITH weighs 4,440 grains,
one marked TETAPT 3,218 grains, and one
marked HMITETAPT 1770 grains. These are
clearly fractions of a weight equal to two minae
of Attic standard, but used as a unit for certain
purposes (12,800 to 14,200 grains). The excess
in case of the heavier specimens need not trouble
us; it is extremely common to find Greek
weights somewhat above the standard; and an
inscription quoted below may partially explain
the fact. What is important at present is the
use at Athens of a standard of double weight.
Probably it was used for certain specified kinds
of goods only. It is not mentioned by writers
or in inscriptions.
The third standard in use at Athens was the
Commercial or Emporic. This also is followed
in many extant weights. It was identical with
the Aeginetan standard for coins of which we
have already spoken, with a mina of about
9,700 grains (628.5 grammes). It corresponded
in use to our weight avoirdupois, being the
ordinary weight in use in the market. There is
a very important Athenian inscription (C. I. G.
123) which throws much light on the use of
the Solonic and the Emporic standards at Athens,
as well as on other matters connected with
PONDERA
PONDERA 453
weights. It runs thus:– “The Emporic mina
(uva èpatropuch) shall weigh 130 drachms of the
Stephanephoros, according to the weights pre-
served at the mint, and there shall be added
(thrown in) twelve drachms of the Stephane-
phoros; and all bargains shall be regulated by
this mina, except in cases where silver-weight is
specially mentioned, the scales being balanced so
that the rod is level, against a weight of 150
drachms of the Stephanephoros.” The inscrip-
tion goes on to say that in every Emporic trevrd-
pivovy (5 minae) cme Emporic mina shall be
thrown in, and in every Emporic talent five
minae.
From this inscription, the date of which is
somewhat doubtful, but must be as late as the
third century B.C., and is probably not later than
the first, we learn (1) that the Solonic mina and
drachm were called rod Xreq’avmſpópov. The
Stephanephoros was an Attic hero or daemon in
whose temple the mint was in early times
placed; thus the drachms called after him were
drachms of money: on the weights the Solonic
mina is called uvå Ömuoota; (2) that the pro-
portion between the Aeginetan or Attic commer-
cial mina and that of the mint remained at
138: 100 (just as it had been fixed by Solon)
throughout Athenian history: but (3) that
Greek weights were sometimes arbitrarily raised
by authority, at least in democracies. In this
case it is acknowledged that the commercial
mina does not exceed 138 drachms; yet all
sellers are ordered to act as if it weighed 150
drachms. This will account in part for the
curious fact that ancient weights so often exceed
their nominal standard. The Éotrà, or weight
thrown in, is less in proportion in the higher
denominations. In the case of the revrápuuovv
20 per cent. is to be added; in the case of the
talent, only 8 per cent. The democratic origin
and intention of this distinction are obvious.
That the Emporic mina was also called the
mina of the Agoranomi is shown from the
inscription of a weight found at Athens which
weighs 335 grammes, HMI AſOPANO (Ann.
dell’Inst., 1865, p. 199).
A fourth talent of quite a different character
was in use at Athens in later times. It is
mentioned by the poet Philemon, who writes
(Etym. M. s. v. rāAarov), Aš’ el AdBoi rāAavra,
xpvorows & #xay &motorerai. From which it
appears that this talent was made up of three
Attic gold staters or didrachms. Six drachms
of gold may very well have been equivalent to a
talent of copper of 6,000 drachms.
In Greece proper it is very probable that the
Attic and Aeginetan standards were in general
use from early times to late. Indeed the Aegi-
netan was for most classes of goods probably
almost universal. But as we have few or no
weights bearing marks of value which we can
with certainty attribute to cities of Hellas, we
are unable to establish this by the satisfactory
method of induction.
Alexandria.-The only city of the Levant
besides Athens in which we can fully trace the
systems of weight in use is Alexandria. In
this case our guides are less existing weights
than the statements of late writers. As these
generally use for their standard the weight of
the Roman denarius, which is certain, their
meaning can usually be fixed with accuracy.
By comparing the table which bears the name
of Cleopatra, but really belongs to a later date
(Hultsch, Metrolog. Script. Reliqq. p. 109), with
that of Galen, the eminent physician (Hultsch,
p. 79), and with others, we reach the following
results:—(1) The standard in most general use
at Alexandria seems to have been based on the
Attic mina. In the prescriptions of doctors this
was universal until a late time. The table of
Cleopatra calls it # avă par excellence. Its
weight was 16 Roman ounces or 6,800 grains.
(2) For money and perhaps other things the
standard usually employed was the Ptolemaic.
The Ptolemaic mina contained the weight of 100
Ptolemaic drachms, which, as we have seen,
were struck on Phoenician weight. After the
time of Nero this mina was sometimes called the
Attic, because it contained 100 of the denarii of
Nero, which were commonly considered as Attic
drachms. Its weight was that of 12% Roman
ounces or 5,500 grains. Besides these two
minae and the Roman libra, three other systems
of weight were in use. (3) That also called Ptole-
maic, which was, as Hultsch points out, an
Egyptian weight of great antiquity. Its mina
contained 18 Roman ounces, 7,650 grains, and it
is apparently nothing but the old native Egyp-
tian standard. (4) That called Alexandrian. Its
mina contained 20 ounces (8,500 grains), and it is
identical with the [Babylonian or] Persian silver
standard. (5) TáAavrov čvXuków, used for wood
only, and said to be heavier than the Ptolemaic
standard. It was a local weight, rd Mavrov
érixópwov. It was very nearly equivalent to
the Attic weight.
The following table gives the values of the
weights thus in ordinary use in Greece and in
Egypt during the age of their autonomy:—

Part of º e tº Aeginetan, Ptolemaic,
Mina. Attic—Solonian. Attic—Double. Attic commercial. Late Attic.
Grammes Grains Grammes | Grains Grammes | Grains Grammes | Grains
Talent a G & 60 26,436 | 408,000 52,872 816,000 37,700 582,000 21,384 330,000
Pentamnoun. . 5 2,203 34,000 4,406 68,000 3142* 5 48,500 1,782 27,500
Dimna. * 2 881 - 2 13,600 1762" 4 27,200 1257 19,400 712.8 11,000
Mina. . . . . 1 440' 6 || 6,800 | 881-2 || 13,600 | 628' 5 || 9,700 || 356'4 || 5,500
Hemimnaion • # 220-3 || 3,400 440° 6 6,800 31.4 ° 2 4,850 178.2 2,750
Tritenhorion . . # 146 ° 9 2,266 293° 8 4,532 209 - 5 3,233 118 °8 1,833
Tetartemorion . } 110 - 2 1,700 220 ° 4 3,400 157 - 1 2,425 89 - 1 1,375
Pemptemorion e # 88 - 1 1,360 176 - 2 2,720 125 - 7 1,940 71 ° 2 1,100
Hemitetartemorion # 55° I 850 110 " 2 1,700 77 6 l, 212' 44°5 687.
Tetradrachm º *: 17 - 6 272 35 - 2 544 25° 1 388 14" 2 22ſ)
Drachm . p Tââ 4 * 4 68 8 8 136 6°2 97 3° 5 55
Hemidrachm ##5 2 - 2 34 4 * 4 68 3 * 1 48 1-7 27
Obol . . . uţă • 7 12 1 * 4 23 1 * 0 16 • 6 9
454. PONDERA
PONDERA.
When we pass from Athens and Alexandria to
Asia Minor, Syria, and other parts of the Levant,
we find insurmountable difficulties in the way
of ascertaining the standards of weight in
general use. The number of published weights
coming from those regions and bearing inscrip-
tions, sufficiently clear and satisfactory to
enable them to be used as the basis of induc-
tion, is very small. And even of these it is
very difficult to determine how far the actual
weight has been diminished or increased by
burial in the ground and consequent chemical
tions and museums in Europe and the Levant
there may be many unpublished weights which
would help us to reach a securer standing
ground. But this is of course mere matter of
conjecture. At present we can quote little
more than the weights mentioned by M. de
Longpérier (Ann. dell' Inst, for 1847), by
Brandis (pp. 154–6), and by Schillbach (Beiträge
zur Gewichtskunde). All of these appear to
belong to the period subsequent to the expedi-
tion of Alexander. We add a table of the most
important specimens.
action. It is probable that in obscure collec-
VARIOUS INSCRIBED GREEK WEIGHTS.
Mina.
Date & 6 ºr Weight. t
Place. B.C. Inscriptions.
Grammes. | Grammes. Grains.
1. Antioch in Syria. | 194 MNA ANTIOXEIA 498 - 6 498 7,700
2. 39 ,, . 175–164 MNA 516 516 7,960
3. 3 * 39 e 57 MNA AHMOXIA 1068 - 2 1,068 16,490
4. 99 ,, . 62–29 | H MIMNAION AHMOXION 535 “I 1,070 16,520
5. Seleucia . TETAPTON 199°4. 437 6,740
6. Antioch in Caria. TETAPTON 122 488 7,530
7. Chios . . © AYO MNAI 1124°1 562 8,680
8. , , . . tº MNA 547 547 8,450
9. Ilampsacus HIM II 270 540 8,340
10. Cyzicus . . . KYTI MINA 466 - 5 466 7,200
ll. Smyrna TE]TAP:TON 180 720 11, 110
12. Alexandria Troas AAE TIETAPTON 99 • 8 400 6,200
13. Bisanthe . B|XAN MNA 556 556 8,590

It will be at once, seen that these weights fall
into different categories and belong to various
systems. Nos. 3 and 4 give very clear and
decisive evidence as to the market weights in
use at the Syrian Antioch at the period when
they were cast. They give a plvå Ömuooría of
about 1070 grammes, or 16,520 English grains.
All the other weights, except No. 11, coming
from several parts of Asia Minor and Syria,
appear to belong to the same system. The
mina of this system would appear to have
weighed some 540–560 grammes, and therefore
to have been as nearly as may be half as heavy
as that, according to which 3 and 4 were
regulated. On referring to the table of Baby-
lonian weights (p. 446), we shall see that in
the Babylonian system for weighing silver the
two minas, according to heavy and light stan-
dard, respectively are 1122 and 561 grammes.
These two weights are certainly strikingly like
those which we have just reached. Induced by
this correspondence, 1%randis (p. 155) suggests
that the mina of our weights is that of the
Babylonian silver standard: This standard was
adopted by the Persian kings for their silver
money, as has already been mentioned. After
the conquest of Persia by Alexander it ceased,
except in some outlying parts of the Empire,
such as the Euxine Sea and India, to be used for
money, but Brandis supposes that it still per-
sisted as a weight for goods. As in many parts
of the Persian Empire it was somewhat lowered,
a mina of , 1070 grammes might very well
belong to this standard. But in this case the
term Amudotos would still remain to be ex-
plained; as things changed very slowly in the
East, it is scarcely likely that the Persian silver
standard which belonged in an especial degree
to silver coin or bars should so have superseded
the original Babylonian weights which were
used for the weighing of goods other than silver
in Mesopotamia and Syria, as to become the
usual or normal standard. t
Referring again to our table (p. 446), we
shall see that of this ordinary Babylonian
system for general weighing the minas weighed
respectively 1010 and 505 grammes. It is a
priori far more probable that a mina called
6muorſa should, belong to this standard than to
another. And further it is to be observed that
although weights used for coin have a strong
tendency to fall, yet weights used for other pur-
poses do not experience this tendency in anything
like the same force. Indeed, the instance above
quoted from the laws of Athens shows that the
interest of the purchaser tended sometimes suc-
cessfully to raise weights in market use. And
further, weights of lead which have been long
buried vary decidedly from their normal strength.
It is then best, on the whole, to leave it un-
decided whether the public mina of Antioch
was derived from the Babylonian system for
weighing silver or that used for other articles.
Weight No. 11 in the Museum of Smyrna
was probably in use not far from that city, and
appears to follow the Phoenician standard.
We learn from an anonymous Alexandrian
writer (Hultsch, Metrologici, i. p. 301) that
wood was at Antioch weighed on a system of
its own, by a $vatkov ráAavrov, which appears
from its equivalent of 375 Roman librae to have
been considerably heavier than any of the
PONDERA
PONDERA 455.
talents above mentioned. Hultsch reckons it at
128,400 grammes (Metrologie, p. 591). The
existence of this weight is interesting, as show-
ing that in ancient times bulky articles were
sometimes weighed on a different scale from
lighter goods: and in fact this custom has held
in most countries.
In late Imperial times most of the weights in
use in the Levant gave way to the Roman libra,
inscribed specimens of which are found in Asia
Minor and Syria.
It is thus clear that the cities of Syria, Asia
Minor, and Mesopotamia did not, in adopting
the Attic system for their coinage, as they did
mostly in or soon after the time of Alexander,
adopt the same system for weighing goods, but
adhered to their ancient standards. For a
general review of the systems of weighing
actually in use, materials entirely fail.
Italian Systems of Weight.—The Roman libra
or pound was from the earliest times used alike
for money and for other commodities. It
remained unchanged in standard to a very late
period. At first pieces of copper were cast in
all Roman parts of Italy of the weight of a
pound, and of the various fractions of a pound.
Soon, as we have seen (under As), the standard
of the coins fell rapidly. But the weight con-
tinued unchanged. When, at a far later period,
the coinages of silver and gold were introduced
at Rome, the gold and silver pieces were struck
so many to the pound. Even to the time of
Diocletian and Constantine the Roman libra as a
weight remained undiminished; and the late
metrologists of Alexandria appeal to it as an
unchangeable standard, testing by reference to
it the weight of the various Greek talents and
In 1113 S.
The dominion then of the libra as a weight is
as durable and extensive as the dominion of
Rome herself. Of the libra of money we have
spoken under AS. The weight of the Roman
libra has been investigated by Boeckh, Mommsen,
and Hultsch. The materials for ascertaining it
are threefold: (1) existing weights, (2) copper
coinage, (3) gold and silver coinage. It is the
latter alone which gives consistent and satis-
factory results; for the weights vary unac-
countably, and the copper coinage very soon
sank in weight to a lower level. Letronne
made a calculation of weight on the basis of
gold coin; and his results with slight modifica-
tion are accepted by the three metrologists
above named. We may safely accept their
results. They fix on 327 ° 453 grammes, about
5050 grains, as the true or normal standard.
The weights of the fractions of the as, with
their signs in Roman notation, are as follows:–

tº 8 - Part of Part of Weight. . Weight. Sign in
Denomination. libra. wncia. Grammes. Grains. notation.
Libra or AS . . . . . . . 1 I2 327 ° 45 5,050 |
Deunx . . . . . . . . # LL 300 * 16 4,629 S = = -
Dextans . . . . . . . # 10 272 °88 4,208 S = =
Dodrans . . . . . . # 9 245° 59 3,787 S = —
. Bes . . . e tº e & # 8 218 - 30 3,366 S =
Septunx. tº º gº ę # 7 191 * 02 2,946 S —
Semis. . tº e º # 6 163-73 2,525 S
Quincunx . © e º º # 5 136°44. 2,104°1 - = -
Triens . . ſº e # 4. 109 - 15 1,683-3 F +,
Quadrans e º o e g e º + 3 81 - 86 1,262-5 = -
Sextans. e e & * e e e © # 2 54 * 58 841 º 6 -
Sescuncia. . . . . . . # 1% 40 - 93 631 - 2 – 0.
Uncia . . . . . . . i’s 1 27-28 420 °8 -º
, Semuncia . . . . . . . *: # 13 * 64 210 - 4 ſº, X
Sicilicus . . . . . . . . z's # 6-82 105 - 2 Q
Sextula . . . . . . # # 4 - 54 70 - 1 T, ev
Scripulum . . . . ałF *: I • 13 17 - 5 7\, #:
The only modification which ever took place
in this system occurred in connexion with the
weighing of drugs in Imperial times. As we
have seen, at Alexandria and in the Levant
generally, drugs were regulated by Attic
weight. But under Roman influence the dena-
rius was regarded as the equivalent in weight
of the Attic drachm. The denarius, as we
have shown under AS, weighed #1 of a pound
from the time of the Punic wars to those of
Nero, and # of a pound after that. The
Greek divisions of the drachm were applied to
the denarius as a weight. We thus obtain two
systems of weight for drugs.

FIRST SYSTEM. SECOND SYSTEM.
Denomination.
Part of Weight. Weight. Part of Weight. Weight.
?!?!Cº. Grammes. Grains. uncia. Grammes. Grains.
Uncia . . . . . . t 1 27-28 420 - 8 1. 27 - 28 420 °8
Sicilicus . . . . . . . + 6-82 105" 2 4. 6'82 105 °2
Drachma. . . . . . . . + 3 * 90 60° 1 # 3 * 41 52'6
Scripulum e is e º e *: 1 * 14 17 - 5
Obolus º # • 65 10 z'; 57 8-7
Siliqua & e sº e e - +++ º 19 2.9
Chalcus tº e tº ſº º © #5 • 08 1° 25 ##z • 07 1 * 1
456 PONDERA
PONS
It is a remarkable fact that, although at
Rome the as was probably never minted of the
full weight of a pound of twelve ounces, yet
in some of the Roman colonies, such as Arimi-
num and Hatria, it was issued of the weight of
14 ounces (5,900 grains). It is doubtful how
this change may be accounted for. But it is
noteworthy that this heavier weight comes near
the standard (5,750 grains; see above, p. 446)
of the silver talent of Phoenicia. We are
inclined to think, then, that the Roman pound,
which, as Hultsch has shown, was not in its
origin in any way connected with the Roman
measures of length, was derived from the Phoe-
nician mina, as was probably the national or
Aeginetan standard in Greece. In both cases a
considerable reduction took place, before the
weight was fixed for all future time in Greece
by Pheidon of Argos, and at Rome by the
Decemviri.
Of the Roman librae which have come down
to us, many are considerably above standard.
One in the Museum of Smyrna, for instance,
weighs 374 grammes; others as much as 390
grammes. After what has been above observed
as to the tendency of weights to rise in use,
this need not surprise us.
It must not be supposed, however, that either
in earlier or later times the Roman libra pos-
sessed anything like a monopoly in the markets
of Italy. There, as in Greece and Asia, local
customs largely prevailed. The Greek colonies
in South Italy used, until they were absorbed
by Rome, the weights which they had brought
with them from Greece, the standards of Phocaea,
of Athens, and of Corinth. At a later time we
find proof of the use of various Italian minae
(Hultsch, Metrologie, p. 672):-A mima of 16
Roman ounces, 436.6 grammes, which seems to
govern the extant weights of Pompeii and Her-
culaneum. A mina of 18 Roman ounces, 491-2
grammes, called in an ancient metrological
table 'Itaxlk) uva. A mina of 20 Roman
ounces, 545.8 grains, the existence of which is
proved by a Roman inscribed weight found in
the Danube. A mina equal to two Roman
pounds, mentioned by Vitruvius, x. 21. Com-
pared, however, with the libra, these minae had
but little historical importance.
Sicilian Weights.-In Sicily the pound of
copper was the unit of value in very early
times, and was adopted to some extent by the
Greek colonies. These, however, as we have
above seen, adopted late in the sixth century B.C.
the Attic standard for coinage, and struck silver
on it of the denomination of tetradrachm, di-
drachm, drachm, hemidrachm, and obol. Into
this system by a peculiar process they incor-
porated the litra or pound of copper. The weight
of this litra is not known from direct testimony.
But we have means of fixing the weight of its
equivalent in silver. The silver litra was a coin
in use at Syracuse and other Sicilian cities; and
its weight was a tenth part of that of the Corin-
thian stater (135 grs.), which was called SekáA.--
Tpos orathp (Pollux, iv. 174), and a fiftieth part
of that of the Damareteion (q.v.). Hence it is
safe to assume that the weight of the silver
litra was 13.5 grains. Multiplying this amount
by 250, which represents the proportion in Italy
and Sicily between silver and copper, we reach
.
a sum of 3,387 grains. This is just half the
weight of the Attic silver mina. Mommsen
(p. 80) concludes on this basis that the weight
of the Sicilian litra was 3,387 grains or
217' 5 grammes, nearly the weight of 8 Roman
ounces. And since he wrote, the researches
of Deecke (Etruskische Forschungen, Part II.)
have made it probable that the same system of
the litra in silver and copper passed in the fifth
century from Syracuse into Etruria, and is the
base of the whole of the later Etruscan coinage.
The Etruscan silver pieces which bear marks of
value, are all multiples of a litra of the Sicilian
weight (13.5 grains), and the Etruscan aes grave
is of the standard of eight Roman ounces, 3,366
grains. This latter fact seems of sufficient
importance to finally establish the theory of
Mommsen as to the litra. The Athenian origin
of the latter is more than probable. It was
divided, like the Roman libra, into twelve parts;
but the names of the parts were different, a fact
which must have caused some confusion in the
minds of the Italians. The names of these parts
are given by Aristotle as quoted by Pollux,
iv. 174.

Corres-
Grammes |Grains | Written ponds to
Roman
Ijitra 219.5 3,387 Airpo. ibra
Hemilitron . 109.75 1,693 huíAttpov | Semis
Pertuncium || 91° 5 | 1,410 | TrevTºykuov quincunx
Tetras 73° 2 | 1,128 rerpas triens
Trias . 84 ° 9 846 Tpuās quadrans
Hexas 36 °6 564 {{as Sextans
Uncia 18 °3 282 ovykia. uncia
Thus the tetras corresponds to the Latin
triens, and the trias to the Latin quadrans; a
most confusing correspondence. The talent, if
equal to the Athenian, contained 120 litrae
originally. But we are able to trace its rapid
degradation. For Aristotle (Pollux, ix. 87)
speaks of the older Sicilian talent (to uév
āpxalov) as equivalent to 24 nummi, and the
later as equal to 12. The nummus here stands
for the litra. By the time of Aristotle, then,
there had been two reductions in the weight of
the litra as applied to money, and it had fallen
to a tenth of its early value. But analogy bids
us suppose that this reduction did not affect the
litra except as money. [P. G.]
PONS (yāq'upa), a bridge. One central idea,
round which many curious beliefs and pieces of
ritual are grouped, is that the erection of a
bridge is an impious act—an injury done to the
god of the river, who, by the substitution of a
safe method of crossing instead of the primitive
fording or swimming, is robbed of a certain
number of victims—travellers who without a
bridge would have been drowned. This belief
has existed among many different races at an
early stage of their religious development, and,
vaguely understood, still survives in many parts
of Europe and Asia. In Greece, Albania, and
other countries traditions even now exist of the
offering of human sacrifices at the founding of a
new bridge; and in many parts of the Moslem
world the inhabitants look upon the erection of
a bridge as an extremely impious act. Mr. J. G-
Frazer, in the Journal of Philology, xiv. pp.
156–7, has collected a curious list of examples
of this wide-spread belief. Thus, in Germany,
when a man is drowned the people say, “The
PONS
PONS 457
river-spirit is getting his annual victim’” (see
Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie, p. 499); and in
part of England the superstition exists that the
spirit of the Ribble receives and is satisfied with
a human victim every seven years (see Hender-
son, Folk-lore of the Northern Counties, p. 265).
Thus, in ancient Rome, the most primitive duty
of the pontifer or bridge-builder was to pro-
pitiate Father Tiber by regular annual sacri-
fices; and also by special extra sacrifices when-
ever the one early bridge of Rome, the Pons
Sublicius, required repairs (see Varro, L. L.
v. 15; Dionys. iii. 45; and Plut. Num. 9). In
early times human victims were offered annually
by being flung into the Tiber from the Sublician
bridge; but in later times thirty figures or
dummies called ARGEI, made of rushes, were
solemnly thrown into the Tiber by the Pontifices
and Vestal Virgins on the Ides of May, as is
recorded by Ovid (Fast. v. 622):
“Tunc quoque priscorum virgo simulacra virorum
Mittere roboreo scirpea ponte solet.”
Another notion, connected with the same class
of ideas, is that a light and, as it were, tem-
porary structure is less offensive to the river-
god than a more permanent bridge. Hence the
primitive reason for building the Sublician
bridge of wood, not fastened together with iron
in any form, having, as Pliny records, its “con-
tignatio sine ferreis clavis” (H. N. xxxvi. § 100).
Dionysius (iii. 45) goes further, and speaks of it
as rhv čvatvmv yépupav, fiv Švev xaxkoi, kal
-oidipov 6éuts in airów Stakpareio 6al rôv
ČáAwy: but in sacred matters the use of iron
was often specially prohibited, as being a more
recent invention than bronze, and therefore
devoid of its hieratic associations (cf. Plutarch's
Life of Numa). Thus the college of the Fratres
Arvales were obliged to offer an expiatory sacri-
fice if ever an iron tool were used within the
precincts of their sacred grove, near Rome (see
Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, iii. p.
459; ARVALEs). In a similar way the use of
flint knives for sacrificial purposes survived
long ages after the Stone period had passed
away.
It should be observed that the Romans them-
selves had, by the first century B.C., forgotten
what appears to be the main reason for the rules
and ritual connected with their ancient bridge,
and explain its unsubstantial character by the
risk of attack ; as had happened when Horatius
Cocles with so great difficulty held the Etruscan
army at bay while the bridge was being demo-
lished. And this may possibly have been at one
time a secondary reason for the same thing,
though not the chief one.
The oldest bridge of which we have any record,
that at Babylon, was also of wood, though built
on stone piers. This, according to Herodotus
(i. 178–186), was built across the Euphrates to
unite the two portions of Babylon by Queen
Nitocris, c. 606 B.C. The piers were of large
blocks of stone fixed with iron clamps, run with
lead; and the river is said to have been tempo-
rarily diverted from its course during their
construction. The superstructure was of wood,
part of which was arranged so as to be removed
every day at nightfall. The same queen also
built a massive river embankment made of burnt
brick.
Temporary floating bridges (oxe6tal) for mili-
tary operations appear to have been used in very
early times, boats being used for the points of
support, with cables of twisted flax (Aevkoxivov)
and papyrus (8v8Aívov), tightly strained by
the help of windlasses, to support the inter-
mediate planking. A bridge of this kind was
thrown across the Thracian Bosporus by Darius;
its engineer being a Samian Greek, named
Mandrocles (see Herod. N. 83, 85, 87, and 88).
A similar bridge, constructed for Xerxes across
the Hellespont between Sestos and Abydos, was
immediately destroyed by a storm (Herod. vii.
34, 35). Xerxes decapitated its constructors, and
ordered another bridge to be made of more care-
ful construction. This was done by the help of
674 triremes and penteconters, moored by anchors,
and united by six strong cables tightly strained
from ship to ship. On these cables the roadway
rested, made of thick planks covered with brush-
wood and earth beaten down. On each side was
a high bulwark to prevent the horses from being
frightened at the sea (see Herod. vii. 36). The
Persian army crossed safely on this second
bridge ; and thus Xerxes was enabled to accom-
plish, for a time, his projected invasion of Euro-
pean Greece.
In Greece, partly owing to the insignificant
size of the rivers, permanent bridges do not
appear to have been constructed till after the
Roman conquest. No remains now exist which
can be attributed to the period of Hellenic
autonomy. And yet it appears probable, from
the mention of bridges by various Greek
writers, that in some form wooden structures
for crossing streams when swollen by rain were
of no uncommon occurrence. Simple trestles
with movable boarding are even now used in
some parts of Italy for temporary emergencies;
and most of the Greek bridges were probably
structures of this light and unsubstantial class.
The religious ideas already described may have
tended to prevent any more solid structures
from being erected in Greece during its most
flourishing period.
Throughout the Roman dominions, especially
during the Imperial period, stone bridges with
wide-spanning arches of the most massive kind
were erected in great numbers. Many of these
bridges were of remarkable size, and show in a
very striking way the great constructional skill
of the Roman engineers. The bridge over the
Acheron, which was a thousand feet in length
(Plin. H. N. iv. 1), and that which united the
island of Euboea to the mainland, must have been
striking examples of this. The Roman bridges
were as a rule rather narrow in proportion: the
central roadway for horses and vehicles was
called the iter; at the sides were slightly raised
foot-paths (decursoria), defended on the outside
by a low parapet wall. In the more handsome
bridges, such as the Pons Aelius in Rome, pedestals
for statues or honorary columns were set at regular
intervals along the parapet. The main arches
were decorated with simple mouldings adapted
from Greek buildings; and between them, over
each pier, a smaller arch was very frequently
introduced to relieve the pressure of water
during flood-time. Rows of corbels were very
commonly inserted at the springing of each
arch, the use of which was to support the
wooden centering while the arch was being
458 PONS
PONS
built; thus doing away with the necessity of
tall supports resting in the water. In most
cases these corbels were not cut away at the
completion of the bridge, but were left, so that
repairs or rebuilding could be easily carried out.
This very useful system was applied not only to
bridges, but to all lofty arched structures, such
as aqueducts or tall palaces, like that of Severus
on the Palatine hill in Rome. In many cases a
gate-tower was built as a defence at each end of
the bridge : this was the case with more than
one of the bridges in Rome, though no remains
of these towers now exist.
The chief Roman bridges were built either of
brick and concrete, or of solid stone masonry,
carefully fixed with iron clamps and lead. In
many cases, as for example in Rome itself, a
hard “weather stone’’ was used for the facing,
the inner masonry being of some softer and less
expensive stone.
Under the later Roman Empire the city of
Rome possessed the following bridges:–
1. The Pons Sublicius, so called from the
sublicae or wooden beams of which it was con-
structed. Till the second century B.C. this was
the only bridge in Rome: some of the sacred
rites which were connected with it have already
been described. According to tradition, the
Sublician bridge was originally erected by Ancus
Martius, its special purpose being to connect the
main city with the long walls which led from
the right bank of the river up to the isolated
fortress on the Janiculan hill, where the church
of S. Pietro in Montorio now stands. The
approach to the bridge on the other side was
close by the Porta Trigemina, just inside the
line of the Servian wall. No traces of it now
exist: the ruined piers visible in dry summers
by the Marmoratum, under the Aventine hill,
belong most probably to the “bridge of Probus,”
the last mentioned in the Catalogue of the
Curiosum. The epithet roboreo, used by Ovid in
the passage quoted above, shows that even in
the time of Augustus the bridge was still of
oak. In A.D. 69 it was carried away by a flood
(Tac. Hist. i. 86), and appears not to have been
rebuilt. The mistaken notion that the Pons
Sublicius was identical with that known as the
Pons Lapideus or Aemilius arose from the mis-
understanding of a passage in Plutarch (Num.
9), and from the statement of the spurious
Publius Victor, whose catalogue is a mediaeval
forgery. The Roman bridges appear to have
been a favourite resort for beggars (see Senec.
de Vita beata, 15): hence Juvenal (xiv. 134)
uses the phrase aliquis de ponte, as meaning a
beggar (cf. Juv. iv. 116). , -
2. The first stone bridge in Rome, called on
that account the Pons Lapideus, was also known
as the Pons Aemilius. It was begun in 179 B.C.
by M. Fulvius Nobilior and the censor M.
Aemilius Lepidus, when the conquest of
Etruria and the defeat of Hannibal had put an
end to all fears of invasion. It was not, how-
ever, completed till the time of the censors
Publius Scipio Africanus and L. Mummius
(Achaicus): see Liv. xl. 51; Juv. vi. 32; and
Plut. Num. 9. The Fasti Capranici describe it
as being “ad theatrum Marcelli;” and the Cos-
mographia of Aethicus as “ad Forum Boarium.”
These indications, and the recent discovery of an
ancient basalt-paved road leading up to the
mediaeval Ponte Rotto, show that the last-
named bridge occupies the site of the Pons
Aemilius. The three arches which still exist of
the “broken bridge * appear not to be older
than the thirteenth century; the present bridge
having been mainly rebuilt after its destruction
by a flood during the pontificate of Honorius
III., 1216–1227. In 1598 about half was swept
away by another flood, and the gap is now
bridged over by a modern iron structure. The
name Palatinus, as applied to the Pons Aemi-
lius, appears to be a mediaeval invention.
3. The Pons Fabricius, which unites the
Insula Tiberina to the left bank of the river,
was built in 62 B.C. by L. Fabricius, one of the
curatores viarum, as is recorded in inscriptions
deeply cut in large letters across the face of its
arches. Part is now illegible, but the full in-
scription (repeated over both arches) is given by
Pirro Ligorio in his MS. notes on Ancient Rome,
c. 1570 (Bodleian, Cod. Canoniciani Ital. 138):
L. FABRICIWS C. F. C.W.R. WIAR, FACIVNDWM
COERAVIT EIDEMQVE PROBAVIT ; and in smaller
letters over the intermediate arch for storm-
water, Q. LEPIDVS M. F. M. LOLLIVS M. F. COS.
S. C. PROBAVERVNT. This last inscription
records its restoration by the consuls Q. Aemi-
lius Lepidus and M. Lollius in 21 B.C. Like the
other existing bridges of Rome, this is built of
peperino and tufa, faced on both sides by massive
blocks of travertine, which is also used for the
corbels at the springing of each arch. A frag-
ment still exists of the parapet; namely, a
marble pilaster crowned by a quadruple head,
Janus quadrifrons, from which the bridge takes
its modern name of the Ponte dei quattro capi.
The pilaster is grooved to receive an open
bronze screen or cancellus, which formerly filled
up the intermediate spaces between the pilasters.
This bridge is shown on the reverse of a con-
temporary denarius, c. 62 B.C., with the legend
L. FABRICIVs, and a snake to indicate the proxi-
mity of the Temple of Aesculapius on the
Tiber island. It is also represented on a bronze
medallion of Antoninus Pius (see Froehner, Med.
Rom. p. 52; also Dio Cass. xxxviii. 45). During
the Middle Ages this bridge was often called the
Pons Judaeus, from its proximity to the Ghetto
or Hebrew quarter.
4. The Pons Cestius, which joins the Insula
Tiberina to the right or Janiculan side of the
Tiber, was probably built by L. Cestius, Praefect
of the City in 46 B.C. (see Dio Cass. xxxvii. 45).
On one of the large marble slabs which form the
parapet is a long inscription recording the re-
storation of the bridge in A.D. 370 by Valen-
tinianus, Valens, and Gratian. The Pons Cestius
consists of one arch only, with an opening for
flood-water on each side of it. At present it is
called after the adjacent church of S. Bartolom-
meo, which probably stands on the site of the
Temple of Aesculapius.
5. The Pons Aelius, modern Ponte di S. Angelo,
was built in A.D. 135 by Hadrian to connect his
mausoleum and circus with the Campus Martius
(see Dio Cass. lxix. 23; and Spartian, Hadr. 19).
It is shown on, bronze coins of Hadrian dated
from his third consulship. The Einsiedeln MS.
gives its dedicatory inscription, which is now
lost, IMP. CAESAR DIVI TRAIANI PARTHICI
FILIVS DIVI NERVAE NEPOS TRAIANVS HA-
DRIANVS AVG. PONT. MAX. TRIB. POT. XVIIII-
PONS
PONS 459
(A.D. 135) COS. III. P. P. FECIT. The name of
the bridge was derived either from Hadrian's
family name Aelius, or else from his son Aelius
Caesar, who died before his father. The five
arches of this noble bridge are of peperino faced
with travertine; near it, along the left bank,
are extensive remains of the ancient embank-
ment wall, built of massive blocks of peperino,
now doomed to destruction for the sake of the
new quay. This is the bridge mentioned by
Dante, Infer. xviii. 28–33, as being thronged
with pilgrims in the Jubilee year 1300.
6. The Pons Aurelius, mentioned in the
Notitia, was probably on the site of the modern
Ponte Sisto. The date of its foundation is not
known, but Marlianus (Topogr. Rom. cap. cxxi.)
gives an inscription (now lost) which recorded
its restoration in the reign of Hadrian. The
names Janicularis and Antoninianus, which are
sometimes given to this bridge, appear to be
inventions of the mediaeval topographers. This
is possibly the bridge which, in a recently dis-
covered inscription, is called the Pons Agrippae;
see Bull. Com. Arch. Rom. 1888, p. 92.
7. The Pons Neronianus or Vaticanus was
begun by Caligula and completed by Nero, to
give access to the Horti Agrippinae and the
great circus which stood by the present Basilica
* § ºdºmº a T. C. § ºf == * T : , sº
gº §: #º º &=
Zººlºº \\
*yś 3: Hº C #: I
ºº:: === É=#.Fº
“. * E=3; ====
*===s=== ** -º-º-m
=======T_F=
E*-ºſ--- * *
IF-Eºſ
of St. Peter. The foundations of its piers still
exist, and are visible in summer a little way
below the Pons Aelius. It is probable that this
is the bridge to which the title Pons triumphalis
was sometimes applied.
8. The Pons Mulvius, modern Ponte Molle, is
about a mile and a half outside the Aurelian
wall of Rome, higher up the river, where the
Via Flaminia crosses the Tiber. It was built by
the censor M. Aemilius Scaurus, 109 B.C. (see
Aur. Victor, de Viris illust. xxvii. 8). It was on
this bridge that Cicero arrested the ambassadors
of the Gaulish Allobroges during the Catiline
conspiracy (Cic. in Cat. iii. 2). And in A.D. 312
it was the scene of the utter defeat of Maxentius
by Constantine. As at the present day, the
Pons Mulvius was under the Empire a favourite
pleasure resort for the lower classes of Rome
(see Tac. Ann. xiii. 47).
A very large number of fine stone bridges still
exist throughout the greater part of the Roman
empire, in various states of preservation. One
of the most perfect in Italy is that at Ariminum
(modern Rimini), consisting of five massive stone
arches, as is shown in the annexed cut. An
inscription on it records that it was begun by
Augustus and completed by Tiberius.
The bridge over the Nera, at the modern town
—f
|T| | | |TTE_1 | | | !,"
/4-
*/ ; ,”
KXi iſ 7. A ſº
§:... # 2 ſºKºš
== Hº-Hºº-ºº:
-- # =#Es ==º.
---
:=#E.
*s-- ~ *
====
==E
Bridge at Rimini.
of Narni, to the north of Rome, though partly
destroyed, is still a very noble piece of engineer-
ing. The arches are more than 100 feet high,
and their spans are of unusual width. The com-
bined aqueduct and bridge which crosses the river
Gard near Nîmes (Nemausus), commonly called
the Pont du Gard, is remarkable for its size and
stately height, consisting of three superimposed
tiers of arches, still well preserved, to a height
of 190 feet. Another fine Roman bridge still
exists near Brioude, over the Allier; it consists
of one arch with a very wide span, and 70 feet
high from the water to the soffit of the arch.
In Spain remains exist of a very magnificent
bridge across the Tagus at Alcantara, which
when perfect consisted of six arches, reaching
nearly 200 feet in height and 670 feet in length.
The temporary bridges of the Romans, built
for military purposes, were no less remarkable
for the engineering skill shown in their construc-
tion. Julius Caesar describes (Bell. Gall. iv. 17)
a wooden bridge which he constructed across the
Rhine in the almost incredibly short space of ten
days. It was supported on a series of double
piles, formed of two baulks of timber, each 18
inches square (in section), pointed at one end,
and driven into the bed of the river by machines
called fistucae; they were set in a sloping direc-
tion, so as to resist the force of the current. A
corresponding parallel row of piles was driven
in at a distance of 40 feet, thus forming a very
wide roadway for the Roman army. The cross-
pieces were 2 feet thick, and were supported by
cross struts so as to diminish the bearing. A
Caesar's Bridge over the Rhine.
(a) Rough joists.
(b) Wattle-work.
(c) Roadway of earth.







460 PONS
PONTIEEX
little higher up the stream a third row of piles
was fixed to support “fenders,” to secure the
main structure from injury in case the enemy
set heavy trees to float down the river and strike
M.
*Zzyz ºftº/22 º
%
Zº
|
ºft|% | Ø
*% º
º % Z" Ø º
%
against the supports of the bridge. Fra Giocondo
of Verona, Palladio, and other architect-scholars
of the sixteenth century have published draw-
ings of this bridge, devised from Caesar's descrip-
tion; but not as a rule with much success (see
Giocondo's edition of the Commentaries, dedicated
to Giuliano de’ Medici in 1510; and Palladio,
Architettura, Venice, 1570, lib. iii. cap. 6).
Other temporary bridges were supported, on
floating casks (dolia or cupae): see Herodian,
viii. 4, 8; and Lucan, iv. 420. Vegetius (iii. 7)
states that it was customary for the Roman army
to carry with them small boats or “dug-outs”
(monoacyli), hollowed out of a tree-trunk, together
with planks, ropes, and nails to form the roadway.
During the Mithridatic war Pompey crossed the
Euphrates on a bridge of this kind (Florus,
iii. 5). [RATIS.]
The annexed woodcut, from a relief on Trajan's
Column, shows the construction of this sort of
gº!
XIX|X º -
|} 2 #=#2
P-zº
S -- ==
Sºº-ºº: ~~
*s.
Bridge on boats. (From Trajan’s Column.)
floating bridge. Another relief on the same
column shows a more permanent kind of mili-
tary bridge, which was constructed by Trajan
across the Danube (Dio Cass. lxviii. p. 776, and
2->
--~
Part of the Bridge across the Danube. (From Trajan's
Column.)
Plin. Epist. viii. 4). This bridge consists of
stone piers supporting very skilfully designed
trusses of wood, framed like a low-pitched roof.
Much ingenuity is shown by the way in which
the engineer has spanned wide spaces with
short pieces of timber. The engineer who
designed this bridge was the celebrated Apollo-
dorus of Damascus, whose criticism on Hadrian's
design for the Temple of Venus and Rome by
the Sacra Via is said to have irritated the
emperor so much that he put the critic to death
(see Dio Cass. lxix. 4).
There appears to be no truth in this story :
on the contrary, it is evident that Hadrian had
the good sense to adopt the suggestions of Apol-
lodorus. According to Dio Cassius, Hadrian
demolished Apollodorus’ bridge on the pretence
that it might facilitate the incursions of the
barbarians into the Roman provinces, but really
from jealousy at the success of so great an un-
dertaking. This latter supposition is probably
quite untrue.
The reverses of many first brasses of the Em-
pire have representations of important bridges :
as, for example, one of Gordianus III. with the
bridge over the Maeander at Antiochia ad Maean-
drum in Caria (see Head, Num. Hist. p. 520).
The word pons was also applied to any sort of
wooden gangway, such as the pons suffragiorum
by which the file of voters at the Comitia passed
into the enclosure (ovile or saepta); and also to
the movable gangway used to give access to
the deck of a ship: hence in modern Italian
ponte has come to mean the deck itself. (See
Mayerhöfer, Die Brücken im alten Rom, 1884;
Zippel, Jahrbücher für klass. Phil. 1886, p. 481 ;
Becker, De Romae vet. muris, &c., 1842; Jordan,
Topog. der Stadt Rom, 1875–80; Piale, Antichi
Ponti in the Atti d. Pont. Acad. 1831. Urlichs,
Codea, Rom. topog. 1871, gives the various
Regionary Catalogues, with lists of the bridges in
Rome. [J. H. M.]
PO'NTIFEX (iepoëlèdaraxos, iepovčaos,
iepoqºxaš, ispoq’dvrms). The origin of this
word is explained in various ways. Q. Scaevola,
who was himself pontifex maximus, derived it
from posse and facere, and Varro from pons,
because the pontiffs, he says, had built the Pons
Sublicius, and afterwards frequently restored it,
that it might be possible to perform sacrifices
on each side of the Tiber. (Varro, L. L. v. 83,
ed. Müller; Dionys. ii. 73.) This statement is,
however, contradicted by the tradition which
ascribes the building of the Pons Sublicius to
Ancus Martius (Liv. i. 33), at a time when the
pontiffs had long existed and borne this name.
Göttling (Gesch. d. Röm. Staatsv. p. 173) thinks
that pontifex is only another form for pompifer,
which would characterise the pontiffs only as
the managers and conductors of public processions
and solemnities. Others have suggested (cp.
Plut. Num. 9) that the word is formed from
pons and facere (in the signification of the
Greek fiéſelv, to perform a sacrifice), and that
consequently it signifies the priests who offered
sacrifices upon the bridge. The ancient sacrifice
to which the name in this view alludes, is that
of the Argeans on the sacred or Sublician bridge,
which is described by Dionysius (i. 38; cf.
ARGEI). But as the word pons originally
meant “way” (Curtius, Princ. Etym. i. 323),
it is very probable that pontifew meant “those
who make the roads and bridges” (cp. Lange,
Röm. Alt. i. 371), and are therefore possessed
of mathematical and engineering skill (Mommsen,
R. H. i. 178 : cf. Jordan, Topog. Roms, i. 1, 397).
Marquardt prefers to regard the name as coming
from the root pu, “to purify,” in a participial
form. No explanation is satisfactory which










PONTIFEX
PONTIFEX 461
does not account for the fact that the title was
used in many other Italian towns besides
Rome.
The Roman pontiffs formed the most illus-
trious among the great colleges of priests. Their
institution, like that of all important matters of
religion, was ascribed to Numa. (Liv. 1. 20;
Dionys. ii. 73; Cic. de Orat. iii. 19, 73.)
According to Livy (x. 6), the original number
of pontiffs were four: it has been commonly
assumed that this was exclusive of the pontifex
maximus, and that Cicero (de Rep. ii. 14, 26) is
including him when he says that Numa appointed
five pontiffs. But it seems probable that there
was no pontifex maximus under the monarchy,
the king himself discharging the functions,
which afterwards were fulfilled by him. Besides,
the number three seems to have been attached
to this office as well as to that of the augurs,
being retained in the case of colonies, which
often keep faithful to the earliest type. Hence
we must assume that Livy is in error in the
account which he gives of the changes made by
the Ogulnian law; and instead of supposing
with Niebuhr that four pontiffs represent the
two earliest tribes, the Ramnes and the Tities,
it will be better to assume that the six,
including the king, represent the three tribes.
But we really cannot get beyond conjectures on
this point. In the year B.C. 300, the Ogulnian
law raised the number of pontiffs to eight, or,
more probably according to the researches of
Bardt, to nine, and four of them were to be
plebeians (Liv. x. 6). The pontifex maximus,
however, continued to be a patrician down to
the year B.C. 254, when Tib. Coruncanius was
the first plebeian who was invested with this
dignity (Liv. Epit. xviii.). This number of pontiffs
remained for a long time unaltered, until in
81 B.C. the dictator Sulla increased it to fifteen
(Liv. Epit. lxxxix.), and Julius Caesar to sixteen
(Dio Cass. xlii. 51). In both these changes the
pontifex maximus is included in the number.
During the Empire the number varied, though
on the whole fifteen appears to have been the
regular number.
The mode of appointing the pontiffs was also
different at different times. . It appears that
after their institution by Numa, the college
had the right of co-optation; that is, if a
member of the college died (for all the pontiffs
held their office for life), the members met and
elected a successor, who after his election was
inaugurated by the augurs (Dionys. ii. 22, 73).
This election was sometimes called captio
(Gellius, i. 12; cf. FDAMEN). But at some time
in the course of the third century B.C. the practice
sprang up, we do not know more precisely how
or when, that the choice of the pontifex maximus
from the other members should be made by the
votes of seventeen of the tribes, a minority of
the whole number, determined by lot. This
was the case with the election afterúthe death
of L. Lentulus in B.C. 212 (Liv. xxv. § and
with other later instances (Liv. xxxix. 46, 1 ;
xl. 42). The ordinary pontiffs were still co-
opted. An attempt to deprive the college of
its right of co-optation, and to transfer the
power of election to the people, was made in
the year B.C. 145, by the tribune C. Licinius
Crassus; but it was frustrated by the praetor
C. Laelius. (Cic. de Am. 25, 96; Brut. 21, 43;
de Nat. Deor. iii. 17, 43.) In 104 B.C. the
attempt was successfully repeated by the tribune
Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus: and a law (Lex
Domitia) was then passed, which transferred
the right of electing the members of the great
colleges of priests to the seventeen tribes; that
is, the people elected one from a list of candidates
approved by the college, who was then made a
member of the college by the cooptatio of the
priests themselves, so that the cooptatio,
although still necessary, became a mere matter
of form. (Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 7, 18; ad Brut.
i. 5; Vell. Pat. ii. 12, 3; Suet. Nero, 2.) The
Lex Domitia was repealed by Sulla in a Lex
Cornelia de Sacerdotiis (81 B.C.), which restored
to the great priestly colleges their full right of
cooptatio. (Liv. Epit. lxxxix.; Pseudo-Ascon. in
Divinat, p. 102, ed. Orelli; Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37.)
In the year 63 B.C. the law of Sulla was
abolished, and the Domitian law was restored
by a plebiscite of Labienus, which prescribed
that in case of a vacancy the college itself
should nominate two candidates, and the people
elect one of them (Dio Cass. xxxvii. 37). This
mode of proceeding is expressly mentioned in
regard to the appointment of augurs, and was,
no doubt, the same in that of the pontiffs (Cic.
Philip. ii. 2, 4). Julius Caesar modified but
slightly this Lex Domitia, but M. Antonius is
said to have again restored the right of cooptatio
to the college (Dio Cass. xliv. 53). Mommsen
(Staatsr. ii.” 29) doubts the accuracy of this
statement. Under the Empire the right of
appointment belonged formally to the senate,
but virtually to the emperor.
The college of pontiffs had the supreme
superintendence of all matters of religion, and of
things and persons connected with public as
well as private worship. A general outline of
their rights and functions is given by Livy
(i. 20) and Dionysius (ii. 73). This power is
said to have been given to them by Numa ; and
he also entrusted to their keeping the books
containing the ritual ordinances, together with
the obligation to give information to any one
who might consult them on matters of religion.
They had to guard against any irregularity in
the observance of religious rites that might
arise from a neglect of the ancient customs, or
from the introduction of foreign rites. They
had not only to determine in what manner the
heavenly gods should be worshipped, but also
the proper form of burials, and how the souls
of the departed (manes) were to be appeased;
in like manner what signs either in lightning or
other phenomena were to be received and
attended to. They had the judicial decision in
all matters of religion, whether private persons,
magistrates, or priests were concerned; and in
cases where the existing laws or customs were
found defective or insufficient, they made new
laws and regulations (decreta pontificum) in
which they always followed their own judgment
as to what was consistent with the existing
customs and usages (Gell. ii. 28; x. 15). They
watched over the conduct of all persons who had
anything to do with the sacrifices or the worship
of the gods; that is, over all the priests and their
servants. The forms of worship and of sacri-
ficing were determined by the pontiffs, and
whoever refused to obey their injunctions was
punished by them, for they were “rerum, quae
462 PONTIFEX.
PONTIEEX
ad sacra et religiones pertinent, judices et
vindices.” (Fest. s. v. Maximus pontifex ; cf.
Cic. de Leg. ii. 8, 12.) The pontiffs, themselves
were not subject to any court of law or punish-
ment, and were not responsible either to the
senate or to the people. The details of their
duties and functions were contained in books
called libri pontificii or pontificales, commentarii
sacrorum or sacrorum pontificalium (Fest. s. v.v.
Aliuta and Occisum), which they were said to
have received from Numa, and which were sanc-
tioned by Ancus Martius. These were preserved
under the charge of the pontifex maximus in
the regio. Ancus is said to have made public
that part of these regulations which had refer-
ence to the sacra publica (Liv. i. 32); and when
at the commencement of the Republic the wooden
tables, on which these published regulations were
written, had fallen into decay, they were restored
by the pontifex maximus C. Papirius (Dionys.
iii. 36). One part of these libri pontificales was
called “Indigitamenta,” and contained the names
of the gods as well as the manner in which these
names were to be used in public worship (Serv.
ad Verg. Georg. i. 21). A second part must
have contained the formulas of the jus pontifi-
cium (Cic. de Rep. ii. 31, 54). The original
laws, and regulations contained in these books
were in the course of time increased and more
accurately defined by the decrees of the pontiffs,
whence perhaps their name commentarii (Plin.
H. N. xviii. 3; Liv. iv. 3; Cic. Brut. 14, 55).
Another tradition concerning these books stated
that Numa communicated to the pontiffs their
duties and rights merely by word of mouth,
and that he had buried the books in a stone
chest on the Janiculum. (Plut. Num. 23; Plin.
B. N. xiii. 27; Wal. Max, i. 1, 12; August. de
Civit. Dei, vii. 34.) . These books were found in
181 B.C., and one-half of them contained ritual
regulations and the jus pontificium, and the other
half philosophical inquiries on the same subjects,
and were written in the Greek language. The
books were brought to the praetor urbanus Q.
Petilius, and the senate ordered the latter half
to be burnt, while the former was carefully
preserved. Respecting the nature and authen-
ticity of this story, see Hartung, Die Relig. d.
Röm. i. p. 214. The annales maximi were records
of the events of each year kept by the pontifex
maximus, from the commencement of the state
to the time of the pontifex maximus P. Mucius
Scaevola, B.C. 133 (Cic. de Orat. ii. 12, 52).
As to the rights and duties of the pontiffs, it
must first of all be borne in mind that the
pontiffs were not priests of any particular
divinity, but a college which stood above all
other priests, and superintended the whole ex-
ternal worship of the gods (Cic. de Leg. ii. 8, 20).
One of their principal duties was the regulation
of the Sacra both publica and privata, and to
watch that they were observed at the proper
times (for which purpose the pontiffs originally
had the whole regulation of the calendar: see
CALENDARIUM, Vol. I. p. 342 b, &c.), and in their
proper form. In the management of the sacra
publica they were in later times assisted in
certain performances by the tres viri epulones
[EPULONES], and had in their keeping the funds
from which the expenses of the sacra publica
were defrayed [SACRA].
The pontiffs convoked the assembly of the
curies (Comitia Calata or Curiata) in cases where
priests were to be appointed, and flamines or a
rex sacrorum were to be inaugurated; also when
wills were to be received, and when a detestatio
Sacrorum and adoption by adrogatio took place.
(Gell. v. 19, xv. 27; ADOPTIO.) Whether the
presence of the pontiffs together with that of
the augurs and two flamines were necessary in
the Comitia Curiata also in cases when other
matters were transacted, as Niebuhr thinks
(i. p. 342, ii. p. 223), does not appear to be
quite certain. The curious circumstance that
after the decemvirate the pontifex maximus was
commanded by the senate to preside at the
election of tribunes of the people, is explained by
Niebuhr (ii. p. 359: cf. Schwegler, iii. 66, and
Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr. ii. 34, note). - -
As regards the jurisdiction of the pontiffs,
magistrates and priests as well as private indi-
viduals were bound to submit to their sentence,
provided it had the sanction of three members
of the college (Cic. de Harwsp. Resp. 6, 12). In
most cases the sentence of the pontiffs only in-
flicted a fine upon the offenders (Cic. Philip. xi.
8, 18; Liv. xxxvii. 51, xl. 42), but the person
fined had a right to appeal to the people, who
might release him from the fine. - In regard to
the Vestal Virgins and the persons who com-
mitted incest with them, the pontiffs had crimi-
mal jurisdiction and might pronounce the sentence
of death (Dionys. . ix. 40; Liv. xxii. 57; Fest.
s. v. Probrum). A man who had violated a
Westal Virgin was according to an ancient law
scourged to death by the pontifex maximus in
the comitium, and it appears that originally
neither the Westal Virgins nor the male offenders
in such a case had any right of appeal. Incest
in general belonged to the jurisdiction of the
pontiffs, and might be punished with death (Cic.
de Leg. ii. 19, 47). In later times we find that
even in the case of the pontiffs having passed
sentence upon Westal Virgins, a tribune inter-
fered and induced the people to appoint a quaestor
for the purpose of making a fresh inquiry into
the case ; and it sometimes happened that after
this new trial the sentence of the pontiffs was
modified or annulled (Ascon. ad Milon. p. 46, ed.
Orelli). Such cases, however, seem to have been
mere irregularities founded upon, an abuse of
the tribunician power. In the early times the
pontiffs were in the exclusive possession of the
civil as well as religious law, until the former
was made public by C. Flavius. [ACTIO.] The
regulations which served as a guide to the
pontiffs in their judicial proceedings, formed a
large collection of laws, which was called the
jus pontificium, and formed part of the libri
pontificii. (Cic. de Orat, i, 43, 193; iii. 33, 134 ;
pro Domo, 13, 34 : JUS.) The new decrees
which the pontiffs made either on the proposal
of the senate, or in cases belonging to the sacra
privata, or that of private individuals, were, as
Livy (xxxix. 16) says, innumerable. (Compare
Cic. de Leg. ii. 23, 58; Macrob. Sat... iii. 3;
Dionys. ii. 73.) - -
The meetings of the college of pontiffs, to
which in some instances the flamines and the
rex sacrorum were summoned (Cic. de Harusp.
Resp. 6, 12), were held in the domus regia on the
Via Sacra, to which were attached the offices
of the pontifex maximus and of the rex sacro-
rum. (Suet, Jul. 46; Serv. ad Aen. viii. 363;
PONTIFEX
POPLIFTUGLA 463
Plin. Epist. iv. 11.) As the chief pontiff was
obliged to live in a domus publica, Augustus,
when he assumed this dignity, changed part of
his own house into a domus publica (Dio Cass.
liv. 27). All the pontiffs were in their appear-
ance distinguished by the conic cap called tutu-
lus or galerus, with an apex upon it, and the
toga praetexta.
The pontifex maximus was the president of
the college and acted in its name, the full rights
of the king in religious matters having descended
to him (Mommsen, R. Staatsr. ii. 17–70). He
was generally chosen from among the most dis-
tinguished persons, and such as had held a curule
magistracy, or were already members of the col-
lege (Liv. xxxv. 5; xl. 42). Two of his espe-
cial duties were to appoint (capere) the Vestal
Virgins and the flamines [VESTALES; FLAMEN],
and to be present at every marriage by confar-
reatio. When festive games were vowed or a
dedication made, the chief pontiff had to repeat
over before the persons who made the vow or
the dedication, the formula with which it was
to be performed (praeire or praefari verba, Liv.
iv. 27, v. 41, ix.46). During the period of the
Republic, when the people exercised sovereign
power in every respect, we find that if the pontiff
on constitutional or religious grounds refused
to perform this solemnity, he might be compelled
to do so by the people. ... *
A pontifex might, like all the members of the
great priestly colleges, hold any other military,
civil or priestly office, provided the different
offices did not interfere with one another. Thus
we find one and the same person being pontiff,
augur, and decemvir sacrorum (Liv. xl. 42);
instances of a pontifex maximus being at the
same time consul are very numerous. (Liv.
xxviii. 33; Cic. de Harusp. Resp. 6, 12; cf.
Ambrosch, Studien und Andeutungen, p. 229,
note 105.) But whatever might be the civil
or military office which a pontifex maximus held
besides his pontificate, he was not allowed to
leave Italy. The first who violated this law
was P. Licinius Crassus, in B.C. 131 (Liv. Epit.
59; Val. Max. viii. 7, 6; Oros. v. 10); but
after this precedent, pontiffs seem to have fre-
quently transgressed the law, and Caesar,
though pontifex maximus, went to his province
of Gaul.
The college of pontiffs continued to exist until
the overthrow of paganism (Arnob. iv. 35;
Symmach. Epit. ix. 128, 129); but its power
and influence were considerably weakened as
the emperors, according to the example of
Caesar, had the right to appoint as many mem-
bers of the great colleges of priests as they
pleased (Dio Cass. xlii. 51, xliii. 51, li. 20, liii.
17; Suet. Caes. 31). In addition to this, the
emperors themselves were always chief pontiffs,
and as such the presidents of the college; hence
the title of pontifex maximus (P.M. or PON. M.)
appears on several coins of the emperors. If
there were several emperors at a time, only one
bore the title of pontifex maximus; but in the
year A.D. 238, we find that each of the two
emperors Maximus and Balbinus assumed this
dignity (Capitol. Maxim. et Balb. 8). The last
traces of emperors being at the same time chief
pontiffs are found in inscriptions of Valentinian,
Valens, and Gratianus (Orelli, Inscript. n. 1117,
1118). The last formally renouncéd the title
in A.D. 382. From this time the emperors no
longer appear in the dignity of pontiff; but at
last the title was assumed by the Christian
bishop of Rome.
There were other pontiffs at Rome who were
distinguished by the epithet minores. Various
opinions have been entertained as to what these
pontifices minores were. Niebuhr (i. p. 302,
n. 775) thinks that they were originally the
pontiffs of the Luceres; that they stood in the
same relation to the other pontiffs as the patres
minorum gentium to the patres majorum gentium;
and that subsequently, when the meaning of the
name was forgotten, it was applied to the secre-
taries of the great college of pontiffs. This
supposition is contradicted by all the statements
of ancient writers who mention the pontifices
minores. Livy (xxii. 57; compare Jul. Capitol.
Opil. Macrin. 7), in speaking of the secretaries
of the college of pontiffs, adds, “quos nunc
minores pontifices appellant; ” from which it
is evident that the name pontifices minores was
of later introduction, and that it was given to
persons who originally had no claims to it; that
is, to the secretaries of the pontiffs. The only
natural solution of the question seems to be
this. At the time when the real pontiffs began
to neglect their duties, and to leave the principal
business to be done by their secretaries, it became
customary to designate these scribes by the name.
of pontifices minores. Macrobius (Sat. i. 15), in
speaking of minor pontiffs previous to the time
of Cn. Flavius, makes an anachronism, as he
transfers a name customary in his own days to
a time when it could not possibly exist. The
number of these secretaries seems to have been, at
least after the time of Sulla, three (Cic, de Harusp.
Resp. 6, 12). The name cannot have been used
long before the end of the Republic, when even
chief pontiffs began to show a disregard for their
sacred duties, as in the case of P. Licinius Crassus
and Julius Caesar. Another proof of their fall-
ing off in comparison with former days, is that
about the same time the luxurious living of the
pontiffs became proverbial at Rome (Hor. Carm.
ii. 14, 26, &c.; Mart. xii. 48, 12; Macrob. Sat.
ii. 9). (Cf. Bouché-Leclercq, Les Pontifes de l’anc.
Rome, Paris, 1871; Marquardt, iii. 227–238;
Madvig, Werf. u. Verw. ii. 612–633; Mommsen,
R. Staatsr. ii. 18–70.) [L. S.] [A. S. W.]
PONTIFICALES LUDI. [LUDI PONTI-
FICALES.] *
PONTIFICIUM JUS. [Jus.]
POPA. [CAUPONA; SACRIFICIUM.]
, POPINA. [CAUPONA. .
Pöpirit; GA or FöPULIFUGIA, the
day of the people's flight, was celebrated on the
5th of July, according to Varro (L. L. vi. 18), in
commemoration of the flight of the Romans,
when the inhabitants of Ficuleae and Fidenae
appeared in arms against them, shortly after
the burning of the city by the Gauls; the tradi-
tional victory of the Romans, which followed,
was commemorated on the 7th of July (called the
Nonae Caprotinae as a feast of Juno Caprotina),
and on the next day was the Vitulatio, supposed
to mark the thank-offering of the pontifices for
the event. Macrobius (Sat. iii. 2), who wrongly
places the Poplifugia on the nones, says that
it commemorated a flight before the Tuscans,
while Dionysius (ii. 76) refers its origin to the
flight of the people when Romulus disappeared
464
POPULARES
POPULUS
(Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.
25.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
POPULA'RES.. [NOBILEs.]
POPULA'RIA. [AMPHITHEATRUM, Vol. I.,
. 112 a.
#Lus Populus is the collective name
for the whole citizens of Rome, of whatever rank
and class. There was probably a time when the
ancestors of those who retained to the end the
title of patricii were the only persons who pos-
sessed the rights of citizens. At that time the
assemblies (comitia) of the populus would consist
wholly of patricians. It is possible, likewise,
that the outsiders, after they had attained to
the rights of citizens in private law, were for a
time excluded from active participation in the
assemblies of the populus. They would then be
in the position of the cives sine suffragio of later
days. It is not impossible (though here we
come into dangerous collision with the ancient
authorities) that the non-patrician Romans were
admitted to a vote when the populus assembled
in its military capacity (comitia centuriata)
before the same privilege was accorded to them
when the populus met in peaceful fashion within
the walls (comitia curiata). But all this relates
to pre-historic times. There is no evidence that,
from the expulsion of Tarquin onwards, the
plebeians were ever excluded from any kind of
assembly of the populus Romanus. In all the
history of the contest of the orders, we never
hear of this privilege as a thing which remained
to be fought for.
The populus Romanus is in theory sovereign
in all matters. Every difficulty can be solved
in the last resort by its interposition, and its
command is law : “Lex est quod populus jubet
atque constituit” (Gaius, i. 3). It cannot be
bound even by its own previous decisions: “quod
populus postremum jussisset, id jus ratumque
esto” (Law of Twelve Tables). It may ordain
and alter what it pleases in its own constitution,
or in the powers and tenure of its magistrates,
or in the delegation of rights to other persons or
bodies, or finally in the ordinances of religion
itself. This very omnipotence necessitated
caution in the use of such unlimited authority.
Especially the Roman people must be careful
not to ordain anything which is likely to cause
the withdrawal of the blessing of heaven on
their actions. The populus by its own act
(for there is none above it) protects itself against
its own possible mistakes by attaching to each
decree a saving clause, “si quid sacrosancti est,
quod non jure sit rogatum, ejus hac lege nihil
rogatur” (see for references and explanation
Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 43, n. 3, and p. 335,
n. 2). In order to determine what may safely be
commanded in the sphere of religion, the people
maturally takes the advice of learned men,
pontiffs and augurs, who are supposed to have
special knowledge in these subjects.
In order to utter its supreme command the
people must be properly summoned and have
the question properly put to it (“consul popu-
lum jure rogavit”). The Romans always recog-
nised the necessity for order and discipline:
“ubicunque multitudo esset, ibi et legitimum
rectorem multitudinis censebant debere esse’
(Liv. xxxix. 15, 11). The magistrate, selected
by the community to be its leader and to consult
the gods on its behalf, is the only person who
from the earth.
3
.
can elicit its sovereign will by putting the
question with the proper solemnities (auspicato).
The initiative residing in the magistrate is thus
of the highest practical importance. The assem-
bly can only answer Yes or No to his rogatio.
But while fully admitting the great influence
of the magistrate in the comitia, we must be
careful not to exaggerate his formal attributes,
or to forget that he does not ordain, but only
requests the people to ordain (“Velitis jubeatis,
Quirites”). We can hardly hold then, with
Mommsen (Staatsr. iii. 304, 312), that it is of
the essence of a lea, rogata to be an agreement
between two independent powers, the magistrate
and the people. Other writers have gone further
than this. Borgeaud, for instance, approves the
doctrine that sovereignty legitimately resides in
the magistrate rather than in the people, and
that law in its truest conception is something
imposed on the people from above: “The fact
that the magistrate of ancient Rome, elected
though he may be, does not hold his power from
the assembly of the people, is a truth which
criticism establishes each day more and more.
We think that it will establish, likewise, that
the law is on the same footing” (Hist, du
Plébiscite, p. 114). “In the time when the
magistrate and the law are by divine right
there is no other sovereign than the magistrate,
consecrated by the auspices of heaven and clothed
with the imperium ” (ib. p. 167). Such theories
are in admitted contradiction with the ideas
which the Romans of historical times entertained
as to the basis of their own institutions. These
institutions are represented as given indeed by
the first king, who was also the founder of the
state. Before Romulus, the Roman people did
not exist, so that it could not of course be
depicted as electing its first king or instituting
its own senate or assembly. But with this
exception, the Roman tradition is essentially
republican in spirit. If the Romans had believed
in the divine right of monarchy, they would
certainly have enshrined it (as did the Spartans)
in a heroic family. If they had imagined that
the magistrate was inspired to dictate laws to
them, they would have ascribed to him and not
to the comitia the authority to override the
sentence of the law in favour of a condemned
criminal, and to undertake an offensive war, and
to enable the citizen to dispose of his property
to persons other than his natural heirs. It is
just in such extreme cases that we can see
where sovereignty really resides. Because the
power of the magistrate is limited, the unlimited
power of the people has to be called upon to
intervene in such circumstances.
The practical activity of the populus is at
every stage of Roman history hanpered and
restricted. In early times there was little to
be done in the way of government beyond the
command in war and the administration of
justice, both of which were included in the im-
perium of the magistrate. The authorised body
of advisers attached to the magistrate would
likewise make the frequent consultation of the
people unnecessary. Later on, the difficulties
in the way of a magistrate who wished to put a
question to the people were ever on the increase,
and every such difficulty might be an obstacle
between the people and the utterance of its will.
In the presence of this practical nullity the
POPULUS
POPULUS 465.
persistence of the doctrine that the People is the
fount of power and the fount of law becomes
the more remarkable. The magistrate (even the
king) is represented as having not a co-ordinate
but a derived power. His ministerial functions
are necessary for the proper utterance of the
voice of the people, but it is the people and the
people alone whose commands are absolute. The
sic volo sic jubeo which is the essential charac-
teristic of sovereignty is to be found here alone.
It is open, of course, to the critic to point out
that our authorities for this presentation of the
Roman constitution are of late time, and that
they may have read into the early history
ideas which belonged to a subsequent period.
This may be a reasonable ground perhaps for
scepticism, but hardly for setting up by
conjecture a system of doctrines which were
unknown to the Romans themselves. We can
only present the Roman constitutional theory
as it appeared to the Romans of historical
times.
The assemblies of the populus Romanus are
occasionally called by the general name of
concilia, but their distinctive title is comitia.
Concilium is more appropriately used of those
assemblies which have no right to the more
dignified and specific title of comitia. The
populus Romanus assembles in historical times
in three ways, by curies, by centuries, and by
tribes. The most concise account is that of
Laelius Felix in Aul. Gell. xv. 27: “Is qui non
universum populum sed partem aliquam adesse
jubet, non comitia sed concilium edicere debet.
Tribuni autem neque advocant patricios neque
ad eos ferre ulla de re possunt . . . . Cum ex
generibus hominum suffragium feratºr curiata
Gomitia esse, cum ex censu et-aetate centuriata,
cum ex regionibus et locis tributa.” [See
COMITIA.]
From the time of the secession to the Mons
Sacer, the populus Romanus has side by side with
it another great corporation, that of the plebs.
The two corporations, though consisting in the
main of the same persons, remained to the
end of the Republic distinct in law. But the
fact that the assemblies of both are popular
assemblies, and that both the words populus
and plebs may be used in a loose and general
as well as in a technical sense, causes much
confusion when we are dealing with the ex-
pressions, not of lawyers, but of politicians
or historians. The confusion may best be
illustrated by a passage of Livy (xxvii. 5, 16)
where the distinction is alternately remembered
and forgotten: “Decrevit senatus ut consul,
priusquam ab urbe discederet, populum rogaret,
quem dictatorem dici placeret, eumque quem
populus jussisset, diceret dictatorem; si consul
noluisset, praetor populum rogaret: si ne is
quidem vellet, tum tribuni ad plebem ferrent.
Quum consul se populum rogaturum negasset,
quod suae potestatis esset, praetoremdue vetu-
isset rogare, tribuni plebis rogarunt plebesque
scivit, ut Q. Fulvius . . . dictator diceretur.”
So far the words are used with absolute
correctness; but immediately afterwards he
makes the senate send for the other consul
“ut diceret, quem populus jussisset, dicta-
torem.”
By the Hortensian law of B.C. 287 the decrees
of the plebs received equal force with those of
VOL. II.
the populus [see PLEBISCITUM]. Those writers
who view even the legislative capacity of the
populus as a setting aside of ancient doctrine,
and as an usurpation by the secular power in
the province of divine right, consider the power
accorded to the decisions of the plebs as a
further step on the path of impiety. “Religion,”
says Borgeaud (op. cit. p. 154), “lends its
force to the consular or praetorian law, made
under the auspices of Heaven. The spear makes
the plebiscite equal to the law.” “In setting
itself up as equal to the holy Law, it a lay
and profane thing, the plebiscite secularises
law; it emancipates it definitely from religion;
it makes it human’’ (ib. p. 192). There is little
to justify this contrast. The plebeians were as
religious as they knew how to be. Their
magistrates are not indeed qualified to take
the auspices of the patricians which are those
of the Roman people, and so their assemblies
cannot be held auspicato. The plebs came into
existence in an age when it was not at all easy
for them to invent auspices of their own and
fresh augurs to interpret them. But they
went as near to this as possible. They had
their consecration of the Sacred Mount, their
solemn oaths in the presence of Heaven, the
sacrosanctitas conferred on their magistrates.
These rites were doubtless acquiesced in with
contempt by the patricians, much as Sudra rites
would be despised though not disallowed by
Indian Brahmins, but they were none the less
religious. Even supposing that we deny any
religious sanctity to the decrees of the plebs as
such, it must be remembered that since the Lex
Hortepsia they could claim a derived right.
The law of Hortensius was an enormous act of
sovereignty on the part of the populus Romanus.
The populus saw fit in the plenitude of its
power to decree that an alter ego should be set
up in the person of the plebs. Whoever then
denies the competence of the plebs, limits the
power of the populus, and sets at nought all
the sanctity which the law may have acquired
from the regal prerogatives of the dictator's
office, and from the auspices and prayers with
which doubtless Hortensius commenced the
business of the day.
The equivalence of the powers of the two
corporations naturally increased the tendency
to use indiscriminately the technical terms
belonging to each; and the contrast between
populus, comitia, lea, jubere on the one hand,
and plebs, concilium, plebiscitum, sciscere on the
other, is practically disregarded. This confused
usage has led in one instance to a serious
difficulty of interpretation. The corporation of
the plebs, which before the law of Publilius
Volero in B.C. 471 probably assembled by curies,
after that date assembled by tribes, and by
tribes only. Thus, while in the case of a
curiate or a centuriate assembly we know at
once that the body which is meeting must
be the populus, in the case of a tribute
assembly it is not always clear whether
the populus or the plebs is intended. Some
modern writers (e.g. Madvig, Verfassung des
röm. Staates, 3, § 5) have imagined that not
only was there a confusion of expression, but that
there was actually only one such assembly. The
ancient authorities seem, however, conclusive on
this point. The assembly by triº, which is
H
466 PORISTAE
PORTA
called together by the tribunes cannot be an
assembly of the populus Romanus, for “populi
appellatione universi cives significantur, connu-
meratis etiam patriciis” (Gaius, i. 3), and
“tribuni neque advocant patricios neque ad eos
ferre ulla de re possunt " (Laelius in Aul. Gell.
xv. 27). On the other hand, the assembly of
the plebs cannot be that tribute assembly which
confers the lesser auspicia patriciorum. [see
MAGISTRATUS], which is presided over by a
patrician magistrate (see Cic. ad Fam. vii. 30,
“Caesar, qui tributis comitiis auspicatus esset,”
&c.), and which passes laws on the rogatio of a
consul. (See the preamble to the law in
Frontinus, de Aquis, ch. 129: “T. Quinctius
Crispinus consul populum jure rogavit populus-
que jure scivit in foro pro rostris aedis divi
Julii pri. k. Julias. Tribus Sergia principium
fuit, pro tribu Sex. L. f. Varro primus scivit.”)
There seems no escape from Mommsen's con-
clusion that the two corporations remained
distinct; though the plebs always, and the
populus sometimes, assembled by tribes.
Each of the two corporations had of course
the election of its own officers, and by a special
regulation of the Twelve Tables the populus,
and the populus assembled in centuries, was
alone competent to hear an appeal from the
sentence of a magistrate affecting the life of a
citizen. With these exceptions the assembly of
the populus by way of tribes or of centuries and
the assembly of the plebs were equally competent
to pass sovereign decrees in all matters, and there
are both leges and plebiscita relating to all
manner of subjects of legislation. Even in the
few reserved matters, the two approach each
other as nearly as possible. The plebs may not
indeed elect a consul or a praetor, but it may
appoint a man to act pro praetore or pro consule
(Liv. xxxi. 50, 11). It may not deprive a
citizen of his caput, but it may decree that he
shall be held to have deprived himself (“videri
eum in exilio esse,” Liv. xxv. 4, 9), or it may
authorise the senate to try him (Liv. xxvi. 33, 12),
or it may itself pronounce a capital sentence
against him, conditionally on the finding of a
jury. It is a tribune of the plebs, Fufius, of
whom Cicero (Paradoal. iv. 2, 32) says to
Clodius: “Familiarissimus tuus de te privi-
legium tulit, ut si in opertum Bonae Deae
accessisses exulares.”
The distinction between populus and plebs,
all important for the antiquarian and the
constitutional lawyer, was practically of no
significance for the statesman. Polybius in his
elaborate account of the working of the Roman
constitution does not so much as mention it.
The practical effect of doubling the sovereignty
was merely- to commit the initiative to the
tribunes as well as to the consuls and praetors.
This parcelling out of power was probably a
convenience as long as the senate kept a firm
hand over all the magistrates; it added one
more element of anarchy when this constitu-
tional control was set aside. [J. L. S. D.]
PORISTAE (iroptoraſ). Very little has
come down to us concerning the constitution
and functions of this magistracy. All that we
know is that it was at Athens a sort of financial
board, appointed probably only from time to
time when necessary for the purpose of raising
extraordinary supplies (trópous tropfgetv). The
office is thus described : tropigrat eiorly 3pxh ris
'A6#vnow firls trópous éâtel (Bekker, Anecd.
294, 19). From this we may infer that they
were a kind of committee who discussed how
the money required for a special purpose
might best be raised (by some special means).
They were evidently regarded as belonging to
the Treasury department, as we find the term
united with rapitat in Demosthenes (Philipp. i. 49,
§ 33), and in like manner Antiphon classes them
with the poletae [POLETAE] and practores
[PRACTOREs]. (De Chor. § 14.)
. They were probably a committee of ways
and means appointed to deal with such an
emergency as that which forms the subject
of the First Philippic. Hence it is that Demo-
sthenes urges the Athenians to become their
own poristae and treasurers. If such an in-
stitution no longer existed at Athens, there
would have been no force in the allusion.
We may also infer from an allusion in Aristo-
phanes (Ran. 1505) that the office existed in his
time. It is likewise not improbable that the
assumption by robbers of the euphemistic name
poristae arose from an allusion to an actual
official body of that name (Arist, Rhet. iii. 2, 10,
of Amorral airobs tropio ràs — commissioners of
ways and means—caxodort vov). Hitherto no
record of the existence of a like board elsewhere
in Greece has reached us, either in the ancient.
texts or inscriptions. [W. R.I.]
PORNAE (trópwal). [HETAERAE.]
PORPE (trépirm). [FIBULA.]
PORTA (tröAm), the gate of a city, citadel,
or other open space enclosed by a wall, in con-
tradistinction to JANUA, which was the door of
a house or any covered edifice. The word töAm
is often found in the plural, even when applied
to a single gate, because it consisted of two
leaves (Thuc. ii. 4, &c.). -
In tracing out the walls of an Italian city
with the ceremony described under POMERIUM,
the plough was lifted and carried across
the openings to be left for the gates. The
number and position of city gates in ancient
Greece and Italy naturally varied according to
circumstances. The old Etruscan custom was
to give three gates to a walled city, dedicated
to the three chief deities of the Etruscans: the
same custom may possibly be seen in the three
gates of Roma Quadrata (Plin. H. N. iii. § 66,
where an alternative tradition of four gates is
mentioned): two of these were the Porta
Mugonia and Porta Romanula (Varro, L. L.
v. 164). The ancient walls of Paestum,
Sepianum, and Aosta enclose a square: in
the centre of each of the four walls was a
gate; the arrangement, however, was obviously
affected by the nature of the ground, and
the size of the city. Thus Megara had five
gates; Thebes seven ; others, as Rome, many
In Ore.
The gates in ancient Greek walls were formed
in various ways, showing progressive art in
building. We may give, from Reber (Gesch. d.
Baukunst, 231), four distinct methods:–1. The
simple straight lintel, consisting of a long and
massive block, as in the “Lion” Gate of Mycenae
(see woodcut on p. 185). 2. Stones project-
ing one beyond another in a step form from each
side, and so gradually approaching till they can
be topped by a flat lintel: an example is afforded
PORTA
PORTA 4.67
by a gate at Phigalia. 3. A gable shape, formed
º-
•-setti | h - t
ºutunº-ſaw”-
# Tºº
ºf . i. & ğ. %
*sº
§ W }*)
hill! –
jś
* º_^T
* 2." - ; ---, M º -
*…sº ſº-
s_j}| ſº º
ift §,
Williſill||litrºjº §º
uſ." § §º
- - º
§ º
-* * * tº gº
Gate at Phigalia.
** f.
by two massive stones meeting in an angle, as
shown in a gate at Delos. 4. A refinement on
•=-
Gate at Delos.
No. 2, where the stones approach gradually, cut
into shape, sometimes with a slight curve, till
they join at the apex ; they sometimes begin
their slope from the ground, as in the gates of
Missolonghi and Thoricos, shown by Baumeister
(Denkm. Taf. xv.), or, in a more developed form,
they are straight in their lower part, as the
gate of Ephesus.
→ *** -==lis-
wi t
==== |
º * % ;
| :- 1,\{{fit
; : º * º
Wºj * g *
* * * *- , ..}
Gate at Ephesus.
duced [ARCUS], the construction of the gate
itself varied only as regards its size: but there
were many differences and improvements as re-
gards its defence. From early days the import-
ance of flanking bastions had been seen; these
were at first simple projections of the wall at
right angles (see an example of the gate at
When the arch was intro-
Orchomenus in Guhl and Koner, p. 64), from the
summit of which the defenders could shoot, and
this developed into bastions formed by circular
swellings of the wall on each side of the gate,
and thence into regular flanking towers, round
or square [TURRIS], often with additional de-
fences, such as are shown in the gate of Posi-
donia, or Paestum [MURUS, p. 186]. An addi-
tional security to the entrance was given by a
double gateway, having an outer and inner gate
with a space between. At Messene the space
between was circular, so that the wall at that
part had the shape of a round tower pierced by
two opposite openings (see plan in Guhl and
Koner, p. 65). This system of double gates was
very early, as in the second and third gateways
of the fortress at Tiryns (see Plan, Vol. I. p. 655);
and it is instructive also in this early fortress
to see how the besiegers were exposed to fire
a when they forced one gateway and passed
round to the next. Care was taken here, and
elsewhere, that the right or unshielded
side should be towards the wall in their
approach.
At Como, Verona, and other ancient cities
of Lombardy, the gate contains two passages
close together, the one designed for carriages
entering, and the other for carriages leaving
the city. The same provision is observed in
the magnificent ruin of a gate at Trêves.
(See woodcut.) In other instances we find
only one gate for carriages, but a smaller
one on each side of it (traparvXís, Heliodor.
viii. p. 394) for foot-passengers. Each of the
fine gates which remain at Autun has not
only two carriage-ways, but exterior to
them two sideways for pedestrians. (Millin,
Voyage dans les Departemens, &c., vol. i.
ch, 22; Atlas, Pl. 18, figs. 3, 4.) Such side-
ways are well seen in the Porta d’Ercolano of
Pompeii, of which there is a woodcut' in Vol. 1.
p. 384. When there were no sideways, one
of the valves of the large gate sometimes con-
tained a wicket (portula, rvX/s: fivorràAm),
large enough to admit a single person. The
porter opened it when any one wished to go
in or out by night. (Polyb. viii. 20, 24; Liv.
xxv. 9.)
The contrivances for fastening gates were in
general the same as those used for doors [JANUA],
but larger in proportion. The wooden bar placed
across them in the inside (uoxAbs) was kept in
its position by the following method. A hole,
passing through it perpendicularly (Baxavoöökm,
Aen. Tact. 18), admitted a cylindrical piece of
iron, called 84Aavos, which also entered a hole
in the gate, so that, until it was taken out, the
bar could not be removed either to the one side,
or the other (Thuc. ii. 4; Aristoph. Vesp. 200;
ReBaxóvarat, Aves, 1159). Another piece of
iron, fitted to the BáAavos and called Baxavdypa,
was used to extract it (Aen. Tact. l. c.). When
the accomplices within, for want of this key, the
BaAavdºypa, were unable to remove the bar, they
cut it through with a hatchet (Thuc. iv. 111 ;
Polyb. viii. 23, 24), or set it on fire (Aen. Tact.
19). [For the portcullis, see CATARACTA.]
The gateway had commonly a chamber, either
on one side or on both, which served as the
residence of the porter or guard. It was called
TrvXów (Polyb. viii. 20, 23, 24). Its situation is
shown in the following plan. (See woodcut.)














2 H 2
468 PORTENTUM :
PORTORIUM
The Porta Ostiensis, the finest and best-preserved
of the gates in the Aurelian wall, affords an
instance of the more elaborate kind:—“The
central part of the gate with its arched doorway
is of travertine, the outer arch is grooved, to
receive a portcullis [CATARACTA], and from the
inner and higher arch two travertine corbels
project, which received the upper pivots of the
doors, the lower ones being let into holes in a
massive travertine threshold. Above this stone
archway is a battlemented wall of brick-
faced concrete, pierced with a row of 7 arched
windows, opening into a gate chamber with
sinlilar windows on the inside. On each side
are two brick-faced towers with semicircular
projections on the outside.” (Middleton, Rome,
p. 494.) In the gates of Como and Verona the
gatehouse is three stories high. At Trèves it
was four stories high in the flanks, although the
four stories remain standing in one of them
only, as may be observed in the -annexed wood-
cut. The length of this building is 115 feet;
ſ
f
º
f
ſT-
ſ
f
:-
s
ă
7%
!!-ir-Z
:3:
:
fi
Gate at Trêves.
its depth 47 in the middle, 67 in the flanks;
its greatest height, 92. All the four stories
are ornamented in every direction with rows
of Tuscan columns. The gateways are each
14 feet wide. The entrance of each appears to
have been guarded, as at Pompeii, first by a
portcullis, and then by gates of wood and iron.
[CATARACTA.] The barbican, between the double
portcullis and the pair of gates, was no doubt
open to the sky, as in the gates of Pompeii.
The gate at Trèves was probably erected by Con-
stantine. (Compare also Guhl and Koner, i. 62,
ii. 48; Baumeister, Denkm. 804; Reber, Hist. of
Ancient Art, 189, E.T.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PORTENTUM. [PRODIGIUM.]
PO'RTICUS (rroë) is a building of which
the roof is supported at least on one side by
columns; it is thus open to the air, but pro-
tected from sun and rain. The simplest form
of portico has one row of columns on the out-
side, and a wall at the back; in this form orroal
frequently surround temples or enclose an open
space, such as an āryopé: especially in Ionia
these porticoes surrounding the &yopæ were
erected with great magnificence. A groš might
also have one or two interior rows of columns,
dividing it into two or three aisles, and thus an
extensive covered space was provided; in this
case it was usual for the intervals between the
interior columns to be double that between the
exterior ones. Another form was divided by a
wall instead of a row of columns, and thus two
single porticoes were produced, set back to back
(Paus. vi. 24). xroat were frequently adorned
with paintings, either on the back wall or affixed
to it; hence the name troucíAm is applied to one
at Athens, and another at Olympia: this last, as
well as one at Hermione, had also the name of
the Echo-stoa from its acoustic properties (Paus.
v. 21; ii. 35). Statues were frequently placed
in front of porticoes, and sometimes were placed,
to adorn the portico itself, above the columns;
so figures of Persians at Sparta (Paus. iii. 11).
Greek stoae were named from their character,
troucíAm, uakpá, IIepaukh, or from their purpose,
Baoríaetos, where the archon basileus held his
court, &Aqvrátra Ais, probably at the Piraeus
(Schol. Ar. Ach. 547); later also from those
who erected them, as those of Eumenes and
Attalus in Athens. Beside their official or com-
mercial uses, a roa, in Athens also served as
covered resorts for meeting and conversation;
thus Zeno frequented the Stoa Poecile, after
which his followers were called the Stoics.
Porticoes were also attached to gymnasia and
to baths.
The numerous porticoes in Rome were erected
in imitation of the Greek, and served similar
purposes, both public and private. Some were
already erected during the later centuries of
the Republic (e.g. Octavia, 168 B.C.; Metelli,
146 B.C.). But especially in imperial times
they were constructed of extraordinary extent
and richness. They were also a favourite addi-
tion to the private houses of rich Romans.
Porticoes in Rome were usually named after
their founder, the temples or other buildings
they were near, their use (e.g. argentaria) or
their decoration (argonautarum). When they
surrounded a forum, Vitruvius observes (v. 1)
that the intercolumniation should be wider than
in Greek examples, for facility in seeing specta-
cula. [See AGORA; DOMUS.] [E. A. G.]
PORTI'SCULUS, a hammer or truncheon
with which, as well as with his voice, the
pausarius (= ke^evorrºs) regulated the mótion
of the oars, and made the rowers advance or
stop rowing. So Ennius (ap. Non. 151, 26):
“tonsamgue tenentes Parerent, observarent,
portisculu’ signum quum dare coepisset.” The
pausarius is also called hortator (Plaut. Merc. iv.
2, 5; cf. Ov. Met. iii. 618). His duties and his
station in the stern of the ship are thus described
by Silius Italicus (vi. 360):
- “Mediae stat margine puppis
Qui voce alternos nautarum temperet ictus
Et remis dictet sonitum.”
[W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PORTITO'RES.. [PopTorruM; PUBLICANI.]
PORTO'RIUM. I. Transit-dues or tolls on
goods carried through a country or over a bridge,


PORTORIUM
POSSESSIO 469
or a toll on travellers (Suet. Wit. 14; Seneca, de
Const. Sap. 14; Digest. 19, 2, 60).
2. Duties paid on goods imported, and no
doubt on goods exported too. (Our evidence
here is very defective; but see Cic. Verr. ii. 74,
182, and perhaps pro Leg. Manil. 6, 14.) Ac-
cording to legends the duty was levied under the
kings, and removed by T. Valerius Poplicola as
a means of attaching the plebs to the new order
of things (Liv. ii. 9; Dionys. v. 22; Plut. Popl.
11). It must, however, have been restored before
long, and in a more historical age the censors of
B.C. 179 instituted portoria et vectigalia multa
(Liv. xl. 51). G. Gracchus extended the system
further (Well. Pat. ii. 6). It was, of course,
spread over Italy by Roman conquest; see e.g.
Liv. xxxii. 7 for dues paid at Capua and Puteoli
in B.C. 199. In B.C. 60 all portoria were done
away with in Italian harbours by a Lex Caecilia
of the praetor Q. Metellus Nepos (Dio Cass.
xxxvii. 51; Cic. Att. ii. 16, 1); but Caesar peregrin-
arum mercium portoria instituit (Suet. Jul. 43),
apparently for foreign goods only, i.e. goods
imported from outside the Empire. The trium-
virate introduced new réAm (Dio Cass. xli. 34),
which may mean portoria (but see under WECTI-
GALIA), and Augustus introduced further new
ones and increased some of the old. The subse-
quent emperors increased or diminished this
branch of the revenue as necessity required.
Like other vectigalia, the portorium was
farmed out by the censors to the publicani, who
employed portitores to collect it [WECTIGALIA ;
PUBLICANI]. Later, we hear of imperial pro-
curatores for portoria [see STATIONES FISCI].
As a rule, the Romans took over in the
provinces the existing import (and export?) duties;
but they tended to group the provinces into
more or less natural unions each of which
reckoned as one customs-district, on whose
frontiers duties were paid. The following dis-
tricts (among which Sicily and Asia were
specially productive, Cic. Verr. ii. 75, 185; pro
Leg. Man. 6, 14) are known to us—Italy, Sicily,
Gaul (including Alpes Cottiae and Alpes Mari-
timae), Spain, Britain, Illyricum, Asia, Bithynia
(with Pontus and Paphlagonia), Africa, and
Egypt. In some few cases the Romans allowed
a town or island to raise portoria for, its own
benefit, stipulating that Roman citizens and
socii Latini should be exempted from payment;
e.g. Ambracia (Liv. xxxviii. 44) and Rhodes (Cic.
Q. F. i. 1, 33); cf. C. J. L. i. 204 on Termessus.
But this is perhaps rather to be looked on as an
octroi than as a customs-duty.
As regards the articles subject to duty, the
rule was that all commodities.(including slaves)
which were imported to be sold again paid the
portorium; whereas things which a person
brought with him for his own use were exempt.
A list of taxable articles is given in the Digest
(39, 4, 4, 16; cf. Cic. Verr. ii. 72, 176). Many
things, however, which were rather luxuries
than necessities, such as eunuchs and handsome
youths, had to pay import-duty, even though
they were imported by persons for their own
use (Suet. de clar. Rhet. 1; Cod. 4, 42, 2).
Things imported for the use of the state were
exempt. But the governors of provinces, when
they sent persons to purchase things for the
use of the public, had to write a list of the
things for the portitores, to enable the latter to
see whether more things were imported than
were ordered (Dig. 39, 4, 4). Respecting the
right of portitores to search travellers and
merchants, see PUBLICANI. Such goods as were
duly stated to the portitores were called scripta,
and those which were not, inscripta. The latter
were confiscated on discovery (Dig. 39, 4, 16).
As to the amount of the duty we have but
few statements in ancient writers. The Sicilian
portorium in the time of Cicero was 5 per cent.
(vicesima) of the value of the taxable articles
(Cic. Verr. ii. 75, 185); and, as this was a
familiar rate in Greece (see EICOSTE, and Boeckh's
Staatshaushaltung der Athener, ed. 3, bk. 3, 6), it
may have been the sum levied in other provinces
too. But the amount may have varied with the
place and time. We hear of 2 per cent. (quinqua-
gesima) in Spain (C. I. L. 2, 5064), 2% per cent.
(quadragesima) in Gaul (Wilmanns, Exempla
Inscriptionum Latinarum, 1295, 1398) and Asia
(Suet. Vesp. 1). There are traces also of a fixed
tariff for single wares (Wilmanns, 2738, for
Africa). At a late period the exorbitant sum of
one-eighth (Cod. Just. 4, 42, 2) is mentioned as
the ordinary import-duty, but it is uncertain
whether this was the duty for all articles of
commerce, or merely for some (possibly for
articles of luxury or for articles imported from
or exported to places beyond the Roman empire).
The nature of the portorium circumvectionis
(Cic. Att. ii. 16, 4) is not clear. [F. T. R.]
PORTUNA'LIA (a more correct spelling
than Portumnalia), a festival celebrated in honour
of Portunus on the 17th of August. It is called
also Tiberinalia (Fast. Philocal.), and Mommsen
thence deduces that Portunus=Tiberinus (C.I. J.
i. p. 399); but Marquardt is probably right in
taking Portunus not to be the River God, but
the protecting deity of the wharves on the Tiber
at Rome and of those at Ostia. He was “deus
portuum ” (Cic. de Nat. Deor. ii. 26, 66; cf.
Verg. Aen. v. 241). The festival was cele-
brated in two places: at Rome by the Pons
Aemilius (Cal. Amit.), and at Ostia (Varro,
L. L. vi. 19). The connexion of Portunus with
Tiberinus, the son of Janus, and therefore of
his worship with that of Janus, may explain
his being also termed “deus portarum ” (Fest.
Ep. p. 56, 6). [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
POSCA, vinegar mixed with water, was the
common drink of the lower orders among the
Romans (Suet. Vitell. 12), of slaves (Plaut.
Mil. iii. 2, 23), and of soldiers on service (Spart.
Hadr. 10). As to the theory that the celebrated
acetum of Liv. xxi. 37 was posca (see Capes ad
loc.), it is well known that some rocks, as lime-
stone, can be split by any cold liquid poured over
them when they are hot, and so more easily cut
into a roadway (see Blümner, Technol. iii. 71).
Hennebert (Annibal, ii. p. 253; Paris, 1878)
tries elaborately to establish an explosive pro-
perty for some composition called čos or
acetum. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
POSSESSIO. Paulus (Dig. 41, 2, 1) gives
the following account of the etymology of this
word:—“Possessio appellata est a sedibus, quasi
positio, quia naturaliter tenetur ab eo, qui ei
insistit.” We shall probably be right in taking
as the elements of possidere the Latin equivalent
of the preposition ºrpori (trpos) and sedes (see
Corssen, Beitr. 87; Curtius, Gr. Etym. 286).
Possessio, in its primary sense, is the control
470 POSSESSIO
POSSESSIO
which a man has over a corporeal thing, so that
he is able to deal with it at his pleasure, and to
exclude other persons from meddling with it.
Such possession becomes possessio in a juristical
or legal sense, when it is protected by certain
legal remedies in case of interference with it.
Still even in this sense possessio is not in any
way to be confounded with ownership. A man
may have possession of a thing in the legal sense
without being the owner; and a man may be
the owner of a thing without having posses-
sion (Dig. 43, 17, 1, § 2: “separata esse debet
possessio a proprietate; fieri etenim potest, ut
alter possessor sit, dominus non sit, alter dominus
quidem sit, possessor vero non sit ; fieri potest
ut et possessor idem et dominus sit ’). Owner-
ship is the legal right to exercise control over a
thing according to a man’s pleasure, and to ex-
clude everybody else from doing so; but though
the owner has the jus possidendi or right to the
possession, he has not possession unless he is
actually exercising his right. Whether control
of a thing gives a person possession in the legal
sense depends on the intention of the person ex-
ercising it. If his intention is to hold the thing
for himself (animus sibi habendi), then as a rule
he has such possession; but if he intends to hold
for another, as is the case with a person who
borrows a thing, and with one who holds a
deposit, he has not possessio but only detention
(Dig. 41, 2, 18 pr. ; “Nec idem est possidere et
alieno nomine possidere; nam possidet, cujus
nomine possidetur, procurator alienae possessioni
praestat ministerium ”). The Greek expression
signifying the intention of a possessor to hold
the thing for himself or as owner is jux?)
Sea trágovros (Theoph. ad Inst. ii. 9, 4, iii. 29, 2;
Basil. 50, 2,7), for which animws domini has been
used as an equivalent by later commentators.
To have possession in the legal sense, the
animus domini is generally required, though
“in certain exceptional cases a person who
held a thing for another, and who therefore
had not the animus domini, was possessor in
the legal sense (see infra). A possessor who
has a thing under his control exercises a
right of ownership, whether ‘he is entitled to
exercise such right or not. The legal notion of
possession implies a thing which can be an object
of ownership, and it also implies that the pos-
sessor has a capacity of ownership, which
explains why a person in the power of another
could not possess on his own account (Dig. 41, 2,
49, 1 : “Qui'in aliena potestate sunt, rem pe-
culiarem tenere possunt, habere, possidere mon
possunt quia possessio non tantum corporis, sed
et juris' est”). Actual control being involved
in the notice of possession, it follows that only
one person at a time can possess a thing as a
whole, but a number of persons can hold a thing
in common, sharing the advantages of possession,
though not the possession itself."
Though incorporeal things are not strictly
speaking capable of possession, yet the actual
enjoyment of them, as for instance in the case of
servitudes, is sometimes equivalent to possession
of a corporeal thing, and is called juris quasi
possessio. The objects of this juris quasi pos-
sessio are certain real and personal servitudes
and some jura in re aliena, which do not belong
to the class of servitudes, of which SUPERFICIES
is the only proper instance.
A man who has possession or even the bare
detention of a thing has the advantage attached
to the position of a defendant (commodum pos-
sessoris) in being free from the burden of proof,
and in being entitled to retain the thing as a
lien for certain claims. Thus in a vindicatio
the defendant is named possessor, though he has
not necessarily possession in a legal sense, the
plaintiff being called petitor. The procedure by
the vindicatio was also adapted to the case of
an hereditas; and here also the term possessor
was applied to the defendant.
The rights attached to possession in the legal
sense were the following:—
(1) Such possession gives a right to the pos-
sessor to the protection of the possessory inter-
dicts (interdicta retinendae—recuperandae posses-
Sionis) against interference with his possession
and dispossession. The right to these interdicts
is simply founded on legal possession, in what-
ever way it may have originated, as even by an
act of theft, except that it must not have
originated vi, clam, or precario with respect to
the person against whom the interdict is claimed.
[INTERDICTUM.] Thus, simply by virtue of being
possessor, the possessor has a better right than
anyone who is not possessor, and is only obliged
to surrender the thing to the owner who proves
his superior title in the proprietary action called
vindicatio. In the possessory interdict itself the
owner was not allowed to set up his title as a
defence, and hence an interdict might be success-
fully maintained against him. The protection
of the interdicts is also extended to juris quas:
possessio. -
(2) Possession for a certain time may give a
title to ownership by usucapion, but usucapion
requires, besides possessio in a legal sense (i.e.
interdict possession), other circumstances to be
present, as that the possession must have been
bonā fide—that is, acquired by a person without
knowing that any one else has a better right to
possess than himself—and that it must have been
justa causa. He who buys a thing from a man
who is not the owner, but whom he believes to
be the owner, and obtains possession of the thing,
is a bond fide possessor with a justa causa.
[USUCAPIO.]
(3) Possession of a res nullius gives rise to
ownership at once by title of occupancy.
The term possessio occurs in legal writings in
various senses. There is possessio generally and
possessio civilis and possessio naturalis. Possessio
civilis is possession when it has the conditions
necessary for acquiring ownership by usucapion,
and all other possessio as opposed to civilis is
naturalis. Hence possession as the foundation of
the interdicts is possessio naturalis in this sense,
as well as mere detention, which is not protected
by any possessory remedies. Interdict possession
is always expressed by possessio simply: and this
is the meaning of possessio when it is used alone
and yet in a technical sense. There is therefore
a twofold possessio in the legal sense: possessio
civilis, or possession for the purpose of usucapio 3
and possessio or possession for the purpose of the
interdicts. Possessio is included in possessio
civilis, which only requires more conditions than
possessio. If, then, a man has possessio civilis,
he has also possessio, that is, interdict possession,
but the converse is not true. Possessio naturalis
has two significations, but they are both negative,
POSSESSIO
POSSESSIO 471
and merely express in each case a logical oppo-
sition; that is, they are respectively not possessio
civilis or possessio (ad Interdicta). The various
expressions used to denote bare detention are
“tenere,” “esse in pessessione,” “corporaliter
possidere.” Some eminent modern writers reject
the above explanation of the terms, which is that
of Savigny. Thus, according to Wangerow and
Windscheid, possessio civilis and possessio are
identical in meaning, signifying interdict pos-
session as opposed to naturalis possessio, which
is mere detention (Vangerow, i. § 199, Anm. ;
Windscheid, i. § 149, n. 12).
We have next to consider how interdict
possession is acquired and lost. In order to
acquire possessio, apprehension (corpus) and in-
tention (animus) are necessary (Dig. 41, 2, 3, § 1 :
“adipiscimur possessionem corpore et animoneque
per se animo, aut per se corpore”). The appre-
hension of a corporeal thing is such a dealing
with it as enables the person who intends to
acquire the possession to exercise control over
the thing to the exclusion of all other persons.
Actual corporeal contact with the thing is not
necessary to apprehension; it is enough if there
is some act on the part of the person who intends
to acquire the possession, which gives him the
physical capacity to control the thing at his
pleasure. Thus in the case of a field he who
enters upon part is considered to have entered
upon the whole. A man may acquire possession
of what is contained in a warehouse or granary
by delivery of the key which gives him access to
the contents (Dig. 18, 1, 74). The delivery of
the key is not a symbolical delivery, as some
have supposed, but it is the delivery of the
means of getting at the thing. (Compare Lord
Hardwicke's remarks on this matter, Ward
v. Turner, 2 Wes.)
The question whether there is sufficient to
constitute apprehension can only be determined
by reference to particular circumstances, which
vary in different cases. If a thing is in the
possession of some one, possession of it can be
acquired either by his voluntary act of delivery
(traditio) or by depriving him of it against his
will. It was a positive rule that possession of
land in the legal sense was not acquired by a
secret act of dispossession. The animus consists
in the will to treat as one's own the thing that
is the object of apprehension (animus domini).
But persons who are legally incompetent to
will—such as infantes, furiosi, and juristic persons
—could acquire the rights of possession by means
of their representatives. If a man has merely
detention of a thing, he can acquire the possessio
by the animus alone, for the other condition
has been already complied with. Possessio could
be acquired without the animus domini, so that
a person holding property from another was
entitled to the possessory interdicts, in the
following exceptional cases:–
1. When a thing was delivered to a creditor
as security for his debt.
2. When a person held a thing at the leave of
another (precarium).
3. When a thing was deposited with a person
to hold as sequester.
4. When a person held land as emphyteutic
tenant (jus in agro vectigali, emphyteuta),
though this case is a doubtful one.
In these cases of derivative possession the
usucapion possession belonged to the person for
whom the interdict possessor held the property,
except in case of sequestration, which inter-
rupted possession. In all the cases of juris
quasi possessio, the acquisition and the con-
tinuance of quasi-possessio depend on the corpus
and animus; and the animus is to be viewed in
exactly the same way as in the case of possession
of a corporeal thing, though the intention here
is not to control the thing as a whole, but only
in certain limited respects (Randa, Der Besitz,
§§24–36). A person might acquire possession by
means of those who were subject to his power
(potestas), what was delivered to such persons
being considered as delivered to their superior,
since they were incapable of possessing for
themselves.
An extraneous agent acquired possession for
his principal, if the agent did the necessary acts,
and with the intention of acquiring the possession
for the other, and not for himself, but there had
always to be the animus on the part of the
principal to acquire possession. In order to show
such animus it was not necessary that the princi-
pal should expressly commission the agent to take
possession of a thing, or that he should know of
the fact of possession having been taken on his
account. It was enough that the agent took
possession for the principal, and that his act was
within the scope of his commission (cf. Inst. ii.
9, 5: “per procuratorem etiam ignoranti ac-
quiritur ; ” Windscheid, i. § 155). A person
who is already the representative of another,
and has the possessio of a thing, may by the
animus alone cease to have the possessio for
himself and have it for that other, retaining
only the bare detention.
Every possession continues so long as the
corpus and the animus continue. If both cease
or either of them ceases, the possession is gone
(Dig. 41, 2, 44, § 2). The animus or the corpus
can, however, only be put an end to by a
contrary act (Dig. 50, 17, 153: “ita nulla
amittitur, nisi in qua utrumque in contrarium
actum [est]”). Hence possession may continue
under circumstances which could not have given
rise to its acquisition. As to the corpus, the
possession is not lost because there is not the
present and immediate possibility of operating on
the thing at pleasure, but only by the existence
of some circumstance which prevents any further
operating on it: e.g. possession of land is not lost
by the possessor having ceased for a time to
exercise acts of ownership over it, but only by
adverse possession on the part of some one else.
In the case of land there was also a positive rule
of Roman law that, if in the absence of the
possessor another occupied his land without his
knowledge, he was not to use possession till he
had knowledge of the occupation, and did not
thereupon put an end to it.
In the case of movable things, the possession
is put an end to when another person has got
hold of them, either by force or secretly, or if
they are lost. In the case of possession being
lost by the animus only, there must be a de-
termination on the part of the possessor.no
longer to hold the thing for himself. This
determination may either be expressly declared
or it may be implied from conduct. The pos-
session is lost corpore et animo, when the
possessor gives up a thing to another to possess
472 POSSESSIO
POSTLIMINIUM
as his own or when he abandons it (derelictum).
In the case of a juris quasi possessio, as well as
in that of possessio proper, the continuance of
the quasi-possessio depends on the corpus and
animus together. There can be no such possessio
without the animus possidendi; and if there be
merely an animus possidendi, the juris quasi
possessio must cease. Possessio can be lost by
means of a person who represents the possessor.
It may be thus lost either by the person repre-
sented ceasing to have the intention to possess or
by the representative ceasing to intend to hold
the things for the person he has previously repre-
sented, or by his ceasing to have the thing under
his control. It was, however, ultimately settled
by Justinian after some question that the mere
abandonment of a thing by a representative did
not deprive the person he had previously re-
presented of the possession.
It was necessary that the intention of the
representative to hold the thing for himself or
for some one else should be expressed in some
way, in order to change the possession. Ac-
cording to a prevalent opinion, the possession of
a movable thing was not affected unless there
was a handling of the thing (contrectatio) on the
part of the representative for himself or another.
Possession, as a legal relation concerning
ebjects of ownership, has a close connexion with
proprietary relations, and so in many of the
systematic treatises of Roman law is properly
treated as introductory to the theory of owner-
ship. [DOMINIUM.] Savigny regards possession
both as a fact and a right—a fact in so far as
de facto control of a thing apart from any right
to possess is the foundation of it, a right in so
far as rights are connected with the existence
of such control; the only right arising from
bare possession is a right to the interdicts. On
what ground, he asks, is bare possession pro-
tected by the law, when the possessor has not a
right to possess? The answer he gives is, that
possession cannot be disturbed except by force,
and force is not allowed. The fundamental
notion then is this: a violent disturbance of
possession is an attack on a man's personality,
on his freedom ; hence engendering an obligatio
ea; delicto.
Another explanation is, that possession is
presumptive ownership, i.e. the law protects
the possessor because he is probably owner.
Ihering in an exhaustive treatise on the subject
tries to prove that the ground of the possessory
interdicts is the proper protection of ownership.
As a rule, he says, the possessor is owner, and
possessory remedies are more beneficial to an
owner than proprietary, since in making use of
them he is not called on to prove his title, often
a difficult matter to prove; but this benefit of
possessory remedies cannot be given to a pos-
sessor who is owner without also being given
to a possessor who is not owner.
Again the protection of possession by inter-
dicts, is often based on the general ground that
it is a consequence of the freedom of the will,
each man being entitled to exercise his will as
he pleases in respect of external objects without
interference, until it is shown that his indi-
vidual will is in conflict with the general will,
i.e. with the law. (For an examination of these
and other theories on this subject, see especially
Ihering, Ueber den Grund des Besitzesschutzes.)
It is shown in the article AGRARIAE LEGEs,
that the origin of the Roman doctrine of pos-
session may probably be traced to the possessio
of the ager publicus. Possessio, possessor, and
possidere are the proper technical terms used
by the Roman writers to express the possession
and enjoyment of the public lands. A person
who occupied such lands by lease of the state
had not quiritarian ownership, the ownership
being in the state; but it is probable that he was
maintained in his possession against third parties
by interdicts. The Interdicta uti possidetis
and unde vi, which relate only to land, may
have been first established in respect of such
possession. * * t
The nature of the precarium is explained,
when we know that it expressed originally the
relation between the patronus and the cliens
who occupied the possessio of the patronus as a
tenant at will, and could be ejected by the
Interdictum de precario if he did not quit on
notice. Property in provincial soil came to be
called possessio; such property was not quiri-
tarian ownership, but it was a right to the
exclusive enjoyment of the land [PROVINCIA].
Thus the word possessio, which properly means
the fact of possession, sometimes signifies a right
to the possession of land, i.e. a right of pro-
perty; it is also used to signify the object of
the right: ager was a piece of land which was
the object of quiritarian ownership, and pos-
sessio was of land that could not be the object
of quiritarian ownership, such as provincial
land (Javolenus, Dig. 50, 16, 115) and the old
ager publicus. The expression bonorum pos-
sessio does not mean the actual possession of
property, but the peculiar character of the prae-
torian as opposed to the civil inheritance. [HERE-
DITAS.]
(Dig. 41, 2; Cod. 7, 32; Savigny, Das Recht
des Besitzes; Bruns, Das Recht des Besitzes inv
Mittelalter und in der Gegenwart; Lenz, Das
Recht des Besitzes und seine Grundlagen; Puchta,
art. Besitz in Weiske's Rechtslexicon; Wind-
scheid, Pandekten, i. § 148; Büchel, Ueber
die Natur des Besitzes; . Ihering, Ueber deit
Grund des Besitzesschutzes, and Der Besitz-
wille, i.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
POSSESSIO CLANDESTI'NA. [INTER-
DICTUM.
POSTI'CUM. [JANUA..]
POSTLIMI’NIUM, JUS POSTLIMINIL
“There are,” says Pomponius (Dig. 49, 15, 14,
pr.), “two kinds of Postliminium, for a man
may either return himself, or recover some-
thing; ” and similarly Paulus says (Dig. ib. 19,
pr.) that Postliminium “is the right of recover-
ing a lost thing from an ea traneus and of its
being restored to its former status, which right
has been established between us (the Romans)
and free peoples and kings by usage and statutes
(moribus ac legibus): for what we have lost in
war or even apart from (citra) war, if we
recover it, we are said to recover postliminio:
and this usage has been introduced by natural
equity, in order that he who was wrongfully
detained by strangers should recover his former
rights on returning to his own territories (in
fines suos):” and Paulus adds, “A man seems
to have returned by postliminium when he
returns into our territory, just as he is lost
when he leaves it; and even if he has come
POSTLIMINIUM
POSTLIMINIUM 473
into a state in alliance or friendship with Rome,
or to a friendly or allied king, he appears to
have at once returned by postlininium, because
he then first begins to be safe under the name
of the state.” These extracts are given in order
to clear up the etymology of the term, which
was derived by Scaevola from post and limen, a
derivation accepted by Festus, Boethius, and
Isidorus, but questioned by Servius Sulpicius:
for “what has been lost by us and has come to
an enemy, and as it were gone from its own
limen, and then has afterwards (post) returned
to the same limen, seems to have returned by
postliminium” (Cic. Top. 8, 36; Inst. i. 12, 5).
According to this explanation, the limen was the
boundary or limit within which the thing was
under the authority of Rome and her law :
similarly Servius (on Verg. Aen. xi. 267) speaks
of the limen imperii. Mr. Poste (in his note on
Gaius, i. 129) suggests that the word is derived
from pot, the root of potestas or possessio, and
limen or stlimen = ligamen, and therefore would
denote the bridging over of the interval of
captivity by a fiction of continued capacity or
possession, as a doorway is bridged over by a
lintel (limen): but this begs the question as to
the derivation of limen itself, and we cannot
discover that this etymology is favoured by any
consensus among modern scholars. There is a
fanciful explanation of the subject by Plutarch
(Quaest. Rom. 5) in his answer to the question,
Why those who have been falsely reported to
have died in a foreign land are not received into
the house through the door in case of their
return, but are let down through an opening in
the roof?
As a principle of law, postliminium seems in
origin to have been derived from the Jus feciale,
as indeed is suggested by the passage of Paulus
in Dig. 49, 15, 19, cited above. Speaking gene-
rally, it relates to the rights of Roman subjects
who were captured in war and subsequently
returned to their own country, and to owner-
ship (or analogous rights) over things or persons
who after similar capture were recovered from
the enemy. As Pomponius remarks, it has two
aspects—one active, and the other passive.
As regards the former—if a Roman citizen
during war came into the power of an enemy,
he underwent capitis deminutio maxima, and all
his civil rights were in abeyance, because he
thereby became a slave. But if he returned to
his own country, he was held (subject to certain
conditions) to recover by postliminium all the
rights which belonged to him at the time of
his capture or which had accrued to him since;
a doctrine which was based on the fiction that
he had never been absent from home: , ‘perinde
omnia restituuntur ei jura ac si captus ab
hostibus non esset ’’ (Dig. 49, 15, 5, 1). Thus
he recovered his freedom and civitas (Cic. pro
Balbo, 11, 12, 27–30; de Orat. i. 40, 181), his
own property and rights over the property of
others, and his potestas over children who
would have been in his power had he never been
captured. If he died a captive, it was a question
in Gaius' time (i. 129) whether the filiifamilias
dated their release from power from the capture
or the decease: Justinian, following Ulpian,
decided in favour of the former (Inst. i. 12, 5).
Originally marriage was dissolved by the capture
of either party, and it could not be restored by
postliminium, a fresh consensus being required
if the captive returned (Dig. 49, 15, 14, 1), but
eventually captivity was regarded as in no way
differing from ordinary absence, proof being
required of the absent party's death before the
other could lawfully marry again (Nov. 117,
11). These rights, however, were none of
them recovered by a returned captive unless
he had been taken with arms in his hands, or if
he returned during an armistice; and their re-
covery must have been intended (Dig. 49, 15, 5,
3). Finally, if a man made a will before he
was taken prisoner, and afterwards returned,
the will was upheld by postliminium notwith-
standing his intermediate slavery: if he died in
captivity, it was held good by the fictio of the
Lex Cornelia, a statute passed by Sulla B.C. 80,
which imposed penalties on those who forged
wills of persons who died in captivity, and thus
implicitly recognised their validity (Inst. ii. 12,
5; Dig. 28, 1, 12). If a Roman was ransomed
by another person, he became free, but he was
in the nature of a pledge to the ransomer, and
the jus postliminii had no effect till he had repaid
the ransom money. g
Sometimes a man was given up bound to an
enemy by an act of the state; and if the enemy
would not receive him, it was a question whether
he had the jus postliminii. This was the case
with Sp. Postumius, who was surrendered to the
Samnites, and with C. Hostilius Mancinus, who
was given up to Numantia: the latter was restored
to his civic rights by a lex, so that the better
opinion was that postliminium had no operation
(Cic. de Orat. i. 40, 141; de Off. iii. 30, 109;
Top. 8, 36; pro Caec. 34, 98;-Dig. 49, 15, 4;
50, 7, 18).
The Romans acknowledged capture in war as
the source of ownership in other nations, as
they claimed it in their own case. Accordingly
things taken by the enemy lost their Roman
owners: but (in its passive aspect) postliminium
operated to subject certain things and persons
to the dominion and power under which they
had been at the time of capture if recovered.
Thus free persons in potestas, if they returned
from captivity, fell again under the power of
their paterfamilias (Dig. 49, 15, 14, pr. ; Inst.
ii. 1, 17); and the same principle was applied
to land, slaves, ships, horses and mules (Cic.
Top. l. c.; Dig. 49, 15, 2, 3: cf. Festus, s. v.
Postliminium). Arms were not included, for it
was a maxim that they could not be honourably
lost (Dig. l.c.). In analogy with a rule already
stated, the owner of a thing (e.g. a slave) which
was ransomed by another person was not entitled
to it till he had repaid the ransom ; but there
may seem to be some difficulty in adjusting the
rights of the parties if we suppose that one
civis recaptures property subject to the rule of
postlininium which had belonged to another
Roman citizen. But this may be solved by the
observation that in time of war no civis could
individually be considered as acting on his own
behalf under any circumstances; whatever he
did was the act of the state. The rule of the
jus gentium that enemies' property is res nullius,
and belongs to him who first seizes on it, only
applied to hostile property within the territory
of the other belligerent (Dig. 41, 1, 51) : what
was taken from the enemy on his own soil
belonged to the state, and vested in individuals
474 POSTSIGNANI
PRAECO
only by sale or grant (Dig. 49, 15, 28; Dionys,
vii. 63). From this principle, however, the
things subject to postliminium which have been
enumerated above, were excepted (Liv. v. 16;-
Dig. 49, 15, 19, 10; ib. 28, 30); the actual
taker was regarded as the agent of the state,
and the state itself restored them to their
previous owners.
The law of Postliminium applied to times of
peace as well as of war, when the circumstances
were such that the person or thing could become
the property of another nation (Dig. 49, 15, 5),
as, for instance, of a nation which had neither
an amicitia, hospitium, or foedus with Rome: for
it might be thus related without being hostis ;
for a nation was not hostis, in the later accepta-
tion of the term, till either it or Rome had
declared war against the other. Robbers and
pirates were not hostes, but they had no political
organisation, so that capture by them did not
change the legal position of the person or
property seized: the persons continued free in
law, and the property never ceased to belong to
its rightful owners, so that no occasion arose for
the application of postliminium.
[The best treatises on this subject are those
of Hase (Halle, 1851) and Bechmann (Erlangen,
1872), both called Das jus Postlinini; whd die
Fictio legis Corneliae. For the influence of the
principle in International Law the reader may
refer to an article on the subject by F. Brockhaus
in Holtzendorff’s Rechtslearicon.] [J. B. M.]
POSTSIGNA’NI. [ExERCITUs, Wol. I. p.
807 b.] -
PO'STUMUS. [HEREs.]
POTESTAS. [PATRIA PotesTAs.]
PRA’CTORES (rpákropes), officers who
collected the fines and penalties (érigox&s and
tip, huara) imposed by magistrates and courts of
justice, and payable to the state. There seems
little doubt that at Athens there were ten trpár-
topes, chosen by lot, one from each tribe. It
has been objected that an inscription of Imbros
gives three as the number (Kirchhoff, Monatsber.
d. Berl. Akad. 1865, 121); but Fränkel justly
points out in his note on Boeckh (Staatshaush.
ii.” 39*) that this refers to a cleruchia, which
was Athens on a reduced scale, with fewer
officials, just as it had only three proedri. The
Athenian irpáktopes were not, as seems to be
implied by ;: viii. 114, mere subordinates;
for they formed an āpxh. (Arist. Pol. vii. 8;
Bekker, An. 190, 26.) The magistrate who
imposed the fine, or the #7suèv Šikaarmptov,
gave notice thereof in writing to the ºrpákropes.
He was then said €triypápew to ripinua rols
trpákroporiv, and the debtor's name trapaboðfival
Toſs trpákroporiv. If the fine or any part thereof
was to go to a temple, the like notice was sent
to the tautal of the god or goddess to whom the
temple belonged. (Aesch. c. Timarch. § 35;
Andoc. de Myst. § 73; [Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1328,
§ 20; 1337, § 47; Dem. c. Macart. p. 1075,
§ 71.) The name of the debtor, with the sum
which he was condemned to pay, was entered
by the ºrpákropes in a tablet in the Acropolis.
Hence the debtor was said to be €yyeypaupévos
ró Smuogº, or év tá ákporáxel. It was the
business of the ºrpákropes to demand payment of
this sum, and, if they received it, to pay it over
to the ātroöéktai, and also to erase the name
of the debtor in the register (ěčaxeſ pelv or
ătraxeſ pelv). Such erasure usually took place
in the presence of some members of the senate.
An évôeiðis lay against any man who made or
caused to be made a fraudulent entry or erasure
of a debt. (Harpoc. and Suidas, s. v. &ypaq’ſov,
âtroëércrat, ſevöeyypaq'ſ : Andoc. l. c.; [Dem.]
c. Aristog, i. p. 778, § 28; c. Theocr. p. 1338,
§ 52.) The collectors took no steps to enforce
payment; but after the expiration of the ninth
trpvraveſa of the year [i.e. during the tenth]
(or in case of a penalty imposed on a ypaſp?
iſ&peas, after the expiration of eleven days), if it
still remained unpaid, it was doubled, and an
entry made accordingly. (Aesch. c. Timarch.
§ 16; Dem. c. Pant. p. 973, § 22; [Dem.] c.
Theocr. p. 1322, § 1; c. Neaer. p. 1347, § 7.)
Thereupon immediate measures might be taken
for seizure and confiscation of the debtor's goods;
but here the irpáktopes had no further duty to
perform, except perhaps to give information of
the default to the senate. There were no doubt
in many, if not most, Greek states officers bearing
this title with similar duties. We find them in
inscriptions at Tenos, Sikinos, and Ios. (C. I.
G. 202, 2447; N. Rhein. Mus. xxii. p. 294.)
In the Phocian cities Medeon and Stiris the
form of the word is trpakripes. (Bull. Cor.
Hell. v. 45.) (Gilbert, Staatsalt. i. 228;
Boeckh, Staatshaush. i.” 189.) [EPIBOLE:
TIMEM.A. [C. R. K.] [G. E. M.]
PRAECI'NCTIO. [AMPHITHEATRUM,
Vol. I. p. 110 b.]
PRAECO, a crier. Of these there were two
distinct kinds—those in private employment,
and those employed and paid by the state as
subordinate attendants. The praecomes of the
former kind were (1) criers of lost goods (Plaut.
Merc. iii. 4, 78; Petron. 97), and (2) especially
auctioneers: they were not, it is true, the chief
superintendents of the auction [see AUCTIO);
but besides advertising the time, place, and
conditions of sale, they also acted the part of a
modern auctioneer so far as calling out the
biddings and amusing the company, though the
property was knocked down by the magister
auctionis. (Hor. Ars. Poet. 419 ; Cic. ad Att.
xii.40; de Off, ii. 23,83.) The official praecomes
were those whose duty it was to attend (ap-
parere) certain magistrates, for purposes men-
tioned below. We have evidence from inscrip-
tions of a collegium with three decuriae of
praecomes, to attend on consuls and censors (the
first, or “Julian,” decuria for consuls): also for
curule aediles, quaestores aerarii, and tribunes
(C. I. L. vi. 1944, 1945, 1869, 1847; cf. Liv.
xliii. 16; Auct. ad Herenn. iv. 55, 68) : perhaps
also for other magistrates, since, as Mommsen
remarks, their low status may account for
slighter mention of them in inscriptions. They
attended the same magistrates in the provinces
(Cic. in Verr. ii. 10, 27; Liv. xlv. 29).
Their duties were to act in all cases required
as the voice through which the magistrate on
whom they attended conveyed his orders or
remarks to the people: therefore (1) to summon
the people to comitia or contiones (Liv. i. 59;
vii. 4; xxiv. 8, &c.); (2) to proclaim silence (Auct.
ad Herenn. l. c.; Liv. xxviii. 27, &c.); (3) to
announce the bill which was to be voted on,
when the scriba dictated [subicit] the words
already written down which the praeco was to
announce aloud (pronuntiare : Ascon, in Cornel.
PRAECONIUM
PRAEDIUM 475
58) : we often find the scribe alone mentioned
as reading (Appian, B. C. i. 11), but, according
to Mommsen, we are to understand that he
reads through the voice of the praeco ; (4) to
announce the votes of different sections at an
election (Cic. de Leg. agr. ii. 2, 4) or the decision
of the majority (Cic. pro Mil. 35, 96; Gell. xii.
8, 6); (5) to summon the senators to the
senate-house (Liv.i.47; Suet. Claud. 36); (6) to
make known the orders of the magistrate, the
edictum being “spoken out " by the praeco, and
so, for instance, in ordering slaves to quit the
theatre or foreigners the city (Cic. de Harusp.
Resp. 12, 26; Liv. ii. 37). (7) In trials they
summoned the accuser, the accused, and the
witnesses (Suet. Tib. 11; Liv. viii. 32; Cic. pro
Flacc. 15, 34): they announced the conclusion
of the pleadings, gave the dismissal of the judices
(by the word ilicet), and ordered the executioner
to do his office (Liv. xxvi. 15). (8) At the
public funeral (funus indictivum) they summoned
those who were to take part with the formal
words: “Ollus Quiris leto datus: exsequias ire,
cui commodum est, jam tempus est. Ollus ex
aedibus effertur.” It is clear that the praeco
comes in here because it is a state funeral, by
order of the senate and arranged by a quaestor
or praetor. (See Fest. p. 106; Cic. de Leg. ii.
24; Becker-Göll, iii. 496; Marquardt, Privatl.
351.
The official dress of the praeco was marked
by the angustus clavus (see Mommsen, Staats-
recht, iii. 218). The praecomes were of a low
grade, with little education (Mart. v. 56, 10), as
far as can be gathered from inscriptions, of the
freedman class: and the contempt in which
their office (praeconium) was held is seen not
only from such passages as Juv. iii. 33, vii. 6
(cf. khput, Theophrast. xvi. 10, and Jebb's
note), but also from the law (Lex Julia) for-
bidding those who had exercised it to hold office
in the municipia (Tab. Heracl. 54 = C. I. L.
i. 206; Cic. ad Fam. vi. 18, 2). Nevertheless
the office (probably the auctioneering part of it)
was often very profitable, and made it possible
for the praeco to become a rich man: for in-
stances, see Mayor's note on Juv. vii. 6;
among them the Gallonius mentioned in Hor.
Sat. ii. 2, 47. (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i.” pp.
363–366.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PRAECO'NIUM. [PRAEco.]
PRAEDA signifies movable things taken by
an enemy in war: when captured by a Roman.
army, they were either distributed by the
general among the soldiers (Liv. ii. 42, vi. 13;
Sallust, Jug. 68), or sold by the quaestors, the
proceeds being paid into the Aerarium:-
- - “istos captivos duos,
Here quos emi de praeda de quaestoribus.”
(Plaut. Capt. i. 2, 1.)
Property so acquired was regarded by the early
Romans as belonging to the individual who had
purchased it, or to whom it had been awarded,
by the highest and most indefeasible of titles:
“Maxime sua esse credebant,” says Gaius (iv.
16), “ quae ex hostibus cepissent.”
The difference between Praeda and Manubiae
is explained by Gellius (xiii. 24), to be this:
Praeda denotes the things themselves that are
taken in war, while Manubiae is “pecunia per
quaestorem populi Romani ex praeda vendita
contracta: ” nor can any objection to this ex-
planation be derived from the words of Cicero
(de Lege agrar. ii. 22, 59). The etymology of
praeda may perhaps be prae-hida from prae-
hendere, prendere (root hed), which would form
a connecting link between the term and many
other primitive Roman legal words, such as
mancipium : see Pott, Etymologische Forschungen
auf dem Gebiete der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen,
i. pp. 142, 199.
When prisoners were sold, they were said to
be sold sub corona; the true explanation of
which expression is probably that given by
Gellius (vii. 4). The mode of sale of other
things than slaves was at first probably in
detail, but afterwards in the lump : that is, the
whole praeda might be sold to the highest
bidder, or it might be sold in large lots or
aggregates which contained a great number of
separate things, in which cases the whole or
minor aggregate would pass to the purchaser as
a universitas, and he might retail it if he chose.
This mode of sale was called sectio (Cic. de Invent.
i. 45, 85), and the purchaser was called sector.
It was the practice to set up a spear at such
sales, which was afterwards used at all sales
conducted by a magistratus in the name of the
people [SECTIO).
Corresponding to the acquisition of movable
things in warfare, and their becoming private
property, is the transfer of ager Publicus, which
was acquired in war, to individuals, by a Lex
Agraria de Coloniis deducendis, or by a sale by the
quaestors (ager quaestorius). [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
PRAEDIATOR. TPRAES.
PRAEDIATO'RIUM JUS. [PRAEs.]
PRAE'DIUM etymologically seems to be
derived from the root hed (PRAEDA), through
either praes or praeda : with the first it is
connected by Varro, who says that it originally
signified any property which was made security
to the state by a praes (“praedia dicta, item
ut praedes, a praestando, quod ea pignori
data publice mancupis fidem praestent,” L. L.
v. 40): by others it is brought into relation
with praeda : “quod antiqui agros quos bello
ceperant ut praedae nomine habebant ’” (Gromat.
Veter. ed. Lachmann, i. p. 369). Subsequently
the term was limited to signify land generally,
being used in contrast with fundus or solum
especially when the situation of the land, or the
purpose for which it was used, was in contem-
plation : thus praedia rustica are parcels of
land devoted to tillage or pasture, even though
they may be partly built upon, while praedia
wrbana are those which are not used for the
production of the fruits of the earth, but for
residence and commercial ends: though from
different points of view a piece of land might be
considered at once both urbanum and rusticum
(Dig. 20, 2, 4, 1; 50, 16, 198). Rights over
land which, though less in orbit than do-
minium, are yet real in their nature (e.g. rights
of way), were mostly called jura praediorum :
See SERVITUTES.
Provincialia praedia were called either stipen-
diaria or tributaria, because the land tax was
termed stipendium in those provinces which
were considered to belong to the populus, and
tributum in the provinces of the emperor (Gaius,
5
ii. 21 ; cf. Dig. 50, 16, 27, 1). This distinction,
however, was merely nominal even in Gaius'
476 PRAEFECTURA
PRAEFECTUs PRAETORIO
time, and ceased entirely about the end of the
second century. [J. B. M.]
PRAEFECTU'RA. [COLONIA, Vol. I. p.
483.
Ekapreorus a title given to various
officials, appointed, not directly by the people,
but by the delegation of some magistrate, to
discharge special functions. Hence the prae-
fectus was not included in the lists of magis-
trates, although in certain cases he enjoyed the
insignia of a magistrate. The most important
are as follows. [A. S. W.]
PRAEFECTUS AEGYPTI. Egypt was
not included by Augustus either in the senatorial
or in the imperial provinces, but was reserved
for his more immediate control. None of the
senators or equites illustres were allowed to set
foot in it without the special permission of the
emperor (Tac. Ann. ii. 59; Dio Cass. li. 17); it
was governed for him by a procurator of eques-
trian rank, who, however, as holding a superior
position to that of an ordinary procurator and
an imperium ad similitudinem proconsulis (Dig. 1,
17, 1), was entitled praefectus Aegypti (Tac.
Hist. ii. 74, &c., and often in inscriptions), or in
Greek jºyeudºv. His staff consisted of freedmen
of the emperor. Everything but the fixing of
the revenues and the right of appointment to
certain posts was in his hands: the administra-
tion of finance, the judicial authority, and the
supreme military command. He reported
directly to the emperor, and the tenure of his
office depended on the emperor's pleasure. Thus
Seius Strabo, the father of Seianus, held this
post for only a few months, but his successor,
Vitrasius Pollio, for sixteen years. (Mar-
quardt, Röm. Staatsv. i. 285.) This praefectus
held rank second in the scale of the non-sena-
torial dignities, coming after the praefectus
praetorio, but before the praefectus annonae.
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 997, 2.) [A. S. W.]
PRAEFECTUS AERA'RII. [AERARIUM.]
PRAEFECTUS ALIMENTORUM. [ALI-
MENTARII.]
PRAEFECTUS ANNO’NAE. Livy (iv.
12, 13) relates that in B.C. 440 L. Minucius
was appointed praefectus annonae to deal with
the difficulties arising in a time of scarcity,
either for a year, being re-elected the next, or
for an indefinite period: “Nihil enim constat,
nisi in libros linteos utroque anno relatum inter
magistratus praefecti nomen.” Nothing more
is heard of such an appointment under the
Republic, and hence it has been not unreason-
ably argued that Licinius, from whom Livy is
here drawing (Hermes, v.266), introduced the
title by mistake.
The superintendence of the corn-market
throughout the whole Republic was at a later
period entrusted to Pompey for a period of five
years (Dio Cass. xxxix. 9; Cic. ad Att. iv. 1;
Liv. Epit. 104); and in accordance with this
example Augustus took the same superintend-
ence upon himself, and commanded that two
persons who had been praetors five years before
should be appointed every year for the distribu-
tion of the corn. (Dio Cass. liv. 1; curam fru-
inent; populo dividundi, Suet. Aug. 37.) Subse-
quently Augustus assigned this duty to two
persons of consular rank (Dio Cass. lv. 26, 31).
But he also created an officer under the title of
praefectus annonde to take charge of the more
important duty of seeing to the due supply
of the corn-market. Under him worked pro-
curatores in the provinces and at Ostia, and
a large staff of clerks (tabularii) and superin-
tendents of granaries (horrearii). This
office was a permanent one, and only held
by one person at a time: he had jurisdiction
over all matters, appertaining to the corn-
market, and, like the praefectus vigilum, was
chosen from the Equites, and was not reckoned
among the ordinary magistrates. (Tac. Ann.
i. 7; Dio Cass. lii. 24; Dig. 1, 2, 2, 33 ; 14,
1, 1, 18; 14, 5, 8; 48, 2, 13.) The praefectus
annonae continued to exist till the latest times of
the Empire: respecting his duties in later times,
see Walter, Gesch. des rôm. Rechts, $ 360, 2nd
ed. Cf. FRUMENTARIAE LEGEs, and Hirschfeld
in Philologus, xxix. 1–96. [W. S.] [A. S. W.]
PRAEFECTUS AQUA'RUM. [Aquae
DUCTUs.]
PRAEFECTUS CASTRO'RUM, praefect
of the camp, is first mentioned in the reign
of Augustus. There was one to each legion.
Hence there were often more than one in a
camp. (Well. Pat. ii. 112; Tac. Ann. i. 20,
xiv. 37.) We learn from Vegetius (ii. 10) that
it was his duty to attend to all matters con-
nected with the making of a camp, such as the
vallum, fossa, &c., and also to the internal
economy of it. He seems to have taken rank be-
tween the tribunes and the centurions. (Cf. Wil-
manns in Eph. Epig. i. 81 ff.) [W.S.] [A. S. W.]
PRAEFECTUS CLASSIS. This title
was frequently given in the times of the
Republic to the commander of a fleet (Liv. xxvi.
48, 7, xxxvi. 42, 1, as contrasted with praefect;
navium, the commanders of the several ships);
but Augustus appointed two permanent officers
with this title, one of whom was stationed at
Ravenna on the Adriatic and the other at
Misenum on the Tuscan sea, each having the
command of a fleet. (Suet. Aug. 49 ; Veget.
iv. 32; Tac. Ann. iv. 5, Hist. iii. 12.) These
were also of equestrian rank, in some cases
even freedmen (Tac. Ann. xiv. 3; Hist. ii.
100). [W. S.] [A. S. W.]
PRAEFECTUS FABRUM. [FABRI.]
PRAEFECTUS JURE DICUNDO. [Co-
LONIA, Vol. I. p. 483.]
PRAEFECTUS PRAETO'RIO was the
commander of the troops who guarded the
emperor's person. [PRAETORIANI.] This
office was instituted by Augustus, and was
at first only military, and had comparatively
small power attached to it (Dio Cass. lii. 24,
lv. 10; Suet. Aug. 49); but under Tiberius,
who made Seianus commander of the prae-
torian troops, it became of much greater
importance, till at length the power of these
praefects became second only to that of the
emperors. (Tac. Ann. iv. 1, 2; Aurel. Vict.
de Caes. 9.) The relation of the praefectus
praetorio to the emperor is compared with that
of the magister equitum to the dictator under the
Republic. (Dig. 1, 11.) He was, as the officer
of highest rank, always present at court, the
natural medium through which the emperor
issued his orders and carried out his decisions,
although his actual influence would naturally
depend mainly on his personal character. From
the reign of Severus to that of Diocletian, the
praefects, like the vizirs of the East, had the
PRAEFECTUS SOCIORUM
PRAEFECTUS URBI 77
superintendence of all departments of the state,
the palace, the army, especially in Italy, the
finances, and the law : they also had a court
in which they decided cases (Dig. 12, 1, 40),
mainly as the representative of the emperor in
appeals from the provinces. (Mommsen, Staatsr.
ii. 932.) Hence the office of praefect of the
praetorium was in later times not confined to
military officers; it was filled by Ulpian, Papi-
nian, Paulus, and other distinguished jurists.
Originally there were two praefects (Dio
Cass. lv. 10); afterwards sometimes one and
sometimes two; from the time of Commodus
sometimes three (Lamprid. Commod. 6), and
even four. (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 831, 3.)
They were as a regular rule chosen only from
the equites (Dio Cass. lii. 24; Suet. Tit. 6;
Lamprid. Commod 4); but from the time of
Alexander Severus the dignity of senator was
always joined with their office (Lamprid. Alex.
Sev. 21).
Under Constantine the praefects were deprived
of all military command, and changed into
governors of provinces. He appointed four
such praefects: the one (praefectus Orientis)
who commonly attended on the imperial court
had the command of Thrace, the whole of the
East, and Egypt; the second (pr. Illyrici) had the
command of Illyricum, Macedonia, and Greece,
and usually resided first at Sirmium, afterwards
at Thessalonica; the third (pr. Italiae) of Italy
and Africa, residing usually at Milan; the fourth
(praefectus Galliarum), who resided at Trèves,
of Gaul, Spain, and Britain. (Zosimus, ii. 33.)
These praefects were the proper representatives
of the emperor, and their power extended over
all departments of the state : the army alone was
not subject to their jurisdiction. They were
co-ordinate with the praefects of the two capital
cities of Rome and Constantinople. (Walter,
Gesch. des röm. Rechts, $$ 269, 341; Gibbon,
Decline and Fall, c. 17.) [W. S.] [A. S. W.]
PRAEFECTUS SOCIO'RUM. (ExERCI-
TUs, Vol. I., p. 786.]
PRAEFECTUS VI'GILUM. [ExERCITUs,
Vol. I., p. 795.]
PRAEFECTUS URBI, the title given to
the deputy who, under the kings, was named to
represent the supreme authority during his
absence in war, or for any other reason. Lydus
(de Magistr. i. 34, 38) says that he was ori-
ginally called custos urbis; but this name is
inappropriate to the office in its earlier stages,
and is probably incorrectly applied (Mommsen,
Staatsr. i. 639). The office is said by Dionysius
(ii. 12) to have been held along with that of
Princeps Senatus, and the same statement
appears in a still more incorrect form in Lydus
(de Mens. i. 19), but is quite erroneous.
Whether he had the right to convoke the
assembly of the populus, is doubtful, but on
any emergency he might take such measures as
he thought proper; for he had the imperium
in the city. (Tac. Ann. vi. 11; Liv. i. 59, iii.
24.) Romulus is said to have conferred this
dignity upon Denter Romulius, Tullus Hostilius
upon Numa Marcius, and Tarquinius Superbus
upon Sp. Lucretius. The statement of Lydus
(de Magistr. i. 38) that in 487 B.C. it was
elevated into a magistracy, to be bestowed by
election, is wholly to be rejected; his evidence
is worthless, and such a notion is foreign to the
very nature of the office. All good authorities
speak of the praefectus as nominated by the consul
who last left the city (Liv. iii. 3, 5, 24; Dionys.
vi. 13, viii. 64, x. 23, 24; Tac. Ann. vi. 11).
Persons of consular rank were alone eligible;
and down to the time of the Decemvirate every
praefect that is mentioned occurs previously as
consul. The only exception is P. Lucretius in
Livy (iii. 24), but recent editors here read L.
Lucretius, holding the MS. reading an error for
this very reason. (Cf. Niebuhr, ii. p. 120, note
255.) In the early period of the Republic the
praefectus exercised within the city all the
powers of the consuls, if they were absent: he
convoked the senate (Liv. iii. 9; Gell. xiv. 7,
§ 4), held the comitia (Liv. iii. 24), and, in
times of war, even levied civic legions, which
were commanded by him.
When the office of praetor urbanus was insti-
tuted, the wardenship of the city was swallowed
up in it (Lydus, de Mens. 19, de Magistr. ii. 6),
or rather became needless, as in the absence of
the consuls the praetor acted for them. Momm-
sen believes that the right of nominating a
praefectus urbi was expressly taken away by
the Licinian law (i. 644). But as the praetor
himself was absent during the Latin festivals,
which lasted for several days, a praefectus urbi
feriarum Latinarum was still annually appointed,
solely for this period, and thus held a mere
shadow of the former office. This praefectus
had neither the power of convoking the senate
nor the right of speaking in it; as in most
cases he was a person below the senatorial age,
and was not appointed by the people, but by
the consuls. (Gell. xiv. 8.) When Varro, in
the passage of Gellius here referred to, claims
for the praefectus urbi the right of convoking
the senate, he is probably speaking of the power
of the praefect such as it was previously to the
institution of the office of praetor urbanus. Of
how little importance the office of praefect of
the city had gradually become, may be inferred
from the facts, that it was always given to
young men of illustrious families (Tac. Ann.
iv. 36), and that Julius Caesar even appointed
to it several youths of equestrian rank under
age (Dio Cass. xlix. 42; xliii. 29, 48). During
the Empire such praefects of the city continued
to be appointed so long as the Feriae Latinae
were celebrated, and even assumed, though
perhaps hardly seriously, some kind of juris-
diction. (Tac. Ann. vi. 11; Suet. Nero, 7,
Claud. 4; Dio Cass. liv.17; J. Capitol. Antonin.
Phil. 4.) On some occasions, however, no prae-
fectus urbi was appointed at all; and then his
duties were performed by the praetor urbanus.
(Dio Cass. xli. 14, xlix. 16 ; comp. Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii. 285; Mommsen, Staatsr. i.
638–649.)
An office very different from this, though
bearing the same name, was instituted by
Augustus on the suggestion of Maecenas (Dio
Cass. lii. 21 ; Tac. l. c.; Suet. Aug. 37), and
because a permanent post of great importance
under Tiberius. This new praefectus urbi was
a regular magistrate, whom Augustus invested
with all the powers necessary to maintain
peace and order in the city, which he exercised
even when a praetor or indeed a consul was
present at Rome. But his functions were
inactive when Augustus was in Italy. It was
478 PRAEFECTUS URBI
PRAE JUDICIUM
only during the long absence of Tiberius during
the last eleven years of his reign, that the prae-
fectus urbi became a permanent official of great
power. He came to be included among the
magistratus, and even imperium was accorded
to him (Dig. 2, 4, 2). None but consulars were
appointed to the office, and it was often the
crowning point of a distinguished political career,
answering somewhat to the censorship of the Re-
public. He had the superintendence of butchers,
bankers, guardians, theatres, &c.; and to enable
him to exercise his power, he had distributed
throughout the city a number of milites sta-
tionarii, whom we may compare to a modern
police. These composed the cohorts x., xi., and
xii. of the cohortes wrbanae, their number being
afterwards increased. He also had jurisdiction
in cases between slaves and their masters,
between patrons and their freedmen, and over
sons who had violated the pietas towards their
parents (Dig. 1, 12, 1, 5–14 ; 37, 15, 1, 2).
His jurisdiction, as being based upon a general
duty of looking after the peace and prosperity
of the city, thus became gradually extended;
and as the powers of the ancient republican
praefectus urbi had been swallowed up by the
office of the praetor urbanus, so now the
power of the praetor urbanus was gradually
absorbed by that of the praefectus urbi; and
at last there was no appeal from his sentence,
except to the person of the princeps himself,
while anybody might appeal from a sentence
of any other city magistrate, and, at a later
period, even from that of a governor of a pro-
vince, to the tribunal of the praefectus urbi.
(Vopisc. Florian. 5, 6; Suet. Aug. 33; Dio
Cass, lii. 21, 33; Dig. 4, 4, 38.) His jurisdic-
tion in criminal matters was at first connected
with the quaestiones (Tac. Ann. xiv. 41, with
the note of Lipsius), and to avoid collisions with
the praetor it was decided that that court
should hear a case before which it might first
have been brought ; but from the third century
he exercised it alone, and not only in the city of
Rome, but at a distance of one hundred miles
from it, and he might sentence a person to
deportatio in insula.m. (Dig. 1, 12, 1, 3 and 4.)
During the first period of the Empire and under
good emperors, the office was generally held for
a number of years, and in many cases for life
(Dio Cass, lii. 21, 24, lxxviii. 14; J. Capitol.
Antonin. Pius, 8 ; Lamprid. Commod. 14 ;
Vopisc. Carin. 16); but from the time of Wale-
rian a new praefect of the city occurs almost
every year.
At the time when Constantinople was made
the second capital of the Empire, this city also
received its praefectus urbi. The praefects at
this time were the direct representatives of the
emperors; and all the other officers of the
administration of the city, all corporations, and
all public institutions were under their control.
(Cod. 1, tit. 28, S. 4; Symmach. Epist. x. 37,
43; Cassiod. Variar. vi. 4.) They also exercised
a superintendence over the importation and
the prices of provisions, though these subjects
were under the more immediate regulation of
other officers. (Cod. 1, tit. 28, s. 1; Orelli,
Inscript. n. 3116.) The praefects of the city
had every month to make a report to the
emperor of the transactions of the senate (Sym-
mach. Epist. x. 44), where they gave their vote
before the consulares. They were the medium
through which the emperors received the peti-
tions and presents from their capital. (Sym-
mach. Epist. x. 26, 29, 35; Cod. 12, tit. 49.)
At the election of a pope the praefect of Rome
had the care of all the external regulations.
(Symmach. Epist. x. 71–83.) [L. S.] [A. S. W.]
PRAEFERI'CULUM was clearly some sort
of brazen dish or bowl used in sacrifices, our
only definition being, “was aeneum sine ansa
patens summum velut pelvis quo ad sacrificia
utebantur” [perhaps in the original utuntur]
(Fest. Ep. p. 248): it was part of the apparatus
for sacrifice belonging to the state-priests, and
was kept in the Regia in the Sacrarium of
Ops (Fest. p. 246; cf. Jordan, Topog. i. p. 427).
It is strange that, in spite of the distinct sine
ansa, many should identify it with the jug with
a handle, used for pouring wine into the patera,
as shown among the sacrificial utensils, on a
relief from the Arcus Argentariorum (so Guhl
and Koner, ed. 5, pp. 721, 733). We think
Baumeister rightly doubts this (Denkm. p. 1109),
and suggests that the shield-like object on the
same relief, which is combined with the axe [see
cut under SECURIs], is more probably the prae-
fericulum. [The same writer, p. 1384, how-
ever, interprets the similar jug (probably the
CAPIs), which appears on a coin of Pompey
with an augur's staff opposite. it, as being a
praefericulum.] It may be suggested that its
connexion with ferculum indicates its use,
whether for offering the firstfruits or the cakes
(fercia; cf. Fest. 85, “ferctum, genus libi
dicitur quod ad sacra ferebatur, nec sine strue
. . . . quae qui afferebant strufertarii appella-
bantur”), or, lastly, to carry the mola salsa for
the sacrifice of the victim at a state festival
(cf. the formula “Jupiter, macte isto ferto
esto,” Serv, ad Aen. ix. 641). It may be con-
jectured that the “niger catinus’’ of Numa
(Juv. vi. 343) was an ancient earthenware
praefericulum. [G. E. M.]
PRAE/FICAE. [FUNUs.]
PRAEFU'RNIUM. [BALNEAE, Vol. I.
p. 273; FoRNAX.]
PRAEJUDI’CIUM. This word, as appears
from its etymology, has a certain relation to
Judicium, to which it is opposed by Cicero (“de
quo non praejudicium, sed plane jam judicium
factum,” Div. in Caecil. 4, 12) and P. Syrus,
248, 249 : “grave judicium est, quod prae-
judicium non habet: grave praejudicium est,
quod judicium non habet.” The commentator
who goes by the name of Asconius observes on
the words cited from Cicero, that a praejudicium
is something which when established becomes an
exemplum for following judges (judicaturi, to be
guided by): but this leaves us in doubt whether
he means something established in the same
cause, by way of preliminary inquiry, or some-
thing established in a different but similar
cause, which would be what we call a precedent.
Quintilian (Inst. Orat. v. 1, 2) states that the
word is used in two senses: in that of a pre-
cedent, in which case it is rather exemplum than
praejudicium (“res ex paribus causis judicata”);
and in that of a preliminary inquiry and deter-
mination about something which belongs to the
matter in dispute (“judiciis ad ipsam causam
#. ”), whence also comes the name
Praejudicium. This latter signification, which
PRAEJUDICIUM
PRAES 479
is in conformity with the meaning of praeju-
dicialis actio or formula (Inst. iv. 6, 13; Gaius,
iv. 44), appears to be that which the term pro-
perly bears in Roman legal language. A “pre-
judicial” action was one whose object was
merely to judicially ascertain facts which were
of legal importance, or the existence of alleged
legal relations, and whose formula (in the
formulary period of Roman civil procedure)
consisted consequently simply of an Intentio, by
which the judex was instructed to inquire into
the truth of the alleged fact, or the existence of
the alleged legal relation (Gaius, l. c.): there
was no condemnation or absolution, as in other
actions, but the judge simply declared his con-
clusion on the matter in a pronuntiatio (e.g. Dig.
40, 12, 27, 1): cf. Aurel. Victor. Ars rhet. iii.
5, “simplex petitio, cum quaeritur, in quo jure
sit res aut persona.” The name of the action
was derived from the fact that the decision of
the judge formed, or might form, the basis of
subsequent litigation (e.g. it having been ascer-
tained by praejudicium that So-and-so is the
illegitimate child of A, the mother can proceed
by action against A for its maintenance); as to
its legal character, the lawyers seem to have
doubted. Justinian says (Inst. iv. 6, 13),
“praejudiciales actiones in rem esse videntur * :
they are real, not personal, because there is no
obligatio between the person who sets the law in
motion and his adversary, or, as Gaius would
perhaps have said, because the latter is not
named in the Intentio: but in Dig. 6, 1, 1, 2;
44, 7, 37, praejudicia are opposed to vindicationes
or real actions, and in Dig. 3, 3,35, 2, to actiones
in general.
Among the questions which were raised in
the form of a praejudicium were whether a man
was free or not (Inst. loc. cit.), or a libertus or
not (Gaius, iv. 44; Dig. 2, 4, 8, 1): whether
he was the child of So-and-so (Dig. 25, 3, 3, 2):
whether he had given to the sureties he was
taking for such and such a debt the information
required by the Lex Cicereia (Gaius, iii. 123):
what was the amount of So-and-so's dos, &c.
Some praejudiciales actiones belonged to the
civil law, though Justinian says, in the para-
graph already referred to, that perhaps the only
one in his time which had a legitima causa was
that in which a man’s freedom was in question,
and which we know (from Dig. 1, 2, 2, 24) was
older than the Twelve Tables: the rest, accord-
ing to him, were praetorian in origin.
The pronuntiatio of the judge in a prejudicial
action was binding on, and conclusive against,
not merely the person who in it played the rôle
of defendant, but on all persons generally (Dig.
1, 5, 25; 25, 3, 2, 3, pr.): but (at any rate in
those relating to status) the decision could be
disputed by any one within five years on the
ground of collusion (Dig. 40, 16), and by
persons actually wronged by it at even a longer
interval of time (Dig. 40, 12, 42).
The reason why praejudicium is sometimes
opposed to actio is probably that sometimes the
term was used in the sense of a defence, the
defendant pleading that the suit ought not to be
proceeded with because its decision would pre-
judge a more important cause. Such a plea was
originally expressed in the form of a PRAE-
SCRIPTIO (pro reo), but later was formulated as
an eaceptio (Gaius, iv. 133). Examples may be
found in the allegation that a single judex is
trying a suit which ought to go before the
centumviri (Cod. 3, 31, 12, pr.), or recuperatores
trying a matter which ought to be made the
subject of a criminal prosecution (Cic. de Invent.
ii. 20, 59; in Verr. iii. 65, 152; Dig. 47, 10, 7,
1): cf. also Plin. Ep. vii. 6. This seems to be the
signification of the term praejudicium from which
has arisen our own legal phrase “without pre-
judice to other matters in the cause.” (Gaius,
iii. 123, iv. 44; Paul. Sent, rec. v. 9, 1;-Dig.
22, 3, 8; 43, 30;—Inst. iv. 6, 13; and Theo-
philus, Paraphr.) [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
PRAELUSIO. [GLADIATOREs.]
PRAENOMEN. . [NoMEN.]
PRAEPETES. [AUGUR, Vol. I. p. 250.]
PRAEPO'SITUS, which means a person
placed over, was given as a title in the later
times of the Roman Empire to many officers: of
these the most important was the Praepositus
Sacri Cubiculi, originally a freedman (cf. Suet.
Dom. 16), but afterwards of high rank as chief
chamberlain in the emperor's palace (Cod. 12,
tit. 5; Cod. Theod. 6, tit. 8). Under him was
the Primicerius, together with the Cubicularii
and the corps of Silentiarii, commanded by
three decuriones, who preserved silence in the
interior of the palace. (Cod. 12, tit. 16;
Friedländer, S. G. i. 54; Walter, Gesch. des
röm. Rechts, $ 340, 2nd ed.) [W. S.]
PRAEROGATIVA. [CoMITIA.]
PRAES. According to Ausonius (Idyll. xii.
9), Vas was one who gave security or went bail
for another in a causa capitalis, and he who gave
security for another in a civil action was called
Praes: similarly Festus (s. v. Wadem) says that
Was is a sponsor in a res capitalis. But the
application of the word Wadimonium in civil
causes (e.g. Gaius, iv. 184–187) shows that this
distinction is not perfectly accurate, and Varro.
(L. L. vi. 74) defines Was as any person who
promised Vadimonium or sécurity for another
in any legal proceeding: so that possibly Was
may have both a general and a specific sense, in
the latter of which it is occasionally (as by
Ausonius and Festus) contrasted with Praes (cf.
Sallust, Jug. 35, 61; Hor. Sat. i. 1, 11, and
Heindorf’s note). Praes really seems to be a
contraction of prae-vas (Rivier, Untersuchungen.
iiber die cautio praedibus praediisque, p. 14), and
Was itself may relate to the freedom which the
party obtains by means of the security given
(“Wades ideo dicti quod qui eos dedit potestatem
vadendi id est discedendi habet,” Acron ad Hor.
loc. cit.: cf. Gellius, vii. 19), or more probably,
as Rivier holds, it is connected with the old
Norse ved and high German wetti, words denot-
ing “pledge,” so that vas would mean a surety,
and prae-vas perhaps a surety who besides
pledging his person pledges his property
[PRAEDA; PRAEDIUM) for the discharge by
another of his obligations, or his appearance in
court. Another but very dubious etymology of
the word is given by Festus (s. v. Manceps), who
says that Manceps signifies him who buys or
hires any public property, and that he is also
called Praes because he is bound to make good
his contract (praestare quod promisii) as well as
he who is his Praes (see also Varro, l.c.), so
that according to this Praes is a surety of one
who is undar some liability to the state. The
passage of Festus explains some lines in the life
480 PRAESCRIPTIO
PRAESCRIPTIO
of Atticus (Cornelius Nepos, 6), in which it is
said that he never bought anything at a public
auction (ad hastam publicam), and never was
either Manceps or Praes. The use of Praes as a
surety in a civil action occurs under the Legis
actio as well as the formulary procedure : in the
Sacramentum the defendant, to whom interim
possession of the property in dispute was
awarded, had to give “praedes litis et vin-
diciarum ” (Gaius, iv. 16); and under the later
formulary system, when a real action was tried
per sponsionem, the security given by the
defendant was called “pro praede litis et
vindiciarum” (Gaius, iv. 91, 94 a): so too in
some MSS. of Dig. 10, 3, 6, 7, the reading is
praedibus or praediis cavere, but in the latest
edition of Krüger and Mommsen pro dedibus is
adopted as correct. According to the Pseudo-
Asconius (in Perr. i. 54, 142) the goods of a
Praes were called Praedia (see PRAEDIUM), and
in Cicero (l. c.) and Livy (xxii. 60) “praedibus
et praediis.” come together (Rivier's treatise on
the topic has been already referred to): but it is
clear from Warro that this use of praedia is con-
fined to the case of a debtor to the state, whose
sureties were liable both in their persons
(praedibus) and their property (praediis). If, in
such a case, the debtor did not pay, the property
of the surety was sold by auction under the
authority of the state, and the purchaser
(praediator, Gaius, ii. 61) became owner ea jure
Quiritium, though the surety might recover it
by an anomalous form of usucapio (Gaius, l.c.).
The chief authority on the jus praediatorium is
now the Lex Municipalis Malacitana, cap. 63–
65. [J. B. M.]
PRAESCRIPTIO. In its original significa-
tion, as a legal term of art, this word seems to
denote a component part in the formulae of
some Roman actions at law, the name being
derived from the fact that this part stood
first and before all others : “praescriptiones
appellatas esse ab eo quod ante formulas prae-
scribuntur plus quam manifestum est” (Gaius,
iv. 132). Such praescriptiones might be inserted
in a formula in the interest either of the
plaintiff (actor) or of the defendant (reus).
“Praescriptiones pro actore ” occur in the
formulae of actions in which the plaintiff" is
entitled from the defendant to a number or
variety of acts primá facie hanging together,
ºut of which one only, or at least not all, are
claimed in the present suit: and by the prae-
scriptio beginning “eares agatur, let the present
trial relate exclusively to so and so,” the
plaintiff reserved his right of action upon the
other acts, or those subsequently to fall due, it
being a presumption of Roman law (capable,
however, of being rebutted by the insertion of a
praescriptio in the formula) that when a man
instituted an action, it comprised all his claims
against the defendant, prospective no less than
present, so far at least as they related to the
present ground of action, and already had at
least a potential existence. Two examples are
given by Gaius (iv. 131). In the one, a man to
whom an annuity is payable, say every six months,
sues for a half-year's instalment, using the
praescriptio “eares agatur cujus rei dies fuit”
(cf. Cic. de Orat. i. 37, 168); in the other, the
purchaser of an estate, claiming its conveyance
to him by the form of Mancipatio, reserves to
himself the right of subsequently demanding its
bare traditio by a praescriptio in the form “ea
res agatur de fundo mancipando.” Such “prae-
scriptiones pro actore” seem to have been in use
throughout the formulary period of Roman civil
procedure, from circ. 170 B.C. to 294 A.D.
“Praescriptiones pro reo’’ were the mode of
expressing in the formula of an action certain
defences against the plaintiff’s case. These
defences resembled exceptiones in that they were
not allowed to be urged at the hearing of the
cause unless they had been embodied in the
formula of the action, and also in their nature as
the allegation of a countervailing right, vested in
the defendant, not a direct traverse or denial of
the plaintiff’s argument: they resembled “prae-
scriptiones pro actore” in being prefixed to the
formula, and also apparently in always being
introduced by the same words “eares agatur”
(Gaius, iv. 133–137). Among them were the
pleas that the suit in question ought not to be
tried at all, because its decision would prejudge
a causa major, Gaius, iv. 133 [PRAEJUDICIUM),
and that the action was beyond the jurisdiction
of the court (“praescriptio fori,” Dig. 2, 8, 7,
pr.), or barred by lapse of time (“praescriptio
temporis”). It is difficult to see why the
Roman law required some defences by way of
countervailing right to be stated in the form of
a praescriptio and others in that of an exceptio.
The difference between them was partly formal,
partly material. An exceptio was placed in the
formula between the Intentio and the Condem-
natio: a Praescriptio, as Gaius observes, was
prefixed to and stood at the head of the formula,
its object being to indicate to the judex that he
was first to examine into the truth or falsehood
of the defence advanced, and if he found it
well grounded to suspend the hearing either
altogether, or at any rate (e.g. in praescriptio
praejudicii) until the obstacle was removed.
Consequently in practical result an exceptio was
more favourable to a defendant than a prae-
scriptio; for if a defence so formulated was
established, the defendant was entitled to judg-
ment in his favour, and the plaintiff could not
sue again (Gaius, iv. 123), whereas in the case
of a praescriptio the trial of the action was only
suspended, so that the defendant might possibly
be condemned after all. But even as early as
the time of Cicero (de Invent. ii. 20, 59), the
practice had commenced of expressing in the
form of an exceptio defences which strictly
should have been formulated as praescriptiones,
the praetor perhaps himself favouring the change
because “facilius reis succurrit quam actoribus ”
(Gaius, iv. 57); and Gaius says (ib. 133) that in
his time “praescriptiones pro reo” were entirely
obsolete: “in speciem exceptionis deducuntur.”
The result was that the original difference in
meaning between the terms exceptio and prae-
scriptio was gradually forgotten, so that they
came to be used as practically synonymous, and
in the Corpus Juris of Justinian this is shown
by Savigny to be the case (see e.g. Dig. 5, 1, 52,
3; 31, 34, 3; 44, 2, 29; 46, 3, 91; 48, 5, 15,
7), though for some defences one of them was
more commonly and consistently employed than
the other. (See Savigny, System, iv. 309;
v. 163.) * *
One of these praescriptiones, the original
nature and history of which have thus been
PRAESCRIPTIO
PRAETOR 481
briefly sketched, has furnished general juris-
prudence with one of its most famous terms,
viz. the Praescriptio temporis, or plea by the
defendant that an action is barred or prescribed
by lapse of time. Under the older Roman law
all suits were, as it was said, perpetuae; there
being no Statute of Limitations, to use an
English phrase, or other rule of law providing
that rights of action should be barred unless
sued upon within a definite period from their
accrual. The praetor, however, ordained that
many of the new actions which he introduced
through the Edict should lie only within an
annus willis from the moment at which the
right of bringing them first accrued (Gaius, iv.
110 ; Justin. Inst. iv. 12, pr.). Far the most
important of these annales actiones were the
praetorian penal actions, with the exception of
that on furtum manifestum [FURTUM), which
was perpetua because it substituted a pecuniary
penalty for capital punishment (Gaius, iv. 111):
though even these were perpetuae so far as they
were rei persecutoriae, i.e. were brought only to
deprive the delinquent of any benefit he had
derived from his wrong (Dig. 44, 7, 35, pr.).
Praetorian actions which merely compensated
the plaintiff at the cost of the defendant's
pocket (e.g. the actio doli) were prescribed in a
year if contra jus civile (Dig. l. c.) : interdicts,
so far as they were penal, were similarly
limited : actions for the recovery of property
which had been for a defined time in the hands
of a boná-fide possessor with justus titulus with-
out being acquired by usucapio were barred in
ten or sometimes twenty years [USUCAPIO), and
certain actions on sales, which were introduced
through the Edict of the curule aedile, had a
prescription of twelve or six months (actiones
zedhibitoria and aestimatoria : see EMPTIO VEN-
DITIO). In course of time, too, a period of
prescription was fixed by disconnected legisla-
tion for other suits, especially one of five years
for the querela inofficiosi testament; [TESTAMEN-
TUM) (Cod. 3, 28, 36, 2); and in Gaius’ time
(iv. 110) actions which fell under the original
rule of non-limitation were called perpetuae,
those which were limited by any of these
periods temporales.
More systematic legislation upon the subject
commenced with Constantine, who enacted that
all real actions which were not already limited
might be repelled by an exceptio unless brought
within forty anni continui (Cod. 7, 39, 2), which
subsequently seem to have been reduced to
thirty (Symm. Epist. v. 52). Theodosius II.
(A.D. 424) subjected to this same thirty years’
limit all actions whatsoever, with a few excep-
tions, which had hitherto been perpetuae (Cod.
&b. 3); and his law was retained by Justinian,
the only actions of importance which were not
governed by it being vindicatio in libertatem
(Cod. 7, 22, 3), fiscal claims for unpaid taxes
(Cod. 7, 39, 6), and the actio hypothecaria, to
which last an additional ten years only was
allowed. Consequently, in Justinian’s compila-
tions actio perpetua means not what it did in
Gaius' time, but an action which is barred in
not less than thirty years. º
For the history of the “Praescriptio longi
temporis,” which gradually developed into a
mode of acquisition, and so gave rise to our
term “Prescription” as a title to property and
VOL. II.
“real” rights less than ownership, see USUCAPIO.
(Savigny, System, v. §§ 237–255; Puchta, In-
stitutionen, § 208.) [J. B. M.]
PRAESES. [PROVINCIA.]
PRAESUL. [SALII.
PRAETE’RITI SENATO'RES.
TUS. Af
PRAETEXTA, [ToGA.]
PRAETOR. This title, which Cicero (de
Legg. iii. 3, 8) connects with praeire, is found
among the Latin races, and is used by Livy as
equivalent to that of strategus with the
Achaeans. Among the Romans we first read of
it immediately after the expulsion of the kings:
for a single hereditary ruler they substituted
two annually elected magistrates, first known
as Praetors, and only later as Consuls; whence
Cicero, in the passage referred to, represents the
title as properly descriptive of the Consuls as
leaders of the armies of the state; and the
familiar use of “Praetorium ” in connexion with
military command, and the meaning which it
bears in Livy of the period and powers of the
consular office, are also indicative of the original
character of this magistracy.
As distinct from the consulship, the praetor-
ship proper is said by Livy (vi. 42, vii. 1) to
have been instituted B.C. 366, though the truth
would seem to be that so long as the military
tribunate was in existence two consuls were
from time to time elected in lieu of tribuni
militares, and that when this was the case a
third magistrate was always appointed, called
praetor, to assist them in their duties. How-
ever this may be, the praetor, probably even at
this period called praetor urbanus in allusion to
the older magistracy of the custos urbis whom
he superseded (Joan. Lydus, de Mens. 19 ; de
Magistr. ii. 6), was, as soon as the office became
permanent, elected annually from the patricians
only, who secured a monopoly of the new office
as a compensation to themselves for being com-
pelled to share the consulship with the plebeians
(Livy, l.c.), none of the latter attaining the
praetorship till B.C. 337; he was termed
“collega” of the consuls, and was elected with
the same auspices at the Comitia Centuriata.
(Liv. vii. 1, xlv. 44; Gellius, xiii. 15). His
chief functions were judicial (jus in urbe dicere,
Liv. vi. 42; jura reddere, ib. vii. 1), it being to
relieve the consuls (who according to the
passage of Cicero referred to were called judices
a judicando) of this class of business that his
office was established; but the consuls in the
earlier Roman history being so constantly en-
gaged on active military service, he frequently
had to take their place in the city (Liv. xxiv. 9;
Cic. ad Fam. x. 12; Dio Cass. xlvi. 14, ciz. 24),
in the senate (Gell. xiv. 7; Liv. viii. 2, &c.),
and in the Comitia (Liv. xxii. 33, xxv. 27), and
in some cases of emergency even commanded the
Roman armies. He was a curule magistrate
and had the imperium, though in a less degree
than the consuls (Gell. xiii. 15; Liv. xliii. 14 ;
Val. Max. ii. 8, 2; Cic, ad Att. ix. 9), to whom
he owed obedience and all the external marks of
reverence (Liv. x. 25, xxvii. 5; Dio Cass. xxvi.
24; Polyb. xxiii. 1; Aurel. Victor, de Vir.
illust. 72). His insignia of office were six
lictors (Appian, de reb. Syr. 15), whence he is
called by Polybius #yeuðv or otpatmyos ééaºré-
Aekvs, and sometimes simply tiaraº; Plu-
I
F- *
[SENA-
482 PRAETOR
PRAETOR
tarch (Sulla, 5) uses the expression orparmyta
roxvruch. At a later period the praetor had
only two lictors in Rome (Censorinus, c. 24).
As appears from Livy, the praetorship was at
first given to a consul of the preceding year,
and L. Papirius was praetor after being consul
(Liv. x. 47).
Unlike the consulship, the office was one to
the number of whose holders additions might be
constitutionally made as circumstances required
(Cic. de Legg. l.c.), and accordingly in B.C. 246
a second praetor was created, who for distinc-
tion's sake was called Praetor Peregrinus, for
the administration of justice in all disputes
between peregrini or peregrini and cives (Dig.
1, 2, 2, 28; Joan. Lydus, de Magistr. i. 38, 45;
Liv. Epit. 19), and from this time onward the
two offices seem to have been regularly divided
between the patricians and plebeians (Niebuhr,
Röm. Geschichte, iii. 177), it being determined
by lot which of the two should be urbanus and
which peregrinus, though if either was required
for military command the functions of both
within the city were discharged by the other
(Liv. xxiv. 44, xxv. 3, xxvii. 36). When the
territories of Rome were extended beyond the
limits of Italy, new praetors were created for
the government of the provinces: two in 227
B.C. for the administration of Sicily and Sar-
dinia (Liv. Epit. 20; Dig. 1, 2, 2, 32) and two
thirty years later for the Spanish provinces
(Liv. xxxii. 27) : it being settled by lot which of
the praetorian provinces each of the four prae-
tors who went abroad was to govern. Later it
became common for the praetor urbanus or
peregrinus, after he had discharged his judicial
functions for one year, to be sent to govern a
province for another; a period which in many
cases was prolonged until by the Lex Julia of
Caesar it was provided that no governor should
administer a praetorian province for more than
one year (Cic. Phil. i. 8, 19). In connexion with
the institution of quaestiones perpetuae for the
trial of crimes, Sulla increased the number of
praetors from six to eight, all of whom as a rule
exercised judicial functions at Rome during
their proper year of office, becoming propraetors
in the provinces for the following year: under
Caesar the number was raised successively to
ten, twelve, fourteen, and sixteen (Sueton. Jul.
41; Dio Cass. xlii. 51, xliii. 47,49, 51; Dig. 1,
2, 2, 32), and by Augustus reduced to twelve
and earlier to ten (Dio Cass. liii. 32, lvi. 25);
but under Tiberius there were as many as six-
teen (Dio Cass. lviii. 20, lix. 20). Subsequently
additional praetors were created for special
departments of legal business: two by Claudius
(reduced by Titus to one) for all suits relating
to fideicommissa, when the business in this
department of law had become considerable
(Dig. l.c.; Sueton. Claud. 23), and one by
Nerva for the hearing of actions between the
fiscus and subjects of the Empire (Dig. ib.): so
that, as Pomponius (speaking of his own time),
says in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 34, “eighteen praetors jus
dicunt in the state.” According to Capitolinus
(Marc. 10); M. Aurelius added a nineteenth
praetor for matters relating to guardianship,
upon whose duties Ulpian wrote a liber singularis
Dig. 27, 1, 3, 5, 9).
It will be clear from what has been said that
the main business of the praetors was judicial ;
the praetors urbanus and peregrinus had the
control of the whole system of Roman civil
judicature, in connexion with which their work
is sufficiently described under other articles,
especially those on EDICTUM, JUDEx, and JURIS-
DICTIO. Sometimes, however, extraordinary
duties were imposed on them : e.g. in B.C. 144
the praetor peregrinus was commissioned by a
senatusconsultum to look after the repair of
certain aqueducts and prevent the improper use
of the water (Frontinus, de Aquaeduct. lib. i.):
so too, though the appointment of guardians
was no constitutional part of the praetor's pro-
vince (Dig. 26, 1, 6, 2), it was conferred, within
the city of Rome, on the praetor urbanus and
the majority of the tribuni plebis by a lex
Atilia (Gaius, i. 185). It was part of the same
magistrate’s duties to superintend the Ludi
Apollinares, and so close an application to busi-
ness was required from him that he was
permitted to leave the city for only ten days at
a time. With criminal prosecutions he had
originally no more to do than any other magis-
trate; but when in 149 B.C. (Cic. Brut. 27, 106)
L. Calpurnius Piso established the first quaestio
perpetua for the trial of extortion (repetundae),
one of the praetors was permanently entrusted
with its supervision, and the same practice was
followed with the quaestiones instituted by
Sulla and others for the trial of Ambitus,
Majestas, Peculatus, Falsum, Parricidium, &c.
Though a praetor presided over the criminal
proceedings in these cases, the judges were
selected from the senators, knights, or tribunl
aerarii at different periods of history, the con-
demnation or acquittal of the accused being
determined by a majority of their votes. [Ju-
DICIUM.]
Any place in which the praetor might by
law or custom exercise his magisterial functions
was called jus (Dig. 1, 1, 11). Some of these,
however, could never be performed elsewhere
than pro tribunali, where his curule chair was
set upon the comitium, the patrician portion of
the Forum, and where he sat with his friends
and assessors: contrasted with the tribunal
were the Subsellia, or part occupied by the
judices or other persons who were present
(Cic. Brut. 84, 290).
Other judicial acts, however, could even
tolerably early be performed by him anywhere
(Gaius, i. 20), viz. acts of the voluntaria juris-
dictio, such as legitimation of manumissions, in
jure cessio, &c. In such cases he was said to
exercise jurisdiction de plano, and the volume of
business so transacted increased so steadily that
at length regular sessiones de plano were held
(fragm. Wat. 161), at which the praetor some-
times heard and adjudicated upon disputes:
the rule as to what occasions required him to sit
pro tribunali, and for what a de plano jurisdic-
tion sufficed, may be gathered from Dig. 38, 1,
3, 8; 38, 15, 2, 1; 1, 16, 9, 1.
The office of the praetor continued to exist
throughout the imperial period, though his
activity in the issue of annual edicts must have
slackened considerably at the fall of the
Republic, and ceased altogether on the publica-
tion of the Edictum perpetuum of Salvius
Julianus LEDICTUM]. In the Eastern Empire
there were at first two praetors only, which
number was gradually raised to eight, and then
PRAETORIA COHORS
PRINCEPS 483
reduced to three, each of whom was distinguished
by a special name, e.g. Constantinianus, trium-
phalis (Cod. Theod. 6, 4, 5, 13, &c.); they were
selected by the senate, but the selection had to
be confirmed by the emperor (Cod. Theod. 6, 4,
8, 9, 10, &c.). They still possessed jurisdictio,
though their importance in the earlier imperial
period was greatly diminished by the develop-
ment of the emperor's own jurisdiction and of
a regular system of appellate courts: under
Justinian, and in fact from the abolition of the
formula (A.D. 294) onward, the office seems to
be merely that of a judge of first instance.
A person who had been ejected from the
Senate could recover his rank by being made
praetor (Dio Cass. xxxvii. 30; Plut. Cicero, 17).
Sallustius was made praetor émi rô rhv 3ovAhv
&vaXage?v (Dio Cass. xlii. 52). [J. B. M.]
PRAETORIA COHORS. [EXERCITUS,
Vol. I. p. 791.]
PRAETORIANI.
p. 793.]
PRAETO'RIUM in its primary sense was
the tent of the general (praetor), the head-
quarters in the camp (Mommsen, Staatsrecht,
ii.” 74) [CASTRA, Vol. I. p. 373]. Hence we
find it used for the palace of a provincial governor,
not only when his official title was praetor
(as in Cic. Verr. iv. 28, 65), but also when the
residence of a proconsul or even of a procurator
is meant (cf. John xviii. 28): for the palace of
a foreign prince, as Prusias (Juv. x. 161), or
Herod (Acts xxviii. 35). It was used also for
any large country-house (Juv. i. 75; Mart. x.
79; Suet. Aug 72, Tib. 39, Calig. 37), but it
would not rightly be used of a house at Rome,
however “palatial " it might be. It is no
doubt the case (as Professor Mayor points out
in his note on Juv, l.c.) that the original idea
of head-quarters on active service is retained.
The villa was the whole property, dwelling-
house, gardens, farm, &c.; the house itself, as
the head-quarters of the owner, was the prae-
torium. The word may, however, also be
applied (as Bishop Lightfoot shows on Ep. ad
Philipp. pp. 101 ff.) to a body of men forming
the council of war which met in the general’s
tent (Liv. xxvi. 15; xxx. 5), and later to the
imperial body-guard, the attendants on the
holder of the imperium, who represented the
praetor or general of an earlier period (Tac.
Iłist. ii. 11 ; Suet. Ner. 9). A legionary is said
to serve in legione, a guardsman in praetorio
(Plin. H. W. xxv. § 17; Tac. Hist. i. 20, iv. 46).
These praetoriani or praetorian guardsmen
[EXERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 793] were by Tiberius
concentrated in a camp outside the Colline gate
(Tac. Ann. iv. 2; Merivale, Rom. Hist, v. 221);
but this camp was not, as has sometimes been
stated, called praetorium, but castra praetoria,
castra praetorianorum, or castra praetorii (Tac.
Hist. i. 31 ; Plin. H. N. iii. § 67). These
quarters of the praetorian guard were destroyed
by Constantine, when he disbanded the guard
itself; but he left the outer walls of the camp,
because they had been made part of the
Aurelian Wall (Burn, Rome and Campagna,
p. 61). [W. S.] [G. E. M.] .
PRAEWARICATOR. [SENATUSCONSULTUM
TURPILIANUM.]
PRA'NDIUM. . [CENA, Vol. I. p. 395.]
PRECARIUM. [INTERDICTUM.]
[ExERCITUS, Vol. I.
PRELUM, part of the oil and wine press
[TORCULAR]. The name is also given to other
presses, as (1) that used in making paper (Plin.
xiii. § 77; cf. LIBER): (2) the press for clothes
used at the end of the fuller's process [FULLO],
when the clothes were sprinkled (Sen. Q. N. i.
3, 2) and laid in presses, whence they were
taken out ready to send home (Ammian. xxviii.
4, 19). The prela in Mart. ii. 46, 3; xi. 8, 5;
Claud. Epithal. Pal. 101, are similar presses in
the houses for keeping the clothes smooth and
ready for wear. The Greek name was fros
(Poll. x. 135; cf. vii. 41); and a later synonym
was pressorium (Ammian. l.c.; Blümner, Tech-
nologie, i. 173). [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PRIMICE’RIUS, a name given to various
officers and dignitaries under the later Roman
empire, is explained by Suidas (s. v.) to be the
person who holds the first rank in anything.
The etymology of the word is doubtful: it is
supposed that a person was called Primicerius
because his name stood first in the wax (cera),
that is, the tablet made of wax, which con-
tained a list of persons of any rank.
The word Primicerius does not seem to have
been always applied to the person who was at
the head of any department of the state or
army, but also to the one second in command or
authority; as, for instance, the Primicerius
Sacri Cubiculi, who was under the Praepositus
Sacri Cubiculi. [PRAEPOSITUS.] Various Pri-
micerii are mentioned, as the Primicerius Domes-
ticorum and Protectorum (Cod. 12, 17, 2), Fabricae
(Cod. 11, 9, 2), Mensorum (Cod. 12, 28, 1), No-
tariorum (Cod. 12, 7), &c. [W. S.]
PRIMIPILA/RES.. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I.
p. 800.]
PRIMIPITUS. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 799.]
PRINCEPS (Gk. #7 epióv: Mon. Anc. Gr.
vii. 9, Čuoi, jºyeuévos), the title of courtesy
customarily given to the Roman emperors of
the first century, and less commonly to those of
the second and third. The use of the term, as
one which conveniently expressed the pre-
eminence of a single citizen, was familiar to
the writers of the later Republic, and the
term itself is thus applied to both Pompey
and Caesar. [The ideal “princeps civitatis”
sketched by Cicero (Augustin. de Civ. Dei,
vi. 13), in a lost book of the de Republica, was
evidently drawn with a direct reference to
Pompey; cf. ad Att. viii. 11. Comp. also ad
Att. viii. 9, “nihil malle Caesarem quam
principe Pompeio sine metu vivere *; Sallust,
Hist. iii. fr. 81, ed. Kritz, “Pompeium malle
principem volentibus vobis esse, quam illis do-
minationis socium.” And for Caesar, Cic, ad
Fam. vi. 6, “esset hic quidem clarus in toga et
princeps *; Suet. Jul. 26, “difficilius se (Caesar-
em) principem civitatis a primo ordine in secun-
dum detrudi.”] Its significance as accorded by
popular consent to Augustus and his successors
was the same. It was not an official title, and
formed no part of the official designation of the
emperors. It did not connote the tenure of any
special office or prerogative, nor was it conferred
by any formal act of senate or people. It was a
title of courtesy pure and simple; marking out
its bearer as the “first citizen” (princeps civium,
Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 733, note 3), or rather 3S
the “foremost man of the state’’ (princéps
civitatis; see the passages quoted gº). and
I
484 PRINCEPS
PRINCEPs
implied not only a general pre-eminence, as
distinct from a specific magisterial authority
(Tac. Ann. iii. 53, “non aedilis aut praetoris aut
consulis partes sustineo, majus aliquid et ex-
celsius a principe postulatur’), but a consti-
tutional pre-eminence among free citizens as
opposed to despotic rule. (Tac. Hist. iv. 3,
“ceterum ut princeps loquebatur, civilia de se,
de republica egregia;” Plin. Paneg. 55, “sedem
obtinet principis ne sit domino locus; ” Dio Cass.
lvii. 8, §eatrótms rôv ŠoćAov, airokpdrop rāv
orparlotów, rôv Šē 63, Aottröv trpókpitós eiut.)
For the objections to the view, once commonly
held, that the title is only an abbreviation of
“princeps senatus,” see Mommsen, Staatsrecht,
ii. 733, notes; Pelham in Journ. Phil. viii. p.
323. This view is, however, restated in a modi-
fied form by Herzog, Gesch. u. System d. rôm.
Verfass. ii. p. 133.
Principatus.-The title princeps exactly ex-
pressed the characteristic features of the
position occupied by the emperor, under the
Augustan system—a position which depended,
not on the tenure of any one great office, still
less of any newly-created office, but on the fact
that certain powers had been conferred upon an
individual citizen by senate and people, in virtue
of which he was for the time raised above the
heads of his fellows. It was moreover a position
created by constitutional means for each holder in
turn, and involved an explicit recognition of the
continued existence of a free commonwealth.
The principate dates, properly speaking, from
January B.C. 27. The summer of B.C. 29 found
Octavian the undisputed master of the Roman
world (Mon. Ancyr. vi. 14); nor probably by
any section of Roman society was it consi-
dered either desirable or possible that he should
literally resign the wide authority he wielded.
But while the experience of the last fifty years
had amply shown that some concentration of
the executive authority was imperatively
necessary, if the empire was to hold together,
it was scarcely less important in the interests
of peace and order that this authority should
be legitimised, and as far as possible harmonised
with republican institutions and traditions.
After twenty years of anomalous or pro-
visional rule, public opinion demanded a
government which should be not only strong,
but outwardly at least regular and constitu-
tional. The first step towards satisfying this
demand was taken by Octavian, when in his
sixth consulship (B.C. 28) he put an end by
edict to the provisional régime of the triumvi-
rate, laid down the extraordinary authority he
had held since B.C. 43, and formally gave back
the government of the Commonwealth to the
Senate and people (Mon. Ancyr. Lat. vi. 13;
Tac. Ann. iii. 28; Dio Cass, liii. 2; cf. Suet.
Auſ. 28). This restoration of the Republic was
followed in Jan. B.C. 27 by a settlement of
Octavian's own position, a settlement planned
unquestionably by himself. By a vote of the
senate and people, he was legally re-invested
with the essential elements of his former autho-
rity. He was given a command, limited indeed
both in area and duration, but which yet in
both points was unprecedentedly wide. The
“province’” now assigned to him included with
one exception the important frontier provinces.
It carried with it the sole command of all the
armies of Rome, and the exclusive right of levy-
ing troops, of concluding treaties, and of making
war and peace (Dio Cass. liii. 12, 17; Suet.
Aug. 47, “provincias validiores ipse suscepit,
ceteras proconsulibus permisit; ” Lex Vespasiani,
Wilmanns, 917: cf. Strabo, p. 840; PROVINCIA).
Finally, it was given to him for a period of ten
years, at the expiry of which it was renewable
(Dio Cass. liii. 13, 16). But had Octavian
rested content with this “consulare imperium ”
alone, he would have been merely a powerful
proconsul, with wider powers indeed than even
those held by Pompey under the Gabinian and
Manilian laws, but still only a proconsul. As
such he would have had no locus standi in Rome,
and would have been only the equal and not the
superior of the proconsular governors of the
provinces not included within the area of his
own imperium. Nor could the old difficulties
arising from the separation between the chief
military command abroad and the highest
magistracies at home have failed to reappear.
(The proconsul lost his imperium on re-entering
the city, Cic. ad Fam. i. 9; Dig. 1, 16, 16; cf.
also Vell. Pat. ii. 31, of Pompey’s imperium in
B.C. 67, “imperium aequum in omnibus pro-
vinciis cum proconsulibus.”) These disadvan-
tages and difficulties Octavian escaped by
retaining the consulship, and by wielding his
imperium as consul. As consul he was chief
magistrate of the state, with precedence, not
only over all other magistrates at home, but
over all proconsuls and propraetors abroad (Cic.
Phil. iv. 4, 9; ad Att. viii. 15); while unlike
any consul of later times, excepting only Pompey
in B.C. 52, the province of his imperium was
not confined to Rome and Italy, but extended
over a great portion of the Empire. It was a
return, in a sense, to the practice of the early
Republic, when the consuls were at once the
highest civil and the highest military autho-
rities of the state. His control of the adminis-
tration at home was further confirmed by his
retention of the tribunicia potestas, granted to
him for life in B.C. 36 (Dio Cass. xlix. 15),
though it is doubtful what use, if any, he made
of the prerogatives attached to it at this stage
(Tac. Ann. i. 2, “posito iiiviri nomine, con-
sulem se ferens, et ad tuendam pleben tribunicio
jure contentum ”). Finally, in recognition of
his great services, and to mark his pre-eminent
dignity, he was invested by senate and people
with the cognomen of Augustus (Mon. Ancyr.
Lat. vi. 16; C. I. L. i. p. 384; Ov. Fast. i. 590).
For four years Augustus continued to exercise
the primacy at home and abroad assigned to
him in the restored Republic, under the old
constitutional form of the consulship. But in
B.C. 23 a change was made which gave to the
principate a somewhat different shape, and one
which in the main it retained down to the time
of Diocletian. (See esp. Herzog, op. cit. ii.
p. 141 ; Pelham, in Journ. Phil. xvii. p. 27.)
On June 27 in that year Augustus laid down
the consulship which he had held year after
year since B.C. 31 (Dio Cass. liii. 32 : C. J. L.
vi. 2014). His “consulare imperium,” with its
wide province, he still retained, but he now held
it only pro-consule; and it therefore ceased at
once to be valid in Rome and Italy, i.e. within
the sphere assigned to the actual consuls. He
further lost both the precedence (majus impe-
PRINCEPS
PRINCEPS 485
rium) over all other magistrates and pro-magis-
trates which a consul enjoyed, and the various
rights in connexion with senate and assembly
attached to the consulship. He had, lastly, no
further claim to the consular dignity and in-
signia. These losses, which would have seriously
impaired the reality and completeness of his
“primacy,” were now made good by the follow-
ing measures:—(a) He was exempted from the
disability attaching to proconsular tenure of the
imperium, and was allowed, though no longer
consul, to retain consular imperium in Rome
(B.C. 23) as proconsul. (b) His imperium was
to rank as “majus ” over that of proconsuls
abroad (B.C. 23). (c) He was given the consul’s
prior right of convening the senate (B.C. 22),
and of introducing business (B.C. 23), though
the latter extended only to one “relatio,”
Trepl évés rivos (Dio Cass.), “jus primae rela-
tionis.” (d) He was granted (B.C. 19) equal
rank in Rome with the actual consuls by the
bestowal of the twelve fasces, and by the per-
mission given him to sit between the consuls on
an official seat (Dio Cass. liii. 32; Liv. iii. 10;
Lex Vespasiani (Wilm. 917), ll. 4 sqq.; Dig.
1, 16, 8). But Augustus seems to have been
unwilling openly to rest his position in Rome on
that “proconsular imperium ” which, until the
exemption made in his own favour, had only
been exercised abroad, and was associated with
the absolute methods of rule prevalent in the
camps and the provinces. Hence he brought
forward into special prominence his tribunicia
potestas. This now appears for the first time
among his titles, and appears sometimes alone
(“summifastigii vocabulum : qua cetera imperia
praemineret; ” Tac. Ann. iii. 56; Dio Cass. liii.
32; Cohen, Médailles, i. Nos. 342 sqq.; Momm-
sen, Staatsr. iii. 752). A number is appended
indicating for how many years it has been held,
and the thirty-seven years of the tribunician
power of Augustus are reckoned from B.C. 23
(Mon. Anc. Lat. i. 29; Tac. Ann. i. 9). On
this power Augustus declared that he relied for
carrying out the administrative reforms pressed
for by the senate, and on this ground refused
the extraordinary offices which were offered him
(Mon. Ancyr. Gr. iii. 19). Henceforward the
tribunician power ranked highest among the
prerogatives voted to the princeps; higher even
than the imperium itself (Mommsen, Staatsr.
ii. 1050; Dio Cass, liii. 32, liv. 12). To sum up
the results of these changes. The “consulare
imperium ” voted in B.C. 27 gave Augustus the
immediate and exclusive control of the frontier
provinces, the troops, and the foreign relations
of the Empire. From B.C. 27 to B.C. 23 he
wielded this imperium as consul, and thus
aunited with this military command that general
primacy in the state which belonged of right to
the consuls. From B.C. 23 onwards he held it
not as consul, but pro-consule; and hence the
designation of it afterwards current, as imperium
proconsulare. But he was nevertheless allowed
to hold it in Rome, and was, moreover, specially
granted the consul’s rights of precedence over
other magistrates. As if, however, to conceal
the startling fact, that there was now in Rome,
by the side of the annual consuls, a holder of
consular imperium, fully their equal in rank
and power at home, and vested besides with a
wide command abroad, the tribunicia potestas
was put forward as the outward sign and
symbol, at least in Rome, of the pre-eminence of
the princeps. The new form thus given to the
principate it retained as long as it lasted : for
the future the position of princeps is only occa-
sionally and accidentally connected with the
tenure of what continued to be in theory the
chief magistracy of the state; and the princeps
is, strictly speaking, not a magistrate at all;
he stands by the side of the consuls and over
the heads of all other magistrates, with a definite
province of his own, but vested also with a pre-
eminent authority in all departments of state.
One more result of importance may be assigned
to this resettlement of the principate in B.C. 23:
the prerogative of Augustus was now deter-
mined by a series of grants conferring upon him
various powers, privileges, and exemptions; and
so in the case of each succeeding princeps, the
question was not one of electing him to an esta-
blished office with well-understood prerogatives,
but of conferring upon him certain powers. Of
these a customary list was gradually formed ;
and embodied in a single statute, under the
terms of which the citizen designated for the
principate received from the hands of the senate
and people the powers, honours, and privileges
once voted to Augustus, and after him to each
successor in turn. (Of this statute a fragment
survives in the so-called Lex Vespasiani: see
Pelham in Journ. Phil. xvii. pp. 45–51.)
This “Augustan settlement * was in form,
possibly in intention, a compromise, which aimed
at securing the needed centralisation of the
executive authority with the least possible dis-
turbance of the traditional machinery of the
Republic. But it was a compromise, which
was from the first unreal. The powers vested
in Augustus were too wide to make the exist-
ence of any other substantial authority possible,
and the independence of consuls and senate was
even in his own lifetime a fiction, which it
became increasingly difficult to respect. Though,
however, there is from the first a gravitation of
all administrative work towards the princeps as
the one real power in the state, yet even in the
latter half of the third century the original
theory of his position was not entirely discarded.
The princeps of the time of Ulpian was still in
strictness only a citizen invested by senate and
people with certain powers. His position re-
mained always extra-magisterial, and was
created only for each princeps for his life. No
constitutional provision was ever made for the
transmission of his powers to any successor, nor
was any one method of selecting a successor
legally recognised. The principate died with the
princeps: necessity alone determined that some
citizen must be selected to fill the position
first given to Augustus: accidents, such as
kinship by blood or adoption to the last prin-
ceps, military ability, or popularity with the
senate, determined the selection; and even the
invitation “suscipere imperium ” might come
indifferently from distant legions, from the
praetorian guards, or from the senate. Once,
however, selected and designated, the citizen
received the powers which legally made him
princeps, from senate and people, according to
the form handed down from the days of Augustus
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 1038; Vita Hadr. 6,
“esse respublica sine imperatore non potest; ”
486 PRINCEPS
PRINCEPS
Wit. Taciti, 3, “imperator est deligendus quia
cogit necessitas: ” cf. Tac. Hist. i. 16; Momm-
sen, l. c. 1039; Journ. Phil. xvii. 47).
But, although the principate remained so far
true to its original character, it underwent in
other respects important changes during the
three centuries which separated the accession
of Augustus from that of Diocletian. These
changes may be conveniently summed up under
the following heads:—(1) The enlargement of
the area placed directly under the control of
Caesar: (2) the transformation of his majus
£mperium into a direct control even over those
departments of administration not properly in-
cluded within his province : (3) the subordi-
nation to him of the originally co-ordinate
authority of the regular magistrates and the
senate: (4) the increasingly monarchical cha-
racter not only of the methods of government
employed by Caesar, but also of the outward
accessories of his position. Of these changes
the first two were mainly brought about by the
necessities of administration, and are sufficiently
explained by the words of Ulpian when describ-
ing the institution of the praefectura vigilum.
Dig. 1, 15, “Salutem reipublicae tuerinulli magis
convenire . . . nec alium sufficere ei rei quam
Caesarem.” The two last were the inevitable
result of this process of centralisation which at
once rendered impossible the existence of any
independent authority by the side of that pos-
sessed by Caesar, and elevated Caesar himself to
a position where the limitations imposed by
republican usage and tradition fell away of
themselves.
To the “consulare imperium ” as held by
Augustus was assigned, according to established
custom, a definite area or province, within which
he was as exclusively supreme as Cicero in
Cilicia, or Pompey in Asia. It included (a) the
command-in-chief of all the forces of the state,
and with this the sole right to levy troops and
promote or discharge soldiers. [That the taking
of a census in the provinces was from the first
a prerogative of Caesar is almost certain
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 945), and it was pro-
bably directly connected with the levying espe-
cially of auxiliary troops (ib. ii. 393; Henzen,
6453; Plin. H. N. iii. § 28).] (b.) The sole right
to declare war and peace, and to conclude
treaties. (c.) The right to coin gold and silver.
(d.) The “jus edicendi”: Lez de Imp. Vesp. 6.
(e.) The government of certain specified pro-
VIIl CéS.
The distinction between the department pro-
perly belonging to Caesar, and those left to the
care of other authorities, had not wholly
disappeared even by the close of the third
century: but Caesar's province from the first
steadily increased in extent. After the trans-
ference of Illyricum to Augustus in B.C. 11, and
the separation of Numidia from the proconsular
province of Africa in 37 A.D. (Strabo, p. 840;
Dio Cass, liii. 12, lix. 20; Tac. Hist, iv. 48),
even the immediate command of regular troops
passed absolutely into the hands of Caesar’s
officers. The senatorial provinces are with
Tacitus the “provinciae inermes.” In the time
of Dio Cassius the proconsuls were even forbidden
to wear the military paludamentum (Dio Cass.
liii. 17), and Gallienus finally excluded senators
from all posts in the army (Aurel. Vict. Caes.
33). There is some reason for thinking that
under the earlier emperors, a census, though
ordered by Caesar, was in provinces other than
his own carried out by the proconsul; but after
Hadrian there is no trace of this distinction, and
the whole work throughout the Empire is in the
hands of Caesar's servants. The unimportance
of the copper coinage was probably the reason
why in this case the limits originally imposed
upon the emperor were retained until the time
of Aurelian (Schiller, Gesch. d. Kaiser2eit, i.
867).
The number of provinces originally assigned
to Caesar was eight. But inasmuch as all pro-
vinces created subsequently were also placed
under his authority, the number rose rapidly.
At the close of the first century there were
already twenty-five provinces of Caesar, in-
cluding the most populous and wealthy districts
of the Empire, and stretching in an almost
unbroken line along its frontiers. Outside this
area, in the so-called senatorial provinces, and
in Rome and Italy, Caesar laid his hand on one
department after another. In the case of the
former, Caesar possessed from the first exclusive
control over the troops, over foreign relations,
and over the census. But the proconsul’s area
of authority was further limited by the appro-
priation to Caesar of a certain portion of the
revenues drawn from his province ; and the
amount of these steadily increased [FISCUS].
Their collection and management were entrusted
to imperial procuratores [PROCURATOR1, who
from being at first merely private agents,
with no official status or powers, gradually
came to form a distinct financial executive, vir-
tually independent of the proconsul, with which
he is recommended by Ulpian (Dig. 1, 16, 9) to
have as little as possible to do. To Caesar
lastly belonged the right, even in senatorial pro-
vinces, of founding colonies, of granting charters
of incorporation to communities, of raising or
lowering their status, and of conferring both
Latin rights and the Roman franchise. (See
CIVITAS, and Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 828 sqq.
That in the first century questions affecting the
status of communities had not yet passed wholly
into Caesar's hands may be inferred from the
occasional mention of senatusconsulta and of
discussions in the senate respecting them: Suet.
Tib. 37; Tac. Ann. xi. 23, xii. 58, 61.)
Rome and Italy lay, like the senatorial pro-
Vinces, outside the proper province of Caesar,
but here too one department of administration
after another was brought within the area of his
authority, at the cost either of the magistrates.
in Röme or of the municipal officials. In some
cases the transfer was made directly, in others:
the change was broken by the creation in the
first instance ea: senatusconsulto of senatorial
curatores. But these curatores were all sooner
or later either replaced by imperial praefecti
and procuratores, or made so dependent upon
Caesar as to differ only in name from his actual
servants. The care of the corn supply (ANNONA ;
Hirschfeld, Verwaltungsgesch. 139), of the aque-
ducts (Id. 164), of the public buildings, the
banks of the Tiber, and the cloacae (Id. 149–161),
had all by the time of Claudius passed into
Caesar's hands. The praefectura vigilum [PRAE-
FECTUs] dates from A.D. 6. The far more im–
portant praefectura urbis became a permanent
PRINCEPS
PRINCEPS 487
office in the reign of Tiberius; and as early as
the reign of Domitian, its holder exercised a
wide criminal jurisdiction in Italy as well as
within the city [PRAEFECTUs URBI].
In Italy the area of direct Imperial government
widened more slowly than in Rome. The ex-
clusive military authority vested in Caesar from
the first made him, it is true, responsible not
only for the levying of troops (Mommsen, Staatsr.
ii. 797) and for the protection of the Italian coasts
and harbours (the fleets at Misenum and Ravenna
date from Augustus, and Ostia and Puteoli were
special objects of imperial care: Suet. Claud.
25), but also for the suppression of such dis-
orders as required the intervention of military
force. (Cf. milites stationarii, Suet. Aug. 32,
Tib. 37; Tac. Ann. xiv. 17.) But Septimius
Severus first quartered a legion (II. Parthica)
in Italy; and the imperial correctores, for the
maintenance of order in the various districts of
the peninsula, do not appear as a regular insti-
tution before the reign of Aurelian. [For further
details on this subject, see PROVINCIA.] Closely
connected with the maintenance of order in Italy
was the care of the main roads [VIAE], the lands
of Caesar, and other revenues accruing to him
[FISCUS; PROVINCIA]: as regards his control by
means of the curatores reipublicae over the local
government of Italian towns, see PROVINCIA and
COLONIA.
Enough has been said to show how enormously
the area assigned to the direct imperium of
Caesar had expanded since B.C. 23. Outside the
limits, wide as they were, of the imperial pro-
Vinces, in the provinces of the senate and people,
and in Rome and Italy, there were prerogatives
reserved exclusively for Caesar, and departments
of administration controlled absolutely by him-
self and his own officials.
The settlement of B.C. 23 declared that the
imperium of Augustus should rank as majus over
that exercised by all other holders of imperium ;
excepting only, it is probable, the consuls ; and
the use made of this majus imperium did even
more than the extension of Caesar's own proper
domain to make him absolute, and to render
little more than nominal the distinction between
Caesar’s department and those of the regular
magistrates of the state. The possession of this
“greater authority " entitled Caesar to claim
from the praetors and lower magistrates in
Rome, and from the proconsuls abroad, the
deference due in republican times to the consul;
and as Caesar became stronger, and the need
for administrative unity increased, this de-
ference was easily transformed into a complete
subordination, which placed praetors and pro-
consuls almost as entirely under Caesar’s control,
as his own legates, prefects, and procurators.
The effectiveness of this weapon is best illus-
trated by the relations between the emperor and
the proconsular governors of the senatorial
provinces. The proconsul, as holding an inde-
pendent magisterial authority, derived ultimately
from senate and people, was in theory and at
first in practice in a wholly different position to
the imperial legate. In particular he was respon-
sible not to Caesar, but, like Caesar himself, to
the consuls, senate, and people of Rome. And
there are instances in which the earlier emperors
almost ostentatiously abstain from exercising
authority over proconsuls and proconsular pro-
vinces outside the limits of the rights specially
reserved to them. Deputations from such pro-
vinces sent to Caesar are by him referred to
consuls and senate (Suet. Tib. 31). Administra-
tive questions affecting them are discussed in the
Senate, and decided by senatusconsulta (Tac. Ann.
ii. 47, iii. 60; Plin. Ep. ad Traj. 72; Momm-
sen, Staatsr. iii. 1211). Nero declared that
appeals from these provinces should go to the
judgment-seat of the consuls (Tac. Ann. xiii. 4).
A proconsul charged with extortion was as late
as the reign of Trajan ordinarily tried by consuls
and Senate; and finally the instances in which
the maladministration of a proconsular province
led to its transference to Caesar, or to the sending
thither of a special imperial legate, indicate
that down at least to the end of the 1st century
Caesar's control over these provinces was less
absolute and direct than over his own (Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 227; Plin. Ep. 8, 24; C. I. L. iii.
567; Wilmanns, Ea'empla, 874). But in the
course of the second century the distinction,
though retained in form, gradually ceased to
have any practical importance; and on the
strength of his majus imperium Caesar's control.
over proconsuls was virtually as complete as his
control of his own legates. The appeal to consuls
and senate disappeared in favour of the appeal .
to Caesar. Instances of the trial of a proconsul
before the senate are rare after the time of Trajan
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 110). Dio Cassius re-
presents the exercise of this jurisdiction by the
Senate as a concession on the part of the emperor
(Dio Cass. lxxi. 28; Vita Marci, 10). Under
Commodus, a proconsul of Sicily was tried by
the imperial praefectus praetorio. Septimius
Severus heard such cases himself (Wit. Sev. 4,8),
and Ulpian clearly contemplates Caesar’s tribunal
as the only one in question. It is no less certain
that at least after Hadrian the proconsul was,
equally with the imperial legate, controlled,
directed, and instructed in the work of adminis-
tration by the rescripts, edicts, and constitutions
of Caesar. The right to do so, derived from the
majus imperium, and confirmed apparently by a
special clause of the Lex de Imperio (see Lez de
Imp. Vespas. 6; C. I. L. vi. 930; Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 843 sqq.), was both possessed and ex-
ercised by Augustus; but while by the earlier
emperors it was sparingly used, in the second
and third centuries there is a marked and rapid
increase in the numbers of imperial edicts, and
in the Digest they are the authorities mainly
quoted on points affecting the government of
senatorial no less than imperial provinces (Dio
Cass. lxx. 3.; Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4, 8; Dig. 1,
16, 4, 6, 10; 48, 6, 5, 8, 4, &c.). For the
recognition in earlier times of the quasi-inde-
pendent authority of the proconsul, see the
decree of Norbanus (Joseph. Ant. xvi. 6, 6).
The increasing intensity and force of Caesar’s
majus imperium, coupled with the rapid extension
of the area placed directly under his authority,
told with equal effect upon the regular magis-
tratus cum imperio in Rome. Their degradation
from their original position as the chief executive
officers of the state to that of municipal officials
of the city of Rome began under the Republic,
with the practice of assigning the commands of
legions and provinces to proconsuls and pro-
praetors, and was only completed by the trans-
ference to Caesar of one department of adminis-
488 PRINCEPS
PRINCEPS
tration after another even in Rome and Italy.
But this process, the converse of that which
gradually raised Caesar's private servants to the
rank of state officials, scarcely involved so
marked a departure from the ancient constitution,
or even from the principles of the Augustan
system, as the virtual transformation of these
theoretically independent colleagues of Caesar
into subordinate officials. The two changes
were indeed closely connected; for, with the
increasing restriction of consuls and praetors to
unimportant or purely departmental work, while
the general administration and to a great extent
the higher jurisdiction both in the city and in
Italy was transferred to Caesar and to his officers,
the theory of their supremacy and even of their
equality with Caesar became an untenable
fiction.
The Augustan system left the consulship still
the supreme magistracy of the state, and this
pre-eminence was formally recognised throughout
the first century (Tac. Ann. iv. 19, “consulis,
cujus vigiliis niteretur ne quod respublica de-
trimentum caperet: ” cf. Suet. Tib. 31 ; Plin.
Pan. 59, “summa potestas”). Even in the third
century there was no appeal to Caesar from the
jurisdiction of consuls and senate (Ulpian, Dig.
49, 2, 1), and one right at least attaching to
their old position, that of giving their names to
the year, remained with the consuls (i.e. with
the consules ordinarii: see CONSUL, and Momm-
sen, Staatsr. ii. 86) in post-Diocletian times.
But the Augustan system, in placing by the
side of the consuls a holder of consular imperium,
brought the nominal supremacy of the consuls
into unequal conflict with the wide authority of
the princeps. The course of events robbed the
consuls of all but purely domestic duties, while
it entrusted to the princeps the general guardian-
ship and government of the Empire. Even
Tiberius could claim for the princeps a general
control, distinct from the limited sphere belong-
ing to the consul (Tac. Ann. iii. 53). In Pliny’s
panegyric the older and newer views of the
relative position of the two are both represented.
On the one hand, the consulship is still regarded
as the “highest authority” and as on a level
with that of Caesar (Pan. 59); on the other,
it is merely the highest post open to a private
citizen (Pan. 64; Ep. ii. 1) as distinct from
the sovereign dignity of the principate, and the
limited and domestic character of its duties is
contrasted with the wider imperial sphere be-
longing to Caesar (Pan. 79). Rather more than
a century later in the Digest the subordination
of the consulship is complete. The consuls have
only specific departmental duties to perform,
and the duties are not infrequently spoken of as
assigned to them by the emperor (Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 96; CONSUL), while not only Caesar,
but Caesar's prefect of the city, ranks above
them (Ulpian, Dig. 49, 1, 1, 3; cf. Dig. 5, 1, 12;
PRAEFECTUS). In the case of the praetorship
there was from the first no question of equality
with Caesar, for to the consular rank and im-
perium of Caesar the praetor owed deference as
to the actual consuls. We consequently find
the praetors, even under the early emperors,
filling a strictly subordinate place. Their juris-
diction was gradually restricted to certain well-
defined departments marked out for them by
Caesar (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 204, 206;
PRAETOR); and such titles as praetor tutelaris
and praetor hastarius clearly indicate the purely
departmental nature of their duties.
This transformation of the originally supreme
“magistratus cum imperio” into subordinate
officials, with limited and almost entirely muni-
cipal duties, was assisted by the control which
the emperors obtained over their appointment,
and which reduced them to the position of
imperial placemen. This control, based as it
was on the right of nomination, which the
emperor's consular imperium gave him co-ordi-
nately with the consuls (Tac. Ann. i. 81), and on
that of “commendation ” (ib. i. 15. It was
formally granted to Vespasian, Lea de Imp. 4;
whether it was ever used in the case of the
consulship is doubtful: Mommsen, Staatsr. ii.
865 sqq.), was already well established and
frankly recognised in the time of Trajan. [Plin.
Pan. 77, “ipsum (sc. Caesarem) qui consules
facit :” cf. Id. Ep. iv. 15, ad Traj. 12. The
election of the lower magistrates was still
something of a reality, and involved canvassing
(Id. Ep. ii. 9), corruption (Id. Ep. vi. 19), and
even disorderly contests (Id. Ep. iii. 20).] In
the third century the whole business of appoint-
ing the “magistrates of the Roman people” is
treated by Ulpian as one which concerned
Caesar alone (Dig. 48, 14).
The final change by which these magis-
tracies were, with the exception of the consul-
ship, robbed of all imperial significance, by
losing their value as qualifications for high
provincial and military commands, was not
completely carried out until after Diocletian.
For the gradual change in the relations of the
emperor and the senate, see SENATUS: by the
end of the second century the senate had lost all
importance as Caesar's partner; by the end of the
third it was virtually discarded even as an in-
strument of his government.
The changes described above, the extension of
the area of government, assigned directly to
Caesar, and the complete subordination to him
of all other constituted authority within the
state, brought about a corresponding change in
his personal position. The more absolute he
became in fact, the more difficult it was to
treat him as anything but a monarch. This
natural tendency to clothe Caesar with the
attributes and surround him with the accessories
of a legitimate monarchy shows itself even
under Augustus; but it was undoubtedly
strengthened by a growing feeling that the
exceptional and provisional nature of his autho-
rity was a real source of weakness, both at
home and abroad. The organisation of the
principate as a regular and permanent office, with
a settled mode of succession, was desirable not
only in the interests of good government, but as
a check upon the ambition of pretenders; while
in the East, at any rate, it was important that
the Roman Caesar should be able to challenge
comparison in personal splendour and majesty
with the kings of Parthia or Persia. To secure
the first of these ends was the aim of the ablest
emperors of the second century. The endeavour
to secure the second lies at the root of much in
the policy of Aurelian and Diocletian. It was a
policy so far similar in its motives to that which
created the Queen of England Empress of Hin-
dostan, and it was encouraged not only by the
PRINCEPS
PRINCEPS 489
language and maxims of lawyers, like Ulpian, of
Eastern birth, but by the ever-increasing in-
fluence of Oriental habits and beliefs in the
imperial court and in Roman society.
The original theory that the princeps is
nothing but a citizen on whom definite powers
have been conferred by senate and people for a
limited time, was one never strictly carried out
in practice; and by the close of the third
century little remained to witness to it, but the
formal “lex de imperio” and the absence of any
recognised mode of succession. The history of
this change it is impossible to follow in detail,
and only the main outlines can be traced here.
The limitation of time, observed in form
throughout the reign of Augustus, disappeared
at his death. Tiberius and his successors re-
ceived the imperium for life, and only the cele-
bration of the decennalia preserved the memory
of the original arrangement [IMPERIUM). The
distinction between the various powers and
privileges granted to the princeps, as well as
the purely individual nature of the grant, were
easily obscured when, as was done first in the
case of Gaius, they were not only conferred en
bloc at one time, but transferred with little or
no alteration from one emperor to another
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 744, and the references
given there). The notion thus developed of a
single and permanent authority wielded by each
emperor in turn, and consequently of a preroga-
tive inherent in the principate, was strengthened
when the functions of the censorship were,
after the time of Domitian, exercised in virtue
only of the general authority belonging to the
princeps (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 1013; CENSOR).
The authority conferred upon Augustus was not
only built up out of various distinct powers, but
was limited by the extent of these, and was
subject to the laws, except where its holder had
been specially exempted from their operation.
In this latter respect also a change took place.
At any rate at the close of the second and in
the third century the authority of the princeps
was regarded not only as single, but as plenary
and absolute. The emperors are exempted from
the laws (Dio Cass. liii. 18), and it is their
privilege to give laws, not receive them (Wit.
Caracall. 10); a view springing naturally both
from the virtual irresponsibility of Caesar as a
life ruler and from his monopoly of the work of
law-making, and which was finally and autho-
ritatively adopted in the fifth century (Justin.
Nov. 105, 4; Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 714, note.
It appears, however, as early as Pliny, Paneg.
65, “ipse te legibus subjecisti, quas nemo prin-
cipi scripsit").
But it is not only in this unrepublican theory
of his prerogative that the tendency to transform
Caesar into a monarch is observable. It is as
clearly seen in the elevation of his family and
friends above the level of private persons, and
of his personal servants and agents to that of
state officials. These changes, which involved a
complete departure from republican principles,
commenced with Augustus and were completed
in the fourth century. The family of Caesar
(domus Caesaris) had not properly, any more
than that of an ordinary magistrate, any public
rank or privileges. Augustus set his face
against attempts to pay them honour as a royal
house; and though provincials even in his reign
coupled with Augustus himself his wife, chil-
dren and family (Wilm. Ea. 104), there was no
regular public recognition of the domus Caesaris
till later. That in the time of Nero the prae-
torian guards already took the oath to the
“whole house of Caesar,” is implied by Tacitus
(Ann. xiv. 7). Under the Flavian emperors the
domus is associated with Caesar in the vota
publica (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 776). The
phrase “domus Augusta” occurs in an inscrip-
tion of the year 159 A.D (Orelli, 4092). “Do-
mus divina ’’ appears first under Commodus
(Wilm. 120), and is frequent afterwards (see
Orelli-Henzen, Indices, p. 57). A similar ten-
dency is observable in the treatment of the
individual members of Caesar's house. In the
case indeed of the males, republican usage was
so far adhered to, that for the most part they
have only the rank which followed legitimately
from the tenure of public office, though per-
mitted to hold these offices at an earlier age and
in more rapid succession than ordinary citizens
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 772 sqq.). To the
females, for whom these more legitimate marks
of distinction were out of the question, honours
of a distinctly royal character were given. The
title of “Augusta,” first given to Livia, was by
the end of the first century commonly granted
not only to the wife of the reigning princeps,
but to his sisters and daughters. The “empress,”
as she now became, was in the second century
further distinguished by the appellation “mater
castrorum,” first borne by the younger Faustina.
Julia Mammaea in the third century is “mater
castrorum et senatus et patriae et universi
generis humani’” (Wilmanns, 1005). The
honour of deification, for which also the first
precedent was set in the case of Livia, was
freely granted in the second century (Momm-
sen, Staatsr. ii. 780, 781), and after the time of
Domitian the heads of the wife and even of other
female members of Caesar's house appear fre-
quently on the coins. (For other marks of
honour, e.g. the special body-guard, the torch-
bearers, &c., see Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 346,
ii. 775.)
More significant is the manner in which not
only blood-relationship with Caesar, but even
the tie of friendship came in time to confer a
definite public status, and ultimately official
authority. Augustus himself was obliged to
check the tendency to place his “friends” above
the laws (Suet. Aug. 56: cf. Tac. Ann. ii. 34,
of Urgulania, “Supra leges amicitia Caesaris
extulerat’). Under Tiberius the “cohors
amicorum ” assumed a definite shape. It was
divided into classes, with varying privileges; ad-
mission to it was a formal act (Tac. Ann. vi. 9),
expulsion from it a penalty equivalent in its
consequences to exile (Suet. Tib. 56; Tac. Ann.
iii. 12, 24). At Rome it constituted a court,
with a regular ceremonial and scale of prece-
dence (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 41; Sen. de Benef.
vi. 34, de Clem. i. 10). From this body were
usually chosen the travelling companions
(comites) of Caesar, to whom fixed allowances
were given (Suet. Tib. 46), and also the trusted
advisers with whom Caesar took counsel (Suet.
Tib. 55, Tit. 7). Val. Max. ix. 15 uses the phrase
“cohors Augusta: ” the office a cura amicorum
existed as early as A.D. 51 (Orelli, 1588). In the
second century the term amici denoted broadly
490 . PRINCEPS
PRINCEPS
the regular frequenters of the imperial court, and
more specially the innermost circle of these,
whether chosen confidants or high dignitaries
whom the emperor honoured with this title. A
more definitely official position was acquired by
the comites. These “companions” were care-
fully selected for each expedition ; distinct
quarters were assigned them in the camp, and
in rank they stood above the provincial gover-
nors To have been selected as a comes was an
honour duly recorded on inscriptions along with
the legitimate honores, such as the consulship.
Finally not only Caesar himself, but other
members of his family had also their circle of
“friends,” and their retinue of chosen “com-
panions.” (See for a full discussion of the
question, Friedlaender, Sittengeschichte, i. 118
sqq.; Mommsen, Hermes, iv. 120 sqq.) The
comites of post-Diocletian times no doubt differed
widely in position from those of the second and
third centuries; but the fact that high state
officers bore this as their distinctive title signifi-
cantly marked the complete identification of the
service of the state with the personal service of
Caesar.
The monarchical tendency shown in the eleva-
tion of Caesar's family, friends, and companions
from a private to a public and quasi-official
position, reappears in the similar promotion
which awaited both his household servants and
his subordinate agents. The household service
of Caesar was, like that of private persons,
limited at first to slaves and freedmen. But
even under the early emperors, and especially
under Claudius, some at least of the household
offices rose, as regards the extent and importance
of the duties connected with them, to the level
of the highest magistracies of state (e.g. the
liberti a rationibus, a libellis, ab epistulis : see
Friedl. Sittengesch. i. 160; Hirschfeld, Verwalt.—
gesch. 30). In the second century the freedmen
are replaced in the principal of these ministeria
principatus by free-born Roman knights [PRO-
CURATOR}; while among those which still con-
tinued to be filled by “liberti,” one at least, the
post of chamberlain, acquired an importance,
savouring strongly of Eastern monarchies; and
which grew, as Oriental fashions gained a greater
hold, till it reached its highest point in the
“praepositus sacri cubiculi.” of the later Empire
[PRAEPOSITUs]. (Friedl. i. 99 sqq.) But no
change did so much at once to consolidate
Caesar's power, and to invest his rule with a
genuinely monarchical character, as the gradual
organisation and diffusion throughout the Empire
of a strictly imperial service, distinct from that
of the state, and which finally ousted the latter
from all but an insignificant share in the admi-
nistration of the Empire. The history of the
growth of this new official hierarchy has been
traced elsewhere. (PROCURATOR: see also
Hirschfeld, Verwalt.-gesch, passim, esp. pp. 240
Sqq.; Liebenam, Die Laufbahn d. Procuraturen,
Jena, 1886.) But the fact must be noted here
that by the close of the second century we
find spread over Rome, Italy, and the provinces
an army of officials, who are in the strictest
sense the servants only of Caesar. From this
service senators were excluded; its members,
except in the lowest ranks, were “equites Ro-
mani.” There was a regular system of promotion
upwards from the less important procurationes
to the procuratorship a rationibus, and finally to
the coveted prefectures of Egypt or the prae-
torian guard; and throughout promotion came
from Caesar alone. This theoretically private
service constituted the really effective part of
the machinery of government. It attracted the
ablest men; and even emperors, as for instance
Pertinax, rose from its ranks (Vit. Pertin. 1, 2).
It only remains to notice how even the out-
ward attributes and accessories of monarchy
were gradually assumed. The designation of
the early emperors adhered tolerably closely to
republican usage, except that the gentile nomen
was dropped by Augustus, Tiberius, and Gaius.
But from the Flavian emperors onwards the
case was otherwise. On the one hand the personal
majesty of Caesar was magnified by the gradual
multiplication of high-sounding cognomina; and
on the other there was an evident attempt to
disguise the real nature of the principate and to
give it the appearance of a permanent office,
handed on in legitimate succession from one
holder to another, partly by the conversion of
originally proper names into official titles (e.g.
Caesar, Pius), partly by the recitation of a
fictitious descent through several generations.
Under the Flavian emperors “Imperator Caesar”
took the first place, and the only official cog-
nomen was that of Augustus. Trajan set the
precedent of assuming cognomina commemora-
tive of his victories; “Pius,” originally the
proper cognomen of Antoninus, was subsequently
adopted as part of the permanent titulature.
“Felix’’ was added by Commodus. “Invictus.”
first appears under Septimius Severus. By the
middle of the third century the regular form was
“Imperator Caesar—Pius Felix Invictus Au-
gustus.” “Semper Augustus” is found on an
inscription of Claudius Gothicus, and towards
the close of the third century “dominus noster”
frequently preceded “Imperator Caesar; ” while
the addition of complimentary epithets, such as
“pacificator orbis,” “restitutor orbis,” &c.,
became more common. The recitation of
descent from preceding emperors began with
Trajan, the adopted son of Nerva, and had a
basis in the fact of adoption, in the case of the
Antonine Emperors. It was continued as a
useful fiction by Septimius Severus and Cara-
calla. [With the simple “Imperator Caesar
divi filius Augustus,” compare the lengthy titles
of Caracalla (Wilmanns, 994): “Imp. Caesar
(M. Aurelius Severus Antoninus) pius felix
Augustus Parthicus maximus, Britannicus maxi-
mus, Germanicus maximus . . . divi Septimi
Severi . . . filius divi M. Antonini nepos divi
Antonini Pii pronepos divi Hadriani abnepos
divi Trajani et divi Nervae admepos dominus
noster invictissimus Augustus.”] In the list
of honores the only change of importance was
the significant insertion, dating from Septi-
mius Severus, of the title “proconsul,” which
occurs occasionally in inscriptions of Trajan,
Hadrian, and Marcus Aurelius (Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 736, notes): Diocletian first used it
on coins: it emphasised the extraordinary cha-
racter of Caesar's imperium as distinct from
that of the regular magistrates, and, as used in
Italy, implied that this imperium was para-
mount there, as in the provinces.
The language used in addressing the emperor,
or in speaking of him, departed even more
PRINCEPS
PROAGOGEIAS GRAPHE 491
rapidly and widely from republican practice.
The use of the term “dominus’ as a mode of
address, against which Augustus and Tiberius
protested, was rapidly becoming common in the
time of the younger Pliny. It first found its
way into official documents under Severus, and
its use was definitely sanctioned by Aurelian
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 721, 722). By Greek
writers and on Greek inscriptions the emperor
is not unfrequently styled Bagińeūs, as early as
the commencement of the second century. The
Graeco-Oriental training of Ulpian and a century
later of the Scriptores Hist. Augustae intro-
duced such epithets as “regia,” “regale” (im-
perium) into Latin literature (Mommsen, ib.
724, note 3). The influence of Caesar-worship
is seen in the phraseology even of the time of
the Antonines. Trajan is described as “sacra-
tissimus princeps” (Wilm. 693). Rescripts
of Antoninus Pius are “caelestes literae ‘’
(Wilm. 693). Somewhat later we find “indul-
gentia sacra" (cf. Severus Alexander, C. J. L.
v. 1837), “auctoritas sacra" (Wilm. 100,
A.D. 244), “appellationes sacrae' (Wilm. 1220,
A.D. 253). But not until the time of Aurelian
was the emperor directly and officially styled
“deus” (“deus et dominus’’ on coins: Eckhel,
vii. 482; Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 720, and note).
Even in the ceremonial and general arrange-
ments of the court the emperors at least of the
third century approached very nearly to the
semi-Oriental state of the age of Constantine.
While the households of the earlier emperors
differed from those of great Roman nobles mainly
by their greater numbers and magnificence, and
the best emperors at any rate eschewed the
elaborate ceremonial with which Eastern mon-
archs fenced round their persons, the courts of
Caracalla, of Elagabalus, and even of Severus
Alexander are genuinely Oriental in character.
We have already the host of court officials,
chamberlains, cup-bearers, keepers of the im-
perial robes, &c., the jealously guarded royal
chamber, with its hanging curtains and atten-
dant guards, and even the prostration of the
subject before his royal master. (Elagabalus
suffered himself “adorari regum more Persa-
rum,” Wit. Sev. Aleax. 18. It is mentioned as a
proof of Severus Alexander's moderation that he
allowed himself to be saluted “quasi unus e
senatoribus patente velo admissionalibus remotis,”
ib. 4. He also limited the extravagance of the
imperial establishment, ib. 41 : cf. generally
Friedlaender, i. chap. 11, and the Appendix,
pp. 177 ff.)
The dress and insignia of the emperors of the
first two centuries are all of republican origin,
and only became distinctive in so far as the
emperor was exempted in the use of them from
the restrictions which bound the regular magi-
strate, or as their use was reserved for him
alone. The consular chair and lictors were
granted to Augustus in B.C. 23. The right to
wear the ordinary magisterial toga was probably
conferred at the same time, and down to the
close of the second century this was the regular
dress of the emperor when in Rome or Italy.
(Wit. Hadr. 22. In this point, as in others,
Severus Alexander returned to the practice of
earlier times: Vit. Sev. Aleſc. 40.) On the
other hand, the triumphal robes which Augustus
was authorised to wear in Rome on special
occasions (Dio Cass. liii. 26) became, with the
right of celebrating a triumph, the monopoly of
Caesar, and were commonly worn by later
emperors at public festivals and games in the
capital. Domitian wore them in the senate
(Dio Cass. lxvii. 4). The purple paludamentum
belonged from the first to Caesar, in virtue of
his exclusive and supreme military authority;
and this “imperial purple’’ was in the first
century distinctive of the emperor. In the
third century it was frequently worn, even in
Rome and Italy, and its assumption was the re-
cognised symbol of accession to the principate
(Herodian, ii. 8; Eutrop. 9, 26; Mommsen,
Staatsr. i. 349). The laurel wreath, of the
vir triumphalis, was possibly from the first
reserved, like the triumphal robe, for Caesar
alone; and only he had the right to wear in
Rome and Italy the sword and dagger of military
authority. But not until the close of the third
century did the Roman Caesar openly copy
in his dress the fashions of Eastern monarchs.
The corona radiata, occasionally found at an
earlier period, regularly appears on coins after
the time of Aemilianus (A.D. 249). The more
distinctively Oriental diadem was, according to
Victor (Epit. 35), first worn by Aurelian
[DIADEMA]. Mommsen, however, Staatsr. i. 345,
rejects the statement: Caligula, the Elagabalus
of the first century, is credited with a premature
attempt to introduce both the corona radiata
and the diadem (Suet. Cal. 22). Gallienus
anticipated the Eastern splendour of the Byzan-
tine emperors, by appearing in Rome with a
barbaric display of gold and precious stones
(Vit. Gall. 16, “gemmatis fibulis aureisque,
tunicam auratam, caligas gemmeas”), and much
the same is said of Aurelian (Victor, Epit. 35).
By Eutropius, however (ix. 26), the introduction
of these unrepublican and un-Roman novelties is
ascribed to Diocletian: “Ornamenta gemmarum
vestibus, calceamentique indidit, nam prius
imperii insigne in chlamyde purpurea tantum
erat.” [H. P.]
PRINCEPS JUVENTUTIS. [EQUITEs.]
PRINCEPS SENATUS. [SENATUs.]
PRINCIPA'LIS PORTA. [CASTRA, Wol.
I. p. 372.
#sbipps [EXERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 784.]
PRINCI'PIA. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 784.]
PRIVILE'GIUM. [LEx, Vol. II. p. 33 a.]
PROAGOGEIAS GRAPHE (Tpoayoyeſas
'ypaqf), a prosecution against those persons who
performed the degrading office of pimps or pro-
curers (irpoaryo-yot; cf. Plat. Theaet. p. 150A).
By the law in Aeschin. c. Tim. the heaviest
punishment (tò plényiota étruttuta, § 14), viz.
death (§ 184), was inflicted on such a person (éáv
tus éAeë6epov traič’ 3 yuvaika trpoayaºyed m). Ac-
cording to Plutarch (Sol. 23), Solon imposed a
penalty of twenty drachmas for the same offence.
To reconcile this statement with that of Aeschines,
Platner (Proc. u. Klag. ii. p. 216) supposed that
the law mentioned by Plutarch applied only to
prostitutes. This is very unlikely ; more pro-
bably the punishment was at a later period
made more severe, as in the 6trºm 8taíov (Plut.
Sol. 25, a hundred drachmas; but Lys. de caed.
Erat. § 32, ŠirAſiv riv 8x48my àqetxeiv; cf.
Dem. c. Mid. p. 528, § 44). A prosecution of
Patrocles étrº trpoayoryeſg by Hyperides is men-
tioned in Pollux, viii. 27; cf. Hyp. ed. Blass,”
492 PROBOLE
PROBOLE
fr. 141–8. The charge brought against Aspasia
by Hermippus in his prosecution for &gé8eta, of
getting freeborn women into her house for the
use of Pericles, was trpoayo'yeta (Plut. Per. 32:
cf. Aristoph. Acharn. 527), and probably also
that against Euthymachus, who was put to
.death for taking an Olynthian girl to a brothel
(Din. c. Dem. § 23). (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius,
p. 410 f.) For the low state of morality amongst
the Byzantines, cf. Aelian, W. H. iii. 14, and
Athenaeus, x. p. 442 c. [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PRO'BOLE ("pogox#), an accusation of a
criminal nature, preferred before the people of
Athens in assembly, with a view to obtaining
their sanction for bringing the charge before a
judicial tribunal. It may be compared in this
one respect (viz. that it was a preliminary step
to a more formal trial) with our application for
a criminal information; though, in regard to
the object and mode of proceeding, there is not
much resemblance. The trpoffoxh was reserved
for those cases where the public had sustained
an injury, or where, from the station, power or
influence of the delinquent, the prosecutor might
deem it hazardous to proceed in the ordinary
way, without being authorised by a vote of the
sovereign assembly. In this point it differed
from the eio'ayyeaía, that in the latter the
people were called upon either to pronounce
final judgment or to direct some peculiar method
of trial; whereas in the rpoSox fi, after the
judgment of the assembly, the parties proceeded
to the trial in the usual manner. The court
before whom they appeared, however influenced
they might be by the praejudicium of the people,
were under no legal compulsion to abide by
their decision ; for the view of Libanius (argum.
Dem. c. Mid. p. 509), whom Bake (Schol.
Hypomn. iii. p. 43 ff.) and in a modified form
Hermann (Quaest. de prob. p. 8 ft.) follow, viz.
that the court merely fixed the penalty (repl
ūtroruñorea's), is proved to be erroneous by pas-
sages like Dem. c. Mid. p. 546, § 97, p. 578,
§ 199, p. 580, § 204 ft., which speak of the pos-
sibility of an acquittal; and by p. 562, § 151,
which distinguishes the two votes of the court
(kata/mºpfgeo-0at and ripav). The complainant
was not bound to follow up the judgment of the
popular assembly by proceeding to trial ; this
is evident from Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 52 : on the
other hand, it seems doubtful, though Platner is
of a different opinion (Proc. w, Klag. i. p. 382),
whether, if the people refused to give judgment
in favour of the complainant, he might still
proceed against his adversary by a ypaſp?i or a
private action, according to the nature of the
£8,S6. t
The cases to which the trpoSox) was applied
were complaints against magistrates for official
misconduct or other wrong-doings (Harpocr. s. v.
kataxelpotovía ; Bekk. Anecd. p. 268, 27 ff.);
against those public informers and mischief-
makers who were called a vicoq durai (Isocr. de
Permut. § 314; Aeschin. F. L. § 145, and Schol.
ad l.c.; Pollux, viii. 46), and against those who
outraged public decency at certain religious
festivals. This probably does not exhaust the
list of cases in which the rpoSoxh might be
resorted to ; however, the beginning of Pollux’s
(viii. 46) paragraph, trpobox) # kxia is eis Sticnv
icará ràv kakóva's trpos Töv 67aov Staketuévov,
cannot be taken to mean that disaffection to the
state was one of the cases, as the following words
show, trpoSoxal 3& Yiyvoviral, etc., and Lea.
Rhet. Cantabr. p. 676, 24 f., karð rôv rá Šmuáoria
Héraxxa Štroputróvtwv, etc., refers ... to pāoris
(Meier ad l.c.).
With respect to magistrates, Schömann (de
Comit. p. 231 f.) thinks that the rpoSoxal could
only be brought against them at those émixel-
potovíai which were held at the first kvpta
ékkâmoría in every prytany, when the people
inquired into the conduct of magistrates, with a
view to continuing them in office or deposing
them, according to their deserts. An example
of magistrates being so deposed occurs in [Dem.]
c. Theocr. p. 1330, § 27 f. The people (says
Schömann) could not proceed to the étrixelpoto-
via except on the complaint (irpoSox?) of some
individual; the deposed magistrate was after-
wards brought to trial, if the accuser thought
proper to prosecute the matter further. Platner
(l.c. p. 385) objects to limiting the trpoBox3)
against magistrates to these particular occasions.
It seems more probable, however, that this kind
of trpoBox3, against magistrates never existed
at all, there being no need for it by the side of
the étrixelpotovíaſ, and the grammarians who
mention it in all probability use the term
inaccurately.
An example of a trpoSox3, against sycophants
is that which the people, discovering too late
their error in putting to death the generals who
gained the battle of Arginusae, directed to be
brought against their accusers (Xen. Hell. i. 7,
§ 34; cf. Fränkel, Att. Geschworenger. p. 88).
Another occurs in Lys, c. Agor. § 65, where the
words kal év tá, 6%uq, kal év tá, 6traormpiq,
ovkoqavrías airoi, Karé'yvore describe the course
of proceeding in this method of prosecution.
But the rpoSox), which has become most
celebrated, owing to the speech of Demosthenes
against Meidias, is that which was brought
against persons who had been guilty at certain
festivals of such an offence as would fall within
the description of &5uceiv trepl rhv čoprāv (p. 514,
§ 1, less technically &ore&eiv, p. 578, § 199;
p. 587, § 227; and Schol. Aeschin. F. L. § 145 :
cf. the instances in Dem. c. Mid. p. 571, § 175 ft. ;
p. 584, § 218). The rpoSoxal were enjoined
against such persons by special laws: thus the
vópos repl rôv Atovvoſtov was not yet in force at
the time when Alcibiades acted as choregus
(p. 562, § 147), and the same enactment was later
on extended to the Mysteries (p. 571, § 175), and
probably to other festivals. (Pollux says in
general, trepl rôv éévépio'dvrov. 3) &ge6moróvrov
Trepl r&s éoprds.) The law inserted in p. 517,
§ 10, which Foucart (Sur l’Authenticité de la
Loi d'Evegoras, Revue de Philol. 1877) defends
as genuine against Westermann's (de litis instrum.
quae extant in Dem, or. in Mid.) criticisms,
enumerates r& Atovãoria Év IIeipateſ, té. Aftvala,
tà Atovãorta év šarrel and r& OapyńAta, thus omit-
ting the Anthesteria from, and mixing up the
Thargelia with, the vöuos repl rôv Atovvoſtov
(cf. Philippi, Adnot. ad leg. form. quae in Dem.
Mid, extant). A riot or disturbance during the
ceremony, an assault, or other gross insult or
outrage, committed upon any of the performers
or spectators of the games, whether citizen or
foreigner, and even upon a slave, much more
upon a magistrate or officer engaged in super-
intending the performance; an attempt to im-
PROBOULEUMA
PROCONSUL 493
prison by legal process, and even a levying of
execution upon the goods of a debtor, during the
continuance of the festival, was held to be a
profanation of its sanctity, and to subject the
offender to the penalties of these statutes.
The complaint was made (trpoBáAAéorèat
Tuva), probably in writing, to the Proedri, who
had to bring forward the charge as soon as pos-
sible at an assembly of the people (that of mis-
behaviour at the Dionysia, at an assembly held
in the theatre of Dionysus, were tâ IIávöta,
Dem. c. Mid. p. 517, § 9; C. I. A. ii. No. 554 b :
rfi iorepaíg röv IIavötov, lea, in Dem. l.c. § 8 ;
cf. also Aeschin. F L. § 61), those cases excepted
for which the senate was empowered to impose
a fine (§oral &v u} icteriopéval &oiv, lea, l.c.).
Both parties were heard (Dem. c. Mid. p. 580,
§ 206), and then the people proceeded to vote
by show of hands. Those who voted in favour
of the prosecution were said karaxelpotoveſv.
those who were against it &moxelpotoveſv. The
people having given their sentence for the pro-
secution, the complainant might either drop the
prosecution, if content with having gained his
point before the popular assembly, or bring the
case into the court of Heliaea. In certain cases
of a serious nature the defendant might be
required to give bail for his appearance, or (in
default thereof) go to prison (Xen. Hell. i. 7,
34). The persons on whom the jºyepaovía 5uica-
ormptov devolved were, according to Pollux
(viii. 87), the Thesmothetae : that this informa-
tion is correct is evident from Dem. c. Mid.
p. 524, § 32 (rów 6eopo6eróv roërwy). The
dicasts had to pronounce their verdict on the
guilt of the party, and, after this, probably the
complainant proposed a penalty (death or a
fine), which they had to assess. The trial,
it seems, was attended with no risk to the
prosecutor, who was considered to proceed
under the authority of the popular decree.
(Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 335-344; p. 229,
n. 81.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PROBOULEUMA (mpobočAevua). [Boule,
Vol. I. p. 311b.)
PROBOULI (ºrpóBovXol), a name applicable
to any persons who are appointed to consult or
take measures for the benefit of the people.
Thus, the delegates who were sent by the twelve
Ionian cities to attend the Panionian council,
and deliberate on the affairs of the confederacy,
were called trpó8ovXot (Herod. vi. 7). So were
the deputies sent by the several Greek states to
attend the congress at the Isthmus, on the occa-
sion of the second Persian invasion (Herod. vii.
172); and also the envoys whom the Greeks
agreed to send annually to Plataea (Plut. Arist.
21). The word is also used to denote an oligar-
chical body, which in oligarchies performed the
functions discharged by the BovX) in democra-
cies, being a sort of committee for initiating
measures. Where it co-existed with the BovX%,
it was established as a check upon it to prevent
more democratic tendencies. (Arist. Pol. vi. 15,
11 = p. 1299; vii. 8, 17 = p. 1322.) Such was
the government at Corinth after the fall of the
Cypselids (Müller, Fr. Hist. Gr. iii. 394). A
body of men called trpáBouxoi were appointed at
Athens, after the end of the Sicilian war, to act
as a committee of public safety (Thuc. viii. 1;
Aristoph. Lysist. 467; Lys. c. Erat. § 65).
Thucydides calls them āpx?iv riva trpeg Svrépov
&vöpóv, oftwes repl rôv trapávrov &s &v kaupos ?
trpoBovXečo ovoi. They were ten in number
(Suidas, s. v. IIpé8ovXol). Whether their ap-
pointment arose out of any concerted plan for
overturning the constitution, is doubtful. The
ostensible object at least was different; and the
measures which they took for defending their
country and prosecuting the war appear to have
been prudent and vigorous; it is clear, however,
from the words of Lysias, that their appoint-
ment was regarded by him as tending to oli-
garchy. Their authority did not last much
longer than a year; for a year and a half after-
wards Pisander and his colleagues established
the council of Four Hundred, by which the
democracy was overthrown. (Thucyd. viii. 67 ;
Wachsmuth, vol. i. pt. 2, p. 197.) There is
no sufficient ground for the conjecture that
the évy'ypaſpiis airokpátopes were the same
persons as the trpóBovXot. (See Grote, Hist.
of Greece, viii. 46; Gilbert, Staatsalt. ii. 90,
315.) [C. R. K.] [G. E. M.]
PROCHEIROTO'NLA (irpoxetporovía).
[BOULE, Vol. I. p. 312.]
PRO'CHOUS (arpáxovs). [URCEUs.]
PROCLESIS (arpókAmoris). [DIAETETAE,
Vol. I. p. 622.]
PROCONSUL. The office of proconsul was
one resting on the theory of delegated authority.
Delegation of the powers exercised by the
Supreme magistracy of Rome, for certain specific
purposes, was a theory always recognised by
the Roman commonwealth; although, after the
Supreme magistracy had been limited, such
delegation was not permitted within Rome
itself, the imperium domi being always vested in
a duly elected magistrate. Without the walls,
however, this principle did not extend, and
consequently, for purposes of administration
outside Rome itself, the full consular imperium,
on the condition that it did not extend to
administrative duties within the city, might for
a temporary purpose be conferred on an indi-
vidual, who was then said to act in the consul’s
stead (pro consule). But, although the theory of
the proconsulate was one of delegated authority,
in practice this delegation usually assumed the
form of a prolongation of existing command
(prorogatio). Such a prolongation was really a
dispensation from the existing term of office
recognised by the constitution; and, although
such a dispensation was not permitted within
the city walls, outside the walls the consul’s
imperium might, for some purpose, be regarded
as indefinitely prolonged : and the proconsulate
was, as a rule, such an indefinite prolongation
of a pre-existing consular imperium (prorogare
imperium), recognised by the powers of the state,
and extended, as regards its exercise, to the
world outside the Roman pomerium (Mommsen,
Hist. Rome, i. pp. 261, 326). It is true that
the earliest instance of a magistrate with the
title pro consule shows us, not a prolongation,
but a direct delegation of office by its possessor.
It is applied by Livy (iii. 4) to the commander
of the reserve of the Roman army as early as
the year 464 B.C.; and Dionysius (ix. 12), who
calls this magistrate &vriotpatmyds, says that
the appointment was in the hands of the consuls
for the year (viii. 64). This is probable enough,
but Niebuhr (Hist. Rome, ii. p. 123), supposes
that the title pro consule as applied to this
494 PROCONSUL
PROCONSUL
office is an anachronism, and that the real pro-
consulate did not commence until many years
later. The first instance of the proconsulate as
a delegation of the full consular powers outside
Rome that we meet with was effected by the
prolongation of the consular imperium. In
327 B.C. at the commencement of the second
Samnite war the consul Q. Publilius Philo had
his imperium prolonged, in order that he might
continue the conduct of the war, after he had
ended his usual term of office (Liv. viii. 23, 12).
As a mere recognition of imperium existing in
his person, the office was not conferred by the
usual elective comitia, but by the really
sovereign body, the comitia tributa plebis (loosely
called populus by Livy), on the motion of the
tribunes, who themselves acted on the advice of
the senate. This was the usual constitutional
procedure, originally observed in the prorogatio :
but in the very next instance of the proconsular
command that we meet with, that of the consul
L. Fabius Maximus in 308 B.C. (Liv. ix. 42, 2),
the senate alone is mentioned as giving its
sanction to the prorogatio, without a plebis-
citum : and Mommsen regards this as having
been the constitutional practice from this time
forward (Hist. Rome, i. p. 326). Subsequently
to this, however, when the proconsulate was
conferred on L. Volumnius in 296 B.C., the
plebiscitum and the senatusconsultum are both
mentioned as having been employed for the
purpose (Liv, x. 22). It is possible, therefore,
that the proconsulate of 308 B.C. was the first
in which the senate had definitely taken the
initiative, and that the plebiscitum was passed
so entirely as a matter of course, on the advice
of the senate, that Livy regards the case as
practically a prolongation by the senate alone.
The senate was, no doubt, constitutionally the
proper body for taking the initiative in this
matter, as in all matters of foreign administra-
tion; but during the second Macedonian war
(197 B.C.) we find a tribune interfering with the
senate’s provisions, insisting that a new consul
should not be sent out, and getting the consul’s
imperium prolonged (Liv. xxxii. 28).
A proconsul thus appointed had only the
military imperium, which was incapable of
exercise, and therefore of recognition, within
the city walls. But for a Roman commander
to triumph he must be invested with the im-
perium domi: otherwise he has no legal status
as a magistrate within the walls. For the
consul to triumph, during his year of office, a
simple decree of the senate was sufficient, recog-
nising his full possession of the imperium with
which he was already invested. But the pro-
consul had no imperium within the walls;
consequently, for him to triumph, a special
decree of the people was necessary, conferring
the imperium on him for the occasion. The
constitutional procedure in this case was for the
senate, on recognising the proconsul’s claim to a
triumph, to ask the tribunes of the people to
propose the matter to the concilium plebis, and
get a plebiscitum sanctioning the arrangement
(Liv. xxvi. 21): this was done ea; auctoritate
Senatus; and sometimes the senate committed
the duty of making the request of the tribune
to one of the other magistrates, such as the
praetor (Liv. xlv. 35).
Previous possession of the consular imperium,
*
however, was not necessary to qualify a man
for the exercise of proconsular powers. In
theory it was a delegated authority; and al-
though the system of prorogatio was usually
adopted and had become the constitutional
manner of creating a proconsul, it did not
exclude the procedure of delegation. When
this office was delegated to a person who did
not possess the imperium at all, the procedure
was one of election. Thus, in the first known
case of the proconsulare imperium being vested
in a person who had exercised no previous im-
perium, the proconsul was elected in the Comitia
Centuriata, the regular comitia for consular
elections. P. Cornelius Scipio was created pro-
consul in this way, in 211 B.C. (Liv. xxvi. 18);
the case was altogether exceptional (“extraor-
dinaria cura deligendum esse,” Liv. ib.), con-
stitutional precedent was set aside, and a definite
election to the proconsulship was made by the
populus. The extraordinary nature of the
imperium so conferred was felt especially when
a triumph was to be decreed to a proconsul
elected in this manner, “quia neminem ad eam
diem triumphasse, qui sine magistratu res
gessisset, constabat “ (Liv. xxviii. 38: cf. xxxi.
20). These difficulties were not, however, felt
when the proconsulship was conferred on a ma-
gistrate who was not a consul, but had yet exer--
cised the imperium as praetor, of which there
are several instances; among them that of M.
Marcellus in 216 B.C. (Liv. xxiii. 30) and Ti.
Claudius in 177 B.C. (Liv. xli. 12). At a later
period of the Republic we find a propraetor, in
the exercise of provincial duties, invested with
the title of Proconsul, because he governed a
proconsular province, as in the case of Q.
Metellus Celer, governor of Cisalpine Gaul in
62 B.C. (superscription to Cic. ad Fam. v. 1).
Proconsular appointments, such as those men-
tioned above, were originally created only for a
temporary purpose, such as the necessity of
prolonged command in war. But with the
creation of the Roman provinces outside Italy
the prolongation of proconsular command be-
came a definite constitutional necessity. Special
administrators (praetores) were appointed for
the first four transmarine provinces of Rome:
but no more were created for this purpose; and,
when the number of provinces increased, their
administration was divided between the four
home offices, the two consuls and the two city
praetors. But such a combination of home and
foreign functions was impossible without a
regular prolongation of their imperium for the
purpose of foreign administration; and so, in
the interval between the second Punic war and
the reforms of Sulla, we find the proconsulship
becoming an annual institution, created for the
purpose of administering those provinces where
the largest military forces were required, but
with no definite legal rules to regulate it, either
in defining the length of its tenure, , or in
establishing any complete separation between
home and foreign commands. With the institu-
tion of the proconsulate as a regular magistracy,
the right of the senate to confer it and to
assign its functions became unquestioned, and
the necessity for the plebiscitum originally
required to sanction its creation had entirely
disappeared. (For the arrangement of procon-
sular provinces and for proconsular administra-
PROCONSUL
PROCONSUL 495
tion within the provinces, see PROVINCIA.) But
there had always been a formal sanction on the
part of the whole people, required for the con-
ferring of this kind of imperium, which still
continued in force. This was the Lex Curiata,
a law passed in the assembly of the curies:
which was originally, as Cicero believed, in the
nature of a vow of allegiance tendered to the
“magistratus cum imperio,” when entering on
their office, as it had been tendered to the king
(Cic. de Rep. ii. 13, 25); it was thus required
by formal law as a recognition of the imperium
vested in the proconsul, as well as in any of the
other magistrates who possessed the imperium
(Cic. de Lege Agr. ii. 11, 26; ii. 12, 30;-Momm-
sen, Staatsrecht, i. pp. 51, 54, 55, notes). It
has been supposed from a passage in Cicero's
letters (ad Fam. i. 9, 25) that the law of Sulla
de provinciis ordinandis dispensed with the
necessity of this law in the case of proconsular
appointments confirmed by the senate. The
proconsular provinces were always fixed by the
senate previously to the election of the consuls
who were to fill them by a Lex Sempronia (C.
Gracchi) passed in 123 B.C. (Cic. de Prov. Cons.
2, 3). Sulla confirmed this enactment; and
although he did dispense with the necessity of
a Lex Curiata where the proconsular provinces
were so conferred, he did not do away with its
constitutional advisability (“legem curiatam
consuli ferri opus esse, necesse non esse,” Cic.
ad Fam. i. 9, 25). As the formal popular re-
cognition of the imperium, it still continued
down to the end of the Republic; although its
necessity seems to have been still further
diminished by the senatusconsultum of 52 B.C.
(Dio Cass. xl. 30 and 46), by which a proconsul
was not assigned a province until five years
after he had held office at Rome (Caes. Bell.
Civ. 1, 6).
The proconsular imperium, since it was exer-
cised without the walls, was unlimited by any
of the restrictions—such as the right of appeal,
the veto, and even the definite limit of time
—that were imposed on it within Rome itself.
Outside the walls it maintained all its original
regal character (Cic. de Rep. i. 40, 63; de Leg.
iii. 3, 6). It was necessarily limited in the
proconsul’s provincial administration by the
definite rights of the civitates with which he
came into contact (Cic. ad Att. v. 11, 2; Tac.
Ann. ii. 53, 3). But in the field it was un-
limited, and hence the extreme severity of the
old martial law, from which there was no
appeal (Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 6). But between the
time of the Second Punic War and the war
with Jugurtha, a considerable mitigation of this
martial law is known to have taken place; the
right of appeal (provocatio) seems to have been
extended to Roman citizens on service (Sall.
Jug. 69) : and it is not improbable that this
limitation of the summary military jurisdiction
of the proconsul was brought about by the
direct extension of the law of C. Gracchus, “ne
de capite civis Romani injussu populi judicetur,”
to Roman citizens on military service.
After the creation of the provinces, the dura-
tion of the proconsulate had been fixed generally
at one year, for the purpose of provincial
government : and so, although there was no
definite regulation respecting it before the time
of Sulla, the usual separation of command had
been one year in Rome as consul, a second in
the provinces as proconsul. Sulla (in 81 B.C.)
defined this arrangement by law (Lex Cornelia
de provinciis ordinandis), and so established a
complete separation betweeen home and foreign
commands. Another constitutional rule that
had settled itself was that a provincial governor
should retain his command until relieved by
his successor; this was also recognised by Sulla's
law, with the additional enactment that he
should leave his province within thirty days
after the arrival of his successor, and that he
should retain his imperium until he re-entered
Rome (Cic. ad Fam. xii. 4, 2; i. 9, 25). Really,
however, at this time Italy itself was the
boundary of a proconsul’s exercise of his im-
perium, through the large extension of the
Roman franchise. Pompey, coming from the
East, disbanded his army as soon as he reached
Italy, and Caesar's crossing the Rubicon with
an armed force was practically a declaration
of war.
The duration of proconsular government was,
after Sulla, annual (Cic. ad Fam. ii. 7, 4); this
rule continued until the time of Caesar, who
fixed the tenure of consular provinces at two
years (Cic. Phil. i. 8, 19; B.C. 46). Augustus
restored the original limit of one year (Tac.
Ann. iii. 58), and this rule remained in force.
The date at which the proconsul entered on his
office during the Republic is uncertain: Caesar's
second command in Gaul began on March 1st
(Cic. de Prov. Cons. 15), and this may have been
theoretically the proper date for a proconsul to
go to his province, being regarded as the com-
mencement of the official year. The date of
the actual commencement of his official func-
tions never really corresponded to this date;
but depended partly on the time at which he
quitted the consular office at home, which from
the year 153 B.C. ended with Dec. 31st, partly on
the time at which he chose to go out within the
year after his consular office had expired (Cic.
ad Att. v. 16, 4); for the previous governor had
to retain the command, or delegate it to an
officer within the province, until his successor
arrived (Dig. 1, 16, 10; Cic. ad Att. vi. 6, 4).
Before the year 51 B.C. the two consuls never
went out to the provinces assigned them before
their election, until ten months after their
nominal tenure of them. For instance, in the
ordinary course of things the proconsular com-
mand which commenced on March 1st, 49,
would be assigned to the consul, designate for 49
(elected in 50); he, however, could not actually
enter on the province until his year of office as
consul had come to an end, that is, until Jan. 48:
his predecessor meanwhile holding the province
until his arrival. Hence arose Caesar's dispute
with the senate. After the senatusconsultum
of 52 B.C. by which proconsular governorships
were not filled up until five years after the
consulship was held, a proconsul might be sent
out at any time: Cicero's government of Cilicia
began on July 31st (ad Att. v. 16, 2); and from
this power of filling up proconsular governments
at the earliest date at which they were legally
vacant, Caesar would have had to resign his
province before March 1st, 49, instead of before
Jan. 1st, 48 B.C.: which he refused to do,
appealing to the pre-existing constitutional
custom (Caes. Bell. Civ. 1, 85; Cic. de Prov.
496 PROCONSUL
PROCURATOR
Cons. 15). Under the Empire the date varied
from time to time, but there was a fixed date
for the filling up of such commands. Under
Tiberius this date was June 1st, under Claudius
April 1st (Dio Cass. lvii. 14,60, 11;—Mommsen,
Hist. Rom. iv. p. 350; Staatsrecht, ii. p. 255).
With the Empire, and the new division of the
provinces into senatorial and imperial that ac-
companied it [PROVINCIA], there came certain
alterations in the mode of appointment and
powers of the proconsul. The regulation as to
the five years’ interval between home and
foreign commands, originating in 52 B.C., was
enforced by Augustus (Dio Cass, liii. 14), but
not strictly adhered to. Some consulares were
set aside by the senate, others by the emperor
(Tac. Ann. iii. 71; iii. 32), while the “jus
liberorum ” gave the preference to some over
others (Dio Cass, liii. 13, 2). Proconsuls were
now confined to the senatorial provinces, and
the governors of these provinces had the title,
even though they may only have been praetors
(Dio Cass. liii. 13, 3). This title carried with
it in one respect only a formal proconsulare
imperium, because the provinces were non-
military, but within the province they had
majus imperium over everyone except the prin-
ceps. The two great senatorial provinces, Asia
and Africa, were always given to consulares,
and hence the title proconsul consularis; the
other proconsuls were only praetorii. In Africa,
as one of the corn-supplying provinces, the
senatorial proconsul had a legion, sometimes
two; but when real military power was to be
conferred on him, the appointment, instead of
being regulated as usual by allotment among
the senior consulares, was thrown on the prin-
ceps (Tac. Ann. iii. 35, 74). Each senatorial
proconsul had three legati pro praetore, nomi-
nally chosen by himself, but approved by the
emperor (Dio Cass. liii. 14, 7); he had a salary
from the treasury (salarium proconsulare, Tac.
Agr. 43, 3), first given to provincial governors by
Augustus; he was attended by lictors, and had
the other insignia of his rank, but “did not
wear the sword nor the military dress’ (Dio
Cass. liii. 13, 3), to show that his command was
not a military one, and in deference to the full
proconsular imperium vested in the emperor,
although technically, as the possessor of the
proconsular imperium, he was the colleague of
the emperor.
Subordinate command is incompatible with
the idea of the proconsular imperium. A
praetor may have this imperium, in republican
times, as in the cases quoted above, or in im-
perial times, if sent to govern one of the .
minor senatorial provinces; but never, in either
case, when he goes as a subordinate to another
official. For this reason the consulares who
governed the imperial provinces were never
called proconsuls, but legati pro praetore, because
their conmand was not an independent one.
The only exception to this rule is where, for a
special purpose, a proconsul is granted imperium
majus over other proconsular governors (Cic.
ad Att. iv. 1, 7; Tac. Ann. ii. 43, 2). Hence,
under the Empire, a commander gifted with
proconsular imperium, together with full power
to exercise it in a military capacity, was a
colleague of the emperor (collega imperii), and
the conferring of this honour was one of the
most distinctive modes of nominating a successor
to the principate. The proconsular imperium
was the legitimised basis on which the emperor's
position as commander of the military forces
rested; but it was more or less legitimate
according to the way in which it was assumed.
As conferred by the senate, it was a strictly
constitutional power : it was so conferred on
Tiberius, and on his colleagues in the Empire,
Germanicus and Drusus (Tac. Ann. ii. 43, 2;
i. 14, 4), and Vitellius also dated his dies imperii
accepti from the date at which the soliti honores
were conferred on him by the senate (Henzen,
Act. Fr. Arv. p. 64). As conferred by the legions,
it was less legitimate. Vespasian, for instance,
dated his dies imperii from the day of his saluta-
tion by the legions as Imperator (Suet. Vesp. 6),
which was equivalent to a recognition of his
right to this imperium. The proconsular im-
perium of the emperor was unique, in that it
did not lapse from the fact of his presence
within the walls (Dio Cass, liii. 17, 6; 32, 5).
But this privilege did not extend to his col-
leagues: Germanicus, who had held it in Ger-
many, had to have it conferred again before
going to the East, because he had been within
the city walls (Tac. Ann. ii. 43, 2; cf. i. 14, 4),
and Drusus could not hold it while he was
within the walls as consul designate (Ann. i.
14, 5). (Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 90,
233,238–246, 257; ii.” 811 sq.; Die Rechtsfrage
zwischen Caesar und dem Senat.) [A. H. G.]
PROCURA’TOR. The term procurator signi-
fies agent, and is used to denote the transaction
of agency of almost any description. It was
applied chiefly to the managing agents of pro-
perty at Rome, and is often used in a sense
almost equivalent to vilicus or calculator (Senec.
Ep. 14, 16); although the procurator had more
freedom of action than the former, and more ex-
tended functions than the latter. While one en-
trusts a commission to a procurator, one gives
direct commands to a bailiff, or vilicus (Cic. de
Orat. i. 58, 249). It is used especially of the
managers of the landed property of a dominus or
owner, who transacts business with others,
manages his slaves, and directs his agricultural
operations through a procurator; such an agent
had the management and control, subject to
direction, of one or more estates (Plin. Ep. iii.
19, 2). They were generally freedmen, or even
favoured slaves, and, if slaves, might be trans-
ferred to another party with the sale of the
house or estate to which they were attached
(Cic. ad Att. xiv. 16).
As a term denoting a legal personality, in the
civil law of Rome, procurator is a parallel term
to cognitor; and is almost equivalent to the
modern attorney [ACTIO). Like the cognitor,
he was the person through whose agency a
legal action, not primarily his own, might be
undertaken; the appointment was simple, only
depending on the expression of will on the part
of the procurator so appointed. The presence
of neither of the parties to the dispute was
necessary to his taking up the case; and he was
thus able of himself to represent the persona of
an absent litigant, and to become an actor in
the legal sense (Festus, s. v. cognitor).
The political sense of the word procurator
originated with the Empire, and the personal
government that it brought about. In that
PROCURATOR
PROCURATOR 497
division of state administration which was
managed by the princeps, he himself was the
one supreme head; certain state functions he
delegated to praefecti; most, however, were
managed by the imperial agents, the procura-
tores Caesaris. They were in a strict sense the
servants of the emperor, with no independent
but only representative authority, appointed to
perform the lesser administrative duties of the
Empire (ministeria principatus, Tac. Hist. i. 58,
1). Like other parts of the emperor's house-
hold, they were originally slaves or freedmen,
generally of the latter class, as is shown by
Tacitus (Ann. iv. 6, 7), and especially by
inscriptions. The holders of offices about the
emperor's person, such as are described in the
expressions a libellis, a rationibus, auditors and
accountants, would be procurators. Pallas,
for instance, one of the favourite freedmen of
Claudius, was his procurator a rationibus.
Gradually, however, as the administrative
duties of the princeps extended, these posts
came to be of more importance, and there came
to be gradations of rank connected with them.
The more responsible procuratorships were sub-
sequently given, not to freedmen, but to equites:
and this change, due in the first instance to the
Emperor Vitellius (Tac. Hist. i. 58, 1), was
more thoroughly carried out by the Emperor
Hadrian (Hirschfeld, Untersuch. i. p. 32). The
lower grades were held, without distinction,
either by equites or freedmen (Dio Cass. lii. 25).
The filling of the higher procuratorships gra-
dually became one of the marks of a permanent
equestrian career: so much so, that Tacitus
expressly calls this office the equestris mobilitas.
No senator, or man who had a senatorial career
in view, could be a procurator; for, in the
Roman world of the Empire, there were two
distinct patents of nobility. The quaestorship,
and certain lower offices that led to it, formed
the road to senatorial nobility: a procurator-
ship in the emperor's household was the step-
ping stone to a prefecture, which was the crown
of equestrian nobility. The original powers
with which the procurator Caesaris was sup-
posed to be invested are well defined in the
words of Tiberius (Tac. Ann. iv. 15, 3), that
“his procurator's rights only extended over his
slaves and personal property.” This reference
is only to the emperor's private pecuniary
agent in a senatorial province; but, as no real
distinction can be drawn between the original
legal relations of the fiscus and patrimonium
respectively to the emperor, so the distinction
between the emperor's private agent and one
connected with his public concerns is a differ-
ence more of position and importance than of
fact or law. It was found impossible, however,
to confine the imperial agents to the limits of
authority that Tiberius thus lays down. Dis-
putes sprang up between them and the sena-
torial or other authorities, in the provinces;
and it is given as an instance of Claudius’s
moderation that he requested all decisions to be
confirmed that his procurator had awarded
(Suet. Claud. 12). This points to the judicial
authority that the procurators soon gained. As
there was no convenient court of arbitration in
the provinces that could decide on the rights of
the procurator, he was, without being recog-
nised as a proper court for the trial of private
WOL. II.
claims, empowered to settle disputes that might
arise from the exercise of his financial duties
(Cod. 1, 13, 1). His duties, as regards the
emperor, were strictly limited and defined; he
was altogether accountable to him for the use
he makes of his finances or any portion of his
property; he could not give, sell or transfer it,
and his duties are defined as careful manage-
ment of it (diligenter gerere) within the pre-
scribed bounds (Dig. 1, 19, 2); but, while he
keeps within these bounds, his acts have all the
authority of those of the emperor himself (ib.
1, 19, 1).
There were several classes of procurators;
most of them, however, being purely finance
officers, may be classed under the head of procu-
ratores fisci. The officer connected with the
fiscus at Rome was originally a procurator, as
well as the agent for collecting the Roman or
Italian dues for the fiscus. A procurator sum-
marum is found in an inscription of Nero's time
(Henzen, 6525), who was a freedman; officials
may also have been of this class, called pro-
curatores rationum summarum, their position
being that of keepers and auditors of the
imperial accounts, although the latter title
seems later to have had a restricted signification.
They were originally, perhaps, the highest offi-
cers connected with the fiscus; later we find
a praefectus of the fiscus, and, under Nerva, a
praetor fiscalis. We find other names given to
officials of this class who may be identified as
procurators, such as rationalis summae rei (Cod.
3, 26, 7), dispensator or dispensator summarum
(Suet. Vesp. 12; Henzen, 6396) and vilicus sum-
marum (C. J. L. 5, n. 737). We find from a
Greek inscription a procurator (ěrſºrporos)
appointed for the collection of Roman and
Italian dues to the fiscus, such as the vicesima
hereditatium (C. J. G. 2980).
It is difficult to determine the precise im-
portance attaching to the various offices held by
the procurators whose titles we know from in-
scriptions; and this is especially the case with
the agents of the fiscus at Rome, the officers
attached to it and their titles varying with each
reconstruction of the imperial system of finance.
It seems certain that from the time of Claudius
the title a rationibus was reserved for the
central director of the fiscus. After Hadrian it
became regularly an equestrian post (Hirschfeld,
Untersuch. i. p. 32), while the members of this
central bureau, which was now completely
organised, had a higher standing than their pro-
vincial colleagues. The title procurator rationum
summarum, belonging to the second century A.D.,
undoubtedly denotes some high official connected
with the fiscus. As it does not seem to be
identical with the title a rationibus, it has been
supposed to represent a subordinate director
of the fiscus, perhaps established for the first
time by Marcus Aurelius (Hirschfeld, l.c. p. 35).
The title rationalis, which often in the earlier
imperial times was used indiscriminately with
procurator, and still had this wide sense in the
third century A.D. (Dig. 1, 19, tit. “De officio
procuratoris Caesaris vel rationalis”), seems at
some period within this century to have sup-
planted the title a rationibus as the designation
of the chief officer of the fiscus (Hirschfeld, op.
cit. p. 37; Liebenam, Beiträge zur Verwaltungs-
gesch. p. 32).
2 K
498 PROCURATOR
PROCURATOR
Another class of procurators were confined
to the imperial provinces alone ; they were the
finance officers in these provinces, like the
quaestors in the senatorial provinces. They
were connected, therefore, with the branch of
the imperial treasury in the province (fiscus
provincialis), and managed the collection of
taxes due to it as well as their disbursement.
There was another treasury connected with the
military station in such a province (fiscus cas-
trensis), with a corresponding agent (procurator
castrensis), who superintended the payments
made to the soldiers in the district (Strabo, iii.
p. 167) and military expenses in general: the
title a copiis militaribus is found in inscriptions
(Orelli, 2922, 3505); and an agent of the mint
(procurator monetae) is found, in connexion
apparently with the provincial fiscus (C. I. L.
2, n. 4206). Other provincial procurators are
found for the collection of the imperial dues
that were imposed on all the provinces alike.
The vectigalia with which the provincial fiscus
was supplied were collected by various means;
some, such as the portoria, were in the hands of
the publicani, others were directly collected:
and amongst these were certain perquisites
which belonged exclusively to the imperial
exchequer, whether they were collected in an
imperial or a senatorial province: such were
lapsed legacies (bona caduca) and the property
of condemned persons (bona damnatorum): others
were the vicesimae manumissionum and heredita-
tium, after the latter had been extended to the
provinces, and the centesima rerum venalium.
These dues were all collected by the imperial
procurators, and accordingly we find in inscrip-
tions such titles as procurator a caducis (C. I. L.
3, n. 1622), and other procurators connected
each with the collection of a separate kind of
imperial revenue. Agents of this kind were by
the nature of their functions not confined to the
imperial provinces: and we find, in senatorial
provinces, frequent evidence of dues that fell
to the emperor, and of the presence of his
agents as their collectors (Tac. Ann. ii. 47, 3;
iv. 15, 3). These imperial revenues, that
extended over the provinces generally, may be
divided into three classes.
the dues mentioned above, the bona caduca and
the like, that fell of right to the fiscus. Secondly,
there were dues that went directly to pay for
certain responsibilities (curae) undertaken by
the emperor for Rome and all the provinces,
such was the annona or corn-supply for Rome;
the supervision of this duty was at Rome dele-
gated to a praefectus of the emperor: and, con-
sequently, in the provinces, the business con-
nected with its supply must have been in the
hands of an imperial agent or procurator.
Again, the military defences, and the expenses
consequent on them, the cost of the transport of
troops and the like, fell entirely on the imperial
exchequer: and the revenues necessary for the
defraying of such expenses were managed by
procurators in the provinces, whether senatorial
or imperial, that were directly benefited by:
such administration. Lastly, among the impe-
rial dues that affected all the provinces alike,
comes the patrimonium of the emperor. The
mention of a procurator patrimoni; or patrimoni;
privati is found in inscriptions (Orelli, 3180).
They would have the management of the vast
Firstly, there were
imperial estates in the provinces; and together
with the procurator patrimonii we find a pro-
curator rerum privatarum of the emperor. At
first sight they appear identical, and originally
they were so. The institution of the twofold
procuratorship does not arise until the time of
the Emperor Severus (Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii.
p. 311). There had, in all probability, always
been a distinction between the res privatae and
the patrimonium; the former consisting mainly
of legacies that had been left to the emperor.
Hence the duties of the imperial procurators as
regards inheritances (Dig. 1, 19, 2; Orelli, 2921,
“servus exactor haereditatum legatorum pecu-
liorum ”); but in the early Empire this distinc-
tion between res privatae and patrimonium was
not recognised by any formal division of the
office of procurator, and in inscriptions (Orelli,
3180) the two are found combined. There
were several other unimportant posts recorded
in inscriptions as being held by procurators,
such as the posts of librarians, managers of
spectacles and stores, of daily household expenses,
and the like. - – ".
Besides the numerous procuratores fisci there
was another class of procurators connected with
the imperial administration of the provinces.
These were the procuratores Caesaris pro legato,
who were governors of outlying and compara-
tively unimportant districts, that were classed
with the imperial provinces. Such a district
was Cappadocia in the reign of Tiberius (Tac.
Ann. ii. 56 ; Dio Cass. lvii. 17, 7), which was
at first put under the government of an eques
as procurator; and Judaea, which was similarly
under the government of Pontius Pilate, its
procurator pro legato. These procurators were
more or less under the control of the nearest
imperial legate (legatus pro praetore); Judaea,
for instance, was attached to the larger province
of Syria, and Pilate was deposed from office by
Vitellius the governor of Syria (Jos. Antiq. Jud.
xviii. 4, 2).
Other provinces that are known to have been
placed at various times under imperial pro-
curators are the Alps, Raetia, Noricum, Thrace,
and Mauretania (Liebenam, l.c. p. 26).
The imperial procurators were continued in
office for terms of indefinite length ; and had
fixed salaries from the treasury (Dio Cass, liii.
23, 1). The words trecenarius, ducenarius, and
centenarius denote the value of these posts,
according as the salary varied from one hundred
to three hundred sestertia (Orelli, 946; Suet.
Claud. 24). The salaries of the civil pro-
curators at Rome were probably higher than
those of the same grade in the provinces. Thus
the procuratio rationis privatae was probably in
Rome a trecenaria; in the provinces a ducenaria;
in Italy, where it would be merely a branch-
office from Rome, a centenaria procuratio (Lie-
benam, l.c. p. 55). The grades of rank through
which the various procurators passed, their
position in the imperial organisation, and the
status of the individuals chosen for these offices,
cannot be expressed with any certainty. . The
scale of rank was often broken through, by
sudden and extraordinary promotions, which
were made through the favour of the princeps
or the personal fitness of the individual pro-
moted. Thus we find in one instance a pro-
curator a memoria promoted to a praefecture
PRODIGIUM
PRODOSIA 499
(Script. Aug. Wigr. 7). A more regular pro-
motion is that of Ti. Cl. Bibianus Tertullus, who
rose from the procuratorship ab epistulis Graecis
to that a rationibus, and was from this second
post promoted to the praefectura vigilum (C. I. G.
iii. 6574); or that of Sex. War. Marcellus, who
rose through the successive grades of procurator
aquarum and procurator Britanniae to the post
of procurator a rationibus, and was then pro-
moted to be vice-praefectus praetorio (Orelli,
946). The political influence of the procurators
at various periods of the Empire, and the classes
from which they were chosen, changed with the
changing conditions of imperial government.
The Empire began by being a strictly personal
rule marked by undivided responsibility on the
part of the princeps. At this time the pro-
curators were naturally freedmen, acting as
mere servants of the central head of the Roman
state; and even after the change initiated by
Vitellius, a return to this principle of selection
might be made, as it was by the Emperor Domi-
tian (Suet. Dom. 7). But with the develop-
ment of the Empire, the political organisation
itself began to replace in part the personal
responsibility of the princeps; and we get the
order of the equestrian aristocracy filling these
posts. The definite political routine lessened
the personal influence of these agents, which
had been very great under a weak prince like
Claudius, in the half-organised earlier Empire.
In the later period of the Empire we find a new
influence arising—that, namely, of the emperor's
personal household. In the fourth and fifth
centuries freedmen of the household, such as the
chamberlain (cubicularius), had the power which
in the time of Claudius was possessed by the
freedmen filling the great fiscal offices (Fried-
länder, Sittengesch. i. p. 67).
(Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii.” pp. 836 ft., 934;
Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, v. p. 296 f.;
Hirschfeld, Untersuchungen auf dem Gebiete der
römischen Verwaltungsgeschichte, i. p. 30 ft. ;
Liebenam, Beiträge zur Verwaltungsgeschichte
des rômischen Kaiserreichs, i. p. 52 f.; Fried-
länder, Sittengeschichte, i. p. 59 ft.) [A. H. G.]
PRODI'GIUM in its original meaning differs
little from ostentum, monstrum, portentum.
“Quia enim ostendunt, portendunt, monstrant,
praedicunt, ostenta, portenta, monstra, prodigia
dicuntur” (Cic. de Div. i. 42, 93). [It should
be observed, however, that prodigium cannot be
derived from praedico.] In its widest accepta-
tion the word denotes any sign by which the
gods indicated to men a future event, whether
good or evil, and thus includes omens and
auguries of every description (Verg. Aen. v.
638; Servius ad loc.; Cic. in Verr. iv. 49, 107).
It is, however, generally employed in a more
restricted sense to signify some strange incident
which was supposed to herald the approach of
misfortune, under such circumstances as to
announce calamities impending over the nation
rather than over private persons.
Hence the distinction of “prodigium quod in
privato loco,” or “quod in peregrino factum
est” (Liv. xliii. 13): the rites and offerings
which would in his judgment afford a procuratio
privati portenti depended upon the owner of the
house where it occurred (Liv. v. 15); so, too,
as regards the Roman senate a prodigy in a
colonia would be looked upon as in peregrino loco,
and left to the magistrates of the town where
it occurred. A common instance of private
procuration was when anything in private pro-
perty was struck by lightning [see BIDENTAL).
Such prodigies were viewed as manifestations
of the wrath of heaven and warnings of coming
vengeance; it was believed that the wrath
might be appeased and the vengeance averted
by the proper rites and sacrifices. Although
it was impossible to provide for every contin-
gency, rules for expiation applicable to most
cases were laid down in the sacred books of the
Etruscans (Cic. de Div. i. 33, 72); and when
the prodigy was of an unprecedented character,
recourse might be had not only to the haru-
spices, but to the Sibylline books or even the
Delphic oracle [HARUSPICES; SIBYLLINI LIBRI].
When the senate received information of a pro-
digy happening in publico loco, the first process
was either themselves to examine witnesses
(Liv. xxii. 1), or to commit the examination and
decision to the pontifices (Liv. i. 20). If the
fact was proved, and also judged important to
the state, then they were said suscipere procura-
tionem: when the wrath of heaven was clearly
connected with some known crime, the first
necessity was atonement by punishing the
criminal (cf. Liv. ii. 42; Dionys. ix. 40): the
next point was to settle what deities were
pointed out by the prodigy as needing appease-
ment: e.g. when the spears of Mars are shaken
in the sacrarium regiae, then sacrifices of hostiae
majores to Jupiter and Mars are indicated (Gell.
iv. 6)—where no god was specially pointed to,
there was a sacrifice in general terms, “deo
aut deae '' (Gell. ii. 28): finally, when the
offended deity was, if possible, ascertained,
it remained to determine what claim (postilio)
for atonement he made. (See Cic. de Harusp.
Fesp. 10, 20; 14, 31; Varro, L. L. v. 148;
Arnob. iv. 31, who instances postiliones for neg-
lect, perhaps accidental, of duties and cere-
monies.) An edict then declared how the
expiation should be made, by hostiae majores or
novendiale Sacrum or obsecratio ; and the matter
was entrusted to the consuls. Marquardt gives
abundant instances of these cases (Staatsverw.
iii. p. 260), but he gathers from Philarg. ad
Verg. Georg. ii. 162, that the carrying out of,
the atonement was sometimes committed to the
Pontifices instead of the consuls. When in
doubtful and difficult cases, as mentioned above,
the haruspices or the Sibylline books were con-
sulted, it usually followed that a greater
solemnity, a SUPPLICATIO or a jejunium,
was ordered (Liv. xxxvi. 37). (Müller, Die
Etrusker, ii. 191; Hartung, Die Religion der
Romer, i. 96; Bouché-Leclercq, Hist. de la
Divination, p. 181; Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.”
pp. 259–264.) [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
PRO'DOMUS. [Domius; TEMPLUM.]
PRODO'SIA (trpoãoorſa). Under this term
was included not only every species of treason,
but also every such crime as (in the opinion of
the Greeks) would amount to a betrayal or
desertion of the interests of a man's country :
especially the attempt to subvert the constitu-
tion (karáAvais roß Shuow) and to establish a
despotism (rupavvís). Thus Lycurgus (c. Leocr.
§ 127) speaks of the psephisma of Demophantus
(krev& . . . . §s &v kataNiſan rhy 3muokpartav
Tºv 'A6%vnori, kal éév ris Špin Twº Kºrº-
* K
500 PRODOSIA.
PROEISPHORAS DIKE
AeAvuéums rās 6muokpartas to Nottröv, kal éâv
ris rvpavveſv ćiravagrfi 3) rov tápavvov ovyka-
raorrham, Andoc. de Myst. § 97) as directed
against traitors (Töv thv trarpíða trpoštěčvra),
yet there is no instance recorded of an attempt
to subvert the constitution ever having been
dealt with as trpoãoota, and the vöuos eioray-
'yearukos clearly distinguishes between the two
crimes. In the eye of the law only the betrayal
to the efiemy of the state or part of the state,
such as a town, a watch-post, a gate, a dock-
yard, a fleet, an army (Lys. c. Philon. § 26;
Lyc. c. Leocr. § 59; Dem. c. Lept. p. 481, § 79;
Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 171; Hyp. pro Euw. 18), or
the entering into any kind of treasonable com-
munication with the enemy (cf. the case of
Antiphon and Archeptolemus, [Plut.] Witt. X.
Orat. p. 833 E), amounted to trpoãoota [EIS-
ANGELIA]; unless when a special decree of the
people extended the meaning of rpoSooſa, e.g.
to the leaving the state in time of danger (as
after the battle of Chaeroneia, Lyc. c. Leocr.
§ 53 : évéxous elval rā ºrpoãooríg rows petryovras
Töv Štrép ris warpſbos ktvövvov), or when it was
resolved on the motion of Critias to prosecute
Phrynichus, who had been murdered by Apollo-
dorus and Thrasybulus (row verpov kpively trpo-
Sootas), and also to subject his defenders to the
punishment of traitors in case of a conviction
(Lyc. c. Leocr. § 112 ft.).
The ordinary method of proceeding against
those who were accused of treason or treason-
able practices was by eio'ayyeata (only Pollux,
viii. 40, speaks of a ypaſp?l trpoãoorías), as in the
case of Gylon, the maternal grandfather of De-
mosthenes (ºrpoãobs roſs troxeatous Nõuqalov,
Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 171), Timomachus (trpoãobs
Kórví rhv Xeppávnorov, Schol. Aeschin. c. Tim.
§ 56), Leosthenes (Diod. Sic. xv. 95), Philon,
Theotimus (6 ×morrow &moxéoras, Hyp. pro Euac.
18), Chabrias and Callistratus (Schol. Dem.
c. Mid. p. 535, § 64; Aristot. Rhet. iii. 10,
p. 1411, B 6, and i. 7, p. 1364, 19), etc.: cf.
Plut. Coriol. 14, “Avvros irpoãoarías trepi II&Aov
kpivéuevos, etc. and Diod. Sic. xiii. 64. Leo-
crates, who left Athens after the defeat at
Chaeroneia, was prosecuted by Lycurgus seven
years later for desertion of his country. The
defence of the accused was, that he did not
leave Athens with a traitorous intention (étrl
Trpoãooríg), but for the purposes of trade (éri
éunopfg, § 55 and argumentum); he was ac-
quitted, the votes being even (Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 252). A special decree of the people pro-
nounced those traitors who fled from Athens
after the battle, and empowered the council of
Areiopagus to bring them to justice by a
summary method (Lyc. c. Leocr. § 52 ft.): thus
we read in Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 252, that they
seized and put to death on the same day a
person that tried to sail away to Samos.
The regular punishment appointed by law for
treason appears to have been death, refusal of
burial within Attic territory, and confiscation
of property (Xen. Hellen. i. 7, 22: cf. Dem. de
Cor. Trier. p. 1230, § 8 f.); and when we find
instances of treason being punished by a fine,
we must either suppose that the Athenians
distinguished between high treason and less
heinous kinds of rpoSooſa (the latter rumºrós),
or that the writers employ the term in the
respective passages not in its proper technical
sense (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 740, § 127; c. Theocr.
p. 1344, § 70). The sentence passed on Anti-
phon and Archeptolemus is preserved in [Plut.]
Witt. X. Oratt. : “that they be delivered
to the Eleven; that their property be confis-
cated, and the goddess have the tithe ; that
their houses be razed and boundary-stones be
placed on the sites with the inscription A. kal
A. roſv trpočátaly;-that it shall not be allowed
to bury A. and A. at Athens or in any land of
which the Athenians are masters; that A. and
A. and their descendants shall be āripuot, and
he who adopts any one of the race of A. and A.
shall be āripuos : that this decree be written on
a bronze column, and put in the same place
where the decrees about Phrynichus are set
up” (cf. Lyc. c. Leocr. § 117 f.; Journal of
Philol. viii. 1–13). The bones of Themistocles,
who had been condemned for treason, were
brought over and buried secretly by his friends
(Thuc. i. 138,6; Marcell. Wit. Thucyd.). Traitors
might be proceeded against even after their
death, as we have done in modern times. Thus,
the Athenians resolved to prosecute Phry-
nichus; judgment of treason was passed against
him, his bones were dug up and cast out of
Attica. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 419–
424.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PROEDRI (rpáeópol). [Boule.]
PROEI'SPHORA. [EISPHORA.]
PROEISPHORAS DIKE (rpoetorpopás
6trem). At first, after the institution of the new
census and the introduction of the ovuuoptal in
the archonship of Nausinicus in B.C. 378–7
(Harpocr. s. v. orvuuopia), the state collected
the eiorgopa directly from those liable to it, and
those who fell in arrear were proceeded against
in the same way as all debtors to the state
(Lys. c. Philocr. § 9;—Dem. c. Androt. p. 609,
§ 54; p. 615, § 70; c. Timocr. p. 752, § 166).
To avoid the delay necessarily arising from this,
the trpoetorqop& was introduced, viz. certain
individuals had to pay the whole tax at once
and to recover the sum advanced afterwards
from the others liable to the tax. Fränkel
(Boeckh, Sthh." ii. p. 123, App. n. 838) supposes
that at first each demus appointed one of the
6muórat and éykekrmuévot to pay the whole tax
at once for the demus; that, to save time, in
B.C. 362–1, it was resolved that the senate
(instead of the demi) should return the names
of those who were to pay the taxes in advance
(Dem. c. Polycl. p. 1208, § 8; cf. § 6, 51& ré-
xovs), and that after this date the first class of
the census, the 300 richest men, had to make
this advance (Dem. c. Phaenipp. p. 1046, § 25;
cf. Schol. Dem. Olynth. ii. p. 26, § 29, eiorépepov
7&p of traovoid repot intép airāv kal trpoe'réâovv,
Kal éðexovro Taira Watepov Karā orxox#v . . . .
oirot 68 foray oi Tpiakóoriot oi trčvv traoûoriol of
trpárol, oirives trpoelorépepov, etc. Dem. de Cor.
p. 285, § 171). By this means the possibility
of taxes falling into arrears was prevented. To
recover money thus advanced was called trpo-
storqopāv koutgeorðat, eiotrpdtrea:0at (Dem. c.
Pantaen. p. 977, § 37; c. Polycl. p. 1209, § 9),
and all actions arising from it belonged to the
jurisdiction of the strategi. Koehler (Mitth.
d. d. a. Inst. Ath. vii. 1882, p. 98 ft.) discusses
an inscription dating from the first half of the
4th century, referring to the actions (6tadt-
kaatai) brought to decide who were liable to
PROEROSIA
PROPRAETOR 501
the ºrpoeia popá: the names are arranged ac-
cording to demi, and the sanctuaries of the
demi are not exempted (cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 947).
The face that the trpoetorqop& was introduced
some time after the archonship of Nausinicus
(it is first mentioned in Dem. c. Polycl. p. 1208,
$ 8; i.e. B.C. 362–1) throws a new light on
Dem. c. Androt. p. 606, § 44, ipſu trap& ràs
eio popäs rās &mb Navorivſkov, trap' forws td Navra.
Tptakóoria # ſukpá traeta, ćAAetupiata Tétrapa
kal 6éka Čorrl TäAavra. Grote (Hist. of Gr. ix.
p. 333) is of opinion that “a total sum of 300
talents or thereabouts had been levied by all
the various property-taxes imposed from the
archonship of N. down to the date of the
speech,” a period of about twenty-three years;
but Lipsius (Jahrb. f. cl. Phil. 1878, p. 297 ff.)
points out in the first place that the sum of
300 talents is too small, as the aggregate of all
property-taxes imposed for twenty-three years;
and, secondly, that since the introduction of the
arpoetorqop& arrears could not possibly accrue.
Hence, he concludes, the commission appointed
at the instigation of Androtion to collect all
outstanding arrears could only collect such
arrears as had accrued between the archonship
of N. and the introduction of the trpoetorqopá,
and the sum of 300 talents represents the total
sum of taxes called for within that period only.
Boeckh (Sthh.. i.” p. 607) thought that the 300
talents here mentioned were levied in the
single year. of N.; yet &mb Navorivſkov cannot
have this meaning. Fränkel (ad l.c. ii. p. 120,
App.), not accepting Lipsius' explanation, sus-
pects that the reading of the passage is
corrupt. [SYMMORIA.] . [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PROERO'SIA (trpompēoria), called also trpo-
apictoëpta (Paus. x. 15), a festival in the month
Boedromion, celebrated by a procession to Eleusis
and offerings there to Demeter. It was held by
the Athenians on behalf of all Greece, before
the land was ploughed for sowing, to entreat
for a plentiful harvest. (Suid., Hesych.,
Etym. Mag. s. v.; Arrian, in Epictet. iii. 21;
Mommsen, Heortol. 218, Preller, Gr. Myth.
1. 608.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PROFESTI DIES, [Dies.]
PROGAMEIA (rpoyáuela).
NIUM, Vol. II. p. 136 a.]
PROIX (irpotº). [Dos.]
PROLETA'RII. The state, according to
the Servian constitution, was divided into those
who had property (locupletes) arranged in classes,
and those who had not and were outside these
classes; these unclassed citizens were called
capite censi, i.e. “reckoned by heads,” or pro-
letarii, i.e. “begetters of children’’ (Cic. de Rep.
li. 22, 40; Gell. xvi. 10). These included all
who were assessed at not more than 1500 asses:
the distinction in civil matters is marked by the
law of the Twelve Tables, that for a proletarius
any one might act as vinder, while for the
adsiduus (or locuples) an adsiduus was required
[ACTIO). As to their military service, see
ExERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 781. (Mommsen, Rom.
Hist. i. 196; Staatsrecht, iii. 238.) [G. E. M.]
PROMETHEIA (ºrpoph9eia). [LAMPADE-
DROMIA.]
PROMISSOR. [OBLIGATIONES.]
PROMNE'STRIAE (irpouvharpial). [MA-
TRIMONIUM, Vol. II. p. 136 a.]
PROMULSIS. [CENA, Vol. I. p. 396.]
[MATRIMO-
PROMUS. [CELLA.]
PRONA’OS. [TEMPLUM.]
PRO'NUBA. TMATRIMONIUM, Wol. II. p.
143 a.]
PROPHETES. [ORACULUM.]
PROPLASMA (mtpáraagua), the first sketch
for a work in clay, preparatory to its execution
in bronze, marble, or other materials. We are
told that the proplasmata of Arcesilaus, an
artist of the end of the Roman republic, were
sold to artists for higher prices than others’
finished works; and Pasiteles spoke of “plasticen
matrem statuariae,” &c. This was, however, a
late practice. It was after the time of Lysi-
stratus, the brother of Lysippus, that it was so
general that “nulla signa statuaeve sine argilla
fierent.” Even then, however, the artist did
not, as in modern times, leave the execution of
the statues themselves to skilled workmen.
(Plin. xxxv. § 45.) [E. A. G.]
PROPNIGEUM. [BALNEAE, Vol. I. p. 279.]
PROPRAETOR. The propraetorship was,
like the proconsulate, technically a delegation of
the praetorian imperium where alone such dele-
gation was constitutionally allowable—that is,
outside the pomerium ; but, instead of the
delegation of a new imperium militiae, the course
usually adopted was the prolongation of an
imperium already existing (prorogatio). The
title pro praetore seems really to be an older
title than that of pro consule. As the title
praetor belonged originally to all magistrates
who demanded obedience from the army in
virtue of their imperium (Pseud.-Ascon. in
Verrin. p. 168; Festus, p. 161), so the title
pro praetore was applied to an officer who
had this authority delegated to him; and
accordingly Dionysius (ix. 12) calls the military
delegate appointed by the consuls for the com-
mand of the reserve force àvrto Tparmyós (pro-
praetor), which is more likely to have been the
original title than proconsul, given by Livy (iii.
4). This view of the propraetorship as a delegated
military imperium never died out. When, for
instance, the military imperium was to be con-
ferred on an individual who had held no
magistracy, or only a minor one, it is generally
conferred with the title pro praetore. M.
Antonius, while still tribune, had this title
granted him by Caesar, for the purpose of
military command in Italy (Cic. ad Att. x.
8 a); and Octavian, who had held no magistracy,
had the title propraetor conferred on him by
the senate for the purpose of acting against
Antony (Suet. Oct. 10).
But the propraetorship, as a standing office,
originated with the necessities of provincial
government. When the number of the Roman
provinces increased beyond the four original
provinces, for which special praetors were
appointed, the prolongation of the imperium of
the two city praetors became usual. Provincial
government was subsequently divorced from the
administration of the praetors, and the provinces
divided between the past consuls and praetors,
the propraetors obtaining those provinces where
least military forces were required. As pro-
vincial governors they were invested with the
imperium with the same ceremonies with which
the imperium for military service had been
confirmed : among which were especially the
religious ceremonies of the vota and auspicia
502 , PROPRAETOR
PROPYLAEA
(Cic. in Verr. v. 13, 14; Festus, l. c.), and inscriptions, in which the title quaestor pro
the Lex Curiata, or popular sanction for all the
magistratus cum imperio (Cic. de Lége Agr. ii. 11,
26). The tenure of his imperium by the praetor
was now, as a Tule, biennial, one year being
spent in office at home, the other as governor of
a province; this separation of commands was
first formally recognised by Sulla (Lex Cornelia
de provinciis ordinandis), and the limit of the
propraetor's government of a province fixed at
one year. (For the administration of the
provinces by propraetors, see PROVINCIA.) The
senatusconsultum of 52 B.C. affected the pro-
praetor as it affected the proconsul [PROCONSUL].
The propraetor did not now leave Rome to take
command of a province until five years after he
had ended his period of office at home (Dio Cass.
xl. 30, 1; 46, 2). Although the division of the
provinces between the propraetors and the pro-
consuls was regulated by constitutional usage,
and the interval between home and foreign
commands regulated by law, yet the senate
might by a decree interfere with the ordinary
arrangements. In 51 B.C. a senatusconsultum
was passed by which the senate commanded that
all the praetorii who were qualified for foreign
command should be sent to provinces, and that,
if there were not sufficient praetorii of five
years’ standing, those of less standing should be
sent out in the order of seniority (Cic. ad Att.
viii. 8, 8). The effect of this decree was to debar
from government consulares duly qualified by
the five years’ interval (Caes. Bell. Civ. 1, 6).
When, under the Empire, the provinces were
divided into senatorial and imperial, the re-
publican system was reversed ; the military
provinces were given to governors with the title
pro praetore, the non-military to proconsuls.
In the latter, however, we find the senatorial
proconsuls accompanied by legati proconsulis pro
praetore. They were assessors (ºrd pečpos, Dio
Cass. liii. 14, 7) of the senatorial governor, and
were all alike called propraetors, though some
might be consulares. For a senatorial province
of the higher class, such as Asia and Africa,
which were governed always by consulares,
three such legati pro praetore were selected; to
one of the lower class, such as Sicily and Baetica,
which were goverted by a proconsul who had
been praetor, one such legatus accompanied the
governor. They were selected by the pro-
consuls themselves, subject to the approval of
the princeps: in the lower senatorial provinces
these propraetors might be praetorii; in the
higher they might be consulares (Dio Cass. ib.).
The title quaestor pro praetore is connected
with senatorial government. It may mean one
of three offices. During the Republic, a magis-
trate with this title was either (i.) one who
replaced an absent or dead superior in a province
for the purpose of temporary government (Sall.
Jug. 103; cf. ib. 36), and, from the instances
referred to, we see that the quaestor took this
title, although he might be commanding in the
room of a proconsul; or (ii.) one who, though
still only a quaestor, was appointed to an inde-
pendent command by senate or people. Cato
bore this title when sent to annex Cyprus in
58 B.C. (Well. 2, 45; cf. C. I. L. i. 4, 598); and
(iii.) in a senatorial province, during the Empire,
the quaestor, who is the finance officer in such
a province, had this title, as we know from
praetore appears by the side of that of his
superior the proconsul (Orelli, 151). Two
explanations of this are possible. He may have
been adlectus inter praetoris because the other
leading members of the staff, the legati, were
propraetors : or, more probably, the title was
given him because he was the provincial repre-
sentative of the finance officer of the aerarium
at Rome, which, under the Empire, was in the
hands, not of a quaestor, but of a praetor.
The governors of the imperial provinces, under
the Empire, were all legati Caesaris pro praetore.
Their government was not an independent
command; they were legati of the Emperor:
hence they could not have the proconsulare
imperium, which was vested in the princeps,
and could not therefore be proconsuls. The
imperial provinces, like the senatorial, were
divided into a higher and a lower class. To the
higher, such as Syria and the two Germanies,
consulares were sent; to the lower, such as
Aquitania and Galatia, praetorii; but the
governors of both were called propraetors (Dio
Cass. liii. 13, 5), those who had been consuls
adding the title vir consularis or consularis
legatus. These propraetorial governorships had
no definite limit of time, and their tenure
depended on the emperor's discretion (Dio
Cass. liii. 13, 6; Tac. Ann. i. 80), their
holders having fixed salaries from the imperial
treasury (Dio Cass, lii. 23, 1). The imperial
provinces all involved military commands; and
hence the legati Caesaris wore the military
dress and sword (Dio Cass, liii. 13, 6), which
were not worn by the proconsuls of senatorial
provinces. [A. H. G.]
PROPYLAEA (trport Aata: also occasionally
in the singular, trportſNatov), properly the space
before the gate, is the name usually applied to a
porch or entrance of elaborate architectural
construction. Thus it is applied by Herodotus
to the “Pylons” of Egyptian temples (ii. 101,
121, &c.). The name is, however, by ancient
writers used almost exclusively with reference to
the great entrance of the Acropolis at Athens,
built by the architect Mnesicles under Pericles
(Plut. Pericles, 13; Suidas, s. v. &c.): this was
begun in 437 B.C., and was provisionally com-
pleted in five years, though its original plan was
never fully carried out, and though 2012 talents
were spent. The Propylaea of Mnesicles took
the place of an earlier building, of which the
foundations and part even of the walls may still
be seen. The kernel of the whole structure is a
wall pierced by five doors. Of these the central
is largest, and admits a carriage-way ; the two
on each side are raised upon five steps, as
approached from the west ; those at the extreme
sides are smallest. The wall is of white Pentelic
marble, with a base of black Eleusinian marble,
such as may also be seen beneath other walls,
columns, and windows in the Propylaea. On
the east of this central wall, facing the Acropolis,
was a Doric portico of six columns, projecting
from two antae which terminate on the east the
two walls which bound the entrance-way on the
north and south: to the west of the five doors,
there is between these two walls a rectangular
court, of which the roof is borne by six Ionic .
columns in two rows parallel to the north and
south walls: to the west of this, again, is a
PROPYLAEA
PROSCRIPTIO 503
portico of six Doric columns, corresponding io
that upon the east face: this west portico is
flanked upon the north and south by wings,
fronting one another with a face of three smaller
Doric columns between antae. The north wing
is complete, consisting of a small hall behind the
columns and a large chamber opening by a door
and two windows into the hall. This chamber
contained pictures by Polygnotus and others
(Paus. i. 22), and is therefore sometimes called,
in modern works, the Pinacothece ; no trace of
appliances for fixing pictures to the wall has
been found. The south wing was originally
intended to match this, being, however, open to
the west, to face the bastion with the temple of
Níkm : but for some reason, probably priestly
objections to infringement on the temenos
of Artemis Brauronia, the plan was curtailed.
The north face was left as originally designed,
but the N.W. corner anta with its architrave
was left isolated, and the roof only continued as
far as the third column towards the west : the
southern portion also was omitted, and a wall
built to enclose a portion only of the intended
hall. The principal west portico was crowned by
a pediment; above this rose a second pediment,
resting on the central wall, of the same height
as that over the east front. The north and
south wings of the west front were covered by
hip roofs running down to the western corner.
These wings on the west were, in the original
intention, to be overlapped by two great
porticoes facing the east, and occupying the
whole breadth of the hill: part of the founda-
tions of these, as well as the antae to face their
columns and the arrangements for their roofing,
may still be traced, but they were never erected;
nor were the blocks left rough in the stones of
the completed walls, to facilitate transport and
fixing, ever worked off.
Character of work.—The completed parts of
the Propylaea offer perhaps the most perfect
example, for execution and finish, of Doric
architecture of the best period. The architrave
is slightly curved, as usual ; not so the stylo-
bate, because it is cut in the middle of the two
principal fronts by the road, which also
necessitates an exceptionally broad intercolum-
niation in the middle. The Ionic columns of
the central hall have the most perfect specimens
of the Attic Ionic capital, and served as a
pattern for later examples. They are of a quite
different character from those of the Erechtheum.
The Propylaea are entirely without architectural
sculpture. They contained, however, the statue
of Hermes Propylaeus and the Charites of
Socrates.
Approach. — The sacred way led from the
south side of the Acropolis close under the
bastion on which stands the little temple of
Níkm &m repos: thence in the earliest times in
a zigzag track first to the S.W. corner of the
north wing (where the pedestal of Agrippa was
afterwards erected), and thence to the central
gate. In Pericles' time the direction was still
the same, though the road was terraced up to a
higher level. A broad flight of steps, with a
roughed path for beasts in the middle, was added
in later Roman times. The present steps are
modern, and at a lower level. Probably the
approach was shut off on the west by a wall,
which formed the real barrier, at the foot of the
slope; that now visible in this position, with a
gate, is of late construction.
Imitation. — A work of such wide fame
naturally gave rise to imitations; the best
known are the two, the smaller and the greater,
at Eleusis. Pausanias (ii. 3) also mentions one
at Corinth.
(Bohn, Die Propyläen du Akropolis zu Athen,
Berlin and Stuttgart, 1882, where earlier
authorities will be found; Dörpfeld, in i.
Mittheilungen d. deutschen Institut zu Athen,
1885, x. 38 ft., 131 ff., where the original
plan of Mnesicles is discussed ; Penrose, Prin-
ciples of Athenian Architecture, London, 1888;
a good short account in Baumeister's Denk-
mäler des klassischen Altertums, pp. 1414–
1422, with plans and elevations after Bohn and
Dörpfeld.) [E. A. G.]
PROSCENIUM. [THEATRUM.]
PROSCLESIS. [DIKE.
PROSCRIPTIO. The word proscriptio,
signifying primarily the “writing up" of any-
thing, was generally used to denote a written
public notice of sale; proScriptio bonorum was
thus applied to the notice of property sold by .
auction: and amongst goods disposed of in this
way would be the confiscated goods of persons
who were declared public enemies by the state.
It was this last meaning, that of the sale of
goods forfeited by the outlawry of their pos-
sessors, that became specially attached to the
word after the occupation of Rome by Sulla in
82 B.C. Since, however, a decree of outlawry
by the state included not only the forfeit of
property, but the forfeit of life (“de capite
civis et de bonis proscriptio,” Cic. pro Sest. 30,
65), the word involved both significations; and
the special connotation that attached to it was
that of the absence of all protection to the
lives of persons. So outlawed, who were them-
selves called proscripti. Sulla was the first to
“proscribe” in this new sense, and to make a
declaration of outlawry against political enemies
a definite political measure (Well. ii. 28, 3;
App. Bell. Civ. i. 95). The form which the
measure took was the posting up of a list
setting forth the names of the victims, with
certain decrees necessary for its execution at-
tached. Thus this notice did not merely give
the passive permission to take the lives of the
persons so outlawed, which was recognised by
the Roman law (Festus, s. v. Sacer), but offered
rewards, both for information which might lead
to their death, and for their execution at the
hands of either citizens or slaves; while it im-
posed penalties on those who should seek to
protect them (App. Bell. Civ. i. 95). This pro-
scription of large numbers of Roman citizens by
Sulla, although an act of individual policy, and
in part perhaps an act of vengeance, was yet
supported by a political pretext. This was a
declaration that they were hostes, or enemies to
the state, through their complicity with its
foreign foes; and enemies besides that had
forfeited all claims to protection, through the
breach of the covenant that Sulla had made
with the consul Scipio, and which, he main-
tained, bound all the Marian party. All con-
nivance with his enemies subsequent to the
date of this treaty was sufficient to place, a
man's name on the list (App. ib.), and the
confiscation of property was applied not only
504 PROSCRIPTIO
PROSTATES TOU IDEMOU
to those proscribed at Rome, but to all who had
fallen in the ranks of his opponents (Cic. pro
Rosc. Amer. 43, 126). The fact that those
proscribed were regarded as hostes naturally
affected the status of their children and de-
scendants who suffered a capitis deminutio. This
loss of status was not rigorously carried out,
however, and they were only disfranchised for
certain purposes which were specified (Plut.
Sulla, 31). They were debarred from all public
offices in the state, but yet not entirely de-
graded from their social position, for one of the
ordinances declared that the sons of senators,
while excluded from the privileges of their
order, should yet undertake its burdens (Well.
ii. 28, 3). They seem also to have been for-
bidden certain private rights, such as the ac-
ceptance of legacies; and the spirit, if not the
letter, of the law that sanctioned Sulla's
arrangements seems even to have cut them off
from all active assistance at the hands of their
fellow-citizens (Cic. in Verr. i. 47, 123). The
effect was to debar them as far as possible from
all chances of a public career (“a republica
summoveri,” Cic, ap. Quinct. ii. 1,85), which,
considering the hereditary policy of Roman
houses, was no doubt the deliberate design of
Sulla, to further the permanence of his consti-
tution. The authorities on the Sullan pro-
scriptions agree generally that the proscription
list was published before the dictatorial power
was conferred on Sulla (Plut. Sulla, 32; App.
Bell. Civ. i. 97). When it was conferred, a
retrospective sanction was given to his acts,
and a special clause granted him the power to
adjudicate on the lives and property of the
citizens (Plut. ib.; Cic. de Leg. Agr. iii. 2, 7).
The law which conferred these powers on Sulla
was the Lex Valeria, passed by the interrex L.
Valerius Flaccus (App. Bell. Civ. i. 98): a law,
however, which was so entirely the work of
Sulla, and so intimately bound up with his own
subsequent legislation, that Cicero calls it in-
differently the Lex Valeria or Cornelia (Cib. in
Verr. i. 47, 123). These acts may, however,
have received a further legal sanction from
Sulla himself, and Cicero's language rather im-
plies that they did (Cic. ap. Quinct. ii. 1, 85).
The legality of these regulations was never
questioned; Cicero, while affirming their in-
justice, never doubts their legality (de Leg. i.
15): and the disabilities imposed on the
children of the proscribed still remained in
force after many of Sulla's laws had been re-
pealed, and was the one point in his legislation
which neither the democratic nor the moderate
aristocratic party ventured to assail. The
number actually put to death in the Sullan
proscriptions is variously given : subsequent
additions were continually being made until the
list was complete (App. i. 95; Plut. Sulla, 31),
but the total of 4,700, that is given by Valerius
Maximus (ix. 2, 1), of which 2,000 were
senators and equites, is probably not above the
mark. This proscription of Sulla was merely
the legalised form of the massacre and confis-
cation which his opponents, the Marians, had
conducted in a hardly less destructive, though
more informal, manner. It was no doubt re-
garded by its author as necessary to his work
of re-organisation; and was almost an inevitable
result of the first use of the military power for
this purpose. So far as it was a necessity of
the times, it was rendered so by the absence of
the punishment of death in Roman law, and by
the growing extent of the Roman Empire, which
rendered the exiling of opponents useless and
even dangerous. In Sulla's case it was rendered
more desirable by the necessity he was under of
raising revenues to recompense his soldiers.
After Sulla it was regarded as the natural, and
almost necessary consequence, of any violent
restoration. Had Pompey been victorious in
the civil war, his victory would almost certainly
have been followed by a proscription (Cic. ad
Att. ix. 10, 6; xi. 6, 2); while the same fears
were entertained, by the moderate party at
Rome, of the probable conduct of Caesar, if he
became master of the city (Cic. ad Att. ix. 7, 5;
x. 8, 2). The assassination of Caesar by those
whom he had spared gave an impetus to the
next proscription, and a plausible excuse for its
advisability (App. Bell. Civ. iv. 8). The prece-
dent set by Sulla was taken up with still more
vigour by the triumvirs Antony, Octavian,
and Lepidus, in 43 B.C. (Suet. Oct. 27; App.
Civ. Bell. iv. 5). The number of the upper
classes now proscribed exceeded that of Sulla.
For the party chiefly aimed at by the triumvirs
was that of the optimates (oi övvatoſ, App.
iv. 5), the strict constitutional party, whose
power it was necessary to break down; and
accordingly 2,000 equites and 300 senators
were in the list. The proscription was carried
out from motives of personal hatred, except
perhaps on the part of Octavian, quite as much
as from such considerations of political necessity
as were recognised by Sulla. The motive of
raising money by confiscation was still more
present in this proscription, while private
enmity and private greed played a large part
in it (App. Bell. Civ. iv. 5). But in other
respects this second proscription was directed
by stricter adherence to the forms of law. It did
not definitely commence until the triumvirs
had been invested with their extraordinary
powers reipublicae constituendae (Liv. Ep. 20, 24;
App. Bell. Civ. iv. 7), although a preliminary
proscription of sixteen persons, amongst whom
was Cicero, had been carried out by the consul
Pedius, on a mandate from the triumvirs. In
other respects the proscription resembled that
of Sulla, and was directed by the same supposed
necessities, but, in that it aimed more definitely
at the dissolution of a specific party in the
state, its effects were more permanently felt ;
it assisted in destroying a section of the com-
munity that had united interests opposed to
those of the rising monarchy (Tac. Ann. i.
2, 1). [A. H. G.]
PROSTAS. [Domus, Vol. I. p. 662 b.3
PROSTATES. [LIBERTUs; METoECI.]
PRO'STATES TOU DEMOU (rpoorárms
toū Shuow) “denotes the leader of a popular
party, as opposed to an oligarchical party (see
Thuc. iii. 70 [82], iv. 66, vi. 35), in a form of
government either entirely democratical, or at
least in which the public assembly is frequently
convoked and decides on many matters of im-
portance.” (Grote, Hist, of Gr. vii. p. 304 m.)
Its meaning is practically the same as Ömua:
yoyás (Stephan. Byz. Šàuos onkaywyás &
rpoea’rmºs 6%uov: cf. Plat. Rep. viii. p. 565 C,
oškočw ºva rivā āel à Sàuos eſode biaſpépévra's
PROSTATES TOU DEMOU
Trpoto'raoréal éavroſ : thus Pericles, whom Thu-
cydides (i. 127) describes as Övvarðratos Tøv
ka0' éautov kal &yoy rºv troAireſaw, is called
Smuaywyös by Isocrates (de Pace, § 126; de
Permut. § 234), and trpoard rms ris tróAews by
Xenophon (Memor, i. 2, 40). Thucydides applies
the word to Theramenes (viii. 89; cf. viii. 65,
'Avôpokxéa—roß Shuov uſixtata trpoeotóra, and
vi. 28, 'AAkigū8m épiro5&v čvri og for uh abroſs
toū Shuow Begata's trpoea’rdval), Xenophon to
Archidemus (Hellen. i. 7, 2; cf. Aristoph. Ran.
417), Aristophanes (Ran. 569) to Cleon, Plu-
tarcy (Cim. 15) to Ephialtes, Aeschines (F. J.
§ 176) to Thrasybulus and Archinus, etc. And
just as the person who had placed himself at
the head of the people was called trpoordrus
Too Shuov, the most influential member of the
senate might be said to be irpoordºrms tis
BovXijs (Dem. c. Androt. p. 591, argum.).-In
O. Müller's opinion (Dorians, ii. p. 149) trpo-
orrárms was also the title of a particular magis-
tracy which existed in all the Dorian states in
which the government was democratical, and
G. C. Müller (de Corcyr. Rep. p. 49 f.) considers
as public officers the trpoordral roo Shuow in
Corcyra (Thuc. iii. 70, 75; iv. 46), in Megara
(Thuc. iv. 66), in Elis (Xen. Hellen. iii. 2, 27,
30), in Mantineia (ibid. v. 2, 3), in Argos and
Heraclea (Aen. Pol. 11), in Syracuse (Thuc. vi.
35). Wachsmuth (Hell. Altert. i. 2, p. 435 ft.),
on the other hand, thinks that the term is a
general one, sometimes implying a particular
office and sometimes not, but that even in the
former case the title of the magistrate was not
6%pov trpoordºrms, but something else, such e.g.
as Smutovpyós, which is lost to us in the general
appellation. Wachsmuth is no doubt right in
denying that the term always denoted a par-
ticular officer; thus Athenagoras was evidently
not one, as the connexion shows: év tá trapóvri
triðavöratos rols troAAois (Thuc. vi. 35); but
he goes too far in saying that trpoordºrms too
6%pov was not the official title where a magis-
trate was denoted. That this was the case is
evident from inscriptions; thus in a Tegean
decree conferring proxenia there occur trpoord-
Tau roi, Sãuov, three in number, otparayot
(eleven), irrapxos, Ypappareiſs, and ispets ris
*A6mvás (Dittenberger, Syll. I. Gr. No. 317),
and Sauppe (Comm. de Tit. Tegeat. p. 4) ex-
presses an opinion that in Argos too it was the
title of a magistrate. IIpoor&rms was the
official title of functionaries of the most dif-
ferent kinds. The Chaonians, whom Herodotus
(ii. 56, v. 127) considers as Hellenic, whilst
Thucydides (ii. 80) calls them 34pgapoi, had in
the time of the Peloponnesian war two presi-
dents (āv jºyotvro èr' érmoríq, trpoo raq (q &lt row
āpxikoú yévows P. kal N., Thuc. l. c.), whilst
other tribes of Epirus, such as the Molossians,
had kings; when afterwards these tribes were
united probably by Tharypas (“primus leges et
senatum annuosque magistratus et rei publicae
formam composuit,” Justin. 17, 3 ; cf. Plut.
Pyrrh.. 1). 1rpoordrai were the annual magis-
trates of the single tribes under the king, e.g.
of the Molossians: éml Trpootdºra Aevzópov . . . .
tooge roſs Moxooroofs (Dittenberger, No. 322);
&rl Baorixéos NeotroAéuov 'AAečávöpov, Éri
Tpográra Aépka MoAooroºv (l.c. No. 324), and
these ſportdral continued even after the abo-
lition of royalty, e.g. orparayoivros 'Atreupwrāv
PROSTATES TOU DEMOU , 505
Avovvia Kapòtrov trpooroºrateúovros Moxoga &v
*Exexdov IIapópov (l.c. No. 442; cf. No. 443).
—The Symmories of Teos (which were analogous
rather to the gentes than to the phratries of
Athens, as Grote suggests, Hist. of Gr. iii.
p. 186) had each four trpoard rai, who held office
one year (C. J. G. No. 306).-In some states
the mpootétat seem to have been a kind of
executive of the Bovāń, analogous to the
Athenian trpvráveis, who drew up the decrees:
thus in Calymna the decrees of politeia are
usually headed, #60;e ré Bovag Kal rig Shuq,
ºyvápa trpoo rarāv (Brit. Mus. Gk. Inscr. ii. No.
232, 233, 235, etc.); a decree of the people of
Cnidus which appears to relate to the purifica-
tion of a temple of Dionysus begins, 60te Kvi-
8toiſs Yvlápa ºrpoo Tarſāv] (Newton, Halicarn.,
Cnid, and Branch., p. 753, No. 36); yyága
trpoo Tatav stands in the heading of a decree
of Cos about the public proclamation of a
crown, etc. (Cauer,” No. 165). In Calymna the
Tpoordtai were charged with inscribing decrees
and setting them up (Brit. Mus. Inscr. ii. No.
242); they had to assign by lot the new
citizens to the phylae and demi (ibid. No. 242,
253), and kept the public seal (ibid. No. 299),
just as the étriotdºrms rôv trpuravéww at Athens.
In the decree of Iulis concerning the export of
red ochre, denunciations of those contravening
were to be made to the trpoordrai (C. J. A. ii.
No. 546= Hicks, Manual, No. 108), just as the
impeachment against the corn-dealers was in
the first instance laid before the trpvráveis at
Athens (Lys. adv. Frument.). In other states,
however, the trpoor réral had apparently different
functions. Thus in Iasus, where trpvráveis were
the executive of the senate, they were in Hicks’
opinion “a board concerned with the admission
of strangers to the citizenship, and the keeping
of a register of citizens” (Journ. Hell. Soc. viii.
p. 107). Hence the trpoord rat were enjoined in
a decree (yvápam Trpuravéov) to bring a proposal
before the BovXh for the admission of certain
strangers of Priene to citizenship (Brit. Mus.
iii. 1, No. 420; cf. the Iasian decree in Journ.
Hell. Soc. viii. p. 112, where the trpoor&ral and
orpatmºyol together propose the grant of honours
to Teleutias), and were charged in another
decree (C. I. G. No. 2676) to select the place
where a decree of politeia should be inscribed
(cf. C. I. G. No. 2008= Hicks, Manual, No. 98,
Amphipolis); hence they had to seal the boxes
supplied to the six vewiroſat (one from each
tribe), who collected the vouchers of those who
attended the popular assembly, the trpoatãral
at the close of the meeting examining the
vouchers and authorising the payment of the
ecclesiasticon. In a Thasian decree, too, a trpo-
orrárms is mentioned, who is evidently concerned
with the restoration of outlawed members of
the oligarchical party to civic rights upon their
return (Journ. Hell. Soc. viii. p. 401 ff.), and
Newton (Brit. Mus. ii. p. 114) sees in the trpo-
ordrai Toi obv Xapivº in a Rhodian inscription
a board “whose function was to take care of
strangers and of those who had no civic rights,”
and similarly explains the fifteen trpoordrai in
the epigram on the base of a statue of Hermes.
found by him at Cnidus (Halicarn., Cnid, and
Branch., p. 749, No. 31), though the Cnidian
inscription No. 36 (referred to above) would
rather point to trpoorátai having had the
506 PROSTIMEMA
PROVINCIA.
function of the Athenian irpur&vels.-A decree
of Dyme conferring citizenship mentions a Boö-
Aapxos, a trpoardras, and a Ypopuariotă's bauo-
oriopvadkov (Dittenberger, No. 316=Cauer,”
No. 267): here irpoardras seems to denote the
president of the popular assembly, just as two
rpoo rarečovres Tās ékkâmortas occur in an in-
scription from Hypata (Rhangabé, No. 748).
Two trpoordral presided over the council (ovvé-
8ptov) of the Aetolian league (Rhangabé, No. 692
=Cauer,” No. 239 sub fin.). (Gilbert, Staats-
alterth, ii. passim.) [H. H.]
PROSTO'ON. [Domus, Vol. I. p. 662.]
PROSTY'LOS. "[TEMPLUM.)
PROTHESIS. [FUNUs.]
PROTHE'SMIA (trpo6eguía) means gene-
rally an appointed time: thus in Aeschin. c.
Tim. § 39, el tis &AAm traºrore rouairm ye yove
Trpo6eoplía, the scholiast explains the term kara-
xpmotukós àvrl rod Xpóvov. The term is
specially applied (1) to the time which was
allowed by law to a defendant for paying
damages, after the expiration of which, if he
had not paid them, he was called ūtrepſiuepos
(Harpocr. s. v.; or örspirpá0sorgos, Suid. s. v.;
or ékirpá6eogos, Schol. Dem. c. Mid. p. 540,
22); the accuser might allow the defendant a
longer time than the law fixed (ávagáAAeorbal
Thy repnueptav, [Dem.] c. Everg. p. 1154,
§ 49 f., etc.). -
(2) Prothesmia denotes the term limited for
bringing actions and prosecutions at Athens.
In all systems of jurisprudence some limitation
of this sort has been prescribed for the sake of
securing possession, and preventing vexatious
litigation (cf. Isocr. Archid. § 26, rös kräorers
kal Tês ióías kai Tàs kolvás, &v étuyévnrat
Troxis xpóvos, kupias kal trarpgas ātavres elval
woušovoiv). The Athenian Tàs irpo6eguías
váuos corresponds to our Statute of Limitations.
The time for commencing actions to recover
debts,” or litigation with guardians, appears to
have been limited to five years at Athens (Dem.
pro Phorm. p. 952, § 26 f, in a 6trºn & popuffs—
c., Nausim. p. 989, § 17 f.; p. 993, § 27; cf.
Plat. Legg. xi. p. 928 C, uéxpt trévre érôv éºn-
Acodans Tās étritporis àota Sticmy Aaxeſv črt-
Tpotrías). Inheritance causes stood on a peculiar
footing. . When an estate had been adjudged to
a party, he was still liable to an action at the
suit of a new claimant for the whole period of
his life (Isae. Dicaeog. §§ 7, 35, etc.) and his
heir for five years afterwards (Isae. Pyrrh. § 58,
and Schömann ad l. c. p. 257 and p. 432; cf.
Dem. c. Macart. p. 1055, § 16, lex). We do not
know the limit of time for claiming an émíkAm-
pos, who had been already adjudged by the
archon, but Caillemer's suggestion is very
probable that she could not be claimed after
having given birth to a son (Le Droit de Suc-
cession Légit. p. 42). The liability of bail
continued only for a year, according to Dem.
c. 4patur p. 901, § 27 (rés éry)&as reretovs
elva); Caillemer (La Prescription, etc. p. 18 ft.)
limits this law to commercial transactions, and
Thalheim, (Rechtsaltert, p. 92, n. 2) quotes
C. J. A. ii. No. 565, l. 3, No. 1056, No. 1058,
* In king Antigonus’ letter to the Teians one year is
fixed as limit (Dittenberger, Syll. I. Gr. No. 126,
1. 38 f.; Hicks, Manual, No. 149 A, 3 T).
1, 20, to show that the liability of sureties for
leases continued longer.” It is doubtful whether
any period was prescribed for bringing criminal
prosecutions,f at least for offences of the more
serious kind, though of course there would be
an indisposition in the jury to convict, if a long
time had elapsed since the offence was com-
mitted. A charge of wounding with intent
was brought four years after the affair (Lys.
c. Sim. §§ 19, 39); Lycurgus proceeded against
Leocrates nearly eight years after the latter’s
| flight ; we know from Lys. pro Sacra Olea,
PROSTIME'MA (rpoorlamua). [TIMEM.A.J.
§ 17, that there was no fixed time after which
the liability of one who had uprooted a moria
ceased, but on the other hand Lipsius concludes
from Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 646, § 80, that there
was a limit of time in a ypaqº, póvov. The
'ypaſp?) trapavéuov could only be brought against
the proposer of a law or psephisma within
a year after the propounding of it (Dem.
C. Lept. p. 501, § 144; cf. argum. p. 453);
and the eißvval against magistrates were
limited to a certain period (Pollux, viii. 45),
viz. thirty days according to Boeckh, Sthh.. i.”
p. 242. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 963 ff.,
p. 838 ft.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PROTHYRON. [Domus, Vol. I. p. 661.]
PROTRYGAEA (trporpäyata), a festival
celebrated in honour of Dionysus and Poseidon
(Hesych. s. v.; Aelian, W. H. iii. 41; cf. 9eo?
trporpūryatol, Poll. i. 24). The origin and mode of
celebration of this festival at Tyre are described
by Achilles Tatius (ii. init.). On the association
of Poseidon, see Plut. Symp. 5, 1; Preller, Gr.
Myth. i. 554. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PROVINCIA. This term had originally no
geographical signification, but denoted the
functions prescribed for a Roman magistrate by
law, custom, or agreement (e.g. urbana provincia,
Liv. xxxi. 6). Whether it is derived from pro-
vincere (as is suggested by Festus) or is an
abbreviated form of providentia, is a moot point
among scholars and need not be discussed here.
Naturally enough it was employed to express a
hostile district or territory assigned to a Roman
general as the field of his operations, and thence
acquired its special geographical meaning as a
country outside Italy under Roman dominion
and governed by a magistrate of Rome.
The Roman State, in its complete development,
consisted of two parts with distinct organisations,
Italy and the Provinces. Its provincial do-
minions commenced with Sicily, which became
a Roman province B.C. 241 (Cic. in Verr. ii. 1,
2): Sardinia was added six years later, and the
two Spains B.C. 179: by the time at which the
Republic gave place to the Empire the Roman
sway had been extended over Gaul, Illyricum,
Macedonia, Greece, parts of Africa, and most of
Asia: in B.C. 50 there were fourteen provinciae,
a list of which is given by Mr. Watson in his
edition of Cicero’s Letters, p. 237, note. The
* For Ephesus, see Dittenberger, Syll. I. Gr. No. 344,
l. 42 f.; cf. the Lebadean building contract, ibid.
No. 353, 1.25 fſ. In Heraclea bail is renewed every five
years (C. I. G. No. 5774, 1, 140=Cauer,” No. 40, l. 140).
+ In a Teian inscription (Dittenb. No. 349, l. 50 f.)
misappropriation of certain public moneys is put on a
level with tepdavXia, and consequently trpo6eguig 88
p.m38 &AA9 rpárq, amºevi éééaro tov Šuków roºrov
pºmoeºtav čy8axeiv.
PROVINCLA
PROVINCLA 507
organisation of a new territory, on its conquest,
did not proceed upon uniform and inflexible
lines. The conquering general as a rule sketched
its main principles, subject to the approval of
the senate (Plut. Marcell. 23; Appian, de Bell.
Civ. ii. 9), though in very important cases the
latter sent a commission of its own members,
usually ten in number, with instructions for his
guidance (Liv. xlv. 17; Appian, de reb. Hisp. 99,
de reb. Pun. 135; Sallust, Jug. 16; Plut. Lucull.
35, 36). The forma provinciae was thus given
either by a magisterial decree issued by the
commanding consul or other magistrate in virtue
of his imperium, or by a senatusconsultum,
which in both cases was loosely known as a lex:
and named after its immediate author. The
first regulations for Sicily, for instance, were
made by Marcellus (Liv. xxv. 40), but more
comprehensive and minute provisions were laid
down B.C. 131 by P. Rupilius (Cic. in Verr. ii.
16, 39; Val. Max. vi. 9, 8): similarly we read
of a Lex Pompeia in Pontus and Bithynia (Plin.
Ep. x. 83, &c.), a Lex Lentuli in Cyprus (Cic.
ad Fam. xiii. 48), and a Lex Mummia in Achaia.
The arrangements made by such ordinances
concerned primarily the fields of finance and
judicature, and invariably comprised a very
minute division of the country into districts for
purposes of taxation. But when they had
secured themselves against rebellion by ex-
tinguishing leagues and combinations which
might endanger their supremacy, and provided
for the collection of the revenue, the Romans,
so far as they found it possible, left pre-existing
institutions intact. In Sicily, for instance, the
Lex Hieronica, the judicial and financial regula-
lations established by Hiero the ally of Rome,
were maintained in their entirety, and no Roman
governor, according to Cicero (in Verr. iii. 6,
12–15), was known to violate them till the time
of Verres. [DECUMAE.] The same policy was
followed in Egypt (Marquardt, Röm. Staatsver-
waltung, i. 279–296) and in the Greek East. It
is of the organisation of Sicily that we have the
fullest knowledge, from the large notices of the
subject in the Werrine orations of Cicero. The
island was divided into an eastern and a western
district, with Syracuse as the capital of the
former and Lilybaeum of the latter: a quaestor
resided at each, receiving from the Roman
Aerarium the sums necessary for the admini-
stration of his district, and collecting the taxes,
except those which were let out by the censors
at Rome. The towns were not all treated in
the same manner. Messana, Tauromenium, and
Netum were made FOEDERATAE CIVITATES and
retained their land. Five other cities, among
them Panormus and Segesta, were “Liberae et
Immunes,”—that is, they paid no tithe; but it
does not appear whether they were free from
the burdens to which the foederatae civitates as
such were subject by virtue of their foedus with
Rome. Seventeen conquered towns forfeited
their land, which was restored (as Possessio, not
in absolute ownership) on condition of their
paying the decumae and scriptura. The towns
which paid tithe were called by the general
name of Stipendiariae. The settlement of the
municipal constitutions of the towns was gene-
rally left to the citizens; but in some instances,
as in that of C. Claudius Marcellus and Alesa, a
constitution was given by some Roman, at the
request, as it appears, of the town. The Senate
and the People still continued as the component
parts of the old Greek cities. Cicero (in Verr.
ii. 55, 137, &c.) mentions a body of 130 men,
called Censors, who were appointed to take the
census of Sicily every five years after the Roman
fashion. The island was also bound to furnish
and maintain soldiers and sailors for the service
of the state, and to pay tributum for the carrying
on of wars; and Rome also appropriated the
Portoria or harbour dues, which were let out to
persons in the metropolis to farm. The governor
might take provisions for the use of himself and
his cohors on condition of paying for them. In
the condition of the two Spanish provinces there
was greater diversity. Pliny (H. N. iii. § 7)
mentions Coloniae, Municipia or Oppida Civium
Romanorum, Latini veteres or towns “Latio
antiquitus donata,” Foederati, and Oppida Stipen-
diaria. The distribution of the provincial terri-
tory into fora or conventus for judicial purposes,
which is spoken of below, seems to have some-
times caused great confusion, especially in the
East. Strabo remarks (xiii. p. 629) that the
boundaries of Phrygia, Lydia, Caria, and Mysia
were confused, and that the Romans had added
to the complication by not attending to the
subsisting national divisions, but making the
administrative divisions (6touchoreus) different,
in which are the Fora (&yopds, MS.) and the
administration of justice. The word & yopč, pro-
bably represents conventus (as to the reading,
see Casaubon's note).
The first provincial governors were praetors
specially created for the purpose, in addition to
the two praetors who administered justice at
Rome (Liv. Epit. 20). They held office for a
year only, except in Spain, where a Lex Baebia
for some while extended their tenure of it to
two years. Between the settlement of Spain
and the Sullan reforms five new provinces were
created, viz. Macedonia, Africa, Asia, Narbon-
ensis, and Cilicia, and the government of these
was provided for by “proroguing ” for a year
the imperium of the consuls and the two prae-
tors whose functions properly lay in the city,
two ex-consuls and two ex-praetors being thus
annually available for provincial command.
The “prorogation” was effected by a special
plebiscitum. The Lex Sempronia of C. Gracchus
(Cic. de Prov. Cons. 2 and 7; pro Balb. 27, 61)
enacted that the senate should each year deter-
mine before the election of the consuls what
provinces they were to govern, the object of this
being to prevent intrigue and favouritism.
Sulla added two praetors to the six already in
existence, and enacted that all of them should
administer justice in the city during their
proper year of office: the provinces, of which
there were now ten, were thus in future governed
by proconsuls and propraetors, the two former
as a rule obtaining those in which the largest
number of troops was required (Liv. xli. 8).
The exact province of each was determined by
lot, though the distribution was sometimes
arranged by agreement among the persons en-
titled to them. Sulla’s statute made these
governorships strictly annual, and required the
holder to leave the province within thirty days
after the arrival of his successor (Cic. ad Fam.
iii. 6); but the first of these rules was practic
cally infringed by the extraordinary commands
508 PROVINCLA
PROVINCIA
conferred successively on Pompey and Caesar,
and by the failure of the senate to provide a
successor in time : thus Verres, Fonteius, and
Q. Cicero were three years each in Sicily, Gaul,
and Asia respectively (Cic. Div. in Caec. 4, 11;
pro Font. 10, 32; ad Qu. Frat. 1, 1). A law of
Pompey (Sueton. Jul. 28; Dio Cass. xl. 56),
passed B.C. 52, enacted that provinces should be
given only after an interval of five years from a
man's original tenure of office in Rome: this
was re-enacted by Augustus after its repeal by
Julius Caesar (Dio Cass. xlii. 20, liii. 14), who
also ordained that a consular province should be
held for two, a praetorian for one year only
(Cic. Phil. i. 8, 19; ii. 42, 109, &c.; Dio Cass.
xliii. 25). The governor might not leave Rome
until he had been invested with the imperium
in the ordinary manner, and had offered the
usual prayers and sacrifices (Cic, ad Fam. i. 9,
25; in Verr. v. 13, 34; Caesar, Bell. Civ. i. 6):
he could display the insignia of his rank, espe-
cially the fasces, as soon as he was outside the
city gates (Dio Cass. liii. 13), but might not
exercise any actual powers until he reached his
province (Dig. 1, 16, 1, 4, 6). When once he
had arrived there, he united in his single
person both civil and military authority. The
first thing he did was to issue his edict, by
which, like the praetor at Rome, he stated the
rules of law which he intended to apply and
enforce during his year's administration. To a
large extent this was based on the lea, by which
the province had received its original constitu-
tion and on the edicts of the governor's prede-
cessors (Cic. ad Att. v. 21, 11, vi. 1, 2; ad Fam.
iii. 8, 4); but large portions of the Edictum
Urbanum gradually crept into the provincial
edicts, and the law of the provinces was thus
slowly but steadily Romanised. Cicero, for
instance, when proconsul of Cilicia, says that as
to some matters he framed an edict of his own,
and as to others he referred to the Edictum
Urbanum, on which he proclaimed that he
should base his decisions where no regulations
of his own had been made (ad Att. vi. 1, 15);
so, too, he observes (in Verr. i. 46, 118) that
the rules established by the praetor urbanus as
to inheritance had been regularly transferred
into their annual edicts by the governors of
Sicily long before the time of Verres. Other
topics with which the edict of a provincial
governor dealt were the position of the pub-
licani, and the law of civil procedure, debt, and
usury.
So far as we can judge from Cicero's Letters
and from Caesar's work on the war in Gaul, the
former of which in particular are a storehouse
of information upon the affairs with which a
provincial governor was occupied, he was prin-
cipally, engaged with matters military and
judicial. At one time he was administering
justice at various centres; at others he was
busy with an army exterminating bands of
robbers, or reducing a rebellious population.
Even when the province was in profound peace
he would find enough to do, as commander-in-
chief, in filling up his legions with fresh levies,
or directing the arrangements for billeting his
troops during the winter. But the less he was
occupied with active military operations, the
more time could he give to the administration
of justice. For judicial purposes each province
was divided into a number of departments called
Fora or Conventus, which latter term also
denoted the chief city or place “in quem con-
veniebant ’’ as well as the assize or court over
which the governor presided, and which was
attended by the Romans who resided in the
district, and generally by all persons who had
any business to settle there. It may perhaps be
doubted whether this organisation was at all
precise during the republican period, though
even then certain towns seem to have been
regarded as centres where the governor might
conveniently spend some time and hold a court
(forum or conventum agere, Liv, xxxi. 22;-Cie.
in Verr. v. 11, 28; ad Att. v. 16). \Before the
time of Gaius conventus had also acquired the
meaning of the time during which the assize
lasted (Gaius, i. 20). In Cilicia, during Cicero's
administration, Tarsus and Laodicea were con-
ventus ; in Baetica there were four, in Lusitania
five. The procedure in civil causes seems to
have been much the same as that in vogue at
Rome during the formulary period [ACTIO); at
least the governor appointed a judex or judices
to try each cause, usually from the Roman
citizens who attended the assize; for him to
hear and decide the case in person, so far as we
can judge from the instance of Verres, was
considered improper or unconstitutional (Cic. in
Verr. v. 9, 22). Within the free and allied
towns the governor had not strictly any civil
jurisdiction; they had their own law, their own
courts, and their own municipal magistrates,
though it not unfrequently happened that these
privileges were set at nought. For instance,
Cicero tells us (in Verr. ii. 22, 53) that Verres
treated with contempt an apparently well-
founded claim on the part of the citizens of
Bidis in Sicily to have their legacy cases deter-
mined by their own municipal law. The rela-
tions between the jurisdiction of the governor
and that of the local magistrates were usually
defined by the Lex Provinciae: by the so-called
lex of Rupilius, Sicilians who belonged to the
same town had their disputes settled according
to its laws: citizens of different towns had
theirs decided by judices appointed by the
governor: in case of differences between an
individual and a community, the senate of any
Sicilian town might act as judices, if the parties
did not choose to have as judices the senate of
their own town : if a Roman sued a Sicilian, a
Sicilian was judex; if a Sicilian sued a Roman,
the judge was a Roman: but no one could be
judex who belonged to the governor's cohors.
Disputes between the lessees of the tithe and the
Aratores were decided according to the Lex
Hieronica (Cic. in Verr. ii. 13, 32). By the
Lex Rubria de Gallia Cisalpina the magistrates
of the municipia were authorised to decide ali
civil suits in which the sum involved did not
exceed 15,000 sesterces, and the same provision
occurs in the Lex Julia municipalis. The
governor’s judicial assistance was also largely
needed for the legitimation of certain dispo-
sitions, such as manumissions, adoptions, and
emancipations (jurisdictio voluntaria). . His
criminal jurisdiction was in the nature of that
exercised under martial law: he decided in
person on the guilt or innocence of the accused,
though under the advice of a consilium formed
from the leading Roman citizens of the neigh-
PROVINCLA
PROVINCIA . 509
bourhood (Cic. in Verr. i. 29, 73; ii. 29, 71;
v. 21, 55), and over a condemned criminal he
had power of life and death, though if he were
a Roman citizen he enjoyed the right of provo-
catio to the tribuni plebis, which enabled him
to remove the matter to Rome (Plut. Caesar, 4).
The nature of the taxes paid by the provincial
subjects of Rome has been alluded to in speaking
of the organisation of Sicily, but this subject
cannot be understood without some knowledge
of the tenures by which land in the provinces
was held. The general principle was that pro-
vincial soil belonged, as a whole, to the Roman
state (ager publicus), and could not be owned ea:
jure Quiritium by individuals, but only “pos-
sessed” (Cic. ad Att. vi. 1, 12; Gaius, ii. 7).
The great bulk of the taxes was levied on these
“ possessions” in the hands of the provincials,
who from this point of view are termed Stipen-
diarii; though some of the ager publicus was
differently treated, being either sold outright
by the state, which imposed a nominal tax in
order to show that it did not waive its right of
property in the soil (ager privatus vectigalisque),
or let out by the censors at Rome to tenants
for life, who paid both decumae and scriptura
(grazing tax, Varro, de Re Rust. ii. 1, 16). The
tax levied on the Stipendiarii was either tithe
(decumae) or stipendium. The first was not
common, being found only in Sicily and Sardinia,
and for some little while in Asia. The second
was charged both on the land (tributum soli),
in which case it was sometimes paid in money,
as in Macedonia; sometimes in kind, as in
Pontus and Cyrene; and on persons (tributum
capitis), who were taxed on account of their
incomes, trades, and professions. Besides these
sources of income, the Romans derived large
sums from the customs” dues (portoria), ship-
money, mines, &c. No taxes were paid to the
state by the free and allied towns, but this
exemption does not seem to have extended to
the Roman colonies and municipia or the “oppida
Latio donata.”
The practice of letting out the taxes to publi-
cani to farm is well known, and it often happened
that a firm of these capitalists engaged to pay
the state a fixed sum per annum for five years
in exchange for all the taxes of a province—
vectigal, decimae, scriptura, portoria, &c. In
such cases it would seem that the publicani paid
the money over directly to the quaestors at
Rome: but all taxes which were not farmed
were collected by and paid to the quaestor of
the province or its districts, an officer who was
assigned to his province by lot, and not appointed
by the governor. In theory the quaestor had
the entire management of financial matters,
though he was often largely interfered with by
the governor, who decided, according to his own
view of the local requirements, what sums
should be transmitted to Rome, and who had
power to remit taxation (Cic. in Verr. iv. 9, 20;
ad Fam. iii. 7). Though properly a financial
officer, he had jurisdiction in matters which fell
under his official cognisance, like the aediles at
Rome (Gaius, i. 6) and the early Exchequer
author:ties in England; and he had to give a
full account of his receipts and expenditure on
his return from the province (Cic. in Verr. i. 14,
36). After the passing of a Lex Julia (B.C. 61)
the governor was bound to deposit two copies of
his accounts in the two chief cities of his
province, and to forward one (totidem verbis) to
the Aerarium (Cic. ad Fam. ii. 17, v. 20; ad
Att. vi. 7). The governor might even delegate
his own powers to a quaestor, either in toto (e.g.
Cic. ad Att. vi. 6, 3) or for a special purpose,
such as the administration of justice (e.g.
Suet. Jul. 7).
The personnel of a provincial administration
comprised also (1) legati, of whom there were
usually three in a consular, one in a praetorian
province : they were appointed by the senate,
very often on the nomination of the governor,
who would entrust them with minor military
commands or assign them a district to look after,
with civil jurisdiction; (2) comites, appointed
by the governor himself, and maintained at the
public charge, presumably on the supposition
that they discharged secretarial functions and
employed their time in learning the business of
administration ; (3) praefecti, three in number,
whom the governor seems to have employed
principally as military lieutenants; and lastly
a large miscellaneous body of lictors, praecones,
scribae, haruspices, &c., whose duties are too
unimportant to be here detailed.
Those who have read the Werrine orations of
Cicero will remember what a gloomy picture he
draws of the condition of the provinces under
Roman rule. “It is difficult,” he says in his
speech for the Lex Manilia (c. 22), “to describe
into what hatred we have been brought by the
wrongdoing and lust of the governors whom we
have sent among foreign peoples during these
years.” Pay was first attached to the office of
proconsul or propraetor by Augustus (Dio Cass.
liii. 15; Sueton. August. 36), so that under the
Republic the governor had to pay himself as
best he could during his tenure of power; and
the boast of Verres recorded by Cicero (in Verr.
iv. 1, 14) is ample proof that a magistrate whose
conscience was not over-tender found numerous
opportunities of filling his own pockets. The
old rule that a governor and his retinue must
pay for their lodging and entertainment was
seldom observed, and his progresses through the
province, to say nothing of the Legationes liberae,
entailed vast expenditure on its inhabitants:
the extortions practised by himself and his sub-
ordinates were even outdone by those of the
publicani, who farmed the taxes, and the nego-
tiatores or money-lenders; and in many of the
provinces, especially in Greece and Asia, pro-
tracted wars had inflicted miseries on the people
from which they could hardly hope for recovery.
Practically no remedy for all these evils was
afforded by the nominal control of the senate,
which had the right of deciding on the number
of troops which a governor should have under
his command, and of altering or overriding his
policy, and which, if he did not follow its
instructions, could refuse to sanction his arrange-
ments, or to grant him a triumph or supplicatio
even after a successful war. But, towards the
end of the Republic, it is patent that, so far
from controlling the provincial governors, the
senate was itself ruled by such men as Sulla,
Pompey, and Caesar. The strongest check upon
the misconduct of a governor ought in reality
to have been found in statutory enactments. ...A
number of these (a Lex Valeria, a Lex Julia,
and Leges Porciae) were designed to protect
510' PROVINCLA
PROVINCIA.
Roman citizens residing in the provinces from
ill-treatment by him. The Lex Calpurnia
(B.C. 149), the first statute against repetundae
or extortion, was followed by a Lex Acilia
(B.C. 125) and a Lex Servilia (B.C. 111) dealing
with the same offence, the former of which was
especially severe; and the Lex Julia defined the
requisitions which a governor might make upon
the inhabitants of his province without pay-
ment. The laws on the subject of Majestas
and Peculatus were also weapons which on
occasion might be turned against governors who
abused the trust, confided to them. But when
we consider the condition of things described to
us by Cicero, we cannot but be struck by the
smallness of the result obtained by prosecutions
under these statutes. There can be little doubt
that this is to be explained by the political use
which was made of the judicia. Between the
times of C. Gracchus and Sulla, while the
knights were sole judges in criminal trials, their
sympathies with the publicani would prejudice
them against the cause of the provincials: the
venality of the senators, whom Sulla substituted
for the knights, was shameless and notorious,
though according to Appian (de Bell. Civ. 122)
not more so than that of the knights themselves:
in any case the senate would do its best to
screen a governor for whom it was itself mainly
responsible, and whose condemnation would in a
way condemn itself. Some improvement was
perhaps effected by the Lex Aurelia (B.C. 46),
which divided the judicia between the senators,
knights, and tribuni aerarii: but it was in the
Empire that the provincials first found relief
from oppression, and redress for wrong inflicted
on them by Roman magistrates.
In the year 43 B.C. Gallia Cisalpina ceased to
be a province : it was incorporated with Italy,
though the term Italia was sometimes im-
properly used to describe it even before this
date (Caesar, Bell. Gall. i. 54, v. 1, vi. 44, &c.;
Cic. Phil. v. 12, 31), and a new organisation
was given to it by the Lex Rubria, by which in
particular jurisdiction in certain classes of suits
was conferred on the municipal magistrates
[RUBRIA LEx]. With the establishment of
the imperial power under Augustus a consider-
able change was made in the administration of
the provinces, the control of some of which he
reserved absolutely to himself, while the rest
remained under the nominal management of the
senate; this being the origin of the distinction
drawn by Gaius (ii. 21) and others of the older
jurists between those provinces which are “pro-
priae populi Romani ’’ and those which are
“propriae Caesaris.” The division was modelled
in principle upon the older one between con-
sular and praetorian provinces: the “Imperial”
provinces were those in which the chances of
invasion from without or rebellion within ne-
cessitated the presence of considerable forces,
especially those which formed the frontiers of
the Empire; those in which peace was assured
were ostensibly left to the senate . (Sueton.
August. 47; Dio Cass. liii. 12, 14, liv. 4; Strabo,
xvii. p. 840). Subject to frequent interchange
of provinces (Tac. Ann. i. 76,80; Sueton. Claud.
25; Dio Cass. lx. 24; Capitol. Marc. 22), these
arrangements subsisted until the third century.
Strabo, in the passage referred to, gives the
division into provinces (érapx|a) as constituted
by Augustus. The provinces of the Populus
(Öiuos) were two consular (ěratural) and ten
praetorian provinces (orparmyikaſ); the rest of
the eparchies, he says, belong to the Caesar.
Lusitania is not enumerated among the epar-
chies of the Populus, and if it was a distinct
province it must have belonged to the emperor.
The list of provinces in the “Demonstratio
Provinciarum ” (Mythog. Vat.; Bode) mentions
the province of Asturia et Gallaeca Lusitania.
Dio Cassius (liii. 12) states the distribution of
the provinces by Augustus thus: the provinces
of Africa, Numidia, Asia, Hellas (Achaia), with
Epirus, Dalmatia, Macedonia, Sicilia, Crete
with the Cyrenaica, Bithynia with Pontus,’
Sardinia and Baetica, belonged to the senate and
people (67aos and yepovata). Tarraconensis,
Lusitania, all Gallia, Coele Syria, Phoenice,
Cilicia, Cyprus, and Egypt belonged to Augustus,
who afterwards took Dalmatia from the Senate
and gave it Cyprus and Gallia Narbonensis in
exchange, while Tiberius appropriated Achaia
and Macedonia without any compensation (Tac.
Ann. i. 76), though they were restored by
Claudius (Sueton. Claud. 25). Bithynia became
definitely imperial under Hadrian. The pro-
vinciae populi were administered for one year
according to usage (Dio Cass. liii. 12, 14;
Strabo, loc. cit.; Sueton. August. 4) by the
old republican magistrates; two of them, viz.
Africa and Asia, by ex-consuls; and the rest by
ex-praetors. The two oldest consulares cast
lots for the consular, the praetors also by
seniority for the praetorian provinces, though
the title of proconsul belonged generally to
these governors without reference to the offices
which they had actually held at Rome (Dig. 1,
16). They enjoyed imperium, including un-
limited jurisdictio, and the administration of
justice must have been their main business, as
owing to the nature of the case their military
duties must have been quite inconsiderable. In
the “provinciae Caesaris” the emperor was
himself proconsul, but conducted their govern-
ment through lieutenants, a “legatus Augusti
pro praetore” having in effect the same power
and authority here as a proconsul in the pro-
vinces of the people (Dig. 1, 18). These legati
were selected by the emperor from those who
had been consuls or praetors (whence they were
called consulares or praetorii) or sometimes from
senators of less rank (e.g. Dio Cass. liii. 13:
Appian, de reb. Hisp. 102; Sueton. August. 23):
they held their office at the emperor's pleasure,
being mere delegates of his authority. Thus
Agricola governed Aquitania for three years, in
accordance with Maecenas' advice to Augustus
(Dio Cass, liii. 23); but Galba was in Spain
eight years (Plut. Galba, 4), Sabinus in Moesia
seven, and Silius in Gaul apparently at least ten
(Tac. Ann. i. 31, iv. 18). The theory of dele-
gated authority was not, however, consistently
observed; the jurisdiction of a legatus, for in-
stance, not being regarded as mandata, but as
belonging to him independently, so that he could
himself delegate it to one of his subordinates
(Dig. 1, 21, 5, pr.). These imperial governors
are in the inscriptions always designated as
“legati pro praetore;” but when not viewed as
the emperor's agents, they were termed “pro-
vinciarum praesides” (Sueton. August 23, Tib.
42; Wopisc. Prob. 13; Dig, 1, 18; 8, 20, 1, 16,
PROVINCIA
PROVINCIA 511
9, 6); like the praefectus urbi or praetorio, they
were magistrates, but magistrates of the prin-
ceps, not of the populus (Dig. 4, 2, 3, 1), though
it is true that as all the provinces tended more
and more to fall under the emperor's direct
control the term praeses came to be applied also
to the governors of senatorial provinces (Dig. 1,
18, 1; Sueton. Claud. 17; Lamprid. Alex. Sever.
46). No quaestors were sent to the Imperial
provinces, in which the functions entrusted to
these officers in districts administered on the
old system were discharged by “procuratores
Caesaris" (Dig. 1, 19), selected from the knights
or the emperor's freedmen, who had jurisdiction
in financial matters (Cod. 3, 13, 1); and such
procuratores are even found in provinces of the
people for the purpose of guarding the interests
of the Fiscus in connexion with inheritances,
legacies, &c., where too they had in such con-
cerns a jurisdiction concurrent with that of the
proconsul. Sometimes an unimportant province,
or an outlying portion of a considerable one,
was governed by a procurator with the powers
of an ordinary governor, as e.g. Judaea by Pontius
Pilate (Joseph. Ant. Jud. xvii. 13, 5 ; xviii. 1,
1, &c.). Egypt received a peculiar organisa-
tion from Augustus (Tac. Hist. i. 11; Dig. 1,
17). He placed it under the government of a
praefectus Augustalis, who took the place of the
Egyptian king with the powers of a Roman
magistrate ; but the old division of the
country into vouch administered by native
wówapxot was retained (Plin. H. N. v. § 49),
and a special magistrate for judicial purposes
called juridicus, with the powers of a provincial
governor, was assigned to Alexandria.
But notwithstanding the epithet “Senatorial”
applied to those provinces which were governed
by a proconsul, they were in reality hardly less
under the control of the emperor from the
beginning than those which were “propriae
Caesaris: ” from him the proconsuls as well as
the “legati pro praetore ” received instructions
and mandata as to the administration (Dio Cass.
liii. 15; Plin. Ep. x. 64), and in all important
matters not already provided for they had to
apply to him for advice. Their position in fact
was so different from that of a provincial
governor under the Republic or of a legate in
an imperial province that, according to Tacitus
(Ann. vi. 27), Tiberius found it difficult to get
competent men to accept the office, which was
one of great responsibility, and could be valued
only on account of the salary which Augustus
attached to it.
The “Romanisation” of the law of the pro-
vinces continued to be carried on by edicts,
statutes (Ulpian, Reg. xi. 18;-Gaius, i. 183,
185; iii. 122), imperial enactments (Plin. Ep. x.
71, 72), and senatusconsulta (ib. 77); and even
some laws passed for the citizens of Rome were
expressly extended to the provincials (e.g. Gaius,
i. 47; Ulpian, Reg. x. 20; Dig. 30, 41, 6;-
Cod. 7, 9, 3; 7, 71, 4): but the local laws still
remained outside Italy the foundation of private
rights and duties until the celebrated edict of
Caracalla, by which the Roman civitas was
early in the third century bestowed upon all
free subjects of the Empire. With the fall of
the Republic more substantial alterations took
place in the matter of taxation. Julius Caesar
abolished the decumae in Asia and probably also
in Sicily, and under Augustus a complete
survey was made of the provinces, extending
over more than twenty years, and a census
taken of their inhabitants; both of which were
of the greatest value in adjusting the taxes upon
an equitable basis. The vectigal of the ager
publicus or domain land was paid into the
Aerarium or the Fiscus, according as the pro-
vince belonged to the senate or to the emperor,
until the time of Vespasian, who took the whole
of the domain land under his charge. All the
provinces seem now to be charged also with
annona, a payment from the land in kind,
which was applied to supporting the civil and
military officials within them; in this form
Africa and Egypt supplied in addition enough
corn to feed Rome during one-third of the year
(Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 4). The old revenue
from poll-tax (tributum capitis), mines, and
portoria still continued : to them were added
under Augustus new imposts in the 5 per cent.
duty on legacies, though this was paid only by
Roman citizens in Italy, until the edict of
Caracalla, the centesima on res venales, levied
apparently throughout the Empire, and a tax
of 4 per cent. on all purchases of slaves. The
system of farming the taxes was still followed,
though with most of its abuses corrected. The
emperor also derived large sums from the
“patrimonium Caesaris,” or his private estates
in the provinces, which were of vast extent;
Augustus owned all Egypt, and the Thracian
Chersonese belonged to the emperors up to
Trajan. The property of condemned criminals
was in some cases forfeited to the Aerarium, and
later to the Fiscus; and the same was done with
bona vacantia and bona caduca under the Leges
Julia and Papia Poppaea. But the Aerarium,
though nominally the Senatorial Exchequer, was
really under the control of the emperor (Dio
Cass, liii. 16; cf. Tac. Ann. vi. 2, “bona Sejani
ablata aerario ut in fiscum cogerentur, tanquant
referret ’’), by whom its officials were appointed;
and when the distinction between imperial and
senatorial provinces ceased to exist in the time
of Severus, it became the treasury of the
corporation or municipality of Rome. The
really heavy expenses of the State were paid
from the Fiscus, which bore the costs of the
naval and military forces, the civil organisation,
the construction and maintenance of public
works, such as roads and aqueducts, the supply
of corn to Rome, &c.
After the edict of Caracalla (A.D. 215), little
reason remained for preserving the old distinc-
tion between Italy and the provinces, which
now entailed a grave injustice on the latter,
which became liable to the vicesima on legacies
and inheritances besides having to pay the old
land-tax. Accordingly within half a century
Italy itself was subdivided into provinciae, and
had to pay tributum equally with the most
distant parts of the Empire. Towards the end
of the third century Diocletian completely re-
modelled the provincial organisation by dividing
the whole Roman world into twelve Stoikhorels,
each of which comprised a number of provinces
with new geographical limits: thus in the
bioticmorts of Britain there were four provinciae,
in that of the Oriens sixteen: the total number
was 101. Each Stofkmoris was under the adminis-
tration of a new officer called Vicarius, who was
512 PROVINCIA.
PROVINCLA
answerable only to the praefectus praetorio as
lieutenant of the emperor: the governors of the
provinciae were proconsuls, consulares, or prae-
sides, and enjoyed different ranks in the hierarchy
or peerage of the Empire. The administration
of justice was in a way revolutionised by
Diocletian’s abolition of the formulary pro-
cedure in civil causes, which applied to the
provinces no less than to Rome, the magistrates
being directed to hear and determine all suits in
person. The Empire was resurveyed for financial
purposes, and all taxation, so far as it affected
the land, being based on a division of the soil
into jugu, each of which, though differing in
acreage from others according to its fertility,
being rated in the same value; the customs”
dues were increased, and the tributum capitis
was taken off the towns and levied chiefly on
the new class of Coloni. Constantine made
further administrative changes by completely
separating the civil and military powers, so
that the governors of provinces even on the
frontiers of the Empire had nothing to do with
the troops stationed in them, which were under
the command of a general without any civil
authority: but Justinian re-united the two sets
of functions, at any rate in those provinces in
which Constantine's arrangements had not
worked satisfactorily (Nov. 'Just. viii. 2, 5;
xxiv.–xxxi.; cii., ciii.). i.
It remains to give a short account of the con-
dition and organisation of the provincial towns.
In the republican period the vast majority of
these were subjected absolutely to the power of
the governor, and had no free municipal consti-
tution or independent jurisdiction: these citizens
were under the same authorities, financial,
judicial, and military, as the purely rural popu-
lation. Some of them, however, were privileged,
though in their immunities there were various
degrees. Foederatae civitates, such as Messana
and Tauromenium in Sicily, and Gades in Spain,
owed no duties to Rome beyond those imposed
on them by their treaty with her, though these
were often oppressive (e.g. Cic. in Verr. v. 19–
24, §§ 48–61). Some towns were after their
conquest declared free again by a lex or Senatus-
consultum (populi liberi, such as Termessus in
Pisidia, Strabo, xvii. p. 839, &c.), whereby their
citizens became capable of owning land within
their territory, and acquired rights of self-
government, especially in matters of taxation
and legislation: others were liberae et immunes,
being released from the taxes usually paid to
Rome, and from the liability to have troops
quartered on them during the winter months.
In many provinces, again, there were colonies,
either Latinae or civium Romanorum, for whose
relation to the ordinary provincial administra-
tion reference should be made to the article on
COLONIA; and sometimes towns, without being
made to receive a colony, were endowed with
the “jus Latii’” (e.g. in Gallia Transpadana by
Cn. Pompeius, Strabo, B.C. 89), which freed
them from the control of the Roman governor
(Strabo, iv. p. 187) and gave them the rights of
self-government and having their own coinage,
and other privileges described under Colon[A
and LATINITAs. Under the Empire we find also
numerous municipia in the provinces, i.e. towns
on which the Roman civitas had been bestowed
—e.g. on Gades and other Spanish towns by
Julius Caesar (Liv. Epit. cx.; Dio Cass. xli. 24,
xliii. 39), whose example was followed by
Augustus (Suet. Aug. 47; Dio Cass. liv. 25) and
nis successors. These had the ordinary free
municipal constitution of Italian towns, with
elected duoviri or quattuorviri, who possessed a
tolerably extensive civil and criminal jurisdic-
tion, aediles, quaestors, an ordo decurionum, and
assemblies for their citizens: in fact, their con-
dition was much the same as that of the
“coloniae civium Romanorum,” except that the
latter ranked above them in dignity (Gellius, xvi.
13). Finally there were towns endowed with
the “jus Italicum,” the conception of which
arose after the Social war and the statutes it
occasioned, and which led to the familiar oppo-
sition between municipia, coloniae, and prae-
fecturae of Roman citizens in Italy and all other
towns whatsoever (e.g. Lex Julia municipalis,
ll. 142, 143). It does not seem to have been
granted with any great freedom (Plin. H. N. iii.
§ 25; Dig. 50, 15, 1, 6–8), and apparently only
to coloniae and municipia, not to oppida which
were merely “stipendiaria" or had the “jus
Latii’’ only; though this is a disputed matter,
Puchta (Institutionen, § 95) and Zumpt (Comm.
Epigraph. i. pp. 477–491; Studia Romana,
pp. 337, 338) denying its possession by munici-
pia in any case, and the latter maintaining that
it was sometimes given to mere peregrini. As
to its nature also there are considerable dif-
ferences of opinion. Conceivably it affected the
soil, the municipal constitution, the taxes, and
the persons of those who inhabited the towns on
which it was conferred. The soil would be
released from tributum, and subjected to
Quiritarian ownership with all its legal in-
cidents. In relation to finance, the citizen of a
town possessed of “jus Italicum” would have
his name entered in the local census with the
formula employed at Rome, and the lists would
be incorporated with those of Rome herself (Lex
Julia munic. ll. 142–160; Huschke, Census,
p. 62); he would further be discharged from
the payment of all taxes not paid in Italy, in-
cluding tributum, annona, and the poll-tax on
trades and professions. It would affect the
person of the citizen by giving him the benefit
of certain laws which applied to Italy alone, or
at any rate conferred on persons domiciled in
Italy advantages over those domiciled elsewhere
(e.g. the rewards given to those who contracted
a fruitful marriage by the Lex Papia Poppaea,
and the benefits of the Lex Furia de sponsu).
These consequences, and these only, are ascribed
to a grant of “jus Italicum ” by Schwartz (de
jure Italico, Exerc. Academ. 1783, 1–37) and
Walter (Geschichte des röm. Rechts, $319); but
Savigny (Ueber das Jus Italicum, Verm. Schriften,
i. 29–80) and Puchta (loc. cit.) deny the last of
the three, and affirm as one of the chief conse-
quences of the “jus Italicum ” a free municipal
constitution, which, according to Schwartz and
Walter, must have belonged to the town
already. -
Provincial towns which belonged to none of
these privileged categories(civitates stipendiariae)
had some sort of municipal constitution, and the
Romans as a rule interfered but little with
arrangements which they found already es-
tablished, provided they were not a menace to
their own supremacy. But such constitutions
PROVINCLA
PRYTANEUM 513
were not free : they did not exclude the juris-
diction of the governor of the province. The
towns had their own magistrates of various
denominations: in Temnos there were praetors,
quaestors, and mensarii (Cic. pro Flacco, 19, 44),
names which doubtless are intended to represent
Greek titles: in Thyatira there were orparmyot :
in fact the names of the local magistrates are
legion, bute their functions are regarded as
burdens (munera) rather than as privileges
(honores), and there was no local jurisdiction,
the administration of justice, civil as well as
criminal, being in the hands of the governor
alone. Most provincial towns seem to have had
elective senates (curiae), an arrangement en-
couraged by Rome herself, who was adverse to
democracies; but to be a “decurio” or senator
was burdensome and expensive, and the citizens
had to be expressly rewarded for undertaking
or getting others to undertake the office. [For
details see DECURIONES ; DECEM PRIMI.] Under
the Empire the electorate was controlled from
Rome, no one being permitted the full local
franchise unless his income reached a certain
Iminimum; thus Dio Chrysostom (ii. 43 R) says
that at Tarsus, besides the BovX) and the trx?60s,
“there was no small multitude which stood, as it
were, outside the constitution.” The provincial
towns had no independent right of legislation,
even in relation to municipal affairs, but were
obliged to resort to the emperor, as is shown by
the number of Rescripts on the subject; and upon
nearly all matters which with us are transacted
by the corporation or vestry of a town, such as
the construction and maintenance of public
works, they had to refer to the governor. It
does not appear that the religion of the pro-
vincials was ever interfered with, nor had it
been put under any restraint in the republican
period. -
The constitution of the provincial towns was
affected in the second half of the fourth century
by the establishment in all of them of a new
office, that of defensores civitatis, plebis, or loci.
These magistrates were chosen for five years,
which Justinian reduced to two, by all the
citizens of the town who possessed the franchise,
but no decurio could be elected : their chief
function was the protection of the town and its
citizens against oppression and injustice at the
hands of the imperial officials, as to which they
were to address complaints to the governor of
the province, or, if he were himself the offender,
to the emperor or praefectus praetorio; by
reason of their independence in relation to the
governor they ranked above all the other
municipal magistrates (Cod. i. 55, de Defensori-
bus). They were even invested with a limited
jurisdiction in civil causes, which Justinian
extended from matters of the amount of 50 to
those of 300 solidi, and from which there was
an appeal to the praeses (Nov. 15, 5); and
they could appoint tutors where the property
of the ward did not exceed a certain minimum
in value (Inst. i. 20, 5). In the fifth or sixth
century they also acquired a small jurisdiction
in criminal matters (Cod. i. 55, 5; Cod. Theod.
i. 29, 7; Nov. 15, 6).
The most complete treatment of the Roman
provincial organisation and its history is that
of Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i.
pp. 90–425. English readers will find a
WOL. II.
careful and accurate account of the matter,
based upon the best authorities, in Mr. W. T.
Arnold's Roman Provincial Administration (Mac-
millan, 1879), which the writer of this article
has found of the greatest service. Reference
may also be made to Walter's Geschichte der
römischen Rechts, $$ 233–248, 308–320, 387–
392; Puchta, Institutionen, §§ 66–69, 93,
94, 122, 123; Sigonius, de Antiquo Jure
Provinciarum, lib. i.-iii.; Savigny, Geschichte
des röm. Rechts im Mittelalter, vol. i. ; and
Goettling's Geschichte der römischen Staats-
verfassung. [J. B. M.]
PROVOCATIO. [APPELLATIo.]
PROVOCATO'RES.. [GLADIATOREs.]
PROXENIA, PROxENUS. [HospitruM.]
PRUDENTES. [JURIscossuirr.]
PRYTANES. [Boule, Vol. I. p. 310.]
PRYTANE'UM (rpuravetov). The nearest
approach that modern usage makes to the
Prytaneum of a Greek state may be found in
the town-hall or hôtel de ville; but the religious
character attaching to it gave it a much higher
significance, and it had also state purposes which
were peculiar to cities of ancient Greece, being
non-existent even at Rome, where, as will be
pointed out, we have a near parallel on the
religious side. The Prytaneum, so far as our
evidence goes, was a requisite for every Greek
state (Paus. i. 43; v. 15); but only in the
capital, not in demes or villages attached to it.
Its archaic history appears to be as follows.
Every Greek tribal settlement of primitive times
(and probably the same holds good for most
nations of the world) had a common hearth in
the chief’s house, where the fire was scrupu-
lously preserved, because of the difficulty in
those days of procuring fire at all. To pursue
this question further is unnecessary here: any
book on the folk-lore and customs of almost any
primitive nation will supply examples: nume-
rous references are given in a paper on the
Prytaneum by Mr. Frazer (Journal of Philology,
xiv. 28, 1885). The perpetual maintenance of
this fire was the duty of the chief, but delegated
by him to daughters or slaves; in Rome, no
doubt, to daughters, who reappear in history
as the Vestals [VESTALES]. If the settlement
was moved, the firebrand was taken carefully
from the hearth and carried onward, a custom
which Parkman has particularly noted in the
Indian tribes of America; and similarly, if a
swarm of colonists went out to settle elsewhere,
they took fire with them.
What had in early times been a necessity became
afterwards a religious ceremony, and accordingly,
we find practically the same usage—even, as it
seems, the shape of the primitive chief's dwell-
ing—surviving in civilised Greek and Roman
states. When one state or tróAus absorbed
others, which had previously had separate
Trpvravela, the chief town alone retained a
arpvravetov common to all : that is to say,
a single Bagińews replaced the many chiefs,
and his single palace contained the common
hearth for the sacred fire. That this is not
mere surmise may be seen from Thucyd. ii. 15;
Plut. Thes. 24, where we are told of the
abolition of the separate trpvraveta, and the
establishment of the common trpuravetov in
the āorrv : and though the single, ruler at
Athens became Bagińets, and not zºº, yet
L
514 PRYTANEUM
PRYTANEUM
even this latter title in some states, as at
Rhodes, continued to be the title of the chief
magistrate. It is reasonable then to assume
that the Prytaneum in Greek states was origin-
ally the house of the king or chief magistrate,
and that similarly at Rome the temple of Vesta
was once part of the king's house or Regia (see
Middleton, Rome, p. 181; Frazer, op. cit.).
At Athens it is probable that there were
several changes in the position of the Prytaneum
before the building which Pausanias knew by
that name under the northern side of the
Acropolis (Paus. i. 18). Full discussions of
these migrations of the state hearth will be
found in E. Curtius, Attische Studien, and in an
article by Schöll in Hermes, v. 340. We have
little doubt, though it cannot be proved, that
the original Prytaneum of the “Cecropian”
city was upon the Acropolis, but of that no
trace in the ground, and little, if any, in
literature, has been discovered (Pollux, ix. 40,
however, seems to allude to this Prytaneum).
It may, we think, be now considered as fairly
established that the historical Prytaneum was
in the old Agora of the “Theseian * city, i.e. of
the city formed by the aggregation mentioned
above; and this Agora must be placed to the
south of the Acropolis. Here it is likely that
there were both the Prytaneum or state hearth
and dining-place for those state-guests who will
be described hereafter, and also an original
Thesmothesion for the archons to dine in.
Later on, when the city spread, and the
Agora was shifted (perhaps, as Curtius thinks,
by Pisistratus), the Ceramicus quarter having
become the centre of Athenian life and business,
the 66Aos was built near the BovXevržiptov
(Paus. i. 57); and there the Prytanes thence-
forth dined, for the obvious reason that they
could not quickly pass from their business to
their meals; and in that neighbourhood also,
for the convenience of the Archons, was their
dining-place, the Thesmothesion: here too was
the arrot, Bao (Aetos, the office of the Archon
Basileus, which to some extent represented the
old Bagińetov of kingly times. A very fair
inference has been drawn from the shape of
the Tholus, a round building with a pointed
“umbrella-shaped” roof, that it preserved the
orthodox shape of the old Prytaneum; and so,
further, that trpvravela represented the primi-
tive circular wattled huts, with peaked roof and
hearth in the centre, where dwelt the chief of
the tribe: if this theory is correct, it will apply
also to the circular temples of Vesta. At a
later time, probably after the Roman conquest,
the larger building was constructed which
Pausanias (i. 18) describes as the Prytaneum on
the northern side of the Acropolis, containing
the statue of Hestia, to represent the sacred
hearth of the state, the statue of Peace and the
remains of Solon's tables of law [NoMos] which
denoted its sovereign character, and some other
statues.
There were then probably three Prytanea of
different dates: (1) the oldest in the Acropolis
of prehistoric times; (2) that in the old Agora,
south of the Acropolis, which, even after the
Tholos took part of its duties, remained as
the Prytaneum of the classical age, and was
still the state hearth from which fire was
taken for colonies, having itself supplied the
sacred fire kept also for the altar in the Tholos;
and (3) the Prytaneum of Pausanias, which
seems to have supplanted the older Prytaneum
(No. 2) for all purposes, unless we are to
conclude from the way in which Pausanias
speaks of rb év rpvraveſq kaAoûuevov Suka-
orràptov (i. 28), that the judicial court [see
PHONOs] of that name was not transferred to
the new building. It may be noted that in this
court, as well as in the general term of rpv-
raveta for court fees, we seem to have a relic of
the old royal or palace jurisdiction.
At Athens the trip &orSearov was, according
to Plut. Num. 9, as also at Delphi, kept up not
by vestal maidens, but by aged widows (yvyatkes
Tretravuévat ydawv), who perhaps represented the
female slaves of the primitive chief, as the
Roman Vestals represented the daughters. As
regards the supply of sacred fire for colonists
starting to found a new state, see above, and
compare COLONIA, Vol. I. p. 474.
Sitesis.—It will be convenient to describe here
all the classes of persons who were entertained
at the cost of the state, though it must be
understood that it is entirely erroneous to
suppose that they all dined in the Prytaneum
—at any rate before the Roman conquest;
whether they did so later is open to dispute.
We cannot doubt that in the invitation to dine
in the Prytaneum we have a relic of the custom
that the yápovres or chief counsellors should
dine at the king's table, and that the hospitality
should be extended to other honoured citizens.
or distinguished visitors. This custom was not
peculiar to Athens; for we have record of
entertainment in the Prytaneum as belonging
to various Greek towns. Athenaeus mentions.
it in Thasos, Naucratis, and Mitylene (i. p. 32;
iv. p. 149; x. p. 425): we hear of it also at
Tenedos (Pind. Nem. xi. 8), Rhodes (Polyb.
xxix. 5), Cyzicus (Liv. xli. 20), and to this list
many additions can be made from inscriptions.
In fact, we are brought to the conclusion that if
Trpvraveſa as state hearths were probably uni-
versal in Greek capital towns, the public
entertainment of certain officials, citizens, or
foreign guests was at least general.
As regards the regulations of this entertain-
ment at Athens, we are able still to gather a
good deal of evidence. Plutarch (Symp. iv. 4, 1)
tells us that Celeus first had a daily entertain-
ment of eißókipoi kai &ya.0ol āvöpes. Looking
to the connexion of Celeus with the Eleusinian
rites, we may conjecture that this tradition is
the attempt to explain the right of the
Eleusinian priests to partake in the airmous.
There is at any rate little doubt that the early
rulers of Athens thus entertained three classes
of persons, viz. magistrates, priests, and un-
official guests, alike distinguished Athenians
and foreign princes or envoys. Those who by
right of office dined with the king (or, after the
end of the monarchy, dined together) were origgi-
rol (also ºvotrol): those unofficial persons, who
were invited to dine besides, were trapéotrot
(cf. Plat. Lach. p. 179 C), but this word became
limited to the subordinates of the priests
[PARASITI]. The word &etatrol or atoirot is of
later times (see below). We must carefully
notice also a threefold division of place in
historical times: I. the Prytaneum, in which
the unofficial guests dined; II, the Thesmo-
PRYTANEUM
PRYTANEUM 515
thesion, where the Archons dined; III. the
Tholos. It is of course not impossible, as Schöll
thinks, that the Archons had a separate Thesmo-
thesion for dining in the old Agora as well as in
later times; but on the whole it seems more
likely that before the alteration of the Agora
all alike dined together in the Prytaneum ; but
when, as stated above, the government offices
were transferred along with the busy life of
Athens to the inner Ceramicus, the division
of meals began, and the Archons dined thence-
forth in the Thesmothesion.
I. The meals in the Prytaneum continued as
before, for (a) foreign princes and envoys of
other states, the formula for whose invitation is
kaAéral rows trpéo Beis étrº Seiryov (or étrl
£évia) eis ro trputavetov eis at plov, i.e. for the
day following their audience in the assembly,
and as the conclusion of their mission (Poll.
viii. 138; Dem. F. L. p. 350, § 31; [Dem.] de
Balon. p. 81, § 20): the invitation ran in the
name of the senate, à BovX3, caxeſ (Aristoph.
Ach. 124; Dem. l. c.) or the 6700s (Dem.
Polycl. p. 1210, § 13): Demosthenes says éká-
Aeola (F. L. p. 414, § 234), as being the member
of the senate who proposed it: (b) citizens who
had done good service; e.g. who had returned
from a successful embassy: (c) citizens honoured
with this entertainment for life, the honour to
which Socrates refers in his Apology. Such
were (1) Olympic victors (Plat. de Rep. v.
p. 465 D.; Plut. Arist. 27; Athen. vi. p. 237) and
victors in the other great games (Insc. Ephem.
29, 2). Schöll appears to be right in his view
that this honour was given to an Athenian who
won the chariot-race at Olympia, or the gymnic
contest at any of the four games; (2) distin-
guished generals or statesmen (Aristoph. Eq.
709; Aeschin. F. L. § 80; Dem. Aristocr. p. 663,
§ 130); and lastly (3) the representatives of
certain families, in which the honour was
hereditary: thus we find it a privilege for the
nearest representatives for the time being of
Harmodius and Aristogeiton (Isae. de Dic. her.
$47); the nearest representatives of Demosthenes
(Plut. Dem, 31).
Schöll (in Hermes, xxii. p. 561, 1887) shows
that the daughters of such persons were dowered
by the state.
II. The meals of the Archons, as mentioned
above, were transferred to the Thesmothesion in
the New Agora.
III. In the Tholos or Skias, for the same
reason which made the Archons dine in the
Thesmothesion, that they might be near their
business, the Prytanes and certain other officials,
during their tenure of office, took their meals to-
gether, after sacrifice offered at the state hearth;
for the sacred fire was now in the Tholos as well
as in the Prytaneum. Who these officials were
may be gathered from the account of the
&eſorvrou, though it is possible that the number
of offices so privileged may have been greater in
the period to which our extant lists belong than
in earlier times.
The āefortrot (or atautoi) are not found under
that name before the second century A.D. ; and,
though we cannot say when they were first so
called, it is clear from Athen. vi. p. 435 that
trapdoritoi was used in that sense by a pupil of
Aristotle. It must be particularly observed that
aeſauroi does not, as is often supposed, mean, those
who had this privilege for life: the element àel
in the word means for the time of his office: for
example, 6 &el Ypappare ſav was āetairos. No
one who studies the lists of &etavrot preserved
in inscriptions can doubt this for a moment.
We have a number of Prytany lists dating from
the middle and latter half of the second century
A.D. In these we find a list of the Prytanes,
and then a separate heading &etaitot, under
which came, first the Eleusinian priests, iepo-
‘pivrms, 54800x0s, 6 &ti Bauš, iepokhput, rup-
q6pos (for these offices, see ELEUSINIA, Vol. I.
p. 721); then the lay officials connected with
the Prytaneis, viz. the clerk of the Bovah, the
clerk of the Prytanes (štrèp to 8%ina), the keeper
of records (āvriypaqets), the under-clerk, the
custodian (or priest) of the Tholos (à én rijs
XKid60s)=apparently the priest of the Phosphori,
and lastly the flute-player at the sacrifices
(i.epačAms). Now in these lists it is noticeable
that, whereas the Eleusinian priests, who held
office beyond the year, appear under the same
name in various years, this is not the case with
the lay &etaitot. Take for instance the inscrip-
tions, C. J. A. iii. 1029–1032, which range from
the years 165 to 169 A.D., the four lists being
shown to fit these four different years. The
Hierophant Flavius of 165 appears in 166; a
Julius replaces him in 167 and reappears in
168; the daduchus and hieroceryx bear the
same name in all four lists. But when we
come to the various clerks, we find that the
same name never appears in two different years
—(the inscriptions 1032 and 1034 are for the
same year, 168 A.D.). The same holds good of
the sacred officials of the Prytanes, the étrl
orkić60s and ispatſAms. It may be well, however,
to say a word about the former. He was
apparently both the custodian of the Tholos or
Skias, and also the priest who offered the daily
sacrifice at the state hearth for the Prytanes.
In an inscription of 180 A.D. (C. I. A. iii. 1042)
he is called ispets róv poorqāpav kal émil ris
XKid60s. Schöll explains the Phosphori as =
Dioscuri, but surely it is more likely that the
word should mean the Light Deities who were
honoured in the torch-race [LAMPADEDROMIA],
and from whom the sacred fire was derived.
The only point remaining for consideration is
the condition of things in the newer Prytaneum
which Pausanias describes in the second century
A.D., the larger and more elaborate building
north of the Acropolis, of which we have
spoken above. Did the union of the separate
meals follow the erection of this larger Pry-
taneum, so that those who were fed in the old
Prytaneum and in the Tholos thenceforth
amalgamated 2 Curtius declares that it did;
Köhler (in Hermes, v. 340) denies it, and refers
to the lists of the age of Pausanias, which seem
to imply that the Prytanes and the &eta-vrot still
dined apart in the Tholos. It cannot be said,
however, that the lists distinctly prove this; and
the view of Curtius may, after all, be correct.
In other words, it is possible that the Tholos was
still a sacred place for the offering on behalf of
the Prytanes, with the étrº a kić60s, as before, in
charge of it, but was no longer used for their
meals. (On the subject of the Prytaneum and
the orírmoſus, see Frazer in Journal of Philology,
xiv. 28; Curtius, Att. Stud. ii.; Schöll in
Hermes, v, and xxii.) [G. E. M.]
2 L 2
516 PSEPEIISMA
PSEPHUS
PSEPHISMA [Boule; ECCLESIA ; NoMo-
THETES, p. 243.]
PSEPHUS (Wiiq,0s). In voting by ballot
the Greeks used, according to Pollux (viii.
16 f., 123), sea-shells (xopival) or imitations of
such in metal, beans (pp.victoi), aróvövAot of
metal (paal 8é rives róv éénymorapuévov 3rt &mb
xopetov Óotów airai éyſvovro, Schol. Dem.
c. Tim. p. 747), and liqot of metal (rerpvrm-
aéval and &rpürmtou). At Athens in early times
sea-shells were in use (Aristoph. Eq. 1332 and
Schol. on 1147; Vesp. 332, 349), and probably
also beans (Aristoph. Eq. 41 ; cf. Schömann,
Opusc. i. p. 269 ft.), and pebbles (Aristoph. Vesp.
110; black ones for condemnation and white
ones for acquittal, Plut. Alcib. 22, cf. Schol.
Aeschin. c. Tim. § 79); in the times of the
orators, however, the dicasts used piq ol of metal.
These were not balls of metal, but discs with a
cylindrical axis (aixtakos) running through the
centre and projecting on either side, and this
cylinder was either solid (trañpms pipos) for
acquittal, or pierced (retpvrmuévn) for condem-
nation (Aeschin. C. Tim. § 79 ; Arist, in Harpocr.
S. v. Terpvrmuévn, cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 778).
Rusopulos ('Ap X. "E p mu. 1862, p. 305) gives
the following measurements of the two speci-
mens preserved in the Collection of the Athen.
Arch. Soc. Of the pierced one the diameter of
the disc is 0.062 French met., thickness 0-001,
length of cylinder 0.043, diameter of cylinder
0' 013 at one end and 0.012 at the other.
The measurements of the solid one vary
but slightly : diameter of the disc 0.061,
and of the cylinder 0-01. The specimen de-
scribed by Vischer (Epigr, w. Archäol. Kleinigk.
p. 16 ft.), which is reproduced below, has a
somewhat smaller diameter of the disc (0.060)
and shorter cylinder (0 : 0375). The disc bore on
one side the inscription
$740s Smuogta, and on the
reverse a letter (in the speci-
mens at Athens T and K),
referring to one of the ten
sections of the dicasts
(Wachsmuth, Archäol. Anz.
"º 1861, p. 223), or more pro-
3 bably to the court (Arist.
in Schol. Aristoph. Plut.
278). Special officers (of
Aaxávres étri Tàs phºovs)
gave to each dicast one of
each kind in sight of the
parties, when
both sides had
spoken (Har-
poc. l.c.), and
the dicasts
walked up
to the 87ua
(Dem. F. L.
p. 441, § 311)
where two *
boxes (káðol,
k a 6 for ko 1)
stood, into
each of which
they placed
Ancient jºbos.
* Pollux (viii. 123 = Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 1150) alone
speaks of there having been one káčos into which the
dicast put whichever of the two pºbot he pleased.
one ºftºpos (the remark of the Schol. Aristoph.
Vesp. 750, roi, kāpukos Tāv kamporpíða trpoorq’é-
povros, BaAov (of 5ukaotal) tús ºf povs, is con-
tradicted by Aristophanes’ words, kāruaraímv
érl toſs knuofs ºnqugouévov 6 texevtaſos). Of
these kaëtarcot one, called kūptos (because the
dicast put into it the pºpos by which he gave
his vote), was made of metal; the other, called
ākupos, was made of wood, and into this he
dropped the second piq,0s. In this way that
absolute secrecy was secured (kpú86mv iſºmºpt-
Çea 6al, in an eisangelia, Lyc. c. Leocr. § 146; in
a ypaq) qāvov, Lys. c. Erat. § 91 ; in a Ypaqº,
ão Tparetas, Lys. c. Alcib. ii. § 10) which was
considered a guarantee for the freedom of voting
(Dem. F. L. p. 415, § 239). For since the old
funnel-shaped top of the kaðtorkos made of
wickerwork (oxotvivos h906s, Cratinus, fr. 260;
Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 1147; Bekk. Anecd. 275,
25; and Photius, s. v. kmuás) had been
replaced by a top of lead (Lew. Rhet. Cant. s. v.
kmuós), with an opening filed through large
enough to admit one yīqos only (5teppivnuévov
étriðmug eis to airhu pévmv rºv lºgov ka9teoróat,
Schol. Aristoph. l. c.), and with a rim running
round (Low. Rhet. Cant. l.c. uétéopa elze xetam
&orre étrio Koreºv), it is evident that if the dicast
held the yūqos sideways by the two ends of the
cylinder with thumb and second finger, lowered
it to the opening in the lid and pushed it in
with the first finger (Hesych. Köy; . . . . kal rās
ôukaotikīs piqov fixos : the pixmAtaaths gets
up in the morning toys Tpe’s £vvéxav táv Šak-
TúAwy through being accustomed to hold the
thigos, Aristoph. Vesp. 94 f.), it was not possible
for anyone to see if he put in the pierced or
the solid one. After all had voted, the kūpuos
kaôtakos was emptied out on to a table, and the
Jāqol were counted (cf. Aristoph. Vesp. 331 f.).”
Even votes amounted to an acquittal (Antiph.
de caed. Her. § 51 ; Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 252;
Aristotle in Lex. Rhet. Cant. s. v. loat ai /īqou,
etc.). Euripides (Elect. 1269; Iph. Taur.
1470 f.) connects this principle with the trial
of Orestes before the court of Areiopagus, when
Athena proclaimed vikā ā’’Opéatms kāv ioréºn-
qos kpiðfi (Aesch. Eum. 741). As Kirchhoff
(Monatsber, d. K. Pr. Akad. 1874, p. 105 ft.)
shows, in trials for murder the Bagińeūs had
a vote (Pollux, viii. 90); hence Athena, who
acted as #7sučºv in Orestes' trial, having taken
off her crown, voted after the eleven dicasts, and
by giving her vote to Orestes brought about
evenness of votes, and thus his acquittal. A
heliastic court always consisted of some multiple
of a hundred, + 1, to prevent even votes (Schol.
Dem. c. Tim. p. 702, § 9): thus Pollux (viii. 48)
mentions four hundred and one, two hundred
and one, as the numbers of dicasts in two
different cases of pdoris (cf. Lea. Rhet. Cant. s. v.
Aoyua Taí, Boeckh, Sceur, p. 464, etc.); the
common way, however, of indicating the number
was, for brevity’s sake, to mention the variable
constituent, omitting the invariable one. Even
votes could therefore only come about by the
default of individuals at the last moment
(Schömann, de Com. p. 153). The total of
votes in C. I. A. ii. No. 778 is four hundred and
* Hippodamus suggested a different way of taking
the verdict, viz. by means of trivákua (Arist. Pol. ii. 5,
35).














PSEPHUS
IPSEPHUS 517
ninety-nine; on the voting in Socrates’ trial, cf.
Att. Proc. ed. Lipsius, p. 169 n. A similar
system of balloting was employed when the
dicasts voted on the question of penalty (Dem.
c. Aristocr. p. 676, § 167; [Dem.] c. Neaer.
p. 1347, § 6); hence the verdict on the question
guilty or not guilty or for the plaintiff or defend-
ant is called trpárm pipos (Aeschin, c. Ctes.
§ 197; Dem. F. L. p. 434, § 290; [Dem.] c.
Aristog. i. p. 795, § 83). In the time of Ari-
stophanes a curious custom was in vogue. Each
dicast had a waxen tablet (triváktov rumruków,
Aristoph. Vesp. 167; Pollux, viii. 16), on
which, if he awarded the heavier penalty, he
drew a long line (vertically on the tablet); if
the lighter penalty, a short line (horizontally on
the tablet); cf. tuáv thv uakpáv, sc. Ypappahu,
Aristoph. Vesp. 106, and Photius, s. v. pakpāv
ruptional, etc.
A different system of voting was in use in the
time before the archonship of Eucleides, and
this seems in some cases to have been continued
also in the fourth century: viz. there were two
boxes, one for condemnation and the other for
acquittal (5 &moxAös kaðtorkos and 6 &troAſſov in
Phrynichus, Motoral, B.C. 405; ro aiwarmpov
reoxos and rb évévrtov köros, Aesch. Agam.
788 f.; 6 6avárov k. and 6 €Aéov, Scholiast.
Aristoph, Vesp. 985), and each dicast had one
Jāqos only, which received its meaning from
the box into which it was put. The two boxes
were, we must suppose, so placed that the
nearer one (à trporépa) was that of condem-
nation, the further one (i) to répa) that of
acquittal: thus in Aristoph. Vesp. 987 ff.,
Philocleon acquits Labes by throwing his vote
into the second (ùo repov) cup (cups being here
used instead of urns, 855); cf. also Xen. Hell. i.
7, 9. It is difficult to understand how secrecy
was possible with this method of voting, and yet
we are clearly told that it was so. Lysias
(c. Agor. § 37) complains of the irregular mode
of voting introduced by the Thirty in the
senate: the pāqot had to be placed on the two
tables—this at once makes it open voting—
instead of being put into the kaðtoricot, and,
further, the vote of condemnation had to be
placed on the further table, i.e. on that nearest
the seats of the Thirty. The voting in Orestes’
trial, too, is conceived of as secret, for the result
is not known before the counting of the votes
takes place. Schömann and Sauppe (de Athen.
ratione suffr. in iudic. fer. p. 9) suppose that
secrecy was secured by the two urns being so
placed that the people standing around could
not see into which of them the liqos was
thrown ; but this explanation is insufficient,
inasmuch as voting could only be said to be
secret if even the other dicasts did not know
how each had voted. To meet this difficulty,
Lipsius suggests that each dicast had, besides
his lºgos, some other token to put into the
second box. It has not yet been fully estab-
lished to what extent this mode of voting con-
tinued in the fourth century. Lipsius quotes
two instances of it, viz. the eisangelia against
Leocrates and a 6trºm ſevöopapruptáv in Isae.
Dicaearch. § 18. As regards the former, the
words of Lycurgus have been differently ex-
plained: Šušv 5’ ºraortov Xph voulºsiv Tov
Aewkpárovs &toymptſäuevov 6duarov tís trarpſ-
80s kai ävöpatroëtquov kara/mºptgeoréal kal Svolv
kaðtorkouv retuévow row uév rpoSooſas row &
orarmpias elval kal r&s ſhºpovs q’épeo:6ai rās utv
itrèp &vaardoews rās tarpí60s r&s 3& Öræp
ão paxetas kal rās év rā tróAet eiðatuovías.
Whilst Schömann, whom Lipsius follows,
identifies the rpoSooſas kaðflokos with the
ătroA&ov, and the oatmptas kačiakos with the
ăroxAës, Sauppe supposes that the orator
alludes to the köptos kaðtorkos and the &rvpos.
Directions as to voting may be given in two
ways: either the dicast is told which of the
two Wiiq'ot he is to put into the kūptos kaðtoricos,
as in Aeschin. c. Tim. § 79, viz. the pierced one,
if he thinks Timarchus guilty, the solid one if
not ; or he is directed into which of the two
urns to place the pierced one. Thus in the trial
of Leocrates, if he places it in the kūptos, he
condemns Leocrates and votes for the safety of
the state; if on the other hand he places it in
the Škvpos, he acquits Leocrates and betrays the
state : and these urns may thus in a rhetorical
manner be called oatmpias kaðtakos and irpo-
Sootas respectively.* As for the second
instance (a 6them ſevöopapruptóv), there the
dicast had clearly but one pºpos. For when on
the pāqol being taken out of the urns it was
evident that the defendant had been found
guilty, the prosecutor allowed the archon uji
ovvaptôueſv ćAA& ovyxéat tës biºpovs, i.e. to
mix up the pºpol of the two urns (of the
plaintiff and the defendant respectively), not to
count those in each ; if two kinds of pâqot had
been used, and therefore some of each had been
placed in the köptos, it would have been
rather a question of 6tapúaeſu (Szanto, Wiener
Stud. 1881, p. 28 f.). The same system seems
to have been regularly in use, when, as in
inheritance cases, there were several parties
before the court, to one of whom an estate or
some other thing was to be adjudged, and where
it was customary to have as many boxes as
there were parties, or at least parties in distinct
interests ([Dem.] c. Macart, p. 1053, § 10, kal
ai ſãºpot àAſyats trävv éyévovro traetovs . . . .
év tá, Oeorðurov kaðtorkº, 3) év rá ràs yuvaikós :
cf. Isae. Hagn. § 21 f.). (Att. Process, ed.
Lipsius, p. 934 f.)
As regards the senate, Pollux (viii. 19) says,
# 8ovXh oi revrakóatoi pāAAois àvri phºwy
expäviro. This refers to the expulsion of an
unworthy member by this body, the votes being
written on leaves (Harpocr. s. v. čk puxAo-
qopforai); it was followed by a second vote
where jºbot were used (Aeschin. c. Tim. § 111 f.
and Schol. ad l.c.), when the person expelled
might be restored to his place in the senate .
(Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 246 f.). The Etym.
Magnum, s. v., says that beans were used at first
in voting, and that leaves were substituted on
account of a fraud practised with the beans.
When an eisangelia was laid before the senate,
they gave their verdict by secret ballot, whether
the defendant was guilty or not; and if he was
found guilty, they voted on a second day, by
show of hands (6taxelporovía) whether they
should sentence him to a fine of 500 drachmas,
which it was competent for them to impose, or
hand him over to a court ([Dem.] c. Euerg. et
* In public trials it would seem that only one method
of voting was in use after the archonship of Eucleides,
viz. that with two phºot. -
518 PSEPHUS
RSEUDENGRAPHES GRAPHE
Mnes. p. 1152, § 42 f.; Aeschin. c. Tim. § 35,
lez). Secret voting in deciding the question
guilty or not guilty was here the rule, and
Lysias complains of the irregularity introduced
by the Thirty, viz. that the votes should be
placed, not in boxes, but openly on tables (c.
Agor. § 37). Similarly the Thirty introduced
open voting in the popular assembly (Xen. Hell.
ii. 4, 9: cf. the action of the oligarchs in Megara
in B.C. 424, Thuc. iv. 74). Here the usual
method of voting was by show of hands (xelpo-
rovía); but on the occasions when the ballot was
employed, it was deemed important that the
voting should be secret, and that the numbers
should be accurately counted. Thus to pass a
psephisma for the naturalisation of a foreigner
([Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1375, § 89), or to grant
liberty (36ela) to speak concerning a dis-
franchised person or a state debtor (Dem. c.
Tim. p. 715, § 46), it was necessary that 6,000
persons should vote in secret (not a majority of
6,000). The same regulation applied to ostra-
cism [ExSILIUM), both as regards number of
voters and secrecy of voting (orrpépovres rhy
étrºypaſphy, Philochorus in Lex Rhet. Cant. s. v.).
When the assembly acted in a judicial capacity,
the proceedings were probably the same as those
detailed in the rpoBoüxevaa concerning the
generals in Xen. Hell. i. 7, 9: Staympforagóat
*A6mvaſovs &mavras (i.e. the 6,000 necessary for
véuoi ém' àvöpf, Fränkel, Att. Geschworenger, p.18)
karð ‘puxds, 6eival 8% sis- Thy puxhv ékáormy
300 SSpías' ép' ékáarp 5& Tà puxi, kāpuka knpūr-
Teiv, 3rº Sokowo iv &ölkeiv oi oºrparnyol . . . .
eis thv trporépay ºn pſoraq'6al, 8tº be uſ, eis rhy
ãorrépav. This mode of voting was in no way
irregular, as Löscheke shows (Jahrb. f. Philol.
1876, p. 755 f.); the irregularity consisted,
among other things, in the fact that it was
proposed to vote upon the case of all the accused
persons at once (uff ºf pºp, Xen. ... c. 26, or
&6póot, Plat. Apol. Socr. 23 B; cf. Lys. c.
Eratosth. § 52), not katē $va èicagºrov (Xen. l.c.
23, 34). This was, however, not specially
ordained by the psephisma of Cannonus, as
Grote thinks (Hist. of Gr. vii. p. 438 m.), but
was a generally recognised principle of Attic
law (Bamberg, Herm. 1878, p. 509 ft. ; Philippi,
Rh. M. 1880, p. 607 ff.).
Secret voting was also practised when the
members of a phratry registered a new-born
child or an adopted son in the pparepticov
ºpappareſov (Dem. c. Macart. p. 1078, § 82; cf.
the continuation of C. I. A. ii. No. 241 b, pub-
lished in Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1889, No. 7,
p. 225); when the demotae entered the name of
the youth in the Amèlapxikov Ypaupiateſov (Dem.
c. Eubul. p. 1318, § 61 ; Euxitheus learned the
fact of Eubulides not having voted against him
only from the circumstance that all had voted
for him), and in a Sugiſh puris (Suidas, s. v.;
Dem. c. Eubul. p. 1302, § 13 f. speaks of liqol :
Pollux, viii. 18, says that påAAa were used on
such occasions); cf. also C. I. A. ii. No. 578,
l. 16 ft, tº 8& ei6üve ph éčeival ééexeiv rhy
eč6vvav čāv ah rols arxāoorly 66;et rôv 8éka rāv
aipe3évrov Šuaymºptſouévois kpü88mv.
The people or senate or jury were said ſºmbſ-
(so flat, yāqov pépelv or Tibéorèal or ötapépeiv
(Thuc. iv. 74; Xen. Symp. 5, 8), to vote, or
give their vote or judgment (pâqov rubéval in
Dem. de Cor. p. 304, § 229, is to cast accounts).
The presiding magistrate or officer, who called
on the people to give their votes, was said €rºm-
q)ſelv or thv Vijqov čtráyetv or ötöðval (Lys.
c. Alcib. ii. § 2; Dem. c. Mid, p. 542, $82, etc.),
the people étru/mºptgeoréat : tymºptgeordaí rivu
(Isae. Cleon. § 38, etc.) is sententiam ferre pro
aliquo = Thy j fiqov Stöðval or ºpépelv rivi (Dem.
c. Mid. p. 575, § 188, etc.). Wºmqigeoréal, to vote,
to resolve, &copmpfgegºat, to acquit, and other
derivations from ºf pos, are often used meta-
phorically, where the method of voting was
xelpotovía, and conversely (Schömann, de Com.
p. 123 f.). [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
PSEUDENGRAPHES GRAPHE (Jev-
Seyypaſpis ypapí). It is shown under PRAC-
TOREs that the name of every state debtor at
Athens was entered in a register by the prac-
tores, whose duty it was to collect the debt,
and erase the name of the party when he had
paid it. The entry was usually made upon a
return by some magistrate, to whom the incur-
ring of the debt became officially known; as,
for instance, on a return by the troxmiral, that
such a person had become a lessee of public
lands, or farmer of taxes, at such a rent or on
such terms. In case, however, the authorities
neglected to make the proper returns, any indi-
vidual might, on his own responsibility, give
information to the registering officers of the
existence of the debt; and thereupon the officers,
if they thought proper, might make an entry
accordingly, though it would probably be their
duty to make some inquiry before so doing. If
they made a false entry, either wilfully or upon
the suggestion of another person, the aggrieved
party might institute a prosecution against
them. It would lie also, where a man was
registered as a debtor for more than was really
due from him. In the case of debts to a sacred
fund, where the penalty for non-payment was
tenfold, the like remedy would doubtless be
open to one who was falsely recorded as a debtor
by the rapital ris 6.e00. Such prosecution was
called 'ypaqº, ſevöey'ypaqis, and was brought
before the Thesmothetae. If the defendant
were convicted, the name of the complainant
was struck out of the register and that of the
defendant was entered in his stead, as debtor for
the same amount (Boeckh, P. E. p. 390 = Sthh.”
i. 460). It is also probable that he had to pay
a like sum as damages to the plaintiff; a con-
clusion to which Boeckh was led by the very
precise language of an inscription (C. I. A. ii.
811 c, line 147; cf. Seeurk. p. 537 ff.; Fränkel,
n, 607 on Boeckh ; Thalheim, Rechtsalterth.
p. 46 n.).
Some questions connected with this action
have already been discussed under the very
similar Boule:USEos GRAPHE (Vol. I. p. 314):
(1) whether the atimia of the state debtor was
in abeyance while this action was pending; and
(2) against what class of persons it would lie.
The conclusion there arrived at, that it lay only
against the public officer who had made the
false entry, not against the informer who had
misled him, may be regarded as definitely estab-
lished by the inscription already referred to
(Seeurk. p. 538; Platner, p. 118; Att. Process,
p. 417 n. Lips.). We may presume that on
such a charge it was necessary to prove fraudu-
lent or malicious motives; but it is reasonable
also to suppose that, in any case of gross negli-
PSEUDOCLETEIAS GRAPHE
PSYCTER, 519
gence, fraud or malice might (as matter of
course) be presumed by the dicasts. (Pollux,
viii. 40, 43; Harpocr. and Suid. s. v.v. Bovasú-
geas, Wevöeyypaſph, ſevöéyypaſpos Sticm : Boeckh,
P. E. pp. 349, 390=Sthh.*i. 419,460; Platner,
Rlagen und Process, ii. 117 f.; Att. Process,
p. 515 fl. Lips.) [C. R. K.] [W. W.]
PSEUDOCLETELAST GRAPHE (Jevđo-
KAnteias Ypaqº), a prosecution against one who
had falsely appeared as a kamrhp or kafirap, i.e.
a witness to prove that a defendant had been
duly summoned, and who had thereby enabled
the plaintiff to get a judgment by default. To
prevent fraud the Athenian law directed that
the names of the witnesses (usually two in
number; CLETEREs) who attended the summons
should be subscribed to the bill of plaint or
indictment (#ykAmua), so that the defendant, if
he had never been summoned and judgment had
nevertheless been given against him by default
(éphan 6them), might know against whom to
proceed. A good example of the practical
necessity for legislation on this point occurs in
Dem. c. Nicostr. p. 1251, § 14, where we read
of &rpóakamtov ć éupavöv karaordorea’s émi-
BoAftv, “a fine for non-production of property
in court demanded (and even registered) without
formal citation ” (cf. Sandys ad loc.; Att.
Process, p. 976 Lips.). The false witness
(k\mthp) was liable to be criminally prosecuted,
and punished at the discretion of the court.
Even death might be inflicted in case of gross
conspiracy (Dem. op. cit. p. 1252, § 18). A
person thrice convicted of this offence was, as in
the case of other false testimony, ipso jure
disfranchised ; and even for the first offence the
jury might, if they pleased, by a trpooríamous
inflict the penalty of atimia upon him (Andoc.
de Myst. § 74; Meier, de Bon. Damn. p. 125).
Here we may observe this distinction, that the
proceeding against the false witness to a sum-
mons was of a criminal nature, while the witness
in the cause (udprus) was liable only to a civil
action. The reason may have been that the
former offence was more likely to do mischief.
The magistrates before whom the defendant
neglected to appear, when by the evidence of
the witness it was shown that he had been duly
summoned, had no discretion but to pronounce
judgment against him; whereas the dicasts, to
whom the witness gave evidence at the trial,
might disbelieve him and find their verdict
according to the truth. If the fraud was owing
to a conspiracy between the plaintiff and the
witness, it is probable that an action at the suit
of the defendant would lie against the former to
recover compensation; for, though the convic-
tion of the witness would lead to a reversal of
the judgment, still he (the defendant) might
have suffered damage in the meantime, which
the setting aside of the judgment would not
repair. Such action might, it would seem, be a
6íkm ovkoºpavttas (Att. Process, p. 413, Lips.) or
scakoréxviów (ib. 492-3). If the name of the
witness had been fraudulently used by the
plaintiff, and the witness had thereby been
brought into trouble, there is evidence, as well
as probability, that he had a 6trºm 8x48ms
against the plaintiff (ib. 415; Dem. c. Aphob. iii.
p. 849, § 16). The ypaſp?) bevöokamrefas came
before the Thesmothetae, and the question at
the trial simply was, whether the defendant in
the former cause had been summoned or not.
Theopompus, in a passage which is perhaps a
libel upon the Athenians, says that Athens was
full Awtroëvröv 'kevöopaprčpav kal ovkoqavrów
kal bevöokamråpov (ap. Ath. vi. p. 254 b).
(Pollux, viii. 40; Harpocr. s. v.; Bekk. Anecd.
317; Boeckh, Kl. Schriften, iv. 120 f.; Platner,
Klagen u. Process, i. 417; K. F. Hermann,
Staatsalterth. § 140; Att. Process, p. 414 f.,
Lips.) [C. R. K.] [W. W.]
PSILO"THRUM (MAaºpov), in Latin authors
sometimes spelt psilotrum, an application for
removing superfluous hair, a depilatory. The
favourite kind was made of heated arsenic and
unslaked lime (Theophr. H. P. ix. 20, § 3); the
arsenic is mentioned by Pliny (H. W. xxxiv.
§ 178). The roots and juices of various pungent
plants were also used; the root of the wild vine,
Theophr. l.c. : on the other hand, lacrima vitium,
Plin. H. N. xxiii. § 3; lacrima hederae, id.
xxiv. § 79; other vegetable substances, xx. $90,
xxi. § 118, xxii. § 134, xxiv. § 58, xxvii. § 72;
animal matters, xxviii. §§ 46, 250, 255, xxx.
§ 132, xxxii. § 76. Several receipts are given
(H. N. xxxii. §§ 135-6), with the remark
appended that the hairs must first be pulled out
[VOLSELLAE], when psilothrum will prevent
their growing again. Pitch-plaster (ěpárač)
was used for the same purpose (Mart. iii. 74, x.
65; Phrynich. p. 405 Lobeck=488 Rutherford).
The practice of getting rid of hairs from the
body (trapatíAAeo'0al, Aeaſveoróat) was at first
peculiar to women (Aristoph. Ram. 516, Lysistr.
82, 151; a Roman lady’s toilet in Mart. vi. 93),
but in later times extended to men of effeminate
habits. (See quotations from Theopompus ap. '
Athen. vi. 260 e, xii. 518 a ; Clearchus, ib. xii.
522 d: Antigonus of Carystus, ib. xiii. 565 f;
and cf. Plin. H. W. xxvi. § 164.) The foppish and
obscene excesses of the later Romans are well
known (Suet. Jul. 45; Mart. iii. 74, viii. 47, x.
65; Pers. iv. 35–41; Juv. ii. 12; Clem. Alex.
Paedag. iii. p. 261 P.). Cf. ALTPILUS; VoISELLAE.
(Hermann-Blümmer, Privatalterth. p. 209 n. ;
Marquardt, Privatl. p. 581 ; Becker-Göll, Gallus,
iii. 241.) [W. W.]
PSYCTER (ºvkthp), a vessel for cooling
wine or water. Wine was also cooled more
simply by putting it in wells (Athen. iii.
p. 124 d ; Plut. Quaest. Conv. 6, 4), or mixing
it with snow (Athen. iii. p. 125 c), or, less
commonly, with ice (Sen. Ep.78). These special
wine-coolers were introduced to keep the snow
separate from the wine. The vessel bore various
names, in Greek usually ºvkthp or ºvyets, but
also Bačka Ats (Anth. Pal. xi. 244) and kāAa60s
(Hesych.); in Latin calathus (Verg. Ecl. 5, 71;
Mart. xiv. 107) or gillo. In Plat. Symp. p. 214 A,
the ºvkráp, which Alcibiades substituted for a
drinking-cup, contained two quarts, but this
was a small size; on the other hand the enor-
mous yukräpes mentioned in Athen. v. 199 as
carried in a procession and containing from 18
to 54 gallons were clearly not for ordinary use.
The material was metal (silver or bronze, Athen.
l. c. and iv. p. 142 d) as well as earthenware,
and therefore the cooling cannot have depended
on evaporation through a porous substance. As
regards the shape, an example is given by Bau-
meister (Denkm. p. 1989), but it is not likely
that they were all of one type. Pollux (vi. 99)
says that it was a bivos, which implies that it
520 PUBES
PUBLICANI -
was rounded at the bottom (Schol. Aristoph.
Nub. 1474, Vesp. 618; cf. Athen. iv. p. 142,
where it is on a tripod), and he adds that it was
distinguished from the ACRATOPHORUs by having
no pedestal, but standing on little knobs (āorpa-
7axtokot), with which Ussing compares a vessel
figured in Mus. Borbon. iii. 14. It is not im-
probable that the rounded shape was found
convenient for the inner vessel in the double
yvkthp. The name calathus also may be de-
scriptive of one of the shapes which it took
(perhaps most commonly), like the ordinary pail-
shape, larger at the top and diminishing towards
the base. [CALATHUS.]
The name Psycter might probably be given to
any vessel in which wine was cooled, even when
the process was merely putting in snow, but
the contrivance specially so called consisted of
a smaller vessel placed within a larger one.
Sometimes the wine (or water) to be iced was
placed in the smaller and plunged into the
larger vessel which contained snow', sometimes
the snow was placed in the smaller vessel and
let down into the larger vase of wine. When
the wine was sufficiently iced, the smaller vessel
was no doubt removed, and the wine ladled out
with a cyathus (Athen. xi. p. 503): we have no
reason to suppose that a tap was used, as seems
to have been sometimes the case in the AU-
THEPSA for hot drinks. A contradiction has
been imagined between Suidas, who derives the
name &mb rot, pixeoréal év airó 6&rrow rhy
kpāoriv, and Pollux, who says, év 3 ºv 6 &rparos:
but there is no difficulty in assuming that the
wine was sometimes mixed before it was cooled,
and sometimes afterwards.
Iced water, the gelida of Juv. v. 63 (frigida,
Tac. Ann. xiii. 16), which, like the calida, was
handed round to mix with the wine, or was
used as a drink by itself (Athen. iii. p. 121 e,
122 f), was prepared in a yukthp as above
described (in Mart. xiv. 116, lagona nivaria), and
a special term decocta belongs to it, because it
was boiled first in order that it might more
readily be iced afterwards (Plin. xix. $55; Juv.
v. 50, and Mayor ad loc.). Pliny (xxxi. § 40)
says that this decocta was an invention of Nero's
(cf. Suet. Ner. 48), and that the water, which
had sometime previously been boiled, was placed
in a glass vessel and so plunged into a larger
vessel of snow, that it might escape any im-
purities (vitia) of the snow. The word Śmicókra
was borrowed by some Greek writers (Galen, x.
p. 467; cf. Athen. iii. p. 121).
The Snow for this purpose, or for use in the
colus or saccus nivarius, was kept through the
summer in pits covered over with chaff and
woollen cloths (Plut. Symp. vi. 6; Augustin. de
Civ. Dei, xxi. 4): compare the narrative of
Chares (ap. Athen. iii. p. 124 c), who tells us
that Alexander preserved snow in India by
putting it in trenches and covering it with oak
boughs. The method of Antiochus stated below
(p. 124 e), when 56ptai kepdueat were placed on
straw on the top of the house at night, seems to
have been the method of freezing by evaporation
which is common in Persia at the present time.
(See also Ussing in Annal. d. Inst. 1849; Beck-
mann, Hist. of Inventions, iii. 322; Becker-Göll,
Charikles, ii. 346; Gallus, iii. 430; Marquardt,
Privatleben, 333.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PUBES, PUBERTAS. [CURATOR: IMPUBEs.]
PUBLICA'NI. The name was applied to
the farmers-general of the Roman revenues; the
word publicum denotes both state revenue and
state service (Dig. 39, 4, 1; Tac. Ann. xiii. 51 ;
Livy, xxiii. 49, 1), and publicani, which is
derived from it, combines both these ideas, in its
meaning of persons who served the state in the
collection of its revenues. The mode of collec-
tion is shown further by the definition of publi-
cani in the Digest as “contractors for the public
vectigalia” (Dig. 39, 4, 12). From a very early
period the Roman state employed a peculiar
mode of getting in a very large amount of its
revenues. It was a system of indirect collection
by means of middlemen, a class of individuals
intermediate between the government itself and
the subjects of governmental taxation. Such a
system was probably employed for the collection
of the old port-dues of Ostia on goods exposed
for sale (promercale), and certainly for the
working of the salt monopoly, which originated
as early as the year 508 B.C. (Livy, ii. 9, 6).
The system was simply that of the purchase or
lease by a publicanus of a prospective source of
revenue, which he farmed at his own risk and
for his own profit. This was the general
principle, as illustrated by all the sources of
revenue to which the system was applied; but
its application was different, as the sources of
revenue themselves differed ; and we can distin-
guish two methods of tax-farming, which were
regarded as distinct both in law and in fact-
In one of these the publicanus is not directly
employed in working the source of revenue, in
the other he is ; in the one case, therefore, the
publicanus is not the possessor or occupant of
the land, or other source of wealth, from which
the revenue is derived : in the other case the
possessor and publicanus are identical. It is only
to the first of these two classes of tax-farmers—
to those, that is, who are regarded as collecting
vectigal from possessores other than themselves—
that the name publicanus is strictly applied;
the latter class are regarded in law not as
publicani, but as publicanorum loco (Dig. 39, 4,
12, 13), although, in the current literature of
Rome, they were, equally with the former class,
called publicani.
It will be more convenient to treat the latter
class of publicani first ; their relations to the
state were simpler, and their sphere of action
more limited. To this class belong the revenue-
farmers who worked certain fixed sources of
wealth, such as mines, salt-works, fisheries and
the like, which belonged wholly to the state,
and which the state, for purposes of revenue,
leased directly to the publicanus as a contractor.
The publicanus is, in this case, a contractor
(conductor) for supplying a fixed revenue to the
state from such property. The terms of his
contract are fixed by a lea, censoria made with
the censor as the representative of the state;
and the lea, censoria, besides specifying the
revenue that the state requires him to pay, also
states certain conditions under which the con-
tract is to be undertaken. To this class of fixed
sources of revenue directly contracted for by
the publicanus belong fisheries (Dig. 43, 14, 7),
amongst which the right of fishing in the
Lucrine lake was a monopoly vested in a publi-
canus; salt-works, perhaps the oldest of this
class at Rome (Livy, ii. 9, 6; Dig. 50, 16, 17),
PUBLICANI
PUBLICANI 521
the monopoly of which was continued down to a
very late period of the Empire [SALINAE];
mines, in connexion with which we find certain
conditions stated in the lea, censoria, as, for
instance, that not more than five hundred work-
men should be employed in the gold mines of
Vercellae (Pliny, H. N. xxxiii. § 78) by the
contractor who worked them ; and forest-land
(silva caedua), which was also let to a contractor
who paid a fixed revenue to the state. These
were all in the nature of state monophies; either
wholly so, as in the case of the mines and salt-
works, or partially, as in the case of certain
fisheries retained by the state; while new
monopolies might be artificially created, as were
the quarries in Crete, by forbidding the expor-
tation of such goods to any one but the govern-
ment contractor (Dig. 39, 4, 15). The reason
of their being worked by this class of middle-
men can only be found in the incapacity of the
Roman government, as it was constituted, to
work them for itself. The rapid succession of
magistrates and the singular absence of perma-
nent officials at Rome accounts for its putting
such sources of wealth into the hands of publi-
cani, to the equal injury of the consumer and
loss of the state. Before the powers of the
senate were firmly established and distinctly
recognised there was no really permanent
administrative body in Rome; and when the
powers of the senate were established, the system
of middlemen was found established too. But
this system of direct farming was not applied to
remunerative monopolies only ; it was applied,
in certain exceptional cases, to Roman domain-
land. The only land in Italy believed to have
been so dealt with was the Campanian land,
which, for this reason, was specially exempted
from the agrarian legislation of the Gracchi
(Cic. de leg. Agr. ii. 29, 81; ad Att. ii. 16, 1).
Certain lands in the provinces, which had been
royal domains of the kings whom Rome had
either conquered or supplanted, were also dealt
with in this way; such were the royal domain-
lands in Bithynia, the lands of Attalus in the
Chersonnese, those which had been the private
property of the Macedonian kings Philip and
Perseus, and which were, in Cicero's time, a
censoribus locati to the publicani (Cic de leg. Agr.
ii. 19, 50); in the same way certain portions of
confiscated territory were leased to conductores,
among which we find mentioned the territory
round Corinth (ib. ii. 19, 51).
But, as a whole, we find the public land of
Rome (ager publicus) dealt with in quite a
different manner by the state. The greater
part of the land over which the Roman state
claimed dominion was either tilled land (ager)
or pasture (silva pascua, saltus, Dig. 50, 16, 30;
Varro, L. L. 5, 36). As such it was enjoyed, if
tilled land, by the possessor; if pasture land, by
the pastor; but the state makes no fixed bargain
with either of these, it only tolerates them, and
the possessor in this case is not the publicanus.
The publicanus is the man who has a right to
collect vectigal (&moſpopá, App. Civ. Bell. i. 7;
Plut. Tib. Gracch. 8) from the person who uses
the land. The revenue to be paid is determined
by the lea, dicta, under which the censor sold
the right to the publicanus (Lex Agraria, § 85,
ea lege dictæ, quam censores deizerunt, publicano
dare oportuit). The conditions of sale with the
publicanus obviously determine what the pos-
sessor or pastor has to pay. The possessor
according to Appian, paid one-tenth of the
produce of sown land, one-fifth of the produce
of planted (Bell. Civ. i. 7), although the vectigal
actually collected seems to have been in most
cases less. The pastor paid a vectigal, which in
this case was called scriptura (Festus, s. v.
scriptuarius ager). The relations between the
publicanus and the occupants of the land were
regulated by the lea, dicta of the censor. The
third great class of revenues collected in this
manner were the custom-dues (portoria), which
were similarly leased to the publicanus by the
censor, who fixed the conditions under which
they were to be collected.
A very great extension was given to the
system of tax-farming by the adoption of this.
method in provincial administration. The first
province to which the system was directly
applied was the province of Asia. In Sicily and
Sardinia it had been found already in force on
the Roman occupation, and by the Lex Sem-
pronia (C. Gracchi) this method of raising
revenues, with a nearer approximation to the
Italian system, was applied to Asia (C. Gracch.
ap. Gell. xi. 10; Cic. in Verr. iii. 6, 12–14).
The theory which this system implied was that
most of the provincial land was ager publicus,
and that the dominium had therefore passed to
the Roman people; that its occupiers were only
possessores, and should therefore pay the cus-
tomary revenues, the decumae and scriptura on
the land, as well as the portoria, all included
under the generic name vectigal (Cic. pro lege
Man. 6, 15), which were paid in Italy [see
PROVINCIA]. While, however, in Sicily the
existing Lex Hieronica was adhered to, and
the tenths of the soil (decumae) were sold in
Sicily itself (Cic. in Verr. ii. 25, 63; ii. 60, 147;
iii. 7, 16), Asia was subject to a lea: venditionis,
which enjoined that the Asiatic taxes should be
put up for sale for the province as a whole and
in Rome (in Verr. iii. 6, 14).
For the collection of such provincial taxes the
publicani made a fixed contract with the state,
and then farmed the taxes at their own risk (Cic.
ad Quint, Fr. i. 1, 11; ad Att. v. 13, 1); some-
times they over-estimated the resources of the
province, with the result that they farmed
them at a loss (Cic. ad Att. i. 17, 9; ii. 1, 8).
The connexion of the publicani with the pro-
vinces, especially with that of Asia, was much
closer than that of being merely its tax-farmers.
They invested their money largely in the pro-
vince (Cic. de leg. Man. 7, 17), and themselves
carried on business as negotiatores there (Id. ib.
7, 18). This double character of public con-
tractors and private investors gave them an
opportunity for unfair exactions. The provin-
cials were often in arrears with the publicani,
either from bad years or the peculations of their
own magistrates (Cic. ad Att. vi. 2, 5), and
would have to borrow from these same publicani
in their character of bankers. Another source
of unfair dealing was the interest provincial
governors sometimes had in these exactions.
Interference with the customary modes of col-
lection might be sanctioned, and more or less
legalised by the governor’s edictum perpetuum.
Thus Verres' edicts in Sicily were altogether in
favour of the tax-farmers (Cic. in Perr. iii. 10,
522 |PUBLICANI
PUBLICANI
24), and he is accused by Cicero of sharing the
profits with the decumani; and although it
was illegal, or at least considered highly im-
proper, for a Roman governor or magistrate to
be a member of a society of publicani (ib. iii.
56, 130), yet, by collusion with a decumanus,
and with the large powers a governor had of
making new rules in his edict, indirect inter-
ference and profit were easily possible (ib. iii.
30, 71). In Asia we know that considerable
interference with the conditions of the lea:
dicta was permitted, nominally for the con-
venience of both parties (Cic. ad Quint. Fr. i. 1,
12), and with this permission it is clear how the
publicani could increase their exactions, when
backed up by the representative of Roman
authority in the province. Instances of what
the additional charges of a provincial publicanus
might be are given by Cicero (in Verr. iii. 78,
181). In this case there were charges made for
the examination of the corn-dues (prospectatione),
for discount on foreign money (pro collybo), for
writing materials and stamp (pro cerario), four
per cent. (binae quinquagesimae) for the secre-
tary, and six per cent. (ternae quinquagesimae)
for an additional present to the collector. The
difficulty of a Roman governor was to be in
favour both with the publicani and the provin-
cials at once (Cic. ad Quint. Fr. i. 1, 12); Cicero
boasts to have effected this as proconsul of
Cilicia (ad Att. vi. 25), and remarks how much
easier matters were made for him, on his arrival
in the province, by the fact of the arrangements
between the publicani and the provincials
having been already concluded (ad Att. v. 13, 1).
Other injuries were inflicted, without the cog-
nisance of the publicani themselves, by the
lower officials employed for the actual work of
collection, especially in the case of the portoria
(Dig. 39, 4, 12; Cic. ad Quint. Fr. i. 1, 11).
With the Empire came a great restriction of
the operations of the publicani. Tax-farming
as a general mode of raising provincial revenue
had ceased [PROVINCIA], and private enterprise
in the working of monopolies was also largely
restricted (Suet. Tib. 49). But publicani are
still found employed for a great many public
purposes in the reign of Tiberius; for the
working of the publici fructus, such as mines,
forests and the like, and for the supply of corn
to the army (Tac. Ann. iv. 6; xiii. 51). They
still, in Nero's time, collected the portoria (ib.
xiii. 50); and we find, in much later inscrip-
tions, the conductores mentioned by the side of
the procuratores, for the collection of different
sorts of revenue from the same province (Henzen,
6648, 6650). But they were, from this time,
subject to much greater scrutiny than formerly.
Nero issued an edict that the laws which regu-
lated their several contracts should be formally
published, and increased the powers of the
praetors at Rome and the governors of the
provinces, of dealing summarily with such
matters (Tac. l. c.). The title in the Digest
that treats of the publicani (Dig. 39, tit. 4, De
publicanis et vectigalibus et commissis) shows us a
number of laws made by later emperors on the
subject, the object of most of them being to
restrain the illegal exactions of the publicani:
as, for instance, that the penalty for illegal
claims was double the amount so exacted; or, if
force had been used, quadruple (Dig. 39, 4, 9,
15); and that the publicanus was to be held
responsible for the misdeeds of his slaves who
were employed in collecting the revenue (ib. 39,
4, 12, 1).
From the earliest times we find that the
publicani do not undertake their contracts
singly; the extent of the undertakings, and the
amount of security which the state required
them to deposit, would have rendered it im-
possible. They worked in companies (societates
publicanorum or soci publicorum vectigalium),
which were composed of shareholders (socii),
who might have a greater or smaller share in
the concern (partes or particulae). These com-
panies had a legal representative (manceps) who
acted for the societas as its formal head (prin-
ceps publicanorum, Ps.-Asc. in Div. p. 113). The
manceps bid for the contract, agreed to the
terms imposed by the censor, saw that security
(praedia) was deposited by the sureties (praedes
or fidejussores, Ps.-Asc. in Verrin. p. 196;
Dig. 39, 4, 9), and undertook the risk of the
contract on behalf of the company. Polybius
(vi. 17) mentions three stages in the business of
a company of publicani: the bidding for the
contract, the depositing of the security, and
finally the handing of the vectigal due into the
treasury. He mentions the manceps and praedes
as distinct persons; they were very often so in
fact, but the manceps himself was called praes,
inasmuch as he was equally responsible for the
fulfilment of the contract (Festus, s. v., manceps).
The word lustrum, primarily denoting the cere-
monies attending the taking of the census, was
applied to the period during which the contract
ran (Cic. ad Att. vi. 2, 5), which was usually a
period of five years. Fresh contracts were made
at the close of each lustrum, and open compe-
tition invited; the contract was purely volun-
tary, no state contract was compulsory; and
consequently any company that outbid all the
others, when the vectigalia were put up to
auction, might undertake their collection, pro-
vided it could find sufficient security (Dig. 39,
4, 9, 1, 2). The conditions of the contract were
contained in a lear censoria or lea, dicta, of which
frequent mention has been made, and which was
also called a lea, locationis (Lex Julia Municip.
1. 72). Occasionally, however, the people or
senate modified the terms fixed by the census,
in the interest of the publicani (Plut. Flamin. 19 ;
Polyb. vi. 17; Liv. xxxix. 44), and in some cases
even the tribunes of the people interfered to
effect this object (Liv. xliii. 16). Each company
of publicani had a central manager and banker
at Rome, called magister societatis; these magistri
were appointed annually, and handed over their
accounts at the end of each year to their suc-
cessors (Cic. ad Att. v. 16, 3; in Verr.
ii. 74, 182). They had under them a staff of
subordinate officials who were said operas dare
publicanis or in operis esse publicanorum (Cic. ad
Fam. xiii. 65), and who were also called the
familia of the publicani, this term including
not only slaves, but all subordinate officials
(Dig. 39, 4, 1). Where the business of the
publicani was extended to the provinces, they
had a deputy in each local centre called pro
magistro, with a corresponding familia under
his direction (Cic. in Verr. ii. 70, 171; de leg.
Man. vi. 16). There was an organised system
of communication kept up between the provinces
PUBLICANI
PUBLICLANA IN REM ACTIO 523
and Rome by means of letter-carriers (tabellarii),
of whose services general correspondents fre-
quently availed themselves (Cic. ad Att. v. 15,
3; Ter. Phorm. i. 2, 100). The companies of
publicani received their names from the respec-
tive dues it was their business to collect. Thus
the collectors of decumae were called decumani;
they ranked highest, and are described by Cicero
as “the chiefs and, as it were, senate of the
publicani” (in Verr. ii. 71, 173). The collectors
of scriptura were called pecuarii, scriptuarii or
pascuarii (Ps.-Asc. in Divin. p. 113); and the
contractors for salt-works and the collectors of
portoria were termed socii salarii and portitores
respectively. There is, however, some doubt
about the meaning of portitores. The Pseudo-
Asconius classes them with pascuarii as a
division of the publicani (in Divin. p. 113);
elsewhere they are spoken of as though they
were the servants or lower officials of this
branch of the publicani (Plaut. Asin. i. 3, 7;
Cic. Off. 1, 42, and perhaps Cic. ad Quint.
Fr. i. 1, 11). It is not, however, impossible to
reconcile these two meanings, and to suppose
that the staff (familia) of a certain company of
tax-farmers might themselves be called by the
name applicable to this company. Usually each
company seems to have collected but one kind
of revenue; but we find an instance in which
two kinds, the portoria and the scriptura,
were farmed by the same company (Cic. in
Verr. ii. 70, 171).
It only remains to touch briefly on the
political position and importance of the publi-
cani. They had always been the great capitalists
of Rome, and whenever capital was needed for
state purposes they were always to the front.
As early as the Second Punic War we see them
coming forward to offer their assistance, when
the state was in pressing pecuniary difficulties;
after the battle of Cannae (Liv. xxiv. 18), and
again in 215 B.C., when the Scipios wrote from
Spain for supplies, which the state was unable
to afford them (Liv. xxiii. 48). As the repre-
sentatives of capital, Cicero calls them the
firmamentum ceterorum ordinum (pro leg. Man.
7, 17), and maintains that their claims should
be primarily regarded in any act of state
administration. Their political importance was
heightened by the organisation of the capitalists
of Rome as the body of Equites, probably brought
about by C. Gracchus. In one respect this
political organisation reacted on the administra-
tion of their provincial functions; for, between
the times of C. Gracchus and Sulla (123 to
81 B.C.), the Equites formed the Judicial body
at Rome; and, as they consisted in great part
of publicani, they had the power of approving,
by their treatment of provincial governors
accused of extortion, the regulations of these
governors connected with the position of the
provincial tax-farmers. In Cicero's letters
publicani is used almost indiscriminately with
equites, to denote a political power in the
state (Cic. ad Att. i. 17, 9; ii. 1, 8). Many
political actions that had the most important
consequences were brought about by a repre-
sentation of their claims backed by their
influence, as, for instance, the passing of the
Manilian law (B.C. 66): and in one instance
the neglect of the claims of the publicani was
the cause of a breach between the equites and
the senatorial government (Cic. ad Att. ii. 1, 8),
that helped to accelerate the downfall of the
Republic. [A. H. G.]
PUBLICIANA IN REM ACTIO is the
action granted by the Praetor's Edict to a person
who had commenced the usucapion of a thing,
and by which he was enabled to recover pos-
session of it if lost before that usucapion was
completed. Possibly the Publicius by whom it
was introduced was the one who was praetor in
Cicero's time (pro Cluentio, 45, 126). The
terms of the Edict are given in Dig. 6, 2, 1, pr,
and the formula of the action by Gaius (iv. 36),
from whom it appears that the ground upon
which the recovery proceeded was a fiction
that the period of time required for a complete
usucapion had run its course: “dicit (actor) rem
se usucepisse, et ita vindicat suam esse” (Inst.
iv. 6, 4). The action was open to the bonitarian
owner [DOMINIUM) as well as to the bona-fide
possessor, though it is disputed whether this was
so under the original Edict of Publicius, or
whether it was not extended to the former,
with a distinct formula, by a later edict; it
being in fact a moot point among civilians
whether the true and original principle on
which the action rested was inchoate ownership
or bonā-fide possession: in favour of the former
are Huschke and Schirmer, of the latter Brinz
and Bruns. Probably the first view is correct,
with the proviso that a person who had com-
menced to acquire by longi temporis possessio (a
merely praetorian title) was no less able to
institute the action than one who had entered
upon the civil law usucapion (Dig. 6, 2, 11, 1;
ib. 12, 2): though the fact that usucapio extra-
ordinaria was proceeding (e.g. of a res furtiva)
was not sufficient basis for it (Dig. ib. 9, 5).
By the classical jurists it was disputed (Dig.
ib. 4; ib. 7, 2; 41, 2, 16) whether the action
could be founded on a titulus putativus, i.e.
where the possessor was mistaken as to the
ground on which he had acquired possession
(e.g. Inst. ii. 6, 11), though in the modern civil
law this is generally admitted. But in no case
would it lie against the real owner of the
property in question (Dig. 6, 2, 16, 17), unless
the latter, had he brought a real action against
the possessor for its recovery, could have been
himself repelled by a justa exceptio (e.g. doli,
rei venditae et traditae, or rei judicatae); in
this case, on the actio Publiciana being met by
the exceptio justi dominii, the plaintiff could
retort with replicatio doli, rei venditae et
traditae, &c. Nor could the Publician action
be effectually brought against another bonā-fide
possessor of the same property, unless the
latter derived his possession from the same
“auctor” as the former, but by a later act of
traditio (Dig. 6, 2, 9, 4). &
Even though it be admitted that the sole
condition of the action was usucapion possession
(civil or praetorian), it cannot be denied that it
found a very large application in cases of bonitary
ownership, especially where a res mancipi had
been merely tradita, so that ownership in it
was not transferred. Upon Justinian's abolition
of the distinction between res mancipi and nec
mancipi, it became useless for any other purpose
than a case of bonā-fide possession, and this
seems to explain why the words “non a domino”
appear in the Edict as cited in the Digest, as it
524 PUGILATUS
PUGILATUS
seems clear from Dig. 6, 2, 7, 11 (cf. Gaius,
iv. 36) that they did not originally form part
of it.
The action was further extended, from the
recovery of a feigned ownership, to the establish-
ment of servitudes which could not be claimed
by a civil law actio in rem (Dig. 6, 2, 11, 1),
and of other jura in re aliena: emphyteusis
(Dig. 6, 2, 12, 2), superficies (Dig. 43, 18, 1,3, 6)
and pignus (Dig. 20, 1, 18). So, too, the bonā-
fide possessor and other persons who could bring
the actio Publiciana directly could bring an
actio negatoria in Publician form against per-
sons claiming servitudes over the property in
question.
(Dig. 6, 2; Gaius, iv. 36; Inst. iv. 6, 4 and 31;
Huschke, Das Recht der publicianischen Klage,
Stuttgart, 1874; Schirmer and Schulin, Krit.
V. J. Schrift. xviii. pp. 347–362, 526—545;
Brinz, Lehrbuch, i. §§ 178, 179; Windscheid,
Lehrbuch, § 199; Vangerow, Pandekten, § 335.)
[J. B. M.
PUGILATUS (rù, rvyuh, muyuaxia,
ruyuorium), boxing. The fist being the simplest
and most natural weapon, it may be taken for
granted that boxing was one of the earliest
athletic games among the Greeks. Hence
even gods and several of the earliest heroes
are described either as victors in the trulywº,
or as distinguished boxers, such as Apollo,
Heracles, Tydeus, Polydeuces, &c. (Paus.
v. 7, § 4; Theocrit. xxiv. 113; Apollod.
iii. 6, $4; Paus. v. 8, § 2). The Scholiast
on Pindar (Nem. v. 89) says that Theseus
was believed to have invented the art of
boxing. The Homeric heroes are well
acquainted with it (Hom. II. xxiii. 691,
&c.; compare 0d. viii. 103, &c.). The
contest in boxing was one of the hardest
and most dangerous, whence Homer gives
it the attribute àAeyewſ (II. xxiii. 653).
Boxing for men was introduced at the
Olympic games in Ol. 23, and for boys
in Ol. 37 (Paus. v. 8, § 3). Contests in
boxing for boys are also mentioned in the
Nemea and Isthmia (Paus. vi. 4, § 6).
In the earliest times boxers (pugiles,
mºral) fought naked, with the exception
of a gºua round their loins (Hom. II.
xxiii. 683; Werg. Aen. v. 421); but this
was not used when boxing was introduced
at Olympia, as the contests in wrestling
and racing had been carried on here by
persons entirely naked ever since Ol. 15
[cf. Lucratio, p. 82 b, Respecting the
leathern thongs with which pugilists surrounded
their fists, see CAEstus, where its various forms
are illustrated by woodcuts.
The boxing of the ancients appears to have
resembled the practice of modern times. It
was a point of skill, we are told, not to attack
the antagonist, but to remain on the defensive,
and thus to wear out the opponent, until he
was obliged to acknowledge himself to be
conquered (Dio Chrysost. Melanc. ii. orat. 29;
Eustath. ad II. p. 1322, 29). It was considered
a merit in a boxer to conquer without receiving
any wounds, so that the two great points in
this game were to inflict blows, and at the
same time not to expose oneself to any danger
(TAmy”) ral puxará, Dio Chrysost. Serm. vii. 1;
Plut. Sympos. ii. 5; compare Paus. vi. 12, § 3).
As regards the position of the hands, no doubt
it varied according to circumstances, then as
now. In art representations we see sometimes
the right arm guarding and the left striking,
sometimes the contrary: the blows were directed
against the upper parts of the body, and the
wounds inflicted on the head, especially when
the utºpumkes [CAEstus] were worn, were often
severe (Hom. 0d. xviii. 96; Apollon. Rhod.
ii. 785; Theocrit. ii. 126; Verg, Aen. v. 469;
Aelian, W. H. x. 19). The ears especially were
exposed to great danger, and with regular
pugilists they were generally much mutilated
and broken (Plat. Gorg. p. 516; Protag.
p. 342; Martial, vii. 33, 5). Hence in works of
art the ears of the pancratiasts always appear
beaten flat, and, although swollen in some parts,
are yet smaller than ears usually are. In order
to protect the ears from severe blows, little
covers, called äupwrºes, were invented (Pol-
lux, ii. 82; Etymol. Mag, s. v.). But these
ear-covers were undoubtedly never used in the
great public games, but only in the gymnasia
and palaestrae, or at most in the public contests
of boxing for boys; they are never seen in any
ancient work of art.
Pugilists, from a tomb at Chiusi. (Dennis.)
Two points of distinction between ancient and
modern pugilists may be noticed: (1) that, as
we gather from vase-pictures, the fist was not
constantly doubled, as with us, but the fingers
were often merely curved over, sometimes
almost extended; in some representations, how-
ever, the fists are fairly clenched: probably the
differences are due to the caestus;-(2) the
inarticulate sounds emitted by the boxers,
instead of the modern silence: this, according
to Cicero, was to add force to the blow (Tusc-
ii. 23, 54; cf. Sen. Ep. 57).
The game of boxing, like all the ºther
gymnastic and athletic games, was regulated
by certain rules. Thus pugilists were not
allowed to take hold of one another, or to use
their feet for the purpose of making one another

PUGILLARES
PULS 525
fall, as was the case in the pancratium (Plut.
Symp. ii. 4; Lucian, Anach. 3). Cases of death,
either during the fight itself or soon after,
appear to have occurred rather frequently
(Schol. ad Pind. Ol. v. 34); but if a fighter
wilfully killed his antagonist, he was severely
punished (Paus. viii. 40, § 3; vi. 9, § 3). If
both the combatants were tired without wishing
to give up the fight, they might pause a while
to recover their strength; and in some cases
they are described as resting on their knees
(Apollon. Rhod. ii. 86; Stat. Theb. vi. 796).
The contest did not end until one of the
combatants was compelled by fatigue, wounds,
or despair, to declare himself conquered (&mayo-
pečeiv, Paus. vi. 10, § 1), which was generally
done by lifting up one hand (Plut. Lycurg. 19).
The Ionians, especially those of Samos, were
at all times more distinguished pugilists than
the Dorians, and at Sparta boxing is said to
have been forbidden by the laws of Lycurgus
(Paus. vi. 2, $4; Plut. Lycurg. 19; PANCRATIUM).
But the ancients generally considered boxing as
a useful training for military purposes, and a
part of education no less important than any
other gymnastic exercise (Lucian, Anach. 3;
Plut. Cat. Maj. 20). Even in a medical point
of view, boxing was recommended (Aretaeus,
De Morb. diut. cur. i. 2).
In Italy boxing appears likewise to have been
practised from early times (Liv. i. 35; Dionys.
vii. 72). It continued as a popular game during
the whole period of the Republic as well as of
the Empire (Suet. Aug. 45; Cic. de Leg.
ii. 15, 38; Suet. Calig. 18). We gather,
especially from the passage in Suet. Aug., that
the Greek pugilists were regarded as much more
skilful than the Latin. Besides the “legitimi
pugiles,” there was a peculiarly Italian institu-
tion of caterwarii pugiles, who fought, not in pairs,
but in a general mêlée (Suet. l. c.; C. I. L.
x. 1074, where they are distinguished from
pyctae). See Krause, Die Gymnastik und Agon.
d. Hellenen, pp. 497–534; Blümner in Bau-
meister, Denk. p. 523; Grasberger, Erziehung,
p. 205. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
PUGILLA'RES.. [TABULAE.]
PU'GIO (uáxalpa, dim. Maxaiptov; yxeipt-
8tov), a dagger; a two-edged
knife, commonly of bronze, with
the handle in many cases vari-
ously ornamented or enriched,
Sometimes made of the hard black
wood of the Syrian terebinth
(Theophr. H. P. v. 3, § 2). The
accompanying woodcuts show
three ancient daggers. The first
was found in Italy, and belongs
to a primitive period. The blade
is attached to the handle by
eight studs (cf. the Homeric
epithet of a sword, épyvpômxos).
The second and third are copied
from Beger (Thes. Brand. iii.
pp. 398, 419). The handle of
the second is fitted to receive a
plate of wood on each side,
attached by three rivets.
In the Heroic ages the Greeks
sometimes wore a dagger sus-
pended by the sword on the left
side of the body [GLADIUS], and
Ancient Dagger.
used it on all occasions instead of a knife (Hom.
Il. iii. 271, xix. 252; Athen. vi. p. 232 c). The
Ancient Daggers.
custom is continued to the present day among
the Albanians, who are descended from the
ancient Illyrians. The Romans (see woodcuts,
Vol. I. pp. 3, 884) sometimes wore the dagger
as the Persians did [ACINACES]. on the right
side, and consequently drew it with the thumb
at the upper part of the hilt, the position most
effective for stabbing. The terms pugio and
éyxelpíðuov denote both its smallness and the
manner of grasping it in the hand (trift, pugnus).
On some of the Roman monuments, although
the arrangement appears to be inconvenient, the
long sword was worn by the right side, while
the shorter dagger was by the left hand. (Cf.
the sepulchral reliefs of Roman Legionaries,
Baumeister, Denkmäler, figs. 2266, 2267, 2269.)
In the same way we must understand “the two
swords" (duos gladios, Gell. ix. 13) worn by the
Gallic chieftain, slain by Manlius Torquatus;
and the monuments of the Middle Ages prove
that the custom long continued in our own and
in adjoining countries. (See Stothard, Mom.
Effigies of Gt. Britain.) Among some of the
northern nations of Europe, a dirk was con-
stantly worn on the side, and was in readiness
to be drawn on every occasion (Ovid, Trist.
v. 7, 19, 20). The Chalybes employed the same
weapon, stabbing their enemies in the neck
(Xen. Anab. iv. 7, § 16). For the Greek horse-
men the dagger was considered preferable to the
long sword as a weapon of offence (Xen. de Re
Equest. xii. 11). . . [J. Y.] [A. H. S.]
PULLA'RIUS. [AUGUR.]
PU'LPITUM. [THEATRUM.]
PULS was a thick gruel or porridge made of
spelt (far, ador): as regards this grain, see
AGRICULTURA, Vol. I. pp. 64 f. We are told
that this porridge formed the staple of Roman
food in early times in place of bread (Varro,
L. L. v. 105; Plin. H. W. xviii. § 83): Pliny
adds that for this reason puls was still used in
sacred rites (cf. Juv. xvi. 39; Arnob. ii. 21).
As it was a national dish of the early Romans,
we find pultiphagus in Plaut. Mostell. 818, used
to describe a Roman, or “barbarus” (cf. Id.
Poen. prol. 54). It remained a common food for
the poorer class or those who affected homely
fare (Juv. xiv. 170; Mart. v. 78, xiii. 8;
Ammian. xxv. 2, 2). This dish of puls must be
distinguished from the later introduction po-
lenta, which was made of barley-meal (Plin.
xviii. § 72), and was borrowed from Greece,
“videtur tam puls ignota Graeciae fuisse, quam
Italiae polenta” (Id. ib. § 84). It was, in fact,
the Greek uáça in its more fluid state. The
name polenta has now been transferred to a
different substitute for puls. It is a stiff
porridge of Indian meal, and is at the present

526 PULVINUS
PYANEPSIA
time a principal food of the peasants in
North Italy. (Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 415;
Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii. 313; Charikles, ii.
312.) [G. E. M.]
PULVI'NUS (also pulvinar, culcita, trpoorke-
qāAatov), a cushion, used for beds, couches, and
litters, whether a cervical, to support the head
in beds, or a cubital, to support the arm on
couches. The stuffing was usually of feathers
[LECTUs, p. 18 b); the covering often of bright
coloured silk (Hor. Epod. 8, 15; Mart. iii. 82).
The pillow was supported on a raised frame-
work (which is shown in the woodcut on p. 15),
sometimes being merely the end of the torus,
or mattress, passed over this framework. Mr.
Anderson (Class. Review, iii. 323) has shown good
reason for thinking that fulcrum, fulcra, usually
taken to mean legs of the bedstead, really meant
this support of the pillow, often richly carved
(Juv. xi. 95: cf. Prop. iii. 5, 5 ; Ov. Pont. iii.
3, 14). For the sacred pulvinar, see LECTI-
STERNIUM. - * [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
PUPA (köpm, viſuq m), a doll. Greek and
Roman children commonly had dolls, made often
of terra-cotta, but also of other substances,<
wood, ivory, wax, &c. Wax dolls were by no
means uncommon, and for these the Greeks had
special names, 54-yvvov or òayūs and TAayyáv
(Phot. s. v. TrAayyáv: Schol. ad Theocr. ii. 110).
They were frequently made with movable
limbs, as in the example given by Baumeister
(Denkm. p. 778) from the Crimea. The Greek
girls before their marriage dedicated their dolls
to Artemis (Anth. Pal. vi. 280); at Rome girls
dedicated their dolls to the Lares, as boys did
their bullae, or to Venus (Pers. ii. 70): but if
they died as children, the dolls were buried
with them; many have been found in tombs.
Those whose limbs were moved by strings.
were called vevpéatraorra, and figures so con-
structed were exhibited as regular marionettes
on a stage, or for entertainment in private
houses. (Xen. Symp. iv. 55; Athen. i. p. 19;
cf. Hor. Sat. ii. 7, 82.) [Becq de Fouquières,
Jeux des Anciens, p. 27 ff.; Becker-Göll,
Charikles, i. 282; Gallus, ii. 34; Blümmer,
Technologie, ii. 123.] [G. E. M.]
PUPILLUS. [IMPUBES; TUTELA.]
PU"TEAL, the stone kerb round the mouth
of a well. This was sometimes nearly flush
with the ground, a flat stone with a circular
opening, of which there is an example in the
Capitol (figured in Baumeister, Denkm. p. 5):
it is carved in relief of a late period with scenes
from the life of Achilles. But in most cases it
was an enclosure surrounding the opening, high
enough to protect persons from falling into it,
about three or four feet from the ground, and
either round or square. There is a round one in
the British Museum made of marble, which was
found among the ruins of one of Tiberius's villas
in Capri; it has five groups of fauns and
nymphs, and on the edge at the top may be seen
marks of the ropes used for drawing water.
Such putealia were no doubt common in Roman
villas, and the putealia sigillata, which Cicero
(ad Att. i. 10) wanted for his Tusculan villa,
must have been of the same kind as the one in
the British Museum; the word sigillata refers
to its being adorned with figures. From its
resemblance to a well-enclosure, that which
surrounded a place struck by lightning, and
therefore consecrated, was sometimes called
puteal [BIDENTAL; PRODIGIUM). At Rome we
have (without referring to the Lacus Curtius)
two sacred putealia, erected over places struck
by lightning, one in the Comitium (Cic. de Div.
i. 17, 33; Liv. i. 36), another in the Forum, of
which the remains are thought to have been
discovered between the temples of Vesta and
Castor. This was the Puteal Libonis or Puteal
Scribonianum, consecrated probably by L. Scri-
bonius Libo, which is often shown on coins of
the Scribonian gens, and of which an example is
given below. The puteal is on the reverse of
E) \ }
Coin of the Scribonian Gens.
the coin, and is adorned with laurel wreaths
and two lyres. It must be noticed that the
puteal here has taken distinctly an altar shape.
Tongs have been traced below the wreaths, and
are understood to symbolise Vulcan as the
maker of lightning. Libo erected in the
neighbourhood of this puteal a tribunal for the
praetor, in consequence of which the place was
frequented by those who had lawsuits, money-
lenders, &c. (Comp. Hor. Sat. ii. 6, 35; Ep. i.
19, 8;-Ov. Remed. Amor. 561 ; Cic. pro Sest.
8, 18; O. Richter in Baumeister, Denkm.
p. 1468; Burn, Rome and Campagna, p. 86;
Middleton, Rome, p. 178.) . [W. S.] [[G. E. M.]
PYANE'PSLA (truavépia, rvavópia, travé-
pia), a festival celebrated at Athens every year
on the 7th of Pyanepsion in honour of Apollo
(Harpocr., Hesych., Suidas, s. v. Trvavépia). It
was said to have been instituted by Theseus
after his return from Crete (Plut. Thes. 22; cf.
EIRESIONE; OSCHOPHORIA). The true account
is probably that given by A. Mommsen, that
the old Pyanepsia, in the age of Solon, was a
festival, at the close of the vintage, in honour
of Apollo and Athena Skiras, and that the
worship of Bacchus and of Theseus was a later
association with it of the ceremonies of the
OSCHOPHORIA in the time of Cimon, when the
worship of Theseus was introduced at Athens.
The festival as well as the month in which
it took place are said to have derived their
names from triapºos, another form for kūapºos,
i.e. pulse or beans, which were cooked at
this season and carried about (Harpocr. and
Suid. l.c.; Athen. ix. p. 408). A procession
appears to have taken place at the Pyanepsia,
in which the eipsorićvm was carried about. This
eipeguávn was an olive-branch surrounded with
wool and laden with the fruits of the year; for
the festival was in reality a harvest feast. It
was carried by a boy whose parents were still
living, and those who followed him sang certain
verses, which are preserved in Plutarch (, c. ;
compare Clem. Alex. Strom. iv. p. 474; Eustath.
ad Îl. xxii.; Suid. s. v. Eipegióvn: and Etym.
Mag., where a different account is given). The
procession went to a temple of Apollo, and
the olive-branch was placed at its entrance.
According to others, every Athenian planted, on

PYONOSTYLOS
PYRRHICA 527
the day of the Pyanepsia, such an olive-branch
before his own house, where it was left standing
till the next celebration of the festival, when it
was exchanged for a fresh one. (Schol, ad
Aristoph. Plut. 1050; comp. Preller, Gr. Myth.
i. 203, ii. 297; A. Mommsen, Heort. pp. 57,
270. S.] [G. E. M.]
PYCNOSTYLOS. º
PYELUS (rºexos). IFusus.]
PYGME, PYGON. [MENsuna, Vol. II.
p. 161.
ºvgoras (ruxayápa). [AMPHIC-
Tyones, Vol. I. p. 104 as HIERomnemones.]
PYRA. [FUNUs.]
PYRGUS (répyos), a tower. 1. The towers
used in fortification and in war are spoken of
under Turnis and HELEPOLIS. 2. In Homer
ºrſpºos, rupymbºv are used of an army in close
column (Il. iv. 434; xiii. 152; xv. 618). 3. A
dice-box, so called from its resemblance to a
tower [FRITILLUs]. 4. The territory of the
town of Teos was distributed among a certain
number of towers (rùpyo), to each of which cor-
responded a symmory or section of the citizens,
compared to the Attic demes (see Boeckh, Corp.
Inscr. No. 3064; and the elucidations of Grote,
Hist, of Greece, vol. iii. pp. 247, 248). Scheffer,
however (de rebus Teiorum, p. 35 f.), takes them
to be regions or quarters of the town of Teos, and
Gilbert is disposed to agree with him (Staatsalt.
ii. 38). [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PY'RRHICA (ruppſzn) among the Greeks
was properly the military dance of the Lacedae-
monians and Cretans–dance, that is, in the
sense of rhythmical marchings and evolutions,
which became stereotyped afterwards into a
kind of ornamental parade. There is the
greatest divergence among the authorities as
to the inventor; a Cretan called Pyrrhicus, or
Pyrrhus son of Achilles, or the Dioscuri, or the
Curetes, or Athena, being assumed by different
authors (Krause, Gymnastik und Agonistik, ii.
836). Plato says the pyrrhic dance “imitates
the modes of avoiding blows and darts by
dropping, or giving way, or springing aside, or
rising up, or falling down; also the opposite
postures, which are those of action, as, for
example, the imitation of archery and the
hurling of javelins, and of all sorts of blows”
(Leg. vii. 815, Jowett's translation). Athe-
naeus (xiv. 631) calls it "poºſawaaua roº
roxéuov, and that it required the best music
and most stirring strains. It was practised
at Sparta by children when they were as
young as five years. Exhibitions of pyrrhic
dancers also took place at the Panathenae at
Athens, and it was a common aerroupyſa to
furnish them (Isaeus, de Dicaeog. hered. § 36;
Lysias, Accept. Mum. Def. § 1); also at
Aphrodistas (C. I. G. 275S) and Teos (3089).
There is a lively account of a rupply n danced
by a woman in Xenophon (An. vi. 1, 12). Gras-
berger (Erziehung und. Unterricht, iii. 297) says
that the youths used to strike the shields with
their daggers, and, forming into two opposing
lines, used to strike their daggers against the
shields of those of the opposite line. The
Romans sometimes gave somewhat similar ex-
hibitions, which they called pyrrhicae militares
(Spart. Hadr. 19; cf. Amm, xvi. 5, 10, xviii.
7, 7 ; Herodian, iv. 2, 9). It is a mistake to
suppose that this is the same as the Ludus
Trojae, as is stated by Servius (ad Aen. v. 602).
But with the Romans pyrrhica for the most
part signified a dramatic representation by
several dancers, male and female, like our ballet,
with all kinds of marching, evolutions, and
groupings (Apul. Met. x. 29). There were also
kinds of sham fights; an epigram on the pyr-
rhica (Anthol. Lat. 959, ed. Meyer) says, “In
spatio Veneris simulantur praelia Martis Cum
sese adversum sexus uterque venit.” The sub-
jects were most various: the Judgment of Paris,
Icarus and Pasiphae (Suet. Ner. 12); but a very
common one was something connected with
Bacchic worship, as it lent itself so well to
picturesque treatment, the dancers being got up
with fawn-skins, thyrsi, &c. Thus we hear of
the invasion of India by Bacchus and Pentheus
being subjects (Ath. xiv. 631). Boys and girls
for this kind of dance were imported from Asia
Minor (cf. Suet. Caes. 39). They were some-
times free, and given citizenships if they gave
satisfaction (Suet. Ner. 12), but generally they
were slaves (Wilm. 222). The pyrrhica was
sometimes danced by criminals in the amphi-
theatre (Dig. 48, 19, 8, 11; Plut. de sera
Numinis wind. i. 9 = 554 ed. Reiske). The
dancers had masks and splendid purple cloaks
(b.). Pliny (H. M. viii. 5) tells us that elephants
were taught to dance the pyrrhica, and Lucian
(Pisc. 36) mentions a ballet of monkeys. An
elaborate account of a pyrrhica representing the
Judgment of Paris is given by Apuleius (Met. x.
30–34). It was very like our ballets. We may
notice especially the characteristic music, solemn
with the entrance of Juno, the martial Doric
mood as Minerva appears, and voluptuous
Lydian strains accompanying Venus (c. 31);
also the elaborate scenery, Mount Ida with real
living bushes and trees, real goats browsing on
it, and real water in its many ſountains (c. 30).
These at the end shot up a stream of crocus and
wine just before, at the end of the performance,
the mountain sank (c. 34). The machinery used
in such ballets must have been most elaborate;
and it is doubtless to a pyrrhica that Juvenal
Pyrrhic dancer, from a tomb at Chiusi.

528 PYTHIA
PYTHIA
(iv. 122) alludes when he speaks of pegma et
pueros inde ad velaria raptos (cf. Mayor ad
loc.).
& that is to be known about the Roman
pyrrhicae is given in Friedländer, Sittengeschichte
Roms, ii.” 443–445.). [L. C. P.]
PY'THIA (tröðia), one of the four great
national festivals of the Greeks. It was cele-
brated in the neighbourhood of Delphi, anciently,
and always by Herodotus, called Pytho, in
honour of Apollo, Artemis, and Leto. The
place of this solemnity was the Crissaean plain,
which for this purpose contained a hippodromus
or race-course (Paus. x. 37, § 4), a stadium of
1000 feet in length (Censorin. de Die Nat. 13),
and a theatre, in which the musical contests
took place (Lucian, adv. Indoct. 9). A gymna-
sium, prytaneum, and other buildings of this
kind, probably existed here, as at Olympia,
although they are not mentioned. Once the
Bythian games were held at Athens, on the
advice of Demetrius Poliorcetes (Ol. 122. 3.; see
Plut. Demetr. 40; Corsini, Fast. Att. iv. p. 77),
because the Aetolians were in possession of the
passes around Delphi.
The Pythian games were, according to most
legends, instituted by Apollo himself (Athen. xv.
p. 701; Schol. Argum. ad Pind. Pyth.); other
traditions referred them to ancient heroes, such
as Amphictyon, Adrastus, Diomedes, and others.
They were originally, perhaps, nothing more
than a religious panegyris, occasioned by the
oracle of Delphi, and the sacred games are said
to have been at first only a musical contest,
which consisted in singing a hymn to the honour
of the Pythian god with the accompaniment of
the cithara (Paus. x. 7, § 2; Strab. ix. p. 421).
Some of the poets, however, and mythographers
represent even the gods and the early heroes as
engaged in gymnastic and equestrian contests at
the Pythian games. But such statements,
numerous as they are, can prove nothing; they
are anachronisms in which late writers were
fond of indulging. The description of the Py-
thian games in which Sophocles, in the Electra,
makes Orestes take part, belongs to this class.
The Pythian games must, on account of the
celebrity of the Delphic oracle, have become a
national festival for all the Greeks at a very
early period; and when Solon fixed pecuniary
rewards for those Athenians who were victors
in the great national festivals, the Pythian agon
was undoubtedly included in the number, though
it ; not expressly mentioned (Diog. Laërt. i.
55).
Whether gymnastic contests had been per-
formed at the Pythian games previous to Ol. 47,
is uncertain. Boeckh supposes that these two
kinds of games had been connected at the Pythia
from early times, but that afterwards the gym-
nastic games were neglected; but, however this
may be, it is certain that about Ol. 47 they did
not exist at Delphi. Down to Ol. 48 the Del-
phians themselves had been the agonothetae at
the Pythian games; but in the third year of
this Olympiad, when after the Crissaean war
the Amphictyons took the management under
their care, they naturally became the agono-
thetae (Strab. ix. p. 421; Paus. x. 7, § 3).
Some of the ancients date the institution of the
Pythian games from this time (Phot. Cod. p. 533,
ed. Bekker), and others say that henceforth
they were called Pythian games. Owing to
their being under the management of the Am-
phictyons, they are sometimes called 'Aubik’rvo-
vikā 30Åa (Heliod. Aeth. iv. 1). From Ol. 48.
3, the Pythiads were occasionally used as an
era, and the first celebration under the Am-
phictyons was the first Pythiad. Pausanias
(l. c.) expressly states that in this year the
original musical contest in kuðapçöta was ex-
tended by the addition of aixpbia, i.e. singing
with the accompaniment of the flute, and by
that of flute-playing alone. Strabo (l. c.) in
speaking of these innovations does not mention
the aâAq,6ta, but states that the contest of
cithara-players (kiðaptorral) was added, while
Pausanias assigns the introduction of this con-
test to the eighth Pythiad. One of the musical
contests at the Pythian games in which only
flute and cithara-players took part, was the so-
called vôuos IIvôukós, which, at least in subse-
quent times, consisted of five parts, viz. &vá-
repovais, Šutrelpa, kararexévowós, fauboi Kal
6&ncruxoi, and orépiº'yes. The whole of this
wówos was a musical description of the fight of
Apollo with the dragon and of his victory over
the monster (Strabo, l.c.). A somewhat different
account of the parts of this vówos is given by
the Scholiast on Pindar (Argum. ad Pyth.) and
by Pollux (iv. 79, 81, 84).
Besides these innovations in the musical con-
tests which were made in the first Pythiad, such
gymnastic and equestrian games as were then
customary at Olympia were either revived at
Delphi or introduced for the first time. The
chariot-race with four horses was not introduced
till the second Pythiad (Paus. x. 7, § 3). Some
games on the other hand were adopted which
had not yet been practised at Olympia, viz. the
66Xixos and the 6tavXos for boys. In the first
Pythiad the victors received xpſiuara as their
prize, but in the second a chaplet was estab-
lished as the reward for the victors (Paus. and
Schol. ad Pind. l. c.). The Scholiasts on Pindar
reckon the first Pythiad from this introduction
of the chaplet, and their system has been
followed by most modern chronologers, though
Pausanias expressly assigns this institution to
the second Pythiad. (See Clinton, F. H. p. 195;
Krause, Die Pyth. Nem., &c. p. 21, &c.) The
aúAq,6ía, which was introduced in the first
Pythiad, was omitted at the second and ever
after, as only elegies and 6pijvot had been sung
to the flute, which were thought too melancholy
for this solemnity. The ré6putritos, or chariot-
race with four horses, however, was added in
the same Pythiad. In the eighth Pythiad (Ol.
55. 3) the contest in playing the cithara without
singing was introduced; in Pythiad 23 the foot-
race in arms was added; in Pythiad 48 the
chariot-race with two full-grown horses (oruvo-
pí60s Spóuos) was performed for the first time ;
in Pythiad 53 the chariot-race with four foals
was introduced. In Pythiad 61 the pancratium
for boys, in Pythiad 63 the horse-race with
foals, and in Pythiad 69 the chariot-race with
two foals were introduced (Paus. l.c.). Various
musical contests were also added in the course
of time; and contests in tragedy as well as in
other kinds of poetry, and in recitations of
historical compositions, are expressly mentioned
(Philostr. Wit. Soph. ii. 27, 2; Plut. Sympos. ii.
4). Works of art, as paintings and sculptures,
PYTHIA
PYTHIA 529
were exhibited to the assembled Greeks, and
prizes were awarded to those who had produced
the finest work (Plin. xxxv. § 35). The musical
and artistic contests were at all times the most
prominent feature of the Pythian games, and in
this respect they even excelled the Olympic
games.
Previous to Ol. 48 the Pythian games had
been an évvaetmpts, that is, they had been cele-
brated at the end of every eighth year; but in
O!. 48. 3, they became, like the Olympia, a
revre'rmpts, i.e. they were held at the end of
every fourth year, and a Pythiad therefore, ever
since the time that it was used as an era, com-
prehended a space of four years, commencing
with the third year of every Olympiad (Paus.
J. c.; Diod. xv. 60 ; compare Clinton, F. H.
p. 195). Others have, in opposition to direct
statements, inferred from Thucydides (iv. 117,
v. 1) that the Pythian games were held towards
the end of the second year of every Olympiad.
Respecting this controversy, see Krause, l. c.
p. 29, &c. As for the season of the Pythian
games, they were in all probability held in the
spring, and most writers believe that it was in
the month of Bysius, which is supposed to be
the same as the Attic Munychion. Boeckh (ad
Corp. Inscript. n. 1688), however, has shown
that the games took place in the month of
Bucatius, which followed after the month of
Bysius, and that this month must be considered
as the same as the Attic Munychion. The
festival was probably timed to coincide with the
spring meetings of the Amphictyons at Delphi
(Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 254). The games lasted for
several days, as is expressly mentioned by So-
phocles (Elect. 690, &c.), but we do not know
how many. When ancient writers speak of the
day of the Pythian agon, they are probably
thinking of the musical agon alone, which was
the most important part of the games, and
probably took place on the 7th of Bucatius.
It is quite impossible to conceive that all the
numerous games should have taken place on
one day.
The concourse of strangers at the season of
this panegyris must have been very great, as
undoubtedly all the Greeks were allowed to
attend. The states belonging to the amphic-
tyony of Delphi had to send their theori in the
month of Bysius, some time before the com-
mencement of the festival itself (Boeckh, Corp.
Inscr. l. c.). The theories sent by the Athenians
were always particularly brilliant (Schol. ad
Aristoph. Av. 1585). [For the meaning of the
word IIv6aïortaſ, Strab. ix. p. 404, see THEORI.]
As regards sacrifices, processions, and other
solemnities, it may be presumed that they
resembled in a great measure those of Olympia.
A splendid, though probably in some degree
fictitious, description of a theoria of Thessalians
may be read in Heliodorus (Aeth. ii. 34).
As to the order in which the various games
were performed, scarcely anything is known,
with the exception of some allusions in Pindar
and a few remarks of Plutarch. The latter
(Symp. ii. 4; comp. Philostr. Apoll. Tyan. vi. 10)
says that the musical contests preceded the
gymnastic contests, and from Sophocles it is
clear that the gymnastic contests preceded the
horse and chariot races. Every game, moreover,
which was performed by men and by boys, was
WOL. II.
always, as at Olympia, first performed by the
latter (Plut. Symp. ii. 5).
We have stated above that, down to Ol. 48,
the Delphians had the management of the
Pythian games; but of the manner in which
they were conducted previous to that time
nothing is known. When they came under the
care of the Amphictyons, especial persons were
appointed for the purpose of conducting the
games and of acting as judges. They were
called 'Etruexmtat (Plut. Symp. ii. 4, vii. 5),
and answered to the Olympian Hellanodicae.
Their number is unknown. There must, how-
ever, have been at least three : one for the
musical, gymnastic, and equestrian contests
respectively (Krause, l.c. p. 44). In later times
it was decreed by the Amphictyons that king
Philip with the Thessalians and Boeotians should
undertake the management of the games (Diod.
xvi. 60), but Krause thinks this was a purely
honorary office, the real work of presiding
remaining in the hands of the Amphictyons;
and afterwards, even under the Roman emperors,
the Amphictyons again appear in the possession
of this privilege (Philostr. Wit. Soph. ii. 27).
The étriplexmiral had to maintain peace and order,
and were assisted by uaatiyopópol, who executed
any punishment at their command, and thus
answered to the Olympian &Atral (Luc. adv.
Indoct. 9, &c.).
The prize given to the victors in the Pythian
games was from the time of the second Pythiad
a laurel chaplet (ro purov rās 6d. pums); so that
they then became an āry&v or reqavírms, while
before they had been an āyöv xpmuarírms. The
laurel sprays of which the chaplet was composed
were brought by boys whose parents were both
alive (traßes &uquðaxeſs) from the Vale of
Tempê, accompanied on the way by a flute-
player (Plut. Trepl provo. c. 14). (Paus. x. 7,
§ 3; Schol. in Argum. ad Pind. Pyth.) In
addition to this chaplet, the victor here, as at
Olympia, received the symbolic palm-branch,
and was allowed to have his own statue erected
in the Crissaean plain. (Plut. Symp. viii. 4;
Paus. vi. 15, § 3, 17, § 1 ; Justin. xxiv. 7, 10.)
That sometimes apples were presented to victors
in the great Pythian games as prizes is clear
from many passages in later writers. (Cf. Luc.
Anach, 9, 10, 13, 16; Liban. Eloqu. Rom. t. ii.
716 R.; Paus. vi. 9, 1; Schol. Pind. Pyth. Arg.
p. 298 B.)
The time when the Pythian games ceased to
be solemnised is not certain, but they probably
lasted as long as the Olympic games, i.e. down
to A.D. 394. In A.D. 191 a celebration of the
Pythia is mentioned by Philostratus (Wit.
Soph. ii. 27), and in the time of the Emperor
Julian they still continued to be held, as is
manifest from his own words (Jul. Epist. pro
Argiv. p. 35 a).
Pythian games of less importance were cele-
brated in a great many other places where the
worship of Apollo was introduced ; and the
games of Delphi are sometimes distinguished
from these lesser Pythia by the addition of the
words év AeAqoſs. But as by far the greater
number of the lesser Pythia are not mentioned
in the extant ancient writers, and are only
known from coins or inscriptions, we shall only
give a list of the places where they were held:
—Ancyra in Galatia, Aphrodisias in Cºia, An-
2 MI
530 PYTHIA
QUADRANTAL
tiochia, Carthaea in the island of Ceos (Athen.
x. pp. 456, 467), Carthage (Tertull. Scorp. 6),
Cibyra in Phrygia, Delos (Dionys. Perieg. 527),
Emisa in Syria, Hierapolis in Phrygia, Magnesia,
Megara (Schol. ad Pind. Nem. v. 84, Ol. xiii.
155; Philostr. Wit. Soph. i. 3), Miletus, Nea-
polis in Italy, Nicaea in Bithynia, Nicomedia,
Pergamus in Mysia, Perge in Pamphylia, Perin-
thus on the Propontis, Philippopolis in Thrace,
Side in Pamphylia, Sicyon (Pind. Ol. xiii. 105,
with the Schol.; Nem. ix. 51), Taba in Caria,
Thessalonice in Macedonia, in Thrace, Thyatira,
and Tralles in Lydia, Tripolis on the Maeander
in Caria. (Krause, Die Pythien, Nemeen und
Isthmien, pp. 1–106.) [L. S.] [J. I. B.]
PYTHIA. [ORACULUM.
PYTHII (rù010), called also IIoſótol (Phot.
s. v.), were four officers at Sparta who were
chosen by the kings, two by each king, as their
assistants in their religious and priestly func-
tions. Their most important duty was to go as
envoys to Delphi, to receive the oracles com-
mitted to writing, and to take charge of them
,when they had been delivered to the kings.
They were in immediate attendance on the
kings, and messed with them, boarded at the
'public expense. [DAMOSIA.] (Herod. vi. 57;
Plut. Pelop. 21; Xen. de Rep. Lac. xv. 5;
Suid. s. v. ; Schomänn, Antiq. p. 246; Gilbert,
Staatsalt. i. 48.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
PYXIS (rvčís), a casket, a jewel-box (Mart.
ix. 38); also a small box for holding drugs or
poisons (Cic. pro Cael. 25, 61 ; Quintil. vi. 3,
25). Quintilian (viii. 6, § 35) produces this
term as an example of catachresis, because it
properly denoted that which was made of box
(tráčos), but was applied to things of similar
form and use made of any other material.
In
Pyxis.
fact, the caskets in which the ladies of ancient
times kept their jewels and other ornaments
were made of gold, silver, ivory, mother-of-
pearl, tortoise-shell, &c. The pyxis, in which
Nero dedicated the cuttings from his beard
to Jupiter, was of gold, studded with pearls
(Suet. Ner. 12). They were also much enriched
with sculpture. A silver coffer, 2 feet long,
1} wide, and 1 deep, most elaborately adorned
with figures in bas-relief,
is described by Böttiger
(Sabina, vol. i. pp. 64–80,
plate iii.). The first wood-
cut (from Ant. d’Ercolano,
vol. ii. tav. 7) represents a
very plain jewel-box, out of
which a dove is extracting
a riband or fillet: the second
of terra-cotta, from
The word is also
NNNNNNNNNº
Terra-cotta Pyxis. .
(Dennis.) IS
Etruria.
used for the iron cap at the end of a pestle
(Plin. H. N. xviii. § 112). [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
Q.
QUADRAGE'SIM.A. (1.) The fortieth part
of the imported goods, or 2% per cent., was the
amount of the portorium in some provinces
[PORTORIUM.J. Separate stationes fisci seem to
have looked after this tax in each province,
under the Empire (see Wilmanns, Ea’emp. Inscr.
Lat. 1397, 1398; and see STATIONES FISCI).
(2) Quadragesima litium (Suet. Cal. 40); a
tax imposed by Caligula of the fortieth part of
the value of all property about which there was
a lawsuit.
In what sense does Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 51) mean
that Nero abolished quadragesima 2 Not (1),
for that tax is heard of later (see Symmachus,
Ep. v. 62; and perhaps Suet. Vesp. 1); nor (2),
because Claudius had already abolished the new
taxes of Caligula (Dio Cass. lx. 4; though
many persons think that the quadragesima.
litium was not abolished before Galba’s princi-
pate), and also because a quadragesima litium
could not well be farmed, whereas the context
shows that the tax spoken of by Tacitus was
farmed. It is therefore probable that Tacitus is
speaking of charges otherwise unknown to us
and (as alia, &c. in the passage would show)
illegal. F.T. R.]
QUADRANS. [As, Vol. I. p. 202; PON-
DERA.]
QUADRANTAL, or AMPHORA QUAD-
RANTAL, or AMPHORA only, was the
principal Roman measure of capacity for fluids.
(Amphora was the later name for the quadrantal,
and is not found as a measure earlier than Cic.
pro Font. 9, 19; cf. Fest. p. 258, “quadrantal
vocabant antiqui, quam ex Graeco amphoram
dicunt"; sofalso Volus. Maecian. Dist. Part. 79,
“quadrantal, quod nunc plerique amphoram
vocant.” This was in the middle of the 2nd
century A.D.) All the Roman measures of
capacity were founded on weight, and thus the
amphora was originally the space occupied by
eighty pounds of wine.
There is also preserved to us by Festus (s. v.
Publica Pondera, p. 246) a plebiscitum [LEx
SILIA] of unknown date, regulating the weights
and measures, to the following effect:—“Ex
ponderibus publicis, quibus hac tempestate popu-
lus oetier (uti) solet, uti coaequetur sedulum, uti
quadrantal vini octoginta pondo siet : congius
vini decem p. (i.e. pondo) siet : sex sextari con-
gius siet vini; duodequinquaginta sextari quad-
rantal siet vini: ”—that is, that the quadrantal
should contain 80 pounds of wine,” and the
congius 10; and that the seatarius should be
1–6th of the congius, and 1–48th of the quad-
rantal. The quadrantal was subdivided into
2 urnae, 8 congii, 48 sea-tarii, 96 heminae, 192
quartarii, 384 acetabula, 576 cyathi, and 2304
ligulae. As compared with the Roman dry
measure, the quadrantal was three times the
* The Romans were aware that there is a difference
in the specific gravity of wine and of water, and in the
different sorts of each, but, for the sake of simplicity,
they regarded them as the same specific gravity: when,
however, they wished a very exact determination, they
used rain-water. (Boeckh, c. 3.) -


QUADRANTAL
QUADRUPLATOR 531
modius. The only measure larger than , the
quadrantal was the culleus of 20 amphorae, which
was used, as well as the amphora itself, in esti-
mating the produce of a vineyard. [CULLEUS:
comp. AMPHORA, sub fin.]
The quadrantal was connected with the mea-
sures of length, by the law, that it was the cube
of the foot, whence its name quadrantal, or, as
other writers give it (using the Greek kū80s in-
stead of the Latin quadrantal) amphora cubus.
(Cato, R. R. 57; Gell. i. 20; Auct. Carm. de
Mems. et Pond. v.v. 59–63:—
“Pes longo in spatio latogue altogue notetur:
Angulus ut par sit, quem claudit linea triplex
Quatuor et medium quadris cingatur inane:
Amphora fit cubus, quam me violare liceret,
Sacravere Jovi Tarpeio in monte Quirites.”)
A standard model of the amphora was kept
with great care in the temple of Jupiter in the
Capitol, and was called amphora Capitolina
(Carm. de Mens. l. c.; Capitol. Maazimin. 4). It
was under the charge of the aediles (C. I. L. vi.
1520, x. 8067; Polyb. iii. 26; cf. Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii.” p. 500). There still exists a
congius which professes to have been made ac-
cording to this standard. [CONGIUS.] For a
full account of this congius, see H. Hase, Abhandl.
d. Berl. Akad. 1824.
There are two questions connected with the
Roman quadrantal : namely, (1) whether the
equality to the cubic foot was originally exact,
or only approximate ; and (2) whether there
was any exact ratio between the Roman and the
Grecian measures. The full discussion of these
questions would be inconsistent both with the
limits and with the chief object of this work.
A general statement of the matters in dispute
will be found under MENSURA, pp. 160, 161.
It may here be added that, whether there was
or was not originally any precise ratio between
the Greek and Roman measures of capacity,
they were at least so nearly related to one
another, that, when the two systems came to
exist side by side, it was found easy to establish
the following definite ratios. Of the liquid
measures: the Roman amphora, or quadrantal,
was 2–5ths of the Aeginetan, and 2–3rds of the
Attic amphora or metretes; and the congius of
the Roman system was equal to the x00s of the
Attic. Again, comparing the Roman liquid
with the Greek dry measures, the quadrantal
was 1–3rd of the Aeginetan, and one-half of the
Attic, medimnus. Consequently, of the dry
measures, the modius (which was 1—3rd of the
quadrantal) was 1–9th of the Aeginetan, and
1–6th of the Attic, medimnus. The connecting
subordinate unit in all these sets of measures is
the Roman Seartarius, or sixth part of the congius,
which was introduced into the Greek system
under the name of £éoºrms, and which stands to
the several measures now mentioned in the
following relations:—
1. Liquid Measures.
The Roman quadrantal 48 Sextarii
,, Attic metretes = 72 ,
,, Aeginetan , = 120 , ,
2. Dry Measures.
The Roman modius = 16 Sextarii
,, Attic medimnus = 96 »,
,, Aeginetan , = 144 »,
The £éorms, or Roman sextarius, is not to be
confounded with the genuine Attic Śrcrews or
siarth of the medimnus, which was equal to the
Roman modius.
From the preceding remarks it will be seen
that the only safe mode of computing the con-
tent of the amphora in terms of our own mea-
sures of capacity is by deducing it from the
value already assigned to the Roman pound, on
the authority chiefly of the coins. That value
may be taken, in round numbers, at 5050 grains.
[PONDERA, Vol. II, p. 455.] Now the imperial
gallon contains 70,000 grains. Therefore the
5050 x 80 - -
*...* = 5·77 imperial
gallons, i.e. a very little over 5 gallons and
6 pints. It is clear, therefore, that for rough
calculations, at any rate when the numbers
dealt with are not very large, if we reckon the
sextarius as a pint (instead of : 96 of a pint)
and the quadrantal or amphora at 6 gallons, it
will be a close enough approximation. (Boeckh,
Metrol. 167; Hultsch, Metrol. pp. 112 ft., ed. 2,
1882.) [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
QUADRI'GAE. [CURRUs.] -
QUADRIGA'TUS. (Denarius with quad-
riga as type.) [AS, Vol. I. p. 205.]
QUADRIRE'MIS. [NAVIs, Vol.II. p. 221 a.]
QUA’DRUPES. [PAUPERIES.]
QUADRUPLA"TOR, a professional accuser
in cases involving a pecuniary penalty (Plaut.
Pers. i. 2, 18; Cic. Verr. ii. 8, 22; Div. in
Caecil. 7, 24; Liv. iii. 72 ; Fest. p. 259). The
indea was one who was himself involved in the
crime or conspiracy, and, by coming forward as
informer, gained immunity for himself and a
reward paid by the state treasury (Liv. ii. 5,
iv. 45, xxii. 33, xxxii. 26, xxxix. 19; Cic. Cat.
iv. 5; Suet. Jul. 17). The quadruplator differed
from the index in the nature of the cases
involved, in the fact that he was not himself
liable but took up the accusation as a means of
making money, and thirdly because he derived
his gains from a share of the penalty, and so
from the property of the accused, not from the
state. [For a later development of the pro-
fessional accuser under the Empire, see DELATOR.]
Several emperors tried to get rid of quadru-
platores (Capitol. Anton. P. 7; M. Ant. Phil. 11):
in the later Empire the term disappears.
As to the origin and strict meaning of the
word, there is some controversy. Ps.-Ascon.
(in Cic. l. c.) gives two opinions. As to the
first—that the quadruplator received one-fourth
of the accused person’s property—this scarcery
agrees with the etymology, which should mean
fourfold, and is probably a confusion arising
from the fact that the later delatores received
one-fourth. So far as we know, this began with
the Lex Julia de majestate. The second view is
probably more correct—that the quadruplator
had to do with cases where the penalty was
four times the damage; as, for instance, viola-
tion of the laws of usury (Liv. vii. 28; Cato,
R. R. init.; FENUs], and it is probable that the
condemnation to pay fourfold was not uncommon
in other cases: we find it as the penalty for
provincials who kept back the corn tribute (Cic.
Verr. iii. 13, 34), and the term quadruplator
applied, in Sidon. Ep. v. 7, to one who farmed.
the tolls, is perhaps derived from his exacting
fourfold from defaulters. Possibly, as Mommsen
Roman amphora =
2 M 2
532 QUADRUPLICATIO
QUAESTOR
thinks, the quadruplator originally received the
whole penalty (quadruplus) from the accused ;
afterwards only a proportion, large or small.
The locus classicus in Plaut. Pers. i. 2, 18 does
not lay down the actual law, but only what the
poet wishes to be the law, that the quadruplator
should, if he made good his accusation [“si—
damnet ’’, pay half the penalty to the treasury,
receiving only half for himself; and that, on the
other hand, he should himself be condemned in
the fourfold penalty if he failed in his proof.
[Geib, Criminalprocess, 106; Walter, Gesch.
d. rôm. Rechts, $ 860; Rudorff, Röm. Rechts-
gesch., 463; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii.” 599; and
(for the passage of Plautus) Götz, in Rhein.
Mus, xxx. 167.] [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
QUADRUPLICA"TIO. [ACTio, Vol. I.
p. 20 a.]
QUAESTIO'NES, QUAESTIONESPER-
PETUAE. [JUDICIUM.]
QUAESTOR, the name of a class of Roman
officers. The origin of the quaestorship is some-
what uncertain. The best authorities know
nothing of it in the time of the kings. Cicero
(de Rep. ii. 35, 60) mentions it in connexion
with the trial of Sp. Cassius in B.C. 485. Livy
(ii. 41) refers to it first on the same occasion,
and in a chronological enumeration of the
magistrates places it between the tribuneship
of the commons (B.C. 493) and the decemvirate
(B.C. 451). Dionysius mentions quaestors inci-
dentally in speaking of the sale of booty in
B.C. 507 (v. 34), and speaks also of their action
in the case of Sp. Cassius. Tacitus (Ann. xi.
22) ascribes them to the time of the kings, but
on grounds which plainly do not bear out his
view. The silence of our earlier authorities on
occasions like the trial of Horatius makes it
evident that there was no good reason for
believing that the office was then in existence;
and this view is confirmed by the fact that the
quaestors were elected in the comitia of the
tribes. It cannot be upset by the assertions of
later writers, such as Ulpian (in Dig. 1, 13,
1 pr.) and Lydus (de Mag. i. 24). Further, the
quaestors were at first two in number ; and this
of itself makes it highly probable that the
office came into being along with the consul-
ship, as a part of the earliest republican consti-
tution. When the consulship was suspended
under the decemvirate, the quaestorship ceased
along with it.
As early as B.C. 421 the number was raised to
four, one being assigned to each consul for
domestic affairs and one for war. In B.C. 267,
or perhaps not until B.C. 241, four more were
added to take part in the administration of
Italy. . The number probably steadily increased
with the addition of new provinces; but we are
only told that Sulla raised the annual total to
twenty (Tac. Ann. xi. 22; cf. C. I. L. i.
p. 108). Julius Caesar increased it to forty,
but there is reason to believe (Mommsen, Staats-
recht, ii. 516, note 1) that Augustus reduced it
again to twenty.
The quaestorship was the first of the ordinary
magistracies to be thrown open to the plebeians:
in B.C. 421 it was agreed that patricians and
plebeians should be eligible without distinction
(Liv. iv. 43), and in B.C. 409 three of the four
were actually plebeians (Liv. iv. 54). Tacitus
asserts (Ann. xi. 22) that the quaestors were at
first nominated by the consuls, and that it was
only sixty-three years after the expulsion of the
kings that they were elected by the people;
that is, probably in consequence of the Valerio-
Horatian laws of B.C. 449. This is at variance
with the view of Junius Gracchanus (in Dig. 1,
13, 1 pr.), that they were elected by popular
vote, even under the kings; but that we have
already seen to be erroneous, and, though Livy
does not mention the introduction of popular
election, the probabilities of the case are
decidedly in favour of the statement of Tacitus.
The quaestors were elected in the comitia of the
tribes (Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. i. 159 ft.), and
their elections came off last in the annual series.
The office was held for one year: but when the
custom sprang up that the consul should
govern a province as proconsul in the year after
his consulate, it came to be usual that his
quaestors should accompany him with an exten-
sion of powers as proquaestors. The quaestors
had the usual insignia of magistrates, but a sella
which was not curulis, but one with straight
legs, such as that used by the judex quaestions,
if he was not a curule magistrate. They were
attended by scribae, viatores, and praecomes.
The provinces of the various quaestors were
determined by a resolution of the senate each
year, before the new quaestors entered upon
office. The number of the posts to be filled
probably exceeded that of the new quaestors,
before their number was increased by Sulla,
seventeen being known to us. Deficiencies seem
to have been made good by continuing some in
office as proquaestors; perhaps also by giving
governors of provinces the right of choosing
their proquaestors. Under the Empire the
number of posts appears to have exactly equalled
that of the annual appointments.
When the provinciae had been determined by
the senate, they were distributed among the
quaestors, partly by selection by the superior
magistrates, to whom they were severally
attached (Liv. xxx. 33; Cic. ad Att. vi. 6, 4),
confirmed by the senate, partly by lot (Cic.
pro Mur. 8, 18; Div. in Caec. 14, 46, and else-
where). Under the Empire the selection was
made by the emperor and by the consuls (Plin.
Ep. iv. 15).
The duties of the quaestors will be best dis-
cussed under the head of the various provinciae.
1. Quaestores urbani. This was the official
designation, frequently occurring in inscrip-
tions, of the two quaestors whose duty required
them to remain in Rome during their year of
office. Their primary function was to be
officials subordinate to the consuls, the only
other magistrates in existence at the time of
the creation of the office. Hence such duties as
the latter could discharge by deputy commonly
fell to the quaestors. They had no functions in
connexion with civil jurisdiction; the super-
intendence of this naturally lay with the
supreme authority, while the decision of details
was committed to a private judex. But in
criminal jurisdiction they took an important
part, from which indeed they originally derived
their name. The title quaestor is only another
form of quaesitor (cf. Sartor by the side of
sarcitor from sarcire), and denotes “investi-
gator.” In the Twelve Tables they appear
under the full title of quaestores parricidii (cf.
QUAESTOR
QUAESTOR 533

Pomponius in Dig. 1, 2, 2, 23; Festus, p. 221,
“parricidi quaestores appellabantur qui solebant
creari causa.rerum capitalium quaerendarum :''
cf. p. 258). When this part of their functions fell
into desuetude, the term parricidii, at first
necessary for distinctiveness, was dropped, or
replaced by some other phrase, a fact which led
some late authorities into the error of supposing
that the term quaestores parricidii denoted an
obsolete office, distinct from the later quaestor-
ship. That this is an error is proved indirectly
by the silence of Livy, Dionysius, and Tacitus,
and explicitly by the language-of Varro (L. L.
v. 81, “quaestores a quaerendo, qui conquirerent
publicas pecunias et maleficia”). Modern scholars
have been misled by the statement of Pomponius
(Dig. 1. c.), which must certainly be rejected.
But the quaestors never had the imperium, nor
the right of convoking the centuries on their
own account. It is therefore necessary that we
should regard them as acting by virtue of a
mandate from the consuls. It is a reasonable
conjecture that under the kingship, as an appeal
from a capital sentence to the judgment of the
people was allowed, the king, in order to avoid
the appearance of a conflict between his
authority and the rights of the community,
exercised his jurisdiction through a representa-
tive: and that the consul, after the institution
of the quaestorship, was bound by tradition to
choose a quaestor as his representative. Thus,
through the action of the right of appeal, the
power of criminal jurisdiction came to attach
itself to the quaestorship. This accounts for
the fact that originally this jurisdiction ex-
tended only to capital offences, where the
accused had a right of appeal, if condemned. It
did not, however, include the offences against the
state, included under the head of perduellio:
these were tried, not by the standing magis-
trates, the quaestors, but by special commis-
sioners [PERDUELLIONIS DUO WIRI] appointed
specially for the purpose. It is probable that in
cases of less gravity, where the punishment was
not capital, the quaestors had no right of juris-
diction, as no appeal was allowed; but when an
appeal came to be permitted in cases of fine
above a fixed maximum, these too fell under
their cognisance.
We hear very little of the criminal jurisdic-
tion of the quaestors, because they had nothing
to do with political prosecutions, almost the
only prosecutions of which history takes
notice. A formula preserved by Varro (vi. 91)
proves that it was in operation in the latter
part of the third century B.C. We know
further that there was no authority which
could have taken their place until a century
after this date. The tribunes prosecuted only
political offences; the aediles only offences
against special laws entailing a fine for their
violation: the tres viri capitales acted as police
magistrates, and in cases of ordinary offences,
where individual citizens were the complainants.
Hence it seems clear that the quaestors must
have tried cases of murder and arson until these
were brought under the jurisdiction of the
quaestiones perpetuae.
The second main branch of the duties of the
quaestors likewise devolved upon them as
subordinates of the consuls. The same consuls
who passed the Walerio-Horatian law of appeal
(provocatio), founded the aerurium populi
Romani ; and it is probable that the first
quaestors were quaestores aerarii as well as
parricidii. The consuls indeed retained, subject
to the Senate, the supreme control of the
treasury, but the quaestors had the actual
charge of the money and kept the accounts, re-
ceiving the former from the consuls and paying
it out on their order. They held the keys of
the treasury in the temple of Saturn (cf. Polyb.
xxiii. 14, where Scipio threatens, as consul, to
take the keys and open it himself), and had
charge of all that was in it, including not only
coin and bullion, but also the military standards
(Liv. iii. 69; iv. 22; vii. 23). State papers of
all kinds were also preserved there, not only
account-books, contracts, and lists of persons
who had claims on the treasury, but (after the
institution of the curule aedileship) decrees of
the senate, and (after the Lex Licinia Junia of
B.e. 63) all laws and proposals of laws. Lists of
Amagistrates and senators, who had taken the oaths
\of office; of jurymen, and of other official
\ºpº ents were sº there, and it
seems to have been the duty of the quaestors to
jºy themselves as té, their genuineness and
'accuracy (Plut. Cat. Iºn. 17; Cic. Phil. v. 4,
;12). { *
ºftwas further the dyty of the quaestors to
'see tº the payment of Árrears of taxation (Liv.
}xx iº, probably àº. thè tribuni aerarii,
land to keep lists of defºliºs; to receive the
surns due from the *C c. pro Flacc. 32,
§
79), the balances/in the han º:
; proviſces, fines dué on a legéſ sºntence to the
feasury, and the wałºńdemnities exafted from
a conquered enemy (Liv. 2; xkii. 6).
In gases of default the quaestors had the right
to (proceed against the debtor/per manus in-
jectionem ; but we hear nothing of any state-
debtors being sold into slavery, or serving as
nexi : hence it seems that the custom of pro-
ceeding against the debtor's property and not
his person established itself earlier here than in
private legal actions. The property was seized
and sold by auction (sectio).
The quaestors also had to conduct the
ordinary sales of state property, so far as these
were not managed by the censors, including
prisoners of war and booty, and also estates
coming to the nation by will or by confiscation.
We know very little about the details of the
receipt of taxes and payments from the ex-
chequer: but there is evidence that there were
distinct treasuries attached to different depart-
ments. The payment of the soldiers, for
instance, was made through the tribuni aerarii:
the few salaries paid under the Republic, and the
cost of maintenance for the public slaves, were
defrayed directly from the treasury. So were
the expenses of entertaining distinguished
strangers, in connexion with whose visits we
often find the quaestors mentioned (Val. Max.
v. 1, 1 ; Liv. xlv. 13, 12; 44, 7, &c.).
Contracts were only managed by the quaestors
in comparatively unimportant cases. They
naturally took a part in discussing financial
questions in the senate, like that of our Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer (Auct. ad Herenn. i. 12,
21). It seems strange to us that such impor:
tant duties should be assigned to young and
inexperienced magistrates, changing yearly ;
534 QUAESTOR
QUAESTOR
but possibly much of the duty was done by
permanent officials, like the permanent heads of
our own state offices. It was only after the
battle of Actium that Augustus gave the charge
of the treasury to two ex-praetors (called prae-
fecti aerarii Saturni), elected annually by the
senate (Tac. Ann. xiii. 29; Sueton. Aug. 36):
subsequently, to avoid the excitement of elections,
it was committed to two of the praetors chosen
by lot. Claudius in A.D. 44 gave it back to two
of the quaestors, selecting himself those who
were to fill this office, which now was held for
three years, under the title of quaestores
aerarii Saturni. Finally Nero, in A.D. 56,
restored it to ex-praetors, again holding the
title of praefect; aerarii Saturni, but now ap-
pointed by the emperor for three years at a
time (Tac. Ann. xiii. 28, 29), sometimes ex-
tended, as we see from the case of Pliny (see
Hermes, iii. 90). Quaestores urbani continued
to be elected late into the third century;
possibly their functions were restricted to the
charge of such state papers as were not of a
financial nature.
The duties of criminal prosecution and of the
charge of the treasury were the main, if not
the sole duties of the quaestores urbani : and
they were both of a nature to make their con-
tinuous presence in the city necessary. On the
other hand, the
2. Quaestores, not distinguished as urbani, nor
by any special appellation, were regularly
attached, each to some general or governor of a
province, as his adjutant. The dictator alone
was not required to have any such assistant.
Nor were quaestors attached to the praetors
who remained in the city to preside in the
courts. But the magistrates who had quaestors
at all, always had them. If the term of office
of the quaestor expired before that of his
superior, it was extended by prorogatio: if the
quaestor died or left the province, the governor
nominated some one, usually one of his legati, to
be pro quaestore (Cic. in Verr. i. 4, 12). It was
only in Sicily, where the province was divided
into an eastern and a western district, that
more than one quaestor was ever assigned tº a
governor: in that case there were two. e
praetor was supposed to hold a kind ºf parental
relation to his quaestor (Cic. pro Planc. 11, 28;
ad Fam. xiii. 10, 1, and often), even after the
term of office had expired.
The special duties of what may be termed
(somewhat loosely) provincial quaestors were
Tº financial. As the consul could only draw upon
the state treasury through the quaestores
urbani, so the generals and governors were
similarly restricted. Receipts and payments
passed through his hands, and he seems to have
been in charge of the military stores (Polyb. vi.
31). Even when coins were stamped by a
general, the quaestor's name often appears alone
upon them (Mommsen, Röm. Münzwesen,
p. 374). The accounts of the campaign had to
be given in by him, although the commander
shared the responsibility. But the booty was
disposed of by the commander at his pleasure;
and if he sold it, he often did so through inferior
officers, especially the praefecti fabrum.
But even from a military point of view the
quaestor ranked next to the commander: he
had three sentinels, and the legati only two,
and the quaestorium was an important centre in
the camp [CASTRA]. In case of the death of .
the commander, he succeeded to the vacancy;
and if the former left the camp, it was usually
the quaestor whom he chose to replace him pro
praetore (Cic. ad Fam. ii. 15, 4). Similarly, in
judicial business, as the governor exercised the
jurisdiction of the praetor in civil business, the
quaestor exercised that of the aediles, and issued
the appropriate edicts (Gaius, i. 6). Under the
Empire no quaestors were sent to imperial
provinces (ib.); but a senatorial proconsular
governor had attached to him a quaestor pro
praetore.
While no quaestor was specially attached to a
consul for his duties in the city, each would
receive one as a military adjutant when he took
the field, and doubtless he would use his services
also in the city as he had occasion for them : for
instance, for the organisation of a consular army.
So, at the time of the conspiracy of Catiline,
P. Sestius, the quaestor attached by lot to the
consul C. Antonius, was sent with an armed
force to Capua, to remove the danger of a rising
there (Cic. pro Sest. 4, 9). When the custom
came in for a consul to proceed at the end of his
year of office to govern a province as proconsul,
it was the regular thing for his quaestor to
accompany him as pro quaestore : thus Sestius
followed Antonius to Macedonia in B.C. 62.
From B.C. 38 each consul had two quaestors,
selected by himself (Dio Cass. xlviii. 43), who
assisted him, among other things, in his duties of
presiding in the senate. Nothing is known as to
the disuse of this practice. Under the Empire
we meet with quaestores principis or Awgust; ;
they were two in number, assigned to the
emperor as holding proconsular power, and
employed by him, when he thought fit, to read
in the senate any written communication to
that body (Ulpian, Dig. 1, 13, 1, 2). But the
duty did not necessarily fall upon them :
Augustus in his later years employed the
services of Germanicus (Dio Cass. lvi. 26), Nero
the consuls (Suet. Nero, 15), and Vespasian one
of his sons (Suet. Tit. 6). The
3. Quaestores classici were four in number,
established after the reduction of Italy in
B.C. 267, originally subordinates of the consuls,
charged especially with the defence of the coast.
Their stations were at Ostia, at Cales,” the
oldest Latin colony in Campania, and doubtless
the centre of the Roman administration of that
district [Calles, in Tac. Ann. iv. 27, can be hardly
anything but a corruption for Cales], in Cis-
alpine Gaul about the Po (rapitas rās tep IIdêov
Taxatſas, Plut. Sert. 4), probably at Ariminum,
and at a fourth place, nowhere mentioned, but
possibly Lilybaeum in Sicily. Their duties
were generally those of the provincial quaestors;
but as they had no resident superior, they had
in practice more independent powers, including
certainly military authority, as we see from
Tac. Ann. iv. 27. They had also the duty of
seeing that the allies furnished the proper con-
tingents for the fleet, and the quaestor at Ostia
had important and onerous functions in con-
nexion with the corn supply, which made it an
unpopular office (Cic. pro Mur. 8, 18). If the
quaestorship at Lilybaeum ever belonged to this
f
* Willems, Le Sénat, ii. 603, rejects this view.
QUAESTORIA MUNERA
QUINQUATRUS 535
group, its character must have been changed,
after Sicily became a province; and that at
Cales seems to have been suppressed soon after
A.D. 24 (the date of the events mentioned by
Tacitus, l. c.), for when Claudius in A.D. 44
transferred again to the quaestors the charge of
the treasury, he suppressed the other two, and
none were then left. There are references to a
provincia aquaria, discharged by one of the
quaestors (Cic. in Vatin. 5, 12), which had
probably reference to the water-supply, but we
know nothing of it definitely.
The quaestors, as a body, were charged,
probably at an early date under the Empire,
with the expense of paving roads, but we do
not know to what extent: this seems to have
been a device for making them “pay their
footing ” when entering the senate. Claudius
substituted for this the duty of giving a
gladiatorial show (Suet. Claud. 24, “collegio
quaestorum pro stratura viarum gladiatorium
munus injunxit :” cf. Tac. Ann. xi. 22, xiii. 5).
This is the only instance of common action on
the part of the college.
(The above account follows closely that given
by Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii.”
511–537. The account in Becker, Handbuch, ii.
2, 327–358, is confused by an attempt to dis-
tinguish two different kinds of quaestors from
the first, following, as usual, the theories of
Niebuhr. Madvig, Verf u. Verwalt. i. 438 f.,
also shares this view, rightly rejected by
Bouché-Leclercq, Manuel, p. 75; Willems, Droit
Public, p. 303: cf. Lange, Röm. Alt. i.” 881–
897; Herzog, Gesch. d. Röm. Werf. i. pp. 814–
826.) [A. S. W.]
QUAESTO'RIA MU’NERA. [LUDI,
Vol. II. p. 87 a.]
QUAESTORIUM. [CASTRA, Wol. I. pp.
373, 381.]
QUALUS. [CALATHUs.]
QUANTI MINO'RIS, or AESTIMATO’.
RIA A'CTIO. A seller of a thing was not
liable to the buyer by the rules of Jus Civile for
any faults or defects in the thing sold, unless he
was aware of such defects and did not disclose
them, or unless he had warranted their absence.
But the curule aediles, who had jurisdiction
over the market, promised in their edict to
give actions to buyers against sellers on account
of any non-apparent faults or defects, even if
the seller was not aware of them.
The actions which the aediles framed for the
purpose of , º ºxtending the liabilities of
* * *tio redhibitoria [REDHIBI-
the actio quanti minoris.
ºs latter action was to obtain an
she purchase-money proportionate
in the value of the thing at the
ºthe sale, owing to its defects. This
ſwas to be brought within a year (annus
"º" ºf IO ET VENDITIO.]
iii. 16, 17; Dig. 21, 1, de aedi-
{ 5 et jºdhibitoria et quanti minoris; Cod.
4, 58׺de aediliciis actionibus; Neustetel, Röm.
Rechtliche, Untersuchungen, 155, &c.; Keller, in
Gell’s Jahrb. iii. 86, &c.; Walter, Gesch. des
röm. Rechts, $ 602; Windscheid, Pandekten,
iii. § 393.) [E. A. W.]
QUARTA'RIUS, a Roman measure of ca-
pacity, one-fourth of the sextarius, and conse-
quently a little less than a quarter of a pint
imperial. It is also found in the Greek
system of liquid measures under the name of
Téraprov. [P. S.]
QUASILLA'RIAE. [CALATHUs.]
QUASILLUM. [CALATHUs.]
QUATUORVIRIJURI DICUNDO. [Co-
LONIA, Vol. I. p. 482 b.]
QUATUORVIRI WIARUM CURANDA-
RUM. [VIAE.]
QUERE'LA INOFFICIO'SI TESTA-
MENTI. . [TESTAMENTUM.)
QUINA'RIUS. [DENARIUs.]
QUINCUNX. [PoSDERA, Vol. II. p. 455.]
gºpºnym. [DECEMVIRI, Vol. I.
p. 601 b.
QUINQUAGE'SIM.A. (1.) A tax of the
fiftieth part, or 2 per cent., upon the value of all
slaves who were sold ; instituted by Augustus
(Dio Cass. lv. 51).
In A.D. 56, the rate was 1–25th, or 4 per
cent. (vectigal quintae et vicesimae venalium
mancipiorum, Tac. Ann. xiii. 31). Marquardt
(Staatsverwaltung, ii. 270) would reconcile the
two passages by reading, with Lipsius, revret-
kooths for trevrmkoort is in Dio Cassius.
(2.) Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 51) speaks of Nero
abolishing a quinquagesima. But the charge on
slaves was now 1–25th, not 1–50th ; Nero,
therefore, must have abolished some different
tax. It may have been one of Caligula's taxes
(Suet. Cal. 40), though Claudius seems to have
repealed these (Dio Cass. lx.4); or similar to the
charges of quinquagesimae mentioned by Cicero
(Verr. iii. 49, 78) as made by publicani on the
aratores of Sicily; or it may have been some
other illegal exaction (see under QUADRAGESIMA,
and Marquardt's Staatsverw. ii. 184).
A duty of 2 per cent. was levied at Athens on
exports and imports [PENTECOSTE]. [F. T. R.]
QUINQUATRUS (fem, plur.) or QUIN-
QUATRIA (neut. plur.), a festival which was
celebrated on the 19th of March. The word
signified the fifth day after the Ides, just as
triatrus, sewatrus, septimatrus, decimatrus sig-
nified the third, sixth, seventh, and tenth days.)
(See Warro, L. L. vi. 14; Fest. p. 254; Gell. ii.
21; Roby, Lat. Gr. § 902.) A false etymology
led to its being afterwards regarded as a five-days'
festival (Ov. Fast. iii. 809; Trist. iv. 10, 13; Liv.
xliv. 20), and as such it was observed under the
later Republic and the Empire from March 19–23.
Strictly it was (as appears in the Calendars, and
as its name really implies) a one-day’s festival,
celebrated originally as a lustratio of the arma
ancilia, when the arms were brought out to be
ready for the campaigning season, just as the
ARMILUSTRIUM on the 19th of October was the
inventory, so to speak, before they were put
away again (Charis. 81, 20). A sacrifice was
offered, and there was a dance of the Salii in
the Comitium, the ceremony being under the
direction of the Pontifices and Tribuni Cel.
(Cal. Praen. ; Varro, L. L. v. 85). [SALII.]
The day acquired a fresh significance from
being selected for the dedication of the temple of
Minerva on the Aventine, and, instead of being
purely military, became the festival of various
trades (Ov. Fast. iii. 809–834; artificum dies,
Cal. Praen.) and of arts. Hence it became also a
holiday for the schools, extending over the whole
five days, which now became included under the
name Quinquatrus or Quinquatria (Hor. Ep. ii.











536 QUINQUENNALIA
QUORUM BONORUM
2, 197; Juv. x. 115; LUDU’s LITTERARIUS, p. 97):
hence also it was a day of receipts for fortune-
tellers (Plaut. Mil. Glor. iii. 1, 98); and for the
same reason Domitian, who claimed Minerva as
his guide, gave prizes, at his Alban villa, at
this time to orators and poets, and established a
collegium, the members of which should exhibit
venationes and stage-plays (Suet. Don. 4;
Dio Cass. lxvii. 1).
The first and regular day of the festival was
marked by the offerings, &c., as above men-
tioned, and the commemoration of the temple
dedicated to Minerva; on the other four days
there were shows of gladiators, and a season of
general merrymaking (Suet. Aug. 71, Ner. 34;
Tac. Ann. xiv. 4). On the fifth day, March 23,
was the tubilustrium (Fest., Warr. s. v.), sacred to
Mars and Nerio (Lyd. de Mens. iv. 42; Porphyr.
ad Hor. Ep. ii. 2, 209), for whom Ovid (Fast. .
iii. 849) substitutes Pallas. On this day the
trumpets used in the sacred rites were passed in
review, and purified by the Salii Palatini and
the tubicines sacrorum populi Romani (Gell. i.
12; C. I. L. ix. 3609, x. 5394).
There was a festival called Quinquatrus
Minusculae on the 13th of June, when the
tibicines went through the city in procession to
the temple of Minerva, and observed a sort of
earnival for three days (Liv. ix. 30; Ov. Fast.
vi. 651; Warro, L. L. vi. 17; Val. Max. ii.
5, 4); they were masked and gaily dressed
(Censorin. xii. 2). The “collegium tibicinum
et fidicinum, qui sacris publicis praesto sunt,” is
mentioned in several inscriptions (C. J. L. vi.
3696, 3877; ix. 3609; x. 6101). As this
festival was on the Ides, it is clear that the name
was not given on any etymological principle,
but, as Varro says, from a connexion of ideas
with the greater Quinquatrus.
It has been observed that the March school
festival reappeared in Christian times as the
festival of St. Gregory (Gregory the Great, a
founder of schools), and was kept in some places
on March 12th, in others on March 19th.
(Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.” 434; Mayor on
Juv. x. 115.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
QUINQUENNA'LIA were games insti-
tuted by Nero A.D. 60, in imitation of the Greek
festivals, and celebrated like the Greek trey-
termptôes at the end of every four years; they
consisted of musical, gymnastic, and equestrian
contests, and were called Neronia, or Agon
Neroneus. (Suet. Ner. 12; Tac. Ann. xiv. 20;
Dio Cass. lxi. 21.) Suetonius and Tacitus
(ll, cc.) say that such games were first intro-
duced at Rome by Nero. The Quinquennalia,
which had previously been instituted both in
honour of Julius Caesar (Dio Cass. xliv. 6) and
of Augustus (Id. li. 19 ; Suet. Aug. 59, 98),
were confined to the towns of Italy and the
provinces. The Quinquennalia of Nero appear
not to have lasted long, but they were revived
by Gordian III. (Friedländer, Sittengeschichte,
ii." 436 f.; Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.” 566.)
For the Agon Capitolinus of Domitian, see LUDI,
p. 85 b. W. S.] [G, E. M.]
QUINQUENNA'LIS. [Colonia, Vol. I.
p. 483 a.]
QUINQUEREMIS. [NAvis.]
QUINQUERTIUM. [PENTATHLoN.]
QUINQUEVIRI, or five commissioners, were
frequently appointed under the Republic as
extraordinary magistrates to carry any measure
into effect. Thus Quinqueviri Mensarii, or
public bankers, were occasionally appointed in
a financial crisis, to manage loans and other
banking business [ARGENTARII, Vol. I. p. 181];
the same number of commissioners was some-
times appointed to superintend the formation of
a colony, though three (triumviri) was a more
common number. [Colonia, Vol. I. p. 479 b.]
We find, too, that Quinqueviri were created to
superintend the repairs of the walls and of the
towers of the city (Liv. xxv. 7), as well as for
various other purposes.
Besides the extraordinary commissioners of
this name, there were also permanent officers,
called Quinqueviri cis Tiberin (Liv. xxxix. 14),
who were responsible for the safety of the city
after sunset, especially to guard against fires, as
it was inconvenient for the regular magistrates
to attend to this duty at that time: they were
first appointed soon after the war with Pyrrhus.
(Dig. 1, 2, 2, 31.) Mommsen (Staatsrecht, ii.
611) suggests that these were originally four.
one for each of the old regions, and that
the fifth was added for the Transtiberine region.
The title cis Tiberim was still retained, and
they were also called collectively Cistibeyes.
(Dig. l.c.). [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
QUINTA’NA. [CASTRA.]
QUIRINA'LIA, a festival sacred to Quirinus,
which was celebrated on the 17th of February,
on which day Romulus was said to have
been carried up to heaven. (Ovid, Fast. ii.
457; Festus, s. v. ; Varro, L. L. vi. 13, and
Galendars.) This day was also called Stul-
torum Feriae, for the meaning of which see
FORNACALIA. (Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 117,
570.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
QUIRINA'LIS FILAMEN. [FLAMEN.]
QUIRITES, QUIRITIUM JUS. [Jus.]
QUOD JUSSU ACTIO. [Jussu QUOD.
QUORUM BONORUM, INTERDICTUM.
The object of this interdict was to give a person
who had a primä-facie claim to an inherit-
ance interim possession of things belonging to
it, until a suit respecting the inheritance
was determined. Thus it was an interdict
for acquiring possession (adipiscendac possessionis
causa). [INTERDICTUM.] The Interdictum,
quorum bonorum was originally the only
means by which the bonorum possessor or
praetorian heir could obtain possession of the
property of the inheritance, since such successor,
not being heres, could not claim by hereditatis
petitio, nor by vindicatio, since he was not civil
owner; in course of time, however, when
bonitarian ownership (in bonis) was established,
this kind of equitable ownership was attributed
to the bonorum possessor. and so he might be
able to maintain vindicatio utilis. Moreover,
if the bonorum possessor lost possession, he
could in many cases recover it by the possessory
interdicts. If he continued in possession for the
period of usucapion, he became civil owner. .
Only property of which a person could have
possession or quasi-possession was the object of
the interdictum quorum bonorum, but in the
matter of obligations the praetor put the
bonorum possessor in the same position, as
the heres by allowing him to sue in respect of
the claims that the deceased had, and allowing.
any person to sue him in respect of claims
QUORUM BONORUM
RATIONIBUS 537
against the deceased, in an actio utilis (Ulp.
Fr. 28, § 12; Gaius, ii. 52–58). Ultimately the
bonorum possessio was put on the same footing
in respect of actions as the hereditas, the posses-
Soria hereditatis petitio being given to the
bonorum possessor, corresponding to the heredi-
tatis petitio of the heres.
The new form of procedure co-existed with
the interdict, and a person might avail him-
self of either mode of proceeding, as he thought
best, the two remedies differing not only in
their extent but also in the fact that the one
was a provisional remedy pending an action,
while the petitio was an action definitively
determining the right to the inheritance. Thus
in the legislation of Justinian we find both
forms of procedure mentioned. Some writers
maintain that the p. p. her. was recognised
in the Edictum Perpetuum of Hadrian, while
others think that it must have been of later
origin (see Leist, i. 295; Lenel, Das Edictum
Perpetuum, xv. § 67).
The name of the Interdictum quorum bonorum
is derived from its introductory words, and it
runs as follows: “Ait Praetor: quorum bo-
norum ex edicto meo illi possessio data est:
quod de his bonis pro herede aut pro possessore
possides, possideresve si nihil usucaptum esset:
quod quidem dolo malo fecisti, uti desimeres
possidere, id illi restituas.” (“The Praetor
declares: Whatever portion of the property
granted in pursuance of my edict to be possessed
by such and such a one, thou possessest as heir
or as unentitled occupant, or wouldest so possess
but for usucapion, or hast fraudulently ceased
to possess, such portion do thou deliver up to such
a one.”) (Poste’s Gaius, iv., §§ 138–170 comm.)
Accordingly he was entitled to this interdict
when he had obtained a grant of bonorum
possessio from the praetor, if any one of the
following conditions applied to the defendant:-
1. That he was in possession claiming to be heir.
2. That he was in possession without any title.
3. That he had acquired ownership by usu-
capio pro herede.
4. That he would be in possession, if he had
not fraudulently made away with the property.
The third condition requires some explanation.
According to the old law, any malā-fide
possessor could acquire the ownership of a thing
belonging to the hereditas, in the interval
between the death of the deceased person and
the entrance (aditio) of his heres on the inheri-
tance. But Hadrian (Gaius, ii. 57) by the SC.
Juventianum changed the law so far as to
protect the heres against the usucapion of an
improbus possessor, and to restore the thing to
him. Hence the words relating to usucapion
were introduced into the formula of the inter-
dict. In the legislation of Justinian these
words have no meaning, since usucapio lucrativa
pro herede forms no part of it; yet the words
have been retained in the compilation of Jus-
tinian, like many others belonging to an earlier
age, though they had lost their practical signifi-
cance. According to another explanation, a title
by lucrativa usucapio pro herede was not a de-
fence to the Interdictum quorum bonorum, even
before the enactment of the SC. Juventianum,
the effect of this law being only to allow
the heres to recover by hereditatis petitio
from a person who had acquired property
of the inheritance by such usucapion. [HERES;
BONORUM POSSESSIO.] (Dig. 43, 2; Gaius, iv.
144; Savigny, in Zeitsch. für gesch. Rechtsw.
v. 1, and vi. 239; Francke, Das Recht der
Notherben, c. 97, &c.; Fabricius, Ursprung unil
Entw. der B. P. 158, &c.; Leist, Bonorum Pos-
sessio, i. 342; Huschke, in Richter's Jahrg. iii.
pp. 19, 20, 26, &c.) [E. A. W.]
R.
TA'DIUS. 1. A straight pointed rod used
by geometricians and astronomers for describing
figures on their abacus, a table covered with
sand. (Cic. Tusc. v. 23, 64, “a pulvere et
radio,” of Archimedes; cf. Cic. N. D. ii. 18, 48,
“eruditum illum pulverem,” of geometry; Pers-
i. 131 ; Aristoph. Nub. 177.) In Verg. Ecl. iii.
41, Aen. vi. 850, it is probably the actual rod
(as above) used for the actual drawing of terres-
trial and celestial globes on the abacus, rather
than, as Conington says, a mere “phrase for
scientific delineation.” [See also ABACUS, III. a.]
2. Used in weaving. [TELA.
3. Of a wheel. [CURRUS.]
RAMNES. [PATRICII.]
RAPI'NA. [FURTUM.]
RASTRUM, RASTRI, RASTELLUS. In
this word the neuter form belongs to the sin-
gular; the masculine, as though from raster, to
the plural. As regards its use, it seems to us
necessary to make a clear distinction between
(1) the rastrum quadridens, which is a rake;
and (2) the rastrum bidens, which is a hoe or
mattock. When rastrum stands alone, the
quadridens or rake is usually meant, but not
always in poetry; for instance, in Verg. Georg.
i. 94, Aen. ix. 608, the bidens is to be under-
stood. (1.) The quadridens or four-toothed
rake (in Greek probably Atoºrpov) was sometimes
of iron; it is mentioned by Cato in his list of
ferramenta, for an olive garden (Cat. R. R. 10),
and for a vineyard (ib. 11); but in Colum. ii.
11, 4, lignei rastri are used to rake the earth
over seeds. The diminutive rastellus is nearly
always a rake, and, as far as its material is
stated, a wooden rake, for raking sown ground
(Colum. ii. 12, 6), for raking up straw (Warr.
R. R. i. 49). In Suet. Ner. 19, however, the
rastellus is a light bidens.
(2.) The two-pronged rastrum, rastrum bidens
(nearly always bidens alone), was used as a hoe
or mattock for breaking up the ground (=Greek
SticeXAa or optivām). It was probably always of
iron (as in Pallad. viii. 5), so as to be driven
forcibly into the ground, “fossores jactant bi-
dentes” (Colum. iii. 13): the farmer uses it in
the vineyard, turning up the earth “vel aratro
vel bidente”; “fossor qui crebris bidentibus soli
terga comminuit" (id. iv. 14). It is used for
stony ground, while the pala or spade suits
marshy ground (Plin. H W. xviii. § 46). The
woodcut under PALA shows a bidens, with
curved prongs; cf. curvi rastri in Catull. 64,
39. [J. Y.] [[G. E. M.
RATIO'NIBUS DISTRAHENDIS ATC-
TIO. [TUTELA.] -
t
[G. E. M.]
538 RATIS
RATIS
RATIS (orxe5ta), a raft. Its nature is
roughly described by Festus, p. 136, “rates
vocantur tigma colligata quae per aquas agun-
tur,” and by Hesych. §§Aa & ovvöéoval kal oito
TAéovort: it was used in early times or among
primitive people for voyages across narrow
straits or from island to island (Thuc. vi. 2;
Plin. H. N. vii. § 206; compare the “cata-
maran * of the Pacific islands, in the Torres
straits, and off the coast of New Guinea,
McGillivray, Voyage of the Rattlesnake, ii. 256);
but in all times for crossing rivers, whether as
a moving raft (Liv. xxi. 28), or as a fixed
pontoon bridge (Liv. xxi. 27 and 47; Herod. iv.
97), or as a bridge of boats, we find rates and
orxeóſal mentioned. We have, in Lucan iv. 420,
a description of a large movable raft supported
on casks (cupae), such as were used also for
pontoon bridges (Veget. iii. 7). The account of
the raft in Od. v. has a peculiar interest and
value, both as explaining fully the construction
of the oxe6ta, and also as throwing light on
Some terms of the ancient shipwright’s art.
sea
É25
É
-->*:::::==
--
à
Modern Catamaran.
Ulysses was to leave Ogygia upon a raft, Čarl
oxe6fms troAvöéopov (l. 33), an epithet which
recurs l. 338: the “many fastenings” are the
chief problem of the construction ; cf. Herod. ii.
96, Tepl yóupovs rvkvobs kal uakpots repleipovot
t& 6ttmxéa $6Xa. Calypso had pointed out the
place where the material for the raft was to be
found in the shape of trees, standing long
withered and dry, which would float lightly.
Of those named, the floating power is very
different, viz.:-
Alder "20 specific gravity, "80
Poplar •62 5 9 99 •38
Fir *53—“40 3 y 5 3 •47—"60
Alder is a very heavy wood, and not fit for
shipbuilding. It might, however, be used for
the at autves and the dowels. Poplar and fir,
but chiefly the latter, would furnish the floor of
the raft. Twenty trees are thrown, and trimmed
with the axe, the branches and knobs hewn off.
Then the adze comes into play, and the skilful
shipwright makes two smooth surfaces which
are straight to the line. The timbers, thus
shaped, will touch all along their inner surfaces
when laid together (&vrſkoa, vide infra).
Next comes the process of tying them together.
For this the goddess brings him borers, or augers
(téperpa, plur), doubtless of different diameters.
g
In tying heavy timbers together, where metal
is not available or suitable for the purpose, two
kinds of fastenings are necessary, commonly
called trenails (yóuſpot), and dowels or coaks,
which are here represented by the ºppovíai.
The trenail (tree-mail) is a long peg of tough
wood tapering from an inch or inch and a half
in diameter, to three-quarters of an inch at the
thin end. The holes into which this is driven
run through both pieces of timber, and of course
they must correspond exactly on the inner
surface when the two timbers are laid alongside
of each other. Trenails, however, are not thick
enough in diameter to stand a vertical strain
tending to wrench one timber from the other.
To make them of a greater diameter would
weaken the timbers themselves dangerously;
and so in order to meet a vertical strain, such
as the rise and fall of the waves under the
bottom of a raft, shipwrights join the timbers
not only with trenails but with dowels, or
coaks, as they are also called. These are short
pieces of hard wood, from three to four inches in
diameter and four to five inches long, according
to the size of the spars. These are let in at
intervals between the trenails with shallow
holes bored to correspond in each timber. Being
short and of hard wood, they will take a great
vertical strain, as long as they remain fast.
Hence Ulysses makes up his mind to remain on
the raft—
ãºp' &v uév kev Šoćpar’ v špuovímoruv &pſipm.
When once the timbers had slipped outside
the dowels, the trenails would not be of much
use in holding the raft together.
As for śpplovſal, the word occurs in Ar. Eq.
Töv 6’ &pproviáv 6taxaakovorów, where, if a flute
is the instrument spoken of, it would mean the
| joints gaping, i.e. the sockets opening from the
pieces that fitted into them. A little above the
expression Téicroves siraxduav iſ upov occurs, so
that it is probable that the metaphor of joiners’
work is being kept up. The joints of the flute
are not unlike the dowel and its socket. The
word āppubs is also noticeable in this connexion,
meaning a peg or stop: cf. Eur. Fr. Erechth.
āppubs Tovmpos &grep v ščAp trayets.
Ulysses having planed his spars with the
adze and bored them all and fitted them exactly,
then (read &pagorev: cf. Ap. Rhod. ii. 615, e3ré
ulv’Apyos yépiqourly avvápagorev, with Aristar-
chus) knocks them together, so that trenails
and dowels fit into their respective holes and
the inner surfaces of the spars meet together.
This work of knocking the timbers together is
well described by Ap. Rhod. Arg. ii. 79:—
dos 8' 3re vita Soupa 6oots &vrišoa yöp (bots
&vépes tº movpyoi émig3.jömu &Aáovres
6etvooru or biſphoru.
The raft thus constructed is compared as to
size and shape to the setting out of the floor of
a wide merchant vessel in design by a skilled
shipwright.
The word ropv6orera, seems to imply the
curvature of the lines of a vessel in plan rather
than of those in section, which would not be so
applicable to a raft. The breadth of the raft is
that to which attention is chiefly called, though
from the expression topv6oreral we might
perhaps infer the rounding off of the ends (cf.
Il. xxiii. 255).












RECEPTA
REDA 539
The floor completed, the next work was the
raising of the deck according to the goddess's
suggestion. This was a matter of some time
and labour, as the imperfect aroſet implies. First
of all, he had to set up his a raptives, many in
number and pretty close together. The répétpa
would here come into play again. The oraſaives,
uprights, would be let into holes bored in the
floor of the raft, and the deck timbers also
bored and fitted on to the tops of them. With
regard to the word a rapiſs, there can be hardly
any doubt as to its meaning. Hesychius gives
tà étrº ris oxe6fms épô& Łóña, Eustathius, oi
Traxalot, Éppmweijovres étrip firm šūxa, Tâs a tauívas
ºpdoriv, & ortmuávov rpétrov #xovta, trapatibéueva
toſs irpious ékárep6ev ša rēval air& Troiodoriv,
But they must not be confused with the ribs
of a ship, with which they have nothing in
common, being straight and not curved. Com-
pare armuávtov, the upright sticks in wicker-
work round which the osier twigs were twined.
Hence Aristarchus interpreted a Tapaſves as
being 3p3& £6Aa oiov orthwoo’iy €oukóra.
Upon these uprights the deck timbers were
laid and fastened. There can be no doubt as to
irpia meaning “deck, platform.” The attempt
to translate it as “bulwarks,” seems perverse in
the face of the well-known passage of Herod.
v. 16. Eustathius gives clearly karáorpoopia
veðs. After setting up his platform or deck by
fitting these cross-beams upon the uprights, he
finishes off and makes fast his trºpia by long
gunwales (érmykevſöes). These laid lengthwise
on either side would prevent the timbers of the
deck from jumping, and would so finish the
deck as such (rexeira). The interpretation of
the word given in Etym. Mag. To €rl ºfficos trapa-
Terguévov uakpov čáAov is misleading if taken
to imply a planking alongside of the orapuíves.
The raft is open, and the water would wash
freely through the front and sides of the stage
carrying the deck.
The carpentering is concluded with the
fashioning of mast and yard and paddle for
steering. There still remained the construction
of a bulwark to protect the sailor from the
wash of the wave. This is effected by a wattle-
work of osiers set up on the tºpia as a fence
all round. Not being very strong in itself, it is
backed by piles of brushwood (ùAm), which, bound
up in the shape of fascines or faggots, would be
light, and at the same time offer a good resist-
ance. The idea of “ballast ’’ for the raft seems
absurd, and out of place altogether. [E. W.]
RECEPTA ; DE RECEPTO ACTIO.
The praetor declared that he would allow an
action against nautae, i.e. against eacercitores or
shipowners (Dig. 14, 1, 2, 4; see ExERCITORIA
ACTIO), caupomes (innkeepers), and stabularii
(livery stable keepers), in respect of any pro-
perty which they had taken under their charge
if they did not restore it (“ quod cujusque
salvum fere receperint, nisi restituent’). At
first sight there seems no reason for this special
action on account of the receiving of goods,
which is called actio de recepto, as a person who
had sustained loss would either have an actio
Zocati (in case a whole ship were let for trans-
port it would be actio conducti), where payment
had been agreed on, or an actio depositi, where
the goods were received without any promise
of payment; but the reason was this, as ex-
plained by the jurist Pomponius (Dig. 14, 1, 3, 1).
Under a contract of letting and hiring (locatio,
conductio), the receiver was only answerable for
loss when he was guilty of negligence (culpa);
and under a contract of deposit, only when he
was guilty of dolus malus; but a nauta, caupo,
or stabularius who received goods in the course
of his business was liable to the actio de recepto
if the thing were lost or injured, even without
any negligence on his part, and he was only
excused in case of damnum fatale, such as ship-
wreck, piracy, and so forth, or in case of negli-
gence on the part of the person from whom he
had received the property. The ground of im-
posing this special liability is explained to be
that there is, generally speaking, a necessity of
entrusting property to the care of the classes of
person in question (Dig. 14, 1, 1). It was pos-
sible to exclude this liability by special agree-
ment between the parties. English law follows
the example of Roman law in making innkeepers
and common carriers, on account of the public
nature of their employment, absolutely respon-
sible for the safety of property which they are
given the custody of, unless the loss arises from
the negligence of the owner, or is caused by vis
major or the act of God.
The praetor also gave a penal action against
nautae, caupones, and stabularii on account of
any property which he had received, if such loss
or damage was due to the dishonesty or negli-
gence of those in their employment, &c.; but an
innkeeper was not responsible in this action for
delicts of a mere traveller. In this action the
plaintiff recovered double the value of the pro-
perty he had lost, whereas the object of the actio
de recepto was simply the recovery of damages.
This penal action could not be maintained against
the heir of the nauta, caupo, and stabularius.
Both the actio de recepto and the penal action
were in factum conceptae [ACTIO). (Dig. 4, 9;
47, 5 ; Inst. iv. 5, 3; Arndts, Pandekten, § 289;
Windscheid, Pandekten, § 384.)
There is a title in the Digest (4, 8), “De
Receptis, qui arbitrium receperunt ut sententiam
dicant.” When parties who had a matter to
litigate, had agreed to refer it to an arbitrator,
which reference was called compromissum, and
a person had accepted the office of arbitrator
(arbitrium receperit), the praetor would compel
him to pronounce a sentence, unless he had some
legal excuse. The praetor could compel a per-
son of any rank, as a consularis for instance, to
pronounce a sentence after taking upon him the
office of arbiter; but he could not compel a
person who held a magistratus or potestas, for
he had no imperium over them. The arbitra-
tion involved a judicial inquiry and award. It
was usual for the parties to enter into mutual
penal stipulations (poena, pecunia compromissa :
hence the term compromissum), which would
secure a right of action for the penalty to the
successful party, but effect might be given to
an arbitration in certain other ways, so as to
give a right of action for damages. (Dig. 4, 8 ;
Windscheid, Pandekten, §§ 415–417; Arndts,
Pandekten, § 270.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
RECI’NIUM. [RIGINIUM.]
RECISSO'RIA A/CTIO. [INTERCESSIO.]
RECUPERATO'RES.. [JUDEx.]
REDA, a large carriage with four wheels
(Isid. xx. 12; Cod. Theod. viii. 5, 8, where it is
540 REDEMPTOR
REGIFUGIUMI
distinguished from a birota): used as a travelling
carriage (Cic. pro Mil. 10, 28; 20, 54; ad Att.
v. 17; Hor. Sat. i. 5, 86, ii. 6, 42; Helv. Cinna
ap. Gell. xix. 13). It is clear from the above
passages that it was the carriage commonly
used by the Romans who could afford it for
rapid travelling, and that it held several persons:
probably it had several seats like a char-à-bancs:
it also carried luggage (Juv. iii. 10; Mart.
iii. 47; Cod. Theod. l.c.). Like the Covinus
and ESSEDUM, it was of Gallic origin (Quintil.
i. 5, § 68; Caes. B. G. i. 51); but it had been
completely adopted by the Romans and possibly
modified in shape. It probably had a cover. It
was drawn by two horses usually (or mules,
Warr. R. R. iii. 17), but sometimes by four
horses for greater speed. Venantius Fortunatus
writes in the 6th century—
“Curriculi genus est, memorat quod Gallia redam,
Molliter incedens orbita sulcat humum,
Exsiliens duplici bijugo volat axe citato,
Atque movet rapidas juncta quadriga rotas.”
There were also redae as hired carriages (redae
"meritoriae, Suet. Jul. 57); and in the later
Empire as government stage-coaches (fiscalis
reda, Sulp. Sever. Dial. ii. 4): Cod. Theod. l. c.
speaks of these as carrying 1000 lbs. of goods.
Epiredia were probably traces, though the
Schol. on Juv. viii. 66 calls them “ornamenta
redarum.” Quintil. l. c. mentions the word as
a mixture of two languages, Greek and Gallic;
Professor Mayor (ad loc.) however remarks that
péða, paiśtov occur in late Greek (e.g. Apocal.
xviii. 13), and this word may of course have
been compounded after it became a Greek
word and the compound borrowed by the
Romans. (Marquardt, Privatl. 733; Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 19.; Baumeister, Denkm.
2082. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
REDEMPTOR. [Locatio; MANCEPs;
PUBLICANUS.
REDHIBITO’RIA A'CTIO was an action
given by the edict of the curule aediles to a
buyer against a seller for rescinding a sale, when
the thing sold turned out to be defective, the
seller not having known of the existence of the
defect. If the seller was aware of the defect, or
if he had warranted the thing to be free from
defects, he was liable at civil law; but in case
the defect was unknown to both parties at the
time of the sale, and there had been no war-
ranty, there was only a remedy under the edict-
of the aediles. “I’edhibere,” says Ulpian, “is
so to act that the seller shall have back what he
had, and because this is done by restoration;
for that reason it is called redhibitio, which
is as much as to say redditio.” The effect of
the redhibitio was to rescind the bargain and
to put both parties in the same position as
if the sale had never taken place. The time
allowed for prosecuting the actio redhibitoria
was “sex menses utiles.” The buyer had an
alternative remedy to the actio redhibitoria,
viz. the actio quanti minoris, for an explana-
tion of which see the articie on the subject.
(Dig. 21, 1; Cod. 4, 58; Windscheid, Pandekten,
§ 393.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
REDIMICULUM. [MITRA.]
RE'GLA (in Greek historians to Bao'ſ Aetov,
Émyta), at first the building in which the king,
as head of the state religion, performed the
functions belonging to it: after the overthrow
of the monarchy, when the continuity of the
king's religious functions was preserved, it sup-
plied the offices of the Pontifex Maximus, and
perhaps also of the Rex sacrorum (Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii.” 15). [For the apparent connexion of
the king's or chief's house with the state hearth,
see PRYTANEUM, p. 513 b.] But, though many
even of the most recent writers have thought
otherwise, there appear to us strong reasons for
maintaining that the Pontifex Maximus and the
Rex sacrorum had each his official dwelling-house
elsewhere in the Via Sacra. The Regia was said
to have been built and occupied by Numa (Ov.
Trist. iii. 1, 28; Fast. vi. 263; Tac. Ann. xv. 41)
[but the words of Plut. Num. 14 imply that it
was never his dwelling-house]: it was partly
destroyed by the Gauls, 391 B.C., and again in
great part burnt B.C. 210 (Liv. xxvi. 27). Julius
Caesar as Pontifex Maximus had his offices by
day for religious functions in the Regia, and lived
in the house in the Via Sacra which was assigned
to the Pontifex* (Suet. Jul. 48; Plut. Caes. 10).
It is usually said that, when Augustus became
Pontifex Maximus in B.C. 12, he gave the Regia
to the Vestals because it adjoined their house
(ówórouxos ºv, Dio Cass. liv. 27) : but the his-
torian there speaks of the house roi, Baat?\{ws
Töv ispáv, and we see no reason for assuming
that he mistook the Pontifex Maximus for the
Rex, sacrorum : on the contrary we have the
express testimony of Pliny (Ep. iv. 11) that the
Pontifex used the Regia as an office in the reign
of Trajan. The Vestals pulled down most of the
buildings given up to them, and rebuilt their
house on an enlarged scale upon the same site.
Besides the above-mentioned use, the Regia
contained a sacrarium of Mars, in which were
the sacred spears (Geli. iv. 6) [but not the
ancilia: see SALII], and a sacrarium of Ops,
containing a PRAEFERICULUM and SECESPITA,
perhaps also of Janus and of Jupiter (Varro, L.
L. vi. 21; Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 250). In
one or other of these sacraria were preserved the
libri pontificum and the Calendars. (For the
topography and the construction of the Regia,
see Middleton, Rome, p. 185; Richter in Bau-
meister, Denkm. 1465; and compare PoxTIFEx,
REx SACRORUM, WESTALEs.) [G. E. M.]
REGIFU'GIUM, an annual festival at Rome
on the 24th of February. On this day the REx
SACRORUM offered sacrifice in the Comitium, and
* The view here expressed is mainly that followed by
Jordan (Topog. i. 426), who remarks that the Regia had
the character of a fanwm, not of a dwelling for mortals.
We may add to his arguments the following considera-
tions:–1. A priori, it is unlikely that any part of the
Regia could be altogether given over to the custody of
women, as was Caesar's house for the rites of Bona
Dea (Plut. Caes. 10). 2. Since in all Latin writers the
name Regia is always given to the building described in
this article, and in Plutarch always finyia, it is surely
impossible that, when they speak of the house which
Caesar occupied as Pontifex Max., they should never
mention it as part of the Regia, if such it was, but as
“domus Pontificis Maximi” (Cic. pro Dom. 39, 104; de
Harusp. Resp. 3, 4); “domus publica” (Suet. l.c.);
“domus” (Plin. H. N. xix. § 23); # roi, Kato apos oikia,
otkia weyáAm (Plut. Cic. 28, Caes. 10). The º visum in
regia” of Cic, ad Att. x. 3 we regard as an ironical use
of “palace” for Caesar's house. For the explanation of
! the passage in Dio Cass. xliii. 44, see SALIt.
REGILLA
IREMULCUM 541
after the sacrifice hastily fled from the spot
(Plut. Q. R. 63; cf. Cal. Praen. March 24).
That this was a symbolical flight is plain enough,
but of what it was a symbol is not so certain.
The convenient interpretation of some Roman
writers, that it commemorates the expulsion of
Tarquin (Ov. Fast. ii. 685; Fest. s. v.), we
should probably reject, as an idea started by
the apparent meaning of the word. It is, we
think, more correct to assume that the ceremony
is an old one belonging to the times of the
monarchy, and that the offering by the Rex
sacrorum is one which was originally made by
the king himself. It is suggested by some, not
without probability, that the offering was an
atonement and purification for the city; that
the victim received, like a scapegoat, the guilt
upon itself; and that the officiating minister
therefore fled from it, as from something polluted
(Hartung, Rel. d. Römer, ii. 35 ; Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii. 324). If so, there may be a
reason for this sin offering near the end of
February, as the month of purification, and
perhaps as marking the close of the most ancient
year. Mr. Warde Fowler has suggested that
we should seek for the origin of this custom in
the connexion of Mars with Apollo (see Roscher,
Lea icon), and the flight of Apollo as one guilty
of bloodshed [see DAPHNEPHORLA; THEO-
PHANIA]. In two other months, March and
May, the 24th was marked by an offering of
the Rex in the Comitium. These days are
indicated by the letters Q. R. C. F. = quando
rew comitiavit fas (Varro, L. L. vi. 31; Ovid’s
first conjecture in Fast. v. 727 is more correct
than his second). They were probably, as Mar-
quardt says, the two days for making wills at
the Comitia Calata under the authority of the
king, the day involving nefas before the offering
and fas after it (cf. Gell. xv. 27; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii. 38; TESTAMENTUM). It must
pe observed, however, that the name Regifu-
gium belongs to the 24th of February alone.
(Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.” 323 f.; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii.*4.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
REGILLA. [TELA; MATRIMONIUM, Wol. II.
p. 142 b.]
RE'GIO. The topographical description cf
Rome and Italy does not belong to this work,
and, for the definition in that sense of the
Roman and Italian regions, reference may be
made to the Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Geography, articles ROMA and ITALIA; also to
Middleton, Rome, pp. 243–246, and Richter, in
Baumeister's Denkm. s. v. Röm. It is only
necessary here to point out generally the
different meanings and purposes of regiones.
The word regio meant merely a district, or
Hoſpa, of land, and signified thus the territorium
round the Italian towns and subject to the
same jurisdiction: “regiones dicinus intra quas
singularum coloniarum et municipiorum magis-
tratibus jus dicendi coercendique est libera
potestas” (Sic. Flacc. p. 135). The whole
regio so attached might comprise several pagi.
[PAGUS, p. 309.]
At Rome we have, after the extension of the
Palatine city, four regions which dated from a
period older even than the “Servian’” city,
since the area is less than that contained by the
Servian walls: its limits correspond with the
pomerium of republican times until the age of
Sulla [POMERIUM, p. 444], and mark the settle-
ment of the four city tribes. For the adminis-
tration in early times of these four regions, see
QUINQUEVIRI, TRIBUNI AERARII, and TRIBUs.
In religious observances we may recognise these
ancient districts in the sacraria of the ARGEI
(Vol. I. p. 179). The regions of Rome with
which we are more often concerned in Latin
literature are those of Augustus, who did not
enlarge the pomerium, but divided the whole
inhabited city within and without the walls
into 14 regions, and each region into vici of a
varying number according to its size [WICUs].
These regions were each under the immediate
control of a magistrate chosen by lot from the
praetors, aediles, and tribunes (Suet. Aug. 30;
Dio Cass. lv. 8): one cohors vigilum was assigned
to each two regions [EXERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 794 b).
Distinct from these are the eleven regions
into which Augustus divided Italy (Plin. H. N.
iii. § 46), Rome forming in this category the
12th region. These do not seem to have been
administrative units, but only intended for
convenience of denomination. The “regio
Aemilia,” in Mart. iii. 4, vi. 85, is one of
them. The regiones annonariae and urbicariae
were a later division under Maximian, who in
A.D. 286, residing himself at Milan, made a regio
annonaria in the country north of the Rubicon,
which supplied his court, and regiones urbicariae
or suburbicariae to supply Rome. The disputed
question as to the precise limits of these regions
is beyond our scope here: on that point see
Marquardt, Staatsverwalt. i. 231. [G. E. M.]
RE'GULA (kaváv), the ruler used by scribes
for drawing right lines (Brunck, Anal. iii. 69,87);
also the rule used by carpenters, masons, and
other artificers, for drawing straight lines on
plane surfaces, whereas the perpendiculum or
grá6pm was used for a vertical direction
[PERPENDICULUM). (Aristoph. Ran. 798; Wi-
truv. vii. 3, § 5; cf. Plat. Phileb. p. 56 B;
Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 199; Plin. H. N. xxxvi.
§ 188.) That it was marked with equal
divisions, like our carpenters’ rules, is manifest
from the representations of it among the “Instru-
menta fabrorum tignariorum,” in the woodcut
at p. 243. The substance with which the lines
were made was raddle or red ochre (utatos,
Brunck, Anal. i. 221; potwiki Kavévi, Eurip.
Herc. Fur. 925). The linea (axoivos, orträprov,
pixteſov, Anth. Pal. vi. 103, 205; Poll. x. 186)
was a line or cord for the same purpose, either
red or chalked (Cic. ad Qu. Fr. iii. 1, 2;
Vitruv. vii. 3; Pallad. iii. 9, 10). Regula is
also the thread of the screw [COCLEA]: see
Vitruv. x. 11, 2; Blümmer, Technologie, iv. 124.
For the regula of a wine or oil press, see
TORCULAR. J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
REI UXO'RIAE or DOTIS A'CTIO.
[Dos.
RELATIO. [SENATUs.)
RELEGA"TIO. [ExSILIUM.]
REMANCIPATIO. [EMANCIPATIO.]
REMULCUM (50pa, fivuovakeiv rás vaús), a
rope for towing a ship (“Remulcum, funis, quo
deligata navis magna trahitur vice remi,” Isid.
Orig. xix. 4, § 8; “Remulco est, quum scaphae
remis navis magna trahitur,” Festus, S. ty. ,
comp. Caes. B. C. ii. 23, iii. 40; Hirt. B.
Alec. 11; Liv. xxv. 30, xxxii. 16; Polyb.
i. 27, 28, iii. 46). Looking to the form of the
542 REMURIA
REPETUNDAE
word fivuovakeiv, and the frequent use of 55ua
for the tow-rope (Polyb. i. 26, 14, &c.), we can
hardly doubt that the word remulcum is bor-
rowed from the Greek, and that the connexion
with remus is false. The ships were no doubt
often towed by boats with oars, but this word .
would be used whatever might be the method
of towing. In Latin of the best age it is found
only in the ablative. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
REMU'RIA. [LEMURIA.]
REMUS. [NAVIs, Vol. II. pp. 212, 215.]
REPA'GULA. [JANUA..]
REPETUNDAE, or PECUNIAE RE-
I’ETUNDAE. Repetundae pecuniae in its
widest sense was the term used to designate such
sums of money as the socii of the Roman state
or individuals claimed to recover from magis-
tratus, judices, or public curatores, which they
had improperly taken or received in the Pro-
vinciae or in the Urbs Roma, either in the dis-
charge of their jurisdictio, or in their capacity
of judices, or in respect of any other public
function. Hence the word repetundae came to
be used to express the illegal act of officials in
extorting or taking money from those subject to
them, as in the phrase “repetundarum insimu-
lari, damnari; ” and pecuniae meant not only
money, but anything that had value. The ex-
pression which the Greek writers use for repe-
tundae is 6trºm 86%pov (Plut. Sulla, 5). The
crimen repetundarum, then, is the crime of official
corruption and oppression, an offence which be-
came more frequent as the Roman dominion ex-
tended, and was therefore made the subject of
various penal enactments.
It is stated by Livy (xlii. 1) that before the
year B.C. 173 no complaints were made by the
socii of being put to any cost or charge by the
Roman magistratus. Subsequently, when com-
plaints of exactions came to be made, an ad-
ministrative inquiry was instituted into this
offence by extraordinary commissions of the senate,
as appears from the case of P. Furius Philus and
M. Matienus, who were accused of this offence by
the Hispani (Liv. xliii. 2). Regulations respect-
ing donations to governors of provinces by their
subjects were prescribed by the Lex Porcia
(Liv. xxxii. 27), but the first lex repetundarum
was the Calpurnia, which was proposed and
carried by the tribunus plebis, L. Culpurnius
Piso (B.C. 149), who was distinguished also as
an historical writer. The Lex Calpurnia estab-
lished for the first time a perpetua quaestio to
try persons charged with this offence, a special
praetor being appointed to conduct the trial
(Cic. de Off. ii. 21, 75; Brut. 27, 106). The lex
only applied to provincial magistrates, because
in the year B.C. 141, according to Cicero (de
Fin. ii. 16, 53), the like offence in a magistratus
urbanus was the subject of a quaestio eactra
ordinem. It seems that the penalties of the Lex
Calpurnia were merely pecuniary, being re-
covered by the actio sacramenti, and at least did
not comprise exsilium, for L. Cornelius Len-
tulus, who was censor B.C. 147, had been con-
victed on a charge of repetundae in the previous
year. The sum to be restored was ascertained
after conviction by the proceeding of litis
aestimatio, or taking an account of all the sums
of money which the convicted party had illegally
received. Various leges de repetundis were
passed after the Lex Calpurnia. The Lex Junia
was passed probably about B.C. 126, on the pro-
posal of M. Junius Pennus, tribunus plebis. We
have no information respecting its contents, but
it may possibly be the lex under which C. Cato,
Proconsul of Macedonia, was living in exile at
Tarraco (Cic. pro Balbo, 11, 28; Well. Pat. ii. 8);
for at least exsilium was not a penalty imposed
by the Calpurnia Lex. The Lex Servilia Glaucia
was proposed and carried by C. Servilius Glaucia,
tribunis plebis B.C. 100. This lex applied to any
magistratus who had improperly taken or re-
ceived money from any private person; but a
magistratus could not be accused during his
year of office. It perhaps only included pro-
vincial magistrates, being extended to urban by a
subsequent statute (Cic. pro Rabir. Post. 6, 13).
The Lex Servilia enacted that the praetor pere-
grinus should annually appoint 450 judices for
the trial of this offence: the judices were not
to be senators. The penalties of the lex were
pecuniary and exsilium; the law allowed a com-
perendinatio (Cic. in Verr. i. 9, 26). Before the
Lex Servilia there was simple restitution of what
had been wrongfully taken, and also the summa
sacramenti forfeited to the state: this lex seems
to have raised the penalty to double the amount
of what had been wrongfully taken; and sub-
sequently by the Lex Cornelia it was made
quadruple. Under this lex were tried M. Agil-
lius, P. Rutilius, M. Scaurus, and Q. Metellus
Numidicus. The lex gave the civitas to any
person on whose complaint a person was con-
victed of repetundae (Cic. pro Balbo, 23, 24).
The Lex Acilia, which is of uncertain date
(probably B.C. 101), was proposed and carried by
M’. Acilius Glabrio, a tribunus plebis. It made
some changes in the procedure of trials for re-
petundae, enacting that there should be neither
ampliatio nor comperendinatio. It is conjec-
tured that this is the Lex Caecilia mentioned
by Valerius Maximus (vi. 9, 10), in which pas-
sage, if the conjecture is correct, we should read
Acilia for Caecilia (Cic. Act. i. in Verr. 17, 50).
It is a subject of dispute whether the Acilia or
Servilia was first enacted, but it appears that
the Acilia took away the comperendinatio which
the Servilia allowed.
The Lex Cornelia was passed in the dictator-
ship of Sulla, B.C. 81, and continued in force to
the time of C. Julius Caesar. It extended the
penalties of repetundae to other illegal acts
committed in the provinces, and to judices who
received bribes, to persons abetting the crime
into whose hands the money came (quo ea
pecunia pervenerit, Cic. pro Rab. Post. 4, 7), and to
those who did not give into the Aerarium their
proconsular accounts (proconsulares rationes).
The praetor who presided over this quaestio
chose the judges by lot from the senators, whence
it appears that the Lex Servilia was repealed by
this lex, at least so far as related to the con-
stitution of the court. This lex also allowed
ampliatio and comperendinatio. The penalties
were pecuniary (litis aestimatio), and the form
of banishment called aquae et ignis interdictio.
Under this lex were tried L. Dolabella, Cn.
Piso, C. Verres, C. Macer, M. Fonteius, and L.
Flaccus, of whom the last two were defended by
Cicero. In the Verrine Orations Cicero com-
plains of the comperendinatio or double hearing
of the cause, which the Lex Cornelia allowed,
and refers to the practice under the Lex Acilia,
RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM
according to which the case for the prosecution,
the defence, and the evidence were only heard
once, and so the matter was decided (in Verr.
1, 9). The last Lex de repetundis was the Lex
Julia passed in the first consulship of C. Julius
Caesar, B.C. 59 (Cic. in Wat. 12). This lex con-
sisted of numerous heads (capita), which have
been collected by Sigonius (Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8).
It repealed the penalty of exsilium, but, in addi-
tion to the litis aestimatio, it enacted that persons
convicted under it should lose their rank, and
be disqualified from being witnesses, judices, or
senators. This is the lex which was commented
on by the jurists, whose expositions are pre-
served in the Digest (48, 11) and in the Code
(9, 27). The Lex Julia was an act embodying
provisions that existed in previous laws, as, for
instance, that by which the money that had
been improperly retained could be recovered
from those into whose hands it could be traced.
It contains provisions prohibiting governors of
provinces from contracting debts and entering
into other legal transactions within their pro-
vinciae, with which Mr. Justice Stephen com-
pares (Hist. of Criminal Law, i. p. 22, 1st ed.)
the rules prevailing in India, which prevent
civilians from holding land in their own districts
and from receiving presents.
The Lex Julia had been passed when Cicero
made his oration against Piso, B.C. 55 (in Pis.
21, 50). A Gabinius was convicted under this
lex. Many of its provisions may be collected
from the oration of Cicero against Piso. Cicero
boasts that in his proconsulship of Cilicia there
was no cost caused to the people by himself, his
legati, quaestor, or anyone else; he did not
even demand from the people what the Lex
(Julia) allowed him.
Under the Empire the offence was punishable
with exile (Tac. Ann. xiv. 28, and the note of
Lipsius). It was treated under the Antonines as
a crimen extraordinarium, except in very grave
offences, when it was punished with death.
(Walter, Geschichte d. rôm. Rechts, ii. § 814;
Rudorff, Geschichte d. rām. Rechts, ii. § 120;
Rein, Criminalrecht, 604, &c.; Geib, ii. 40–42;
Zumpt, de legg. judiciisque repetundarum in re-
publica Romana.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
REPOTIA. [MATRIMONIUM, Wol. II. p.
144 b.]
REPU'DIUM. [DIvortium.]
RES... [DoMINIUM.)
RESCRIPTUM. [ConstituTIONES.]
RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM signifies
the rescinding of an act by the magistratus in
order to prevent the legal consequences which
ordinarily attach to such act from taking effect,
the parties affected by it being restored to the
same position which they occupied before it
took place. Such restitution is founded on the
edict and given by the magistratus on grounds
of equity in cases of contractual and other re-
lations, which are not in their nature or form
invalid; for if they are such as not to be valid
according to the Jus Civile, this restitutio is not
needed. The in integrum restitutio is an extra-
ordinary remedy (eactraordinarium auxilium),
available in cases of conflict between strict law
and equity (jus strictum, aequitas), which are
determined by the magistratus in accordance
with the principles of the latter through his im-
perium as distinguished from his JURISDICTIO.
RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM 543
In order to entitle a person to the restitutio,
he must have sustained some injury in conse-
quence of the contract or act in question, and
not through accident or any fault of his own;
except in the case of one who is minor xxy
annorum, who was protected by the restitutio
against the consequences of his own carelessness.
The injury also must, as a rule, be one for which
the injured party has no other remedy. Further
it was necessary that there should be some
ground of restitution (justa causa) recognised
by the equity of the magistratus, though not by
strict law. The grounds of restitutio were
those expressed in the praetor's edict, in the
case of restitutio against a positive act, such as
entering into a contract, or any which appeared
to the praetor good and sufficient, in the case of
restitutio as a remedy against the consequences
of omissions: “item si qua alia mihi justa causa
esse videbitur in integrum restituam quod ejus
per Leges, Plebiscita, Senatusconsulta, Edicta,
Decreta Principum licebit ’’ (Dig. 4, 6, 1).
The following are the chief grounds on ac-
count of which a restitutio might be decreed:—
Wis et metus (Dig. 4, 2; Cod. 2, 20). If a man
were induced to enter into a legal transaction or
act through duress, the proceeding was not for
that reason invalid, since his assent was not
considered to be wanting (Dig. 4, 2, 21, § 5),
and his motives for assenting were in strict law
immaterial; but it was contra bonos mores to
allow such an act to have legal effect, and so it
having been done under the influence of force or
reasonable fear (“metum non vani hominis, sed
qui merito et in hominem constantissimum
cadat”) an in integrum restitutio was allowed.
An alternative and generally preferable remedy
to this mode of restitution was after a time
established by the praetor in the actio quod
metus causa, by which restitution or a fourfold
penalty could be obtained against the party who
was the wrongdoer, and also against an innocent.
person who was in possession of anything which
had been got from him, and also against the
heredes of the wrongdoer in so far as they were
enriched by the wrong (quantum ad eos percenit).
If a person was sued in respect of a transaction
which he had entered into under duress, he was
allowed to defend himself by an eacceptio quod
metus causa. The actio quod metus was first
given by the Praetor L. Octavius, a contem-
porary of Cicero (formula Octaviana, Cic. in
Verr. iii. 65).
The case of dolus (Paul. 1, 8; Dig. 4, 3; Cod.
2, 21). When a man was induced to enter into
a legal transaction by the fraud of the other
contracting party, he was bound according to
jus strictum, but was entitled to an in integrum
restitutio. Redress could also be obtained by
means of the actio de dolo malo or doli against
the guilty person and his heredes, so far as they
were made richer by the fraud, for restitution or
damages. Against a third party who was in
boná-fide possession of the thing obtained by
dolus, he had no action. If he was sued in
respect of the transaction, he could defend him-
self by the exceptio doli mali. As the actio doli
entailed infamia, it could only be brought in
case the injured party had no other actie, and
even the extraordinary remedy of in integrººm
restitutio would frequently be given by the
praetor in preference to it. The actio doli was
544 RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM
instituted by C. Aquilius Gallus in 688 A.U.C.,
when he was praetor (Cic. de Off. iii. 14, 60 ;
de Natura Deor. iii. 30, 74).
The case of minores xxv annorum (Paul. 1, 9;
Dig. 4, 4; Cod. 2, 22). A person above the age
of puberty could bind himself by a legal act,
but the Lex Plaetoria imposed a penalty on
account of the overreaching and circumventing
persons below the age of twenty-five, and sub-
sequently the praetor promised in his edict to
give in integrum restitutio to such persons, when
the circumstances of the case seemed to him to
require this remedy. In order to obtain resti-
tutio it was not necessary for the minor to show
that he had been defrauded ; it was sufficient
that an improper advantage had been taken of
his inexperience. A minor was not prevented
from claiming an integrum restitutio by the fact
that his curator had assented to the transaction
in question. A legal transaction which a pupil-
lus had entered into, to which the auctoritas of
his tutor had been given, could also be rescinded
in this way on sufficient ground being shown.
If the auctoritas of the tutor had not been
given, and the act of the pupillus was one which
required it, no restitutio was necessary, since the
act would not be legally binding.
There were cases in which minores could
claim no restitutio: for instance, when a minor
with fraudulent design gave himself out to be
major vigintique annis ; or when he confirmed
the transaction, and in other cases. The benefit
of this restitutio belonged to the heredes of the
minor. The claim to it could only be made, as
a general rule, against the person who had
circumvented the minor and his heredes. The
time for making it was limited. The praetor
also gave restitutio to municipal corporations on
account of the injurious acts of their representa-
tives (Dig. 49, 1, 29 ;-Cod. 2, 54, 4 ; 1, 50, 1 ;
11, 29, 3).
The case of capitis deminutio through arro-
gatio [ADOPTIO} or in manum conventio [MATRI-
MONIUM), which according to the Jus Civile
was followed by the extinction of all the debts
of the person arrogated or brought into the
power of her husband. On account of the in-
justice to creditors thus occasioned the praetor
restored them to their former rights, giving
them actiones fictitiae or in factum (Gaius, iii. 83;
iv. 38).
The case of absentia (Dig. 4, 6; Cod. 2, 54).
Owing to the shortness of the time of acquiring
property by usucapion, and to the fact that the
right of bringing many praetorian actions was
limited to a year, it must frequently have hap-
pened that rights were lost owing to a person's
absence or to some other cause, which entitled
to relief. In such cases the praetor gave in
integrum restitutio, if sufficient cause was shown.
Absence of the plaintiff on account of metus or
on state service (reipublicae causa), or his im-
prisonment (in vinculis), or his capture by the
enemy (in hostium potestate), and also absence of
the defendant, are the chief causes mentioned in
the edict ; but there are others referred to, as
loss of action owing to delay in appeal from one
magistratus to another, or by refusal of an
action within the time prescribed, and also
causes not specified in the edict, which seemed
to the praetor sufficient. If the absence or delay
of the plaintiff was avoidable, or if his action
RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM
could have been maintained by a procurator on
his behalf, and he was blamable for not having
appointed one, he could not claim restitutio.
The doubtful case of alienatio judicii mutandi
causa facta (Dig. 4, 7; Cod. 2, 55), which occurs
when a man alienates a thing for the purpose of
injuring a claimant by substituting for himself
another against whom the plaintiff cannot so
easily prosecute his right. Though the alienor
has here only made use of his legal right, the
praetor perhaps at one time granted restitutio,
if the exercise of such right operates unfairly on
the plaintiff; though this may be questioned
(Windscheid, Pandekten, 1, § 116, n. 2), he cer-
tainly gave an actio in factum for damages in
such case. The rule that a vindicatio would lie
against a person who had fraudulently parted
with possession of the thing claimed, on the
fiction that he was still in possession, had a
similar object with this actio. If a man
assigned a claim or right with the view of in-
juring his adversary by giving him a harder
claimant to deal with, the adversary could
meet the assignee, when he sued, with an
eacceptio judicii mutandi causa.
The case of alienation by an insolvent (mon
solvendo) to the injury of creditors (Inst. iv. 6,
6), though some writers would bring this case
under the head of restitutio on the ground of fraud
(Schröter, l. c. 131–142; Vangerow, 1, § 177).
The praetor gave an action called Pauliana
against alienees, by which the creditors destroyed
the effect of an illegal alienation. The creditors
were also entitled to an Interdictum Frauda-
torium in order to get possession of the thing
that had been fraudulently aliened (Dig. 36, 1,
67; 42, 8).
The case of error or mistake. A person who
had bound himself by a legal act might some-
times obtain restitutio in respect of it on the
ground of mistake. Restitutio was principally
given on account of mistakes in procedure.
Gaius (iv. 57; cf. Suet. Claud. 14) gives an ex-
ample, when he says that if too large an amount
was inserted in the condemnatio of the formula,
the matter is set right by the praetor, or, in other
words, “reus in integrum restituitur"; but if
too little was inserted, the praetor would not
make any alteration; “for,” he adds, “the
praetor more readily relieves a defendant than
a plaintiff.”
It is thought by some writers that restitutio
was sometimes given in order to avoid the effect
of the SC. Welleianum, but there is not sufficient
evidence for this view. (Vangerow, 1, § 177.)
The application for a restitutio could only be
made to a magistratus with imperium, who held
an inquiry into the case (causa cognitio), and
decided the matter by his decree (decretum sen-
tentia). Thus the proceeding did not belong to
his ordinary jurisdiction (cognitio ordinaria), but
to his extraordinaria cognitio, by which he de-
cided certain cases himself without a judicium.
Restitutio could be sought by the person injured,
and by his singular or universal successors, and
it could be maintained against anyone who had
immediately benefited by the act, which had
injured the plaintiff, and against his heres or
universal successor. It could only be main-
tained against a third person to whom the right
had been assigned, if he had notice of the ground
for restitutio at the time when he acquired his
RESTITUTORIA ACTIO
RETE 545
interest, and in certain other cases where great
injury would result to the plaintiff if he were
not allowed this remedy.
When a restitutio was decreed, each party
restored to the other what he had received from
him, with all its accessions and mesne profits,
except in so far as the mesne profits on one side
might be set off against the interest of money to
be returned on the other side. If the object of
the restitutio was a right, the injured party
was restored to his right; or if he had incurred
a duty, he was released from the duty. When
restitutio consisted in the recovery of a right, a
judicium might be granted at the same time as
the decree, which is called judicium rescissorium
or actio restitutoria, but the decree itself was
always the act of the magistratus. The appli-
cation for restitutio must as a general rule be
made within four years (quadriennium continuum)
of the time of the injury being discovered, and of
the party being capable of bringing his action;
in the case of minores, the four years were
reckoned from the time of their attaining their
majority. According to the law of the classical
jurists, the application had to be made within an
annus utilis.
In the imperial times the term restitutio was
also applied to the remission of a punishment
(Tac. Ann. xiv. 12; Plin. Ep. x. 64, 65; Dig. 48,
19, 27), which could only be done by imperial
grace. (Paul. 1, 7, 8, 9; Cod. Gregor. ii. 1-4;
Dig. 4, 1; Cod. 2, 20–55; Burchardi, Die Lehre
von der Wiederednsetzung, &c.; Schröter, Ueber
Wesen und Umfang der In Integrum Restitutio in
Zeitschr, für Civ. und Pr. 1883, vi. 3.; Schneider,
Die allgemeiner subsiditiren Klagen, &c.; Savigny,
System, vii. §§ 317–343; Vangerow, Pandekten,
1, §§ 175–188; Windscheid, Pandekten, 1, § 114,
&c.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
RESTITUTORIA ACTIO. [INTERCESSIO.]
RETE; dim. RETI'CULUM (6trºvov), a net.
Nets were made most commonly of flax from
Egypt, Colchis, Spain, and some other places
(Poll. v. 26; Artem. Oneir. iii. 56; Plin. H. N.
xix. § 10). Occasionally they were of hemp
(Varro, R. R. iii. 5; Plin. xix. § 174):
sometimes also of orträpros or broom (Xen.
Cyn. 9, 13); and of fibres of palm leaves
(Theophr. iv. 2, 7). They are sometimes called
lina (Aíva) on account of the material of which
they consisted (Hom. Il. v. 487; Brunck, Anal.
ii. 494, 495). The meshes (maculae, Ovid, Her.
v. 19; Cic. Verr. v. 11, 27; Varro, R. R. iii.
11; Nemesianus, Cyneg. 302; 8póxou, Xen. Cyn.
2, 5; Eur. H. F. 729) were great or small
according to the purposes intended ; and these
purposes were very various. But by far the
most important application of net-work was to
the three kindred arts of fowling, hunting, and
fishing : and besides the general terms used
alike in reference to all these employments,
there are special térms to be explained under
each of these heads.
I. In fowling the use of nets was one among
many methods (Aristoph. Av. 528); thrushes
were caught in them (Hor. Epod. ii. 33, 34);
and doves or pigeons with their limbs tied up or
fastened to the ground, or with their eyes
covered or put out, were confined in a net, in
order that they might allure others into
the snare (Aristoph. Av. 1083). The ancient
Egyptians, as we learn from the paintings in
WOL. II.
their tombs, caught birds in clap-nets (Wil-
kinson, Man. and Cust. vol. iii. pp. 35–38, 45).
[AUCEPs.]
II. In hunting it was usual to extend nets in
a curved line of considerable length, so as
in part to surround a space into which the
beasts of chase, such as the hare, the boar, the
deer, the lion, and the bear, were driven through
the opening left on one side (Aelian, H. A.
xii. 46; Tibullus, iv. 3, 6 sq.; Plin. H. N. xix.
§ 10). This range of nets, which was called
indago, was flanked by cords, to which feathers
dyed scarlet and of other bright colours were
tied, so as to flare and flutter in the wind. The
hunters , then sallied forth, with their dogs,
dislodged the animals from their coverts, and by
shouts and barking drove them first within the
formido, as the apparatus of string and feathers
was called, and then, as they were scared with
this appearance, within the circuit of the nets.
Descriptions of this scene are given in some of
the following passages, all of which allude to
the spacious enclosure of net-work:—Werg.
Georg. iii. 372 sq., Aen. iv. 121, 151–159,
x. 707-715; Ovid, Her. iv. 41, 42; Lucan,
iv. 435 sq.; Oppian, Cyn. iv. 120–123; Eurip.
Bacchae, 866–876. The accompanying wood-
cuts are taken from two bas-reliefs in the
collection of ancient marbles at Ince-Blundell
in Lancashire. In the uppermost figure three
Servants carrying net. (From ancient relief.)
servants with staves carry on their shoulders a
large net, which is intended to be set up as
already described (Tibullus, i. 4, 49, 50;
Sen. Hippol. i. 1, 44; Propert. v. 2, 33). The
foremost servant holds by a leash a dog, which
is eager to pursue the game. In the middle
figure the net is set up. At each end of it
Indago.
stands a watchman holding a staff (Oppian,
Cyneg. iv. 124). Being intended to take such
large quadrupeds as boars and deer (which are
seen within it), the meshes are very wide (retia
rara, Verg. Aen. iv. 131; Hor. Epod. ii. 33).
The net is supported by forked stakes (orráAukes,
Oppian, Cyneg. iv. 67, &c.; Pollux, v. 31;
amites, Hor. Epod. ii. 33; ancones, Gratius,
Cyneg. 87; vari, Lucan, iv. 439). To dispose
the nets in this manner was called retia pomere
(Verg. Georg. i. 307), or retia tendere (Ovid, Art.
Amat. i. 45). Comparing it with the stature of
the attendants, we perceive the net to be
between five and six feet high. For deer they
should be somewhat higher. The upper border
of the net consists of a strong rope, which was
called gapóów (Xen. Cyn. 6, 9). This gapºv
in some nets had loops (orpāqua) or rings
(kpfkot) which attached it to the * QI"
N


546 RETE
REX
&rtöpopos (cf. Plin, H. N. xix. § 11), i.e. the
drawing cord, which was itself supported on the
forked stakes (Pollux, v. 26–31). The figures
in the following woodcut represent two men
carrying the net home after the chase; the
stakes for supporting it, two of which they hold
in their hands, are forked at the top, as is
expressed by the terms for them already quoted,
ancones and vari, and Öſkpot in Pollux.
Besides the nets used to enclose woods and
coverts or other large tracts of country, two
additional kinds are mentioned by those authors
Servants bearing home retia and amites.
All the three are
mentioned together by Xenophon (6thºrva, ćvóðia,
who treat on hunting.
Špkves, ii. 4), and by Nemesianus (Cyneg.
299, 300).
The two additional kinds were placed at in-
tervals in the same circuit with the large
hunting-net or haye. The road-net (plaga,
évöölov) was much less than the others, and was
placed across roads and narrow openings between
bushes (Poll. l. c.). The purse- or tunnel-net
(cassis, épkvs) was made with a pouch (kekpú-
qaxos, Xen. de Venat. vi. 7), intended to receive
the animal when chased towards the extremity
of the enclosure. Within this pouch were
placed branches of trees, to keep it expanded
and to decoy the animals by making it invisible.
III. Fishing-nets (āAuevruk& Stierva, Diod.
xvii. 43) were of six different kinds, which are
enumerated by Oppian (Hal. iii. 80–82) as
follows:—
Töv rà uºv &ndigAmarpa, rà. 88 yptºot kaxéovrat,
Táyyapa T', #6’ in oxal trepunyées, #8é orayåvat
"AAAa. 83 kukAffaxovat Kaaijukara.
Of these by far the most common were the
ăuq.(8xmoºrpov, or casting-net (funda, jaculum),
and the orayfivm, i.e. the drag-net, or sean
(tragum, Isid. Orig. xix. 5; tragula, Plin. H. W.
xvi. § 34; verriculum or everriculum, Ulp. Dig.
47, 10, 13, § 7; cf. Cic. Verr. ii. 14, 24).
Consequently these two are the only kinds men-
tioned by Virgil in Georg. i. 141, 142, and by
Ovid in Art. Amat. i. 763, 764. Of the ka-
Aðupa we find nowhere any further mention.
We have no distinct information about the form
of the Ypſpos, but it seems that it was made of
rush-work, and therefore probably was some-
times a fishing-creel, but, when classed with
nets, was a sort of eel-pot or lobster-pot = the
ékorzolvøv Aa3ipw8ot of Theocr. xxii. 11. It is
easy to connect the sense of riddle in Ypſ pos
with the intricacies of the eel-pot (cf. Poll. vi.
107), and it may be conjectured that scirpus and
scirpiculus correspond to all three meanings of
•ypſºpos (cf. Plaut. Capt. iv. 2, 36; Gell. xii. 6).
We know no more of the ydyryatov (Hesych.
s, v.; Aeschyl. Agam. 352): but from the fact
that the word was also used for the omentum of
the human body, it may be surmised that it
was a circular net. The Öroxh was a landing-
net, made with a hoop (Kūkaos) fastened to a pole
(Oppian, Hal. iv. 251). That àupí8Amarpov
denoted a casting-net may be concluded both
from its etymology and from the circumstances
in which it is mentioned by various authors
(Hesiod, Scut. Herc. 213–215; Herod. i. 141;
Is... xix. 8; Hab. i. 15–17, LXX. and Vulgate
versions; St. Matt. iv. 18; St. Mark i. 16).
The English term sean (which is also in the
south of England pronounced and spelt Seine, as
in French; cf. Littré, s. v.) has been brought
into our language by a corruption of the Greek
gayfivm through the Vulgate Bible (sagena,
Ezek. xxvi. 5, 14, xlvii. 10; St. Matt. xiii. 47,
48; St. John xxi. 6–11). This net, which, as
now used both by the Arabians and by our own
fishermen in Cornwall, is sometimes half a mile
long, was probably of equal dimensions among
the ancients, for they speak of it as nearly
taking in the compass of a whole bay (Hom. 0d.
xxii. 384–387; Alciphron, i. 17, 18). This
circumstance well illustrates the application of
the term to describe the besieging of a city: to
sweep a country of its population by an un-
interrupted line of soldiers was called oraym-
weiſelv (Herod. iii. 145, vi. 31; Plato, Legg.
iii. Sub fin.). The use of corks (pexAof, cortices
suberini, Sidon. Apollin. Epist. ii. 2; Plin. H. N.
xvi. § 34) to support the top, and of leads
(uox1866es) to keep down the bottom, is fre-
quently mentioned by ancient writers (Ovid,
Trist. iii. 4, 11, 12 ; Aelian, H. A. xii. 43 ;
Pausan. viii. 12, § 1), and is clearly exhibited in
some of the paintings in Egyptian tombs. Leads,
and pieces of wood serving as floats instead of
corks, still remain on a sean in the collection of
Egyptian antiquities at Berlin.
The massa (kmuðs, ruptſs, kvpéâm) was espe-
cially used for catching the murex used for
purple dye. It was sometimes a small net in
the shape of a bag with thick close meshes of
cord, but apparently more usually a sort of
basket of rushes or osiers. Bait was placed in
it, for which, according to several writers,
bivalves were used ; these closed on the murex
attacking them, and so kept it imprisoned till
the net or basket was drawn up (Ael. A. N.
vii. 34; Plin. H. N. ix. § 132; Oppian, Hal. v.
600). Others describe the nassa in more ordi-
nary fashion, as constructed like an eel-pot,
narrowing after the entrance and then widening
again, with the rushes or osiers so projecting
inside as to make the return more difficult than
the entrance (Sil. v. 43; Poll. i. 47, where it
is called kvpéAm). Hesych., s. v. kmuds, compares
the shape to a strainer (h916s). (See Yates,
Teatrinum Antiquum, Appendix C ; and, for the
material of nets, Blümner, Technol. i. 229, 292 f.,
may also be consulted.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
RETIA/RII. [GLADIATOREs.] * - -
REUS. [ACTOR; OBLIGATIONES.] -
REX (Bagińeūs), king. 1. GREEK. Deriva-
tion possibly root 8a, “make to go,” and Aev-
= Aao, “people” (cf. AevrvXíðms). Government
by a single king was perhaps the rule in the
towns of pre-historic Greece (cf. Dionys. v. 74,
kar’ &pxãs uév y&p &maa’a tróxis ‘EMAmvikh é8a-
orixedéro, TA}v oëx &grep ra. Bapgapuka čbum
Serrorikás, &AAä kará včuovs re kal éðiouous

REX.
REX 547
"ratptovs). Where, as so often, state and town
were almost synonymous terms, the “king ”
was probably no more than the senior member
of the most distinguished family, and these
petty Baorixies or chieftains must have been
very numerous. Thus we find traces of kings,
many of them more or less mythical, in Thebes,
Athens, Argos and Mycenae; in Chalcis of Euboea
(Hes. Op. 654 f.), Phlius (Paus. ii. 13, 1),
Corinth (Paus. ii. 4, 3), the towns of Achaia
(Paus. vii. 6, 1; Polyb. ii. 41), possibly Tegea
(Paus. viii. 45, 1; Herod. ix. 26), Orchomenus
(Theoph. in Müll. Frag. Hist. Gr. iv. 515), the
dodecapolis of Ionia (Herod. i. 147; Paus. vii.
3, 10), Samos (Herod. iii. 59), Chios (Paus. vii.
4, 9, 10), Cyme (Heracl. in Müll. op. cit. ii. 216),
Tenedos (Aristot. in Müll. op. cit. ii. 157, 213),
Ialysus (Paus. iv. 24, 2), towns of Cyprus (Diod.
xvi. 42; Herod. v. 109, 110; Aristot. in Müll.
op. cit. ii. 166, 203), and Cyrene (Herod. iv.
155), besides many others. In other cases we
find kings of a district rather than of a town,
e.g. Minos, king of Crete and the Cyclades
KThuc. i. 4); the Theban kings dominate Boeotia;
the Athenian, Attica; the Spartan, Laconia.
According to Aristotle (Pol. 1. 12), the relation
of a king to his subjects is precisely analogous
to that of Zeus to the other gods, or to that of
a father to his children. In the earliest times,
when every action of life, private or public, had
a religious significance, his sacerdotal functions
were doubtless the most important part of the
king's duties. As the house-father was priest
in his own house, so the king, the state-father,
was priest of the greater household—the state;
he offered sacrifice for the city, his virgin
daughters tended the city’s égría. The king
appears to have been called indifferently &pxwv,
Tpúravis, or Baoruńets. See Arist. Pol. vii.
(vi.) 8, &trö ràs icouvâs éortas #xovoſt rºw rupińv.
Kaxobot 6 of ačv Špxoviras rotºrous of 8& Bagińeſs
o? §§ rpvráveis : Aesch. Supp. 371, trpūravis
ākpitos &v ºparáveis Bouby éorríav x0ovés.
Charon of Lampsacus gave to his treatise on the
Spartan kings the title "Apxovres kal irpurg-
vets Aakebaptovíov. -
Absolute monarchy, in the modern acceptation
of the term, appears to have been unknown
among the Greeks. The nearest approaches to
it were the rvpavvis, which was, in origin at
least, a weak imitation of Persian despotism,
and the Macedonian military kingship. It is
true that Aristotle in his classification of
Saaiketal (Pol. iii. 14–17), discusses what he
terms trapbaorixeſa or Baauxeta kupſa, but he
treats the question rather from the theoretical
than the practical point of view ; such a Baart-
Aeta is only justified by the éper) of the indi-
vidual or family being far in excess of that of
any other individual or family (Pol. iii. 17).
Aristotle (Pol. iii. 14) classifies Bagińeſat as
follows: (1) the heroic (# karū roës poikot's
xpóvows), (2) the barbaric (ii Bapgapuká), (3) the
aiorvpavnreſa, or elective tyranny (aiper', rupav-
wis), (4) the Laconian, or hereditary life-general-
ship (orrparmyia karð yévos &föuos).
The Heroic king, the king as represented in
Homeric poetry, is far from possessing absolute
power. Every chieftain bears the title of
Bagińeſs: in Phaeacia alone there are thirteen
Baoixàes (0d. viii. 390). [In the Iliad, Aga-
memnon is Baoruńetraros (ix. 69), suzerain of the
rest, only as commander of the Trojan expe-
dition, not in virtue of any territorial sove-
reignty.] The obedience of his people is volun-
tary; his rights are subject to definition (Éków-
twu Pºv Čiri riori 8° àpiguévois, Ar. Pol. iii. 14).
Thucydides defines, the heroic kingships as émi
Émroſs Yépaori ratpukal Baqixeſai (i.13), and
Aristotle is expressing the same idea when he
calls them ékoúataí re kal Trárpiai yivówepal .
katē vápov (b. iii. 14). Sometimes an oath was
interchanged between king and subjects (rooro
5’ trotovy of uév oùk àuvêovres of 6' àplvířovres,
ib. iii. 14; see also below, remarks on the Mace-
donian kings). The same author regards the
origin of the kingship as a gift of a grateful
people for services conferred ; cf. Id. ib. 61& Yap
to rows trpiórous yewéo 6al rod traff00vs step-yéras
karð réxvas 3 tróAepov, # 81& To avva-ya'yeſv 3)
tropio'ai x&pav, &yévovro Saorixeſs ékávrov kal
roſs trapakapığávovort trórpiot.
The heroic kingship was hereditary: see Thuc.
and Aristot. above, and Il. ii. 186, ork?"rrpov
trarpářov, & pétrov aieſ. Each successor was
hailed by the approving voice of the trx?00s.
The office was of divine institution, and the
kings are, in a certain sense, children of Zeus,
the king of the gods. Thus they are Storpe peſs
and Stoyevels (cf. Hes. Theog. 96, Čk 5& Aubs
Bagińfies), and even 6eſol, as partaking of the
divine nature (Od. iv. 691). The genealogies of
both the royal lines at Sparta are traced back
to Heracles, son of Zeus (Herod. vii. 204; viii.
131). Aeneas was son of Aphrodite, Nestor
grandson of Poseidon, Ajax Telamonis and
Odysseus were great-grandsons of Zeus. The
king's office is derived from Zeus (rip), 8’ &c. Atós
éorri, Il. ii. 197); he is king to whom Zeus grants
it (eſs Bagińeſs, à éðwke Kpévov rats &ykvå0-
afirew, ib. 205); the sceptre of Agamemnon
descends from Zeus in direct line (ib. 101). The
kings in Homer are characterised by personal
beauty; vigour of body and mind is a condition
of the maintenance of the office (Od. xi. 174,
184,495). Manual employments are often part
of a king's accomplishments. “Odysseus, in the
island of Calypso, is a wood-cutter and ship-
builder (Od. v. 243, 261); Odysseus on his
throne was the carpenter and artisan of his own
bed (Od. xxiii. 195–201); Odysseus in disguise
challenges Eurymachos the suitor to try which
of them would soonest mow a meadow, and
which drive the straightest furrow down a
four-acre field (0a. xviii. 366-375).” (Glad-
stone, Juvent. Mundi, p. 420.) Laertes has a
passion for gardening (Od. xxiv. 226 f.), Achilles
and Paris for the lyre (Il. iii. 54).
The king succeeds to certain royal possessions
and goods, termed his réuevos. These were
granted for signal services in war or elsewhere,
and passed from father to son. Cf. Il. ix. 578
(of Meleager), vi. 193 f. (of the Lycians and
Bellerophon); Od. xi. 184 (of Telemachus),
xvii. 299 (of Odysseus), xxiv. 205 (of Laertes);
Il. xii. 313; Od. vii. 150; Herod. vi. 161, where
a corresponding repevos is given to Battus, the
founder of Cyrene. It is thought that this was
the solitary instance of private property in land,
which was otherwise managed on the common-
field system, held in temporary tenure (Ridge-
way in Journ. Hell. Stud. vi. 319). -
The heroic king inherited the threefold func-
tions of general, judge, and Mºrº grain.
N
548 REX.
REX
•yös Yap fiv kal Sukaoths 6 Bagińets kal rôv
rpos rows 6eous köptos, Ar. Pol. iii. 14).
As general, he had supreme control of matters
in the field, and power of life and death during
expeditions: ééex0ávtwu ää kal kretvai kūptos
ºv. Aéyet yody by 6é k’ &yöv &mdvev6e pºdzms
. ., où of &piciov čoorefrat puyéew kivas #5’
oiovoús trap yūp éuol 6&varos, Ar. Pol. iii. 14,
but the last sentence does not occur in the
existing texts of Homer (Il. ii. 391 f.); see,
however, Il. xv. 348. As high-priest he per-
formed, on behalf of the state, all such functions
as were not specially assigned to other priests:
köpiot 5’ foray . . . kal tăv 6voiáv Šalat wh
isparukat (Ar. Pol. iii. 15); cf. also Il. ii. 402 f.
As judge, the king dispensed the 6éuorres or
“dooms,” which were divinely suggested to
him by 0éus, the assessor of Zeus: thus it was
in his judicial capacity that the king gave chief
evidence of his divine connexion and origin; cf.
Il. ix. 97 f, oùveka troAAów Aaſov čarl &vač kai
Tot Zeus éyyváAušev orrām-rpóv r" #8& 6éutorras,
iva orgfort Bouxet moróa : Il. i. 238, SukaatróAoi,
oire 6éutaras rpos Aibs eipiarai : Hes. Theog.
85, oi Bé vu Aaol trivres és abrov Špægt ölakpi-
vovira 6&ntatas ióeſno's Sixport. The regal symbol
was the orrāmrpov, which was transmitted from
father to son (Il. ii. 100 f.): Odysseus bears the
orkfirrpov as Agamemnon’s representative (Il.
ii. 186 f.). The crown is unknown in Homer as
a distinctly regal symbol, and only becomes so
in later times, because worn by the king in his
character of priest; garlands always being
associated with sacrifice and other joyful occa-
S10IlS.
The king convoked the Council of the Elders
(8ovX}, yepávrov, Il. ii. 53) to deliberate on all
matters of policy, military as well as civil (Il.
ix. 89; vii. 382 f.). There seems to have been
no obligation upon the king to consult the
Bovāh, or to take its advice if consulted, but
none the less was it his duty to do so (Il. ix.
100–108). The decisions of the king, or of the
king and council, were made known to the
general assembly of adult male citizens (&yopd,
&ydºv). No debate was allowed; the multitude
received the will of the king with silence or
with applause; objections were summarily dealt
with. It is not till the Odyssey that any
special regard is paid to the 6%pov påuts (cf.
vi. 273; xiv. 239); though promises like those
of Agamemnon, to give seven cities as his
daughter's portion (Il. ix. 149), or of Menelaus,
to sack one of his own cities in order to establish
Odysseus therein, are either poetical exaggera-
tions or proceed from those who are Baoruńeſſ-
Tepot tav &AAwy Baorixéov.
The title āvač &vöpóv, forty-four times applied
to Agamemnon in the Iliad, and applied also
to five other sovereigns—Aeneas (Il. v. 311),
Euphetes (xv. 532), Anchises (v. 268), Au-
geias (xi. 701), and Eumelus (xxiii. 288)—is
regarded by Gladstone (Juv. Mundi, p. 151) as
of foreign rather than Hellenic colour, patriar-
chal rather than Greek, savouring of serfdom
and absolutism. Jebb, on the other hand
(Homer, p. 47), denies this; and, regarding &va;
merely , as a descriptive epithet, suggests a
metrical reason for its use in the passages quoted.
Grote (Greece, ch. xx.) seems to incline to the
former view.
The aiovuvm reta or aipeth rvpavvis is stated
by Aristotle to have existed €v roſs àpxatous
"EAAmoruv. It differed from Bapgapukh Bagińeta
not in being constitutional (kará včuov), but
simply in being not hereditary. The office
lasted sometimes for life, sometimes for a
specified time, or during the performance of a
specified duty. As far as its power was con-
cerned, the office was “tyrannical; ” it is classi-
fied as a Baorixeſa, as being aipeth kal ékávrov
(Ar. Pol. iii. 14). Solon was practically aiovu-
vàrms of Athens during his revision of the
constitution, though the title is not applied to
him by any Greek writer.
The Laconian kingship is defined by Aristotle
(l.c.) as atparnyſa ris abrokpárap kal &fötos,
to which he afterwards adds the fact that it is
hereditary (karð yévos). The king's authority
is by no means supreme (otſk Čori kupia trávrov),
although eminently constitutional (udaiota
Töv karð vögov); his power only begins when
he is outside Laconian territory. This view of
the Spartan kingship is clearly drawn from its
position in times nearly approximating to Ari-
stotle's own. Weakened by the encroachments
of the yepovata, the éqopol, and the vavapxia,
it preserved only the shadow of its ancient
power. Thus the Spartan kingship is really the
“exception which proves the rule,” that kings
disappeared from Greece before historic times.
For the duties, position, &c., of the Spartam
kings, see GEROUSIA.
Some of the kingdoms which lay outside the
circle of Greek politics lasted much longer than
those within it. The Molossian kingdom of the
Pyrrhidae, which derived its origin from the
son of Achilles, extended its sway over the whole
of Epirus shortly after the Peloponnesian War :
cf. Thuc. i. 136; ii. 80. It was no doubt due
to the strictly constitutional nature of its rule
that the Molossian kingdom lasted until the
latter half of the third century B.C. (Ar. Pol.
viii. (v.) 11 init.). The kings every year, after
sacrificing to Zeus Areius, swore to govern
Epirus according to the laws, and the people for
their part swore to protect the kings according
to the laws. Transgression on the part of the
king relieved the people from their oath, and
thus we find that the king was sometimes
removed and another appointed (Plut. Pyrr. v.;
Diod. xv. 13).
The Macedonian kings traced back their origin
to the Heracleid race of Argos. Perdiccas I.
was the founder of the monarchy (Herod. viii.
137, 138; v. 22). Originally established at
Edessa, the dynasty extended the area of its
sway by the conquest of the Briges, the Pierians,
the Bottiaeans, and the inland tribes. The
succession was hereditary. The Macedonian
monarchy of Philip and Alexander approaches
more nearly to the military imperialism of
Rome than any other Greek institution. It is.
true that Arrian (Eaſp. Alex. iv. 11) asserts
that Makeščvav Špxovres of Big &AAà vöu?
5teréAeoav : but this was probably more the
result of a prudent policy than of any definite
circumscription of the royal power. The king
and the army appear to be the sole instruments
of government, the army even acting as a
criminal court. (See Quint. Curt. vi. 32, 25,
“de capitalibus rebus vetusto Macedonum more
inquirebat exercitus; in pace erat vulgi ; et
nihil potestas regum valebat nisi prius valuisset
REX
REX 549
auctoritas.”) This, however, probably bears
reference only to military offences. We hear of
a Macedonian assembly (“ad contionem vocato
populo,” Just. xiv. 6), but it “appears to have
been summoned chiefly as a mere instrument to
sanction some predetermined purpose of the
king or military leader predominant at the
time.” There is “no evidence of co-ordinate
political bodies or standing apparatus, either
aristocratical or popular, to check the power of
the king ” (Grote).
See G. Gilbert, Griechische Staatsalterthümer;
Grote, Greece, part i. ch. 20; Thirlwall, Greece,
chaps. 6, 8, and 10; Freeman, Comparative
Politics, Lect. iv.; De Coulanges, La Cité
Antique, p. 203 f, 283 f.; Jebb, Homer, p. 46 f.;
Gladstone, Juventus Mundi, p. 413 f.; Auerbach,
de Lacedaemoniorum regibus ; Meier und Schö-
mann, Attische Process, p. 6 f.; Busolt, Griech-
ische Geschichte, vol. i. p. 376 f.; Schömann,
Antiquities of Greece, tr. by Hardy and Mann,
vol. i. p. 114 f.; Duncker, History of Greece,
tr. by Alleyne and Abbott, vol. i. p. 469 f.,
ii. p. 3 f.; Id. Gesch. des Alterthums, v. (1881),
p. 334 f. [A. H. C.]
2. ROMAN.—That Rome was once governed
by kings, and that the later republican consti-
tution was a development, traceable in its
outlines, of an original regal rule, was the
universal belief of Roman antiquity itself, and
has never been doubted, even by those scholars
who have expressed most disbelief in the details
of such accounts of the kingship as have been
handed down to us. Some consideration of the
nature of the evidence on which the Roman
monarchy rests is clearly necessary for an
appreciation of its real nature and character.
Of the evidence in this question there are two
main lines. One is that of tradition; for the
literary accounts we have of this period cannot
be considered as other than traditional, since
the earliest historical records from which our
present sources were derived were not, so far as
we know, composed until some 300 years after
the expiration of this period, and there is little
or no original documentary evidence of a
credible nature on which we can suppose even
the earliest of these accounts to have rested
(Lewis, Credibility of Early Roman History,
vol. i. ch. iii. p. 70; Seeley, Livy, Introd. p. 17).
The other and surer line of evidence is to be found
in the manifest survivals of an original kingly
rule which meet us everywhere in the Roman
republic, and which enable us partly to supple-
Khent the accounts of tradition, but more often
to correct them where it seems likely that they
have transferred to this early period the consti-
tutional usages of the later republic. Some of
these survivals, such as the rea: săcrorum and
the interrez, throw considerable light on some
points of the regal constitution; while others
are merely traces of the past monarchy indelibly
imprinted on the later republican community.
Such are the existence of the REGIA, or kingly
palace, on the Sacra Via (Becker, Topogr. § 223),
the festival of the Regifugium on Feb. 24th
(Festus, s. v. p. 137 and p. 230; Orelli, Inscr.
ii. p. 384; Ov. Fasti, 2, 685), and the days
marked by the formula QR C F [see REGI-
FUGIUM). Finally, if we were to seek evidence,
beyond tradition and such survivals, for the
original existence of a Roman Rex, it would be
found in the probabilities of a constitution such
as that of Rome, so peculiar in the conception
of its supreme magistracy, with its different
personal representatives, each possessing in theory
a single indivisible imperium, having been the
development of a constitution in which the
imperium was really indivisible because vested
in a single person. That this form of constitu-
tion was in no degree peculiar to Rome, but
that in this, as in other respects, Rome was
merely a typical Italian community, there is
every reason to believe. A distinct survival of
an original kingly power is found in the stand-
ing dictatorship of certain Latin towns, such as
Lanuvium (Cic. pro Mil. 10, 27).
The theory on which the Roman monarchy
rested is not quite paralleled in any ancient or
modern state. The Roman state has been aptly
described by Mommsen as a “constitutional
monarchy inverted ” (Hist. of Rome, i. p. 84):
that is, the ultimate sovereignty resided not
with the king, but with the community he
represented, and the constitutional limitation
was not that of personal rule by the people, but
of the people by personal rule. The Roman
monarchy rested on authority delegated by the
people; and this is true whatever we consider
the immediate basis to have been on which the
king's power rested, whether we regard it as
elective, hereditary, or held by right divine. It
is shown by the fact that the sovereign attribute
of pardon rested with the people in the last
resort (Liv. i. 26; Cic. de Rep. ii. 31).
Secondly, by the fact which is stated by
tradition, and rendered probable by the later
theory of republican legislation, that the Roman
people was the sole source of law, which, though
elicited by the king through his sole right of
initiative, could only be rendered valid by the
assent of the burgesses (Dionys. ii. 14); and
finally that tradition affirms it to have been the
source of honour. We are told at least that
the regal insignia of Etruria, which the Roman
kings adopted, were only assumed after ratifica-
tion by the senate and people (Dionys. iii. 6, 2;
Cic. ib.); and it is possible that the appoint-
ment of special officers of state, though in theory
they were merely delegates nominated by the
king, had to be ratified by similar leges curiatae.
Such at least seems to be implied by the account
given by Tacitus of the institution of the
earliest quaestores (Ann. 11, 22; cf. Dig. 1, 13,
“quaestores quos ipsi populi suffragio crea-
rent”). -
To such a personal representative had the
Roman people transferred the whole of the
executive, and so much of the legislative power
as is implied in the sole right of initiative,
without, however, forfeiting certain, ultimate
rights of their own. The personal head thus
constituted possessed a variety of titles which
marked the various aspects of the collective
authority he exercised; and which, when this
administrative authority was differentiated in
republican times, were applied to different
individuals. As supreme judge he would be
judex, as leader in war praetor (prae-ſtor :
cf. Varro, L. L. v. 80); while the title dictator,
which signified a temporary, though incomplete,
resumption of the kingship in republican times;
and the title magister populi which was applied
to this office (Festus, p. 198), were probably
550 REX.
REX
originally mere appellatives of the king, applied
according to the aspect in which his power was
viewed. The title that marked him out as
supreme head of the state, and summed up all
his other powers, was that of Rex, the “orderer’”
of the state, the regulator of all things human
and divine (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii.” p. 5); and
this title of Rex, when it had ceased to apply to
civil duties, and had gained the connotation not
of ordered administration but of absolutism, was
still applied to the Rex sacrorum, the orderer of
religion, who had inherited that branch of the
kingly functions. Similarly the position of
the Rex as supreme head of the state was
denoted by the word regnum (Cic. de Rep.
ii. 27); but the powers with which the king
was invested were summed up under the word
imperium. While regnum denotes the position
of the monarch, imperium denotes the powers
on which this position was based (Mommsen,
l. c.; Cic. de Rep. i. 26).
The unique position in the state which the
Roman king thus held, and which has been
compared to the position which the Roman
paterfamilias held in the family (Mommsen,
Bist. of Rome, i. p. 61), was expressed.by certain
special marks (insignia), which distinguished
him from the rest of the burgesses. The
question as to what were the special insignia of
the Roman monarchy is rendered difficult by
the fact, that while they must necessarily have
borne a close relation to the insignia of the
supreme magistrates of the Republic, they yet
in all probability differed in some degree from
the latter; but to what extent it is almost
impossible to determine, for the tendency of
tradition is, on the one hand to assimilate the
two, on the other, while assuming the consular
and praetorian insignia to be an inheritance
from regal times, to attribute to the monarchy
other special marks of royalty which it derives
mainly from a foreign source. The chief marks
of the regal as of the later consular imperium
were the fasces and lictores. (As regards the
number of the king's lictors, see LICTOR, p. 65.)
That the king could have the axe borne within
the fasces, even while remaining within the
walls, we must believe, if we admit that he
was exempt from the necessity of admitting
the provocatio, and could exercise the same full
jurisdiction domi and militiae. Next, the wear-
ing of the purple must have been wholly
reserved for the king, but whether merely in
the form of the later consular praetexta (Liv.
i. 8) or of the full purple robe besides the
praetexta attributed to him by Dionysius (iii. 61)
is uncertain; the latter, however, is more
probable: for in the later consulship we
probably, see throughout a limitation of the
insignia which accompanied the limitation of
the powers of the supreme magistracy. The
purple robe which Dionysius assigns along with
the toga praetexta to a foreign origin, must,
however, be identical with one variety of the
trabea, undoubtedly one of the insignia of
the king, and said to have had a purely Latin
origin. It is connected with the name of
Romulus (Quirinalis trabea, Verg. Aen. vii. 612),
and is associated in the later Republic chiefly
with the officers of religion. If the distinction
between the three kinds of trabea (Servius
in Aen. vii. 612)—the purple one for the priestly
office, that of purple and saffron for the augurs
and of purple striped with white for the king—
existed in this early period, they must have
been all worn by the king for the performance
of the several functions of his office. The trabea
is probably an inheritance the Roman republic
owed to the kingship: and it is difficult to see how
the idea could have originated of differences in
this dress being appropriate to difference of
functions, had the distinction not originated in
a period when all these functions were united
in the king (cf. Serv. in Aen. vii. 187, xi. 334;
Plin. H. N. viii. § 48, ix. § 39; Ov. Fast.
ii. 503). The eagle-headed sceptre and the
golden crown tradition also attributes to the
king, as well as the solium or throne (Cic.
de Fin. ii. 21, 69; Dionys. iii. 61, 6póvov -
éAeqāvruvov) and the chariot within the walls,
from which the sella curulis was derived (Festus,
p. 49). Most of the regal insignia, the crown,
the toga picta and the chariot especially, re-
appear in the Roman triumph, and render
probable the statement that the triumphal
insignia of the Roman magistrate were but the
revival of those of the monarchy (Dionys.
iv. 74).
Amongst the privileges of the king must be
counted that portion of the public domain
(“arvi et arbusti et pascui lati atque uberes,”
Cic. de Rep. v. 2, 3; Liv. ii. 5) set apart
exclusively for the king's use. Though in a
sense the owner of the whole state, and as such
capable of commanding the munera of the
burgesses (Liv. i. 56), he was peculiarly the
owner of these royal domains, which he might.
employ for his own support; and in a peculiar
degree also would he be master of the services
of that large clientela, the body of half-free
citizens that helped to make up the plebs, which
were only connected with the community
through him its personal representative, but
which he might make more closely dependent,
as clientes, on other leading families of the
community, if it was his pleasure (Cic. de
Rep. l.c.).
The mode in which the Roman kings entered
on their position in the state is one of the most
difficult questions connected with the monarchy.
It is true that tradition is unanimous in repre-
senting it as elective—depending, that is, on
free popular election, or on such election guided
by the senate (Liv. i. 17; Cic. de Rep. ii. 17, 31)— .
and in representing the proccalure as being con-
ducted in every case with the regular formalities
of the comitia, the auctoritas patrum, and the
interregnum: the last of which, though in the
republican period an extraordinary office, is
represented as having been a part of the
invariable cºnstitutional procedure in the trans-
mission of the kingly power (Liv. i. 47). When,
however, we consider the manner in which such
a tradition may have grown up, that the
conception probably arose with the Roman
jurists, who had before their eyes the mode in
which the consuls and other curule magistrates
were appointed to their office; when further we
consider that what seems the alternative, the
hereditary principle, was never represented by
tradition as having been strictly recognised in
the transmission of the Roman monarchy, we
see how inevitable it was that they should have
concluded it to be purely elective. But there
REX
REX 551
are many considerations which throw doubt on
such a theory. In the first place, the election
was regarded as free in a far wider sense than
the election of the higher magistrates at Rome;
since, if we are to trust the traditional accounts,
&oman citizenship was not a necessary qualifica-
tion for the monarchy. Thus the non-burgess
Numa, the foreigner Tarquin, the slave's son
Servius, are all represented as having been
elected kings of Rome (Liv. i. 18, 35, 42, 46):
although Roman citizenship must have been a
necessary qualification, even if patrician descent
was not; and it is unlikely that while the
‘nterrez had, down to the latest republican
times, to be a patrician, the king might have
been not only a plebeian but a non-citizen
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. p. 7, n. 2). The ab-
sence of any mention of a qualification for
election throws suspicion on the circumstantial
accounts given of the king's election, and the
suspicion is increased by an examination of
the legends of Rome's foundation so far as they
refer to the institution of the monarchy. To
bear out the juristic theory of election, we
should expect to find the first king of Rome an
elected monarch. But, on the contrary, we find
the community organised through the king
rather than the king through the community.
There is no trace in the best tradition of a first
election to the kingship; for the account of
Dionysius, that Romulus was chosen to be
the supreme head by a vote of the people,
chiefly through his character of founder of a
colony, belongs to Greek sentiment, not to
Roman: and the salutatio mentioned by Livy
(i. 7) on his successful taking of the auspices,
represents merely the recognition of his im-
perium as favoured by heaven. From the
traditional accounts of the earliest kings, which
represent Romulus as the son of a god, as
awaiting the verdict of heaven before he assumes
his rule, and Numa his successor as insisting
that the same verdict should be appealed to
(Liv. i. 7 and 19), a conclusion might be drawn
that the Roman monarchy rested on divine
right (cf. Rubino, Untersuchungen über römische
Werfassung, p. 107); but, as will be shown in
considering the question of the inauguration of
the king, this theory raises into a material
what was probably merely a formal element in
the monarchy: and there is nothing in Roman
history or sentiment that could give colour to
the idea of such a pure theocracy. That the
monarchy was hereditary is contradicted by
the facts of the traditional history of the
period, and expressly denied by other authors,
as by Cicero (de Rep. ii. 12, 24) and Appian
(Bell. Civ. i. 98), who state that the early
Romans in the choice of their kings had more
regard to merit than to birth; and when the
hereditary principle is first realised in the last
king, the monarchy comes to an end. On the
other hand there are considerable difficulties,
besides those mentioned above, in the way of
assuming, as the Roman constitutional thinkers
did, that the king’s position depended on free
election by the people; for, in what must be
regarded as definite survivals of the Roman
monarchy, such election was not recognised.
The Rea, sacrorum was not elected, but nomi-
nated by the Pontifex Maximus (Dionys. v. 1;
Liv. xl. 42, 8); and it is probable that, at the
close of the monarchy, when the religious
functions of the priest were first separated from
the secular functions of the magistrate, the
older method of regal appointment would have
been retained for the former, the new principle
of election introduced for the latter. Again,
the Dictatorship, which was practically a re-
establishment of the kingship for a temporary
purpose in republican Rome, also dispensed
with election. Perhaps another piece of evi-
dence against the theory that the kingship was
purely elective is to be found in the fact that
the king was not bound to allow the provocatio
any more than the early dictator was (Liv. ii.
18 and 30; Dionys. v. 75; Mommsen, Staatsr.
ii.” p. 163). Now it seems to have been a
principle in republican Rome that when there
was election, then the provocatio was demanded
as a right; and if we consider this principle to
be applicable to the earliest period of Roman
constitutional history, the fact that the people
had no standing right of provocatio against the
king will be an argument against their having
the free power of electing to this office. If we
are led by these considerations to regard the
monarchy as not purely an elective office, we
must consider that it was the right, and perhaps
the duty, of the king of Rome to nominate his
successor; that this nominatio, which became
only a form under the Republic, but which was
again revived with some of its old material
force in the election to office under the princi-
pate (Dio Cass. liii. 21, 7; lviii. 20, 3; Tac.
Ann. i. 14, 81), was the chief mode of trans-
mission of office in the regal period. The
survival of the interrex into historic times as a
factor in an elective process is no proof that the
Roman monarchy was purely elective (cf. Seeley,
Livy, Introd. p. 56). Had there been no due
nominatio, and consequently no distinctly marked-
out successor to the monarchy, the duty of
providing such a successor would naturally
have lapsed to the senate, from which body the
interrex was appointed (Liv. i. 17: see INTERREX
and SENATUs); and it is probable that the
Interregnum, in the time of the monarchy, as in
that of the Republic, was an extraordinary
measure, only resorted to when the regular line
of succession had been broken and the regular,
procedure interrupted, through some unforeseen
cause. But although the monarchy cannot be
regarded as depending on free election on the
part of the people, there are certain quasi-
elective processes connected by tradition with
the appointment of the king, both on the part
of senate and people, which there is no reason
to discredit. That the authority of the senate
(auctoritas patrum) was constitutionally neces-
sary for the appointment of a successor to the
monarchy is stated by Livy in connexion with
all the transmissions of the supreme power
(Liv. i. 17, 22, 32, 41, 47); and, even if we do
not hold the theory of a definite election, will
still be a natural outcome of the constitutional
necessity the king was under of consulting the
senate in all important measures that affected
the popular welfare, one of the most important
of which would be the nomination of a successor.
Such a procedure would not spring from any
theory of the senate's possessing elective power,
but simply from the principle that underlay the
whole Roman community, both in its public and
552 REX
JREX
private relations, that no man in authority
should act without taking advice of his concilium.
The other principle is that of the formal ratifi-
cation of the king's power by the people, which
continued into the Republic under the title of
the Lex Curiata; and was the formal sanction
always required for the ratification of an
imperium already assumed (Cic. de leg. Agr.
ii. 10, 26; ii. 11, 28; ad Fam. i. 9, 25: see
LEx CURIATA and PROCONSUL). That it was a
merely formal ratification in the time of the
monarchy is stated by Cicero as being shown by
the fact that the king himself proposed the
Lex Curiata which was to sanction his own
power (Cic. de Rep. ii. 13, 25: “Numam—
qui quamguam populus curiatis eum comitiis
regem esse jusserat, tamen ipse de suo imperio
legem curiatam tulit.”), as was indeed neces-
sary, since no other power but the king had the
right of putting the question to the people;
and it might undoubtedly be legally, though
not perhaps constitutionally, withheld by the
king, as we are told it was withheld by king
Servius during the early part of his reign
(Liv. i. 42). It is thus carefully distinguished
from the election to the monarchy, and the
people were supposed by the Roman jurists to
have performed two distinct acts in the creation
of a king first in the way of election, and next
in the way of formal ratification of such an
election (Cic. de Rep. ii. 17, 31, “Tullum Hos-
tilium populus regem, interrege rogante, comitiis
curiatis creavit, isque de in perio suo-populum
consuluit curiatim *). That such a formal
sanction, however, should have been required
where free popular election had preceded, seems
unlikely; and the Lex Curiata is a far more
explicable procedure if we suppose the king to
have first been nominated independently of the
people, and then to have challenged their
allegiance in this manner: and although in
the Republic this Lex was taken by magistrates
already elected, as a necessary preliminary to
the exercise of the full imperium, yet there it
was a mere constitutional survival, with its
meaning partly lost, and far more a matter of
form apparently than it had been in its origin.
That an exercise of the regal imperium, which
was not sanctioned by these two acts of senate
and people, the expressed will of the one and
the declared allegiance of the other, was
regarded by the later authorities as unconstitu-
tional, is shown by the language of Cicero,
where he says (de Rep. ii. 24, 44) that the last
injustus dominus of Rome ruled “neque populi
jussu neque auctoribus patribus.”
But the king's assumption of his power was
regarded as incomplete until a religious act had
been performed which showed that the gods
sanctioned the rule which he had assumed. The
ceremony of taking the auspices which had this
meaning was observed by magistrates of the
Republic before entering on the exercise of their
office [AUSPICIA; AUGUR); but the religious
act performed by the king is represented by our
authorities, as having been, not merely this
taking of the auspices, but a special inaugura-
tion. There is a difference between these two
acts. In the ordinary form of the auspicia the
official entering on office had himself the right
of spectio which belonged to Roman magistrates
as such, was never regarded as a merely priestly
function, and still continued to be possessed by
magistrates under the Republic, even when
their office had been completely divorced from
that of the priesthood. In the special inaugura-
tion, on the contrary, the spectio is taken by
some other than the person inaugurated ; as in
the case of Numa, the first who is represented
as being thus inaugurated, a specially appointed
augur is employed to watch for signs (Liv. i. 18,
“de se deos consuli jussit ’’); unlike Romulus,
who is represented as taking his own auspices on
the Palatine (Liv. i. 6). This ceremony of inaugu-
ration by one of the priesthood other than the
person so inaugurated is represented as having
been from the time of Numa the standing pro-
cedure in the act of entering on the regal office
(Liv. i. 18). If we can argue in this case from
survivals, some support is given to the assertion
by the fact that the Rex Sacrificulus had, as we
know, a special inauguration (Labeo, ap. Gell.
xv. 27, 1; Liv. xl. 42, 8). But this resulted from
the fact of his purely priestly character; and if
we suppose that the inauguration as well as the
taking of the auspices existed for the early
kings, we must suppose that already at this
period there was a separation, in idea at least,
between the functions of the king as priest and
his functions as magistrate: the special inaugu-
ration through the spectio of another attaching
to him in his first character, the taking of the
auspices through his own spectio belonging to
him in his other character as magistrate
(Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 1, p. 8); but that so
marked a separation of functions existed in the
regal period is unlikely, and it seems more
probable that the inauguration of the Rex
Sacrorum, who represented the priestly side of
the king's functions, was but a continuation of
the first act of taking the auspices performed
by the king.
There was no separation in fact, and probably
none in idea, between the position of the king
as priest and his position as magistrate. The
Roman state was by no means a theocracy. It
united the civil and religious powers as closely
as possible, but employed the latter not as an
infallible guide to, but as a test of the effective-
ness of, the former. Thus in the personal head
of the state the two were indissolubly com-
bined. The king was first priest as he was
first magistrate (Dionys. ii. 14, iv. 74; Plut.
Tib. Gracch. 15); and as he possessed the nomina-
tion of all subordinate magistrates, so he possessed
that of all subordinate priests. Thus tradition
tells us that the three great Flamines, the Salii,
and the Pontifex were instituted by Numa,
although most of the important ceremonies of
religion were performed by himself personally
(Liv. i. 20), as the augurs had been appointed
by that “best of augurs.” Romulus (Cic. de
Rep. ii. 9, 16; de Div. i. 2, 3); and the
appointment of special individuals to fill these
priesthoods must have been likewise a part of
his office; as, for instance, the nomination of the
flamines that belonged to the Latin dictator
must have been likewise in the hands of the
king (Ascom. in Mil. p. 32); and all the powers
that, with the secularisation of the Roman civil
magistracy passed to the Pontifex Maximus as
the head of the Roman priesthood may without
hesitation be attributed to the king. In
republican times the Rex Sacrorum himself was
* * *y
REX
nominated by the Pontifex Maximus, the reason
being that, since the theory of nomination was
carried on in his person, he could only be nomi-
nated by the greatest member of the priesthood;
but the nature of his duties gave him precedence
even over the Pontifex Maximus as well as over
the three great Flamines in the ordo Sacerdotum
(Festus, s. v. p. 185; Labeo, ap. Gell. xv. 27, 1 ;
Ov. Fasti, ii. 21), and points to the position of
the king as priest, while his regularly recurring
sacred duties, his sacrifices on the day of the
new month and at the festival of the Agonalia
(Warro, L. L. v. 3, 54; Festus, S. v. Agonium,
p. 9), point to the fact that the king's sacred
functions were a regular cultus, not the oc-
casional religious duties of a Roman magistrate.
[REx SACRORUM.]
The task of determining what were the civil
powers possessed by the Roman kings is easier
than that of deciding what were the precise
modes of their exercise. That they possessed
the sole executive power of the state, without
any of the limitations with which the magis-
trates of the Republic were hampered, appears in
the traditional accounts of the kingship, and in
the more general notices of ancient writers.
That the Roman kings possessed traora àpxh
(Plut. Tib. Gracch. 15), and exercised the im-
perium at their own discretion (Tac. Ann. iii.
26), follows naturally from the fact that we can
in no way imagine them bound by the definite
restraints which shackled the Roman consul or
praetor in the exercise of his imperium. These
restraints were the limitation of office by time,
and the collegiate principle which carried with
it the right of intercession. The king held
office for life; he had no colleague, and could
therefore be trammelled by no veto. Again, he
was freed from the necessity of allowing the
appeal, and from the necessity of delegating his
power to other officials or appointing special
standing offices for special purposes. As the
dictatorship could suspend for a time the free
action of offices at Rome, so the monarchy,
which was a standing dictatorship, was not
bound to permit such offices to exist. The regal
imperium being thus unshackled, there was no
room for the distinction, recognised in re-
publican times, between its exercise domi and
militiae : and the fact that the full power
exercised over the lives and persons of the
citizens, which the Roman magistrate possessed
until a late period of the Republic without the
walls, was possessed by the king within them,
was the most characteristic aspect of the king's
position in the state. But, legally free from
restraint as the king's power undoubtedly was,
it could not have been free from the limitations
imposed by custom and constitutional usage.
The acts of one king must have bound the acts
of his successor, and the assertion of Tacitus
that Servius Tullius was the author of laws
“meant to bind even the kings themselves”
(Ann. iii. 26), may be taken in its least sense to
mean that it was hardly possible for a king to
overstep the constitutional usages of his pre-
decessor. Such usages are said to have been
those embodied in the leges regiae collected by
Papirius (Dig. 1, 2, 2), the earliest customary
public law of Rome. Amongst such consti-
tutional obligations was that of consulting the
senate in any important matter. The formula
REX J ÖC).
of the Fetiales, which is said to have dated
from their institution, either by Tullus Hos-
tilius (Cic. de Rep. ii. 17) or by Ancus Martius
(Liv. i. 32), contains the clause, “but on these
matters we will consult the elders at home, how
we may obtain our rights” (Livy, l.c.); and, as
the king was expected to consult the senate in
matters affecting the international relations of
the state, so no doubt in the most important of
these—in declarations of war—it was the custom
that the people should be consulted (Dionys. ii.
14). But there were other manifestations of
his power as general over which the people
would have no control. Such was the disposal
of the booty taken in war and of the conquered
lands (Dionys. ii. 28 and 62; Cic. de Rep. ii. 9,
14), a right which belonged subsequently to the
Roman imperator in the field, limited only by
the constitutional necessity of consulting his
consilium, and of subsequent ratification by the
senate ; the first of which may also have been
requisite in the regal period. Such also was the
right of making treaties with conquered states
(foedus), which would have been a part of his
administrative duties in the field, over which
the community could have no control. Not
only was the senate consulted as a body on
matters of state, but the special consilia, we are
told, which the king chose to advise him in
special matters, as in the exercise of his juris-
diction, were taken from this body (Dionys. ii.
14); again, we are told that regular delegates
were appointed by the king for the exercise of
special functions, and that some of the names of
offices we meet with in republican or imperial
times go back to the regal period. Of these
the praefectus urbis was the most important ;
he was an alter ego left behind by the king for
the control of the capital, when himself absent
on foreign service; he is defined by Tacitus as
one “qui jus redderet ac subitis mederetur”
(Ann. vi. 11; Liv. i. 59; Dionys. ii. 12), and
must have had delegated to him the whole of
the executive power of the king, except perhaps
the right of questioning the people. This office
was, from its nature, merely occasional; but
there were others to which portions of the
king's power were more regularly delegated.
The collective imperium of the king may be
described by its three sides—of command in war,
jurisdiction, and the jus rogandi. That assessors
or delegates were chosen for the first two there
is reason to believe; but that the last power
was or could be delegated is improbable,
although both Livy and Dionysius represent the
tribunus celerum as summoning the assembly
(Liv. i. 59; Dionys. iv. 71). For military
command the king possessed delegates such as
the tribuni celerum (Liv. i. 59). In the matter
of jurisdiction there are abundant statements to
the effect that such power was delegated, but
whether to standing or to specially appointed
officials is uncertain. We are told that a dis-
tinction was made between cases brought before
the king, the more important being tried by
himself in person, the less important transmitted
to judges chosen from the senate (Dionys. ii.
12); and again of Servius Tullius, that, while
public suits were tried by him, private suits
were entrusted to special judges, the king
giving the formula (váuovs—8pous kal Kavčvas,
Dionys. iv. 25) under which the case was to be
554 REX
REX NEMORENSIS
tried. In the only detailed instance we have of
a public suit, that of Horatius for perduellio
(Liv. i. 26), delegates were appointed in the
shape of duumviri perduellionis, the king giving
the formula within which the case is to be
decided. The duumviri mentioned in this
passage are probably to be identified with the
quaestores (“examiners” or “inquirers”), the
institution of whom is ascribed to the regal
period and especially to the reign of Tullus
Hostilius (Tac. Ann. xi. 22 ; Dig. 1, 13, “ita
Tullo Hostilio rege quaestores fuisse certum
est”), and who are said originally to have per-
formed the duties afterwards exercised by the
triumviri capitales (Varro, L. L. v. 11). That
it became the duty of the king in the more
important cases—those especially involving the
caput of a Roman citizen—to employ a con-
silium of some sort is stated in the charge
brought by Livy against Tarquinius Superbus
(Liv. i. 49, “cognitiones capitalium rerum sine
consiliis per se solus exercebat"); but
whether such a consilium is to be identified
with the judices, such as the duumviri, to whom
the king relegated a case, or whether they were
a board summoned to advise him when he
exercised his own personal jurisdiction, cannot
be determined. We are told further that all
civil jurisdiction was performed in the king's
courts (judiciis regiis, Cic. de Rep. v. 2, 3), and
that these were generally relegated to judices
along with a formula such as that given in
criminal jurisdiction we may well believe
(Dionys. iv. 25). From the trial of Horatius
given by Livy (i. 26) two further facts
appear which have been noticed already, and
are important as showing both the limits and
the powers the Roman jurists assigned to the
king’s jurisdiction, both of which are amply
borne out by such revivals of the kingly power
as meet us in later Roman history. One is the
fact that the king has no power to pardon;
pardon resides with the people, the ultimate
sovereign. The other is the fact that, though
the provocatio existed in the regal period (Livy,
l. c.; Id. viii. 33;-Cic. pro Mil. 3, 7; de Rep.
ii. 31 ; Festus, s. v. Sororium tigillum, p. 297), yet-
the citizens have no standing right of appeal
against the king like that secured by the Lex
Valeria. The king Tullus Hostilius allows the
appeal (Liv. i. 26, “Si a duumviris provocavit
provocatione certato;” Id. § 8, “auctore Tullo
“provoco' inquit *); and the fact that the appeal
might not have been so allowed, and was a
matter not of law but of constitutional usage, is
shown by the similar freedom of the early
dictatorship from the necessity of allowing the
appeal (Liv. ii. 18, iii. 55; Dionys. v. 75. In
Liv. viii. 33, where the dictator is appealed
against, the instance of Horatius is taken to
show that the king had allowed, and therefore
the dictator should allow, the appeal). The
limitations of the king's power came here, as
elsewhere, not from the force of law, but from
the necessity of observing formalities once
established. The existence of the senate and
the custom of the provocatio formed the two
permanent checks on the capricious exercise of
his power. His rights, too, were everywhere
balanced by duties which precedent had estab-
lished, and which are especially apparent in
matters of religion, of which we know most
from the survival of these duties in the person
of the REX SACRORUM (see that article).
Although in the civil organisation of republican
Rome a continuity is traceable with that of the
monarchy (and indeed, if it were not, we could
not hope in any degree to reconstruct the
latter), yet it is none the less true that the
abolition of the monarchy was an act of revolu-
tion not justified by the theory of the consti-
tution. The justification is usually found by
Roman writers in the character of the last king,
who had broken through the constitutional
usages of the monarchy (Liv. i. 49, 4), and above
all had never challenged the allegiance of the
people (Cic. de Rep. ii. 24, 44). That there was
some fearful abuse of the kingly power by one of
its representatives is shown not merely by the fact
of the revolution, but by the associations which
immediately gathered round the words rea, and
regnum, and remained connected with them to
the close of the Republic (Cic. de Rep. ii. 30),
these names becoming still more hateful as
contact with the outer world made the Romans
realise in single rule only the evils of Oriental
despotism (cf. Liv. ii. 8; Plut. Poplic. 12;
Dionys. v. 19). The mere charge of regnum adfec-
tatum often proved the ruin of eminent men in
Rome, such as Sp. Maelius and Tib. Gracchus
(Cic. ib. 27), and lastly of the dictator Caesar
(Cic. ad Fam. xi. 27, 8: cf. ad Qu. Fr. i. 2, 16;
ad Att. viii. 11, 3).
(Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. pp. 1–17; Id.
Hist. of Rome, bk. i. ch. iv. pp. 66–70; Walter,
Gesch. d. rôm. Rechts, $17, 2nd edit. ; Becker,
Handbuch der röm. Alterthümer; A. Schwegler,
Römische Geschichte, vol. i. pp. 1-127; Sir G. C.
Lewis, op. cit. vol. i. ch. iii.; and Seeley, Livy,
bk. i. Introd.) [A. H. G.]
REX NEMORENSIS, the priest of Diana
in the grove by the lake of Nemi, near Aricia.
Tradition speaks of Virbius, an ancient king of
Aricia (in legend identified with Hippolytus), as
founder of this priesthood (Verg. Aen. vii. 761;
Serv. ad loc.; cf. Ov. Met. xv. 497, Fast. vi.
756; Pausan. ii. 27). The peculiarity of the
office lay in the fact that it was gained by kill-
ing the holder of it: the aspirant must be a
fugitive ; according to Pausanias, a runaway
slave: he must pluck the golden bough from a
tree (the oak”) in this grove (Serv. ad Aen. vi.
136), and then fight with the priest, whom
Strabo (v. p. 239) describes as going about ever
on guard with a drawn sword. If he wins in
this duel, he takes the office and title of the
slain: if he falls, the priesthood is unchanged,
till a stronger assailant comes (cf. Suet. Cal. 35).
There were probably vestal attendants on Diana
(for she is spoken of as “Vesta,” Orell. Inscr.
1453), and the grove was sought by women wish-
ing to bear children, who hung garlands and votive
tablets (Ov. Fast. iii.266; Stat. Silv. iii. 1, 56):
at an annual purification, perhaps a harvest
feast, there was a procession with blazing torches.
Over all this the Rex presided, perhaps, as some
think, in early times with human sacrifices akin
to those of the Tauric Artemis; perhaps him-
self, in the last combat, the only victim. Mr.
Frazer, in his Golden Bough, has with great
learning and ingenuity offered an explanation of
the myth. He conceives this Rex not to have
been (like the REx SACRORUM) the survival, in
priesthood alone, of a monarchy both temporal
REX SACRORUM
RHETORICE GRAPHE 555
and priestly ; but to have been originally re-
garded as divine, the incarnate spirit of the wood,
whose office and fertilising power passed by a
violent death to his successor, because his death
by natural decay would have implied the wasting
of the vegetable world. The golden bough is
taken to be the mistletoe (cf. Plin. H. N. xvi.
§ 249), therefore pointing to this grove as
the seat of a primitive Aryan worship, like that
which the Druids of Gaul preserved. Whether
the fugitive slave represents the ſlight of Orestes,
or some older symbolism like that of the scape-
goat, is a further question, as also whether the
conjunction of Diana and Virbius is to be com-
pared with that of Isis and Osiris. For full dis-
cussion, see Frazer, The Golden Bough (1890): his
arguments, by the nature of the case, must fall
short of positive demonstration, but at least
afford the most probable explanation which has
et been presented. [G. E. M.]
REX SACRO'RUM. In this form, or as rea:
sacrām, the title is always found in inscriptions
(C. I. L. vi. 2122, &c.), and so in Plut. Q. R.
63, T6 kañoupévº 67-yı orakpºpovº, and in
Dionys. iv. 74, iepāv BaoriMets. The title rea,
sacrificulus is used in some post-Augustan
writers (Liv. ii. 2, xli. 9; Gell. x. 15, &c.); rea:
sacrificus (Liv. xl. 42); rea: sacrificiorum (Liv.
ix. 34). Cicero speaks of him simply as rea,
(Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii.” 15).
When the monarchy came to an end, the
chief sacred functions of the king, and all that
was particularly important on the religious side,
passed to the Pontifex Maximus [PontiFEx], but
a certain part fell to the Rex Sacrorum, a priest
who preserved the name of king much as the
Baotkeys did at Athens. The Romans seem to
have wished to preserve a continuity in religious
matters, and not to deprive the gods of the
service of the king by their change of constitu-
tion, while they carefully assigned him nothing
that could give him political weight, and
precluded him from holding any other office in
the state. It is probable that the ceremonies
described below, which fell specially to him,
were regarded as marking particularly the royal
priesthood. The office was not peculiar to
Rome; there was a Rex Sacrorum at Tusculum,
Lanuvium, Velitrae, Bovillae, and perhaps at
other places (Orell. 2279; C. I. L. vi. 2125,
x. 8417; Wilmanns, 1773).
The Rex Sacrorum belonged to the collegium
of which the Pontifex Maximus was the head,
and the pontifices and flamines were also
members [PONTIFEx]. (Cf. Cic. de Dom. 52,
135; de harusp. Resp. 6, 12; Marquardt, Staats-
verw. iii.” 243.) In the ordo sacerdotum he
stands first, above the three chief flamines, and
at the priestly banquet he sat in the first place,
and next to him the flamen dialis (Gell. x. 15,
cf. Fest. p. 185; Serv. ad Aen. ii. 2; Gell.
xv. 27). It is probable that this was the
place originally reserved for the king; and
perhaps also the appearance of his wife as
assistant in the sacrifices which fell to him,
with the title regina sacrorum (Fest. p. 113;
Macrob. i. 15, 19; C. J. L. vi. 2123), was a
remnant of the king's priestly office under the
monarchy: the wives of flamines, however, also
took part in sacrifices. His traditional royalty
appears, too, in the fact that the pontifices
received the februa for the purification from the
the grammarians differ widely.
Rex and the flamen dialis, and perhaps also, as
Mommsen thinks, in his official residence [see
REGIA]. In spite, however, of these shadows of
ancient supremacy, he ranked below the Pontifex
Maximus in real dignity as well as in political
importance (Liv. ii. 2) [compare SACERDOS], and
this is marked by the mode of his appointment;
and indeed, though, as was said above, standing
first in the Ordo Sacerdotum, the Rex was
practically only a subordinate member of the
College of Pontifices, nominated by them,
appointed by the Pontifex Maximus, and in-
augurated by the augurs. It appears that
when a vacancy occurred, out of certain persons
nominated by the College of Pontifices, the
Pontifex Maximus selected the Rex Sacrorum,
who was then inaugurated by the augurs at
the Comitia Calata (Liv. xl. 42; Gell. xv. 27 ;
Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 322, note). His
office was for life (Gaius, i. 112 ; Serv. ad
Aen. viii. 646), and he was always a patrician
(Cic. de Dom. 14, 38; Liv. vi. 41).
His duties, so far as our information goes,
were as follows: on the calends of each month,
the state of the moon having been announced to
him by one of the pontifices, he summoned the
people in Comitia Calata to the Curia Calabra
on the Capitol, and announced when the nones
of that month would fall, and offered sacrifice
there to Janus, while his wife offered in the
Regia (Macrob, i. 15); on the nones the people
were again gathered in the Arx to learn from
his declaration (edictum) what festival days fell
in that month, and he offered the sacra nomalia
in arce (Varro, L. L. vi. 28); on Jan. 9
[AGONIA] he offered a ram to Janus in the
Regia (Fest. p. 10; Varro, L. L. vi. 12; Ov.
Fast. i. 317). For other ceremonies specially
attributed to the Rex Sacrorum on Feb. 24,
March 24, and May 24, see REGIFUGIUM.
It was, as has been said, carefully provided,
from jealousy of the royal power, that the Rex
Sacrorum should be cut off from political power
and incapable of holding any other office (Liv.
xl. 42; Plut. Q. R. 63; Dionys. iv. 74). This
disability (which did not exist in other priestly
offices) was not always maintained under the
Empire, for we find Cn. Pinarius Severus Rex
Sacrorum and Consul under Trajan (C. I. L.
xiv. 3604, 4246); but still the office being, as
will be seen from the above account, purely
ceremonial, and regularly divorced from power
and influence in the state, it became less and less
coveted (cf. Liv. xxviii. 6; xl. 42), though it
remained till a late period, at any rate till the
middle of the 3rd century A.D. (Trebell. Poll.
Valer. duo, 6, 6). (See further in Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii.” 321–324; Mommsen, Staatsrecht,
ii.” 13–15. A general survey of the changes in
the relative importance of priestly offices will be
found under SACERDOs.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
RHETO'RICE GRAPHE (5mtopikh ypaqf).
The interpretations of this expression offered by
The Lea. Rhet.
Cantabr. p. 667, 14, has rös Ypdºuas (ypa?ds,
Sauppe, Oratt. Att. ii. p. 436) &s eio'ſ yov eis to
6ixaariptov were iſºmptoparos kal ‘Treptăms év
ró karū, Abrokxéows trpoãoorías, Šmropulcis &
Shuov. čar yāp kal ék Bovais - oiov ei rā air&
#60;e rô Shug, kal rſ, Bovaſ. Meier reads:
(Śiś raûras) ràs yuáuas, &s (eirev čv tá, Sãº,
Émropikºv ypaqºv) eiginov eis, to bikao r^ptov
556 RHETORICE GRAPHE
RHETRA
Auerò, ºmptoparos (tàs Bovais ical rod Shuov).
Kai “rreptăms év tá, ſcar& AbrokAéovs trpoãoorías
(uéuvm rat Ypapās) fintopikās ér Šâuov, etc.
Harpocration, s. v., gives two interpretations of
the term: either it is a ypaqº, carā phropos
-ypályavrós ri à éiróvros ?) rpášavros trapévouov,
and he adds by way of explanation ào rep Aé-ye-
Tai kal trpuravurch fi karū trpurduea's kai étriota-
Tuch # kar’ trio riºtov (cf. Suidas, s. v., and
Bekker, Anecd. p. 299, 21); or some ypaſpal
were so called årt karū ātabópous vóuovs ai kata
(this karū is not in the MSS., but was inserted
by Petitus, Legg. Attic. iii. 2, p. 347) rôv
fimrópov ypaſpal eiadºyovrat (cf. Suidas, s. v.).
Suidas, s. v., offers a third explanation: hy
#ywví(ovro oi ºff ropes ot, yāp traoras hywvigovro
tàs Sikas rôv traxatów of Éiropes, &AA’ £vías,
and the first gloss of Åfirwp seems also to bear on
the term in question: kal troAAoſs ºnqíopaqi
trapayéypartal finropukh ék Bovāńs, ei eio bépet
rus yvápmy &AA& pºl airbs ióíav yuáumv eio-
myojuevos (Bernhardy; Tüxmv jºyotºuevos, MSS.).
Modern scholars differ as widely: in Meier's
opinion the ºn ropikh ypaſp?) is the same as the
wrapavówww Ypaqº) or the Öokuaarías way yeafa
(cf. Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterth. ii. pt. 1,
p. 294 n.); Sauppe supposes it to be the same
as the rpoSoxi (this is not likely to be correct
on account of čoti yüp kal ér BovXſis, Lea.
Rhet. Cantabr., l.c.); and Lipsius (Att. Process,
p. 248, n. 123: cf. p. 325, n. 358) identifies it
with the eioayyeafa: all however agreeing in
interpreting the term as meaning a proceeding
(tgainst an orator, as in Harpocration's first
definition. Yet it may seem strange that, if
pºropurch ypaq, h is merely another name for an
eio'ayyeafa against a 5%rwp, the term should
not occur in any of the speeches delivered in
such a trial, and that the expressions trpuravikh
and ériorrarikh, which Harpocration quotes by
way of explanation, are not found anywhere else.
When Socrates as émigrárms (Xenoph. Mem.
i. 1, 18) refused to put the motion to the vote,
his opponents threatened €vösurvival kal &md-
ºyeuv (Plat. Apol. p. 32 B). The prytaneis were
frequently charged with venality, e.g. Andocides
is said to have bribed them, [Lys.] c. Andoc.
29; cf. Aristoph. Paw, 905, and Schol.
Thesmoph. 936, etc.; but nowhere is a ypaq”)
Trpuravurch mentioned. A different meaning of
§ntopukh ypadh may be deduced from Harpo-
cration's second explanation (without Petitus’
rató before róv Āmrópov) taken in connexion
with the corrupt gloss (1) of Suidas, s. v. Öhrwp,
and the Lew. Rhet. Cantabr., l.c., viz. that by it
a ypaſp?) (in its wider sense “public trial; ”
cf. [Dem.] c. Stephan. ii. p. 1131, § 9; [Xenoph.]
de Rep. Ath. 3, 2) is meant which was brought
before a court (for this use of eiordºyely cf. Dem.
c. Mid. p. 527, § 39) by Åhropes, not in their
private capacity, but uerò lºng forwaros, and on
that account karū ālaqāpovs vóuovs. The 5%ropes
were not a distinct class, elected and invested with
a kind of public authority, as Petitus supposed;
they were “public men’’ who made it their
business to lead the deliberations of the people,
of Öſiuq, ouggovaedovres kal év rá, 6%uq àyopet-
ovres (Suidas, s. v.; cf. Dem. c. Mid. p. 575,
§ 189, and Schol.), and as such they were
distinguished from the iótórai, e.g. in the
wóuos eio'ayyearıkós, and C. J. A. i. No. 31, 1. 21,
2tc. Sometimes, however, they were invested
with a kind of official authority, viz. when they
were elected by the people to represent them in
court in a prosecution of importance, wherein
the state was materially interested [SYNEGORI].
Thus when the Areiopagus, by command of the
people, instituted an inquiry (ſmrečv, Čármoriv
trouetor0at) and reported (átroſpatveiv, &tóqaariv
troueforéal) to the popular assembly, the people
elected, if they thought fit, men to bring the
case before a court (Dinarch. c. Dem. § 51 ;
Hyper. c. Dem. col. 37); and that such ovváryopol,
or kathyopol (as they were officially styled),
belonged to the class of 5%ropes, i.e. men skilled
in speaking and experienced in the conduct of
lawsuits, is natural (Suidas, 5%rop ovväyopos,
5ukoxóyos kal 6 rºw iótav &moqaſvov yuáumv).
Pericles was chosen for this office (Plut.
Per. 10), Alcibiades ([Andoc.] c. Alcib. § 16;
cf. Dem. c. Mid. p. 561, § 145. Aéyew éðóket .
trévrwv, &s party, sivat Selvétaros), Demosthenes
(Plut. Demosth. 10), in the Harpalian cause
Hypereides, Pytheas, Menesaechmus (Ps.-Plut.
Witt. X. Oratt. p. 846 C), etc. Now the question
arises, were such official prosecutors liable to
a fine in case they did not obtain one-fifth of
the votes at the trial, as was the rule in all
criminal suits (except in an eigayyexía kakó-
orews, and for a time in an eioray yeXta for
political offences; cf. also Lys. pro Sacr. Olea,
§ 37)? and this case did occur: cf. Dinarch.
c. Dem. § 54, &s āpa troAAoûs # 8ovX3) &romé-
qayrev &5ukeſv row 87uov of &more petryagiv
eioreA6óvres eis To Sikaa’riptov kal # 8ovX? &m’
évſwv to réuttov uépos oë were(Ampe róv
phpov. Demosthenes, to discredit the ātropd-
orets of the Areiopagus, on which the popular
assembly relied in ordering the prosecution, had
emphasised this point. Since the complainant
in a trpoBoxh, who had merely obtained the
praejudicium of the people, was not liable if he
did not obtain one-fifth of the votes at the trial
(Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 344), 6%ropes, when
chosen to act as public prosecutors, are still less
likely to have been liable to a fine (l.c. p. 952),
and to this Harpocration may be supposed to
point: karð 5uaq,6povs vópious ai rāv Āmrópov
ºpaqal eiordyovrat. [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
RHETRA (#rpa). This word is variously
explained by both ancient and modern writers.
Hesychius, s. v., defines it ovv87xat 51& Aó)ww: cf.
Photius, s. v. ovv8'ikal, A&you, äuoxoyſal. Gilbert
(Stud. 2. altspart. Gesch. p. 140) considers this
to have been the original meaning (e.g. the
covenant of the nature of a wager in Od. xiv.
393; the treaty between Eleians and Heraeans,
Röhl, Inscr. Gr. Ant. No. 110 = Hicks, Manual,
No. 8; cf. I. G. A. No. 118), from which that
of “law " was deduced, whilst Wilamowitz
(Homer. Untersuch. p. 280) looks upon “cove-
nant” as its only meaning. Yet it would seem
that 5%rpa meant “law " (Etym. M. p. 703,
6. Yāp karū Awpie's 6 vówos: Photius, S. r.
Tapavrivol 6& véuov kal oiov limºptoruara) in
J. G. A. No. 112 = Cauer,” No. 253, regulating
the prosecution for witchcraft, and “decree" in
No. 113, conferring citizenship on Deucalion ;
in Xen. Anab. vi. 6, 28, it means a “revolution ”
of the army (cf. § 2, 6muáortov čošev elva); and
king Agis’ proposal for cancelling all debts and
making a new distribution of lands is called Éſhtpa
by Plut. Agis, 8, 9, as well as that of Epitadeus
for changing the law of inheritance (l. c. 5).
RHETRA
RHETRA 557
In Lyc. 13 Plutarch identifies bºrrpat with
xpmoplot: Tà uév ošv rotaira vouc0ethuata
§fitpas &véuagev, &s trapë row 9eoû vouſſéueva
(kopuſéueva 2 cf. 6, &orre uavreiav čk Aexpów
kopito at trepi airis, ºv Šírpav Kaxoboiv) kal
xpmoplots &vra : cf. Photius, s. v., trapö AakeSat-
uovíois Éirpa Aukoúpyov véuos, &s ér xpmauſov
rebéuevos. In this Plutarch is followed by
Göttling (Verh. d. Leipz. Ges. d. Wissensch.i.
p. 136 f.), Oncken (Staatsl. d. Arist. ii. p. 332 f.),
etc.; since, however, oracles were usually in verse
(Plut. de Pyth. Orac. 19 specially states that
these were given karaxonyáömv), Göttling restores
the verse form, whilst Bergk (Poet. Lyr. ii."
p. 10 m.) looks upon them not as the oracles
themselves, but as the prose explanations of the
oracles given by the Delphian priesthood.
‘Párpa (from root ep, Fep, Curtius, G#. Etym. i.
p. 428, transl.) may easily bear all these mean-
ings; in NoMOs instances are given of véuos
being explained by ovv6%km, as something
agreed on by a community, and it is shown how
of old a divine origin was claimed for law as
eipmua kal Sãopov 6eóv: see also Grote (Hist.
of Gr. ii. p. 346 n.).
Plutarch (Lyc.) gives four ºf rpal, the first in
c. 6, the other three in c. 13 (but see Ages. 26,
év tats kaRovuévals Tptor, ºfttpals, and de Esu,
Carn. p. 997 C, Čv rais rpion fiftpats). The first
runs: Atos ‘EAAavíov (some MSS. XuàAavíov:
for the numerous alterations of the name, see
Thumser, Staatsalterth. i. p. 166, n. 4) kal
'A6mvas ‘EAAavías iepov ièpvord Mevov, puxās
qvād;avra kal & 8&s &8ášavra, rpidicov'ra yepov-
oríav orbv &pxayéraus karao thoravra, &pas &
àpas (&pais é; āpāv, Wilamowitz, Isyllos v.
Bpid. p. 10, since Isyllus has āpais éé à pav in
B, l. 16) &rexxáſeuv ueraśī, Baščkas re ſcal
Kvakiavos, oùra's eio pépew re kal & pſoraoréal'
6duq, 6& rāv kvpiav juev (Sintenis, 6dpiq, 6’
&yopæv eluev, Coray, etc. MSS. yauwöav yopia-
vmumv) kal kpáros. These directions, which
Lycurgus is said to have received from Delphi,
are fully explained by Plutarch, who seems to
have largely drawn on Aristotle's Aakeóaiptovíav
troAireſa. They are: the building of a temple
to Zeus Hellanios and Athena Hellania; the
division of the people into puxal (i.e. the local
q., Pausan. iii. 16, 9) and &8at (O. Müller
connects rpudkovra with & 84s, but it would be
strange if the number of the & Bal were given
and that of the puxal omitted); the establish-
ment of the yepovolta, consisting of 28 yepovres
(cf. c. 5, sub fin.) with the two kings (Ulrichs,
Rhein. Mus. 1848, p. 210, adds trpeggvyevéas
after Tpudicovira from Plut. an serie, etc. 10: Sto
Thy uév év Aakeóatuovu trapaſsux6eforay &ptoro-
Kpartav roſs BagiNedow 6 IIóðios trpeggvyevéas,
6 8& Avkoúpyos &vrukpus yepovras ºváuagev.
Göttling, l.c. p. 342, and Curtius, Gr. Gesch. i.”
p. 654, n. 31, consider Tpidicovra a late addition);
the calling together of the people at the time of
the full moon (Schol. Thuc. i. 67, rov eia,66ta
Aéºyee $6AAoyov 3rt év travorexhwº €yfyvero &ei)
between Babyca and Cnacion (Aristotle and the
other commentators do not agree as to the
locality meant; but see ECCLETI). Eio-
qêpew evidently refers to the function of the
gerousia “to bring forward proposals,” but the
meaning of āq totagºat is not so clear; Göttling
(l.c. p. 339) and Ulrichs (l.c. p. 231) refer
&q to raoréal too to the gerousia, and translate it
“withdraw a proposal;” Grote (l.c. p. 346 n.)
takes it to mean “to put the question for
decision;” Meyer (Rhein. Mus. 1887, p. 84 n.),
following one part of Plutarch's explanation
(6taAüew Tov Simov), translates it “to dissolve,”
whilst Gilbert (l. c. 135 f.), accepting the other
part (wh kvpoov), explains it “to refuse,” so
that it refers to the function of the āréAAa, viz.
to their power of rejecting the proposals of the
gerousia.
Later on the kings Polydorus and Theopompus
added, according to Plutarch, ei 53 groxià, 3
83/10s #Aotto, toils trpeggvyevéas kal &pxayéras
&rograripas eluev, and managed to represent
this clause as likewise ordained by the god. To
prove this, Plutarch quotes three distichs,
which he ascribes vaguely to Tyrtaeus (&s row
Tuptatos étrºpičuvm rat); Diodorus, who follows
Ephorus (vii. 14, 5), quotes the second and third
of them with slight verbal discrepancies (he has
eū6eimv Šárpals à. instead of ei6etais), but does
not assign them to Tyrtaeus; besides, his first
is different from the one given by Plutarch, and
he adds two more. There is, therefore, very
slight reason for considering these three distichs
quoted by Plutarch as a fragment from Tyr-
taeus’ Einopata, and dating so far back the
notion of the Delphian origin of the Spartan
constitution (cf. Herod. i. 65).
Triebner (Forschungen z. spart. Verfassungs-
gesch.) declares this rhetra, as well as Aristotle’s
commentary on it, to be a late forgery; but that
it was generally known as a genuine document
of Lycurgus in the beginning of the third
century is evident from the allusion to it in
Isyllus of Epidaurus (l.c. p. 23 E, l. 14 f.):
when Philip marched against Sparta, Asclepius
promised to help the Lacedaemonians,
oùveka rows Poisov xpmouois orégovri Sukaios
ois Havrevoránevos trapéraše tróAmi Avkoúpyos.
Grote (l.c. p. 355 m.) calls this rhetra “the
primitive constitutional rhetra of Sparta,”
which Lycurgus brought with him from Delphi.
Gilbert (l.c. p. 140 ft.) sees in it the covenant
made by the three communities—the Agiadae,
Eurypontidae, and Aegidae—on uniting into one
community (ovvoukio pads), viz. Sparta. Wila-
mowitz (Homer. Unters. p. 280 f.) considers it
to have been the covenant between the king
(he takes “the king,” not Lycurgus, as Plutarch
does, to be the subject of ièpvoduevov, etc.) and
the Sapios, i.e. the aristocracy. Busson (Lykur-
gos w. d, grosse Rh. p. 21) connects it with a
constitutional change effected by Lycurgus,
through which the state was made to include
all those of Dorian blood, whether of noble birth
or not. Meyer's view (l.c. p. 85 f.) seems the
most probable, viz. that this rhetra was not
the basis on which the Spartan constitution
has been built up, but was simply the main
features of that constitution reduced to a
formula about half a century before the time
of Aristotle.
This explanation applies also to the other
Éirpal, which were merely general formulae, and
by no means explicit laws. The 2nd rhetra runs,
ph xp?obal vöuous éyypápots, i.e. the Lacedae-
monians had no written code of laws, never
going beyond the stage of customary law
[NoMos]; the 3rd, 3roſs oikſa rāga rºw uév
āpoºpºv &to trexékews eipyaguávny exn, tàs 5*
*
RHYTHMICA
558 RHOMBUS
6&pas àro ºrptovos uóvov kal uměevös rêv &AAwy
&pyaxeſov : and the 4th forbade émi rows abrous
Troxeutovs otpareffeiv, iva uh troAAdkis àučvegóat
orvetićduevot trońepukol yèvoviral. [H. H.]
RHOMBUS. [TURBO.]
RHOMPHAEA.. [GLADIUS.]
RHYTHMICA. The sources from which our
knowledge of Greek rhythm is to be drawn are
the following: the remains of Greek poetry and
music, and the extant Greek and Latin writings
on rhythm and metre. None of these, however,
are altogether trustworthy or complete. The
most important is the first mentioned, and, in
regard to the simpler kinds of metres, the form of
a metrical composition is generally sufficient for
the determination of its approximate rhythmical
value; but with lyrical poetry this is not usually
the case, for the same combination of long and
short syllables may be capable of different
rhythms, and, even where the feet into which a
metrical composition falls are sufficiently obvious,
there is still a further question, not to be deter-
mined by the metrical form alone, as to the
larger groups (“sentences,” “periods,” &c.)
formed by combination of the feet.
The existing remains of ancient music consist
of three “hymns,” none of them probably
earlier than the middle of the second century
A.D., and a few fragments of instrumental
music (apparently of the nature of exercises)
preserved by an unknown writer of uncertain
date [see MUSICA]. These, though they furnish
some important data, are yet too fragmentary
and too late to throw much light on the rhythms
of the classical period of Greek music. Of the
writers on rhythm whose works have been at all
preserved, the first in order of time and im-
portance is Aristoxenus (fourth century B.C.).
Though he lived more than a century later than
the time at which Greek poetry and music at-
tained their highest development, he was still
thoroughly acquainted with the music of that
time; but, unfortunately, his rhythmical works
are preserved only in a fragmentary condition.
The writings of later theorists are chiefly valu-
able in so far as they are based on Aristoxenus.
The writers on metre (i.e. that species of rhythm
which is exhibited in the measurement of sylla-
bles) are all of late date, and are for that reason
to some extent untrustworthy. They are not
acquainted with the music of the classical period,
and their purely metrical point of view is in-
applicable to the less obvious forms of metre in
which the long syllable is not invariably equal
to two short syllables, and in which feet of appa-
rently different values (e.g. trochees and dactyls)
are mixed together. The most important of the
extant treatises on metre is the éyxeipíðtov of
Hephaestion (second century A.D.).
Rhythm in its strict sense consists of a
continuous succession of short equal intervals
of time, marked off from one another as sepa-
rate groups by the alternation of an accen-
tuated and an unaccentuated element.* These
intervals may be marked in different ways, e.g.
by musical sounds, or by syllables, or, as in
dancing, by the motions of the body (appealing
to the eye rather than the ear). In order that
a sense of rhythm may be produced it is not
enough for the sounds to occur simply at equal
intervals: thus there is, strictly speaking, no
rhythm in the ticking of a clock, for each tick
being equal in intensity the ear by itself does
not necessarily divide the sounds into groups or
rhythmical divisions. -
The groups into which a succession of sounds
fall are clearly recognised only when a sound
more intense than its neighbours occurs at equal
intervals of time. This accentuated part of
each group is called by Aristoxenus 840 is, by
the earliest writers after Aristoxenus 660 is.
The unaccentuated part is called Śports. Other
names are for the “thesis,” 5 kāra, xpóvos or to
kāra, ; for the “arsis,” 5 &vo Xpóvos or to Šva,
(so in Plato, Rep. 3, p. 400, and in Aristoxenus,
p. 288, ed. Mor.). All these terms originated in:
the fact that the accentuated portion of the
group was marked by setting down the foot, the
unaccentuated by lifting it up. Confusion is,
however, caused by later writers using the
terms “arsis” and “thesis” in different senses.
Sometimes they are applied to the raising and
lowering of the voice, so that “arsis” denotes
the accentuated, and thesis the “unaccentuated ”
beat. This, which is the exact opposite of the
original meaning of the terms, is the sense
given to them by most modern writers, fol-
lowing the example of Bentley. In Marius
Victorinus, p. 2482, the two meanings are given,
apparently without any sense of their incon-
gruity, “est enim arsis sublatio pedis sine sono,
thesis positio pedis cum sono : item arsis elatio
temporis soni vocis, thesis depositio et quaedam
contractio syllabarum.” Sometimes a wholly
different meaning is given to the terms, “arsis”
denoting the first element of the foot in order
of succession, “thesis” the second ; then the
“arsis” of the iambic is the short syllable, the
“thesis” the long, and vice versá with the
trochee (so e.g. in Marius Victorinus, p. 2487).
In this article the words are used in their original
Sel] SeS,
The Syllable. – Rhythm when applied to
language is marked by an alternation of accen-
tuated and unaccentuated syllables. In Greek
and Latin there is a further distinction between
long and short syllables. The rhythmical groups
or “feet” are generally, but not invariably,
marked by an alternation of long and short
syllables, the “ictus ” falling more frequently
on the long than on the short syllable. The long
syllable in its normal value is equal to two short
syllables, but there is evidence that this was not
the only value of the long syllable. The anony-
mous writer repl uovatiºs, who has preserved
the musical exercises already referred to, states
(§ 1, ed. Bellermann) that the long syllable has
sometimes the value of three, four, and even five
* We are not here concerned with the more general
sense of the word (as e.g. when we speak of the rhythm
of prose), in which it is used of a combination of longer
and shorter sounds, which produces on the ear a general
impression of proportion and orderly arrangement. It
must further be noticed that the word “accent” is
ambiguous. It is here applied to the stress or ictus
upon a syllable or sound, which is produced with greater
force or intensity than its neighbours. Properly, how-
ever, the term denotes pitch. The Greek accent is a
pitch accent: thus the acute accent marks the syllable
on which it is placed as being pronounced on a higher
pitch than the other syllables in the word. The “ictus.”
is in Greek independent of the pitch accent. .
RHYTHMICA
I:HYTHMICA 559
short syllables, the symbols of these values being
as follows:—
- for the long syllable which = three short syllables.
3-1 3 y >> = four 5 y
Lil - five 3 *
22 33
The short syllable being regarded as the usual
unit of time, not further divisible (called by
Aristoxenus xpévos ºrpºros, later amusºv), the
long syllable may be either ötxpovos (or Sigmuos),
Tpſypovos (rptomuos), retpáxpovos (retpégmuos),
or revráxpovos (revrágmuos). According to
Pseudo-Euclid, eigayoyº &ppovich, p. 22, ed.
Meibom., it appears that the name town, was
applied to the prolongation of the long syllable
beyond its usual value (rovh 8& # ér traetova
xpévov uovº karū utav yivouévn irpoſpopây Tàs
qovis). The Anonymus (§ 3) also refers to
pauses (kevot, sc. xpóvot) as constituent elements
in rhythm, and enumerates four kinds—viz. the
A, revös 8paxºs (or Aeluga, Arist. Quint. de Mus.
s pp. 40, 41, ed. Meibom.– one short syllable).
z, kevös pakpós (or trpóa'6eats, ibid. = one long
syllable).
*z, kevös plazpbs rotxpovos = three short syllables.
*—
2, Kevös pakpès rerpáxpovos = four short syllables.
From the musical notation of the “hymns,”
already referred to, it appears that the long
syllable equal to three short syllables is some-
times noted by a pause a placed after the note
on which the long syllable falls.
Aristoxenus (p. 292, ed. Mor.) also speaks of
a quantity which is intermediate between the
normal long and the normal short, which, if the
short syllable be taken as = 1, will be represented
by 1%. A foot in which the thesis is to
the arsis in the “irrational * proportion of
2 : 13 is called by Aristoxenus xopeſos &Aoyos,
and is probably to be identified with the spondee,
which is often found in trochaic and iambic
&metres in the even and odd places respectively.
If this be so, the long syllable in the arsis of
trochaic and iambic feet is of abnormal value
= 1% instead of 2. According to Bacchius
(eioraya'y?) réxvms uovo.ukňs, p. 23, Meibom.) the
exact measurement of the &Aoyos xpóvos is
difficult to determine, but it is shorter than the
normal long, and longer than the normal short.
The Foot.—The smallest rhythmical groups
marked by alternation of thesis and arsis are
called “feet” (trööes, pedes). These feet are
divided into three genera, according to the rela-
tion between the thesis and the arsis. Feet in
which thesis : arsis : ; 2 : 1, as e.g. the trochee,
belong to the yévos Sittadatov or iauðucóv; those
in which thesis: arsis : : 2 : 2, as e.g. the dactyl,
to the yévos toov or öakrvXikóv; those in which
thesis: arsis :: 3 : 2, to the yévos juáAlov or
tratovików.t. The genera are further divided into
species according to the relative position of thesis
and arsis. Thus the yávos Sutradatov comprises
the species of the iambus, J 4 in which the arsis
precedes the thesis, and the trochee Z J in
which the thesis precedes the arsis; the yávos
forov comprises the anapaest v - 4 and the
dactyl 4 - v.
The yávos ºratoviköv, according to Hephaestion,
c. 13, comprises three species—the cretic - J -,
the bacchiac J --, and the palimbacchiac -- ~.
The latter, however, is said to be unfitted for use
in music (āverità6eióv čari trposuexotrotſav, ibid.)
Moreover, as will be seen, the scholiast on He-
phaestion (page 125, ed. Westphal) asserts that
the paeonic genus was not subdivided into species.
There seems, therefore, to be some confusion and
contradiction in the doctrines of the metricians
on this subject. As to the relation of thesis to
arsis it appears from Marius Victorinus (p. 2483)
that the thesis was to the arsis sometimes as
thesis arsis
3 : 2, sometimes as 2: 3, i.e. either Rºv - I vº
arsis thesis
or ~~ J | Nºv. From the analogy of the paeon
epibatus (see below), and from the fact that the
paeon is sometimes combined with the trochaic
dipodies, it may be inferred that the foot was
sometimes treated as if in compound time (see
below), i.e. 2 J J & J. Bacchius (p. 25, Meibom.)
says that the paeon is adv6eros ék xopetov (=
trochee — J.) kal hyspióvos (= pyrrich J. J.).
Those species of feet which contain an equal
number of units of time are classed together,
and the union under one class is called ératraorch
(Schol. to Hephaest. p. 136, ed. Westphal, étri-
TrAoká čari rod uérpou rô &vérarov yewos é;
is rà uérpa yºveral). Of these émiraokat, ac-
cording to the same passage, there are at least
three, viz.:-
(1) The émirAokh rpformuos ovačuch, i.e. that
of the trochee and the iambus in the yávos
Simadoriov, called Tpſonwos because each foot=
three units of time, and Svačuch because the
genus contains two species.
(2) The émiraok) terpád muos Svačuch, i.e. that
of the dactyl and the anapaest in the yévos to ov.
(3) The étrim Aoki čáamuos Terpaëtică. This
comprises the iww.ukov &rb weigovos 4 – J, the
xopiauðurov 2 J J –, the iovikov &n' éAdagovos
J J Z-, and the évriortraortiköv - – - v. The
“antispast” is due to a mistaken interpretation
of certain metres, founded on their apparent
metrical value. This étruirAok?) may be regarded
as another form of the yévos Sittadatov, the
thesis being to the arsis as 4 ; 2 = 2 : 1.
In this classification of the étruirAokal the yévos
tratovikov is omitted, and this omission is shown
not to be accidental by the assertion of the
Schol. to Hephaestion (p. 125, ed. W.), to be
tratavikov Čiritraokhvoir àxet. *
The metres which are combined in each genus,
as e.g. the trochaic and the iambic, are said to
be opposed to one another, àvritraffi (Schol. to
Hephaest. p. 155, ed. W.). Those feet which
are composed of two or three syllables, e.g.
– sº v 3 º' - - , are said to be This
trpdºrms àvritrabetas: those which are composed
of four syllables, e.g. -- J J, J J - -, Tås Sev-
répas àvrutabelas (Schol. to Hephaestion, p. 208,
ed. W.). 1.
As to the notation of the metres which fall
under these genera, it must be observed that even
those species which begin with the arsis are in
modern books often noted as if the foot began
with the thesis, just as in modern music the
“bar ” begins with the accentuated note. Thus
the iambic dipody is noted v | – V | –. In
such metres the first arsis was by Hermann
called the “anacrusis,” a name which has been
adopted by other modern writers.
Some of the feet given above are usually com-
bined in couples, the ictus on one foot being
stronger than the ictus on the other with which
it is combined. The feet which are usually thus
– v, v' – and
560
RHYTHMICA
RHYTHMICA
combined are the trochee, the iambus, and the
anapaest; 2 J ZJ J & J 22 J J 2 J J Z- Dac-
tyls were sometimes so combined (Schol. He-
phaest. p. 174 W.), but more frequently treated
as single feet. The combination of the two feet
differs from the single foot as in modern music
compound from simple time. Thus, if the tro-
chee be regarded as = the 3 time of modern
music, the combination of the two trochees, = }
time. A verse which is scanned in double feet is
said karū ovćvytav Baívea 6al, and the combina-
tion of two feet is called a 6troöta, Bāoris, or
Aérpov. Hence the iambic line of six feet is
called a trimeter, the anapaestic line of four
feet a dimeter, &c. When two feet are thus
combined, the strongest ictus may fall either
upon the first or upon the second, e.g. either
* J Z v or Z v . J. When iambi or trochees
are thus combined, except in certain cases at the
close of a line, a long syllable can be substituted
for the short syllable at the end of each couple
of feet in the trochaic verse, at the beginning of
each couple in the iambic, thus: - J - v, v - J -.
The combination — J — — was in metrical treatises
called étrírpuros, because the relation of the second
foot to the first appeared to be in the propor-
tion of 4 : 3 (érírpitos A6-yos). In reality, as
has been seen, it is probable that the relation was
that of 3} : 3, the effect of the long syllable
instead of the short syllable being that it was
slightly and almost imperceptibly prolonged
beyond the value required if strict time was
kept. In verses intended for mere recitation
and not for singing, it is unlikely that in any
case the reciter would give each syllable its
exact metrical value.
Besides the feet already enumerated, there are
some feet of rare occurrence which are of longer
duration. These are the orirovöeſos pieſ(ww or
8traoûs, pólos, Tpoxalos a muavrás, and trai&v
étribarás (Aristides Quintilianus, i. pp. 36–39,
ed. Meibom.). The otrovšetos welgwy consisted
of a thesis = 4 and an arsis = 4, i.e. L. L.; the
ūp6ios of an arsis = 4 and a thesis = 8, i.e.
L. L. L.; the rpoxalos anuavros of a thesis
= 8 and an arsis = 4, i.e. La La L, and the
trauðv ériflaros of five long syllables, viz. a
lóng syllable in thesis + a long syllable in arsis
+ two long syllables in thesis + a long syllable
in arsis, i.e. Z - Z.Z-, altogether a foot in ten
time. The dialogue repl uovorukis which bears
the name of Plutarch (chapters 28 and 33) gives
some information as to the originators of these
long feet. The trai&v émigaros is said to have
been used by Archilochus and Olympus, and it has
been conjectured that the exclamation intrathov
is an instance of this rhythm. The invention of
the Šp6tos and of the rpoxalos or muavros is attri-
buted to Terpander, and it is possible that the
fragments of a hymn quoted as the composition
of Terpander and of two others conjecturally
assigned to Terpander by Bergk (Lyr. Graec.
frag. 1, 3, 4), which are composed in long sylla-
bles alone, may have been sung to one of these
rhythms. It appears at first sight that the
ūp610s, the Tpoxalos ornuavrós, and the grovöeſos
pießwy differed from the ordinary iambic, trochee,
and spondee, only in being slower in tempo
(&ywyſi). It is, however, just possible that each
long note in the vocal part may have been com-
bined with an instrumental accompaniment,
which would show that the long note corre-
sponded to a foot, thus:–
Vocal, * tº .
Instrumental, 2 J J - J - , &c.
If this was so, these long feet were in reality
combinations of feet, i.e. kõAa.
The Sentence (kóAov). — A series of feet
recurring without a break, in which the thesis
always had an ictus of equal intensity and which
did not form larger groups, would soon become
monotonous. Hence the feet are combined in
larger groups called kóAa or “sentences.” The
structure of these “sentences * is similar to
that of the feet. There are three genera of
kóAa as there are of feet; like the feet, they
fall into two portions bearing a definite relation
to one another, and, like the feet, they are strictly
limited in extent. In consequence of this ana-
logy they are sometimes called tróðes. The
single foot is a robs &m Aoûs or ào'àv6eros: the
kóAov, or combination of feet, is a rows giv6eros.
The number of feet combined in a kóAov is never
more than six, and seldom more than four. A
kóAov of two or four feet belongs to the yévos
to'ov or öaktvXuków, being composed of feet bear-
ing an equal relation, viz. either 1 : 1 or 2: 2.
A kóAov of three or six feet belongs to the yávos
Simºdoriov or is ubików, being composed of feet
bearing the relation 2 : 1 or 4: 2. A kóAov of
five feet belongs to the yévos jutóAlov or rawvi-
köv, the relation of the feet of which it is com-
posed being 3: 2. As to the extent of the kóAov
it is stated by Aristides Quintilianus, i. p. 35,
and by Psellus, trpoxauflavéueva, § 12 (apparently
an extract from Aristoxenus), that a kiº Nov of
the forov yewos cannot exceed sixteen units of
time; a kóAov of the Sitradatov yewos cannot
exceed eighteen units of time; and a kóAov of
the hutóxtov yévos cannot exceed twenty-five
units of time. In these calculations the short
syllable is taken as the unit of time. Applying
these canons to the different tróðes àmàor, it,
appears that the iambic or the trochee may form
kóAa of two, three, four, five, or six feet :—
* = * *
} = 6
* * * * g *
yevos Larov.
* * * = * * * =
} = 12
* * * * am Nº sº *
** same * * * =
} = 9
* * = * = * p *
yóvos Sutrāāortov.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
| ~ 18
* * * * * * = \º = ** = N*
* = * * * * * * * *
} = 15 yewos hutóAtov.
* * * * * * * * = \ºf
The dactyl or anapaest may form käxa of
two, three, four, or five feet :—
J. J.Y } = 3
* * = * * =
Yévos torov.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
} = 18
* \* = & \º as * * * * * =
* * * * * * * * *
} = 12 yevos Stºrådatov.
w ºf * * * = * * =
* * * = \sº ºf * * * -- - - - - )
=20 Yevos ūutóAtov.
~ v - w w — v. v - I v v - V - - )
EHYTHMICA
RHYTHMICA 561
The paeon or cretic may form kóAa of two,
three, or five feet:—
* \tº \w v * * * */ a *
}=10 yevos Lorov.
* * * met w =
* * * * * * * * * * * * w a'
| }=15 'yevos Sutradiotov.
* * * * * = * * *
*
* * * * - * * * * w w w I = w w we -- w w ºf Yevos
=25&#1tó-
. The ionic or choriambic may form kóAa of
either two or three feet:—
* * * * * = * *
* * * *
* * * *
* * * * |- yóvos tarov.
* * * *
* * * * * * * *
* * = * * * * =
* = \º *
v v - - ?=18 yévos Šutrāāortov.
* * * * * * * * * * * *
It is probable that the unity of the kóAov
was marked by its having one ictus stronger
than the rest and dominating the group, and
that this ictus might fall on any foot in the
kóAov, so that e.g. a trochaic tetrapody might be
accentuated in any of the following ways:–
p | *
* * * * * * * *
In each of the kóAa hitherto considered the
feet are all of the same metrical value, i.e. all
trochees, iambics, dactyls, anapaests, paeons,
ionics, choriambics, or their equivalents, e.g.
tribrachs, spondees, cretics. The only exception
is that of the “irrational” spondee in trochaic
and iambic metres, e.g. - J -- for - J - J.
There is, however, a class of metres of very fre-
quent occurrence in which feet of different metri-
cal value, viz. trochees and dactyls (or iambics
and anapaests), e.g. -- I - V | – J J | – J – J
are combined in the same kóAov. These metres
are called “mixed” (ukrd), or logaoedic (Aoyaou-
Suká). The latter name was probably given to
these metres because, from their apparent irre-
gularity, they seemed to be intermediate between
prose (Aóryos) and poetry or song (&otö%). The
explanation of this union of trochee and dactyl,
and the rhythmical relation between them, is
uncertain, though it is generally admitted that
the time occupied by the trochee and the dactyl
must have been equal. The popular theory,
adopted by J. H. H. Schmidt in his Kunstformen
der griechischen Poesie, is that the long syllable
and the first short syllable in the dactyl both
lost something of their normal value, the long
syllable being in this case=1} and the first short
syllable = }, so that the dactyl = 1% + 3 + 1
= 3 = the trochee = 2 + 1. This value, which
is represented in modern books by the symbol
-- J, is supposed to be confirmed by two passages
in Dionysius of Halicarnassus, de Comp. Verb.
chapters 17 and 20, and the foot is usually called
the “cyclic” dactyl, because Dionysius (ibid. c. 17)
says that the rapid dactyl of which the long
syllable loses something of its normal value is
parallel to the anapaest with an “irrational *
* || is the symbol for the end of a kóAov, I for the end
of a “period” (see below).
WOL. II.
long syllable, which is called kūkaos. Westphal,
however, has shown that the passages in Dionysius
cannot be used in support of the so-called “cyclic”
dactyl in logaoedics, because Dionysius is speak-
ing of mere recitation, not of singing. The
rhythm was probably always less exact in the
former than in the latter, just as in the case of
modern poetry the rhythm of recitation is less
exact than that of singing. It is more probable
that the long syllable and the short syllable in
the logaoedic dactyl retained their normal rela-
tion to each other, viz. that of 2:1, but that
the long and short syllables were each pro-
nounced more rapidly than the long and short
syllables in the trochee. This may be expressed
in figures as follows: If in the trochee the long
syllable = 2 and the short syllable = 1, then in
the dactyl the long syllable = }, the short
syllable = }. Then the trochee = 2 + 1=3–
the dactyl = } + 3 + # = ? = 3. Possibly,
however, it should rather be supposed that the
equality between the trochee and the dactyl
was not thus accurately defined, but that the
ear was satisfied if the time occupied by the
two feet was approximately equal, the difference
between them being imperceptible, without any
obvious violation of the usual proportion be-
tween long and short syllables.
The limits of the logaoedic kóAov seem to be
the same as those of the iambic or trochaic. It
may consist of either two, three, four, five, or
six feet; the six-feet kóAa are, however, ap-
parently rare, and it is possible that what seem
to be six-feet kóAa are a combination of two
kóAa of four feet and two feet respectively.
If the account of the logaoedic kóAov here
given is correct, the time occupied by all the
feet which compose it is the same; but there is
one peculiar metre, the dochmiac, the kóAa of
which are probably composed of feet which
differ from one another in duration. The normal
form of the dochmiac is J. --J -, but as all the
long syllables admit of resolution into two short
syllables, and the first (as well as occasionally
the second) short syllable may be long, it as-
sumes very various forms. It is doubtful
whether the chief ictus is on the first or on the
second long syllable, i.e. v. 2.- J - or J – 2 J –.
The dochmiac seems to consist of a union of
feet in which there is a real change of rhythm,
one foot being in three time, the other in five
time, i.e. v - I - J - or v — — 1 J –. Westphal
(Metrik, ed. 3) supposes that either there is a
pause equal to one long syllable at the end of
each dochmiac, or the final syllable is lengthened
by Towh, i.e. v.--J -z or J - - - -1. In this
case the dochmiac would fall into two equal por-
tions, each containing five units of time $33.
But this view seems inconsistent with the fact
that occasionally a dochmiac ends with two
short syllables in the middle of a word.
A kóAou may be either completely filled by
the syllables used in their ordinary metrical
value, or it may require for its completion a
pause (Aeſupia, trpóorðeoris) or a prolongation
(tovº) of a syllable beyond its ordinary value.
An instance of a köAov which is complete with-
out either pause or prolongation is the trochaic
tetrapody – J -- I - V | – J ||, while the k&Aov
– º – J – v | – || is incomplete and requires
either a pause – v | – V | – V | – a or a pro-
longation – v | – v. I — | Lll for its ºpletiºn.
O
562 RHYTHMICA.
THYTHMICA
When the kóAov is complete without these
devices, it is called acatalectic (&icaraxmkrików),
i.e. not stopping (kataxiina) before its proper
end; when it is incomplete, it is called catalectic
(karaxmkrików). When a kóAov is scanned karū
orvćvytav, i.e. in couples of two feet, if, according
to the metrical form, the last foot is wanting,
as in – v | – 9 || – V"> ||, it is said to be brachy-
catalectic (8paxvkaráAmkrov). When a kåAov
which is scanned karū avguyſav has one appa-
rently superfluous syllable exceeding the last di-
pody in the kóAov, as e.g. in v – º – I v – º – I -,
it is said to be hypercatalectic (Örepraráxmktov).
Cases of this latter kind are, however, probably
more apparent than real. A kóAov of the ap-
parent form – º – J | – is usually a trochaic
tripody – o – º – or – º – ~ – A, and a kóAov of
the apparent form v – º – I v may be found
where the next côAov begins with a thesis, and
where therefore the arsis of the preceding kóAov
combines with the thesis of the following kóAov
to form a single foot, or where the kóAov be-
fore it ends with a thesis, and therefore the arsis
of the apparently hypercatalectic kóAov com-
bines with the thesis of the preceding kóAov.
It is not always possible to divide a metrical
composition into its kóAa with certainty. In
the simpler forms of metre the divisions are
usually obvious, but in the more elaborate kinds
of lyrical poety this is not so. One criterion by
which it has been sought to determine the
length of the kóAa in such doubtful cases will
be considered under the next head, viz. that of
the “period.”
The Period.—As a combination of feet forms
a kóAov, so a combination of kóAa forms a
treptoãos. It has been seen that the unity of
the kóAov was probably marked by its having
one ictus stronger than the rest; the unity of
the period was marked probably by the modula-
tion of the voice varying in pitch and intensity
with the beginning, middle, and end of the
period, and certainly by the admission of a dis-
tinct pause at the end of the period, separating
it from what follows. This pause is indicated
in three ways. (1) Each period ends with the
end of a word: a word cannot be divided
between two periods as it can be between two
kóAa (Hephaest. c. 4, p. 16, ed. W., Tráv wérpov
eis rexelav reparotiral Aéčiv). (2) Hiatus is
allowed at the end of a period; i.e. a period
may end with a vowel, and the following period
begin with a vowel without elision taking
place. (3) The last syllable of each period may
be either long or short (orvXAağı â5:44 opos,
syllaba anceps) without reference to the
quantity strictly required by the rhythm. This
is explained by the pause at the end of the
period. As there is a pause, it does not matter
whether the last syllable is long or short: if it
is long where the rhythm otherwise would re-
quire a short syllable, this is immaterial, because
the short syllable would in this case be followed
by a pause; if it is short where the rhythm
otherwise would require a long syllable, the
pause makes up the required length. Where
the same period recurs frequently, as in the
odes of Pindar, the observance of these three
conditions makes it possible to determine the
places at which the period ends, in most cases
with complete certainty. The odes of Pindar
were first divided into periods by the help of
these criteria by Boeckh, in his edition of Pindar
(Leipzig, 1811). The pause may occur at the
end of a single kóAov: in this case the kóAov is
a period. The word period is the most general
term for a kāAov, or a combination of kóAa, after
which a distinct pause is admissible. There are,
however, other terms which are used to dis-
tinguish certain species of periods. When a
kóAov, or a combination of kóAa, consists of not
less than three orvçvºyſa, (six feet), and not more
than four ovćvyíaſ (eight feet), it is called a
verse (orrixos, versus) (Hephaest. Trepl trothua-
tos, c. 1, p. 64, ed. W.). -
On this principle the iambic trimeter (six
feet) and the dactylic hexameter (six feet) are
both called arrízos. Another name for a period
not exceeding eight feet is uérpov. The uérpov
must not exceed thirty units of time, according to
Hephaestion (c. 13, pp. 42, 43, W.), where it is
said that the paeonic werpov (of which each foot
contains five units x & J J J may extend to six
feet, which will not exceed the thirty units;
but the scholiast on this passage (p. 199, ed. W.)
asserts that, according to other metricians,
the uérpov might extend to thirty-two units.
It is probable that the anapaestic tetrameter
was the longest verse (orſzos or puérpov) 12
cognised by the metricians, and that this was
regarded as containing thirty-two or thirty
xpévol, according as the penultimate syllable
was lengthened by rovh (= 1–1) or not. A
period which exceeds thirty-two xpóvot is a
§répuerpov.
The commonest form of the “verse * in non-
lyrical poetry is that which is formed by two
kóAa: this structure is illustrated by the dactylic
hexameter and the trochaic tetrameter:—
5
– ºv– º – S v || --> --> -ºll
– º – º – º – 5 || -- - - - - - all
The comma and the colon in this notation indi-
cate the end of a word. When a verse of two
kóAa is divided in such a way that the arsis of
the first kóAov is formed by the beginning of a
word belonging to the second kāAov, it is said
to have a caesura (rouñ); when the end of the
first kóAov coincides with the end of a word, it
is said to be divided by Stafpearis. The dactylic
hexameter has caesura, marked by the comma;
the trochaic tetrameter has diaeresis, marked by
the colon. -
In these verses the kóAa belong to the same
species; there are, however, verses or periods
in which the combined köAa belong apparently
to different genera. Such rhythms are called
Aérpa triotiv6era (Hephaest. c. 15, p. 56, W.,
and Schol. to Hephaest. pp. 201, 202, W.). Such
is the verse – v J – J J -- || - J - - - - - ºll,
which appears to be a combination of the kóAa
contained in the dactylic hexameter and the
trochaic tetrameter. These episynthetic metres
are also called dactylo-trochaic or dactylo-epitritic,
according as the trochees are pure (e.g. - J - J),
or admit the “irrational" syllable (– v — –).
There is a difficulty in determining the rhythmi-
cal value of these metres, similar to that which
has already been discussed in connexion with
logaoedics, and, as in the former case, two dif-
ferent solutions of the difficulty have been pro-
posed. The popular explanation is, that in the
apparent trochee the value of the long syllable is
RHYTHMICA.
RHYTHMICA 563
longer by half than its normal value, i.e. = three
instead of two units; then — J. = - J = 3 + 1
= 4 = the dactyl = 2 + 1 + 1. The more
probable explanation is that in the trochee the
long syllable retains its normal proportion to
the short syllable, but that the long syllable
and the short syllable in the trochee are each
pronounced more slowly than the long syllable
and the short syllable in the dactyl. Thus, if
the long syllable and the short syllable in the
dactyl = 2 and 1 respectively, the long syllable
and the short syllable in the trochee = 3 and 3
respectively; hence the dactyl = 2 + 1 + 1 = 4
= the trochee = } + 4 = ** = 4. In the third
edition of Rossbach and Westphal’s Metrik, vol. 3
(1889), it is argued that episynthetic metres are
in three time, the spondee being “irrational * =
2 : 1%, and the dactyl being “cyclic” = 3.
There is another term for certain combinations
of kóAa in periods the meaning of which is
doubtful. This is the word asynartete, of which
Hephaestion (c. 15, p. 47, W.) gives the follow-
ing explanation: yivetal 6& Kai čovváptnta,
&róraw öſſo kóAa whºvváueva &AA#Aois avvaptn-
6ival uměč vagu áxeiv čvrl évôs pudvov trapa-
Aaluśāvmrat orixov. He then proceeds to give
instances of “asynartete ” verse, and his account
is supplemented by the Scholia on the chapter
(pp. 201 ff. W.). It is obvious that the defini-
tion given by Hephaestion is little more than
verbal, and the meaning must be sought by
comparing the different instances which he gives
and observing what they have in common. The
first modern scholar who brought the word to
light, and attempted an explanation of it, was
Bentley, in his edition of Horace. In a note on
the 11th Epode he arrives at the conclusion that
asynartete verses are those in which there is a
combination of kóAa belonging to different
rhythmical genera, e.g. dactylic and trochaic, as
in the verse – º – º – ºv- w v || - J - J - all,
and in which, although the two kāAa coalesced
to form a verse, the preceding kóAov was sepa-
rated by a pause from the following, so that
hiatus and “syllaba anceps” were allowable, as
in the lines of Horace:—
arguit et latere petitus imo spiritus
> || ^ºf
* * * = \sſ ºf *
* = \º sº see sº we -
Epod. xi. 10.
fervidiore mero || arcana promorat loco
* * * * *
Epod. xi. 14.
It has, however, been shown by Westphal that
Bentley's theory is applicable only to one of the
seventeen asynartete verses quoted by Hephaes-
tion. His own view is that asynartete verses
are those in which there is catalexis in the first
of the two kóAa, as e.g. in the dactylic penta-
meter.
The rhythm in such a case may be completed
either by town or by a pause, thus:—
- * ~ – - - || -- ~ – v J –X]]
This explanation is applicable to the majority
of the asynartete verses quoted by Hephaestion,
but it is certainly not applicable to all the
“episynthetic” asynartetes, of which Hephaes-
tion quotes seven kinds, and it cannot be applied
to any of them without the unwarrantable as-
sumption that the apparent dactylic tripody
– J J - J - - - is really “brachycatalectic,” i.e.
= — v - - - - - - or - v J - J - - - X. It
appears, therefore, that the meaning of the term
asynartete cannot be determined with certainty.
The word period is used by J. H. H.
Schmidt in his Kunstformen der griechischen
Poésie in a sense different from that of the
ancient writers on rhythm and metre. He un-
derstands by it a combination of kóAa or verses,
which are bound together by a definite principle
of arrangement, or symmetry. According to
this theory, in the majority of lyrical composi-
tions, every ſcóNov (with certain definite ex-
ceptions) corresponds to some other kóAov, and
contains precisely the same number of feet as
the kóAov with which it corresponds. Any set
of kóAa which is bound together by such cor-
respondences is called by him a “period.” These
periods are variously constructed. The simplest
form of period is that in which one kóAoy
is followed by another containing the same
number of feet, as e.g. in the dactylic hexameter
7R – VR – VR - ºll: the period
is divided into two kóAa, each consisting of
three feet; such a period he calls “stichic.” A
more developed form is that in which a kóAov
of the same number of feet is repeated more
than once, e.g. a period consisting of three
dactylic tripodies; such a combination he calls
a repeated “stichic" period. A “palinodic *
period is one in which, instead of a single kóAov,
two kóAa forming a group are answered by two
kóNa forming a similar group: thus, e.g., if a
group of two kóAa, consisting of six feet and
five feet respectively, were followed by a second
group consisting of a hexapody and pentapody.
If the group were repeated a second time, the
result would be a repeated “pali-
nodic" period. If the period be 3
such that the correspondence is 4
between the first kóAov and the
last, between the second and the º)
ams ºf * = & \º as ºf \º

last but one, Schmidt calls it
“antithetic ’’; such would be a 5
period of the annexed form, where
the dot denotes the end of a verse, 4
and the numbers the number 3
of feet in each kóAov. sº
The first verse would contain two kóAa of three
and four feet respectively, the second verse a
single kóAov of five feet, and so on.
If in a period of this kind the central 6
kóAov has no correspondence, it is .
called “mesodic.” A simple instance 4
of such a period would be the annexed
form. 6
Such are the outlines of Schmidt’s
theory, which has been adopted by some
modern editors of Greek dramatists and Pindar.
The general principle, which demands corre-
spondence between one kóAov and another, is
called by Schmidt “eurhythmy,” and it is
chiefly by the assistance of this principle that
he determines the division into kóAa of any
lyrical composition. There is no doubt that
there is often a correspondence of this kind :
the elegiac couplet, for example, is an instance
of two periods, each formed by two tripodies,
the tripodies being acatalectic in the hexameter
and catalectic in the so-called pentameter. But
it has not been shown that such “ gºing 35
2, O
564 RHYTHMICA
RIIYTHMICA
is invariably present, and it cannot therefore
be accepted as a criterion for determining the
length of the kóAa where it is not otherwise
obvious. The limits of this article do not admit
of a detailed discussion of the theory, but some
objections to it may be pointed out.
(1) The ancient writers on rhythm and metre
do not show the slightest acquaintance with
“eurhythmy” of this kind.
(2) The symmetry produced by Schmidt’s
method is often a symmetry for the eye, not for
the ear; there is no reason to think that the
ear could take in the rhythmical structure of
many of his periods, even with the assistance of
a musical accompaniment and the movements
of the dance.
(3) Modern music and poetry do not offer
any real analogy for the more elaborate forms
of his periods, although modern poetry has
in the rhyme a special means of emphasising
the correspondence between kóAa, while, on the
other hand, they show that a sense of rhyth-
mical proportion may be produced without
exact correspondence between the k&Aa.
(4) The fact that Schmidt has been able to
arrange the odes of Pindar and the lyrical
portions of the great dramatists, in such a way
as to exhibit “eurhythmy,”, is no proof of the
truth of his theory; for as soon as it is granted
that the long syllable admits of different values,
that e.g. it may be either — or 1- or 1–1, it is
obvious that the same combination of syllables
may admit of being interpreted as containing a
different number of feet. Thus - J - J - J may
be either an acatalectic tripody or a catalectic
tetrapody = - J - J - 4. Moreover, even if the
number of feet in a series be determined, it may
often be divided into käAa in more ways than
one. As, therefore, the same metrical form
admits of different interpretations, it is not
difficult to manipulate it so as to produce the
assumed “eurhythmy.”
This theory of “eurhythmy” was first sug-
gested in the first edition of Rossbach and West-
phal’s Metrik; in the second edition it was re-
jected by Westphal, but it has been revived by
Rossbach in the third edition.
The Strophe.—When either a single rhythmical
period (in the ancient sense of the word), ex-
ceeding the limits of a “verse,” or a combination
of periods, is repeated in the same form, such a
period, or a combination of periods, is called a
strophe, and, if it is repeated only once, it is
called on its recurrence an antistrophe. A
simple instance is the strophe formed by the
dactylic hexameter and “pentameter,” a strophe
of two verses, each consisting of two tripodies,
which, however, are different in form in the
two lines, being acatalectic in the first and cata-
lectic in the second. Other familiar examples
are the Alcaic and Sapphic strophes, each con-
sisting of four lines. In the odes of Pindar a
further development is found. The strophe and
antistrophe are here usually succeeded by a
strophe of another metrical form, which is then
called an epode (étrºë6s). The triad formed by
strophe, antistrophe, and epode, is then re-
peated. The metrical structure of the fourth
Pythian ode of Pindar is formed by a strophe,
antistrophe, and epode, each of which occurs
thirteen times. In Pindar and the dramatic
poets there is, as a rule, an exact syllabic cor-
respondence between strophe and antistrophe;
and where the correspondence is not thus exact,
except in certain limited deviations which are
admitted to be permissible, it has been in most
cases supposed that there is some corruption in
the text. It is, however, possible that the as-
sumption of exact syllabic correspondence has
been carried too far, and that there was
more licence in this respect than is generally
recognised.
Metrical compositions are either karū artxov
or karū avorràuara (ovarmuarikā), and in the
latter case they fall into further subdivisions,
of which the most important are rà karū axéauv
and tâ éč Šuoſov (Hephaest. Trepi trouhuaros,
pp. 59 ft. W.). They are karū artxov when
they are composed in “verses” of the same
length, which do not fall into definite groups;
the Greek epics in hexameter verse are an
example of this form of composition. They are
karð orxéauv when they contain strophes and anti-
strophes, as the odes of Pindar and most of the
lyrical portions of the drama. They are &
ôuotav when they are composed of a series of
kóAa of the same metre, forming groups which
are unequal in extent, and each of which exceeds
the limits of a “verse.” Such are the ana-
paestic hypermetra used often in tragedy,
consisting mainly of groups of anapaestic di-
meters acatalectic, e.g. - - - - - - - - - - - - ||
terminated by a catalectic dimeter, e.g.
J J – v J - J J – Yll. Sometimes a lyrical pas-
sage is composed of periods of different metrical
form and length without antistrophic responsion.
In this case it is called āmoxexuaévov. In-
stances of this may be found in melodies sung
by actors on the stage (rö, ärö a kāvms) in the
Greek drama. Sometimes a composition con-
tains all these different forms of metrical
structure (as e.g. a Greek play), in which case it.
is called wikróv.
It would be beyond the scope of the present
work to give any detailed account of the metres
employed by the Greek and Roman poets; on
that subject, as well as on the general principles
of rhythm as applied to language, reference may
be made to the following authorities among the
more recent writers:—Rossbach and Westphal,
Metrik der Griechen, the third edition of which
is published under the title Theorie der musischen
Rünste der Hellenen, Leipzig, 1885–1889; J. H.
H. Schmidt, Die Kunstformen der griechischen
Poesie, 4 vols., Leipzig, 1868–1872; Christ,
Metrik der Griechen und Römer, 2nd edition,
Leipzig, 1879; Gleditsch, Metrik der Griechen
wnd Römer in Iwan Müller’s Handbuch der klas-
sischen Alterthumswissenschaft, vol. ii., Nörd-
lingen, 1885. The value of the rhythmical
principles of Aristoxenus, in their application
to modern music, has been very ingeniously
shown by Westphal in his Allgemeine Theorie
der musikalischen Rhythmik seit J. S. Bach,
Leipzig, 1880. The remains of the Greek
writers on rhythm have been collected by West-
phal in Die Fragmente und die Lehrsätze der
griechischen Rhythmiker, Leipzig, 1861, the text
of which is reprinted in the second edition of
Rossbach and Westphal’s Metrik der Griechen,
vol. i., Leipzig, 1867. The rhythmical frag-
ments of Åristoxenus are translated and ex-
plained in Westphal's Aristoxenus von Tarent,
Leipzig, 1883. The most modern edition of the
RHYTON
RICINIUM 565
text of Hephaestion with the Scholia is that of
Westphal, Leipzig, 1866; but a new edition,
discriminating as far as possible the sources of
the various scholia, is much required. The
so-called “Scholia A * have been edited by
Studenund, in his Anecdota varia, Berlin, 1886;
the “Scholia B" by Hoerschelmann, Dorpat,
1882. [C. B. h.]
RHYTON (fivrév), a drinking-horn (Kégas),
by which name it was originally called (Athen.
xi. p. 497 b). Athenaeus adds that it was intro-
duced into the statues of Arsinoë by Ptolemy
Philadelphus, and this may be seen on the coins of
Arsinoë [Dict. of Biogr. ARSINOE]. 1t is impossi-
ble that by firo rpárov [row) pixabéxpov IIroxe-
Matov Baqixéas, Athenaeus can have meant to
assert that Ptolemy invented the Évrów, since he
himself cites the passage of Demosthenes (Meid.
p. 565, § 158) where it is mentioned. It is
probable that the word ºrpárov merely dis-
tinguishes the earlier Philadelphus from the
later (Attalus II.). The oldest and original
form of this drinking-horn was probably the
horn of the ox, but one end of it was afterwards
ornamented with the heads of various animals
and birds. We frequently find representations
of the purov on ancient vases depicting sym-
posia. Several specimens of these drinking:
horns have also been discovered at Pompeii
(Museo Borbonico, vol. viii. 14, v. 20): repre-
sentations of two of these are given in the
annexed cut.
Nºwarzzzzzzzzzz
*. - º
º
Etruscan rhyta. (Dennis.)
The Évrov had a small opening at the bottom,
which the person who drank put into his mouth,
and allowed the wine to run in : hence it derived
its name (&voudoróat re &mb rās flºorews, Athen.
xi. p. 497 e). We see persons using the Évrov
in this way in ancient paintings (Pitt. d’Ercol.
v. tav. 46; Zahn, Ornam. und Wandgem, taf. 90).
Martial (ii. 35) speaks of it under the name of
rhytium. (Becker-Göll, Charikles, vol. iii. p. 91;
Guhl u. Koner, p. 164.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
RICA. [FLAMEN ; MIMUS.]
RICA. [RICINIUM, ad fin.]
RICINIUM. Before the palla came into
use at Rome, a mantle of a smaller size, the
ricinium, was worn by women, and occasionally,
it would seem from certain ceremonial survivals,
by men. It was a rectangular piece of cloth
(Fest. p. 274 b, 32, “Ricinium omne vestimen-
tum quadratum ii qui xii interpretati sunt esse
dixerunt"), and (though we cannot doubt its
connexion with rica), according to Varro and
the grammarians, it got its name from the fact
that it was worn with one-half thrown back
over the shoulder (Varro, L. L. v. 132, “Anti-
quissimis amictui ricinium. Id, quod eo ute-
bantur duplici, ab eo quod dimidiam partem
retrorsum jaciebant, a rejiciendo ricinium dic-
tum.” Cf. Isid. Orig. xix. 25, 4; Non. 542, 1;
Serv. ad Aen. i. 282). The word occurs as
early as the Twelve Tables, where it is used of
the cloth with which funeral pyres were
decorated (Schöll, Legis XII. Tubularum Re-
liquiae, p. 57; cf. Cic. de Legg. ii. 23, 59).
In classical times it was only used for cere-
monial purposes, and was worn by the magister
of the Fratres Arvales at the Ludi Circenses
(Henzen, Acta fr. Arv. p. 37), by the boys who
attended them (Id. ib. 38;-Marini, Atti d. fr.
Arvali, xxiv. 2, 9, 21; xxxii. 3, 12; xxxvii. 7),
and, to judge from the monuments, by the
Camilli in general. (Cf. Henzen in Annali del’
Inst. xxx. (1858), p. 9; Daremberg and Saglio,
s. v. Camilli, p. 859.) -
The ricinium was also,
according to Varro, worn by
women at funerals before
the burial, whereas after it
they put on black pallae
(quoted by Nonius, p. 549,
31, “ut dum supra terram
essent riciniis lugerent,
funere ipso ut pullis pallis
amictae"), a passage which
clearly shows that there
was an essential difference
between the ricinium and
the palla. Of the material
of the ricinium nothing is
known except that Lucilius
speaks of one embroidered
with gold (Lucil. Fragm. Sacrificial attendant
246) (Camillus) wearing
P. y: e the Ricinium.(From
Owing no doubt to its a relief.)
having disappeared from
ordinary use at an early date, the monuments
give no representations of it on women. On
certain Roman sarcophagi, however, Camilli
wearing over one or both shoulders a piece of
cloth fringed and with a long nap (cf. Clarac, ii.
p. 218, n. 310; Daremberg and Saglio, l.c. and
fig. 1053) are shown ; and this very probably is
closely connected with the ricinium, but not
identical with it, for they are mentioned together
in a fragment of Novius as the ricinium and the
rica or ricula (cf. Ribbeck, edit. 2, p. 265, 71),
which was also rectangular. The Flaminica, or
wife of the Flamen Dialis, wore one of purple and
fringed, apparently not as a cloak (Fest. Epit.
p. 288, 10), for the garment is of smaller size
and worn as a kerchief on the head (Id. p. 277a,
5; FLAMEN), a use which is referred to in
Aulus Gellius (vi. 10), and would seem to be
akin to that of the FLAMMEUM.
[Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 575; Becker-Göll,
Gallus, iii. p. 264; Iwan Müller, Handbuch, vol.
iv. (Schiller), pp. 805 and 807. Many references
to monuments where Camilli wearing what


566 ROBIGALLA ROSTRA
is almost certainly the ricinium are to be lead us to conclude that it was an older struc-
found in Daremberg and Saglio, s. v. Camill, ture which received this adornment and a new
p. 859.] [W. C. F. A.] name in the 4th century. The language of
ROBIGALLA, a public festival in nonour of Livy will bear either interpretation.
the god Robigus, to preserve the fields from The Rostra lay, as has been said, between the
mildew, is said to have been instituted by Numa, Comitium, or place of meeting for the curies,
and was celebrated on April 25th (Varro, L. L. and the Forum, or place of meeting for the
vi. 16; R. R. i. 1, 6; Fest. p. 267; Plin. H. N. whole people, so that the speaker might turn to
xviii. § 285). A procession was made to the the one or the other. No doubt the custom of
grove of Robigus (or Robigo, according to Ovid turning towards the Comitium and addressing
and Columella), five miles out of Rome on the the curies from that spot originated in an age
Via Claudia (Cal. Praen.), where sacrifices were when that assembly was of importance alike in
offered by the Flamen Quirinalis, a sheep and legislation and in judicial appeals, and it became
a dog, fancifully explained as averting harm a mark of democratic principles to turn the
to the crops from the dog-star (Ov. Fast. iv. back on the Comitium and speak towards the
907 sq.; Colum. x, 342; Fest. p. 285). It is Forum. According to Cicero (Lael. 25, 96),
probable that the deity Robigus represents Mars C. Licinius Crassus (tribune B.c. 145) first
Rusticus (Cato, R. R. 141; Tertull. de Spect. 5; began “in forum versus agere cum populo;" a
Mommsen, C. I. L. i. p. 392; Marquardt, practice of which Plutarch makes C. Gracchus
Staatsverº. iii. p. 574). [W. S.] [G. E. M.] the originator (C. Gracch. 5). Julius Caesar
ROBORATRIUM. [PARADIsus] transferred the position of the Rostra to the
ROBUR. [CARcER.] western side of the Forum (Cic. Phil. ix. 2;
ROGATIO. [LEx, p. 33.] Dio Cass. Kliii.49). A description of the Rostra
ROGATO'RES.. [DIRIBIToºes...] will be found in Middleton, Rome, pp. 157–164,
ROGUS. [FUNUs. and in still greater detail in 0. Richter's Gesch.
RORA'RII. [Exercitus, Vol. I. pp. 782–1 der röm. Rednerbähne. It was reached by steps
784.] from the back, and was a rectangular platform,
ROSTRA was the name applied to a stage 78 feet long, 33 feet broad, and 11 feet above
or platform at Rome, first between the Comitium the pavement of the Forum, with end and side
and Forum, afterwards in the Forum, from walls of tufa blocks; the upper floor was sup-
which orators addressed the people [Control. ported on travertine piers; along the front,
This platform was originally called templum (Liv. facing the Forum, there were marble railings
ii. 56; iii. 17; viii. 14), because it was consecrated (cancelli), except in the centre, where the
by the augurs (Cic in Vat. 10, 24) (TEMPLUM); speaker stood (the marks of the railings being
but it received the name of Rostra at the con- still apparent): in this central portion, which
clusion of the great Latin war, when C. Maenius occupied one-fifth of the whole length, it is
adorned it with the beaks (rostra) of the ships probable, as Richter thinks, that there was
taken from the Antiates (Liv. viii. 14; Flor. i. originally a lower stage, the locus inferior (see
11; Plin. H. N. ×xxiv. § 20). The Greeks also below), 54 feet beneath the level of the higher
mutilated galleys in this way for the purpose platform, or Rostra proper, and as many above
of trophies: this was called by them ākpºrn- the pavement of the Forum. At each end were
pidgew. [AcroTERIUM.] colossal seated figures, as apparently was also
From the mention of the volcanal as the the case in the older Rostra (cf. Cic. Phil. ix.
speakers' platform in early times (Dionys. vi. 2, 5). In the remains of the Rostra holes and
67; vii. 17; xi. 39), some have inferred that metal pins may still be seen where the ships’
the Rostra was not merely adorned with ships' beaks were fixed, 19 in the lower and 20 in the
beaks in the year B. c. 338, but was then first upper tier. A representation of the emperor
built; the fact, however, that the Twelve Tables speaking from the Rostra is given on the Arch
were placed on the Rostra (Diod. xii. 26) would of Constantine.
Rostra, from the Arch of Constantine. (Middleton's Rome.)
The rostra Julia, so called to distinguish them Rostra and in the rostra Julia. In the latter it
from the Rostra proper, formed the projecting was a semicircular depression in the central
podium of the Aedes Divi Juli, built by portion, reaching back to half the width of the
Augustus, on which were fixed the beaks of platform, and was at a later time filled up to
ships taken at Actium. The lower platform, or the higher level: in the Rostra the depression
locus inferior, is traced by Richter alike in the was a square piece of the central portion


RosTRATA columna
RUTRUM 567
reached by steps from above; but this also was
filled and levelled up, so that on the Arch of
Constantine the locus inferior does not appear at
all, and in this later phase of the Rostra the
entrance was by steps from the Forum instead
of from the back. The distinction of Rostra and
locus inferior seems to correspond with the dis-
tinction of place in the arrangement of the
tribunal (see Mommsen, Staatsr. iii.” p. xii.),
and perhaps was primarily devised for the lower
station of the appellant in a judicium populi
[JUDICIUM]. As contrasted with the station of
the magistrate, it was the place whence a
privatus could speak in the suasio or discussion
of a rogation. Though, however, men of magis-
terial rank might expect to speak from the
Rostra, it was in the power of the superior
magistrate who convened the assembly to order
anyone to speak from the lower platform (ea:
inferiore loco), as did Caesar to Catulus, possibly
by way of a studied slight to the optimates,
while to Wettius on another occasion he gave
the higher place (in rostra eum produzit, Cic. ad
Att. ii. 24, 3; cf. Sueton. Jul. 15); and Papirius
sent Fabius, as though he were an appellant
and not a magistrate, into the lower platform
(Liv. viii. 33). In Cic. de Or. iii. 6, 23, the
contrast of ea: inferiore loco, ea. aequo, and ea:
superiore loco is not precisely to our point,
because he is speaking there of three classes of
orators, viz. pleaders in court, senators, and
magistrates on the Rostra; but the Rostra with
its locus inferior attached was adapted in
principle for the first as well as the third of
these classes. When the judicium populi passed
away, this use, probably the original purpose,
of the locus inferior ceased, and in process of
time the Rostra was altered in structure, so as
to have only one platform. (See on this point
Mommsen, Staatsr. iii.” 383, and note on p. xii. :
and, for the locality and construction of the
Rostra, the writings of Middleton and O. Richter
cited above; Nichols, Notizie dei Rostri.)
[W. S.] [G. E. M.]
ROSTRATA COLUMNA. [ColuxNA,
Wol. I. pp. 494, 495.]
ROSTRATA CORO'NA. [CORONA, Vol. I.
p. 548 b.]
ROSTRUM. [NAVIs, pp. 217, 220.]
ROTA. The various kinds of wheels are
described under CURRUS, MACHINA, MOLA, TYM-
PANUM ; and the rota aquaria for raising water
under ANTLIA : but, as regards the last, it is
necessary to add a few words in explanation of
the cut here given, showing the portion of an
actual Roman water-wheel, lately (1889) ac-
Wooden wheel, for raising water from mines.
(British Museum.)
quired by the British Museum. It was found in
the Rio Tinto mines in the south of Spain, which
were worked by the Romans for silver and
copper: its excellent preservation, though en-
tirely of wood, and perhaps dating from the
time of Nero, is accounted for by the action of
the cupreous water with which it was saturated.
The water was taken up in the boxes at the
outer circumference (which are covered, but
with an opening at the side) and discharged into
a trough, when the wheel had nearly completed
its half-revolution. The water is then lifted into
a channel about fifteen feet above the original
level: another wheel (or pair of wheels, for they
are found in pairs) then raises it to a higher
channel, and so by a succession of stages it is
removed from the mine. The wheels were
probably turned by slaves by means of ropes, of
which some remains have been found attached
to the wheels, and in such a position that they
could be worked with the feet, as a treadle, as
well as with the hands (Stevenson in Archaeologia
Aeliana, vii. 279). As was stated under ANTLIA,
Vitruvius describes three kinds of water wheels
(x. 4): this kind is not exactly like any of the
three, but is an improvement upon No. 2 (that
with the modioli attached), because that wheel
could only raise water to a height equal to half
its diameter, whereas the wheel shown in this
article could raise it to a height nearly equal to
the whole diameter, which in this example is
little short of fifteen feet. [G. E. M.]
RUDENS. [NAVIs, p. 217.]
RUDIA'RII. [GLADIATOREs.]
RUDIS. [GLADIATOREs.]
RU'FULI. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 797 a.]
RUNCI'NA (fivkávn), a plane (Tertull. Apol.
12; Plin. H. N. xvi. § 225), is delineated among
joiners’ tools (Instrumen. Fabr. Tigmar.) in the
woodcut at p. 243. Another example of similar
form, but with the wooden box also shown, may
be seen in Blümmer : in both these we see two
holes for the passage of the shavings, one on
each side of the handle, instead of one, as in
modern planes. The Latin and Greek names
for this instrument gave origin to the corre-
sponding transitive verbs runcino and fivkavda,
meaning “to plane.” (Varro, L. L. v. 96; Poll.
x. 146; Anth. Pal. vi. 204; Blümmer, Technol.
ii. 227.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
RUTILIA’NA ACTIO. [BONORUM
EMPTIO. -
RUTRUM, dim. RUTELLUM, a kind of
hoe, probably of iron (and so in one reading of
Cato, R. R. 11, “inter ferramenta”), which
had the handle fixed perpendicularly into the
middle of the blade, thus differing from the
RASTRUM. It was used before sowing to level
the ground, by breaking down any clods which
§§ adhered too long together (Non. Marc. p. 18).
§F
This operation is described by Virgil in the
following terms, which also assign the deriva-
tion of the name: “Cumulosque ruit male
pinguis arenae" (Georg. i. 105). See Festus,
3. v.; Varro, L. L. v. p. 137. The same imple-
ment, made of wood, was used in mixing lime or
clay with water and straw to make plaster for
walls (Cato, R. R. 128; Pallad. i. 15; Plin.
H. N. xxxvi. 23, § 55). e
The word rutabulum ought to be considered as
another form of rutrum. It denoted a wooden
hoe or rake of the same construction, which was

568 SACCUS
SACERDOS
used by the baker in stirring the hot ashes of
his oven (Festus, s. v.). A wooden rutabulum
was employed to mix the contents of the vats in
which wine was made (Colum. xii. 20, 4; cf.
xii. 23, 2). [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
S.
SACCUS, besides being the general word in
Latin (as in all other Indo-European languages)
for a bag of any material, shape or size, has
special significations which may be noticed here.
1. A form of head-dress. [COMA, Vol. I. p. 499.]
2. A strainer, Saccus vinarius. This was a
linen bag, and often appears simply as linum
(Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 54 ; Mart. xiv. 103), or lintea
(ib. 104). As will be seen from these and
other passages, it was regarded as a bad sub-
stitute for the COLUM, because it gave a flavour
of its own to the wine. In Greek, ordickos
was thus used (Poll. vi. 19). The saccus was
often filled with snow to cool the wine, though
this was not the most approved method.
[PsycTER.] [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
SACELLUM, a diminutive of sacer, signifies
a small place consecrated to a deity with an
altar in it (Trebon. ap. Gell. vii. 12). Festus
further defines it as being without a roof (p. 318).
Often besides the altar there was a shrine
[AEDICULA), as in the line “aram constitui
signaque parva deum ” (Ov. Fast. v. 130), whence
the whole would ordinarily be spoken of as a
sacellum, though in Fast. i. 275 the ara and
sacellum are distinguished. The sacred spot,
whether it contained merely an altar or an
altar and a shrine, was often, and probably most
usually, protected by a fence: “uti locus ante
eam aram . . . . stipitibus robustis saepiatur’’
(C. I. L. xi. 1420; cf. ix. 5019).
was called cancelli (ib. vii. 83), concameratio ferrea
(ib. vi. 543), maceria (ib. x. 2066), according to
the material of the fence. The word caulae,
properly used of sheep-hurdles, is used often as
a general term for this fence, as of Janus: “quia
bello caulae ejus patent" (Macrob. Saturn. i. 9,
and similarly in Serv. ad Aen. vii. 610), whence,
in Serv. ad Aen. ix. 60, “in sacris aedibus et in
tribunalibus saepta quae turbas prohibent, aulas
vocamus,” is, no doubt rightly, altered to caulas.
The Greek term for this fence is uávöpal (Charis.
p. 549), or simply rept&oxos. These sacella, if
they were publicly consecrated, were strictly
distinguished as sacella publica—we find “cura-
tor sacellorum publicorum ” (Ephem. Ep. iv.
863; cf. MAGISTER WICORUM, p. 110 b)—and,
with luci and delubra, were included under the
general term fana [FANUM). Such was the
sacellum of Hercules in the Forum Boarium, of
the Lares (Tac. Ann. xii. 24), of Naenia (Fest.
p. 161), Pudicitia (Liv. x. 23), Ruminae (Varro,
R. R. ii. 11), and we may suppose that they
represent the oldest kind of consecrated spots
before the more costly aedes or templum
was built, though many such smaller shrines
were of recent construction also. The Romans
dedicated also privata sacella on their own
properties, regarding which Festus (p. 321)
This fence
quotes Gallus Aelius as saying, “quod privati
suae religionis causa deo dedicent, id pontifices
Romanos non existimare sacrum.” That is to
say, its sanctity would derive from the feeling
of those who instituted it and would not
depend on any state law of religion: hence
that which Cicero dedicated to his daughter was
not really consecratum, but only so regarded
by him—“quantum fieri poterat” (Cic. ad
Att. xii. 18). (See also Marquardt, Staatsverw.
iii.2 152.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
SACENA. [Doi,ABRA.]
SACERDOS, SACERDOTIUM. A priest
among the Greeks and Romans was a person
whose duty was to perform on behalf of a state,
or of some organic group within the state, a
certain ritual, the object of which was to
maintain the proper salutary relations between
the state or group and the local gods. This
definition, it will be seen, implies a fully de-
veloped state. That a priesthood did indeed
exist before the state, both in Greece and Italy,
there can hardly be a doubt; but of its nature
and history we have scarcely any knowledge.
Nor, indeed, do we certainly know at what point
in the development of a people the priest proper
first appears. Roughly, it may be said that an
organised priesthood is found wherever the
relation of God to man is believed to have a
certain stable personal character on which the
worshippers can calculate and act. (See W.
Robertson Smith in Encycl. Brit. s. v. Priest.)
In Greece and Italy this stability of relation
seems to have gone with a corresponding stability
of human society, i.e. a certain amount of social
and political development. In the following
sketch of the priesthoods of Greece and Rome
such development is assumed, and no attempt is
made to unravel the earliest history of the
growth of a priesthood.
Priests in Greece.—The most general word
for a priest is ispets (for a priestess iépeta).
This word is found in Homer, and lasted through-
out Greek history. At all periods its meaning
is in the main the same ; it denotes a person
charged with regular and permanent duties
towards a particular deity on behalf of a par-
ticular community, and thoroughly acquainted
with the traditional mode of performing those
duties, whether they consisted of prayer, sacrifice,
purification, prophecy, or all of these. He is
one “skilled in the rules of sacrifice, prayer,
purification,” &c. (Stobaeus, Ecl. Eth. vi. 5, 122;
Gaisf, vol. ii. p. 562). These rules, too technical
for the ordinary individual, by which the gods
could be in a sense controlled and their goodwill
secured, must necessarily be in the charge of a
specialist.
The word ispets also implies the existence of a
holy place to which the person so denominated
was attached. The priest was in Greece es-
sentially a minister in the service of a temple;
this is his true differentia (Plato, Legg. 759 A).
He was the servant of the god (Plato, Pol. 290
C; Eur. Ion, 94, 309; Poll. i. 14, of 8& rôv6eów
6epairevral iepers) to whom the temple was
sacred. His history and development are there-
fore in each case inseparable from those of the
temple itself. In some places, we may suppose,
which had become famous for a sacred fountain,
tree, or cavern, it became convenient to build
the local god a house for his own habitation,
SACERDOS
SACERDOS 569
and a keeper would be assigned to the house
from among the members of the community
interested in the worship. This person, who
devoted his life, or a certain portion of it, to the
care of the god's house and its ispá, would be the
iépets. He would thus be a priest of a simple
deity, for each temple was the dwelling of one
only. To the Greek, a priest was not a priest
in a general sense, but the priest of some local
Zeus or Apollo, and was almost always so
distinguished in Greek literature. (See Nägels-
bach, Nachhomerische Theologie, p. 207.)
Thus the word is far from containing the idea
of a sacred caste, and suggests no settled dis-
tinction between clergy and laity. The ispebs
was indeed, as compared with the ordinary
Greek citizen, a man of professional knowledge,
but only in respect of the ritual of his own
temple. As every temple had its own strict
rules, there was no opportunity for any combined
action which might produce a common pro-
fessional interest. Nor was there at any time
a common school of the priesthood, for each
priest could learn his duties in his own temple
only. And it must be borne in mind that the
priests were by no means the only persons who
exercised priestly functions; for the king or
other magistrate of a state, as well as the heads
of families and gentes, could, and did, all offer
sacrifices and prayers on behalf of their re-
spective communities. How far the aid of the
priest was necessary in any such sacrifice is an
obscure question (see Martha, Les Sacerdoces
Atheniens, p. 73 foll.); but Aristotle clearly dis-
tinguished between those sacrifices which were
isparukaſ, i.e. could only be performed by a priest
(probably in a temple), and those which were
undertaken by the lay head of the community
(Pol. iii. 14, 12 = p. 1285 b, 10). Thus much is
certain, that the Greek mind did not connect the
word ispews with any exclusive prescriptive right
of exercising liturgical functions, such as at the
present day we are apt to associate with the word
priest, save only in respect of those which he
exercised in his own temple. It is essential to
remember this in studying the Greek idea of a
minister of religion; but in the present article
it is necessary to limit the subject by confining
our attention to its more technical aspect.
Not much is to be gathered from Homer as to
the position and duties of the priest in the age
represented in the poems. Homer describes a
state of war and disturbance in which local
priesthoods would naturally play no part ; and
what we hear of them is chiefly from passages
of incidental reference. They are not mentioned
among the prophets, poets, physicians, &c., in
the catalogue of Smutóep you in Od. xvii. 382
foll. : and this may show (1) that they were not
a trained professional body or guild; (2) that
they were distinguished from the udvreis, or
wandering diviners. Their duties seemed to
have been chiefly, as in later times, those of
prayer and sacrifice; hence the names àpmrhp
(Il. i. 11; v. 78) and 0Véorkoos (Il. xxiv. 221).
They were held in high honour: of the priest
of Scamander it was said that he was honoured
as a god by the whole people (Il. v. 78; cf. xvi.
605). On one occasion only do we hear of
insult offered to a priest ; i.e. at the opening of
the Iliad, by Agamemnon to the priest Chryses:
and this was so startling as to rouse the anger
of the army and bring down the wrath of
Apollo in the form of a pestilence. The local
priest is represented in Il. v. 10 as wealthy and
important, a fact quite in keeping with the
feeling of later times that priests should be of
high descent and substantial means. In Od. ix.
200 we hear of a local priest dwelling in a
house in close proximity to his temple, with his
wife and children; a glimpse of old Greek life
which is confirmed, as we shall see, by the
evidence of a later age. But further details of
the Homeric priests are wanting, even in the
Odyssey, and it cannot be assumed that they
played an important part in the civilisation
which the poems represent. (See Buchholz,
Hom. Realien, vol. iii. pt. 2, § 178; Gladstone,
Homer and the Homeric Age, iii. 279ff, where,
however, the Trojan priests are wrongly con-
sidered as belonging to a separate civilisation.)
Our information about priests in historic
times is not only scattered about in a great
number of authors and inscriptions, but na-
turally refers to a great variety of the cities of
the Hellenic world, in which the usages varied
considerably. It extends also over a period of
several centuries, down to the age of the Roman
empire; and it is unfortunately the last half of
this long period, and not the age of genuine
Greek civilisation, which has yielded by far the
greater part of our results. It is, therefore,
difficult to present a consistent picture of the
position and duties of the Greek priest in the
centuries which may more properly be called
those of Greek history. Under the heads, how-
ever, of the qualifications, mode of appointment,
duties, and privileges of the priesthood, some
account may be given of certain features of
special interest.
Qualifications.—In the first place, it was
essential that a priest, if a man, should be a
full citizen of the state to which the temple
belonged of which he had charge; and so also,
if that worship were the peculiar property of a
gens or family within the state, he must be a
full member of that gens or family. Thus, at
Athens, no uéroucos could hold a priesthood;
e.g. in the case of the priesthood of Heracles, we
learn from Demosthenes that no foreigner or
metoec could qualify, or anyone who was not a
member of a phratria (at that time the test of
true citizenship); and he speaks of the priesthood
as under the same conditions as the magistracy
(Dem. Eubul. p. 1313, §§ 46–48). In general
terms Plato expresses the same necessity (Legg.
759 C), when he lays it down for his ideal state
that the priest should be 6AókAmpos kal yuhotos,
i.e. sound in all respects, including birth. So
also an inscription of Chalcedon (probably of
the 2nd century B.C.) forbids a priesthood to be.
sold to anyone who was not thus sound and in
full possession of civic rights (Dittenberger, Syll.
Ins. Gr. 369). These regulations, however, did
not exclude women from priesthoods, and priest-
esses are met with in all parts of Greece. At
Athens a priestess seems to have enjoyed at least
some rights of a citizen; e.g. she could plead
before the council, sign documents, &c. (Martha,
op. cit. p. 22). For priestesses persons of rank
and substance seem to have been preferred;
thus in an inscription from Halicarnassus we
find that the priestess must be of aristocratic
descent for three generations at least (Ditten-
570 SACERDOS
SACERDOS
berger, No. 371). And Aristotle insists that
no husbandman or mechanic should be a priest;
the gods should receive honour from the citizens
only (Pol. vii. 9, 8–p. 1329 a, 29). The Pythia
of Delphi seems to have been an exception to this
rule, as she was chosen at large from among
all the women of Delphi (Eur. Ion, 1323; cf.
Plut. Pyth. Or. 22; Hermann, Gr. Alterth. ii.
p. 256). This was perhaps for reasons of state,
or because it was difficult to procure a woman
of the peculiar temperament required by the
office.
The second chief qualification was that of
purity, bodily and mental. This is also explicitly
laid down by Plato in the passage just quoted
from the Laws, and is partly implied in the
word 6x6kAmpos already mentioned. As all
approach to the gods without purification was a
sin even in the ordinary worshipper, à fortiori it
was so in the priest. At Athens no one could
hold a priesthood who had led a vicious life
(Aeschines, Timarch. § 19), or who had neglected
his parents (Xen. Mem. ii. 2, 13). Bodily
purity was equally essential. Strict regulations
were often posted at the doors of temples for
the guidance of worshippers in keeping them-
selves pure, which applied even more to the
priest; and the highest state of purity was to
have a healthy mind, free from guilty con-
'science, in a healthy body (Newton, Art and
Archaeology, p. 156). All contact with a dead
body, for example, defiled a man ; and if a
priestly family were temporarily defiled by the
death of one of its own members, the priest-
hood was sometimes forfeited. Thus the death
of a child of a priest of Messene is said by
Pausanias to have caused a vacancy (Paus. iv.
12, 4). In the same way we find that many
priesthoods could only be filled by virgins;
and Pausanias mentions one at Calauria where
a girl must resign the priesthood of the temple
of Poseidon when of age to marry (ii. 33, 3).
On the other hand, all the priests of the Ephe-
sian Artemis were eunuchs (Roscher, Myth. Lea.
S. v. Artemis, p. 501 a); and the priest and
priestess of Artemis Hymnia at Orchomenus, in
Arcadia, were not only cut off from all bodily
impurity, but from all intercourse with the
world (Paus. viii. 13, 1). Such exaggerated
asceticism, however, was not truly Greek in
character, and was undoubtedly of Oriental
origin. There was no general rule against the
marriage of a priest. The regulations suggested
by Greek thinkers were also more moderate;
both Aristotle and Plato recommend only that
priests should be of advanced age (Ar. Pol. vii.
9, 9; Plato, Legg. 759 D). Old men and
women actually occur, as at Delphi and Athens,
instead of virgins, for the care of the perpetual
fire; but this may have been a later custom,
arising from the difficulty of getting virgins to
serve (Plut. Num. 9). Boy-priests are occa-
sionally mentioned, who served until the age
of puberty (Paus. vii. 24, 2, where the boy
must be of remarkable beauty; and C. I. G.
6206). In these examples of priesthoods filled
by persons of old age or extreme youth, we may
also perhaps see the call for purity combined
with the Greek feeling that a man in the prime
of life was required for the service of the state.
Mode of appointment.—This was by no means
uniform; but we may discern three principal
methods, which in rough chronological order
would be—(1) by hereditary descent, i.e. by
devolution or selection out of a gens or family;
(2) by public election, either by means of open
voting or the lot ; (3) by purchase.
1. As regards the first of these, we have
abundant evidence that many priesthoods de-
scended in the same family or gens, though we
know little of the method by which the priest
was chosen from among its members. The
reason of such hereditary right is not far to
seek. A cultus which had been peculiar to a
family or gens before its absorption in a state,
retained, even after that absorption, the right
to be served by a member of that minor group
only ; the perfect performance of its ritual
being in this way better secured. Thus the
family of Gelo of Syracuse claimed to be here-
ditary hierophants of Demeter and Persephone
in the city of Gela, because their ancestor
Telines had brought the sacra of that worship
from Cnidos (Herod. vii. 153). At Athens the
Eumolpidae held the office of hierophant of
the Eleusinian mysteries, the Eteobutadae the
priesthood of Athene Polias, the Gephyraei that
of the Achaean Demeter, the Hesychidae that of
the Eumenides, the Phytalidae that of Demeter,
Poseidon and Theseus, &c. (see for these and
other instances, Maury, Rel. de la Grèce, vol. ii.
387 foll.). So too, at least in later times, it
was not uncommon for a state to grant a here-
ditary priesthood to one who had been a
benefactor of the cult (C. I. G. 2448; Martha,
op. cit. p. 38). Maeandrius of Samos proposed
to establish in his family a perpetual priesthood
of Zeus, as compensation for giving up the
tyranny, on the ground that he had built the
temple of the god (Herod. iii. 142). As to the
mode of succession to the office in these cases,
we know of instances in which the eldest son
succeeded (C. I. A. ii. 410; C. J. G. 2448;
Martha, l.c.); and a Halicarnassian inscription
informs us of a priesthood in which the succes-
sion was not from father to son, but from
brother to brother, devolving to sons of the
eldest brother in order of seniority, then to sons
of the next brother, and back again to the
grandsons of the eldest brother (Newton, op. cit.
p. 152). In other cases the lot seems to have
been used. Thus in the family of the Eteobu-
tadae a priest is mentioned as Aaxöv čk too
ºyévous r\viepaadvmy: in this case, however, he
was able to hand on the office to his brother,
and perhaps too much stress should not be laid
on the word Aaxów (Plut. Wit. X. Oratt. 38, 39,
p. 843 F.; Schömann, Gr. Alt. ii. 405). But
our knowledge on this point is still scanty.
2. Of appointment by voting we hear little.
An instance seems to occur as early as Homer
(cf. Il. vi. 300, thy yap Tpées éðnkav 'A6mvaſms
iépetav, with the note of the Scholiast in Cod.
Venet. Marc. 453). Another is recorded in
C. I. G. 2270, 18, from Delos; but this seems
to have been a preliminary selection of candi-
dates only, and not the final election, which was
by means of the lot. At Athens, as elsewhere
in Greece, the commonest practice seems to have
been to elect by lot; and it is recommended by
Plato on the ground that the lot was an indica-
tion of he divine will (Legg. 759 C). Virgil
was aware of the Greek custom, and describes
Laocoon as “ductus Neptuno sorte sacerdos”
SACERDOS
SACIXRDOS 57.1
(Aen. ii. 201). Examples are found in inscrip-
tions (see C. I. A. 352 b and 567 b ; and a
paper by Boeckh in Phil. Museum, vol. ii. p. 453;
also Dittenberger, No. 356, 9= C. I. A. 489 b.).
In some cases at least, this sortition seems to
have been preceded by some kind of selection of
candidates for whom the lot might be cast.
Thus in the case of the priesthood of Hercules,
mentioned in Demosth. Eubul. l. c., it was
counted an honour to Eubulides to have been
among those so selected. A somewhat similar
practice is mentioned in Paus. vii. 25, 13, in the
case of a priestess at Aegae in Achaia ; and the
Delian inscription quoted above (C. J. G. 2270;
Martha, p. 32) mentions a priest of Dionysus
who was both chosen by the people and also by
lot, and points therefore in the same direction.
But it does not appear whether the selection
was always by voting, or in some other way.
3. As to the practice of purchasing priest-
hoods, we have only in recent years gained any
adequate information. A passage of Dionysius
of Halicarnassus (ii. 21) had indeed suggested
it, in which Romulus is described as appointing
to the Roman priesthoods neither by putting
them up for sale nor by the lot, but in another
way. In 1830 Boeckh published an inscription
from Halicarnassus (C. I. G. 2656; Dittenberger,
No. 371) which contains a decree affecting the
priestess of Artemis Pergaea, who had purchased
her priesthood; and it became evident that
Dionysius was alluding to a practice of his own
city. Since that time several other inscriptions
have come to light, which show that Halicar-
nassus was by no means the only place where
priesthoods were sold, and the practice is now
proved for Chalcedon, Erythrae, Andros, and
Myconos (see Dittenberger, Nos. 369, 370, 371 ;
Le-Bas Waddington, Asie Mineure, pp. 408 and
457). The details of the transaction are still
imperfectly understood, and further light is
needed. The inscription from Erythrae, how-
ever (Ditt. 370), is an extremely interesting
document, giving a very long list of these pur-
chases, and the prices paid for the priesthoods,
which ran as high as 4,600 drachmas in the
case of that of Hermes Agoraios, while others
fetched comparatively small sums. These
priesthoods seem to have been put up for sale at
the same time, and could hardly have been held
for life (see Lehmann, Quaest. Sacerdot. p. 52,
Königsberg, 1888; cf. also Herbrecht, de Sacer-
doti apud Graecos venditione, Strasb. 1885); but
these questions are still under discussion. It is
to be noticed that the practice, so far as we
know, was confined to Asia Minor and the
islands of the Archipelago; no instance is
known at Athens, nor any of earlier date than
the 3rd century B.C. (Herbrecht, p. 6). It is
probable, therefore, that the custom arose under
the financial pressure caused by the wars among
the successors of Alexander (Droysen, Hellen-
ismus, ii.” p. 355; iii. 191 foll.), and was
found a sufficiently lucrative source of revenue
to spread rapidly (Lehmann, p. 53 foll.). It
points not only to the material advantages of
the priest's position in later Greek history, but
also to a great multiplication of priesthoods,
and to a serious degeneracy in the popular esti-
mation of the priestly office. (The literature of
this still obscure subject will be found quoted,
up to date, in Lehmann, op. cit. p. 7.)
Duties.—These may be described as partly
liturgical, partly administrative. In no case
did they include education, either moral or
intellectual. The liturgical duties would in-
clude the whole of the temple-service: viz. the
conduct of sacrifices, both those which were
public (i.e. on behalf of the state) and those
offered by individuals on their own account (see
SACRIFICIUM and Dittenb. No. 371), including
the offering of the proper prayers and invoca-
tions. How far the priest had the exclusive
right of sacrifice and prayer in his own temple
is uncertain; but there is no doubt that it was
usual for him to superintend private as well as
public worship, as being expert in the proper
ritual and formulae. Thus in the parody in
Aristoph. Av. 864 foll, it is the priest who leads
the prayer, selecting the proper epithets of the
supposed gods. (Cf. Aesch. in Ctes. § 18, where
the proper function of the priests is described as
to pray to the gods on behalf of the people; cf.
also Dittenberger, 369, 371.) To these duties
may also be added that of the care of the statue
of the deity to whom the temple was dedicated,
which, in some cases at least, had to be con-
stantly washed, dressed, and served with repasts
on rpáregat (Martha, op. cit. p. 45, foll.), in
accordance with the survival of the primitive
belief that the god actually resided in the
statue. Thus the priest was essentially the
servant of the god (Serv. ad Aen. i. 73, “dicatus
est numini, hoc est ad obsequium datus est”;
cf. Eurip. Ion, 131; Poll. i. 14).
Under the head of administration may be
included in the first place the charge of the
fabric and contents of the temple. In the
Chalcedonian inscription already quoted, the
priest is directed koopaeiv row vabv ka0° àuépav,
and to see that the stoa in front of it is swept
clean. He had also to see that the regulations
of the temple in respect of the conduct of wor-
shippers were thoroughly carried out, as we
learn, e.g., from an inscription of Ialysus in
Rhodes containing a law relating to the sacred
precinct round the temple of Alectrona (New-
ton, Trans. Royal Soc. Lit. xi. 443). From
Athens we have also an inscription (Ephem.
Arch. 3139) containing a proclamation issued by
the priest of the temple of Apollo, who, in con-
junction with the demarch, is to exact a fine
from anyone taking timber or firewood from the
iepāv (Newton, p. 156). The priest was thus
in this case, as no doubt in many others, joined
with the civil authority in the protection of
the temple from sacrilege. But with him, as
with the dean of a modern cathedral, lay the
immediate responsibility: thus we find the
priestess of Athene on the Acropolis personally
withstanding Cleomenes the Spartan king when
he tried to force an entrance into her temple
(Herod. v. 73). In enforcing these rules they
were in larger temples assisted by vergers and
constables under various names (Éabão Pópol,
Kästö00x01, Čákopot, vewkópot, &c.; see Martha,
op. cit. p. 88 foll.; for slaves and diaconi,
Newton, Essays, p. 165). With the more impor-
tant management of the revenues, repairs, &c.;
and the general administration of the property of
the temple, the priest in historical times, seems
to have had little to do. The union of all fung-
tions, liturgical and other, survived no doubt in
smaller temples in country districts (see esp.
572 SACER DOS
SACERDOS
Arist. Pol. vi. 8, 18); but in all large cities of
which we possess detailed information, the
management of sacred property had passed
almost entirely into the hands of the state by
the time when inscriptions begin to be instruc-
tive on this subject (i.e. from the latter half of
the 5th century B.C.). As the temples developed
into public and also private banks, it became im-
possible to make the priests responsible for their
treasures; under various names (rautai, iepo-
troubt, vaotrotot, Ériplôamrat, &c.) public officers
were appointed for the purpose not only of
taking charge of the treasures and other
property, executing repairs, &c., but for pro-
viding victims and disposing of their skins.
[On this subject, which lies outside of the
scope of this article, see articles ARGENTARII,
DERMATICON, SACRIFICIUM, and WECTIGALIA
TEMPLORUM ; Schömann, Gr. Alth. ii. 397 ;
Homolle in Bull. Corresp. Hell. vi. pp. 1–167
(for Delos); Martha, op. cit. pp. 88–114, and
Hicks, Gr. Hist. Ins. p. 88 foll. (for Athens);
Dittenberger, No. 294 (for Delphi); Newton,
p. 154.]
On the whole it may be concluded that
the later the age the more strictly ritual-
istic do the priest’s duties become; and it
is significant that in one inscription, of a date
not long before the Roman empire, the
conditions under which the priesthood is sold
include a rule that even the fees paid in by
worshippers in the temple of Artemis are to be
under the charge, not of the priestess, but of
éčeraorraſ, i.e. auditors (Dittenb. No. 371,
line 30, foll.).
Privileges.—In return for their duties, the
advantages of the priests were considerable. At
all times they were held in high honour, and
their persons were deemed inviolable. Homer,
as we saw, describes them as honoured by the
people like gods (Il. v. 78, xvi. 605). When
Cleomenes insulted a priest at Argos, he was
considered mad (Herod. vi. 81 and 84). When
Alexander sold the Thebans into slavery, he
excepted the priests only (Aelian, War. Hist. xiii.
7). At Athens, where we know most about
their position, they were reckoned as equal to
the magistrates, accompanied them in public
processions, and had seats of honour with them
at the dramatic representations (C. I. A. ii. 410,
589; Martha, p. 128 f.); facts which are not
astonishing if it be remembered that the distinc-
tion between magistrate and priest was not
clearly conceived in the earliest times, nor at
any time so sharp as that to which we are
ourselves used. Decrees of special honours
awarded them are not uncommon in inscrip-
tions (C. I. G. 1063, 2270, 2462; C. I. A. ii.
410, 589). In many cases they enjoyed a house
adjoining the temple (Od. ix. 200; Paus. ii. 11,
6; x. 34, 7); whether this was so, however, at
Athens and in large cities, may be doubted
(Martha, p. 119). Lastly, they had certain
perquisites arising from sacrifices, which must
have formed a considerable source of income.
These are described in many inscriptions from
various parts of Greece, and show a great
variety of usage in respect of the portion of
the victim which fell to the priest; generally,
however, these were the skin and legs, and
often the tongue (Dittenb. 373, 376, 379;
C. I. A. 610, 631 ; Journ. of Hellenic Studies,
vol. ix. p. 328; and article SACRIFICIUM). These
perquisites were apparently universal in the
case of private sacrifices, and fees paid on these
occasions are also mentioned (C. I. G. 2656;
Newton, p. 158); but at Athens, when public
sacrifices of a great number of victims were
offered at one time, the skins were sold for the
state (Martha, p. 123 foll. ; Boeckh, Staatsh.
Appendix viii. and viii. b : DERMATICON). They
were also enriched by the offerings of fruits, cakes,
&c., constantly brought by worshippers for the
use of the god, which, believed by primitive
man to be consumed by the god himself, had
gradually come to be regarded in Greece, as
elsewhere, as the priest’s perquisite (see esp.
Aristoph. Plut. 676). In some few cases, but
apparently only in later times, they were em-
powered to collect money (Dittenb. 369, 371,
393; for the priests of Cybele, Cic. de Leg. ii.
9, 21). They must, therefore, have had ample
means of amassing wealth; and this is con-
firmed both by the monetary value of priest-
hoods noticed above, by the competition for
them, and by the evidence we possess from in-
scriptions of valuable endowments presented by
some of them to their temples (Newton, p. 161).
In conformity with their general character as
a part of the community, and not distinct from
it, the Greek priests wore no dress that can be
called distinctive. The wreath on the head,
with which the priest always appears in vase-
paintings and sculptures, was worn by all
persons when sacrificing, and was as much the
mark of the magistrate as the priest. These
wreaths seem to have been often taken from the
tree sacred to the deity to whom the sacrifice
was made ; thus the laurel was used in the
worship of Apollo (Bötticher, Baumkultus,
p. 313). The hierophant and daduchus of
Eleusis wore also a orpāquov or head-band
(Arrian, Epictet. iii. 21, 16), and also wore
their hair long, a practice which seems to
have been not uncommon (Plut. Arist. 5). On
the monuments priests generally appear in a
long chiton, of the old-fashioned kind discarded
by the Athenians in the Periclean age; so the
priest and priestess of Athene appear in the
frieze of the Parthenon. Such a chiton would
seem also to have been worn by the Pythia of
Delphi, as appears from a vase-painting of which
a cut is given in Baumeister's Denkm. p. 1110.
These garments were certainly as a rule white.
This is what Plato enjoins in the Laws (956 A);
and it is also enjoined on the initiated in the
mysteries of Andania (Dittenberger, 388, 17).
Thus Plutarch, writing of the son of Aratus
offering sacrifice at his father's grave, mentions,
as an exception to the general rule, that he
wore a grpáquov which was not entirely white
(Plut. Arat. 57; Id. Arist. 21). A more
ornamental dress, both as to colour and adorn-
ment, seems to have been occasionally worn in
later times, e.g. at the Eleusinian mysteries
(Maury, op. cit. ii. 400), and purple is mentioned
as early as Aeschylus (in the cult of the dead:
Eum. 982; cf. Schömann, Gr. Alt. ii. 412).
But in most cases where the dress is peculiar,
we may suspect that the priest or priestess is
personating the deity to whom sacrifices are
offered. This may be so in the case of Iphigeneia
as priestess of Artemis represented on a vase
(Baumeister, p. 757; cf. Paus. x. 24, 4). The
SACERDOS
SACERDOS 573
aegis of Athene was worn on certain occasions
by her priestess at Athens (Suidas, s. v. airyts).
For this class of practices, which in some cases
seems to have a totemistic origin, see F. Back,
de Graecorum caerimoniis in quibus homines
deorum vice fungebantur, Berlin, 1883; Hermann,
Gr. Alth. ii. sec. 35.
There remains the question whether the Greek
priest was consecrated to the service of his deity by
any kind of ceremony. If such ceremony existed,
we hear nothing certain of it. Lucian, indeed,
mentions the Čortaoris of the hierophant and
daduchus of the Eleusinian mysteries (Lexiph.
10); and in the Chalcedonian inscription already
quoted the word &v6eoris = &vá6eoris indicates
some kind of dedication of the priest; either
an inauguration only, as Dittenberger thinks
(p. 524 note), or a dedication to the god of the
kind by which slaves at Delphi and elsewhere
were made over to the service of the temple
(Herbrecht, op. cit. p. 33). Whatever was the
ceremony at Chalcedon, it is at least significant
that the word &vari0éval is habitually used of
dedicating objects by way of gift in the temples,
and the inference would seem to be that the
priest himself was reckoned as the property of
the god ; a notion which falls in sufficiently
well with the other facts which have been
already mentioned in the foregoing account.
PRIESTs AT ROME.—An account of the several
Roman priesthoods will be found in the articles
on PONTIFICEs, AUGURES, FLAMINES, &c.; it will
be sufficient here to give a brief outline of the
history of the Roman priesthood generally, in
order to compare it with the Greek sacerdotal
system. In the earliest times it is probable
that the Roman idea of a priest and his duties
differed but little from that of the Greeks; he
was assigned to the worship of a particular god
and exercised no direct political influence.
The general name for such priests was flamen
(i.e. kindler of sacrificial fire), and they con-
tinued in existence with gradually decaying
importance to the latest times. But their
influence was steadily overshadowed by that of
those great colleges which we always associate
with religious government in Roman antiquity,
especially the pontifices and augurs; and thus a
new element was introduced which is quite
foreign to anything we have met with in Greece.
It is a curious fact that at the very time (the
end of the monarchy and first age of the
Republic) when Rome was becoming penetrated
by Greek religious ideas, the simple and un-
political priestly system which survived in
Greece was giving way to a new development
which was distinctly Roman and political. It
is the history of this change which we must be
content to trace here.
Period of the Monarchy.—Every Roman was
the priest of his own household [SACRA], and
every action of the household had its reli-
gious aspect. In the state we see the same
leading feature, that the rex was priest for
the whole people. This is sufficiently proved
(1) by the appointment of the rex sacrorum
when the monarchy came to an end, in order to
keep up the virtue of certain sacrifices which
had been performed by the king; (2) by the
position of the pontifex maximus from the outset
of the Republic: his office was in the king's
house [REGIA], the flamens and vestals were in
his patria potestas, and it was he who succeeded
the rex in most of his religious functions.
To maintain, then, the full rights of the god as
against the state, i.e. to fulfil in the minutest
detail the state's duties towards the gods, was a
most important part of the king's sphere of
action; and here we get at once the germ of the
whole Roman conception of a public cult, which
was maintained consistently throughout Roman
history. The gods are always in direct relation
to the state and to its magistrates. They are
regarded as interested in the state as a state,
and as calling for the fulfilment of duty from
the state in the person of its appointed rulers.
(This point may be illustrated by reference to
the significant fact that the property belonging
to the temples was not managed by the priests,
but by the magistrates. See Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii.” 1, 60 foll.)
In the earliest form of the state the king and
his household may have sufficed for the perform-
ance of these duties. His unmarried daughters
were the vestals who attended to the sacred fire
of the state in the king's house (Frazer, Journal
of Philology, vol. xiv. 154 foll.); and the origin of
flamines may be traced to the king's sons, whose
duties were to kindle the sacrificial fire for the
worship of particular deities, e.g. Jupiter, Mars,
Quirinus, &c. Such at least is a fair inference
from the fact that, as was mentioned above, both
flamens and vestals were in the patria potestas of
the rex, as afterwards of the pontifex maximus.
This was the earliest form of state worship so
far as we can guess it; for further details as
to the religious duties of the king, see REX.
It is obvious that as the state increased in size
and began to come into collision with its neigh-
bours, i.e. as the judicial and military duties of
the king grew more complex, he would find it.
more difficult to fulfil with the necessary
precision the state's duties towards the gods.
Thus already in the regal period we hear of the
introduction, generally ascribed to Numa by
the Romans themselves, of certain colleges of
priests besides the vestals and flamens. Dio-
nysius (ii. 64, 70 foll.) mentions the AUGURES,
PostIFICEs, SALII, FETIALES, and TRIBUNI
CELERUM, to which may certainly be added
the FRATRES ARVALEs and SODALESTITII. He
also mentions the thirty curiones or priests of
the Curiae (see CURIA and SACRA), but these
were not state priests in the strict sense of the
word.
None of these priesthoods, however, had any
great influence on Roman history, or contributed
to the great change in the religious system
which took place in the period of the Republic.
In order to understand this, we must turn to
the Pontifices and the Augurs.
It is not possible to determine with certainty
what part was played by these two colleges
under the monarchy, or to what extent they
were, strictly speaking, Sacerdotes at all (Momm-
sen, Hist. i. 177). They may have formed bodies
of advisers of the king on religious matters of
importance; and the king was probably at the
head of each of them, and chose them himself
from the patrician gentes, to which all priest-
hoods then and for long afterwards were
confined (Marquardt, iii.” 240 foll. ; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii.” 24 foll.). The Augurs, we may
presume, advised the king, or acted for him
574 SACERDOS
SACERDOS,
in all the minute lore of the old Italian ritual of
dedication and inauguration [see TEMPLUM and
AUSPICIA]; the Pontifices, in all matters of the
jus divinum, i.e. of the laws of marriage, burial,
portents, and general religious supervision
(Liv. i. 20). For detailed information about
these colleges, references may be made to the
separate articles. It is easy to see how with
the rapid development of the state under the
last two kings, and with the admission of the
Plebs to a voice in the government, the increase
of territory and the consequent admission of new
cults, the administration both of the auspicia
and the jus divinum must have tended to pass
more and more from the king into the hands of
these experts. And it is in this way that we
must explain their rapid rise to power when
the Republic came to an end.
Period of the Republic.—Three great, though
gradual, changes are to be noted in this period.
The first of these is the natural development of
the influence of the Pontifices and Augurs, which
was already on the increase towards the close of
the Monarchical period, and the corresponding
decay of the purely sacrificial priesthoods. So
long as the king was the centre of all state
religion, appointing and controlling the priests,
and being himself of their number, it had been
impossible for them to acquire any overpowering
political influence; but when the state came to
be governed by yearly elected magistrates, who
could not be specially trained in religious law
or lore, a great opportunity was offered to the
experts both in the jus divinum and in the ritus
auspiciorum, of which full advantage was taken.
The Pontifices became the advisers of the
republican magistrates on all technical matters
relating to religious law, and thus gained a
permanent hold on the state machinery as well
as on the private life of individuals.
Secondly, we have to note the rise to power
in this period of a third great priesthood,
already instituted by the last king, which
henceforth ranked with the Pontifices and
Augurs as one of the three great religious
collegia, the decemviri (at first duoviri, later
quindecimviri) sacris faciundis. [See DECEMVIRI,
Vol. I. p. 601 ; SIBYLLINI LIBRI.]
Thirdly, the decay of the older priesthoods in
this period is hardly less striking than the
gradual development of the power of the three
great colleges. So long as the Romans retained
something of their native religious feeling, these
priesthoods no doubt kept a certain hold on the
popular mind; but as new forms of religion
came in, as the pontifical theology adapted
itself to them, and as Rome advanced in con-
quest and the absorption of foreigners, they
were left, as it were, stranded, and void of
meaning. Towards the close of the Republic
they began to disappear altogether, and we have
the singular historical phenomenon of obsolete
curiosities like the Flamen Dialis and the
Fratres Arvales being restored at the beginning
of the Empire, when once more the general
supervision of the state religion was concen-
trated in the hands of a monarch. One only of
these priesthoods retained its life and prestige
almost undiminished throughout the whole of
Roman history—that of the Vestal virgins; a
fact that can be explained partly by its feminine
character, which kept it out of all competition
for political influence, and still more by the
nature of the worship of Westa as the religious
focus of the state-life, and the legends which in
the popular fancy connected it with the founda-
tion of the city.
There were other changes of a more technical,
character in this period, besides those which
immediately affected the relative importance of
the several priesthoods. While the offices of
Rex sacrorum and the older sacrificial priest-
hoods were always confined to patricians, the
three great collegia were in course of time
thrown open to plebeians also. With the gradual
equalisation of the orders, it was found that
those had grown too politically important to
escape the plebeianising of the secular magis-
tracy. The democratic changes first in the
number of members in these collegia and the
admission of plebeians, and secondly in substitut-
ing election for the more exclusive cooptation,
have been detailed in the articles AUGUR,
DECEMVIRI, and PontiFEx. Thus the great
Roman priesthoods were in this period, steadily
carried along by the full force of the political
current to which they owed their power, while
the more antiquated ones left the centre of the
stream and were gradually stranded. And thus
also it came about that the Roman religion and
its ministers, though having to deal with
matters so technical and a sacred law so minute
as apparently to offer every chance for the
growth of a powerful priestly caste, never
became dissociated from the state, or from the
public life and interests of the individual
citizen ; and Cicero could boast with truth that
there was no grander principle in the constitu-
tion than that which placed the best men in
the state at the head at once of the religious
system and of the political machinery (de Dom.
1, 1). And this in spite of the fact that the
priesthood and the magistracy were as such
entirely dissociated from each other in Roman
constitutional law ; no priest having by virtue
of his office any direct hold upon the state-
machinery, and no magistrate having any part
in the state's religious functions (Mommsen,
op. cit. pp. 17 foll.). This was the republican
theory; and though towards the end of that
period there were signs of its collapse (as in
the details of the new system of election), it
maintained itself on the whole until further
great changes took place on the establishment
of the Empire.
(For the relation of the haruspices to the
priesthoods during the Republic, see Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii. 410; they were not properly a
priesthood, and are here omitted from consider-
ation. For what little is known of the mu-
nicipal priesthoods of Italy in this period, see .
the same work, pp. 475 foll.)
Period of the Empire.—The history of the
priesthood under the Empire is a subject of
great difficulty, and as yet imperfectly investi-
gated. It must suffice here to give a brief
outline, which may partly be filled up from the
works of Mommsen and Marquardt already
quoted, Henzen’s Acta Fratrum Arvalium, and
especially from a tract by P. Habel, de ponti-
ficum Romanorum inde ab Augusto usque ad
Aurelianum condicione publica. Popular ac-
counts of particular aspects will be found in
Boissier, Religion Romaine, vol. i., and Fried-
SACERDOS
SACERDOS 575
länder, Sittengeschichte, vol. iii. Cp. also
Bouché-Leclercq, Les Pontifes. But no work
can be done in this period without constant
reference to the Corpus Inscriptionum, and the
best works on coins of the period.
The subject falls into three divisions: 1. The
union of the existing priesthoods in the person of
the emperor; 2. The new priesthoods connected
in Italy and the provinces with the worship of
the emperors; 3. The priesthoods of the foreign
worships introduced in the period.
1. Julius Caesar was already pont. max. when
he attained to supreme power. Augustus
waited until the death of Lepidus, who had
succeeded Julius, and was not elected till B.C. 11
(Mon. Ancyr. ed. Mommsen, p. 28). From that
time onwards the office was not only an invariable
accompaniment of the imperium, but was reckoned
at the head of all the other offices (Mommsen,
Staatsr, ii. 19), and in the title followed the
cognomina immediately. With this the emperor
also held the augurship, and was a member of
the other two great collegia of the quindecimviri
and the epulones (Marquardt, 222); and the same
policy was pursued, in a greater or less degree
according to the standing of the individual,
with regard to his sons or other male relatives
(Habel, Caesares, p. 60 f.). In his hands also,
directly or indirectly, was the power of filling
up vacant places in these colleges (Dio Cass.
xlii. 51); and thus it may be said without
exaggeration that the days of the early monarchy
had returned, and that the union of the secular
and religious powers in the state was complete.
It must, however, be remembered that these
great priesthoods had by this time done their
work, and that we rarely find instances of their
being put by their imperial holders to any
important practical use. They served to
increase the dignitas rather than the potestas
of the emperor, who was seldom present at
meetings of the collegia, and the actual work,
such as it was, was probably done by substitutes
(promagistri, Habel, 90). Even in the case of
the supreme pontificate, which alone might be
regarded as exercising a great influence over the
life of Roman citizens so long as questions of
adoption, sepulture, &c., could arise, it is hard
to prove this influence by actual examples (see,
however, Tac. Ann. iv. 16, vi. 12; Plin. Epp.
ad Traj. 68). We must in fact regard them
as little more than useful ornaments; but as
ornaments which increased their prestige, and
carried it into the remotest parts of the Em-
pire. In the same way the right of filling
up the collegia became a powerful source of
patronage, and served to secure the goodwill
and allegiance of important personages and
their families, without giving them burdensome
duties. (Agricola, e.g., was many years absent
from Rome after his appointment to the ponti-
ficate: Tac. Agr. 9.) Thus it was an object of
ambition to secure one of these priesthoods, and
we have the evidence, both of historians and
inscriptions, that they were valued at a higher
rate even than magistracies (Habel, 88, and reff.).
Thus the greater priesthoods of the Republic
were absorbed into the personal equipment and
patronage of the emperors, and so continued,
gradually losing more and more of their
original use and meaning, until Christianity
became the state religion. Meanwhile the
more antique priesthoods, which we left in a
state of decay at the end of the republican
period—the Rex Sacrorum, Flamines, Fratres
Arvales, Salii, Sodales Titii, &c. [see under the
separate articles]—had been revived indeed by
Augustus, according to his policy of renovating
and completing the religious outfit of the state,
and thus satisfying the popular feeling for a
better service of the gods; but in most cases
they survived, not so much by pursuing their
original ritual as by transformiug it to suit the
worship of their patrons (Marquardt, iii. 438),
and may thus be better noticed under the next
heading.
2. The most striking feature of the religious
history of the Empire, viz. the deification of the
emperor, naturally produced new priesthoods,
the importance of which, both in regard to
society in the capital and organisation in the
provinces, forms a complete study in itself, and
can only be very briefly alluded to here. In
Rome and Italy, it was the policy of Augustus to
discourage his own worship (Suet. Oct. 52; Dio
Cass. lii. 35); but inscriptions show that in
spite of this there was an unauthorised cult of
him even in his lifetime in several Italian cities,
presided over by flamines or Sacerdotes (flamen
being the general word in use in municipia),
e.g. in Pisa, Praeneste, Pompeii, Beneventum
(Marquardt, iii. 465, note 1). Later on this
cult was organised in all the municipia of Italy,
in conjunction with that of other emperors,
and was maintained by flamines together
with Augustales, a kind of sacred guild be-
longing chiefly to the inferior classes, but
invested apparently with a certain priestly
character (C. I. L. v. 3386; AUGUSTALES).
After the death of Augustus, Tiberius pursued
the policy of declining divine honours for
himself, while on the whole he encouraged the
worship of his predecessor; and in the first
year of his reign (A.D. 14) was established the
famous priesthood which was specially intended
in Italy to maintain the cult of Augustus
[AUGUSTALEs], which reckoned thenceforward
as one of the great priesthoods, and received as
its symbol the bucranium, answering to the
simpulum of the pontifices, the patera of the
epulones, &c. In its sphere was included the
worship of Claudius, the next emperor who was
deified, and then we hear of Sodales Augustales
Claudiales; later on again of a new priesthood
on the same model for the worship of Vespasian,
and afterwards of Titus (Sodales Flaviales
Titiales), and so also with that of Hadrian and
Antoninus Pius, so that the number of these
priesthoods became eventually four, the last
established serving for the cult of later emperors
(Marquardt, iii. 479 foll. ; Dessau in Eph. Epigr.
iii. 205 f.; Desjardins, in Revue de Philologie, iii.
33 f.). Thus, even in Rome and Italy, not only
did the emperors absorb into their own persons
and families the dignity and prestige of the
great existing priesthoods, but they enjoyed the
advantage arising from an organised priestly
worship of their predecessors, with the anticipa-
tion of the same honour for themselves afterdeath.
And, with the same object as was mentioned
under the last head, the ancient sacrificial
priesthoods revived by Augustus were made to
contribute, so that throughout the whole range
of priestly functions the new political system
576 SACER DOS
SACERDOS
and the new turn given to religion were alike
everywhere present. Thus the name of Augustus
was included in the Saliare Carmen used by the
Salii (Mon. Ancyr. p. 27), and this honour
was also paid to several later emperors and
members of the imperial families. The LUPERCI
had a new collegium gentilicium added to them
in B.C. 44, that of the Luperci Julii, which con-
tinued far into the Empire. The Sodales Titii
numbered Augustus and Claudius among their
members, and were under obligations to Wes-
pasian (Marquardt, 447). But it is from the
fortunate discovery of the inscriptions of the
Arval Brotherhood that we gain far the most
insight into the way in which all kinds of
religious ceremony were pressed into the service
of the Empire; and a study of Henzen’s Acta
Fratrum Arvalium is perhaps the best intro-
duction to a study of the new system [see
ARVALES FRATRES]. Thus the odour of sanctity
adhering to the oldest rural priesthood of the
primitive Romans was made to contribute to the
lustre of the latest imperial system, even down
to the time of Constantine and his sons, and
after Christianity had become the recognised
religion of the Empire (Marquardt, 462).
In the provinces the priesthoods of the new
worship came to be of very great importance.
It was here the policy of Augustus to associate
his own cultus with that of Dea Roma ; and
this conjunction was steadily retained and
systematised, and is to be carefully distinguished
from all other forms of the apotheosis which
made their way into the provinces. (See Des-
jardins, in Rev. de Philol. 1879, pp. 42, 63.)
In almost every province we find a sacerdos
(or flamen) Romae et Augusti provinciae ; the
priestly title is found in numberless inscriptions
under various forms, both in Latin and Greek
(àpxtepets), and occurs in a shortened form as
simply sacerdos provinciae. This great priest
was elected yearly (in most provinces, but for
Asia see W. M. Ramsay in Classical Review,
vol. iii. p. 175) by the general meeting of
representatives from the various cities of the
province (communia, concilia, koud), from per-
sons of consideration among the provincials, and
was charged with important duties, such as the
collection and management of the funds for the
temples of the cult, the presidency of the games,
and also of the assemblies of legati just men-
tioned [NEOCORI]. Of this assembly he was
also the immediate representative in all com-
munications with the emperor, and was thus
independent even of the provincial governor.
His importance in the development of the
imperial system can hardly be over-estimated.
(Desjardins, l.c.; P. Giraud, Les Assemblées Pro-
vinciales, Paris, 1888; Marquardt, Staatsv.
i. 366; Ephem. Epigr. i. 200 f.)
The cities of the provinces, as well as the
communia or colvd, possessed priests of the wor-
ship of Rome and Augustus: this was at least
the case in the African provinces, where they
constantly occur in inscriptions under the titles
of “flamen Augusti,” “flamen Augusti per-
petuus,” or “flamen "simply. As these appear
to have been elected yearly, it is probable that
the epithet “perpetuus ” indicated an honorary
rank conferred in some cases on the holder.
Flaminicae also occur, as in the worship of the
Divi in Italy. The word sacerdos is also found
in these inscriptions, but it is uncertain whether
these were identical with the flamines. These
municipal priesthoods may be considered as a
subordinate part of the main provincial organisa-
tion of the worship of Rome and the emperors,
and distinct from that of the Divi, which is
found in the provinces also (Desjardins, op.cit.
55 f.; FLAMEN).
In the 4th century A.D., after the establish-
ment of Christianity by the state, these titles,
under the forms of sacerdotales and flamines
perpetui, constantly occur, though their original
meaning had vanished; and it is supposed that
they indicated some dignity or honorary rank
in the Ordo or Senate of a municipium (Des-
jardins, l.c.); i.e. they are no more than the
civil survival of a once living religious organisa-
tion. It was in fact in the first three centuries
of the Empire that these priesthoods were work-
ing realities in the imperial system; and both
the nature of the cult and of their duties would
enable them easily either to survive as non-
religious titles or to disappear entirely. But
the process by which these changes were effected
is not yet fully investigated.
3. Some reference must be made here, in
general terms, to the priests of the foreign wor-
ships which found their way to Rome and Italy
in the first three centuries of the Empire. In
a priesthood are usually found expressed the
leading characteristics of a religion, as we have
already seen both in Greece and Italy; and the
success of a new form of priesthood indicates
the presence of a new type of religious feeling.
The Roman world, now become cosmopolitan,
had outgrown the narrow formulae of the
native religion, and the Roman priesthood had
become first political, then imperial, in its cha-
racter. Ever since the attempted introduction
of the Bacchic rites in the 2nd century B.C., it
had been obvious that there was a growing
desire in Italy for some more emotional form of
worship, which that priesthood could not supply,
and which could not be satisfied even with the
continuous invasion of Greek rites under the
influence of the Sibylline books and their keepers.
The Roman priests had little or no desire or
opportunity of inculcating virtue; the notions
of sin, penitence, regeneration, brotherhood, were
wholly foreign to their worship, or at best were
present there in a fossilised form, and had refer-
ence to the state rather than the individual.
These were exactly the ideas which ruled in
the Oriental forms of religion which the Romans
met with as their empire extended itself in the
East; and these, transported to Italy and even
further west, found there a congenial soil. It
is the tendency of all such worships to magnify
the influence and mystic power of the priest-
hood ; and thus the last type of priest which
we find in the ancient world before the final
victory of Christianity was, in its relations with
individuals, the most powerful and efficacious of
all the series. So much was this the case, that
the priestly defenders of the old religion against
Christianity frequently found it politic to
clothe themselves also with the attributes of
one of these more effective priesthoods (Boissier,
Religion Romaine, i. 445).
Among these may be mentioned—1. The priests
of Cybele or the Magna Mater, whose worship
was introduced as early as 208 B.C., but did
SACRA
SACRA 577
not take its most emotional form till the
period we are now dealing with [see MEGALESIA].
Qf the same character were the famous TAURO-
BoLIA, where the priest (taurobolus) underwent
a baptism in the blood of the victim, the virtue
of which he then communicated to others.
2. Another cult in which the priestly power
was great was that of the Cappadocian Bellona,
who even in republican times had usurped the
place and name of an old Italian goddess. The
priests and priestesses of this deity walked the
city robed in black (Mart. xii. 57), wounding
themselves as a sacrificial act: “ipsi sacerdotes
non alieno sed suo cruore sacrificant” (Lact. Inst.
i. 21, 16; cf. Tibull. i. 6,45).
3. But the most striking of all these priest-
hoods was that of Isis and other Egyptian deities,
especially noticeable for the important share
obtained in it by women (one of the characteris-
tic features of the religion of the age); for the
licence practised in its rites, as described by
Juvenal (vi. 522 foll); and on the other hand
for the asceticism it preached, and its doctrines
of conviction of sin and the necessity of purifica-
tion and atonement. There can hardly be a doubt
that these priests really believed their initiations
and fastings to have a real power of bringing the
worshipper nearer to a knowledge of the divine
nature, and of leading him “ad portum quietis
et aram misericordiae” (Apul. Met. xi. 15); and
it is only thus that the marvellous spread of this
cult even to the western provinces of the Em-
pire can be accounted for (see Marquardt, iii. 77 ;
Boissier, R. R. i. 398,418). The same tendencies
are also seen in the cults of Jupiter of Heliopolis,
and especially in that of the Persian sun-god
Mithras, so famous in the third and fourth
centuries of the Empire. In all the priests are
all-powerful and all-persuasive; working, pri-
vately and independently of the state; having a
definite yet mystic doctrine to preach, and
preaching it to all comers without respect of
persons; and lastly with a graduated process of
initiation, amounting to a veritable discipline.
As all these features were almost wholly absent
from the Roman notion of a priesthood, there
arose by degrees and spread over the whole
Empire an entirely new idea of the priestly office
and its duties; and this, eventually coinciding
with the old Roman idea of a state religion,
pointed out earlier in this article, paved the way
for an official recognition in the fourth century of
an organised Christian hierarchy. [W. W. F.]
SACRA (the plural of sacrum=anything
dedicated to the gods) is the general Roman
term for worship, including the ritual observed
in it, the utensils used in it (Ov. Am. iii. 13328),
and even the documents which preserved the
memory of the ritualistic usages prescribed for
it (cf. e.g. Cic. de Legibus, ii. 8, 19 and 20 ;
Varro, L. L. v. 50, “in sacris Argeorum scrip-
tum est sic”).
Roman writers distinguish two kinds of
sacra within their own state, viz. Sacra publica
and sacra privata. As the limits of the state
became extended, many foreign worships were
introduced into Rome, while the inhabitants of
municipia retained their own sacra under
Roman protection (Festus, s. v.v., peregrina sacra
and municipalia sacra); but as all these were in-
cluded in the sacra publica, the rapid growth of
the Empire and the social changes accompanying
VOL. II.
it did not affect the validity of the main dis-
tinction, which may be recognised as holding
good for all periods of Roman religious his-
tory. It may be succinctly explained in the
words of Festus (p. 245 a), which were probably
themselves drawn by Verrius Flaccus from the
books of the pontifices: “Publica sacra quae
publico sumptu pro populo, fiunt, quaeque pro
montibus, pagis, curiis, sacellis. At privata quae
pro singulis hominibus, familiis, gentibus fiunt.”
From this definition it seems probable that
under the head of public worship were reckoned
all rites undertaken by the state as a collective
whole, or by such divisions of the state as
worshipped collectively (Marquardt, Staatsver-
waltung, iii.” 120, note 1 and reff); while private
worship was understood as including all other
rites, whether on behalf of individuals, house-
holds, or even gentes. The sacra gentilicia have
indeed by some been considered to belong to the
public worship (Savigny, Vermischte Schriften, i.
p. 173 foll. ; but cf. p. 203, where this view is
retracted); but the worship of the gens must
undoubtedly be taken as analogous to that of
the familia (Liv. v. 52, 4), as in neither case
was there any rite in which the whole number
of familiae or gentes took part at one and the
same time. It will be sufficient to give some
illustrations of the nature of the rites included
under the two main divisions, following the
indications afforded by the passage of Festus
quoted above. We begin with the sacra privata,
as first in time, though not in importance.
SACRA PRIVATA.—Festus distinguishes three
kinds: pro singulis hominibus, pro familiis, and
pro gentibus.
1. Pro singulis hominibus.-It is by no means
clear what rites are to be reckoned under this
category. All sacra solennia would naturally in
early times have as their object the welfare, not
of the individual, but of some organic group of
individuals. Of prayers and sacrifices however,
performed by an individual for his own benefit,
we have examples (e.g. in Verg. Aen. vi. 51, viii.
71; Plin. H. N. xxviii. § 10; cf. Arnobius, adv.
Nat. iii. 43); but these as a rule refer to worship
in the field or under peculiar circumstances, in
which the individual was temporarily separated
from his family, gens, or state, and the remark-
able prayer of Scipio in Liv. xxix. 26 is of this
kind; yet it is to be noticed that he is here
representing not only himself, but his army and
the whole Roman people. With prayers are
constantly associated vota, as in Aen. vi. 56–75:
these are more natural to the individual, and
may be illustrated abundantly by the votive
tablets of the later Roman age (see Wilmanns,
Exempla Inscr. Lat, vol. ii. p. 498 foll.).
2. Pro familiis.-Each family was a religious
unit of which the paterfamilias was the priest,
and the special gods were the Lares (or more
properly the singular Lar) and the Penates; the
former probably representing the primeval an-
cestor of the family, and the latter being the
protecting deities of the penus or store-room of
the household. To these daily invocations were
offered and also libations at meals; and on all
feriae privatae, such as the anniversaries of births,
the kalends, nones, and ides, and on the Saturnalia,
their images were adorned with garlands. The
family also had its festivals of mourning, such as
the Caristia and the Parentalia in **,
P
578. SACRA
SACRA .
when the tombs of deceased members were visited
and certain rites performed there. Lastly, for
the benefit of the family and its property, the
greater gods were invoked, as may be seen in the
form of domestic field lustration preserved in
Cato (de Re Rustica, 141), where Janus, Jupiter,
and Mars, especially the latter, are besought
to protect the crops and herds.
All sacra pro familiis were imperishable
except by the extinction of the family: hence
in Roman law the inheritance of a dead man’s
property involved the acceptance of his sacra,
and the phrase hereditas sine sacris became a
proverb for extraordinary good luck. Accurate
rules were supplied in the jus pontificium for the
devolution of the sacra to heirs of various
degrees under various circumstances (see Cic.
de Legibus, ii. 19–21; Savigny, op. cit. p. 153
foll.). The general principle of their succession
is thus stated by Cicero (Legg. ii. 19): “De
sacris autem. . . . . haec sit una sententia, ut
conserventur semper et deinceps familiis pro-
dantur, et, ut in lege posui, perpetua sint sacra.”
3. Pro gentibus. – Though familia and gens
are words loosely used and often interchanged
in Roman literature (cf. Marquardt, Staatsverw.
vol. iii. ed. 2, p. 130), it is not difficult to distin-
guish the sacra gentilicia from those of the
family. . They belonged, however, only to patri-
cian gentes (Liv. x. 8, 9), which were the ,
only groups properly so called; and as these
gradually died out, their sacra disappeared with
them. . Thus Gaius (iii. 17) writes of the whole
jus gentilicium as obsolete in his day. But
there is little doubt that in early times each
gens had its own particular place and day for
the performance of its sacra : e.g. the gens
Fabia had a fixed day for a sacrifice on the
Quirinal, which was performed by a leading.
member of the gens (possibly called flamen) in
cinctu gabino (Liv. v. 46, xxii. 18; Dion. Hal.
9, 19; Cic. Harusp. Resp. 15, 32). Each gens
originally no doubt had also a common burial-
place (Cic. de Legibus, ii. 22, 55; Offic. i. 17,
55; de Domo, 13, 35). It should be added
that certain gentes had special worships in
their charge (“sacra certis familiis attributa”;
Festus, p. 253, where familiis is used for gen-
tibus): thus the gens Nautia had the care of
the sacrae Minervae, the Potitii and Pinarii of
those of Hercules, the gens Julia of that of
Apollo; but these worships were rather of a
public than a private character, i.e. they were
state worships entrusted to a particular gens
(Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. 19). All sacra pri-
vata, it should be noticed, were under the super-
vision of the pontifices, who were the sole
referees in all questions arising out of the jus
familiare and the jus gentilicium (Cic. de
Legibus, ii. 12, 30). See GENs.
SACRA PUBLIGA.—In the passage of Festus
already quoted these are defined as “ quae pub-
lice sumptu pro populo fiunt, quaeque pro
montibus, pagis, curiis, sacellis.” In this
definition we see a twofold division: i.e. into 1.
The public festivals of the calendar, conducted
on behalf of the state by its priestly colleges;
and 2. Those in which the local communities.
which had at one time formed, divisions of the
city took part as a collective. whole, though
worshipping independently of each other. . In
each case it should be noted.that the rites thus
called sacra publica are distinguished from
Sacra privata, in that they do not belong to
independent groups united by real or supposed
kinship, but to political divisions of the state or
to the state as a whole. º
1. Sacra pro populo.—Of these, which com-
prise the whole cycle of the religious festivals
of the year, with the exception of one or two to
be mentioned under the mext head, nothing
need be said here, and the student is referred to
the various articles which treat of them more
particularly. . Their distinctive features as
compared with the other division of Sacra pub-
lica are—1. That they were maintained at the
expense of the state (publico sumptu). 2. That
they were conducted in the earliest times by
the rex or by the ministers of religion who
acted for him, and in later times by the rex
sacrificulus, the flamines, or by one or other of
the four principal religious colleges.
2. Sacra popularia (Festus, ii. 5, 3).-These,
as we have seen, are described by Festus as
being “pro montibus, pagis, curiis, sacellis.” A
brief account may be here given of the sacra
belonging to each of these divisions, so far as
their nature can be ascertained.
a. Pro montibus. – One of the ancient and .
obscure local divisions of the early state was
that into Montes and Pagi, i.e. the dwellers in
the original seven hill settlements on the Pala-
tine and Esquiline, and the dwellers in the open
country belonging to the state (Cic. de Domo,
28, 74; Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 112 f.). The
common festival of the former was called Sep-
timontium, or Septimontiale sacrum (Suet.
Domit. 4), and appears in the ancient calendars
as Agonalia; it took place on Dec. 11 (C. I. L.
vol. i. 407). Of the sacrum itself we only
know that the flamen Palatualis made an offering
on this day, doubtless to Pales, on the Palatine
hill ; and according to Plutarch, Quaest. Rom.
69, that no vehicles were allowed to be used in
the old city during the festival,—a survival
which is doubtless explained by reference to the
crowded and narrow alleys of the town as com-
pared with the open character of the pagi. As
festivals of the Montani may perhaps be reckoned
also the Laralia or feast of the Lares compitales
(cf. LARES) and the Parilia of April 21, the
festival of the foundation of the Palatine city:
cf. Festus, p. 253.
b. Pro pagis.-These, as might be expected,
are of an agricultural character; but it should
be noted that what we know of sacra paganalia
is derived not from the accounts of the ancient
Roman pagi, but from information as to the
Italian pagi of later times. To the sacra of
these belong the Sementivae, varying in date
according to the season (Ovid, Fasti, i. 657 f.);
the Ambarvalia, at the end of May, otherwise
called Lustratio pagi (cf. AMBARVALIA and LUS-
TRATIO); and the Terminalia or feast of boun-
daries, at the end of the year (Feb. 23). There
can be little doubt that these festivals or their
equivalents were among the sacra of the ancient
Roman pagi, and were presided over as in Italy
generally by a magister pagi, together with his
wife the magistra pagi (cf. Marquardt, Staats-
verw. iii. 198). f
3. Pro curiis-For the two festivals which
specially belong to the Curiae, see articles
FORDICIDIA and FORNACALIA.
SACRAMENTUM
SACRIFICIUM 579.
4. Pro sacellis [see ARGEI].—These sacella
can hardly be other than the sacella or sacraria
argeorum, which were probably twenty-four or
twenty-seven chapels or shrines situated at
various points in the four Servian regions of
the city.
That these sacella were the centres of
ancient divisions of the city, possibly for re-
ligious purposes, is highly probable ; all we
know of them is in the form of citations by
Varro (L. L. bk. v. 45 foll.) from the “Sacra
Argeorum,” which was apparently a proces-
sional itinerary, and probably also a rule of
ritual performance. What was done at the
sacella we do not know ; a procession seems to
have gone round them on March 16 and 17;
but it, had become so obscure by Ovid's time
that he could dispose of it in his Fasti in two
lines, leaving it somewhat uncertain whether it
took place on one day or two. Nor can we be
at all sure as to the relation of these rites to the
better known Argean procession of May 15.
(See ARGEI; and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii.
122 foll. ; Jordan, Topographie der Stadt Rom,
ii. 237 foll.) [W. W. F.]
SACRAMENTUM. [Jusy URANDUM ; WIN-
DICIAE.] -
SACRA'RIUM was, according to the defini-
tion of Ulpian (Dig. 1, 8, 9, § 1 ; cf. Serv, ad
Aen. xii. 199), a place in which sacred things
were deposited and kept, whether this place
was a part of a temple or of a private house.
(Cf. Cic. Verr. iv. 3, 5; ad Fam. xiii. 2; Suet.
Tib. 51.) In a temple it was probably, as Mar-
quardt thinks, directly behind the wall of the
cella, and only the priests could enter it (Staats-
verwaltung, iii. 168). Thus in the sacrarium of
the Capitoline temple the thensa Jovis Opt. Maa.
was kept (Suet. Vesp. 5); the hastae Martis in
the sacrarium. of the REGIA ; the lituus of
Romulus and the ancilia (probably) in the
sacrarium Martis or curia Saliorum on the
Palatine [SALII]. Sacrifices also were offered in
the sacrarium of Ops Consiva (in the Regia), but
they were not open to the public, since into
this as into other sacraria those only could
enter who held a sacred office. We may perhaps
attach a similar significance to the fact that
Varro (L. L. v. 45) calls the twenty-four
chapels of the Argei sacraria, not sacella. They
were chapels covered in from the public gaze,
in which the sacred figures were kept, and into
which in the processions ad Argeos the priests
alone entered. Livy (i. 21) gives the same
name to a shrine of Fides, to which it appears
that he in his priestly office and the flamines
alone had access: Tacitus alone uses it of the
shrine in which an image was kept for the cult of
Augustus at Bovillae (cf. Stat. Silv. v. 1, 240).
Respecting the sacrarium or lararium of private
houses, see LARARIUM. . [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
SACRIFICIUM (9uata)=that largest part
of ancient worship which usually consists in pre-
senting to a deity some object on which human
life is supported, or even human life itself.
Both the Greek and Latin words exclude the
idea of the presentation of gifts in the shape of
inanimate objects, however valuable; the reason
for this probably being, as we shall see, that
there is in this latter case no notion of com-
munion between the god and the giver, as in
the case of the gift of a meal. It will serve,
however, to clear the ground, if we briefly
indicate the nature of these inanimate votive
offerings. Such were, e.g., the treasures of all
kinds deposited in Greek temples, and including
especially the objects of art so frequently
described by Pausanias. These are mentioned
in Homer (Od. xii. 347), and are found through-
out Greek history, though it should be observed
that by a natural process, as temples became
treasures of a state, they lost their character as
the property of the god, and became rather
(except in the temples common to all Hellas,
e.g. at Olympia and Delphi) the property of the
state under the god's guardianship. So too, at
Rome, the word sacrum = “quidquid est quod
deorum habetur” (Macr. iii. 3, 2), and sacri-
ficium in its widest sense meant the dedication
of such objects as altar, statues, land, money,
utensils, the bodies of criminals, &c.; but the
word generally used for this is consecratio.
In the same category may be reckoned the
dedication of human beings to the service of a
god, as at Delphi and Delos (Sir C. Newton,
Essays, p. 165), or of models of parts of the
human body in which disease has been cured
(C. I. G. 497, foll. 2439, 6332); of coins
dropped into wells by convalescent persons, or
to procure rain (Paus. i. 34, 3; cf. Tylor,
Primitive Culture, ii. 195); of children's hair
(reff. in Hermann, Griech. Alt. ii. 143; cf.
Tylor, ii. 364, who suggests that this is a form
of substitution, like the models of limbs). Here
too may perhaps be mentioned the Athenian
Eiresione and the Šoxoi (vine-branches) of the
.OSCHOPHORIA, and lastly, though these approach
more nearly to the real nature of sacrifice, the
offerings of first-fruits and tithes, whether of
freewill or under compulsion as a fine (see
Hermann, Griech. Alt. ii. 142; C. J. A. 191,
482; Newton, 115). At Rome also the first-
fruits were probably offered in the oldest cults,
e.g. by the Vestals (Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.
169). All these various gifts are made the
property of the god under the primitive idea
that he, like kings, could be pleased and
appeased by attention, and that to ask him
for a favour without a gift was hopeless (Il.
ix. 493: orperrol Sé te kal 6sol airot). The
motive, therefore, underlying them is the same
as in the sacrifice proper; but the idea of
communion is not present in the case of such
gifts, and it is his which best differentiates
the true sacrifice from the votive offering.
Only in the case of piacular sacrifices, which
closely resemble the votive offerings, though
accompanied by the idea of purification or atone-
ment, does the idea of communion appear to be
absent.
Turning to sacrifices in the restricted sense of
the word, we find it difficult to arrange them
systematically, so as to give the student a clear
view at once of their various objects and details.
The old division into bloody and unbloody
sacrifices is clearly insufficient, since it leaves
the object out of view; and it should be noted
that in the last few years much progress has
been made towards a right understanding of the
inner meaning of sacrificial ritual. The best
plan is perhaps to follow in the main the
division adopted in the Encyclopaedia Britannică
by Professor Robertson Smith, as being itself
based on a wide acquaintance with º ritual
2 P
&
580 SACRIFICIUM
SACRIFIC[UM * 3
among a great variety of peoples, by which
alone the ritual of individual races can be
interpreted; and as being easily accessible to
English readers. We will therefore treat of
sacrificing, both in Greece and Italy, as—A.
Honorific, i.e. meant to please and do honour to
the gods, either by way of enforcing a petition,
or expressing gratitude (the Bitt- and Dank-
opfer of German writers). This class covers by
far the greater part of the field. B. Piacular
sacrifices, which contain the idea of expiation
and include most cases of human sacrifice
known to us in classical antiquity. C. Sacra-
mental or mystical sacrifices, which are, how-
ever, rare and obscure both in Greece and Italy.
An account of the ordinary features of the ritual
observed, especially in animal sacrifices, will be
reserved for the conclusion of the article.
A. Honorific Sacrifices.—These, whether their
object were petition or thanksgiving, were
originally regarded as a meal for the god in
which the worshippers shared, and therefore
included edibles only. (For general evidence
from a variety of races, see Tylor, op. cit. ch.
xviii.) That the older Greeks believed that
their gods did enjoy the meal is quite apparent
in Homer (Il. iv. 48, vii. 201; 0d. iii. 435,
#x0e 5’’A6%ivn ipóv &vrudwara), and is illustrated
in the vase-paintings by the presence of the
deity at the sacrifice. Even then, however, it
was rather the sweet savour or the pleasant
sight (as when the horns are gilt to please
Athene, Od. iii. 437) that they enjoyed, and the
savage idea that they actually devoured the food
was left to survive among the wholly rural
populations. (Cp., however, Od. vii. 201.) Ari-
stophanes, in the Paw, could still ridicule the
popular belief, which is seen in the offerings
to the dead in tombs, and in Italy also to
the Lares and Penates (cf. also Lucian, de
Sacrificiis, 14). But the notion of the com-
munion of god and man in the meal left very
distinct traces long after the actual belief had
faded; and from the Homeric age, where a
big feast and a sacrifice are almost synonymous
(e.g. in Od. iii. 1 foll.), down to the great city
festivals of later times, which supplied the
population with food at the expense of the state,
it is this firmly-rooted idea that governs the
whole character of the ritual.
Honorific sacrifices might be either occasional
or regularly recurring. In Homer, where the
undisturbed life of family or city is not repre-
sented, the sacrifices are occasional and with a
definite temporary object. Such too are found
in historical times, and at Athens were called
6vorſal karð iſ mºtoruara (Dem. de Cor. p. 301,
§ 2.17): they were often suggested by an oracle,
or sometimes were the result of a public vow,
as before Marathon (Plut. de Malign. Herod. 26).
At Rome the sacrifices at supplicationes would
belong to their class [SUPPLICATIO), and also
those ea voto and those which occurred in
family life on birthdays, at admission into the
phratria, at funerals, &c. But in Italy the
extraordinary sacrifices were most commonly
undertaken for the purpose of divination (hostiae
consultatoriae), according to the lore of the
Etruscan Haruspices [DIVINATIO). These are
also found in Greece, but far less frequently,
and it has been doubted whether the art was
native with the Greeks (Schömann, Alt. ii. 275;
Herm. ii. 241 foll.) or whether it can be traced
in Homer. The idea on which this peculiar
turn given to sacrifice appears to be based, is
that the god was thought to show his goodwill
in the victim: i.e. the perfection of the parts of
the animal was a sign of the god's satisfaction;
their imperfection, of his hostility—he refuses
the gift. The same idea is seen in the scrupulous
exactness, to be described later on, in the choice
of the victim for ordinary sacrifice, and in the
belief that it was a bad omen if it came un-
willingly to the altar.
Where honorific sacrifices are regular and
recurring on fixed days of the year, they indicate
a higher civilisation, and produce a regulated
calendar of city life, such as we are pretty fully
acquainted with at Athens and Rome; sacrifice
forming at all times the chief part of ancient
worship. This city sacrificial system is, how-
ever, itself developed out of the regular religious
life of the family and the gens. In the Roman
family, not only on certain days, e.g. on kalends
and ides, were sacrifices offered to Lares and
Penates, but at every meal some portion was
cast into the fire as an offering [LARARIUM),
and also at birth, marriage, and funerals. The
same was the case with the agricultural opera-
tions of the family and gens at certain seasons,
e.g. at the time of sowing, ploughing, and
harvest, and especially at the time, as at Rome
in May, when the crops were in danger and
needed special religious care (LUSTRATIO; Cato,
R. R. 141), and at the summer and winter
solstices. Thus the ancient sacrificial celebra-
tions corresponded generally with the seasons,
and have left their mark in this respect on the
modern Christian Calendar.
This regular sacrificial system had, we may
note, two results, which are important for the
religious history of antiquity:-1. The necessity
of a trained priesthood to carry on the tradition
of ritual. 2. The gradual destruction of the
simple and primitive ideas of sacrifice : the age
of formality sets in, and the formalism of the
cult gradually destroys its original meaning.
These honorific sacrifices consisted either of
drink offerings, incense offerings, or of animal and
vegetable food. The use of incense, or sweet-
smelling herbs, may have been a comparatively
late introduction; but of the rest, there is no
sufficient ground for supposing one to be older
than another, though some ancient authors, and
many modern ones, have imagined these animal
sacrifices to be of later date than the unbloody
(Plato, Legg. vi. 782 C; Ov. Fast. i. 337; Plin.
H. W. xviii. § 7; Plut. Num. 8; cf. Pauly,
Real. Encycl. vol. vi. p. 658). The question
would be one rather of the practice in each
locality, and would depend on the wealth, and
the nature of the wealth, in each ; e.g. in
Boeotia, Copaic eels were an article of sacrifice
(Athen. vii. p. 297), and Spartan poverty was in
some cases content with fowls (Plut. Inst. Lac.
25). Anthropological research does not seem to
show that the sacrifice of animals is of later
origin; and all we can fairly assume is that in
Greece and Italy, as wealth increased and bloody
sacrifices became more and more synonymous
with feasts, these tended to increase both in
number and variety. All these kinds of offerings,
it should be noticed, are found in use together,
as well as separately.
SACRIFICIUM
SACRIFICIUM 581
Drink offerings.-These include libations of all
kinds; which from Homer downwards we find
performed, at meals to domestic deities, or on
special occasions, e.g. the entering into any treaty
or engagement (Il. iii. 295; cf. ii. 341), by
throwing a few drops from the drinking vessel
on the hearth and the ground. So also the
Greek, before going to rest, poured a libation to
Hermes, the god of sleep (0d. vii. 136; Buch-
holz, Homerische Realien, iii. 293). Here also
belong the Greek xoat, or libations to the dead
(Od. x. 518; cf. Verg. Aen. v. 77), and the
Roman practice of profusiones, i.e. pouring liba-
tions on the grave, of wine, water, milk, oil, &c.
(Marquardt, iii. 312), on stated occasions, such
as the Parentalia in February. Libations con-
sisted usually of unmixed wine in historical
times; but when wine could not be had, water
would suffice, as in Od. xii. 363; and in Greece
some deities preferred no wine (Aesch. Eum. 107),
and Hermes liked a mixture (Schol. Aristoph.
Plut. 1132). The oldest libations, e.g. the xoat,
were probably of milk and honey mixed (uexi-
reparov) or of milk alone (Eustath. ad Od. x.
519; Soph. El. 895), or of oil, if the anointing
of sacred stones can be reckoned under this head
(Paus. x. 24, 5; Theophr. Char. 16; Tylor, ii. 151).
So too in the worship of the oldest Roman deities
milk was used, i.e. in that of Rumina, Cunina,
the Camoenae, Faunus, Silvanus, Pales (Schweg-
ler, R. G. i. 421, note and reff.).
Incense offerings.—Originally, as we saw, the
gods were thought to be pleased by the sweet
savour of the sacrifice; and this notion was
acted on as early as the Homeric age in Greece,
by employing sweet-smelling wood (650w, Od. v.
59: a species of cedar wood, cf. Il. vi. 269, ix.
495; Hesiod, Op. 338) for the fire, and at Rome
by the burning of sweet-smelling garden herbs
(Verg. Ecl. viii. 65, and especially Ov. Fast. i.
339). The real incense offering was both rare
and costly. Incense, however, became an object
of trade in later times, when it was the constant
accompaniment of animal sacrifices (Arnob. vii.
26). It is said to have come from Phoenicia by
way of Cyprus, where it was used in the cult of
Aphrodite Ourania (Empedocles in Athen. xii.
p. 510; Hesych. s. v. 6éa). -
Offerings of fruits and cakes.—Fruits were
offered in Greece chiefly as tithes or toll of the
harvest of some crop (ordered by a Delphic oracle,
Theopomp. fragm. 283), not only to Demeter and
Dionysus (Paus. viii. 42, 5), the especial deities
of corn and wine culture, but to others, according
to the local belief in their efficacy. At Athens,
and probably elsewhere, there were in most
temples tables, near the statue of the god,
laid out with fruits of all kinds, as well as with
cakes, honey, &c. (Aristoph. Plut. 678 and
Schol.). This practice, the origin of the Roman
lectisternia, is also represented on monuments
(Martha, Les Sacerdoces Atheniens, p. 50; Bull.
Corr. Hell. ii. 74). Fruits also figure conspi-
cuously in some Athenian festivals, e.g. at the
OschoPHORIA and the THARGELIA, and boys are
seen carrying baskets of fruits and cakes in the
northern frieze of the Parthenon (Baumeister,
Denkm. 1382: hence the names kavvāqopol,
kepwhqopol, &c., for bearers of such utensils in
various rites; Lobeck, Aglaoph. 26 foll.). So also
at the PYANEPSIA, or festival of beans (the
cheapest food at Athens), not only were these
carried about in pots (xãrpal), but an olive-
branch (eipeditºvn), laden with various fruits
hung on it, was carried in procession, and fixed
at the door of the temple of Apollo. At Rome
fruits are less often mentioned (for “primitiae
frugum” in a general sense, cf. Tibull. i. 1, 13
foll.), but at least, as a rule, the grain or fruit
was cooked. Cakes of all kinds were used in
abundance both in Greece and Rome, whether
combined with animal sacrifices or independently.
In Greece these were called "réAavoi, and
Tréguara or tróttava (Lobeck, Aglaoph. 1050 foll.),
and were especially used in the cult of Apollo,
e.g. at Delphi and Delos (Müller, Dorians, E. T.
i. 343); also in that of Zeus at Athens, at the
Erechtheia in the Acropolis (Paus. i. 26, 6),
and that of Trophonius (a honeycake, weat-
toūrra, Ar. Nub. 506; Paus. ix. 39); and at
the Athenian Munychia and in the worship
of Artemis a special kind of cake was used,
which was surrounded with torches called
ăuqiq àvres (A. Mommsen, Heort. 404). At
Rome, cakes were also in common use, especially
in the form of the mola salsa—i.e. salt-cakes
prepared by the Vestal Virgins from the first
ears of each harvest, and used at the Westalia,
Lupercalia, and on the Ides of September (Serv.
ad Ecl. viii. 82)—and of the liba, for the making
of which under various forms Cato gives receipts
(R. R. 75 foll.). So important was the making
of these on the right method that special fictores
were employed for this purpose under the orders
of the pontifices (Marquardt, iii. 429).
Both in Greece and Italy the practice was
common of making substitutes for animal sacri-
fices out of dough, paste, wax, &c., as we see in
the worship of Zeus Meilichios at Athens (Thuc.
i. 126), and in the Roman maniae, which Aelius
Stilo (Fest. p. 129) described as “ficta quaedam
ex farina in hominum figuras” (Lobeck, Aglaoph.
1080 foll.). These will be referred to later.
Offerings of animals.-These were of great
variety, both as regards the animals themselves
and the ritual used. It is not necessary to do
more than allude at this point to human sacri-
fices, which for the most part belong either to
our second chief division of piacular offerings,
or to our third division of mystic or sacramental
sacrifices. To this latter class probably belong
those rare examples which seem to be survivals
of cannibalism, e.g. in the worship of Zeus
Lycaon in Arcadia and of Dionysus in Chios, and
the occasional sacrifice of captives, as when
Themistocles sacrifices Persian prisoners at
Salamis to Dionysus Omestes (Plut. Themist. 13;
Pelop. 21). The ordinary honorific animal sacri-
fices consisted mainly of those animals which had
been already tamed by man, and used for food,
e.g. the ox, sheep, goat, pig, and fowl; thus
bearing out the theory that the original idea of
such sacrifice is that it was a meal shared in
by god and man. Where the victim is not one
eaten by man, the sacrifice is almost sure to
be piacular or sacramental. The local customs
as to the choice of animals were of endless
variety, and are hard to explain: it was a com-
plete science to learn the predilections of the
gods, which varied even at particular periods
of the year. As the temple-priesthood developed
[SACERDOs], so no doubt the ritual became
more complicated, and had, in larger temples
at least, to be fixed in writing: of this we have
582
SACRIFICIUM
SACRIFICIUM
traces in inscriptions both of Italian and Greek
origin (see Dittenberger, Sylloge Inscr. Graec.
373, 388, and especially the sacrificial calendar
from Cos published in Journal of Hellenic Studies,
vol. iv. p. 323; for Italy, the great ritual in-
scription of Iguvium, ed. Bücheler, Umbrica,
and the Fasti diurni in C. J. L. vol. i.).
The following general principles may be
traced amid a crowd of details. 1. As to Sea.
Male victims were usually sacrificed to male
deities, and female to goddesses, both in Greece
and Italy (Arnobius, vii. 19, “Diis feminis femi-
nas, mares maribus hostias immolare, abstrusa et
interior ratio est, vulgique a cognitione remota,”
&c. This rule held good in Greece so widely
(though not without exceptions: see Stengel,
Quaest. Sacrif. pp. 1-6) that an exception to it
at Aulis in the worship of Artemis, which often
exhibits abnormal features, gave rise to an
explanatory myth (Paus. ix. 19, 5). The same
kind of symbolism is seen in the kindred custom
of sacrificing a barren cow to the dead (Od. xi.
30), with which may be compared the offering of
a pregnant cow to Tellus at the Roman Fordi-
cidia (Ov. Fast. iv. 631), and of a pregnant sow
to Demeter at Mykonos and Andania (Ditt. 373,
388). 2. As to colour. White animals were
offered to heavenly deities, black to those of the
under-world (Arnob. l.c.). Thus in Il. iii. 103
a white sheep is to be offered to the Sun, a
black one to Earth (cf. inscription from Mykonos,
Ditt. 373): in Od. xi. 33, to Teiresias in the
under-world, black sheep. Black victims were
offered to Poseidon in Od. iii. 1 foll. : but we
find also white ones offered him in later times
(Ditt. 373). So at Rome, where the importance
and difficulty of getting a white victim for
Jupiter led to whitening with pipe-clay (Juv.
x. 65, “cretatum bovem”). 3. As to soundness.
This was always demanded, though it could
not be always complied with. It is expressly
laid down in one of the most valuable ritual
inscriptions we have (Ditt. 388, from Andania,
line 70) that the animals are to be eitepa,
ka9apá, 6Aók}\mpa (cf. Ditt. 373, line 20, and
Pollux, i. 26). Hence the elaborate organisation
in some cities to secure the proper selection; of
which more at the end of this article. 4. Animals
sacred to a deity were not usually sacrificed to
that deity. This principle, which has a totem-
istic origin, and is found in full working
order , in many antique religions (e.g. the
Egyptian and Mexican), probably was a ruling
one in Greece in early times, but can now only
be traced in survivals which are often obscure.
One or two exceptions may be mentioned. No
pig, in some places at least, could be offered to
Aphrodite (Hermann, p. 150, note 3; Aristoph.
4ch. 793); at Athens the goat might not be
offered to Athene (Athen. xiii. p. 592), whose
aegis or goat-skin points to the goat as the
totem of the Aegidae or goat-clan, which had
the care of her worship. To her were usually
sacrificed bulls and sheep, to Zeus bulls or
heifers, to Demeter pigs. For a list of the pre-
dilections of Roman deities, see Marquardt, iii.
17 3. In these and other cases of predilections, it
is probable that the practice arose from the well-
known rule that a totem-clan did not kill or
eat its own totem: but as regards Italy and
Greece the subject needs further investigation
(A. Lang, Myth, Ritual and Religion, ii. 70 foll.;
Robertson Smith in Encycl. Brit. l.c. p. 135).
Instances of the sacrifice of the sacred animal
to the god to whom it is sacred are probably of
the mystical order of sacrifices, and will be
mentioned under that head.
These general principles may be said to have
held good both in Greece and Italy. Before
leaving this subject we may notice that com-
binations of animals for sacrifice were not un-
common. The best known example is that
of the SUOVETAURILIA at Rome, where the
ox, sheep, and pig were combined in the
worship of Mars (Cato, R. R. 141) : with this
may be classed the rpºrts of the Greeks, a
combination of animals, but not always of
the same three. (See Od. xxiii. 277 : ram, bull,
and bear, to Poseidon; and cf. Eustath. ad Od.
xi. 130; Hermann, $ 26, note 2.) Lastly,
where the proper victims could not be had,
substitutes in the form of cakes were some-
times used, as has been already mentioned
(Thuc. i. 126, and Schol. : cf. Herod. ii. 47).
In Thebes apples with wooden feet and horns to
imitate sheep were used in the cult of Apollo
(Pollux, i. 30), and a like practice is recorded
of the Locrians (Schömann, 219). Such substi-
tution was also known at Rome, and is enun-
ciated clearly by Serv. ad Aen. ii. 116,
“Sciendum est in sacris simulata pro veris
accipi; unde cum de animalibus quae difficile
inveniuntur est sacrificium, de pane vel cera
fiunt, et pro veris accipiuntur : ” cf. Tylor, ii.
367. But these substitutes are more common
as survivals of human piacular sacrifice (see
below).
B. Piacular Sacrifices.—The general idea of
the honorific sacrifice was that the gods might
be propitiated with gifts, without any sense of
sin being present in the worshipper's mind.
From these must be distinguished (though the
distinction is not always an easy one) those which
have as their object the expiation of some sin,
generally in early ages blood-guiltiness within a
group of kin, or of purification from pestilence,
&c., brought about by some sin (Encycl. Brit.
S. v. Sacrifice, p. 136; Tylor, ii. 350). The
original idea was that this was inexpiable for
the defiled kin, save by the death of the slayer.
As the practice of substitution was extended, it
came to be applied to such cases, and thus we
find not only the sacrifice of human beings by
no means uncommon both in Greece and Italy,
but survivals of it in the form of substitutes,
either of animals or of some kind of puppet, or
of symbolic actions which indicate an originally
real sacrifice. Further, piacular sacrifices for
lesser offences, usually a part of a ritual of lus-
tration, are found in later times, especially in
Italy. Some examples must be given of each
of these classes of expiatory sacrifice.
That the idea of guilt demanding a human
life as expiation was not strange to the Greek
mind is plainly seen in the myths, e.g. in those
of Theseus, Orestes, and Iphigeneia (cf. also
Eur. Phoem. 914, El. 1024; Plut. Pelop. 21;
Verg. Aen. ii. 118: where the blood-guiltiness
is, however, not in each case clear). At Athens
we find it surviving in the THARGELLA, when
two men called papuakol (Harpocr. s. v.) were
driven out of the city and stoned; and in a
rite found also at Ephesus at a Thargelia of
that neighbourhood (cf. Tzetzes, Chil. v. 726
SACRIFICIUM
SACRIFICIUM 583
foll. ; Hipponax, Fragm. 4 foll. ; Mannhardt,
Myth. Forsch. 126 foll.). At Rhodes a public
victim. was sacrificed at the beginning of the
month Metageitnion, for whom a criminal was
afterwards substituted (Porph. de Abst. ii. 54,
where other similar cases are given). At
Leucas a criminal was sacrificed to Apollo by
being cast from a rock: an age of greater
humanity supplied him with feathers to break
the descent, and rugs to fall on (Strabo,
p. 452). A very similar case, as an expiation
for pestilence, is recorded from Massilia by
Servius (ad Aen. iii. 57; Petron. 141). In this
case, as in the Mexican and other savage rites,
the victim was cherished (“alendus anno integro
publicis et purioribus cibis”); and in all these
examples they seem to have been adorned with
garlands, &c., on their way to death. Some-
times an animal was substituted for the human
victim, as at Potniae, where a goat was substi-
tuted for a boy in the bloom of youth (Paus.
ix. 8, 1; cf. vii. 19, 2 and 3). Occasionally we
meet with the rite surviving only in a symbolic
act, as in the well-known case of the whipping
of Spartan boys at the altar of Artemis Orthia
till the blood was drawn. With this may be
compared the striking passage, in Eur. Iph. T.
1458, where Athene orders the human sacrifice
in expiation for the death of Iphigeneia to be
commuted for the drawing of blood by a sword.
So too, at the Roman LUPERCALIA, the young
men were smeared with the victim's blood,
which was then wiped off with wool dipped in
milk (cf. a curious parallel in Apollon. Rhod.
iv. 700 foll, where purification for a murder is
affected by smearing the murderer's hands with
the blood of a young pig, and then wiping it off).
Examples of the substitution of puppets are
not wanting, especially at Rome, where the
rush-puppets cast into the Tiber in May
[ARGEI] are described by Dion. Hal. as re-
sembling men tied hand and foot, and were
generally believed to be substitutes for old
men (see especially Mannhardt, Antike Wald-
w. Feldkülte, 265 foll.); and according to
Macrob. i. 7, 34, the oscilla or “effigies maniae
suspensae " were substitutes for the sacrifice of
boys [OSCILLA]. The meaning of these Roman
rites is not, however, fully ascertained.
In the Roman religion proper we have no
trace of a regularly recurring human sacrifice
without substitution, which is doubtless partly
owing to the practical sense of the people, to
the value attached to human life, and to the
bargaining character of their religion, so well
illustrated in the story of Numa in Plutarch,
Numa, 15. It may probably be traced, however,
in the ver sacrum, in which the first-born of a
tribe were devoted to a god, and sent forth from
the city (Nissen, Templ. 154; Fest. 379); in the
rite of devotio (Liv. xxii. 57; Marquardt, iii. 279
and reff); in the spilling of the blood of a
gladiator at the feriae Latinae (Tertull. Apol. 9;
Marquardt, 297); in the consecratio of a
criminal, who was thus made Sacer and the
property of the gods (Id. 257); and possibly
in the ritus humanus of the Vejovis cult
(Preller-Jordan, Röm. Myth. i. 265, and Macrob.
iii. 9, 10, where it is noticeable that the
formula of devotio includes Vejovis) as well
as in the examples above given. In Etruria,
and perhaps in other parts of Italy, human
sacrifice was well known : see Müller-Deecke,
Etrusker, ii. 20, and Dennis, Cities and Ceme-
teries, i. 422, 478, ii. 506; Gardthausen, Mas-
tarna, plate at end of volume.
It is at Rome, however, that the ordinary
piacular sacrifices which do not appear to re-
present substitution for human victims are best
seen. There they form a distinct class, and
their immediate object was to expiate, even by
anticipation, any error or omission in the per-
formance of ritual, or some sacrilege, however
slight, such as the bringing of iron into the
sacred_grove of the Fratres Arvales (Henzen,
Acta Fratr. Arv. 22, 136–140; ARVALEs). Of
this kind were the hostiae praecidaneae, offered
before the main sacrifice, in order to ensure the
efficacy of the latter (Gell. iv. 6,7; Fest. p. 223:
the trpo6üelv of Greek ritual seems to have a
different sense). Here also belong the piacula
of the supplications [SUPPLICATIol, and all
sacrifices ordered to be performed after the oc-
currence of prodigia. It is difficult to say how
far the Italian sacrifices of lustration belong to
this class, e.g. the suovetaurilia; but the pikaklw
of the Iguvians (Bücheler, Umbrica, p. 314) seem
to offer a parallel and to bring them within the
class (compare the language of the ritual in
Cato, R. R. 141). Greek examples of piacular
sacrifices not substitutes for human offerings
are the xoſpokrávot ka9applot of Aesch. Eum.
273; the Bouphonia at Athens, of which more
hereafter; the holocaust to Zeus Meilichios
in Xen. Anab. 7, 8; and many others may be
found collected in Hermann, ii. § 23, note 19 and
foll., and § 28, note 19, and in Schömann, ii.
239. It should be noted that the piacular sacri-
fices can in general be distinguished from
honorific by the fact of the victim being burnt
whole or not cooked at all, and at Rome by the
fact of its not being used for divination. They
did not constitute a meal, but were whole burnt
offerings, and, unlike the honorific sacrifices, did
not always consist of edible animals, but in-
cluded horses, asses, dogs (to Hecate), &c. See
Stengel, Quaest. Sacr. pp. 23 foll.
C. Mystic or Sacramental Sacrifices.—This
is a class which it is hard to deal with, because
the sacrifices here had in historical times lost
their original meaning, being survivals from
an age of which the culture is only to be studied
among other races. They are believed to have
their origin in the age of totemistic religion, in
which gods are formed out of the totem animals.
In that age we find—1. That the totem is not
sacrificed to the god out of which it was de-
veloped, except on certain solemn occasions.
2. That on these occasions the sacrifice is of the
nature of a sacrament, the totem being (as in
Mexico) eaten by all the worshippers, who thus
in a sense partook of the substance of their god.
(J. G. Frazer, Totemism, reprinted from Encycl.
Brit.; W. R. Smith, article Sacrifice, p. 137;
A. Lang, Myth, Ritual and Religion, passim.)
Here and there a sacrificial rite in Greece
indicates a descent from this age : and others,
which are less distinctly to be referred to it,
may be noticed under the same head.
In the myth of Dionysus Zagreus, the god
when captured by the Titans was torn asunder
in the form of a bull (cf. Paus. viii. 37, 3.)
This myth reflected the nature of his sacrifices.
In these, living animals were torn to pieces-
584 SACRIFICIUM
SACRIFICIUM
bulls or fawns—and eaten raw by all the
celebrants (Lobeck, Agl. 653 foll.). The god,
as the animal, was once probably the totem of a
tribe; and the worshippers danced about dressed
up in the skins, i.e. took the god-nature upon
them. Cf. for a similar practice of tearing to
pieces in Chios, Porph. Abst. ii. 55; but here the
victim was human, and the origin probably can-
nibalistic. A Roman parallel may probably be
found in the Lupercalia, where, after the cere-
mony of smearing above alluded to, the priests
girt themselves with the victims’ skins, and,
before running round the Palatine, partook of a
luxurious feast, which may be a substitutory
survival of the old god-eating rite. Somewhat
similar in character is the well-known worship
of Zeus Lycaon in Arcadia (Paus. viii. 2; 38,5;
Plato, Rep. 565 D); where the worshippers tasted
the sacrifice, but he who ate the morsel of flesh
contained in it was changed into a wolf. Cf.
the Hirpi Sorani of Soracte (Mannhardt, Antike
Wald- u. Feldkülte, 330), where another totemic
feature is apparent, i.e. the wolves were said to
have carried off the flesh from the altar. Again,
in the Diipolia at Athens, the sacred bull was
sacrificed, but the skin was sewn up and stuffed,
and all partook of it, “the life of the victim being
renewed in those who ate of it” (Porph. Abst.
ii. 29). This, as Prof. R. Smith (l. c.) has
pointed out, is perhaps a relic of a form of blood
covenant; for the legend of the festival con-
nects the origin with the adoption of a new
family by the Athenian citizens.
In this festival of the Diipolia we notice
another feature which suggests a totemistic
origin, and of which there are one or two other
examples in Greek and Roman ritual. Among
totemistic peoples it is the deadliest crime to
kill the totemistic animal. Where this animal
is sacred, the slayer would pay for its death with
his life. Thus not the priest indeed, but the
axe which slew the bull at the Athenian Zeus-
feast, was solemnly tried and condemned (Paus.
i. 24, 4). At Tenedos the sacrificer of the
booted-calf (Lang, ii. 233) was stoned and driven
into the sea (Aelian, H. N. xii. 34). Perhaps
with this curious ritual may be compared the
story of Apollo flying in terror after slaying
the python (Lang, ii. 195). Here also probably
belongs the nysterious ritual of the Regifugium
at Rome, which has been so strangely confused
by many. [REGIFUGIUM.]
Another mystical totemistic feature, already
alluded to, is the wearing of the skin of the
sacred animal. This, which is a very common
feature among totemistic peoples, has also left
its traces in Greece, e.g. in the Bacchic rites,
and in Rome at the Lupercalia at least. As in
Mexico, the priest frequently also wore the
attributes of the god: examples will be found
collected in Back, De Graecorum caerimoniis
in quibus homines deorum vice fungebantur,
Berlin, 1883.
RITUAL.—1. Greek. The ordinary ritual of
honorific sacrifice must now be more exactly
described. Unbloody sacrifices, it should be
noted, naturally did not call for the same exact-
ness of observance as those in which animals
were offered; while piacular sacrifices, in which
the victim was almost always a whole burnt
offering, or at least was not shared as a meal
{holocaust), were not only comparatively rare,
but also needed a simpler ritual than the
meal-sacrifice, or followed the ordinary cere-
mony, at least in its earlier stages. The
process to be described is found in all its
main features in the Homeric poems. In later
times, an endless variety of local usage arose,
as the detail was developed partly through
the influence of the temple priesthood, partly
through the increasing wealth (and consequent
ceremonial) of cities as well as temples. We
will first describe the Homeric ritual, and then
indicate some points in which its leading features
became afterwards developed. The student who
desires to study the local variation must refer
to the works of Hermann, Schömann, Maury,
and Martha, already frequently quoted; but
more especially to Pausanias, and to the C. I. G.
and C. I. A.
In Homer (see esp. Od. iii. 418–463; Il. i.
446 foll.) the rite is as follows. The victim, for
the choice of which there seems to have been no
precise rule, though it must be in a general
sense téAetos (Il. i. 66; i.e. free from blemish),
and of a kind appropriate to the god, was led to
the altar, where, if an ox, its horns were or
might be gilded, to gratify the eyes of the deity.
Then follow certain preliminary rites of conse-
cration. Water for lustration was brought,
together with a basket of grain (oëAaſ: whether
ground or not is uncertain): with the former the
hands at least of the bystanders were sprinkled,
and the latter was cast on the victim and the
altar (xepvíyavro 5’ ºreira kal oixoxiras &vé-
Aovro, Il. i. 449; cf. 0d. iii. 445). When this
was done, the chief sacrificer, whether priest or
not, offered his prayer (Il. i. 451), and at the
same time cut some hair from the victim’s head
and cast it into the flame. This hair, if the
sacrifice had relation to a treaty or compact,
was divided among the parties concerned (Il. iii.
271). Then followed the slaughter of the victim
either with axe or knife or both ; it was killed
kneeling, as it is often represented on sacrificial
vases, with its head turned upwards if the sacri-
fice were to celestial deities, downwards if to
those of the under-world (Od. iii. 453). During
the act of slaughter the bystanding women, if
any, cried aloud (ÖAóXvčav)—for what reason is
not very clear; perhaps this noise, like the
flute-music of later times, was meant to hide
the cries of the animal, all unwillingness on its
part being held of ill omen. Lastly, the flesh
was cut up, the thighs were sliced, and the
slices wrapped in double layers of fat and placed
on the altar to be wholly consumed for the god,
after wine had been poured on them. The
entrails were then tasted, and arming themselves
with long spits, such as are often seen in vase-
paintings (see e.g. Baumeister, Denkm. p. 1107),
and with five-pronged forks (repºrá80xa), the
sacrificers set to work to roast the rest of the
meat for their own enjoyment. In Il. i. 472,
this feasting is accompanied by hymns to the god.
This ritual remained practically the same
throughout the history of Greek religion. . In
all Greek literature, down to Lucian, we find
the same notions prevalent about the part taken
by the god, and the same main features, e.g. the
lustral water, the grain, the clipping of the
hair, and the distribution of flesh between deity
and sacrificers. See especially Aristoph. Paw,
820 foll.; Lucian, de Sacrificiis, 14. The mona-
SACRIFICIUM
SACRIFICIUM 585
mental evidence bears this out fully (see Martha,
p. 67, note 5). But, apart from the great
variety of local usage already referred to, we
may note at least three points in which a general
development took place in the way of elaborate
regulations, and especially as regards—1, the
choice of victims; 2, the ceremonial adorn-
ments; 3, the apportionment of flesh and skins.
A brief reference to each of these is all for
which space can here be found.
1. The tendency of temple - worship and
priestly influence was to create a number of
artificial requirements in respect of the colour,
sex, purity and perfectness of victims, especially
on great public occasions. This is most singu-
larly illustrated in an inscription from Cos,
lately discovered, and edited by Mr. Hicks
(Journ. Hell. Stud, vol. ix. No. 2, p. 334 foll.).
The selection of the ox for sacrifice to Zeus
Polieus, on the 19th day of the Coan month
Batromius, was a matter of the utmost solemnity
and difficulty. A holocaust or piacular offering
of a pig had been made on the previous day
with a view to good-luck in the selection; but
it is obvious from the inscription that the
Hieropoioi, who sat at a table with the priest
and inspected the oxen as they were driven past,
had often great difficulty in choosing. When
a second herd was driven in, an ox was to be
sacrificed to Hestia, apparently as a further aid;
cf. Dittenberger, 338, 70, whence we learn
that at Andania (and probably at many other
places) the victims underwent an examination
by the priest or other official, who affixed a seal
(ormuelov) to them if approved of. On the other
hand, such elaborate selection must have been
well-nigh impossible in the case of the great
hecatombs at Athens: there the chief function
of the officials seems to have been rather the
procuring than the selection of victims. (For
the duties of Boöval and isporoiol at Athens,
see Dittenb. 388; Martha, pp. 70 and 71 ;
[BOONAE; HIEROPOEI.]) In the case of private
sacrifices, as distinguished from those under-
taken by the state, it was no doubt the business of
the priest of the temple where the sacrifice was to
take place to examine the victim; but so long as
it was of the right kind, colour, &c., it is not pro-
bable that further rigidity of rule was insisted on.
2. In regard to ceremonial adornment, we
find a development chiefly in two particulars,
viz. the wearing of wreaths, and the use of
instrumental music. Wreaths and garlands,
which on the monuments invariably adorn the
sacrificer as well as the victim, are not men-
tioned in Homer (Schömann, p. 228). A few
exceptions to this rule are mentioned in later
literature, e.g. at Paros, in the worship of the
Xápires, and on occasions of domestic grief
(Apollodorus, iii. 15, 7; Diog. Laert. ii. 54).
The place of the wailing of the women, as repre-
sented by Homer, at the moment of slaughter, is
taken by the playing of the flutes (in Argos of
a trumpet, Pollux, iv. 87), as is often to be seen
on sacrificial vase-paintings (Martha, p. 84).
The passage of Apollodorus just quoted shows
plainly that the absence of these accompaniments
of sacrifice at Paros was a very unusual feature,
and needed a legend to explain it. Other details,
such as the use of oil and honey, the sprinkling
of the altar with the blood of the victim, &c.,
may probably have been at all times in vogue in
the temples, though unnoticed in the Homeric
accounts of sacrifice. For the development of
hymn-singing and dancing in relation to sacrifice,
see Duncker, Hist. of Greece, vol. ii. ch. 14.
3. In regard to the apportionment of the
victim's flesh, which in Homer, as we have seen,
was a simple matter, we have in later times,
chiefly from inscriptions, a vast number of
details and regulations, showing the importance
attached to it. Most of these define the portion
which is the perquisite of the priest (6eououpſa :
ºvépm : iepāovva). This differed in different
worships: frequently it is the legs and skin;
sometimes the tongue and shoulder; in Fragm.
Com. Graec. p. 265 (Didot), the thighs, flank,
and left side of the head are mentioned. (See
Dittenberger, Nos. 373, 376, 379, and 388, line
85. Also Journal of Hell. Stud, l.c. p. 328 and
note ; Stengel, op. cit. p. 15 foll.) The rest of the
animal might, in the case of private sacrifices,
be taken home by the sacrificer to be used for a
meal (the survival of the Homeric practice), or
even sent in the form of presents to friends
(Schömann, 231). This was, of course, im-
possible in the case of holocausts, which were
rarely honorific sacrifices: e.g. it is expressly
forbidden, in the inscription from Cos already
quoted, to take away any part of the pig which
was burnt the day before the Zeus festival.
But in public sacrifices undertaken by the state,
the disposal of the carcases, which at Athens
at least were sometimes counted by hundreds,
came to be an important matter of public
revenue, about which full information will be
found in Boeckh-Fränkel, Staatshaushaltung,
vol. ii., appendices viii. and viii. b. Dermaticon
was the general name for this source of revenue;
the skin being retained as the special property
of the state, while the flesh, after the magistrates
had received their portions, was distributed
among the whole number of demes, for purposes
of feasting (C. I. A. ii. 163, 305). In B.C. 334
the revenue arising from the sale of these skins
was no less than 5,500 drachmas. Thus the
simple primitive sacrifice, with its genuine
meaning, came to be developed into a state
detail, whose importance was much more
material than spiritual.
g
Greek sacrifice, from a vase-painting (Bltimner). The
emblematicai figure of Nike filling the ptáAn shows
that it is a sacrifice for victory.
2. Roman. The introduction of Greek religious
practice at an early period overlaid the true
Roman cult, and by degrees almost extinguished
it, though a distinction was always maintained
by the learned between the ritus Romanus and



586 SACRIFICIUM
SACRIFICIUM

the ritus Graecus (Marquardt, iii. 186). What
features of ritual are to be understood by the
former term, it is hard to say, except the veiling
of the head of the worshipper, which is expressly
mentioned by Macrobius (i. 8, 2; iii. 6, 17;
Plut. Q. R. 10), and the use of laurel or other
wreaths (Marquardt, l.c., mote 4). It may also
be noted that the use of music and dancing at
sacrificial rites, which in Greece had such
momentous literary results, never developed at
Rome into more than the mere accompaniment
of tibicines, the object of which was to preclude
all ill-omened sounds from reaching the ears of
the worshippers (Plin. H. N. xxviii. § 11). This,
however, need not exclude the supposition that
rude hymns, such as those which we still possess
of the SALII and the FRATRES ARVALES, were at
one time in use (R. Peter, de Romanorum preca-
tionwm carminibus; contained in the Commenta-
tiones in honorem Reifferscheidii, Breslau, 1884,
p. 67 foll.). But we know enough to discern
that the leading characteristic of the ritus
Romanus was its solemnity and stillness, especially
at the time when the prayer, which was a more
essential feature of it than with the Greeks, was
being led by the priest. This stillness is indi-
cated, not only by the veiling of the head, but
by the fact that the prayer was often not spoken
aloud, but only muttered. Thus, in the elaborate
and genuinely Italian ritual of the Fratres
Atiedii, at Iguvium, we meet with the phrase
“tases persnimu ’’= tacitus precator (Bücheler
Umbrica, p. 60, note); which is to be explain
as a direction to the priest to murmur belo
his breath. (See reff in Marquardt, 178, note #,
and Bücheler, l.c.) The more strictly religioſis,
if not spiritual, character of the worship in Itily
is also shown by the absence of revelry after
sacrifice; or at least of the development of the
rite into a matter of public feasting, as at Athens.
Another characteristic which was more strongly
marked in Italy than Greece. was the extreme
and superstitious precision required in the whole
ritual. The form of prayer which the priest led
and the worshippers repeated after him must be
gone through without the slightest error; if
such error were committed, the whole º be
repeated again. The same rule applied to the
ritual of sacrifice itself (Bücheler, l. c. p. 81;
Arnob. iv. 31; Plut. Coriol. 25); and in all such
cases the error had to be wiped out by a piacular
sacrifice in addition. The same precision was
observed in regard to the posture of the wor-
shipper, which differed in different cults: in the
ritus Romanus it is likely that this posture was
a kneeling one in the act of prayer (Marquardt,
179, note 4), while usually the person praying
stood with outstretched arms, and looking to the
east. In the cult of Tellus and Ops, he touched
the earth with his hands (Macrob. i. 10, 21; iii.
9, 12). But to gain an adequate idea of the ex-
traordinary lengths to which this precision in
all respects was carried by Italian custom, and
, maintained by written rules, the student should
not fail to consult the Iguvian inscription so
often quoted, with the translations and com-
mentaries of Bréal or Bücheler (Bréal, Les
Tables Eugubines; Bücheler, Umbrica. The first
and sixth tables afford the best illustrations).
A succinct description of an ordinary Roman
sacrifice may be given in conclusion; in which
it will now be easy for the student to dis-
\,
tinguish some at least of the Greek and Italian
elements. For further detail he is referred to
Marquardt, 180 foll. (in the new French trans-
lation, vol. i. pp. 216 foll.); and for an immense
collection of variety of detail, which is however
wrongly used as if belonging to a single act
of sacrifice, to the article in Pauly's Encyclo-
pädie, vol. vi. pt. i. pp. 671 foll.
The victim (victima is used of the larger,
hostia of the smaller animals) was led to the
altar adorned with fillet and ribbons (infulae
and vittae); the gilding of the horns in the case
of an ox is also mentioned (Henzen, Act. Fratr.
Arv. 144). On great occasions of lustration,
e.g. of an army by a general, or of the people by
a censor, the leaders of the victims must have
names of good omen. The Greek rule held good
here also, that the victim must come willingly.
Then followed the immolatio, also a counterpart
of the Greek ritual, which consisted in dedi-
cating the animal by strewing on its head the
mola Salsa or prepared cake (Serv. ad Aen. iv.
57); wine and incense were also used for this
purpose, and in Verg. Aen. vi. 245 the Greek
practice is alluded to of cutting hair from the
victim's head and casting it into the fire. The
beast was then slain, the larger ones with axe
or hammer, the smaller with the knife: this
was the business, in public honorific sacrifices
at least, not of the priest, but of assistants
(cultrarii, popae, victimarii). When the victim
was dead, the most important part of the
ceremony began: viz. the extraction and exa-
mination of the eacta and the preparation for
burning them on the altar. By eacta is to be
understood the liver, gall, lungs, and heart,
with the interior skin. These, and especially
the liver, were in all sacrifices except piacular
ones subjected to a careful inspection, with a
view to ascertain whether the god was pleased ;
the idea being, as has been already pointed out,
that he showed his good and ill will in the
organs of the victim. (For the complicated
science of augury which grew out of this idea in
Italy, see article DIVINATIO; Bouché-Leclercq,
Divination dans l’Antiquité, vol. iv.) If the
inspection were satisfactory (litare is the
-technical word), the priest proceeded to prepare
the earta either by boiling or by roasting on
spits; the latter practice seems to have been
confined to the sacrifices of sheep and lambs
(Varro, L. L. v. 98). They were then laid on a
dish, together with certain other parts of the
flesh (Arnob. vii. 24), and in this form were
called prosecta (for other forms of the word see
Marquardt, 183; in the Iguvian inscription it is
proseseto); on this again the mola salsa was
sprinkled and wine poured (Cic. Div. ii. 16, 37),
and it was then ready to be placed on the altar
(earta porricere or reddere). That this pre-
paration of the eacta was the leading feature in
the rite, is well shown in the fact that on the
dies intercisi of the calendar, the slaughter of
the victim took place in the morning, and the
placing of the eata on the altar was delayed till
the evening. The additions to the eata from
other parts of the victim were called augmenta ;
the magmenta (Marquardt, 184) sometimes
mentioned appear to have been separate dishes,
also placed on the altar for consumption. The
rest of the flesh, or viscera (Serv. ad Aen. vi.
253), was eaten by those offering the sacrifice, or
SACRILEGIUM
SAGITTA 587
by the priest in the case of piacular sacrifices (ib.
iii. 231), where the victim was not burnt whole
(cp. ARVALES; C. I. L. vi. 2104). But we hear
very little of priests’ portions or of sacrificial
feasting ; the Romans were never so lavish of
their victims as the Greeks, and the absence of
a regular temple-priesthood enabled , them to
dispense with perquisites as a means of securing
the priests a livelihood. The inspection and
preparation of the eata remained the chief
object and feature of sacrifice; and thus, in
spite of the predominance of the Graecus
ritus, the peculiar characteristics of the Italian
religious temperament were preserved till
late times in the Roman ceremonial. (In the
foregoing description of the Roman ritual,
Marquardt's excellent account has been closely
followed.) [W. W. F.]
SACRILE'GIUM, the robbery of sacred
things (Sen. de Ben. 7, 7; Isid. Orig. v. 26), is
that form of peculatus which affects sacred
property not in private hands: i.e. it is the
robbery of anything publicly dedicated to the
service of the gods. Hence the theft of any-
thing from a private dwelling, though it might
be dedicated to the gods, would be a furtum, not
a sacrilegium (cf. Cic. de Invent. 8, 11). Accord-
ing to the Twelve Tables, “Sacrum sacroque
commendatum qui cleperit rapsitaue parricida
esto’’ (Cic. de Leg. ii. 9, 22), which does not
mean that it was reckoned as parricidium, but
that the sacrilegus was tried by the quaestores
parricidii. In later times there were changes
both in the procedure and in the definition of
the crime. It was tried under the quaestiones
perpetuae [PECULATUs; cf. Cic. Verr. i. 5, 14),
and the crime of sacrilege, besides meaning
robbery of temples, was extended to include
damage or insult to anything consecrated, and
so was made to refer to damage of the city
walls, which were sacred (Cic. N. D. iii. 40, 94;
Plut. Rom. 11), and even to climbing over them
(Dig. 1, 8, 11); and further, under the Empire,
to want of respect for the emperor or his
appointments (Capit. Ant. Phil. 18; Cod. 9, 21,
1), though such offences were sufficiently dealt
with under the law of Majestas. For the con-
ception of what was sacrum, see Macrob. iii. 3,
2 ; Dig. 1, 8, 6, § 3. The punishment of sacri-
legium under the Lex Julia was interdictio
aqua et igni, for which banishment (deportatio)
was substituted: under the Empire heavier
penalties were affixed—for breaking into temples
by night, damnatio ad bestias or burning alive;
for the same act by day, labour in the mines or
banishment (Dig. 48, 13, 6). Compare Rein,
Criminalrecht, 691; Rein in Pauly, Real Ency-
clop. s. v. Sacrilegium. (For sacrilege among the
Greeks, see HIEROSYLIA.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
SACRO'RUM DETESTATIO. [GENs,
Vol. I., p. 911 a.]
SAECULA'RES LUDI. [LUDI SAECU-
LARES. -
SAE'CULUM. [LUDI SAECULAREs, p. 92.]
SAGARII. [SAGUM.]
SAGITTA (àiorrós, iós; Herod. rāševua), an
arrow. The account of the arrows of Hercules
(Hesiod, Scut. 130–134) enumerates and de-
scribes three parts, viz. the point, the shaft, and
the feather. Pollux (i. 137) says that the
feathered end was called the head of the arrow.
I. The point was denominated &psis (Herod. i.
215, iv. 81), whence the instrument, used to
extract arrow-heads from the bodies of the
wounded, was called āpāio9%pa. . [Forceps.]
Great quantities of flint arrow-heads are found
in Celtic barrows throughout the north of
Europe, in form exactly resembling those which
are still used by the Indians of North America
(Hoare's Anc. Wiltshire, South, p. 183). Never-
theless the Scythians and Massagetae had them
of bronze (Herod. ll. cc.).
A large number of flint arrow-heads, some of
them finely shaped, have also been found in
Italy, in deposits of the Stone age. Specimens
may be seen in the prehistoric galleries of the
British Museum. The Aethiopians in the army
of Xerxes tipped their arrows with a sharpened
stone, which they also used for engraving gems
(Herod. vii. 69). Mr. Dodwell found black
flint arrow-heads in the large tumulus of Mara-
thon, and concludes that they had belonged to
the Persian army (Tour through Greece, vol. ii.
p. 159). Those used by the Greeks were com-
monly bronze, as is expressed by the epithet
XaAkhpms, “fitted with bronze,” which Homer
applies to an arrow (Il. xiii. 650, 662). Hero-
dotus, however (vii. 69), speaks as if iron was
the natural material to be employed. -
The Homeric arrow-head was “three-tongued”
(rplyatéxis, Il. v. 393) and had barbs (3-yrol, Il.
iv. 151, 214). Its form is shown by the an-
nexed woodcuts.
*
Arrow-heads found in Attica.
The two smaller, one of which shows a rivet-
hole at the side for fastening it to the shaft, are
from the plain of Marathon (Skelton, Illust. of
Armour at Goodrich Court, i. pl. 44). The
third specimen was also found in Attica (Dod-
well, l.c.). Some of the Northern nations, who
could not obtain metal, barbed their arrow-
heads with bone (Tac. Germ. 46).
The use of poisoned arrows (venenatae sa-
gittae) is always represented by the Greek and
Roman authors as the characteristic of barbarous
nations. It is attributed to the Sauromatae and
Getae (Ovid, Trist. ii. 10, 63, 64; de Ponto, iv.
7, 11, 12); to the Scythians (Plin. H. N. xi. 53,
§ 115), and to the Arabs (Pollux, i. 138) and
Moors (Hor. Od. i. 22, 3). When Ulysses wishes
to have recourse to this insidious practice, he is
obliged to travel north of the country of the
Thesprotians (Hom. 0d. i. 261-263); and the
classical authors who mention it do so in terms
of condemnation (Hom. Plin, ll. cc.; Aelian,
H. A. v. 16). The poison applied to the tips of
arrows having been called toxicum (rošików), on
account of its connexion with the use of the
bow (Plin. H. N. xvi. 10, § 20; Festus, s. v.;
Dioscor. vi. 20), the signification of this term

588 SAGMINA
SAGUM
was afterwards extended to poisons in general
(Plaut. Merc. ii. 4, 4; Hor. Epod. xvii. 61;
Propert. i. 5, 6).
II. The excellence of the shaft consisted in
being long and at the same time straight, and in
being well polished (Hes. Scut. 133). The
arrows of the Carduchi were more than two
cubits long, and were used as javelins by the
Greeks (Xen. Anab. iv. 2). But the shaft often
consisted of a smooth cane or reed (Arundo
donaa or phragmites, Linn.; cf. Plin. H. N. xvi.
36, § 65), and on this account the whole arrow
was called poetically either arundo in the one
case (Verg. Aen. iv. 73, v. 525; Ovid. Met. viii.
382), or calamus in the other (Verg. Buc. iii. 13;
Ovid, Met. vii. 778; Hor. Od. i. 15, 17; Juv.
xiii. 80). In the Egyptian tombs reed arrows
have been found, varying from 34 to 22 inches
in length. They show the slit (y\vots, Hom.
Il. iv. 122; 0d. xxi. 419) cut in the reed for
fixing it upon the string (Wilkinson, Man. and
Cust. &c. vol. i. p. 309).
III. The feathers are shown on ancient monu-
ments of all kinds, and are indicated by the
terms alae (Verg. Aen. ix. 578, xii. 319), pen-
natae sagittae (Prudentius, Hamart. 498), and
Trepčevres àforoſ (Hom. Il. v. 171), but it is
doubtful if the Homeric epithet has any refer-
ence to the feathers. The arrows of Hercules
are said to have been feathered from the wings
of a black eagle (Hes. l. c.).
Besides the use of arrows in the ordinary
way, they were sometimes employed to carry
fire. Xerxes captured the Acropolis in this
manner (Her. viii. 52). Julius Caesar attempted
to set Antony's ships on fire by sending 8éAm
truppépa from the bows of his archers (Dio Cass.
l. 34; cf. Pollux, i. 137). A head-dress of small
arrows is said to have been worn by the Indians
(Prudentius, l.c.), the Nubians, and the Aethio-
pians of Meroe (Claudian, de Nupt. Honor. 222;
de III. Cons. Honor. 21; de Laud. Stil. i. 254).
In the Greek and Roman armies the sagittarii,
more anciently called arquites, i.e. archers, or
bowmen (Festus, s. v.), formed an important
part of the light-armed infantry (Caesar, Bell.
Civ. i. 81, iii. 44; Cic. ad Fam. xv. 4). They
belonged, for the most party to the allies, and
were principally Cretans. [ARCUs; CoRYTUs;
PHARETRA; TormeNTUM.] [J. Y.] [A. H. S.]
SA'GMINA were the same as verbenae,
sacred herbs, especially those which were torn
up by their roots from the enclosure of the
Capitol, and given by the consul or praetor to
the Fetiales when they went to demand repara-
tion or to make a treaty [FETIALES]. They
were carried by one of the body called Ver-
benarius, and served to mark the sacred charac-
ter of the ambassadors: Varro (ap. Non. 528)
compares them to the caduceus or kmpüketov
(cf. Plin. H. W. xxii. § 5; Liv. i. 24, xxx. 43;
Dig. 1, 8, § 8; Festus, s. v.). There can be no
doubt that any herb so gathered would answer
the purpose if the true verbena could not be
procured: indeed Servius (ad Aen. xii. 120)
says, “abusive verbenas vocamus omnes herbas
sacratas ut est laurus oliva vel myrtus.” The
true verbena or vercain is the verbena officinalis,
which suits Pliny’s description of the plant and
his comparison of the leaf to an oak-leaf (xxv.
§ 105). It was used for lustrations, for sweep-
ing the tables of the gods at the Epulum Jovis
or at the lectisternia (Id. ib.); it was used also
for decking the altar (Ter. And, iv. 3, 11; Hor.
Od. i. 19, 14, iv. 11, 7; Ovid, Met. vii. 242).
The Greek name seems to be iepā Borévn, or
treptor repetºv, but the Greek equivalent for lus-
tration or for decking the altar was rather the
myrtle ; cf. Eurip. Ion, 120, pauportvas iepāv
©68av ć galpa Sãmečov 0eoû : and Servius, l.c.,
notes that Terence in using the word verbena
translates a line (quoted in a corrupt state by
Donatus) where it is a myrtle bough (see Wag-
ner ad Ter. l.c.). Lastly we find a curiously
widespread use of the plant in divination and
magic: for this purpose it is burnt in Verg.
Ecl. viii. 65, and Pliny (l.c.) speaks of the same
use among Eastern nations (cf. Suet. Vesp. 7)
and among the Celts, where the superstition
lingers to this day (e.g. in Brittany).
Whatever the etymology of sagmen may be,
we must reject the connexion with sanctus or
sacer, which Festus favours. Corssen (Lat.
Spr. ii. 212) proposes a connexion with seges by
the root sag (orea'ayuévos), but, as it certainly
was not used for food, this is not satisfactory.
Looking to its use for divination and magic,
which we may judge from its being common to
so many nations to have been its oldest use, we
might suggest rather a connexion with saga and
Sagire. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
SAGUM, a thick woollen cloak or plaid
fastened round the neck with a brooch, was the
distinctive garb of the Roman citizen in time of
war. It was worn not only on the field, but was
put on by the whole male population of the city on
the occasion of a tumultus or other sudden alarm,
the consuls alone retaining the toga (Cic. Phil.
v. 12, 31; viii. 11, 32; xiv. 1, 1). . Hence it is
contrasted with the toga, the dress of peace, in
such phrases as saga sumere, in Sagis esse, and
ad saga ire. As one would expect in the case
of militia providing their own equipment, the
sagum was in no sense a uniform, and was worn
by country-folk (Plin. H. N. viii. § 54) and slaves
(Dig. 34, 2, 23, § 2), and was chosen by soldiers
as allowing the arms full play. It is shown on
countless monuments, the most important being
Trajan’s Column and the many grave-reliefs
found on the banks of the Rhine. These show
that it was put on and fastened in the same
manner as the paludamentum, which was in fact
the special sagum which the Imperator wore.
The word Sagum has, besides this, a wider and
more general meaning, and is applied to the
varieties of cloak known as birrus, laena, lacerna
(cf. Martial, viii. 58; Juv. ix. 28), and abolla
(cf. note in Marquardt, Privatl. p. 567). Besides
this, the national dress of the Germans (Tac.
Germ. 17), Gauls (Caes. B. G. v. 42), Ligurians
(Strabo, iv. p. 202), and Spaniards (Val. Max.
iii. 2, 21 ; Liv. xxix. 3, 5), which still survives
in the plaid of the Scotch Highlander and the
cloak of the Spaniard, not only went by the
same name, but was believed by the Romans to
be the original form of the garment, even the
name being borrowed from the Celtic. However
this may be, cloaks fastened at the neck with a
pin are known all the world over; the Greek
xAauts being, for instance, as much akin to the
sagum as the German varieties. In fact, in
later Latin chlamys in ordinary use supplanted
the old word. There was naturally much
variety in shape, cut, and material in saga; and
SALAMINLA
SALII 589
we know that while the Gauls preferred cloth
of a check pattern (“virgatis sagulis,” Verg.
Aen. viii. 660: cf. Tac. Hist. ii. 20, v. 23), the
Spaniards were fond of black (Strabo, iii. p. 155).
In the late Empire the excellence of the Gallic
and Spanish cloth made it popular at Rome, and
we hear of saga Atrebatica and Nervica even in
the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. It would
further seem that sometimes the sagum was
worn with a hood, and also that, as in many
Gallic instances, the fibula was occasionally dis-
pensed with (cf. Trebell. XXX. Tyr. 10).
The sagum being made for the roughest
usage, was of stout stuff, and, like all cloaks
which are fastened with a pin, served many
other purposes, the most interesting being per-
haps that of the “blanket” in which a person was
“tossed,” this pastime being known as sagatio.
(Marquardt, Privatleben, pp. 561–6; Becker-Göll,
Gallus, iii. 220; Baumeister, Denkmäler, s. v.v.
Toga and Waffen.) [W. F. C. A.]
SALAMI'NIA. [THEORIs.]
SALA'RIUM, allowance of salt for soldiers
and officers; then allowance for salt; and so
(though not earlier than the Empire) = sti-
pendium or military pay generally (as in Plin.
H. N. xxxi. § 89), though the word still in-
cluded rations. (Salt was once more supplied
in kind later: see Hist. Aug., Claud. 14, Prob. 4.)
Augustus instituted in B.C. 27 a further sala-
rium for governors of provinces, senatorial or
imperial. The outfit and travelling expenses of
governors (casarium) had previously been voted
them by the senate. But though the supply of
outfit and necessaries, in money or kind, by no
means came to an end, Augustus also paid a
fixed money-allowance or “salary” to provin-
cial governors (Dio Cass. lii. 23, liii. 15; Suet.
Aug. 36). The amounts varied with their rank
(Dio Cass. liii. 15), but are not known to us. Dio
Cassius (lxxviii. 22) says that in the time of
Macrinus a million sesterces were paid ; but the
provincial governor here mentioned was never
allowed to visit his province ; and the million
sesterces may therefore, it has been thought,
have included compensation for the honours and
advantages lost, and consequently may be much
more than the regular amount. Salaria were
also given by various emperors to other persons:
the comites of the emperor (Suet. Tib. 46);
legal assessors (Hist. Aug., Alez. Sev. 46);
poor senators (Suet. Nero, 10); rhetoricians
and philosophers in all the provinces (Hist.
Auq., Ant. Pius, 11 ; cf. Suet. Vesp. 18); gram-
marians, doctors, haruspices, engineers, archi-
tects (Hist. Aug., Alex. Sev. 44). The various
curatores and procuratores were divided accord-
ing to amount of salary into sea agenarii
(60,000 sesterces), centenarii (100,000), duce-
narii, and trecenarii. Respecting the pay which
certain classes of priests received, see SACERDOs
and WECTIGALIA TEMPLORUM. [F. T. R.]
SALIENTES. [Foss.]
SALII. These were an ancient guild of
priests, traditionally first instituted by Numa
for the service of Mars and the guardianship of
the sacred shields (Liv. i. 20; Cic. de Rep. ii.
14, 26; Dionys. ii. 70; Phut. Num. 13; Ov.
Fast. iii. 378; Fest. p. 131); other traditions
represented them as derived from Greece (Fest.
p. 320 ; Plut. l. c.; Serv. ad Aen. ii. 325, viii.
285); but we should rather regard these rites
as a primitive Italian religion, very possibly a
relic of superstitions inherited alike by the
Greek and Italian stocks, but not borrowed
from Greece after the Greeks and Italians were
separate nations. It is at least probable that
the Salii date from an earlier and ruder state
than the age of Numa. They were at any rate
widely spread through Italy, for we find them
at Alba, Lanuvium, Tibur, Tusculum, Anagnia,
Verona (Macrob. iii. 12, 7; Serv. l.c.; C. J. L. i.
150, v. 4492, vi. 270, x. 5925; see also other
inscriptions cited by Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.
428); nor was the name restricted to the priests
of a single deity : at Tibur they belonged to
the worship of Hercules Victor. In Rome (i.e.
in the Palatine city), there were originally
twelve, forming a collegium with officials, a
magister, praesul, and vates : they assembled at
the Curia Saliorum on the Palatine, and were
called Salii Palatini to distinguish them from
the other similar guild of twelve Salii Collini
(called also Agonales or Agonenses), who were
supposed to have been instituted by Hostilius,
and had their sacrarium in the Quirinal (Liv. i.
27; Dionys. ii. 70, iii. 32; Serv. l.c.). We can
scarcely doubt that these two guilds existed in
their separate localities when the Palatine and
Quirinal were distinct communities, and the
doubling of the Salii, like the doubling of the
Luperci, tells of the amalgamation of the Qui-
rinal with the Palatine city (compare Momm-
sen, Rom. Hist. i. 56; Staatsrecht, iii. 111:
LUPERCI).
The Salii were patricians (Cic. de Dom. 14,
38; Lucan, ix. 477; cf. Lucian, de Salt. 20),
chosen (by co-optation of the college) from
patrini et matrimi in early youth, but, as they
held the appointment for life, the colleges con-
tained seniores and juniores (“hic juvenum
chorus, ille senum,” Verg. Aen. viii. 285): if
however one of them became a flamen, augur,
pontifex or consul, he passed out of the college
of Salii by eacauguratio (C. J. L. vi. 1978); but
the assumption of the praetorship and consul-
ship did not necessarily vacate the Salian priest-
hood, as may be seen from the case of Scipio
(Liv. xxxvii. 33) and others (Val. Max. i. 1, 9;
Macrob. iii. 14). The distinguishing dress of
the Salii was an embroidered tunic, a brazen
breast-plate, the trabea and the priestly cap
[APEX], a sword girt at the side, on the left
arm the ancile or sacred shield, and in the right
hand a short staff with which the shield from
time to time was struck. It is significant of
their function that in dress they were half-
priests, half-warriors. The two collegia were
distinct not only in name: the Palatini had
their sanctuary on the Palatine hill and were
consecrated to Mars; the Collini had their
sanctuary on the Quirinal and were consecrated
to Quirinus (Liv. v. 52; Stat. Silv. vi. 29),
both deities alike presiding over Roman war-
fare. Each collegium had charge of twelve
ancilia. That both guilds had shields is not
only the natural view, but is also distinctly
stated by Livy (v. 52) in the words “quid
loquar de ancilibus vestris, Mars Gradive tuque
Quirine pater.”
The great festival season of the Salii began
with March, as the beginning alike of the cam-
paigning and the agricultural season, and occu-
pied the greater part of the month (Dionys. ii.
590. SALII
SALII
20; Polyb. xxi. 10, 12; cf. Huschke, Das alte
röm. Jahr, p. 362). On the 1st of March
they were said arma movere (ra Śrāa kively,
Lyd. de Mens. iii. 15), of which we must con-
ceive the meaning to be that they brought
forth the shields from their sacraria: then,
equipped as above described, they went through
the city in a procession which was continued
for several days. They were preceded by
trumpeters, and they themselves as they walked
beat the shields with their staves, the praesul
leading their dance in three-time (tripudium)
and being said amptruare, while his followers
redamptruabant, and the vates leading the
Salian chant (see below). There were various
stations (mansiones) for the annual processsion,
at each of which successively the ancilia were
deposited for one night (C. I. L. vi. 2158), and
there the Salii feasted (Fest. p. 329); [for these
banquets and their luxury see Hor. 0d. i. 37, 2;
Cic. ad Att. x. 9; Suet. Claud. 33:] on the
next day the procession passed to another
mansio. It seems to us possible that in this is
to be found the explanation of the fact that
“arma moventur” is stated of three days,
March 1st (Lyd. iii. 15), March 9th (Cal.
Philoc.), and March 23rd (Lyd. iv. 42): we
may suppose that the ceremonies which marked
the shields being brought forth from the Curia
Saliorum on March 1st, were repeated on the
other two days when they were moved from
two special mansiones, one probably being the
sacrarium of the Regia. The exact progress of
the procession cannot be traced out: we know
that they offered sacrifice in the Regia (Fest.
l. c.), where the Pontifex Maximus also and the
Saliae virgines officiated (the latter, so far as we
know, on that day only); they visited the
Comitium (Varro, L. L. v. 85), the Capitol
(Dionys. ii. 70), the Pons Sublicius (Serv. ad
Aen. ii. 165, which explains the allusion in
Catull. 17, 5), in each place with the charac-
teristic dance and chant; probably in each there
was a mansio. [For the special March festivals,
in which the Salii officiated, see EQUIRRIA ;
AGONIA; QUINQUATRUS.] It is not certain
whether we are to understand from the “30
days” mentioned by Polybius (xxi. 10) that not
only the whole month of March was religiosus
on this account for the Salii, but a whole month
in autumn also. The 24th is the last day in
March on which their functions are distinctly
mentioned; and either immediately after this
day, or at the end of the month, the shields
were replaced (condita) in their sacrarium. As
March opened the campaigning season, so
October closed it (theoretically, not in practice),
and this was marked on the 19th by an armi-
lustrium, when the Salii again brought out the
ancilia (Warr. vi. 22), and then stored them in
their sacrarium till the next season. It is clear
from a comparison of Tac. Hist. i. 89, Suet. Oth.
8, Liv. xxxvii. 33, and Polyb. xxi. 10, that the
words arma moventur and arma condita apply
equally to the spring and the autumn cere-
monies: 'the first two passages refer to an expe-
dition in March, the last two to the autumn;
in each period for all the days (whatever their
true number may have been) between the arma
mota and the arma condita, no member of a
Salian college could rightly travel from the
place where he was for any expedition. Thus
we find Scipio stopped in the autumn, and Otho
regarded as unconventional because he refused
to be stopped in the spring, “motis necdum
conditis ancilibus.” We have no precise infor-
mation as to the parts taken in these ceremonies
by the two colleges respectively: we should
probably be right in assuming that the 24 Salii
of both colleges together joined in the processions
above mentioned, which signified the beginning
and ending of the war season, with which both
were equally concerned; on the other hand, we
can have no doubt that on certain days specially.
belonging to one of the two deities or one of the
two localities the chief, if not the sole, part
fell to one of the colleges. In the Equirria, for
instance, we must suppose the Salii Palatini to
have taken the lead or officiated alone as the
special priests of Mars, and so also in the tubi-
lustrium, which was on the Palatine; but the
Agonia on March 17 would naturally belong to
the Salii Collini, who thence derived one of their
IlāIIlêS.
Carmen Saliare. —This chant, led by the
vates of each Salian college, belonged to a very
ancient ritual, and was in Quintilian's time
scarcely intelligible (Quintil. i. 6, 40; cf. Hor.
Ep. ii. 1, 86; Varro, L. L. vii. 3; Cic. de Orat.
iii. 51, 197); the surviving portions may be
seen in Wordsworth, Fragments of Early Latin,
564–566. The verses were called awamenta,
which is itself a word of disputed origin, pro-
bably not, as some have said, akin to aſcis, like
the Greek &#oves, inscribed tablets, but rather,
as Curtius, Corssen, and Vaniçek agree, it came
from the root ag, to which belong both hul
and aio, and therefore signified utterances. In
their chant the Salii sang not only of Mars, to
whom they seem to appeal as the averter of
evil influences (perhaps in agriculture as well
as in war), and Mamurius, who is doubtless the
same as Mars, but also of Janus (Janus Quirinus),
Jupiter (Lucetius), Juno and Minerva (Macrob.
i. 9, 14, and 15, 14; Warro, L. L. vii. 26;
Fest. pp. 3 and 122); and afterwards, as though
it were a sort of “state prayer,” they included
the names of the reigning emperor and imperial
princes (Mon. Ancyr. ii. 21 ; Tac. Ann. ii. 83,
iv. 9; Capitol. M. Anton. Phil. 21). [For the
effect of political changes and developments in
the priesthoods, see SACERDOS.]
Ancilia.-These sacred shields were, according
to the legends, at first twelve, viz. the shield
which fell from heaven and the eleven copies.
It is clear that these twelve were in the charge
of the Salii Palatini, and, though some (as
Ambrosch and Preller) have said that they were
kept in the sacrarium of the Regia, we should
rather follow Marquardt and Jordan (Top. ii.
271) in holding that they were kept in the
Curia Saliorum on the Palatine. It was into
this sacrarium Martis that the praetor or consul
setting out for war entered, when, touching the
shields, he said, “Mars vigila,” With this corre-
sponds the custody of the other twelve shields by
the Salii Collini in the sacrarium on the Quirinal
(Dionys. ii. 70). The ancile (for ancidile, am-
caedo, i.e. cut on both sides) was an oblong
shield, which would have been a complete oval
but for a curved indentation on each side (ékrouh
ypáup.ms éAtkoetàoºs, Plut. Num, 13; cf. Varro,
L. L. vii. 43, “ab utraque parte, ut Thracum,
incisa.” See PELTA). It is probable that this
SALII
SALII 591
páttern of shield was handed down from a time
when the shields were slung at the back, as is
seen in vase-paintings as late as 500 B.C. The
indentations then in these “figure of eight"
shields were to allow for the free movement of
the arms, when drawn back, especially in
riding. It is, we think, pro-
bable that ancile was origi-
nally an adjective, and that
the full name was arma
ancilia, as in the calendar
for March 9. The shape is
clearly shown in the coin of
the Licinii representing two
ancilia and the priestly
cap with the apex.
A representation is often relied upon from a
gem in the museum of Florence, which shows
two figures bearing ancilia (of the correct
shape) hung on a staff. This has an Etruscan
inscription, and may safely be pronounced not
Roman; even its antiquity is now questioned
(see Marquardt, p. 431; Baumeister, Denk. p.
1546), but it is likely that it is a correct repre-
sentation of what did happen—not of the Salii
in procession, for they carried each his own
shield, in warrior-fashion, on the left arm, but
of two attendants (Dionys. ii. 70) bearing on a
pole the shields (which probably they were not
allowed to touch), to deposit them either in
their permanent sacrarium, or in one of the
mansiones for the night. A coin has been found
which represents a round shield. This may
possibly be, as Marquardt suggests, the special
form of the shields borne by the Colline Salii:
his other suggestion, that it was a later form
adopted for all ancilia, seems to be negatived by
the fact that the coin is Domitian's, and therefore
was struck at the time when Plutarch was
writing of the shape as quoted above. The
relief at Anagnia which shows perfectly oval
ancilia may represent, as Benndorff says (Annal.
d. Inst. 1869), a local variation in shape, differ-
ing from that of Rome. The common-sense
view seems to us to be that the type of shield
familiar in the time and place where each guild
took its origin, was perpetuated and handed
down in that guild. In this relief the staves
are about as high as a man’s shoulder, and have
a knob at each end. We cannot agree with
Marquardt that Ovid's words (Fast. iii. 377)
necessarily imply a round shield: they only
exclude an angular one; and it is clearly impos-
sible that Ovid should not know the shape of
the shield carried in his own time by the Salii.
It is beyond the scope of this work to discuss at
length the mythological meaning of these rites,
but it will be useful to notice briefly one or two
considerations which affect the date and order
of the ceremonies described above, and also to
indicate the authorities for several interesting
and some very probable theories about their
origin which have been recently put forward.
There can be no doubt that the reason why the
month of March was the great ceremonial period
for the Salii was that it was regarded as the
birth month of Mars and the time for resuming
warfare; but we may notice as perhaps more
than probable the view that this Mars was in
primitive Italian religion regarded not only as
the giver of victory in war, but also as the
deity who drove away the darkness of winter
and death, and who, by his reappearance with
spring, introduced not only the campaigning,
but also the agricultural season. Roscher, in
dwelling on the connexion of Apollo and Mars,
further maintains with considerable force that a
parallel is to be found between the singing and
dancing of the Salii and the songs and dances in
the worship of Apollo, whose birth-time also is
in spring: he compares the ceremonies of the .
THEOPHANIA at Delphi, the Curetes at Ortygia,
and their clashing of arms to avert a hostile
power (cf. Strab. xiv. p. 640), and deduces, not
of course that the Italian rites were borrowed .
from the Greek, but that the idea originally
anderlying both was the same—a new birth of
the year or of light, the averting of evil influ-
ence, and protection in the future. Closely .
connected with this is the fact that the Flami-
nica Dialis showed at this period signs of mourn-
ing in her attire, just as she did at the cere-
monies of the Argei [FLAMEN, Vol. I. p. 866 al,
and also that it was pronounced an unlucky
time for marriages; for it is more probable that
this was originally because it was a period of
striving against evil powers, than, as Ovid sug-
gests (Fast. iii. 373), from associations with
Wal'. - -
We cannot, indeed, accept the view of Usener
that the twelve ancilia symbolised twelve new-
born suns, nor the less puzzling theory that
they represented twelve moons. These theories
arise from an idea, which we conceive to be
erroneous, that the Salian priests were created
for the shields, and were twelve because that
was the number of the shields. It is more
likely that there were twelve shields for each
guild because each guild had twelve priests. In
the Palatine city there were accordingly only
twelve, but in historic Rome altogether twenty-
four. As to the number twelve, whether of
Etruscan origin or derived merely from three
tribes and four regions, we need not here
inquire.
While, however, we venture to dissent from
these interpretations of the ancilia, we think
that weight should be given to the interesting
suggestion of Usener that “Mamurius Veturius”
in the Equirria or Mamuralia [see EQUIRRIA],
(when, according to Lydus, iv. 36, a man
clothed in skins was driven out of the city with
peeled rods,) was “old Mars,” and that the rite
symbolised the old season driven out by the
new. It might rather, perhaps, be said that
the man driven out represented in scapegoat
fashion the darkness of winter and death, who
were expelled, not Mamurius himself, and that
the Salian cry to Mamurius is merely for his
aid in the expulsion; but in any case there
seems good reason for comparing these rites
with others which have the above symbolical
meaning. (See Grimm, Mythol. vol. ii. p. 764,
E. T. For the references on the mythology in
the latter part of this article, the present writer
is indebted to unpublished notes of Mr. Warde
Fowler: a full discussion will be found in
Roscher, Mars und Apollon, pp. 25 ff., and Usener,
in Rhein. Mus. xxx. pp. 215 ft. For the history
of the Salii and their functions, see Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii. 427–438; Preller, Röm. Myth: i.
350; Jordan, Topog. ii. 271; and for the ancilia,
besides the above, Baumeister, Denkm. p. 1546;
Benndorff, l.c.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]

592 SALINAE
SALTATIO
SALINAE, sc. fodinae (&Aaſ, &Aoránytov), a
salt-work. The ancients had many ways of pro-
euring salt, of which Pliny, H. N. xxxi. §§ 73–
92, gives a summary. They were acquainted
with rock-salt (Herod. iv. 181–185; #xes àpurrot,
Arriam, Ecped. Alex. 3, 4; sal nativus). They
obtained salt also from inland lakes (Herod. vii.
30), from natural springs or brine-pits (Cic. N.
D. ii. 53, 132), and from coasts where the sun
dried it out of the sea-water (as the #xes aºré-
parot at the mouth of the Borysthenes: Herod. iv.
53 and Dio Chrys. Or. 36; Pliny, l. c.). But
they obtained their largest supplies from works
constructed on the seashore where it was
adapted for the purpose by being low and easily
overflowed by the sea. In order to aid the
matural evaporation, shallow rectangular ponds
(the multifidi lacus of Rutil. Itin. i. 478) were
dug, divided from one another by earthen walls,
and probably like the old salt-pans still visible
on many points of the English coast. The sea-
water was admitted by channels which could be
closed by sluices (CATARACTA; Rutil. i. 481).
As the water flowed from one evaporating-pond
to another, it became more strongly impregnated
with salt (Rutil. i. 475–490). When the brine
began at last to crystallise, the maker (salina-
tor, &Aom myos) raked out the salt and left it to
drain (Nicander, Alex. 519). Works of this
kind gave the name of ‘AAal or Salinae to several
places in Attica (Steph. Byz. ; see Boeckh,
Staatshaushaltung der Athener, i. 126, ed. 3),
Britain (Ptol.), and elsewhere. Cato, R. R. 88,
gives directions for further purifying common
salt.
Brine made as above (coacto humore, Plin. H.
N. xxxi. § 73) was called by the Greeks &Aum, by
the Latins salsugo or Salsilago, and by the
Spaniards muria (Plin. xxxi. § 83). It was
used by the Egyptians to pickle fish (Herod. ii.
77), and by the Romans to preserve olives, cheese,
and meat (Cato, l.c.). From muria, which may
be connected with āAuvpts, “brine,” victuals
cured in it were called salsa muriatica (Plaut.
Poen. i. 2, 31).
Under Roman government salt-works were
common public property, and were let to the
highest bidder. Ancus Martius is said to have
established the first salt-work at Ostia (Liv. i.
33; Plin. xxxi. § 89). In Liv. ii. 9 (B.C. 508)
we find the government interfering with the
price, and the sale of salt becoming a state-
monopoly. In B.C. 204 (Liv. xxix. 37) a new
vectigal was raised out of salt. Livy apparently
means that a tax was put on, in addition to the
revenue derived from the manufacture, but he
is far from being clear. The price of salt was
at the same time limited. The modius (about a
peck) was to be sold for a sextans at Rome; but
dearer in other parts of Italy, no doubt to cover
the cost and risks of transport. In the provinces
salt-works were sometimes left to their former
owners (persons or towns), who had merely to
pay Rome a fixed rent; but the commonest plan
was to lease them to publicani. The Roman
government seems to have been anxious to keep
the price of salt down; but still its monopoly
was maintained under the Empire (Cod. Just. iv.
61, 11). [F. T. R.]
SALI'NUM, dim. SALILLUM, a salt-cellar.
Among the poor a shell served for a salt-cellar
(Hor. Sat. i. 3, 14; Schol. ad loc.); but all who
were raised above poverty had one of silver
which descended from father to son (Hor. Carm.
ii. 16, 13; Liv. xxvi. 36), and was accompanied
by a silver patella, which was used together
with the salt-cellar in the domestic sacrifices
(Pers. iii. 24, 25). These two articles of silver
were alone compatible with the simplicity of
Roman manners in the early times of the
Republic (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 153; Wal.
Max. iv. 4, § 3). The salt-cellar was no doubt
placed in the middle of the table, to which
it communicated a sacred character, from
the offering of the mola salsa to the Lares.
[Compare LARARIUM ; PATELLA ; Becker-Göll,
Gallus, iii. 398.] In shape the salinum was
probably in most cases a round shallow bowl.
Probably some of the small silver bowls from
Montcornet (Aisne), in the British Museum
(referred to under PIPERATORIUM), are salt-
cellars. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
SALTA’TIO (5pxmoris), dancing. The danc-
ing of the Greeks as well as of the Romans had
very little in common with the exercise which
goes by that name in modern times. It may be
divided into two kinds, gymnastic and mimetic;
that is, it was intended either to represent bodily
activity, or to express by gestures, movements,
and attitudes certain ideas or feelings, and also
single events or a series of events, as in the
modern ballet. All these movements, however,
were accompanied by music; but the terms
ëpxmoris and saltatio were used in so much wider
a sense than our word “dancing,” that they were
applied to designate gestures even when the
body did not move at all (Plat. Legg. vii. pp. 814,
816; Ovid, Ars. Am. i. 595, ii. 305; saltare
solis oculis, Apul. Met. x. p. 251 ; cf. Grote,
Bist. of Greece, vol. iv. p. 114).
We find dancing prevalent among the Greeks
from the earliest times. It is frequently men-
tioned in the Homeric poems (Il. ix. 186; xiii.
637): the suitors of Penelope delight themselves
with music and dancing (Od. i. 152,421; xviii.
304); Ulysses is entertained at the court of
Alcinous with the exhibitions of very skilful
dancers, the rapid movements of whose feet
excite his admiration (Od. viii. 265); and from
Od. xxiii. 134 we may gather that the dancing
of the guests was then an ordinary part of a
wedding festival.
But a broad distinction must be made between
the custom of the heroic age in this particular and
of later times, especially as regards Attica. In
Sparta, and probably in Doric states generally,
the dance was regularly taught both as a gym-
nastic training and with a view to religious
festivals, and boys and girls danced together (see
below, §puos); but even in Doric states we do
not gather that it was, as in the Homeric poems,
an ordinary amusement in domestic life, or that
it took the place which dancing now does. At
Athens, in the age of Pericles and afterwards, we
find dances used in certain religious festivals
and in the drama [DIONYSIA: CHORUS]; but as
regards dancing for amusement in private houses
the custom differs altogether from that of the
older and simpler times described in the Homeric
poems. The dancers are hired to amuse as a
spectacle, and when the guests dance themselyes
it is a sign that they are excited by wine (cf.
Alex. ap. Athen. iv. p. 134 a ; Theophrast. Char:
9; Xen. Hier. 6, 2). Social dances of men and
SALTATIO
SALTATIO 593
women together were wholly precluded by the
customs regulating the appearance of women in
society [MATRIMONIUM, p. 137]; and, when
Plato advocates the dancing of young men and
maidens together (Legg. vi. p. 771), we must
notice that he is expressing a desire, not de-
scribing what existed. It seems, however, that
Women in private houses danced together at
family festivals such as the Amphidromia
(Eubul, ap. Athen. xv. p. 668; cf. Aristoph.
Lys. 408). Still, there was even in this re-
stricted amount of dancing a difference between
Greek and Roman habits, which is noticed by
Cornelius Nepos (Epam. 1), and moreover, as
time went on, dancing for mere amusement
(though still with separation of the sexes) be-
came commoner again in Greece than it had been
in the time of the great Greek writers (cf. Athen.
xiv. p. 628 c).
The lively imagination and mimetic powers of
the Greeks found abundant subjects for various
kinds of dances, and accordingly the names of
Ino less than 200 different dances have come
down to us. (Meursius, Orchestr.; Athen. xiv.
pp. 627–630; Pollux, iv. 95–111; Liban. Öræp
Tów Śpx.) It would be inconsistent with the
nature of this work to give a description of all
that are known ; only the most important can
be mentioned, and such as will give some idea
of the dancing of the ancients.
Dancing was originally closely connected with
religion: Plato (Legg. vii. pp. 798, 799) thought
that all dancing should be based on religion, as
it was, he says, among the Egyptians. The
dances of the Chorus at Sparta and in other
Doric states were intimately connected with the
worship of Apollo, as has been shown at length
elsewhere [CHORUS; HYPORCHEMA]; and in all
the public festivals, which were so numerous
among the Greeks, dancing formed a very
prominent part. All the religious dances, with
the exception of the Bacchic and the Cory-
bantian, were very simple, and consisted of
gentle movements of the body with various
turnings and windings around the altar: such a
dance was the yápavos, which Theseus is said to
have performed at Delos on his return from
Crete (Plut. Thes. 21). The Dionysiac or
Bacchic and the Corybantian were of a very
different nature. In the former the life and
adventures of the god were represented by
mimetic dancing [DIONYSIA]; the dance called
Bakxtkh by Lucian (de Salt. 79) was a Satyric
dance, and chiefly prevailed in Ionia and Pontus.
The most illustrious men in the state danced in
it, representing Titans, Corybantians, Satyrs, and
husbandmen; and the spectators were so de-
lighted with the exhibition, that they remained
sitting the whole day to witness it, forgetful of
everything else. . The Corybantian was of a very
wild character: it was chiefly danced in Phrygia
and in Crete; the dancers were armed, struck
^
Corybantes, from a relief. (Krause.)
WOL. II.
their swords against their shields, and displayed
the most extravagant fury; it was accompanied
chiefly by the flute. (Lucian, ib. 8; Strab. x.
p. 473; Plat. Crit. p. 54 D.) The preceding
woodcut, from the Museo Pio Clementino (vol.
iv. pl. 2), is supposed to represent a Corybantian
dance. Respecting the dances in the theatre,
see CHORUS.
Dancing was applied to gymnastic purposes
and to training for war, especially in the Doric
states, and was believed to have contributed
very much to the success of the Dorians in war,
as it enabled them to perform their evolutions
simultaneously and in order. Hence the poet
Socrates (Athen. xiv. p. 628 f) says:
gt öexopo's KáAAtara 6eois ruńatv, &ptorrow
év troAéuq.
There were various dances in early times,
which served as a preparation for war: of such
dances the most celebrated was the Pyrrhic (#
IIvášíxm), of which trpúxus was said to be the
name in Crete. For a full account of the Pyrrhic
dance in Greece and at Rome, see PyRRHICA.
Another important gymnastic dance was per-
formed at the festival of yuplvoiratētai at Sparta,
where the chief object, according to Müller (Dor.
iv. 6, § 8), was to represent gymnastic exercises
and dancing in intimate union. Respecting the
dance at this festival, see GYMNOPAEDIA.
There were other dances, besides the Pyrrhic,
in which the performers had arms; but these
seem to have been entirely mimetic, and not prac-
tised with any view to training for war. Such
was the Kapraſa peculiar to the Aenianians and
Magnetes, which was performed by two armed
men in the following manner: one lays down his
arms, sows the ground, and ploughs with a yoke
of oxen, frequently looking around as if afraid;
then comes a robber, upon which the other
snatches up his arms and fights with him for
the oxen. All these movements are rhythmical,
accompanied by the flute. At last the robber
binds the man and drives away the oxen, but
sometimes the husbandman conquers. (Xen.
Anab. vi. 1, §§ 7, 8; Athen. i. pp. 15 f, 16 a ;
Maxim. Tyr. Diss. xxviii. 4.) Similar dances
by persons with arms are mentioned by Xenophon
on the same occasion. These dances were fre-
quently performed at banquets for the enter-
tainment of the guests (Athen. iv. p. 155 b).
At banquets likewise the kw8torm ripes or tum-
blers were frequently introduced. These
tumblers, in the course of their dance, flung
themselves on their heads and alighted again on
their feet (šo rep, oi kv6taróvres kal eis àp68w
t& orkéAm trepiq epánevot kuśioróot kūkāq, Plato,
Symp. p. 190 A). We read of kv6torm ripes as
early as the time of Homer (Il. xviii. 605; Od.
iv. 18). They were also accustomed to make
their somersault over knives or swords, which
was called kvélotáveis uaxaſpas (Plato, Euthyd.
p. 294 D; Xen. Mem. i. 3, § 9, Symp. ii. 14;
Athen. iv. p. 129 d ; Pollux, iii. 134). The
way in which this feat was performed is de-
scribed by Xenophon, who says (Symp. ii. 11)
that a circle was made quite full of upright
swords, and that the dancer eis raûra ékw8tota
Te kal éðekv6ío'ra örép ağrów: and it is well
illustrated by the following cut taken from the
Museo Borbonico, vol. vii. tav, 58. (Becker-
Göll, Charikles, i. 164; Baumeister, Denkmäler,
p. 584 f.) We learn from Tacitus gº. 24)
Q

594 SALTATIO
SAMBUCA.
that the German youths also used to dance
among swords and spears pointed at them.
Tumbler. (Museo Borbonico.)
An even more remarkable performance is
represented on a vase-painting (Bull. Napol. v.
tav. 7 = Baumeister, fig. 631), where the per-
former in a similar position is shooting an arrow
with her feet, and another (Tischbein, i. 60 =
Baum. 632) is filling from a large amphora a.
cup which she holds in her foot by means of a
cyathus which she holds in the other. It may
be noted that Krause in his representation of this
last vase-painting wrongly gives three distinct
scenes as if they were connected in one whole.
Other kinds of dances were frequently per-
formed at entertainments, in Rome as well as in
Greece, by courtesans, many of which were of a
very indecent and lascivious nature (Macrob.
Sat. ii. 10; Plaut. Stich. v. 2, 11). The dancers
seem to have frequently represented Bacchanals:
many such dancers occur in the paintings found
at Herculaneum and Pompeii in a variety of
graceful attitudes. (See Museo Borbonico, vol.
vii. tav. 34–40; vol. ix. tav. 17; vol. x. tav. 5,
6, 54.)
Among the dances performed without arms
one of the most important was the Šppos, which
was danced at Sparta by youths and maidens |
together: the youth danced first some move-
ments suited to his age, and of a military nature;
the maiden followed in measured steps and with
feminine gestures. Lucian (de Salt. 12) says
that it was similar to the dance performed at
the Gymnopaedia. (Compare Müller, Dor. iv.
6, § 5.) Another common dance at Sparta was
the Bibasis (88aa'is), which was much practised
both by men and women. The dance consisted
in springing rapidly from the ground, and
striking the feet behind; a feat of which a
Spartan woman in Aristophanes (Lysistr. 28)
prides herself (yuuvaôöopaſ ya, kal troth trulyāv
ãAAopal). The number of successful strokes
was counted, and the most skilful received
prizes. We are told by a verse which has been
preserved by Pollux (iv. 102), that a Laconian
girl had danced the bibasis a thousand times,
which was more than had ever been done before.
(Müller, Dorians, iv. 6, § 8.)
In many of the Greek states the art of dancing
was carried to great perfection by females, who
were frequently engaged to add to the pleasures
and enjoyment of men at their symposia. These
dancers always belonged to the hetaerae. Xeno-
phon (Symp. ix. 2–7) describes a mimetic dance
which was represented at a symposium where
Socrates was present. It was performed by a
maiden and a youth, belonging to a Syracusan,
who is called the épxmorroötöda kcAos, and repre-
sented the loves of Dionysus and Ariadne.
Dancing was common among the Romans in
ancient times in connexion with religious festi-
vals and rites, and was practised, according to
Servius (ad Werg. Ecl. v. 73), because the
ancients thought that no part of the body should
be free from the influence of religion. The
dances of the Salii, which were performed by
men of patrician families, are spoken of else-
where. [SALII.] For the Pyrrhic dance at
Rome, see PYRRHICA. There was another old
Roman dance of a military nature, called Bell:-
crepa Saltatio, which is said to have been
instituted by Romulus, after he had carried off
the Sabine virgins, in order that a like mis-
fortune might not befall his state (Festus,
s. v.). Dancing, however, was not performed by
any Roman citizen except in connexion with
religion; and it is only in reference to such
dancing that we are to understand the state-
ments that the ancient Romans did not consider
dancing disgraceful, and that not only freemen
but the sons of senators and noble matrons
practised it (Quintil. Inst. Orat. i. 11, § 18;
Macrob. Sat. ii. 10). In the later times of the
Republic we know that it was considered highly
disgraceful for a freeman to dance: Cicero re-
proaches Cato for calling Murena a dancer (salta-
tor), and adds, “Nemo fere saltat sobrius, nisi
forte insanit” (pro Muren. 6, 13; in Pison. 10,
22; pro Deiot. 9, 26; cf. Hor. Od. iii. 621).
The mimetic dances of the Romans, which
were carried to such perfection under the
Empire, are described under PANTOMIMUS.
Respecting the dancers on the tight-rope, see
FUNAMBULUs. (Meursius, Orchestra; Burette,
De la Danse des Anciens; Krause, Gymnastik
wnd Agon. d. Hell. p. 807; Schömann, Antiq.
p. 58; Becker-Göll, Charikles, i. 166; Blümner,
Privatleben, p. 505; Marquardt, Privatleben,
p. 109.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
SALVIANUMINTERDICTUM. [INTER-
DICTUM.]
SALUTATIO, the name given to one of the
forms of attention (officia) expected from clients
by their patrons at Rome. The client would
wait even before daybreak (cf. Mayor on Juv.
iii. 127 and v. 19) in the vestibule until the
doors of the atrium were opened. There he
attended until the patron appeared, and the
nomenclator announced the name of the depen-
dent, who brought his morning greeting (ave).
The callers were commonly divided into various
admissiones, according to their rank and inti-
macy, and even men of good position found
themselves in the number (Juv. i. 100; Sen. de
Ben. vi. 33). The clients who were invited to
do so, accompanied the patron wherever he
might be going. Others, after receiving the
dole [SPORTULA] at one house, would hurry off
to another, to be similarly rewarded there
(Mart. x. 74). The name salutatores was used
of the clients who earned their living by these
attentions. (Cf. Friedländer, Röm. Sitteng, i.”
382 f ; Becker, Gallus, ii. 159 f.) [A. S. W.]
SAMBU’CA. 1. (rapbükm, or gaśākm, Ar-
cadius, de Accent. p. 107), a harp. The preceding
Latin and Greek names are with good reason re-
presented by Bochart, Wossius, and other critics,

SAMBUCA
SARCOPHAGUS 595
to be the same as the Hebrew spap (sabbeca),
the “sackbut,” which occurs in Daniel (iii. 5, 7,
10). The performances of sambucistriae (orapºvki-
orpía) were only known to the early Romans
as luxuries brought over from Asia (Plaut. Stich.
ii. 3, 57; Liv. xxxix. 6). The chordae obliquae
which Juvenal (iv. 64) mentions among Asiatic
innovations at Rome denote the sambuca. The
Athenians considered them as an exotic refine-
ment (Philemon, p. 370, ed. Meineke); and the
Rhodian women who played on the harp at the
marriage-feast of Caranus in Macedonia, clothed
in very thin tunics, were introduced with a view
to give to the entertainment the highest degree
of splendour. Some Greek authors expressly
attributed the invention of this instrument to
the Syrians or Phoenicians (Athen. iv. p. 175 d).
The opinion of those who ascribed it to the
lyric poet Ibycus can only authorise the con-
clusion that he had the merit of inventing some
modification of it, the instrument as improved
by him being called 'IBöktvov (Athen. l.c.;
Suidas, s. v.v. '186kivov, 'IBukós, Xauß0kai).
Strabo, moreover, represents grapuśkm as a
“barbarous ” name (x. 3, § 17). [See also
LYRA.]
An illustration is given below of an Egyptian
harp, which perhaps represents the sambuca.
It is from a painting on an Egyptian tomb.
Under the Roman emperors the harp appears to
have come into more general use (Pers. v. 95;
Spartian. Hadr. 26).
2–1 –
Ancient Egyptian harp. (Bruce.)
2. Sambuca (orauðūkm or oravöökm : see
Wescher, Poliorcet. p. 61) was also the name of
a military engine used in sieges. For its use
and construction the authorities are Polyb. viii.
2; Veget. iv. 17; Plut. Marcell. 15; Athen.
xiv. p. 634 b ; Onosand. Strat. 42; and an
elaborate, but not perfectly clear, description in
Bito (ed. Wescher, l.c.), where a plan is given.
It was a movable bridge for passing either from
the ships or the towers of the besiegers on to
the walls. The oravöökm of Bito was a bridge
with sheltering bulwarks supported on a high
column or cylinder made as a screw, which was
turned in any direction by a capstan; the whole
being fixed on a platform with wheels, so that
it combined tower and bridge. The bridge had a
weight at one end to assist in keeping it horizon-
tal, and a ladder at the other by which the sol-
diers climbed up to it; it was turned with the
column upon its screw in the required direction,
and raised to a level with the top of the wall
by the screw (and probably also by pulleys).
The sambuca of Vegetius passed from the be-
sieging tower to the walls, being raised by
pulleys; the same tower might have a ram in
its lower story. That of Polybius passed on to
the walls from two ships anchored together; it
was raised by pulleys on the masts, and the
soldiers mounted to it by a ladder sheltered
with öpúſpaktou. The name (as Vegetius,
Polybius, and Athenaeus notice) was given
because of a fancied resemblance of the
machine, with its upright masts or supports
and the ropes from its pulleys, to the harp
described above. (See also Rüstow and Kochly,
Gr. Kriegsw. 312; Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii.
312; A. Müller in Baumeister, Denkm. p.
542.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
SAMNITES. [GLADIATOREs, Vol. I. p.
918 b.]
SANDA'LIUM. [SolBA.]
SANDA'PILA. . [FUNUs, Vol. I. p. 892 a.]
SAPO. Pliny (H. N. xviii. § 191) mentions
this as a Gallic invention; it was not, however,
our soap, but a sort of pomade or wash (“duobus
modis spissus ac liquidus”), made of fat and
ashes, and used to give a golden tint to the
hair. Pliny adds that it was used in Germany,
and even more by men than women of that
country (cf. Tac. Hist. iv. 61; Juv. xiii. 161,
and Mayor ad loc.). In fact, most other writers
seem to connect it rather with the Germans
than the Gauls: Martial calls it “spuma Ba-
tava" (viii. 33 = caustica spuma, xiv. 26) and
“Mattiacae pilae,” i.e. balls of this composition
from Mattiacum in Germany (xiv. 27). Ovid
speaks of “Germanae herbae " for dyeing the
hair, where the word herbae may be applied in
ignorance of the materials used to make the
dye. The flavus cinis, of which Servius (ad Aen.
iv. 698) says that Cato makes mention, is pro-
bably this sapo. For the equivalents to our
soap used by Greeks and Romans, see FULL0,
Vol. I. p. 161. (Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii. 161;
Marquardt, Privatleben, 787; Blümmer, Techno-
logie, i. 161.) [G. E. M.]
SA'RCINAE. [ExERCITUS, Wol. I. p. 807.]
SARCO'PHAGUS, properly an epithet of
lapis, a flesh-eating stone from Assos in the Troad,
in which Pliny (H. N. ii. § 211; xxxvi. § 161) says
bodies were buried, and consumed all but the
teeth within forty days. The word has come to
be commonly used for any coffin (e.g. Juv. x.
172), and especially for a coffin in stone with
sculptural decorations. The introduction of
these into Greece and Rome was due to foreign
influence; and they are not found in either
before the period of decline. In Egypt they
existed from the earliest period, and they were
thence introduced into Phoenicia. But the
object among these people, as well as in Greece
and Rome, was to preserve the body, not to
destroy it; hence the name “sarcophagus.” is
peculiarly inappropriate.
We may distinguish the coffin for the recep-
tion of the body, inside the tomb, often plain
and sometimes cut in the solid rock, from the
ornamental erection of a similar shape placed in
a conspicuous position to serve as a monument-
But the ornamentation of the one was naturally
enough often transferred to the other.
The Egyptian sarcophagus was, ; *: dwell-
Q

596 SARCOPHIAGUS
ing of the deceased, sometimes made in the
form of a house; and a similar architectural
--~~
º º º º
SARCOPHAGUS
form is found in Greece and Rome. The earliest
sarcophagus showing the influence of Greek
º-
º º
º
º
º
º º
º º
--- º
in tumuli. ºſº º º |º
lillºnial ºn Tºlº intº
"T"Wºº
º- all ------ an *Lill-
- º ITTF º
| º º
- º
º
º
*Tüß † º | º
º | Tilſº intºn º
º
- liºn ºal ºrnº. - º
- - -
|A
lſº
Tººlſ.
Fig. 1. Sarcophagus from Golgoi in Cyprus. (Cesnola.)
style comes from Cyprus; here we see the
myth of the Gorgon and a hunting scene, on
other sides a banquet and a chariot group.
Unfortunately, there is no trustworthy record of
its discovery. In Lycia, the tomb often takes
the form of a large sarcophagus mounted on a
base; scenes of life, such as fights and banquets,
are favourite subjects. In Greece we do not
find sarcophagi till the Hellenistic period, when
foreign influences were common. They were at
first, like those of Asia Minor, intended as
visible monuments outside the tomb; and accord-
ingly we find that the reliefs are never allowed
to interfere with the lines of the architectural
form (fig. 2). The subjects are often purely
decorative; often children are represented in
various employments, perhaps because their
short and plump figures best suit the field to be
filled. Mythological subjects also occur, such
as the combat with the Amazons, and a few
other scenes.
Fig. 2, Sarcophagus found at Patras. (Arch. Zeit. 1872.)
Sarcophagi of stone with architectural decora-
tion were made in Rome as early as the third
century (e.g. the famous ones from the tomb of
the Scipios); but the marble ones with scenes
in relief belong to imperial times, and are not
common till the second century A.D. These form
by far the most numerous class of sarcophagi,
and are usually meant when the word is used.
Partly because they were usually inside the
tomb, partly from want of artistic feeling, the
reliefs are less subordinate to the structural
form; they are often crowded with figures, and
even the corners are not clear (fig. 3). The
back is usually plain. The execution of these
varies from fair Graeco-Roman work to the last
and worst attempts of classical art; but the
style does not rise above that of handicraft,
and figures and groups are repeated from con-
ventional models. The variety of subject is
such that it can only be touched on here. A
most extensive gallery of mythological scenes,
Dionysiac and other processions, Muses, and
Cupids may be found on them; also scenes from
daily life, and sometimes a succession of scenes,
often representing the various ages of man-
Sometimes the same is represented by mytho-
logical or mystical symbolism.
Here sarcophagus has been taken to mean
stone coffin, but the word is often loosely used
for a coffin of other material, especially of terra-
cotta. Fine painted terra-cotta coffins, of
archaic period, have been found in Asia Minor;
and also in Etruria they are frequent, orna-
mented with painting or reliefs. A figure of
the deceased often reclines on the top, as in the
smaller Etruscan urns or boxes for the ashes of
























SARCULUM
SATIRA 597
Fig. 3. Front of Sarcophagus from Genzano. The labours of Hercules. (Brit. Mus.)
the dead, in stone, which may also be regarded
as a variety of sarcophagus.
(No complete work on the subject exists, but
one has been undertaken by the German Insti-
tute. Meanwhile, isolated articles must be
consulted, e.g. Matz, Arch. Zeitung, 1872, p. 11
sqq.; Milchhöfer, Annali d. Inst. Arch. 1879,
p. 87 sqq.; Overbeck, Geschichte der griechischen
Alastik, ii. pp. 475 sqq.) [E. A. G.]
SA'RCULUM (a sarriendo, Varro, L. L.
v. 31, orkaxis, orkaxtorſipuov), a hoe. (Hor.
Od. i. 1, 11; Ovid, Met. xi. 36, Fast. i. 699, iv.
927; Plaut. Truc. ii. 2, 21; Cato, de Re Rust.
10; Columella, x. 21.) It was lighter than the
MARRA (compare Plin. H. N. xvii. § 146, xix.
§ 241), and was sometimes a simple blade, some-
times two-pronged (Pallad. i. 43). It was also
used like the RASTRUM to cover the seed when
sown (Columella, ii. 11), and in mountainous
countries it served instead of a plough (Plin.
H. N. xviii. 19, § 178). Directions for using it
to clear the surface of the ground (orkäAAetv,
Herod. ii. 14; orkaxeſſelv, Schol. in Theocrit.
x. 14) are given by Palladius (de Re Rust.
ii. 9). See also Juv. xv. 166, and Mayor's
note. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
SARISSA. [ExERCITUs, p. 488 a.]
SARO'NIA, a festival celebrated every year
at Troezen in honour of Artemis; no particulars
are known. (Paus. ii. 32, 9; Spanheim on Callim.
Hymn, in Delum, 42, p. 414.) [L. S.J
SARRA’CUM, a kind of common cart or
waggon, which was used by the country people
of Italy for conveying the produce of their
fields, trees, and the like from one place to
another (Vitruv. x. 1; Juv. iii. 254). Its name,
as well as the fact that it was used by several
barbarous nations, shows that it was introduced
from them into Italy (Sidon. Epist. iv. 18;
Amm. Marc. xxxi. 2). That persons also some-
times rode in a sarracum, is clear from a passage
of Cicero quoted by Quintilian (viii. 3, § 21),
who regards the word Sarracum as low and
vulgar. Capitolinus (Anton. Philos. 13) states
that during a plague the mortality at Rome was
so great that it was found necessary to carry
the dead bodies out of the city upon the common
sarraca. Several of the barbarous nations with
which the Romans came in contact used these
waggons also in war, and placed them around
their camps as a fortification (Sisenna, ap. Non.
iii. 35), and the Scythians used them in their
wanderings, and spent almost their whole lives
upon them with their wives and children,
whence Ammianus compares such a caravan of
sarraca with all that was conveyed upon them
to a wandering city. The Romans appear to
have used the sarracum for all purposes for
which the plaustrum was employed [PLAUS-
TRUMJ, and Juvenal (v. 22) even applies it to the
constellation which was generally called Plaus-
trum; but that there must have been somé
difference in the build is clear from the fact
that plaustrum and sarracum are mentioned
together in Juvenal and Vitruvius. What the
difference was cannot be positively decided :
both alike were formed with two wheels as well
as with four (Ed. Diocles. 15, 23–28); from a
general survey of the passages cited it may,
however, be surmised that the sarracum was
larger and heavier than the plaustrum.
(Scheffer, de Re Vehic. ii. 31 ; Marquardt,
Privatl. 732.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
SARTA'GO (rhyavov, rāymvov), a frying-
pan (Juv. x. 63), “a strepitu soni vocata quando
in ea ardet oleum ” (Isid. xx. 8); the oil being
used for frying, as we use butter or fat. In
Pliny (H. N. xvi. § 55) it is used for melting
resin. The shape of a sartago which has been
found at Pompeii is exactly like that of a modern
frying-pan (see Mus. Borbon. iv. tav. 12; Guhl
and Koner, ii. 188). For the Greek equivalent,
see Athen. vi. pp. 228,229. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
SA'TIRA or SA"TURA. The word, it would
appear, originally meant a mixture or medley.
Varro, quoted by Diomedes, p. 486 (Keil),
defined satura as a dish or compound of various
ingredients: “satura est uva passa et polenta
et nuclei pinei mulso conspersi; farcinem . . .
multis rebus refertum saturam dicit Varro voci-
tatum.” Festus, p. 314 (Müller), and Isidore,
Orig. xx. 2, 8, say much the same thing. The
phrase per saturam thus meant “promiscuously,”
“without distinction,” “in no definite order:”
thus Lactantius says (Inst. i. 21, 13), “Pescennius
Festus in libris historiarum per saturam refert,”
(“he says, among a number of other things,
that,” &c.); Charisius, p. 194 (Keil), “ad-
verbium . . . omnia in se capit quasi collata per
saturam” (“the adverb contains everything in
a miscellaneous collection”). As a technical
term of law, per saturam or in saturam denoted
a bill the various provisions of which were
proposed and voted on, not separately, but in a
lump. Thus at the close of a leg the words
were added, “neve per saturam abrogato aut

598 SAT IRA
SATIRA
derogato” (Festus, p. 314); Fronto says (p. 212,
Naber), “non sparsa nec sine discrimine agge-
rata, ut quae per saturam feruntur.” As
applied to voting, per saturam seems to have
meant “promiscuously ;” in other words, that
the voting was taken not individually, but by
show of hands, acclamation, or some other
rough and ready method. C. Laelius, quoted by
Festus, p. 314, says, “quasi per saturam sententiis
exquisitis.” A number of other passages might
be quoted to the same effect.
In literature, Satura perhaps meant satura
fabula, a story or piece of writing of miscel-
laneous contents. If we may trust Livy, who is
probably merely reproducing and abridging in-
formation derived from some older authority,
the word was originally applied to a rude form
of drama (perhaps merely a scene) without a
plot, which dealt with a miscellaneous variety
of subjects. When Livy describes the origin of
dramatic performances at Rome (vii. 2, 4), he
seems here to have meant by satura a simple
scene without a plot, acted at first without, but
afterwards (under Etruscan influence) with,
a regular musical accompaniment and corre-
sponding gestures. This scene or dialogue with
musical accompaniment never developed into a
play with a regular plot. Livius Andronicus
was the first artist who gave up saturae, and,
under Greek influence, introduced a regular
drama: “ab saturis ausus est argumento
fabulam serere.”
The fabula, or regular play, drove the Satura
from the sphere of acted drama, and the word
was then applied to a literary composition not
written for acting, dealing with a miscellaneous
variety of subjects or characters, and composed
sometimes in prose and verse, sometimes in verse
only, but verse in a variety of metres. (Dio-
medes, p. 485, “olim carmen quod ex variis
poematibus constabat satura vocabatur, quale
scripserunt Pacuvius et Ennius;” cf. Isid. Orig.
v. 16, 1, “saturas scribere est poemata varia
condere.”)
History of the literary Satura.-Ennius (born
239 B.C.) is mentioned by Horace as the founder
of this form of composition (Sat. i. 10, 66,
“rudis et Graecis intacti carminis auctor’”). He
wrote several books of saturae. Six are men-
tioned by the ancient grammarians, but in all
probability there were more, as some are quoted
not by their numbers but by their titles. Of
the subjects of the first and second books
nothing is known; of the fragments of the
Second, one is written in trochaic, the other in
hexameter verse. The third book, entitled
Scipio, may have been dedicated to the achieve-
ments of the younger Africanus. Some frag-
ments of it remain, written in hexameters,
iambics, and trochaics. The titles and frag-
ments of some of the other saturae may give
some clue to their contents. The Hedyphagetica
must have treated of gastronomy; the Epichar-
mus and Euhemerus of philosophy and mytho-
logy. Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticae, ii. 29, 3)
preserves a notice that Ennius, in one of his
saturae, versified, with great success, the fable
of the lark and its young ones; but in which
book he did this is unknown. Scanty as they
are, these fragments clearly show what the
situra was in the hands of Ennius. It was a
literary conversation composed in various
metres, the epic hexameter as well as the
ordinary metres of the comic drama—whether
with an admixture of prose, we do not know.
Its subjects might be serious or otherwise,
according to the author's fancy. It was, in
short, a talk with cultivated Society at Rome on
the topics of the hour. Pacuvius (about 220–
132 B.C.) wrote saturae of which nothing
remains, and we therefore pass on to the author
whose name was inseparably associated with
this form of composition, and who was generally
accounted, in Latin antiquity, its greatest
master. Lucilius (180 or 167–103 B.C.) appears
to have devoted himself exclusively to the Satura.
He wrote at least thirty books of Saturae, each
of which, probably, contained several pieces.
Of these books the first seems to have been
written in hexameters, the rest partly in
hexameters or elegiacs, partly in iambics or
trochaics. Thus, in external form, the satura:
of Lucilius did not differ much, if at all, from
that of Ennius. It was still a brief narrative or
picture of life, with an element of dialogue. So
much is clear, if only from the remains of the
third book, from which Horace copies his
Journey from Rome to Brundisium ; from the
scene in the fourth book between Aeserninus
and Pacideianus, the rustic supper in the fifth
book, and the convivial scenes of the fourteenth
and twentieth. The range of his subjects is a
very wide one : philosophy, philology, literary
criticism, war, contemporary life in all its
phases—all find a place in his saturae. But an
important point of difference must be noticed
between Lucilius and his predecessors, which
had not escaped the notice of the ancients.
Diomedes (p. 485) speaks of the satira which
was “carmen maledicum et ad carpenda homi-
num vitia archaeae comoediae charactere com-
positum, quale scripserunt Lucilius et Horatius
et Persius.” Lucilius was the first writer who
impressed on the satura the character of invec-
tive which it to a great extent preserved in the
hands of Albucius (“cuius Luciliano charactere
sunt libelli,” as Varro says, L. L. iii. 2, 17),
Horace, Persius, and Juvenal. With Lucilius
the satura underwent a new Greek influence,
that of the Old Attic Comedy, and became the
instrument not only of personal reflection or
advice or expostulation, but also of personal
attack. The reason of this must be sought, no
doubt, partly in the character of Lucilius him-
self, partly in the circumstances of his age. The
period of corruption among the ruling classes at
Rome had begun, and was to continue until the
end of the Republic. There was plenty of room.
for a preacher or a satirist or a comedian ; but
Roman feeling would not allow the stage to be
used for political attack, and the Roman Ari-
stophanes was driven back to his ink and paper.
The remains of Lucilius’s saturae, whatever
else they bear witness to, attest beyond doubt
an extraordinary vigour, which breathes in
almost every surviving line. This was, prob-
ably, the main source of his popularity, which
never waned so long as Latin literature was
alive. Even in the time of Tacitus (Dial. de
Orat. 23) there were readers who preferred him
to Horace. He makes strong protestations of
sincerity, nor does there seem any reason to
doubt that he was sincere. Horace, in the
fourth and tenth satires of his first book, finds
SATIRA
SATURNALIA 599
fault with his style as slovenly and careless.
But this defect was either not discovered or
was passed over, not only by Cicero and Varro,
but by Quintilian. To Cicero Lucilius is doctus
and perurbanus (de Orat. i. § 72); to Varro he
was gracilis, or elegant (Aulus Gellius, Noctes
Atticae, vi. 14, 6). Quintilian altogether refuses
to subscribe to the censures passed upon him by
Horace (Inst. Or. x. 1, 93). Fronto (p. 62,
Naber) calls him “elegans in cuiusque artis ac
negotii propriis.” It is probable, then, that the
hastiness and imperfection of his workmanship,
which are undeniable, blinded Horace to his
merits.
The original form of satura was adopted by
Marcus Terentius Varro (116–27 B.C.) in his
saturae Menippeae, or saturae in the style of the
Cynic philosopher Menippus. Quintilian (x. 1,
95) says, “alterum illud etiam prius saturae
genus, sed non sola carminum varietate mixtum
condidit Terentius Varro; ” Probus, on Verg.
Ecl. vi. 31, “Warro . . . Menippeus, non a
magistro . . . nominatus, sed a societate ingenii,
quod in quoque omitigeno carmine saturas suas
expoliverat.” Of the saturae there was a very
large number, as Quintilian says (l.c.), “plu-
rimos hic libros (i.e. Saturarum) et doctissimos
composuit, peritissimus linguae Latinae et
omnis antiquitatis et rerum Graecarum nos-
trarumque.” To judge from the scanty frag-
ments which remain, Varro's saturae seem to
have been pictures of life and society, tinged
with a dash of common-sense philosophy, and
embracing almost every conceivable point of
social, moral, religious, or literary interest. For
the ninety titles which have survived, see the
edition by Riese, or that by Bücheler, at the
end of his Petronius. They give a striking idea
of the variety of subjects over which Varro
ranged. These pieces are mixtures of prose and
verse. The fragments are very brief and in-
adequate, having been in most cases only pre-
served by grammarians as giving instances of
rare words or forms of words; but, even so,
they give a vivid idea of the immense loss which
Latin literature has sustained in the disappear-
ance of Warro's saturae.
Between Marcus Warro and Horace comes
Publius Varro of Atax, whose works are lost,
but who, according to Horace, attempted some-
thing in the same style as himself, but did not
succeed (Sat. i. 10,46, “hoc erat, experto frustra
Varrone Atacino Atque quibusdam aliis, melius
quod scribere possem”).
The satura or sermo (for so he calls it) is
treated by Horace in a way of his own. He
does not like the rudeness, as he thinks it, of
Lucilius; he looks for more polish of style,
more flexibility, more softness of tone, to suit
the complexity of life. But, like Lucilius, he
writes in hexameters, though often preserving
the form of a dialogue. This, so far as it goes,
is a mistake, for the hexameter is the metre
least of all suited to dialogue. In all other
respects the satura or sermo of Horace seems to
be true to the sound tradition; it is a conversa-
tion with the age on the topics that interest it.
We now come to the age of Nero, in which
the satura is represented by two writers of a
very different character, Persius (34–62 A.D.)
and Petronius (died perhaps 66 A.D.). Persius
is a devoted admirer of Horace, but he has not
Horace's geniality or lightness of hand. Like
his master, he attempts to write saturae in
hexameters; but he only succeeds in making
his natural slowness and obscurity of utterance
still more conspicuous. His subjects, too, are
exclusively serious: he is not at home out of
the region of philosophy and religion; and he
is a young student, ignorant of the world.
Petronius is a man of the world and a writer
of genius. His satura, of which unfortunately
only fragments remain, is constructed in the
manner of Varro, and is a narrative of ad-
ventures in a town of Southern Italy, so con-
trived as to introduce a number of leading types
of character—a poet, a freedman, a ship's
captain, and others. Each character is so con-
ceived, and represented in a manner so lifelike,
as to make Petronius's book something unique
of its kind in classical literature. The dra-
matis personae all speak in appropriate style
and idiom. The body of the narrative is in
prose, but it is interspersed with verse, put
mainly into the mouth of the poet Eumolpus,
and intended, it is nearly certain, as a parody of
Lucan and Seneca.
In the hands of Juvenal (about 47–130 A.D.)
the satura almost loses its original character;
indeed, his satires might with more propriety
be called epistles, as the element of dialogue
has vanished except in the third and ninth
satires. Juvenal writes in hexameters of the
most conventional form, and treats his themes
in the tone of rhetorical invective. He is
entirely dominated by the angry spirit of
Lucilius, and in the monotony of indignation
forgets that humour and play of sympathy
were an essential element of the genuine
satura ; yet, far as he is removed from Ennius,
Varro, and Petronius, may even from Horace,
his moral force and mastery of his chosen style
are so commanding that he has come to be
regarded in literature as the prince of Roman
satirists; and it is no doubt largely owing to
his influence that the words satire and satirical
have come in English to imply severe, if not ill-
natured raillery.
The proper form of the satura, a mixture of
prose and verse, was adopted in the 4th century
by Martianus Capella and in the 6th by
Boetius (died 525 A.D.) in his de Consolatione
Philosophiae, of which an ancient biography
(p. xxxi., Peiper) says: “Hos libros per saturam
edidit, imitatus scilicet Martianum Capellam,
qui prius libros de Nuptiis Philologiae et
Mercurii eadem specie poematis conscripserat.”
(See Anton Funck, Satur und die davon ab-
geleiteten Wörter, Kiel, 1888; H. Nettleship,
The Roman Satura, Oxford, 1878; Leo, Varro
wnd die Satire, in the Hermes, Berlin, 1889. The
author of the latter essay is very sceptical as
to the independent value of the evidence given
by Livy and the Latin authorities.) [H. N.]
SATISDATIO. [ACTIO.] *
SATURNALIA, the festival of Saturnus,
to whom the inhabitants of Latium attributed
the introduction of agriculture and the arts of
civilised life. Falling towards the end of De;
cember, at the season when the agricultural
labours of the year were fully completed, it was
celebrated in ancient times by the rustic POPu-
lation as a sort of joyous harvest-home, and in
every age was viewed by all classes of the com-
600 SATURNALIA
SATURNALIA
munity as a period of absolute relaxation and
unrestrained merriment. During its con-
tinuance no public business could be transacted,
the law courts were closed, the schools kept
holiday, to commence a war was impious, to
punish a malefactor involved pollution. (Ma-
crob. Sat. i. 10, 16; Martial, i. 86; Suet. Aug.
32; Plin. Ep. viii. 7.) Special indulgences
were granted to the slaves of each domestic
establishment; they were relieved from all
ordinary toils, were permitted to wear the
pilleus the badge of freedom, were granted full
freedom of speech, partook of a banquet attired
in the clothes of their masters, and were waited
upon by them at table. (Macrob. Sat. i. 7; Dio
Cass. lx. 19; Justin. xliii. 1, 3; Hor. Sat. ii. 7,
5; Martial, xi. 6, xiv. 1; Athen. xiv. 44.)
The public festival began with a sacrificium
publicum in front of the temple of Saturn in
the Forum (Dionys. vi. 1), and then followed
the convivium publicum, at which senators and
knights wore the dinner dress [SYNTHESIS]. In
private the day began with the sacrifice of a
young pig (Mart. xiv. 70; Hor. Od. iii. 17, 14);
all ranks devoted themselves to feasting and
mirth, presents were interchanged among
friends, and crowds thronged the streets, shout-
ing Jo Saturnalia (this was termed clamare
Saturnalia). (Catull. 14; Senec. 1 p. 18; Suet.
Aug. 75; Martial, v. 18, 19, vii. 53, xiv. 1;
Plin. Ep. iv. 9; Macrob. Sat. i. 8, 10; Serv. ad
Werg. Aen. iii. 407.)
Many of the peculiar customs exhibited a re-
markable resemblance to the sports of our own
Christmas and of the Italian Carnival. Thus
on the Saturnalia public gambling was allowed
by the aediles (Martial, v. 84, xiv. 1, xi. 6),
just as in the days of our ancestors the most
rigid were wont to countenance card-playing on
Christmas-eve ; the wearing of the synthesis
and of the pilleus (Martial, xiv. 141, vi. 24, xiv.
1, xi. 6; Senec. Ep. 18) may find their counter-
part in the dominoes, the peaked caps, and other
disguises worn by masques and mummers; the
cerei were probably employed as the moccoli
now are on the last night of the Carnival; and
lastly, one of the amusements in private society
was the election of a mock king (Tac. Ann.
xiii. 15; Arrian, Diss. Epictet. i. 25; Lucian,
Saturn. 4), which at once calls to recollection
the characteristic ceremony of Twelfth-night.
Saturnus being an ancient national god of
Latium, the institution of the Saturnalia is lost
in the most remote antiquity. In one legend
it was ascribed to Janus, who, after the
sudden disappearance of his guest and benefactor
from the abodes of men, reared an altar to him,
as a deity, in the forum, and ordained annual
sacrifices; in another, as related by Varro, it
was attributed to the wandering Pelasgi, upon
their first settlement in Italy, and Hercules, on
his return from Spain, was said to have re-
formed the worship and abolished the practice
of immolating human victims; while a third
tradition represented certain followers of the
last-named hero, whom he had left behind on
his return to Greece, as the authors of the
Saturnalia (Macrob. Sat. i. 7). Records ap-
proaching more nearly to history referred the
erection of temples and altars, and the first
celebration of the festival, to epochs compara-
tively" recent, to the reign of Tatius (Dionys.
ii. 50), of Tullus Hostilius (Dionys. iii. 32;
Macrob. Sat. i. 8), of Tarquinius Superbus
(Dionys. vi. 1; Macrob. l. c.), to the consul-
ship of A. Sempronius and M. Minucius, B.C.
497, or to that of T. Larcius in the preceding
year (Dionys. vi. 1; Liv. ii. 21). These con-
flicting statements may be easily reconciled by
supposing that the appointed ceremonies were
in these rude ages neglected from time to time,
or corrupted, and again at different periods
revived, purified, extended, and performed with
fresh splendour and greater regularity. (Comp.
Jordan, Topog. i. 360.) The festival was, no
doubt, an old Italian rite of prehistoric date,
but the adoption of the ritus graecus in its cere-
monies, as shown by the uncovered head
[SACRIFICIUM, p. 586] and the lectisternium, was
due to the order from the Sibylline books in the
year 217 B.C. (Liv. xxii. 1, 19). It is suggested
by Marquardt that the feasting of slaves,
which the Romans took to be a tradition from
the golden age when all were equal, may have
really originated with the lectisternium in that
year; since such general feasting of all ranks
was part of the lectisternia (Macrob. i. 6, 13;
LECTISTERNIUM).
During the Republic, although the whole
month of December was considered as dedicated
to Saturn (Macrob. i. 7), only one day, the XIV.
Kal. Jan., was set apart for the sacred rites of
the divinity: when the month was lengthened
by the addition of two days upon the adoption
of the Julian Calendar, the Saturnalia fell on
the XVI. Kal. Jan., which gave rise to con-
fusion and mistakes among the more ignorant,
portion of the people. To obviate this incon-
venience, and allay all religious scruples, Au-
gustus enacted that three whole days, the 17th,
18th, and 19th of December, should in all time
coming be hallowed, thus embracing both the
old and new style (Macrob, i. 10). A fourth
day was added, we know not when or by whom,
and a fifth, with the title Juvenalis, by Caligula
(Dio Cass. lix. 6; Suet. Cal. 17); an arrange-
ment which, after it had fallen into disuse for
some years, was restored and confirmed by
Claudius (Dio Cass. lx. 2).
But although, strictly speaking, one day
only, during the Republic, was consecrated to
religious observances, the festivities were spread
over a much longer space. Thus, while Livy
speaks of the first day of the Saturnalia (Sa-
turnalibus primis, Liv. xxx. 36), Cicero mentions
the second and third (secundis Saturnalibus, ad
Att. xv. 32; Saturnalibus tertiis, ad Att. v. 20);
and it would seem that the merry-making
lasted during seven days, for Novius, the writer
of Atellanae, employed the expression Septem
Saturnalia, a phrase copied in later times by
Memmius (Macrob. i. 10), and even Martial
speaks of Saturni Septem dies (xiv. 72), although
in many other passages he alludes to the five
days observed in accordance with the edicts of
Caligula and Claudius (ii. 89; xiv. 79, 141).
Among the presents of all kinds which were
made at this season (Suet. Aug. 75; Plin. Ep.
iv. 9, 7; Lucian, Cronosol. 14–16; Mart. iv.
46, vii. 53, and all book xiv.), we must notice
especially the cerei and the sigillaria. The
cerei were wax tapers (funiculi or funales cerei)
and were the most ordinary gift (Macrob. i. 7,
33; Warro, L. L. v. 64; Mart. v. 18), which
SCABELLUM
SCALPTURA 601
may possibly, as some think, have a symbolical
reference to the festival of waning light in the
season of bruma ; it may be noticed also that
candles were the light of primitive times before
oil lamps were known (Varro, L. L. v. 119),
and so may have belonged to a primitive fes-
tival. The sigillaria or sigilla, which were
especially characteristic of the Saturnalia (Sen.
Ep. xii. 3; Suet. Claud. 5; Macrob. i. 11, 49;
Spartian. Carac. 1, Hadr. 17; Mart. xiv. 182),
were small figures of terra-cotta and possibly
sometimes of dough baked hard (Lobeck,
Aglaoph. 1079). Some regarded them as relics
of a human sacrifice to Saturn (Macrob. i. 11,
48; comp. OsCILLA). Hence the name of the
street Sigillaria (Gell. v. 4), and the sale or
“fair” of statuettes which lasted for four days
after the 17th of December was called sigillaria;
there is no ground for the supposition that
certain of the festal days bore that name.
(Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 586 ft. ; Preller,
Röm. Myth. p. 413.) [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
SCABELLUM. [CYMBALUM.]
SCALAE (k\ſuač). 1. A ladder. These,
whether scaling-ladders or ladders for other
purposes, had nothing in their construction
which calls for comment. 2 (āvaSaôpioſ). The
staircase of a house [cf. DOMUs, Vol. I. pp. 663 b,
665 bl. The stairs in ordinary houses were like
ladders, except that they had flat steps instead
of rungs: they sometimes led directly into the
street (Liv. xxxix. 14). Scalae graecae differed
from these ladder staircases in having the under
side of the step enclosed, so that the feet of a
person going up them would not be visible from
below. The Flaminica was not allowed to
ascend a high flight of stairs unless they were
of this construction (Gell. x. 15; Serv. ad Aen.
iv. 646). Compare Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 223;
Nissen, Pompeii, 602. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
SCALPELLUM. [CHIRURGIA.]
SCALPRUM was the name which might no
doubt be applied to any instrument which could
be said scalpere, and so it includes both cutting
and chiselling tools. Under the former head
we have :—
1. The shoemaker’s knife for cutting leather
= the Greek oraíAn or guixtov (Hor. Sat. ii. 3,
106; Pollux, vii. 83; Plat. Rep. i. p. 353 A,
Alc. i. p. 129 C). There is a distinction between
the ow{Am, which has a straight blade like an
ordinary knife blade, and the rouet's or rept-
rouets, also used by leather-cutters, which had
a crescent-shaped blade (Olympiodor. p. 210).
Blümner (Technol. i. 273) identifies the scalprum
with the straight-bladed oralAm, and the culter
crepidarius with the rounded rouets.
2. Scalprum librarium (kaxaployNūqos), a pen-
knife (Tac. Ann. v. 8; Suet. Wit. 2) = quíAm
Sovakoyaāqos (Anth. P. vi. 295), which was
used to make the point of the reed-pen.
[CALAMUS.]
3. A grafting-knife for gardeners (Plin. H. W.
xvii. § 119).
4. A surgeon's knife (Cels. viii. 3) : both
opuſXm and rouets are names of iarpºv ćpyaxeſa
(Poll. iv. 181). [See woodcut under CHIRURGIA.]
As a chisel we have the scalprum fabrile (Liv.
xxvii. 49), alike for wood and stone, in form
resembling a modern chisel (see cut under
CIRCINUs) and = the Greek yxiºpal ov: it was
struck with a mallet (malleus), for which the
Greek equivalent is koxatrāp, for Rich and
Liddell and Scott are probably mistaken in under-
standing the Koxarthp to be a chisel. (See
Blumner, Technologie, ii. 211, iii. 93.) [G. E. M.]
SCALPTURA (YAvirruch orppayſhov, Poll.
vii. 209), the art of engraving gems or hard
stones (for the uses of the words yatº'eiv, xap-
dogetv, KoMártelv, scalpere, sculpere, &c., see
Blümner, Technol. ii. 167 ff. and Lexicons).
The present article deals only with the
methods and history of the art of gem engraving.
Some account of the minerals employed will be
found s. v. GEMMA; and of the manner in which
gems were worn, s. v. ANULUs.
The technical Methods of Gem Engraving.
The gems first employed were of soft materials,
such as steatite, and could be engraved either with
metal tools, or with pieces of harder stones, such
as obsidian. The Ethiopians tipped their arrows
with a sharpened stone, tº kal rās orºpmyūas
'YAüdoval (cf. Herod. vii. 69). But nearly all
engraved gems were too hard for instruments of
metal; cf. Pliny, of the topaz : “sola nobilium
limam sentit” (H. N. xxxvii. § 109). Accord-
ingly, the different methods of gem engraving
are methods for applying minute fragments of a
very hard material, in order to produce the
desired effect on the gem to be engraved. The
ancient modes of procedure were very similar to
those of the modern engraver.
The diamond was sometimes used set in a
pencil. Thus, Pliny, H. W. xxxvii. § 60: minute
diamond splinters “expetuntur scalptoribus
ferroque includuntur nullam non duritiem ex
facili cavantes.” So also Solinus says of the
hyacinth, “adamante scribitur et notatur’”
(c. 30, p. 152). Sometimes, minute dust of
diamonds or Naxian emery powder was mixed
with oil, and applied by friction (cf. Dioscor. v.
165, optºpus A400s éoriv, f. rās bhpovs of Sakrv-
Atoyaāqot orphxovoi. Cf. Hesych. s. v., and
Blümner, Technologie, iii. p. 287).
This might be done by rubbing the mixture
on the stone either with a blunt metal pencil
worked with the hand, or by a mechanically
revolving tool. This tool might either be a
drill worked with a bow (like the modern
watchmaker's drill ; cf. Cat. of Gems in the
British Museum, Pl. E, No. 305) or might con-
sist of a minute revolving wheel, such as is used
by the modern dentist, but fixed in a lathe.
The various methods are briefly indicated by
Pliny, H. N. xxxvii. § 200, “tanta differentia
est ut aliae (gemmae) ferro scalpi non possint ’’
(cannot be carved with a metal tool), “aliae non
nisi retunso’’ (only with a blunt pencil, to rub
in emery), “omnes autem adamante” (with the
diamond point); “plurumum vero in is tere-
brarum proficit fervor” (the use of the drill).
A knowledge of the different methods above
enumerated is a considerable help in distin-
guishing the periods of gems, as different kinds
of technique prevailed at different times. The
drill is much used in the early “island gems ”
and in the Etruscan scarabs, further described
below. It had either a pointed end, which made
hemispherical depressions, or a tubular end which
produced ring-like grooves. The latter form
only occurs in the gems of the islands. On a
larger scale it may be traced on the architectural
602
SCALPTURA
$CALPTURA
(Cf. also Class.
sculptures from Mycenae.
Review, 1889, p. 374.)
In gems of the later Greek period the drill
was supplanted by the wheel, which bit into the
stone with its cutting edge. At the best time
the whole of the interior of the design was
afterwards carefully worked over with the
blunt point (ferrum retunsum) and emery
powder, so as to obliterate the traces of the drill
or of the wheel. In late Roman gems, executed
hastily with the wheel, the cuts are very
apparent. It is often possible to count the
number of cuts that have been taken with the
wheel. The diamond pencil was only used for
the finest work, such as the hair and for the
minute final touches. Splinters of ostracias, a
word of unknown meaning, were also employed
like the diamond point (Plin. H. N. xxxvii.
§ 177). For a full account of the gem en-
gravers' methods, with illustrations, see Mariette,
Traité des Pierres gravees, vol. i. p. 195; Natter,
Méthode de graver en Pierres fines; Blümmer,
Technologie, iii. p. 279.
History of Gem Engraving.
In taking a historical survey of Greek gems,
we first have to consider the stones associated
with the Mycenaean period of culture. These
gems are usually known by the inappropriate
title of “gems of the islands º' (German, Insel-
steine). They are found at Mycenae (Schlie-
mann, Mycenae, figs. 539–541; 'E p. & p ≤ a to-
A 0-yı kh, 1888, pl. 10), and in the closely-allied
deposits of Menidi (Lolling, Kuppelgrab bei
Menidi, pl. vi.) and Spata (Bull. de Corr. Hellén.
ii. 1878, p. 224). They are also found in the
islands of the Aegean, as Melos (Mittheilungen
des Inst. Athen. 1886, pl. vi.) and at Ialysos
in Rhodes (Cat. of Gems in the Brit. Mus.
Nos. 104–8). The stones are for the most part
of one of two forms, either lenticular (i.e. bean-
shaped) or glandular (in the form of the sling-
bolt). The material most frequently used is
steatite, which
is comparative-
ly soft; but in-
stances occur
of the use of
jasper, agate,
crystal, and
similar hard
stones. Figs.
1–3 represent three
“island gems.” Figs.
1 and 2 are from
Menidi, and represent
respectively a gryphon
and two lions. Fig. 3
is from Melos, and
represents a winged
Triton and a fish.
The importance of
this class of gems lies
in the fact that they
show a continuity of
development between
the periods of My-
cenae and of historical
Greece. On the one
hand, they are found
in Mycenaean graves,
and occasionally reproduce the characteristic
motives of Mycenaean sculpture (comp. the gems,
Brit. Mus. Cat. pl. A, 106, and 'Eq. &px. 1888,
pl. 10, fig. 2, with the Gate of Lions); on the
other hand, gems of the same style and forms as
the preceding are found with Greek mythological
types, which, it is to be noted, do not occur at
Mycenae. (See above, fig. 3.) Among the types
that occur are figures of Pegasos (Brit. Mus.
Cat. 21–26, pl. A); of a winged Gorgon (Mit-
theil. des Inst. Athen. Abth. 1886, pl. vi.
fig. 13); Heracles and Nereus (Brit. Mus. Cat.
pl. A, 82); a Centaur (Brit. Mus. Cat. 84;
Arch. Zeit. 1883, pl. xvi. fig. 16); and Prome-
theus (?), on a gem of the late Admiral Spratt.
Moreover, these gems are found at Melos, in
company with early Greek inscriptions, vases,
and terra-cottas, which fix the date of the tombs
in which they are found as from the seventh to
the fifth century. Until the place is ascertained
where the gems in question were manufactured,
the question must remain somewhat doubtful;
but it seems possible that we have in the
“island gems” the products of an art which was
able to resist the injury commonly supposed to
have been caused by Dorian invaders to the more
ambitious arts of Mycenae. It is to be observed
that the hardest materials are most frequent at
the earliest period—a fact that suggests an art
passing through a period of decadence. (Cf.
Milchhoefer, Die Anfänge der Kunst in Griechen-
land, p. 39; Furtwaengler, and Loeschcke,
Mykenische Vasen; Duemmler, in Mittheil. des
Inst. Athen. 1886, p. 170.)
Though the class of gems just described was
continuous till historical times, yet it survived
as an isolated phenomenon; and for the general
history of Greek and Etruscan gem engraving
we start from an independent origin.
When the Greeks and Etruscans in historical
times were brought into contact with Oriental
customs, by the agency of the Phoenicians, they
were introduced to two forms of gems which
were of great antiquity; namely, the cylinder
of Babylonia and Assyria, and the scarabaeus
of Egypt. The cylinder was perforated longi-
tudinally for suspension by a cord, or more rarely
mounted on a swivel, and had a device engraved
round it. It had been used in Babylonia as a seal
from time immemorial; but the form did not
attract the Greeks or Etruscans, and instances are
very rare in which it occurs. We find it princi-
pally in deposits immediately subject to Oriental
influences, as at Camiros, in Rhodes (Brit. Mus.
Cat. 132); in Cyprus (Cesnola, pl. iv. 1, 2); and
at Tharros, in Sardinia (Brit. Mus. Cat. 191). No
instance can be quoted by the present writer in
which the cylinder has been found in Etruria.
The only Greek example known to him was
found at Kerteh, in a grave of the fourth century
(Compte-rendu, 1868, pl. 1). King (Antique
Gems and Rings, i. p. 48) describes a cylinder in
the Hertz Coll. (Sale Cat. No. 407) engraved by
a Greek artist, but immediately under Persian
influence.
The scarabaeus, on the other hand, is inti-
mately connected with the history of Greek
gem engraving, and still more so with that of
Etruscan gem engraving. It owes its origin to
Egyptian theology, in which the Egyptian beetle,
Scarabaeus sacer, with a ball of mud containing
its eggs, was emblematic of the deity Kheper,


SCALPTURA
SCALPTURA 603
the principle of light, and the creative power of
nature. Plutarch (de Iside, x.) mentions the
beetle, adding
that it was worn
as a seal by
warriors, as be-
| ing only of the
male sex. From
' its religious sig-
nificance the
scarab became a
sacred emblem
and amulet, and from
early times was buried
with the Egyptian dead.
As a rule the base
of the scarab, in Egypt,
contains some simple
hieroglyphic inscrip-
tion, such as the name
of a king or of a private
person. The materials most commonly used were
steatite or porcelain. But we are only con-
cerned with the scarab when it had been adopted
as a conveniently shaped object for the engraver
outside Egypt, and when all idea of its sacred
significance had been forgotten.
When worn, the scarab was either strung on
a string, or set in a ring with a swivel (cf. cut,
S. v. ANULUS, and the account of the ring of
Gyges, Plat. Rep. ii. 359); or it was set in an
immovable box-setting of gold, and formed part
of a ring. They were also set, in large num-
bers, in necklaces and jewellery.
The form of the scarab was probably commu-
nicated to the Western nations by the Phoeni-
cians, although recent discoveries at Naucratis
suggest that the Greeks were also agents. At
Camiros, in Rhodes, a considerable number of
scarabaei have been discovered, probably of
Phoenician import. They are made principally
of porcelain, and are distinguished from their
Egyptian prototypes by the blundered hiero-
glyphics, frequently meaningless, and by remark-
able instances of the introduction of Assyrian
elements.
The same characteristic indications of Phoe-
nician work present themselves among the
scarabaei of Tharros, in Sardinia; but there the
hieroglyphics are fewer in number: a new ma-
terial, green jasper, is introduced, and Greek
mythological subjects occur. The scarabs of
Tharros are therefore of Phoenician (or rather,
of Carthaginian) style, combined with Greek
elements. It is moreover probable that they
belong to a late date, in many instances to the
second century B.C. (Brit. Mus. Cat. Introd.
p. 13). When the scarabaeus had been imported
into Etruria by the Phoenicians, it took firm
hold of the national taste — for what precise
reasons cannot be explained, but probably only
because the form was convenient and attractive.
It enters largely into the designs of their
jewellery, e.g. necklaces, and is worn on rings.
Thus the recumbent figure of Seianti Thanunia
in the British Museum (Antike Denkmäler, i.
pl. 20) has her fingers loaded with rings, set
with scarabs, as already described.
In the earliest Etruscan tombs only the im-
ported Egyptian or Phoenician scarabaeus of
steatite or porcelain occurs. Thus the celebrated
Polledrara tomb (near Vulci), whose contents are
now in the British Museum, contained, among
other Phoenician wares, several porcelain scara-
baei. One in particular has the cartouche of
king Psammetichos I. (611 B.C.), and fixes the
earliest possible date of the tomb. It also
gives a date earlier than the Etruscan scarabs
proper, which were not represented in the tomb.
Etruscan scarabs are most commonly of red sard.
The beetle form of the scarab is often carved
with care, and realistic accuracy. The subjects
are usually taken from Greek mythology. The
inscriptions are in Etruscan, and generally give
in Etruscan form the names of the persons repre-
sented, though not always correctly. The name
of the artist never occurs, and that of the
owner seldom. An example occurs in the
British Museum (Cat. No. 341), inscribed Tarch-
nas (Tarquinius). The Etruscan scarabs may
be divided according to their technique (see
above) into two classes: (1) gems principally
engraved with the blunt tool and with emery
powder, often with much refinement and deli-
cacy. These works are hard to distinguish,
apart from the inscriptions, from early Greek
work. A celebrated early Etruscan gem, now
Gem found at Perugia.
at Berlin, is here engraved. The design re-
presents, with the true feeling of archaic art,
a council of five of the heroes who fought
against Thebes. The names are added, viz.
Phylnice (Polynices), Tute (Tydeus), Amphtiare
(Amphiaraos), Atresthe (Adrastos), and Partha-
napaes (Parthenopaios). (Winckelmann, Hist. de
l'Art, book iii. chap. 1; Toelken, Preuss. Gem-
mensammlung, 75, 76.) (2) The second kind of
Etruscan gems is executed almost entirely by
the drill making small hemispherical depressions
in the intaglio, or bossy projections in the im-
pression. The resulting design, usually some
simple subject, such as a horse, is very rough
and is often hard to distinguish. The gems are
known as gems a globolo tondo.
As we have seen, the native Etruscan scarabs
are probably not older than 600 B.C. The question
which of the two classes above described is the
older has been a subject of dispute; but the re-
cords of the finds, scanty though they are, seem
to show that the gems a globolo tondo are the
latest. The scarab carefully engraved with the
point is found in graves with vases of the black-
figured and early red-figured styles; that is,
during the fifth century. The rougher gems &
globolo tondo are found with vases of the fourth
century and later. Thus, at Vulci, a gem of



604
SCALPTURA
SCALPTURA
this style, representing a satyr with a horse's
tail, was found with three red-figured vases of
the fourth century; at Tharros a similar gem
was found in a tomb of the third century.
Gem Engraving in Greece.—We now turn to
the history of gem engraving in historical
Greece; and, before discussing gems actually
extant, we may review the meagre information
contained in ancient literature.
That which has given the strongest impulse
to the art of the gem engraver has always been
the use of gems for seals. We have already
seen that gems were used for seals by Oriental
nations long before the time of Homer, and also
that engraved rings and stones, such as might
well be used for seals, were found amongst the
Mycenaean and analogous deposits. But it had
been already observed by Pliny (H. N. xxxiii.
§ 12) that the use of seals was unknown to
Homer, as they are not used in cases where they
seem required, as in Il. vi. 169, Od. viii. 447.
The question, therefore, when the Greeks began
to use seals is one that cannot be answered from
literary sources, which are also silent with re-
spect to the beginnings of gem engraving. There
are indications, however, that in the beginning
of the sixth century B.C. a considerable degree of
proficiency in the art had been reached. Thus
Solon is said to have made a law, doubtless as a
precaution against fraud, that no engraver
(6akrvatoryxºpos) should retain an impression of
a ring that he had sold (Diog. Laert. i. 57).
It has been suggested [see ANULUS] that this
regulation referred to seals carved in metal
rings (e.g. Schliemann, Mycenae, fig. 530) rather
than in gems. But there is independent evi-
dence that gems were in use about the time of
Solon (cf. fragment of Solon, ap. Stob. 45, 9;
and Theogn. Sentent. l. 19).
The first gem engraver known by name was
Mnesarchos of Samos, father of Pythagoras.
He must have lived about 580 B.C., and was a
gem engraver of great skill, who sought credit,
rather than wealth, from his art (Diog. Laert.
viii. 1; Apul. Florid. ii. 15, 3). Something
may be inferred as to the character of subjects
already prevalent for engraving, from the fact
that it was a special mark of the followers of
Pythagoras not to wear a god in their rings
(Diog. Laert. viii. 17).
The second gem engraver known by name was
Theodoros, son of Telecles, an artist noted for his
versatility, and author of the famous ring of Poly-
crates. Pliny (H. W. xxxvii. §§ 4, 8) describes
a stone which had been placed by Augustus in
the Temple of Concord at Rome, and which was
reputed to be the gem of Polycrates; he states
that it was an uncut sardonyx. According to
Herodotus (iii. 41), the stone was an emerald.
It has been maintained that the stone was uncut,
and that the value lay in the material. This
was the theory of Lessing (Ant. Briefe, 21).
But on this question the statements of Pliny are
obviously no authority, as he was merely de-
scribing a stone supposed in his time to be that
of Polycrates. . The phrase of Herodotus, a ppm-
*is xpvoróðeros (Her. iii. 41; cf. i. 195), dis-
tinctly implies an engraved seal, mounted in
gold, and was so understood by Pausanias (viii.
14), Tzetzes (Chil. vii. 210), and Strabo (xiv.
p. 638, SakrüAtov Atôov kal y\ſumaros troAv-
rexods). Clement of Alexandria (Paedag. iii.
246; p. 289 in Potter's ed.) states, on what
authority we do not know, that the subject
was a lyre. Theodoros seems to have been
represented as a gem engraver in a portrait
statue made by himself. It is stated (Pliny,
H. N. xxxiv. § 83) that in this statue he held
in the right hand a file, in the left hand “quad-
rigulam tantae parvitatis ut miraculo pictam
(fictam) eam, currumque et aurigam integeret
alis simul facta musca.” This passage has been
brilliantly explained by Benndorf (Zeitschr. für
Oest. Gymnasien, 1873, p. 406) to mean that
Theodoros held a scarabaeus in his hand, with a
quadriga and charioteer engraved on its base.
There is such a scarabaeus in the British
Museum (Cat. of Gems, pl. D, 254). It should
be observed that the same story is told in
almost the same words of Myrmecides—in a
context which suggests that Pliny himself did
not understand the meaning of what he was
reporting: “Myrmecides quidem .... inclaruit,
quadriga ex ebore, quam musca integeret alis fab-
ricata, et nave quam apicula pinnis absconderet”
(H. N. vii. § 85, xxxvi. § 43; cf. Aelian, War.
Hist. i. 17; Plut. adv. Stoicos, 44). Choero-
boscos, in Bekker's Anecd. ii. p. 651, tells the
story in a corrupted form, in which the fly
drew the chariot, as well as covered it, with its
wings. If we omit an uncertain allusion to one
Trausias, in a fragment of a speech by Lysias,
repl rod rátov, and the amateur productions of
Hippias, the sophist (Apul. Flor. ii.), there is a
break in the literary history till the time of
Alexander. The inscriptions, however, suffi-
ciently indicate the common use of rings and
seals, and the practice of dedicating them as
worthy offerings to a deity. Compare the
entries in the treasure list of the Parthenon for
398 B.C.: orºpayls xpvootiv Sakrôxtov čxova'a,
Aé;18 Aa &vé0mke ... orbpayūs ūaxtva troik/Aa
(coloured glass pastes), repukexpworwuéval, àAö-
orets xpvaas #xovoral &vvč org.payis, K. r. A.
(C. I. G. 151 B, 1.50).
The employment of a public seal also makes its
appearance. So in the Parthenon inventories,
early in the fourth century, Ypapparetov Štrb ris
Bovais ris éč 'Apetov ráyou geomnaoruévov
(Michaelis, Parthenon, p. 298). Cf. C. I. G.
Addenda, 2152b, from Carystus, rov ra]uſav
&roo'ſ reixal &vºrſ]ypaqov roſjöe roß Wºm ptoruaros
ormuav6ºv rà èmuogíg orópayeſ&t. So also C. I. G.
2265, 2332, 2347 c, 2557, 3053. The public
seal seems to have served as the seal of an
official witness, or to mark an official copy of a
document. Such a seal, with the design of a
dolphin and a club, frequently occurs among a
large deposit of clay impressions of seals, found
at Selinus (Atti dei Lincei, Notizie degli Scavi,
1883, pl. vii.). The clay seals in question served
to secure wooden tablets, and the supposed
public seal is in the middle, with the seals of
the parties at each side. Before the thread
fastening the tablet was severed, the contract-
ing parties admitted the authenticity of the seal
(Cicero, in Cat. iii. 5, 10; Paulus, Sententiae, v.
tit. xxv.).
The next engraver after Theodoros, of whom
literary record is preserved, is Pyrgoteles. He
was chief of his craft in the time of Alexander,
as that king issued an edict, “quo vetuit in hac
gemma (zmaragdo) ab alio se scalpi, quam a
Pyrgotele, non dubie clarissimo artis eius.”
SCALPTURA
(Pliny, H. N. xxxvii. § 8). Pliny also states, in
more general terms, that Alexander decreed that
Apelles alone should paint his portrait and
Pyrgoteles engrave it, and Lysippºs cast it in
bronze (H. N. vii. § 125). It may be con-
jectured that the passage first quoted combines
a prohibition and a command, and that Alex-
ander (if there was any truth in the story)
ordered that only Pyrgoteles should engrave his
portrait, and that Pyrgoteles should engrave it
on an emerald.
The remaining engravers known to us are
Apollonides and Cronius, who were renowned, in
succession to Pyrgoteles; and Dioscorides, who
made an excellent portrait of Augustus, used as
a seal by Augustus himself and by his successors
(Pliny, H. N. xxxvii. $8; Suet. Aug. 50).
The foregoing summary of our literary in-
formation sufficiently shows that, in writing a
history of gem engraving among the Greeks, we
are obliged almost exclusively to study the
gems themselves, and get little help from the
ancient writers.
Greek Gem Engraving before Alexander.
Few Greek examples, comparatively speaking,
have been discovered of the scarab; and this
form, which was so universally employed by the
Phoenicians and the Etruscans, seems to have
been but little used by the Greeks. As regards
the archaic period, this fact should probably be
interpreted as indicating the limited practice of
the art among the Greeks in early times, rather
than as showing any special distaste for this
particular form: for if we except the gems
described above, which seem to carry on the
tradition of the “gems of the islands,” early
Greek gems are almost unknown in any form
except the scarab, and its immediate derivative
the scaraboid.
A few of the most important instances of
scarabs proved to be Greek by the inscriptions,
as well as by the fact that they were found on
Greek soil, may here be quoted. The stones in
question are inscribed either with a sentence
that admits of no ambiguity; or simply with a
proper name in the nominative or genitive case,
which may be either the signature of the artist
or the name of the owner. There has been
much discussion as to the distinction between
the two classes. But, while some cases must
remain doubtful, the general principle is clear.
An owner's name is naturally almost a part of
the design, intended readily to catch the eye, in
the impression. An artist's signature, on the
other hand, is usually unobtrusive, and only
visible if sought for. A parallel may be found
in the contrast between the conspicuous legends
and the minute signatures on a signed coin of
Syracuse, or on an English sovereign.
Early Stones inscribed with the names of
the Owners.-1. A stone found at Aegina, with
an intaglio design of a scarabaeus
with wings spread, and inscribed
Kpeovºrºa eiuſ (Bull. dell' Inst.
1840, p. 140). 2. Scarab: Dolphin,
and inscription 9éparlos hul arºua,
uń us ºvorye: from Greece (Arch.
§§§º zºº. 1883, p. 16, fig. 19). 3. A
plasma scarab from Pergamon con-
' tains a lioness about to attack;
SCALPTURA 605.
above is the inscription Apsaroretzms. Furt-
waenger takes Aristoteiches for an artist, con-
temporary, with Semon (see below), and
working abºut 500 B.C. But, according to
the principle enunciated above, he seems
rather to have been the owner of the seal, as
the inscription is very prominent, along the
top of the field. The gem is of fine archaic
work (Jahrh. des Inst. 1888, p. 194; pl. 8,
fig. 2). 4. An agate scaraboid in the British
Museum (Cat. of Gems, No. 482) contains
nothing except the name of the owner Isagoras
in large letters.
Early Gems inscribed with the names of the
Artists.-The gem engravers earlier than the
time of Alexander who are known by their
works have been recently enumerated and dis-
cussed by Furtwaenger (Jahrb. des Inst. 1888,
p. 194). We quote some of the most important,
(1) The oldest gem known with an artist's
signature is a modification of the scarab form,
having a satyr's head engraved in relief, in
place of the beetle. The stone in question is a
steatite, in the British Museum (Cat. of Gems,
pl. F. No. 479; Jahrb. des Inst. 1888, pl. 8,
fig. 1). On the base is a draped and bearded
citharist, and the inscription >upſms (or zupſas)
eroſmae. Furtwaengler (ib. p. 195) ascribes
the work on epigraphic ground to Euboea, and
proposes a date as early as 550 B.C., i.e. between
Mnesarchos and Theodoros.
(2) The true scarab form is preserved in a
black jasper, found near Troy, and now at
Berlin. A nude woman kneels at a fountain,
with a spout in the form of a lion's mouth, fill-
ing her pitcher. It is inscribed ºuavos. Semon
has been taken for an owner's name by Stephani
and Brunn. But Furtwaenger is probably
right in taking it, on account of its inconspi-
cuousness, for an artist's signature. The stone
is a fine specimen of archaic work on the point
of gaining full freedom. Furtwaenger places
it about 500 B.C., and it is certainly not much
later than this date (Jahrb. des Inst. 1888,
p. 116, pl. 3, fig. 6).
Among the Greeks the details of the scarab
were abandoned early, probably in the fifth
century; but the general form was retained,
which is known as the scaraboid. Scaraboidal
gems have the flat base and convex back of a
scarah, but there is no attempt whatever to
suggest the details of the beetle. The scaraboid
form already occurs amongst Phoenician pro-
ducts at Camiros.
There are few instances in which it seems to
have been adopted by the artists who produced
the “gems of the islands” (see above). The
most common subjects are figures of animals,
of somewhat archaic style but worked with
great study of detail (Brit. Mus. Cat, pl. B., 113,
114, &c.). The most important work on scara-
boids belongs, however, to a rather later period,
some of the finest of the Greek gems of the
fifth and fourth cen-
turies being also en-
graved on scaraboids.
The scaraboid form
was that employed by
the most distinguished
of Greek gem engra-
vers, known to us from
his works, namely,



606 SCALPTURA
Dexamenos of Chios. The extant works of
Dexamenos are (1) Chalcedony scaraboid from
Kerteh, now in the Hermitage._Flying heron.
Inscribed, AEEAMENO2. ETIOE XIOX:
(Compte rendu, 1861, p. 6, 19; Jahrbuch des
Inst. 1888, pl. 8, fig. 9). (2)
Agate scaraboid from South
Russia, now in the Hermi-
tage. Heron standing on one
leg, and grasshopper. In-
scribed, AEEAMENOX.
(Compte rendu, 1865, pl. 3,
fig. 40; Jahrbuch des Inst. iii.
p. 8, fig. 7). (3) Chalcedony
scaraboid, from Greece (?),
now in the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge.
A woman seated at her toilet; before her an
attendant with mirror
and wreath. Inscribed,
AEEAMENO2, and
with the owner's name
MIKHz (Jahrb. des
Inst. 1888, pl. 8, fig. 6).
(4) A Jasper scaraboid,
now at Athens. Con-
tains a male portrait
head. Inscribed, AEEA-
MENO- ETIOIE
(Jahrb. des Inst. 1888,
pl. 8, fig. 8). The authenticity of this gem
has been denied. Dexamenos appears to have
worked towards the close of the fifth century.
He engraved animal forms, as shown by the
first two in the above list, with admirable
delicacy and grace. In his figures, as seen
in No. 3, he is not free from a certain degree
of archaic stiffness. His period therefore is
that of transition to complete freedom. He
is fortunate in the fact that three at least of
his reputed works are entirely free from doubt.
The remaining artists, known to us by their
signatures, who are assigned by Furtwaenger
with fair probability to a period earlier than
Alexander, are Athenades, Olympics, Onatas (?),
Pergamos, Phrygillos. For a discussion of the
works of these artists see Furtwaenger's articles
in the Jahrbuch des Inst. 1888, pp. 119, 197.
Athenades is known only by an intaglio in gold
from Kerteh (ib. pl. 8, fig. 3). Olympics is
identified by Furtwaenger with the author of
certain signed Arcadian coins, of about 370 B.C.
(Gardner, Types, pl. viii.fig. 32); and Phrygillos
with the author of certain coins of Syracuse of
the end of the fifth century (Weil, Künstlerin-
schriften der Sicilischen Münzen, pl. 1, figs.
9, 10). -
A good example of a scaraboid inscribed with
the owner's name
occurs among the
Cesnola gems from
Curium (Cesnola,
Cyprus, pl. 40, fig.
14). Above a figure
of a horse the name
>TH>|KPATH>
is engraved in such
bold and conspicu-
ous characters that it cannot be mistaken for
the name of an artist.
Towards the close of the early period, forms
for gems other than the scaraband the scaraboid
begin to come into use. Thus, one of the finest
SCALPTURA
early gems in the British Museum, with a
figure of a citharist, is engraved on a section of
a truncated gland (Cat. of
Gems, pl. F, 555). By the
close of the fifth century
the Greeks were beginning
to discover that a thin slice
of stone produced effects by
its translucency, and econd-
mised material. The scarab
and the scaraboidal form
were therefore abandoned in
Greece, though adhered to
in Etruria, at Tharros, and elsewhere.
We have now reviewed the early period of
Greek gem engraving. In this art, more than
in any other, those characteristics are seen
which attract the student in all archaic work.
The early gems are distinguished by a certain
dainty minuteness and precision—not because
the artist is trying to be minute, but because he
is taking pains with his work, and devoting
patient attention to every detail. Nor is the
work minute in the sense that the artist tries to
conceal his methods, and to obliterate all trace
of the tool. When an archaic gem is highly
magnified, it is seen to be a gem enlarged and
not a group of sculpture. Further, this dainty
minuteness is combined with a measured re-
straint, characteristic of all archaic work, but
particularly of gems. A limited subject is
concisely rendered, and no vague compositions
are attempted, filled with floating draperies,
landscapes, and objects made small by distance.
Gem Engraving from the time of Alexander.
Early in the fourth century the engraver had
obtained complete mastery over his materials,
and those characteristics which clearly distin-
guish the earlier gems are henceforth wanting;
and accordingly it becomes difficult (with certain
notable exceptions) to assign gems with pre-
cision to a definite point in a period of several
centuries. Moreover, in the case of gems re-
puted to be signed by the artist, the matter is
complicated by diffieult questions as to the
authenticity of the gems and of the signatures.
The course of history is marked more by the
introduction of new features, such as the cameo
and portraiture, than by a marked development
of style. To some extent, however, the gems
show the influence of the spirit prevailing in
the greater arts. The artist Athenion is well
known by a sardonyx cameo, now at Naples:
Zeus advances in his chariot, drawn by four
horses, and overwhelms two snake-legged giants
with the thunderbolt. Signature, AOHNIQN,
CAG8)nvºy] (Jahrb. d. Inst, 1888, pl. 8, fig. 19).
Athenion may well have worked at Pergamon,
and have shared or imitated the spirit which
inspired the great Pergamene frieze. This is
confirmed by another work of Athenion, pre-
served in two copies in paste, of each of which
only a fragment survives. The two are com-
bined in one sketch in Jahrb. des Inst. 1889,
p. 85. The subject may be, as Furtwaenger
suggests, Eumenes II. of Pergamon driven in a
triumphal chariot by Athena.
Portraits—The development of portraiture
on gems was, for the most part, subsequent to
the reign of Alexander, though a few earlier





SCALPTURA
SCALPTURA 607
examples can be quoted. For example, the
disputed gem of Dexamenos, referred to above,
contains a characteristic male portrait head.
Alexander himself prescribed the manner in
which his portrait was to be engraved by Pyr-
goteles (see above). But, no doubt, the custom
of engraving portraits on the coins, introduced
by the early Diadochi at the end of the fourth
century, tended to develop the art of portrait-
ure. In later times we hear of portraits used
so frequently, and for such various purposes,
that there is no occasion for surprise at the
number of unidentified portraits in all collec-
tions of gems. The portrait of Alexander was
used as a signet by Augustus (Plin. H. N.
xxxvii. § 10), and as a family crest on the rings
and other property of the Macriani (Treb. Poll.
de Quieto). A man might have a portrait en-
graved on a gem as being that of an ancestor
(Val. Max. iii. 5; Cic, in Cat. iii. 5, 10), or of a
teacher (Cic. de Fin. v. 2, 4; cf. Juv. Sat. ii. 6),
or of a kingly patron (Plin. Ep. ad Traj. 74,
ed. Keil), or of a predecessor (Plin. H. N.
xxxvii. § 8), or of a friend (Ovid, Tristia, i. 7,
6), or of himself (Suet. Aug. 50). The finest
examples of portraiture were not engraved in
intaglio for seals, but were those occurring on
the great cameos described below.
Cameos. – Cameos are works engraved in
relief; intaglios have a sunk design. Early
Greek cameos seldom occur, because the main
object of the engravers was to produce seals.
The form occasionally occurs, however, in
early Etruscan work: compare certain gorgon-
eia and figures of harpies, in low relief, on
sard (Brit. Mus. Cat. 244-248; King, Antique
Gems, i. p. 117). The cameo form also
occurs in the satyr's head engraved on
the back of the scarab signed by Syries
(see above, p. 605). The large onyx,
representing a tragelaphos, which is
mentioned in the Athenian treasure
list of 398 B.C. (C.I.A. ii. 652 B, 12;
cf. GEMMA) was probably a cameo.
But it was not till after the time of
Alexander that cameo-cutting became
an art of importance. There is a re-
markable series of portrait cameos
which marks the rise of the art. Un-
fortunately, there is much doubt as to
the personages represented, although
archaeologists are for the most part
agreed that they are members of the
lines of the Seleucidae and Lagidae, ſº
between 300 and 150 b.c. The cameos º
in question usually represent the busts
of a male and female figure, presum-
ably a sovereign and his consort. The
sovereign is usually in full armour.
Among the best examples are—(1) The
Gonzaga cameo, now at St. Petersburg:
subject, Ptolemy Philadelphos and
Arsinoe (Visconti); or Ptolemy I. and
Eurydike (Müller, Denkm. der alten
Kunst, i. No. 225 a.). (2) The Vienna
cameo: subject, Ptolemy Philadelphos
and Arsinoe, daughter of Lysimachos
(Müller, Denkm. der alten Kunst, i.
No. 227a). See also the Berlin cameo (Müller,
i. No. 228), and the cameo in the De Luynes
Collection in the French Bibliothèque Nationale
(Gaz. Arch. 1885, pl. 42, p. 396). These regal
cameos are in some instances of a considerable
size, and they are worked in fine style, with
great wealth of detail. It has been suggested
by C. Lenormant (Trésor de Numismatique, pl.
viii.) that they are the productions of a school
of engravers at Alexandria. Such a school
seems very possible, though evidence is wanting.
We have seen above that Athenion was an
artist in cameo who may well have worked at
Pergamon in the reign of Eumenes II. (197–
159). At about this time, also, the sardonyx
was introduced at Rome by Scipio Africanus
(Plin. H. N. xxxvii. § 85).
At the beginning of the Roman Empire the
great cameos appeared which are a development
of the regal cameos already described. The
imperial cameos are distinguished by their
great size, and by the admirable skill with
which the artist employs the differently coloured
strata of his material, and arranges his compo-
sition so as best to fill the space at his disposal.
We may mention some of the finest extant
examples. That which was formerly reputed
the largest of the series, the Carpegma cameo,
formerly in the Vatican and now in the Louvre,
has been shown to be made of glass (Buonarroti,
Medaglioni, p. 427; Müller-Wieseler, Denkmäler
der alten Kunst, ii. No. 116, and text). The
next largest cameo is that of the Sainte-
Chapelle, now in the French Bibliothèque
Nationale. This magnificent gem is a sardonyx
of three layers, and measures 12 in. by 10} in.
It was given by Baldwin II. to Louis IX.,
and passed into the treasures of the Sainte-
Chapelle, from which it was transferred to its
present resting-place in 1791.
The subject,
Cameo of the Sainte-Chapelle.
once interpreted as Joseph in Egypt, is probably
Livia and Tiberius enthroned, receiving Ger-
manicus on his return from his campaign in
Germany in A.D. 17. Above is a group of


608 SCALPTURA
SCALPTURA
deified members of the Julian house, and below
a group of barbaric captives. Antonia is seen
to the right of Germanicus, Agrippina and Cali-
gula to the left: the group in the heavens con-
tains, according to Bernoulli, the figures of the
older Drusus (with the shield), Augustus (with
the sceptre), Aeneas (with the sphere), and
Germanicus, led by a genius and mounted on
Pegasus. (Bernoulli, Röm. Ikonogr. ii. pl. xxx.
p. 275; Müller, Denk. der alten Kunst, i.
No. 378; Chabouillet, Catalogue, No. 188;
Baumeister, Denkmäler, fig. 1794.)
Next in importance to the French cameo is
the Gemma Augustea of Vienna. This is an
onyx of two layers, measuring 83 by 7% inches.
This gem was, in the fifteenth century, at the
abbey of St. Gernin, at Toulouse, where it had
been placed, according to tradition, by Charle-
magne. Since 1619 it has been at Vienna.
The subject is the Pannonian triumph of
Tiberius, 12 A.D. Augustus and Roma are
enthroned; they observe Tiberius stepping from
his chariot, which is driven by Victory. Ger-
manicus stands beside Roma. Allegorical
figures complete the composition on the right;
below, Roman soldiers are engaged erecting a
trophy and bringing barbarian prisoners. (Ber-
noulli, Röm. Ikonogr. ii. pl. xxix. p. 262;
Müller, Denkm. der alten Kunst, i. No. 377;
Chabouillet, Gaz. Arch. 1886, pl. 31 ; Bau-
meister, Denkmäler, fig. 1793.)
The cameo in the British Museum, with a
head of Augustus (Cat. of Gems, 1560 and
frontisp.), is somewhat of the same order,
though a much smaller work than the fore-
going. This gem was at first identified as
Constantine the younger, and has a considerable
resemblance to the bust of that emperor as
treated on the coins; but the work seems that
of the early Empire, and the features are those
of Augustus.
Akin to the great cameos are the vessels
carved in precious stones of surprising magni-
tude, with designs in relief (Cic. in Verr. iv. 27,
62: “Was vinarium, ex una gemma pergrandi,
trulla excavata”). First among these is the cup
of Oriental sardonyx, known as the cup of St.
Denys, or cup of the Ptolemies, and now pre-
served in the French Bibliothèque Nationale.
It is a cup 4% inches high, 5% inches in diameter,
elaborately carved with Dionysiac emblems and
attributes in low relief (Chabouillet, Catalogue
No. 279; Baumeister, Denkmäler, fig. 478).
Another famous cup is the Tazza Farnese, now
in the Museum at Naples. This is a large
shallow cup of onyx. In the interior is an
allegorical design relating to Egypt; on the
exterior is a Gorgoneion (Millingen, Anc. Un-
edited Monuments, ii. pl. xvii.; Mus. Borb. xii.
pl. 47). On a vase of onyx at Berlin, see
Thiersch, Abh. d. 1. Cl. d. k. Bayer. Akad. ii. 1,
p. 63.
The costliness of the material, and the diffi-
culty of obtaining the effects of layers on different
colour on any other than a plane surface, led to
the production of the toreumata vitri, of which
the Portland Vase, exhibited in the British
Museum, is the most noted specimen. This
is a specimen of true cameo engraving, only
distinguished by the fact that the material
to be carved is glass. This vase was found in
the sixteenth century near Rome. The material
consists of a ground of dark blue glass, and an
upper layer of opaque white glass, in which the
design was engraved, as in a sardonyx. It is
supposed that the subjects of the scenes are taken
from the myth of Peleus and Thetis (Millingen,
Anc. Unedited Monuments, p. 27, pl. A ; Brit.
Mus. Cat. 2312; cf. VITRUM). The great Car-
pegna cameo mentioned above belongs to this
class of objects. It closely resembles a sardonyx
cameo of five layers, and represents a trium-
phal procession of Dionysos and Demeter, in a
car drawn by Centaurs. It measures 16 by 12
inches. On such glass imitations of sardonyx,
see King, Precious Stones, p. 308.
Intaglios of the Roman Empire.
For the first two centuries of the Empire,
intaglio-engraving maintained a high degree of
excellence, especially in its technical qualities
and in its power of rendering portraits. After
that period the falling away becomes conspicuous.
The chief indication of decline is a continually
increasing use of the wheel for executing the
whole of the design—a method of working which
necessarily implies carelessness and want of
finish. Pietramari, an authority quoted by
King (Antique Gems, i. p. 28), thought he had
observed indications of wheel-cut work for the
first, time about the period of Domitian. It is
very obtrusive in a gem which can be dated
with tolerable accuracy as about 250 A.D. (Brit.
Mus. Cat. 1106). Another symptom of the
decay of gem-engraving is the introduction
of gold coins set in jewellery, in the place of
gems, a practice dating from about the time
of Caracalla. The only gem-engraver of the
imperial period whose name is recorded in
literature is Dioscorides, the author of a
portrait of Augustus, which succeeding princes
used as a seal (Plin. H. N. xxxvii. § 8; Suet.
Aug. 50). A considerable number of gems, pur-
porting to be signed by Dioscorides, have been
preserved. We also learn from the gem inscrip-
tions, that Dioscorides had sons or pupils named
Eutyches and Herophilos. A large number of
other gem-engravers are also known from their
signatures. The subject is discussed below.
Inscribed Gems.
There are numerous gems extant which pur-
port to be inscribed with the names of the
artists. The antiquity of nearly all these in-
scriptions has been called in question, and it is
certain that in a great number of cases either a
modern inscription has been added to an ancient
work, or else both engraving and inscription are
equally recent. The greatest difficulty that
attends the study is that of distinguishing the
different classes of inscribed gems. And since
we have to deal with the frauds of four
centuries, there is no branch of archaeological
study where it is more important to know some-
thing both of the history of taste since the
revival of learning, and of the personal charac-
ters of the persons who have been collectors.
With the fall of the Roman Empire, gem-
engraving became ruder and finally died out.
Like many other arts, it only lived on at
Byzantium to be communicated again to the
West at the revival. Meanwhile the ancient
SCALPTURA
SCALPTURA 609
gems were regarded either with reverence or
superstition; the best were preserved in re-
liquaries, and the less important were used as
seals. (See S. Thompson's Photographs from the
Collections in the Brit. Mus. No. 1024.) With
the revival of learning the art was again
practised, and ancient gems became objects
of interest from the antiquarian and artistic
points of view. The first beginnings of the
revival date from early in the fourteenth cen-
tury (King, Handb. of Engr. Gems, p. 121).
Cyriac of Ancona gave attention to gems as well
as to other branches of antiquity. In 1445 he
describes a gem with a half-length figure of
Athena, and quotes, not quite accurately, the
inscription EYTYXHC | AIOCKOVPIAOV
AITEAIOC ETIOI | El (Furtwaengler, Jahrb.
des Inst. 1888, p. 304, pl. 10, fig. 3).
Paul II. (1471) and Lorenzo de’ Medici were
enthusiastic collectors and patrons. But the gem-
engraving of the Cinque Cento period is more
easily distinguished from the antique than is
that of later times. The artists adhered less
minutely to classical models, and as a rule their
compositions are more full of detail and more
fanciful. There is also a different range of
subjects, stories from Roman history being
frequently chosen for illustration.
In the sixteenth century antiquarian studies
began to influence the subject. In 1570 Fulvius
Ursinus published at Rome the first edition of
Imagines Illustrium ea: Bibliotheca Fulvi Ursini.
This work contains a collection of portraits,
supposed to be authenticated by inscriptions.
In the first edition it contains (pl. 21, 23, 53)
gems inscribed with the names of Homer, Hesiod,
Plato, and also (pl. 49) a head now called
Maecenas, and inscribed COAGONOC. The
second edition, published at Antwerp in 1598,
omits the gems inscribed with the names of
Homer, Hesiod, and Plato, and contains the
above-mentioned head of Maecenas, and also
No. 64 (“Antinous”), inscribed EAAHN;
No. 75 (female head), inscribed YAAOY (Jahrb.
d. Inst. 1888, pl. 10, fig. 1); No. 87 (cameo
with head of Germanicus), inscribed Eſll-
TYFXAINOC eſolel) (Brit. Mus. Cat. of
Gems, 1859); No. 141 (head of Themistocles,
inscribed GEM ICT). In every case the
names are explained as those of the persons
represented; e.g. No. 75 is Hylas. The first
edition of this work, with a commentary, ap-
peared at Antwerp in 1606: Faber, In Imag.
Illustr. eac F. Ursini Bibl. Commentarius. Here
there are the same plates of inscribed gems that
occur in the previous edition; also a mention of
a portrait by Mycon (pref. p. 4; cf. Stosch,
Gemmae, p. 58); an allusion to Epitynchanos
and Zosimos as artists (p. 52), and a discussion
of the authorship of certain unsigned gems
(Nos. 39, 79, 87). There is also (p. 52) a
mention of an Augustus with a radiate crown,
signed by Dioscorides, of which nothing is
known. On p. 66, the Heracles, signed TNAIOC,
is referred to (Brit. Mus. Cat. pl. H, No. 1281),
and on p. 67 a Cupid and butterfly of Aulos.
During the close of the sixteenth century,
and through the seventeenth century, numerous
signed gems were becoming known, besides those
already mentioned. A list of the most impor-
tant here follows, stating summarily the date,
the subject, the artist, the best publication, and
WOL. II.
the manner in which the gem first became known.
Jahrb. 1888 or 1889 refers to Furtwaengier's
articles in the Jahrbuch des Arch. Institutes,
1888 and 1889.
1585. Artemis of Apollonios (Jahrb. 1888,
pl. 10, fig. 8), and Hermes of Dioscorides (Jahrb.
1888, pl. 8, fig. 22). Seen by Montjosieu
(Gallus Romae Hospes, in Gronov. Thes. ix.
p. 790). The Hermes afterwards formed part
of the collection belonging to the Duke of
Marlborough.
About 1600. Rape of Palladion, by Solon
(Jahrb. 1888, pl. 8, fig. 29). Seen by Chaduc.
1605. Maecenas of Dioscorides. Seen by
Peiresc (Gassendi, Vita Peirescii, p. 90). This
was probably not identical with the stone now
at Paris.
1606. Bearded head with name of Aetion (Jahrb.
1888, pl. 11, fig. 12). In possession of Peiresc
(Gassendi, op. cit. lib. ii. p. 95). Probably modern.
1625. Julia Titi of Euodos (Jahrb. 1888,
pl. 11, fig. 4). Enumerated among the treasures
of the Abbey of St. Denys, where it was attached
to a reliquary said to have been given by Charles
the Bald. (Doublet, Hist. de l’Abbaye, p. 335.)
1627. Medusa of Sosos (?). (Jahrb. 1888,
pl. 8, fig. 18.) Published by Stefanoni. Now
in the British Museum (Carlisle Collection).
Before 1646. Rape of Palladion, by Felix
(Jahrb. 1888, pl. 10, fig. 7). A part of the
Arundel Collection.
1657, Apollo of “Allion” (Stosch, Gemmae,
pl. viii.). Published by Agostini (ed. of 1657, i.
pl. 32, p. 6). Correct reading, AAAION.
Meaning doubtful.
1669. Athena of Aspasius (Jahrb. 1888,
pl. 10, fig. 10). Published by Canini, Icono-
grafia, pl.xcii.
1669. Athena, with name of Apollodotus
(Stosch, Gemmae, pl. x.). Published by Canini,
op. cit, pl. xciii. This is probably an owner's
name. It was first explained as an artist's sig-
nature by Baudelot de Dairval (De l'Utilité des
Voyages, 1686, i. p. 311).
About 1680. Achilles of Pamphilus (Jahrb.
1888, pl. 10, fig. 4). Presented to Louis XIV.
(Mariette, Traité, ii. p. viii.).
1686. Eros on lion, of Protarchus (Jahrb.
1888, pl. 8, fig. 20); and Muse of . Onesas
(Jahrb. 1888, pl. 8, fig. 16). Published by
Agostini (ed. of 1686, ii. pl. 55, 7).
Before 1694. Augustus, by Herophilus, son
(or pupil) of Dioscorides (Jahrb. 1888, pl. 11,
fig. 2). In the monastery of Echternach. De-
scribed in the Luxemburgum Romanum of
Wiltheim, who died in 1694. (See Brunn, Gr.
Fünstler, ii. p. 506.)
Before 1701. Heracles and Cerberus of Dio-
scorides (Jahrb. 1888, pl. 3, fig. 1). Published
by Beger, Thes. Brand. iii. p. 192.
1709. Portrait head of Agathopus (Jahrb.
1888, pl. 8, fig. 15). Published by Maffei,
Gemme Antiche, i. pl. 6.
1709. Strozzi Medusa of Solon (Brit. Mus.
Cat. pl. H, 1256). Published by Maffei, op. cit.
iv. pl. 28. Inscription probably modern.
1709. Adonis of Coenus (Jahrb. 1888, pl. 19,
fig. 20). Published by Maffei, op. cit, iv. pl. 20.
In 1712 Orleans (afterwards Regent) suggested
that the Solon of the Strozzi gem was its author,
and that it was he who had engraved the gem
of Fulvius Ursinus previously * as Solon
E.
610 SCALPTURA
SCALPTURA
and afterwards as Maecenas. This theory,
published by Baudelot de Dairval in 1717
(Lettre sur le prétendu Solon), attracted much
attention in France to the subject of artists’
signatures. But in Italy the Florentine
Andreini had already been engaged for several
years collecting gems with artists’ signatures.
By the testimony of Gori (Columb. Liviae, 1727,
p. 154) it was Andreini who first brought
signed gems into high esteem.
In 1724 Philip von Stosch published his
Gemmae antiquae caelatae, Scalptorum nominibus
insignitae, giving all the gems which he con-
sidered genuine, inscribed with proper names;
all of which he claimed as artists’ signatures.
From this time onwards there was a great
demand for gems with artists’ signatures; and
it is certain that after this period forgeries
became frequent.
Bracci (Memorie degli Antichi Incisori, 1784)
and others made lists of artists, whose number
was continually increasing. At length in 1830
the climax was reached when Prince Poniatowski
had formed a collection of signed gems which
had been manufactured to meet his order; and
so brought the subject for a time into contempt.
The first critical examination of the accumu-
lated material was that of H. K. E. Köhler,
whose essay was edited by Stephani, in Köhler’s
Gesammelte Schriften, vol. iii. (1851). Köhler's
inquiry was carried on in such a sceptical spirit
that he only admitted five gems as having
authentic signatures (Köhler, iii. p. 206). The
subject has since been reviewed by Stephani,
Ueber einige angebliche Steinschneider: Mem. de
J'Académie de Petersbourg, vi" sér. Sciences
polit., vol. viii. p. 185; Brunn, Gesch. der
griech. Künstler (1859), ii. p. 441; Chabouillet,
Gaz. Arch. 1885–6; and Furtwaengler, Jahrb.
d. Inst. 1888, 1889. Stephani and Chabouillet
are sceptical, while Brunn and Furtwaengler
admit a large number of signatures.
Having completed our review of the materials
available, we make the following observations.
1. A certain number of signatures may be
accepted without the least hesitation. These
gems are :—(a) Early Greek gems only recently
discovered and in a style quite unknown to the
forgers; as the gems.signed by Dexamenos and
Syries. (b) Gems whose history can be traced
back beyond the revival of art; as the gem
of Eutyches and probably that of Euodos.
(c) Cameos of certain authenticity where the
inscription stands out in relief, as in the Giganto-
machia of Athenion.
2. A considerable number may be rejected
without hesitation. (a) Where the inscription
is illiterate or impossible, or where E[TO1&l is
shortened to €ſl. (b) Where the gem is an
exact replica of another already famous.
(c) Where the material is one to which the
ancients had no access, e.g. Brit. Mus. Cat. 985.
(d) Where the work appears modern, and the
motive of the forger is manifest, as in the
Alexander of Pyrgoteles: Brit. Mus. Cat. 2307.
(e) (As a rule) where the source is utterly cor-
rupt, as in the case of the Poniatowski collections.
3. A name on a gem may be genuine, but
may be supposed not to represent the artist’s
signature—(a) If it obviously relates to the
subject, as Hyacinthus on a gem with a disco-
bolos: Brit. Mus. Cat, pl. G, 742. (5) If it
| obviously relates to the person represented, as
Aristippus: Brit. Mus. Cat. pl. I, 1518. (c) If
it is found on a late and rudely-cut work, as
Thamyras: Brit. Mus. Cat. 660. (d) If the
conspicuousness of the inscription proves it to
be an owner's name: see above, p. 605.
4. The various categories above enumerated
include a large number of gems; but many
remain to be considered. They are of the
highly-finished style of the beginning of the
Roman Empire, which has been very accurately
imitated by modern engravers; and it is in
dealing with these that the chief difficulties
arise. It must be confessed that much depends
on the opinion of the critic, which has to be
exercised on a class of objects as to which it is
exceptionally difficult to form a judgment based
on style. When Furtwaengler selects six gems
as genuine out of nearly forty purporting to be
signed by Dioscorides, of which Köhler and King
accept none, it is obvious that certainty is
unattainable.
5. In this state of uncertainty it would be a
great aid if we could feel sure that forged
names were very rare before the time of Stosch,
and that a gem signature known before 1724
had a strong primá facie claim to be considered
genuine. It is from this point of view that the
list of gems given above is of high importance.
Unfortunately, however, it seems to have been a
practice to interpolate names of illustrious
persons on gems supposed to be portraits. Thus
Homer, Hesiod, and Themistocles occur in the
first ed. of the Imagines of Ursinus. Moreover,
a motive for forging artists’ names was not
wanting from an early time. Already in 1606,
it appears from Faber’s commentary, quoted
above, that the question of authorship excited
interest, and the discussion had begun whether
unsigned gems could be attributed to the artists
whose names were current. When gems are
regarded from this point of view, the temptation
to forge a signature begins.
In 1686 Baudelot de Dairval (De l’Utilité des
Voyages, i. p. 399) gives a warning against
forged gems, though without specifying the
manufacture of inscriptions in particular. The
prevalence of fraud in the first half of the
eighteenth century is attested by statements of
Stosch in 1724 (Gemmae, p. xxi., 29), of Gori in
1727 (Columb. Liv. p. 155), of Wettori in 1739
(Dissertatio Glyptographica, p. 97), and of
Bracci (Memorie, i. p. 147). In 1754 Natter
naïvely confessed (Traité de la Méthode ant. de
graver, &c. p. xxix.) that he occasionally added
artists’ names when requested.
6. It is therefore necessary, even with gems
published at an early period, to scrutinise
closely the forms of the inscriptions. This
subject has been most recently investigated by
Furtwaengler, in the papers quoted above. The
main results of his investigations are the follow-
ing. The present writer accepts them on the
whole, though occasionally differing in opinion
as to individual gems.
Genuine inscriptions (a) before Alexander. The
strokes are usually of an even width; the nom.
form is more frequent than the genitive; the
earliest inscriptions follow the margin of the
stone, while they are in a straight line after
about 400 B.C. (b) Of the Hellenistic period.
The inscriptions are rough and careless; in
SCAPHEPHORLA.
SCEPTRUM 611
cameos the letters are in relief; occasionally
there are “cups” at the ends of the strokes such
as become universal in the next period. (c) Of
the close of the Republic and beginning of the
Empire. The inscriptions are minute and
elegant; cameos are inscribed in intaglio; the
letters are formed with small cup-like hemi-
spherical depressions at the ends of the strokes,
the cups being produced with a drill, and the
strokes of the letters with the diamond point.
This method of work was not adopted by
modern engravers, according to Furtwaenger,
before the time of Sirleti (died 1737). On the
operations of Sirleti, cf. Bracci, Memorie, i.
p. 147. From this the important rule is
deduced, that if the inscription has the “cups,”
and if it was known before 1730, it is genuine.
Unfortunately this rule is not quite without
exception, the gem with the name Hellen, in
the Imagines of Ursinus, being rejected by Furt-
waenger, though the cups are present (Jahrb.
1889, p. 76).
7. From the year 1730 onwards those gems
which do not fall within the categories given
above can only be judged from their style.
Here there is a wide field of difference of
opinion among critics, and the subject is in a
bewildering state of uncertainty. It is plain,
however, that the only way of making progress
is systematically to collect certainly authentic
and certainly false specimens, and so by degrees
to establish standards on which a methodical
judgment can be based.
Literature.-A full critical account of en-
graved gems has not been written. In addition
to the works dealing with particular parts of
the subject, quoted in the foregoing pages, the
following may be mentioned:—Mariette, Traité
des Pierres gravées, 1750; C. W. King, Hand-
book of Engraved Gems, 1866, and Antique Gems
and Rings, 1872; A. S. Murray, art. Gems in
Encycl. Brit. 9th ed., vol. x., and Introduction
to Cat. of Gems in the Brit. Mus. Catalogues
have been published of some of the chief public
collections: namely, of the Berlin Collection by
Winckelmann, Descr, des Pierres gravées du feu
Baron de Stosch (1760), and Toelken (1835); of
the British Museum Collection, by A. S. Murray
and A. H. Smith (1888); of the Collection in
the Bibliothèque Nationale, at Paris, by Cha-
bouillet (1858); of the cameos at Vienna, by
Eckhel (1788) and W. Arneth (1849). A great
number of gems in various collections are de-
scribed by R. E. Raspe, in A descriptive Cata-
logue of Gems cast in coloured pastes by James
Tassie, 1791. [A. H. S.]
SCAPHEPHOTRIA. [HYDRAPHoRIA.)
SCAPHIUM (ºrkdºwy), a shallow vessel
without a handle, so called because it was shaped
something like a boat (cf. CYMBIUM and the
English “sauce-boat”), used as a drinking cup
(Plaut. Stich. iv. 5, 11; Bacch, i. 1, 37); some-
times earthenware, sometimes metal; e.g. of
brass (Lucret. vi. 1045), of silver (Athen. iv.
p. 142 d: Cic. Verr. iv. 17, 37). It was used
also for dipping and pouring water over the
body in the bath (Athen. xi. p. 501 es Plaut.
Pers. i. 3, 43). In Plut. Num, 9 a brazen ºrd plow
(or reapeſow) is used to relight the sacred fire
[PRyTANEUM, p. 514], being doubtless a primi-
tive substitute for a concave mirror or burning-
glass, and retained by religious conservatism.
Scaphium also-a matella of the same shape
(Juv. vi. 264, &c.). For the explanation of ºrd prov
reſpearaat, see CoMA, Vol. I. p. 498a. [G. E. M.]-
SCENA. [THEATRUM.]
SCEPTRUM. In Homer the king carries a
sceptre as a badge of his power (cf. Il. ii. 86,
armºrroſºkoi Barºnes; b. 206, Bagwe`s ºwke
Zebs ºrkfirrpov tº #3: 94aurras), but it is not
distinguished by name from other staves, since
ºrkärrgow is used not only of those borne by men
of rank and heralds, but of a beggar's cudgel
(cf. 0d. xvii.,195 and 199, where it is synony-
mous with ºraxo~). The king's sceptre, how-
ever, was richly ornamented, being covered with
gold foil (xpúaeow, Il. i. 15, &c.) and studded
with gold nails (xpurelots ºxolot metapuévov, Il.
i. 245), which were doubtless for the purpose of
attaching the gold plating to the wood. Among
the objects found at Mycenae are the head and
butt of a staff of this kind, of beaten gold and
decorated with a spiral and a leaf pattern
sceptres of silver plated with gold. (Schliemann's
Mycenae.)
(schuchhardt, Schliemann's Ausgrºungº Leip-
zig, 1890, p. 285, fig. 251). In classical times,
when kings were but little known in Greece:
the chief bearers of sceptres were the gods.
goddesses, and heroes in works of art. A. good
instance is the sceptre of the Zeus Olympics of
Pheidias, which was adorned with all manner of
metals, and surmounted by an eagle (rfi be
apºrépg roº Beogrespi ºverrº ºp", aerº-
xos rººs ragw3.invºguévov. 3 & º: . ºr tº
- P.

612 SCHOENUS
SCRIBA
orkfirrpº kaðhuevos éotiv 8 &étés, Paus. v. 11,
1). Flowers and fruit are even more common
as badges, the sceptres of the gods being in fact
strangely like those of men of rank in Assyria
described by Herodotus (i. 195), surmounted by
an apple, a rose, a lily, or some such thing (cf.
Murray, Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1889, vol.
x. p. 251).
In the Tragedians the word orkſ,Trpov, though
often used metaphorically of royal power (e.g.
Soph. O. C. 426), is still quite general in
meaning, the old man's staff or the wayfarer's
stick being both so called (Soph. O. T. 456;
O. C. 84; Aesch. Agam. 75). The staff, however,
that was in everyday use in the fourth and fifth
centuries, was plain, and seems only in such
exceptional cases as that of Parrhasius to have
been of Homeric magnificence (orkſtroví te
éarmptgero xpworás éAikas €ureratoruévº, Athen.
xii. p. 543 c).
At Rome, even more than in Greece, the
sceptre, whose Latin name is Scipio (a word
originally borrowed from the Greek), was un-
known except as a relic of the heroic and kingly
age (cf. Verg. Aen. xii. 206) and an attribute of
the gods. There is one important exception,
that of the magistrate, who appeared in
triumphal costume in the processus consularis at
the games, bearing in his hand a sceptre of
ivory, surmounted by an eagle (Juv. x. 43;
Prudent. Peristeph. 148, “aquila ex eburna
sumit arrogantiam gestator ejus ac superbit
belluae inflatus osse, cui figura est alitis”).
This, however, was an emblem of apotheosis,
and, unlike the other ornamenta triumphalia, was
never worn on other occasions during the life of
the triumphator, nor was it carried at his
funeral. Even when the emperors are repre-
sented on coins as bearing it (cf. Antoninus and
Volusian's coins), the sceptre is the token of
their triumph and not of supreme power.
Livy's story (v. 41) of M. Papirius, the senator,
striking the Gaul Scipione eburneo, is held by
Mommsen to be at variance with the usages of
after-times and to be a poetic exaggeration, as
are the many descriptions which late authors
give of the costume of the early Romans.
(Buchholz, Die homer. Realien, ii. p. 8; Helbig,
Das homerische Epos, 1887, p. 378; Daremberg
and Saglio, Dict. Antiq, art. Baculum; Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, 2nd edit., i. 140; Staatsverwaltung, ii.
p. 587; Marquardt, Privatleben, 2nd edit., p. 742;
Mayor ad Juv. x. 35 foll.) [W. C. F. A.]
SCHOENUS. [MENSURA, p. 163.]
SCHOLA. . [LUDUs LITTERARIUS.]
SCIROPHO'RIA (xxpopópia), a festival
celebrated at Athens on the 12th of Skiropho-
rion, at which the priestess of Athena and the
priests of Poseidon and Helios, overshadowed by
a large white umbrella, proceeded from the
Acropolis to a place called Skiron. According to
some, the solemnity was performed in honour of
Athena ; according to others, of Demeter and
Kore. The umbrella was the symbol of the
protection of the Attic soil against the scorching
heat of the sun, and was carried by the priest
of Erechtheus or a member of the family of the
Eteobutadae. (Schol. ad Aristoph. Eccl. 18;
Harpocrat. pp. 168 and 270; Paus. i. 36, § 3;
Suid. s. v. Aubs kiöölov; Clemens Alex. Pro-
trept. p. 11: cf. A. Mommsen, Heortol. p. 440
fol.) [L. S.]
SCI'RPEA. [PLAUSTRUM.)
SCIRPI'CULA. [CALATHUs.]
SCOBIS, sawdust, was sprinkled over the
floor, especially in dining-rooms, so that the dust
and any impurities might be swept up with it.
(Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 81; Juv. xiv. 67; cf. Plin.
H. N. xxxvi. § 184). In smarter houses the
sawdust was dyed with saffron or vermilion
(Petron. 68). Heliogabalus is said to have had
his portico strewn with gold dust, or gold filings
(Scobe auri), and to have regretted that he could
invent nothing more costly for the purpose
(Lamprid. Elagab. 31; for this scobis-Étvmua
from metal-working, cf. Plin. H. W. xxxiv. § 111;
Blümner, Technologie, iv. 256). [G. E. M.]
SCOPAE, a broom (scopae virgeae, Cato, R.
R. 156 : cf. Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 81). These brooms
were made commonly of the “wild myrtle” or
butcher's broom (ruscus) and of the tamarisk
(Plin. H. N. xxiii. § 166, xvi. § 108), but also
of myrtle (Eur. Ion, 121), and in richer houses
at Rome of palm-twigs. (Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 83;
Mart. xiv. 82; cf. Juv. xiv. 60 ; Becker-Göll,
Gallus, i. 35.) [G. E. M.]
SCORDISCUS. [EPHIPPIA]
SCORPIO. [TorMENTUM.]
SCRIBA, a title given to the clerks, or
rather secretaries, who formed the highest class
of the officials attached to a Roman magistrate.
The scriba was much more than a mere librarius.
or copyist; thus Cicero, pro Sull. 15, 42, 44,
distinguishes sharply the librarii who copied out
the confessions of the Catilinarian conspirators
from the scribae, the four senators who had
taken them down. The compound expression.
scriba librarius is used to denote a superior kind
of librarius: hence the quaestorian clerks often
appear as scribae librarii. These were divided
into three decuries, presided over by the sea.
primi (Cic. de Nat. Deor. iii. 30, 74; Wilmanns,
Inscr. 1297, 1298, 1809), and had as their
especial charge the administration of the trea-
sury (whence they are sometimes called ea aera-
rio, C. J. L. vi. 1816) and the keeping of the
public books. Every governor of a province
had two of these treasury-clerks assigned to
him to keep his accounts (Liv. xxxviii. 55, 5),
and to draw up the statement which he had to
give in upon his return (Cic. in Pis. 25, 61).
Besides them, he would naturally have his own
clerks for his private accounts. As the treasury
contained the state archives, all the business
connected with them, especially the registration
of the decrees of the senate, passed through the
hands of the scribae. There is no definite re-
ference to scribae attached to the consuls; but
the praetors and the judicial authorities gene-
rally were regularly aided by scribae, who read
the documents laid before the court (Cic. in
Verr. iii. 10, 26), and drew up the decisions and
sentences in due form (Cic. pro Cluent. 53, 147).
The censors especially were during their term of
office in need of such clerical assistance, and
sometimes they appear as the authorities in
charge of the whole body of public clerks (Liv.
iv. 8, 4). Most of the clerks may have belonged
to the class of public slaves; but others, again,
must have been officials holding a respectable
position, for, in the formula of the census, they
are mentioned after the censors but before the
other magistrates (Varro, vi. 87). At least the
more important of the clerks must have been
SCRIPTURA
SCULPONEAE 613
taken from the decuries of the scribae quaestorii :
the nominations were usually made by the
quaestors, but here, as always, a superior magis-
trate could interfere by the exercise of his
overruling powers when he pleased. We learn
from the case of Horace that appointments
could be, in some cases at least, obtained by
purchase. The number of the quaestorian
clerks was 27 before the time of Sulla, and was
raised by him to 36. As there were probably
11 provincial governors sent out after Sulla's
re-arrangements, this left 14 for duty at home.
The clerks of the curule aediles, mentioned by
Cicero (pro Cluent. 45, 126) and Livy (xxx. 39,
7), and often in inscriptions (e.g. Wilmanns, 1296,
1300, 1302, 1303, &c.), formed one decuria,
presided over by 10 head clerks (C. I. L. vi.
1840). They were not much inferior in standing
to the former class. We also find mention of
clerks to the plebeian magistrates, the tribunes,
the plebeian aediles, and the Cerial aediles; but
little is known of their functions, and they do
not appear to have been important. On the
other hand, the first two classes contained men
of great knowledge of business and even of law
(C. I. L. vi. 1819), and these may be compared
to the permanent officials of our own public
offices. Their services must have been quite
necessary to the annually; elected magistrates,
often young and inexperienced. They formed
collectively an ordo (Cic. Verr. iii. 79, 184),
elaiming to rank with that of the equites
(Schol. in Juv. v. 3), and it was the gradual
establishment of a claim to lifelong tenure of
office that led to the sale of posts which the
incumbents were willing to vacate. In the pro-
vinces they ranked immediately after the staff
officers of the governor; but the fact that they
received pay (under the Republic called merces,
under the Empire salarium) drew a sharp line
between them and the officers who were not
mercenarii. Hence, as in the well-known case
of Cn. Flavius, a scriba was not allowed to
stand as a candidate for office until he had laid
down his scriptus or official position. Cicero (de
Qff, ii. 8, 29) mentions another case of a man who
Had been a clerk under Sulla becoming praetor
urbanus under Caesar. In Horace (Sat. ii. 5,
56) we have an instance of an inferior magis-
trate, one of the quinqueviri, turning clerk; he
also speaks of the order, to which he himself
belonged, in Sat. ii. 6, 36, as possessed of in-
fluence. In Tacitus they are apparently included
in the decuriae, which were largely composed of
Iibertini or their descendants. (Cf. Mommsen,
Röm. Staatsrecht, i.” 331–339.) [A. S. W.]
SCRIPTU’RA, the oldest form of revenue
from ager publicus (according to Pliny, H. N.
xviii. § 11), was that portion of the revenue of
the Roman commonwealth which was derived
from letting out part of the ager publicus as
pasture-land (Cic. pro Flacco, 8, 18). Such
parts were called pascua publica, Saltus, or silva
(cf. Verg. Georg. iii. 323), the last name point-
ing to the feeding of swine on acorns. . They
were let, like other sources of vectigalia, by the
censors to publicani; and the persons who
grazed cattle on the pastures (pecuarii) had to
pay a certain duty to the publicani according to
the number and size of the cattle. For fines
levied on the pecuarii who evaded this payment,
see Liv. x. 23, xxxiii. 42, xxxv. 10; Ovid, Fast.
v. 283-294. The leges Liciniae of 367 (App.
B. C. i. 8) and the agrarian law of B.C. 111 set
limits to the number of cattle which any one
person might graze on the public land: but it
is hard to see why a limit should have been
imposed, when fees were regularly paid to pub-
licani, and when the publicani were therefore
able to pay a large contract-sum into the trea-
sury; the more grazing, the higher the contract.
The amount of the duty is unknown, but the
state revenue hence derived through the publi-
cani seems to have been very considerable.
From registering the cattle on the lists of the
publicani (scribere) came the name of the duty
itself; the land itself was called scripturarius
ager (Festus, s. v.), and the publicani and their
servants scripturarii. Cattle sent on the pastures
without registration (pecus inscriptum) were
probably forfeited to the publicani (Plaut. Truc.
i. 2, 48; Varro, R. R. ii. 1). Public pastures
were found in Italy (especially in Samnium,
Lucania, and Apulia; Varro, l.c.; Liv. xxxix.
29) and in the provinces (in Sicily, Cic. Verr. ii.
3, 6; ib. 70, 171 ;-in Asia, Cic. pro Leg. Manil.
6, 14; ad Fam. 13,65;-in Cyrene, Pliny, H. W.
xix. § 39). -
Scriptura disappeared in Italy as the pasture-
land was assigned by agrarian laws to individual
owners, and the treasury thus lost a great
source of revenue. Even in the provinces the
scriptura disappears under the Empire, the em-
perors taking to themselves the nearly exclu-
sive management and even use of the pascua
(Cod. Theod. de Pasc. 7, 7 ; de Greg. Domin.
10, 6). [F. T. R.]
SCRU'PULUM, or more properly SCRIPU-
LUM or SCRIPLUM (ypäupta), the smallest deno-
mination of weight among the Romans. It was
the 24th part of the UNCIA, or the 288th of the
LIBRA, and therefore about 18 grains English,
which is about the average weight of the
scrupular aurei still in existence. [AURUM.]
As a square measure, it was the smallest
division of the jugerum, which contained 288
scrupula. [JugFRUM.] Pliny (H. N. ii. § 48)
uses the word to denote small divisions of a
degree. It was in fact to be applicable, accord-
ing to the use of the AS and its parts, to the
288th part of any unit.
Though the scrupulum was the smallest
weight in common use, we find divisions of it
sometimes mentioned, as the obolus = } of a
scruple, the semi-obolus=% of an obolus, and the
siliqua– of an obolus, = , of a scruple, which is
thus shown to have been originally the weight
of a certain number of seeds. (Carmen de Pond.
v. 8–13:—
“Semioboli duplum est obolus, quem pondere duplo
Gramma vocant, Scriplum nostri dixere priores.
Semina sex alii siliquis latitantia curvis
Attribuunt scriplo, lentisve grana bis octo,
Aut totidem speltas numerant, tristesve lupinos
Bis duo.”)
[PONDERA, p. 455.] [P. S.]
SCULPO'NEAE (kpoſºregal) were wooden
shoes, made, as the name implies, each in one
piece and hollowed out. They were worn only
by peasants and slaves in country work (Cato,
R. R. 59, 135; Plaut. Cas. ii. 8, 59; Trebell.
Poll. XXX. Tyr. 22; Isid. Orig. xix. 34). ... It
seems that there were also wooden shoes called
614 SCULPTURA
SCYRIA DYKE
calones (Paul. p. 46, 15; cf. Isid. l. c.). The
Greek kpoinreſai, kpotſtraxa, Kpoviréſia were, per-
haps, originally merely wooden shoes, worn, as
Pollux intimates, particularly by the Boeotian
peasants, and so called because of the noise which
they made (Poll. vii. 87, x. 153). Photius (s. v.
kpoèraxa) says that they were used for treading
out olives. But the name belongs especially to
the wooden instrument of a double block of wood
with a hinge fitted to the feet and used by flute-
players to beat time=Latin scabellum or scabillum
[see under CYMBALA, and for illustration see
Baumeister, Denkm. fig. 1350]. For Greek and Ro-
man shoes in general, see CALCEUS. [G. E. M.]
SCULPTU'RA. [SCALPTURA: for sculpture,
see STATUARIA.] -
SCUTELLA (Cic. Tusc. iii. 19,46) is rightly
explained by Rich as a small tray or salver on
which cups could be placed, and not a saucer or
dish like its French derivative ecuelle : for in
Ulp. Dig. 34, 2, 20, § 10, scutellae are defined
as “quae aliquid sustineant,” and are specially
distinguished from vessels “quae aliquid in Se
recipiant edendi bibendive causa paratum.”
(Cf. Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii. 395.) [G. E. M.]
SCU'TICA. [FLAGRUM.]
SCUTUM (9upeés), the Roman shield worn
by the heavy-armed infantry after 340 B.C., in-
stead of being round like the Greek CLIPEUS,
was adapted to the form of the human body, by
being made either oval or of the shape of a door
(6tpa), which it also resembled in being made of
wood or wicker-work, and from which conse-
quently its Greek name was derived. Two of
its forms are shown in the woodcut at p. 80.
That which is here exhibited is also of frequent
occurrence, and
is given on the
same authority:
in this case the
shield is curved
so as in part to
encircle the body.
The terms cli-
pews and Scutum
are often con-
founded; but that
they properly de-
noted different
kinds of shields
is manifest from
t the passages of
º several ancient
§: É FA writers (Liv. viii.
<2)--&-ex(2- 3: Piº Rom.
Scutum. (Bartoli's Arcus 21). In like
manner Plutarch
distinguishes the
Roman 6vpeos from the Greek ágris in his
life of T. Flaminius (p. 688, ed. Steph.). In
Eph. vi. 16 St. Paul uses the term 0wpeos rather
than &otrls or ordicos, because he is describing
the equipment of a Roman soldier. These
Roman shields are called scuta longa (Verg.
Aen. viii. 662; Ovid, Fast. vi. 392). Polybius
(vi. 23) says their dimensions were 4 feet by 2%,
or slightly more. The shield was held on the
left arm by means of a handle, and covered the
left shoulder. [J. Y.] [A. H. S.]
SCYPHUS (orköpos), a drinking cup with
two straight handles on the rim, much deeper
than the kixt; or calia, and of ruder shape, as
Triumphalis.)
may be seen from the woodcut below. It was
said to be the cup of Heracles, both as more
rustic in form and as holding more, while the
CANTHARUS is given to the more refined Dionysus
(Macrob. Sat. v. 21; Athen. xi. p. 500 a ; Serv.
ad Aen. viii. 288; cf. Plut. Alex. 75). This
tradition agrees with the fact that it is con-
sistently ascribed by Greek writers to peasant
life and the use of herdsmen and shepherds
(Athen. xi. p. 498 f, g; 0d. xiv. 112 ; Eur. Cycl.
390; Theocr. i. 143), and represented as origi-
nally of wood, faginus (Tibull. i. 10, 8); Soupé.
Teow (Athen. l. c.), “ingens ligneum poculum ”
(Serv. l. c.). The material was changed to
earthenware (Athen. p. 500 a), and then to
silver (Warr. ap. Gell. iii. 14; Cic. Verr. iv. 14,
32), or even gold (ib. iv. 24, 54), and in Latin We
find it a drinking cup at the tables of the rich,
having lost its rustic character (Hor. 0d. Ep. i.
27, &c.), but no doubt retaining its shape as in the
annexed cut.
The example Y ſ
given by Mar-
quardt (Pri-
vatleben, p.
652) is nearly
the same, but
the sides are
straighter.
Ordinary Scyphus. (Dennis.)
Later form of Scyphus. (Dennis.)
Dennis gives as a later and more elaborate form
a scyphus with incurved handles (Cities and,
Cemeteries of Etruria, i. cik.). [G. E. M.]
SCY'RLA DIKE (>icvpta Sticm) is thus ex-
plained by Pollux (viii. 81) : Xicupíav číknv
Övouáçovov oi kapıçãoëtöda kaxoi Thy Tpaxeſav,
#v of puyoówkobvres éokärroviro eis Xküpov h eis
Afiavov &roðmueiv. By Tpaxeſa 6them is meant
one beset with difficulties, in which the plaintiff
had to encounter every sort of trickery and
evasion on the part of the defendant. On the
appointed day of trial (i) kupía Toij vópov, com-
monly the thirtieth day after the commencement
of the action, Dem. C. Mid, p. 529, § 47, lea: ; cf.
c, Timocr. p. 720, § 63, lea: ; but the trial might
be postponed by agreement between the parties
[Dem.] c. Phaenipp. p. 1042, § 13 [EMMENOI
DIKAI]) both parties were required to be present
in court. If the plaintiff was not there, he was
non-suited ; if the defendant did not appear,
judgment was given against him by default.
If, however, either party had some good excuse
to offer, such as illness, the death of a relative,
or inevitable absence abroad (Hyp. fr. 204-
Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 725; Schol. Dem. C. Mid.
p. 541; Pollux, viii. 60), judgment was not
given. Cause was shown by some friend on his
behalf, supported by an affidavit called ūtrapooſa


SCYTALE
SECTIO 615
(Harpocr. s. v.; Dem. c. Olymp. p. 1174, § 25 fº
itwpoordue6a jue's rovtovi 'OXvutrióðopov 8m-
poolg &teival otparevéuevov, etc.; c. Theocr.
p. 1336, § 43), in answer to which the opponent
was allowed to put in a counter-affidavit (&v6-
virapooría, Lew. Rhet. Cantabr. s. v.), and the
court decided whether the excuse was valid.
No inrouogía was allowed in an eisangelia èév
tus Töv Šipov tow ’A6mvatov karaxtºn (Hyp. pro
Euz. col. 22). It seems to have become a prac-
tice with persons who wished to put off or shirk
a trial, to pretend that they had gone to some
island in the Aegean Sea, either on business or
on the public service; and the islands of Scyrus
(Photius, s. v. Xkvptav 6tremu), Lemnos, and Imbrus
(Hesych. s. vo.”Ipubplos kal Ahuvios: Photius, s. v.
Ipgpioi) were particularly selected for that
purpose. Shammers of this kind were, therefore,
nicknamed Lemnians and Imbrians. (Att. Pro-
cess, ed. Lipsius, p. 908 ft.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SCY"TALE (orkvráAm, also kovräAm; from
orkūros, köros, leather or hide; see Curtius, Gr.
Etym. § 683) is the name applied to a secret
mode of writing by which the Spartan ephors
communicated with their kings and generals
when abroad (Plut. Lysand. 19 ; Schol. ad
Thucyd. i. 131; Gell. xvii. 9; Schol. ad Aristoph.
Av. 1283; Cornel. Nep. Pausan. 3). When a
king or general left Sparta, the ephors gave to
him a staff of a definite length and thickness,
and retained for themselves another of precisely
the same size. When they had any communica-
tion to make to him, they wound round their
staff a narrow strip of leather (whence the
name), and then wrote upon it the message
which they had to send to him. When the
strip of writing material was taken from the
staff, nothing but single or broken letters ap-
peared, and in this state the strip was sent to
the general, who, after having wound it around
his staff, was able to read the communication.
Ausonius (Ep. 23), after suggesting to his friend
writing with milk for secrecy, continues:
“Vel Lacedaemoniam scytalen imitare, libelli
Segmina Pergamei tereti circumdata ligno
Perpetuo inscribens versu, qui deinde solutus
Non respondentes sparso dabit ordine formas.”
In later times, the Spartans used the scytale
sometimes also as a medium through which they
sent their commands to subject and allied towns
(Xen. Hell. v. 2, § 37). [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
SCYTHAE. . [DEMOSII.]
SECE'SPITA, an instrument used by the
Roman priests in killing the victims at sacrifices
(Suet. Tib. 25). According to the definition of
Antistius Labeo, preserved by Festus (p. 348, ed.
Müller), and Servius (ad Verg. Aen. iv. 262), it
was a long, iron knife (culter) with an ivory
handle, used by the Flamines, Flaminicae, Vir-
Secespita.
(From a coin.)
gines, and Pontifices. On the annexed coin of
the Sulpicia gens, the obverse is supposed to
represent a culter, a simpuvium, and a secespita.
Its proper purpose seems to have been for open-
ing the body of the victim which had been
slain—if a larger victim, with the securis or
malleus; if a smaller, with the culter. It is
therefore appropriated to the higher order of
priests, to whom this function belonged, but who
did not themselves slay the victim [SACRI-
FIGIUM). The sacrifical implements shown
below are rightly distinguished (cf. Guhl and
Secespita and cultri. (From the Arcus Argentariorum.)
Koner, ii. 320) as (1) a secespita in its sheath,
(2) cultri in their case. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
SECRETA'RIUM. [AUDITORIUM.]
SECTIO. “Those are called Sectores who
buy property publice ’’ (Gaius, iv. 146; Gellius,
iii. 154; Festus, s. v. sectores), and property.
was said venire publice when a man’s whole be-
longings were sold by the state; which occurred
when he was condemned for certain crimes for
which forfeiture was part of the penalty, in
cases of proscriptio (Cic. pro Rose. Am. 43, 125;
Liv. xxxviii. 60; Cic. in Verr. i. 20, 52), and
lastly, when the state had an unsatisfied claim
against a wrongdoer (Liv. xxxviii. 58, 60;
Cic. pro Rabirio Post. 4, 8), especially for pay-
ment of a fine inflicted by way of penalty. For
instance, Livy tells us in the passage referred to,
that L. Scipio was condemned to pay a fine for
misappropriating public moneys, and that the
praetor gave notice that unless the fine was paid
he should order Scipio to be imprisoned; upon
this a tribune put his veto, and the praetor was
driven to put the quaestors in possession of his
property for purposes of sale. Upon being
put in possession (for which the expression bona
publice possidere is used, Lex Acilia repet., line
9; Lex Servilia, c. 17), the usual course was for
the quaestors to give notice of the sale (Sectio),
which took place sub hasta (Cic. Phil. ii. 26, 64)
and transferred Quiritarian ownership, the pro-
perty being sold in the lump, and the pur-
chaser taking it with all its liabilities (Ascon.
in Verr. ii. 1, 23, 61, p. 177 Orelli; Dig. 48, 23,
2, 3). That the purchaser here became Quiri-
tarian owner, whereas under a private bank-
ruptcy (bonorum venditio), he merely became
bonorum possessor, is probably the substance of
what Gaius says in a mutilated passage (iii. 80:
cf. Varro, R. R. ii. 10, 4 ; Tac. Hist. i. 20).
The names sector and sectio are explained by
the subsequent breaking up of the property into
lots, by the sale of which the sector made his
profit (Pseudo-Ascon. in Verr. i. 20, 52; ib. 23,
61); sometimes, indeed (e.g. Tac. Hist. i. 99),
the things sold by the quaestor are called
sectio themselves. The sector had a special
interdict (Interdictum Sectorium, Gaius, iv.
146) for obtaining possession of the property.
Inheritances which fell to the fiscus were
sold in the same way, and the sector was here


616 SECTOR
SECURIS
entitled to bring hereditatis petitio (Cod. 4,
39, 1). [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
SECTOR. [SECTIO.]
SECTORIUM INTERDICTUM. [INTER-
DICTUM ; SECTIO.]
SECU’RIS (réAekus, &#vm), an axe. Under
this head are included (1) the workman's axe,
(2) the battle-axe, (3) sacrificial axe, (4) the axe
of the lictors, equivalent to the headsman's axe.
1. The workman's axe, when used for fell-
ing trees, is spoken of in general terms as Téxe-
kus (Il. xxiii. 114; Xen. Cyrop. vi. 2, 36, &c.)
and securis (Verg. Aen. vi. 180; Plin. H. N.
xvi. § 192, &c.); but of these woodcutters' axes
there were two patterns, the single-headed and
Securis simplex. (Trajan’s Column.)
Bipennis. (From a vase-painting.)
the double-headed. Of these the former (when
the distinction was marked) was called tréAekus
étépéotopios (Poll. i. 137) or juitréAekkov (Il.
xxiii. 851), and is perhaps distinguished as the
Securis simplex (Pallad. i. 43); the double-
headed axe was called "réaekws & uptorrow0s or
ôto rouos (Poll. l. c.; Eur. fr. 534) or āśſvn,
which is strictly used only of the double axe
(Hesych.): in Latin it is the bipennis (Hor. Od.
iv. 4, 57; Isid. Orig. xix. 19). [Blümner,
Technol. ii. 202.]
The carpenters’ or shipwrights' axes are
distinguished in Greek as the heavy tréAekvs for
rough-hewing the wood, and the small orkétrapvov
for afterwards shaping it more finely (Od. ix.
391; ASCIA). The following cut of Egyptian
shipwrights is worthy of notice, since the form
of the tréAekvs there depicted explains what is
meant by “shooting through the axe-heads,” in
Od. xx. 574. The difficulties which commenta-
tors have found under the idea that the arrow
passed through the rings, which fastened the
axe to the handle, &c., all disappear, if we see
Egyptian shipwrights, with the axe.
that the tréAekus of the Odyssey had a ring-
shaped head. (See Dr. Warre's Raft of
Ulysses, in Journ. of Hellen. Studies, 1883.) A
somewhat similar axe, but with two circular
holes in the blade, was found in 1889 in the
Peloponnesus (Ephem. Arch. 1889). [For the
Roman carpenter's axe, see ASCIA; DOLABRA.]
2. The use of the axe in war was especially
an Asiatic practice. We find the Trojan Pei-
sander (Il. xiii. 612) armed with a double axe
(āštvm), and again in the fight at the ships the
combatants fight with double and single battle-
axes (rexékegori kal &#ivnori): it is possible that
there also it is to be understood of the Trojans
alone. In agreement with this we find the
battle-axe regarded as the characteristic weapon
of the Asiatic Amazons, who use both the single
and the double (or Carian) axe, as in the scene
of Penthesilea's death on the sarcophagus from
Thessalonica; and so Horace speaks of the
Amazonian battle-axe (Od. iv. 4, 20), and Virgil
consistently represents the Italian shepherds
and Camilla as fighting with this weapon (Aen.
vii. 184; xi. 696; xii. 306), whether he is
merely following Homer, with Trojans substi-
tuted for Greeks and Italians for Asiatics, or is
hitting upon the truth that the primitive races
both in Italy and in Northern Europe fought
with the axe, which was in fact a weapon which
they had ready to hand for other purposes. (See A.
Müller in Baumeister, Denkm. p. 2043.) Horace
notices it specially
&\| / / British
Nº. iſé % sº 㺠in Vol. I.
• *t of the barbarous
ºf A tribes in Rhaetia,
's g-
* as though it were
s. a weapon not com-
/J. N mon in the Roman
*** , , j). § experiences of war-
Y->''}} fare with other
&T J .* Teutonic tribes;
and it is remark-
able that on the
scabbard of the so-
called “sword of
Tiberius ” in the
Museum
p. 920 b), which
was discovered at
Mayence, we have
a relief of an Ama-
zon armed with a
\. J \. ( ~ >
| ^-----A
| | | | & *
)
y \ i
9. \
Nº
-' -
Death of Penthesilea.
(Relief on a sarcophagus.)
bipennis. It would,




SECUTORES
SELLA 617
however, be pressing conjectures too far (as
A. Müller points out) to say, with Orelli
and others, that this figure necessarily symbo-
lises the conquered Windelicia, and was the
sword of honour of Tiberius. We may be con-
tent to take it as an additional evidence of the
“Amazonian” battle-axe being used among Ger-
man nations, and regarded as characteristic of
them, whereas it had long before been disused
in Italy.
3. The sacrificial axe (securis, tréaekvs) was
used by the attendant ministers (popae) for the
slaughter of the larger victims. (The distinc-
tion, whether always preserved or not, was axe or
hammer, malleus, for slaughtering cattle, a stone
for swine, and a
knife for sheep:
see Marquardt,
Staatsverw. iii.
181.) The sa.
crificial axe
figured below
is from the
relief on the
Arcus Argen-
tariorum, and
is combined
with a vessel
which is very likely the PRAEFERICULUM.
4. For the axe of the lictors, see LICTOR and
Sacrificial axe.
Argentariorum.)
(From the Arcus
FASCES. [G. E. M.]
SECUTO'RES.. [GLADIATOREs, Vol. I. p.
918 b.
SEISACHTHEIA (oretoráx0eta), a disburden-
ing ordinance, was the first and preliminary
step in the legislation of Solon (Plut. Sol. 15).
The real nature of this measure was a subject of
controversy even amongst the ancients. Philo-
chorus (fr. 57; Suid. and Photius, s. v.) explains
it as xpewkotría, and this opinion is widely held:
Heracl. Pont. ed. Schneidewin, p. 4, 9, XóAwy
. . kal Xpeãv &mokotrás érotmore thvoretaráx6etav
Aeyouévnv: Dion. Halic. Antiq. Rom. v. 65,
&qeoris Xpeãv: Plut. Sol. 15, rôv xpeãov &tokorſ,
—róv orvu}oAaſaw &vaípeois: Dio Chrysost.
xxxi. 69: Diog. Laert. i. 45; Suid. s. v. etc.;
cf. also Arist. 'A6 m v. tro A. papyrus fr. i.” l. 14,
Thy [róv] xpedov &mokorfiv. ovašeghkel yèp
airo's yewé[orðat rarelvois] kal trévnaiv. Only
Androtion and some others, whose names
Plutarch does not give, describe it as a mere
reduction of the rate of interest (Tókov ue-
Tpiórms), a view accepted by Boeckh, Sthh.. i.”
p. 159; Hermann, Griech. Staatsalterth. § 106;
Curtius, Griech. Gesch. i. p. 318. But
such results as Solon claims for his measure,
viz. that the mortgage pillars were removed,
and that the debtors were liberated, even those
sold to foreign countries (fr. 36, and Arist.
*A6 m v. tro A. i.” I. 7 ff.), could not have been
brought about by a reduction of the rate of
interest (see, moreover, his law, to 3pyūptov
ordaipov elval ép’ 6tróo p &v 800Amrat ā Saveſ-
gov, Lys. c. Theomn, i. § 18), even when coupled
with a lowering of the silver standard. To
achieve this, all those contracts in which the
debtor had borrowed on the security either of
his person or of his land had to be căncelled,
and to prevent the recurrence of similar social
evils it was forbidden henceforth €irl rols ordºpaori
Saveſ (eiv, and a limit was fixed beyond which
no one was allowed to buy up land (Arist. Pol.
ii. 4 (7 Bk.) 4). This measure of Solon (6/100
Simu ré kal 6irmv avvappadoras, fr. 36) seems, no
doubt, hard on the rich—yet their riches were
ill-gotten (fr. 4)—but it was demanded by the
circumstances ; he did not disturb owners in
the possession of the land they had bought, and
did not go nearly as far as the Megarians on a
similar occasion (Plut. Quaest. Graec. 18, p. 295D,
traxwrokſa). At the same time Solon effected a
reform in measures and in the coinage (Plut. l.c.
# Šua toûrq, Vevouévn rôv 8& uérpov eraúčno is
kai too volulouatos ru%). This reform was,
however, not made with a view to assisting
debtors by reducing their debts 27 per cent., since
73 old drachmas were worth 100 new drachmas
(Grote, Hist, of Greece, iii. p. 100 f.). Solon's object
clearly was, as Köhler shows (Mitth. d. d. arch.
Inst. 1885, p. 151 ff.), to open up new fields
for Athenian trade. Hitherto the coinage of
Athens had been on the Aeginetan system, which
prevailed on the mainland of Greece, and on the
Cyclades; now the Euboic system was adopted,
which was confined to that island and Corinth.
The trade to the Black Sea and to Egypt was in
the hands of Aegina and Megara, and with these
flourishing towns Athens could at that time not
compete. The Chalcidians and Corinthians, on
the other hand, had planted colonists north of
Chalcidice and in Sicily, and thus opened up
new districts to Greek trade. With these the
Athenians might hope successfully to compete,
and, as the result showed, their hope was well
founded; hence their coinage system was adopted.
From these districts they could import what
Athens stood most in need of, viz. timber and
grain; and thither they could export oil, which
alone of all produce Solon allowed to be exported
(Plut. l. c. 24), and manufactures, which he en-
couraged in every possible way. [L. S.] [H. H.]
SELLA. The customs and associations which
the Greeks and Romans connected with the
attitude of sitting were so different from ours
that any account of the seats they used must
involve some mention of the ceremonial meaning
and etiquette which had grown up round it.
Most strange to a modern is the religious and
ceremonial use of the posture. To sit at or on
a sacred spot or object was in itself an act of
supplication (cf. Aesch. Suppl. 224, 265; Soph.
0. T. 2), not merely in the heroic age, but, as
we see from the story of Themistocles seating
himself on the household hearth of Admetus
(Thuc. i. 135), in classical times. In art it is
very often shown: for instance, Priam seated on
the altar of Zeus at the taking of Troy, Tele-
phos on the hearth of Agamemnon, and Orestes
at the omphalos at Delphi (cf. Baumeister,
Denkmäler, arts. Iliupersis, Telephos, and Ores-
teia). So too, when being purified from the
stain of blood, the sinner sat on the altar,
possibly on the skins of the victims, as the
novice did when being initiated, and the sorcerer
when summoning the spirits of the dead (cf.
Vase-painting of Odysseus and the Ghost of
Teiresias, Mon. d. Inst. iv. 19). In taking
omens from birds, the seer, both among Greeks
and Romans, was seated (cf. Soph. Antig. 999;
Serv. ad Aen. ix. 4). Chairs also formed an
important part of the sacred furniture in many
ceremonial processions (cf. Aristoph. Eccl. 734;
Av. 1552), as in the well-known instance of the
central group of the East Parthenon frieze,

618 SELLA
SELLA
where the priestess is attended by maidens
carrying chairs on their heads.
Of the place seats took in the civil life of
antiquity it is needless to speak, for the customs
by which difference of rank, dignity, or authority
was typified by the prominence and magnificence
or the reverse of seats, are easily comprehended
and too numerous to mention [cf. THRONUs].
It is enough to point to such words as ovvedpía,
Tpoeëpía, consessus praesidium, or sessio, to show
how deeply such ideas had sunk into the national
life and language. Nor again does the contempt
which in social life the leisured classes felt for the
artisans and others who pursued a sedentary occu-
pation (cf. Xen. Rep. Lac. i. 3, of troAAol tºw ràs
Téxvas €xóvrov šēpatot eiou)call for explanation.
The etiquette, too, which regulated such matters,
was not unlike our own, for even in the Homeric
age it was part of the welcome of a guest to bid
him be seated (e.g. 0d. i. 130). It was also con-
sidered an act of necessary politeness to rise in
the presence of an older or more honoured man
(cf. Cic. de Sen. 18, 63, “assurgi :” cf. Juv. xiii.
55; Mayor ad loc.); and Caesar was accused
of aiming at royal power, when he refused to
rise in presence of the senate (Liv. Ep. cxvi. ;
Suet. Caes. 78; Dio Cassius, xliv. 8), and the
emperors showed their authority by sitting
between the consuls.
At banquets when men reclined it was con-
sidered becoming for boys to sit (Xen. Symp. i.
8; Suet. Claud. 32), and the rule for women
was originally the same (Val. Max. ii. 1, 2),
though disregarded in later times. In art even
the goddesses are represented as seated, while
the gods recline (cf. Baumeister, Denkmäler, art.
Zwolfgätter, fig. 2401); and while the latter
were honoured by lectisternia, the former were
only given sellisternia. Many grave reliefs
representing a banquet of the deified dead show
the same custom, which was by no means con-
fined to the Greeks, for it may be seen on the
Assyrian bas-relief of Sardanapalus feasting, now
in the British Museum.
On the monuments, especially the vase-paint-
ings, the personages in a mythological scene
who are merely spectators are often depicted as
seated, especially when they are deities. The
most familiar instance is the assembly of gods
beholding the Panathenaic procession, on the
east frieze of the Parthenon. In genre scenes,
the use of chairs often shows that the scene
takes place indoors, and in many cases helps us
to distinguish the mistress from her maids, or
the master from his followers.
Seats in antiquity were of almost as many
forms as nowadays, but for practical purposes
it is sufficient to divide them into three classes:
(1) those which have a straight back and arms;
(2) those with a back, but no arms; and (3) those
which have neither a back nor arms. The first
class is described under THRONUS, the second
under CATHEDRA, while the present article gives
an account of seats in general and the third class
in particular.
In Greece, before Homer, seats both with and
without backs were used, as is shown by carvings
on ivory which have been found at Mycenae
(cf. Eq. muepts, 1888, IIſvač B. 3, 2, and 4, 29).
These were no doubt not unlike the Assyrian and
Egyptian thrones and chairs, which are plainly
the ancestors of those used in Greece in historical
times. In Homer the general term for seats of all
kinds is €5pm: but, with the exception of the 6póvos
[THRONUs], which is of the first class mentioned
above, and may be assumed to be identical with
the thrones on which the gods of later times
were seated, there is no information given about
the distinctive shapes of the different varieties.
The kåtopičs, which came next in honour to
the 6póvos, was apparently used for ease and
comfort, since Penelope sat in it spinning (Od.
xvii. 97), and Telemachus rested in it after a
bath (Od. xvii. 90). This seems to imply that
it had a back, but no arms. It must have been
of some height, for a footstool (6ptivus = later
ūtrotröölov) was sometimes used with it (Od. iv.
136). The kAtopios was decorated with metal
plates and inlaying, as is shown by the epithets
Xpiſoetos (11. viii. 436) and trouc{Aos (Od. i. 132),
and was only used by people of rank.
There is a good deal of difficulty in deciding
whether the word is always used in a specific
sense, and Helbig on account of Il. xxiv. 515 and
597 (cf. Il. xi. 623, 645), where kAugubs and
6póvos are synonymous, maintains that the
usage of the word is not consistent throughout.
This would account for the fact that Helen
works seated on a k^wo ſm (Il. iv. 123). The
kÅto ſm is exclusively a woman's chair, and is
possibly identical with the k\ivtåp,-an easy
chair in which one could, like Penelope (Od. xviii.
189), take a nap. -
The commonest kind of seat was the 6tppos :
it was for instance given to Odysseus, when he
appeared in beggar's rags (Od. xix. 97), and it
formed part of the furniture of the Thalamos
(Il. vi. 354), being meant for use, not ornament.
It was doubtless, like the 8tºppos of classical
times, merely a stool, without back or arms.
Owing to the indefiniteness of the mentions in
Homer, it is impossible to identify these various .
forms with those shown on Assyrian, Egyptian,
Phoenician, or early Greek monuments.
In the classical period the generic name for
chairs and stools was ka9éöpa (to be distinguished
from the Latin CATHEDRA, which was only used
for one kind, the KAuguós). For the different
varieties, the Homeric names remained in use,
the difference in meaning being expressed as
follows by Athenaeus (v. 192 e): 6 y&p 6póvos
airo uávov čAev6épiós éoti ka946pa orov Štronošíg
. . . 6 63 kxtapos trepitrotépa's kekôorumrat āva-
kAtoel, rotºrov 58 eireAéo repos ºv 66thpos. Our
information, however, on the subject is given by
the monuments rather than by literature, and
on them we have the great variety of forms
shown. The simplest is that of the Öſppos, which
is of the third class, being without arms or back.
It was besides called orkintrovs, though this name
is also given to benches (840pa or xapatºmaol,
i.e. Stºppol xaplaſmao), which were sometimes
long enough to serve as a bed (cf. Plato, Prot.
p. 310 C). These chairs are seen on the earliest
monuments, and are of every variety of make,
from simple four-legged stools to chairs with
richly-turned legs, ornamented with inlaying and
chased or embossed metal work. They were a
1nost important part of household furniture,
especially in the women's rooms (cf. Pollux, x.
47), where they were used not only for sitting
at work or the toilet, but as a substitute for
tables and shelves on which to lay clothes,
vessels, or instruments.
SELLA
SELLA 619
This was also one of the uses to which the
chairs, which were carried in sacred proces-
sions with the holy vessels, were put (cf. the
Suppoq’ópot on the
east side of the
Parthenon frieze,
and Aristophanes,
Eccles. 734).
The 8tºppos was
also used much
in workshops by
shoemakers, car-
penters, Smiths,
painters, potters,
and others of a
sedentary em-
ployment. [See
cut under FIC-
TILE, Vol. I. p.
2 . . 844 a.] It was
A , from a vase-painting.
tºppos §º also part of the
furniture of a
school, where the master sat on a higher and
more dignified seat and the pupils on chairs
or benches (849pa; cf. Plato, Prot. p. 315 C,
and see cut from vase of Duris in Berlin
Museum on page 96). The 8tºppos was also
used out of doors, and it was the custom
for well-to-do gentlemen of the old school to
have a boy carrying one in attendance as he
walked about (Arist. Eq. 1384–6: cf. Athen.
xii. 512 c). . . For this purpose a camp-stool
(öttppos 3rxaëtas) was used. The shape, how-
ever, was a favourite one, and chairs were
often made in it which could not possibly fold up
and were meant for ordinary use. The legs
were either straight or curved (Inscr., Hermes,
v. 346).
Chairs of all kinds were covered with skins
and fleeces in the Homeric age, and at all periods
with shawls and coverlets. Cushions (kvépaxxa,
Túxal) were also used, but upholstery was un-
known.
The manufacture of chairs flourished, es-
pecially in Thessaly, Miletus, and Chios (cf.
Critias quoted by Athen. i. p. 28 b). Maple
and beech were the woods chiefly used, but
harder and more expensive sorts were necessary
for those which were inlaid with ivory. Wicker-
work chairs are also mentioned (Theophr. v. 3,
4; Plin. H. N. xvi. § 174; Cato, R. R. 33, 5),
and are shown on some monuments (as on the
sarcophagus in British Museum ; see Baumeister,
1610). The fixed chairs which were set up in
theatres or other public places, for certain
officials or as a special honour, are described in
the article THRONUS.
The Romans made use of all the forms of
chair known to the Greeks, and do not seem
to have had any peculiar shapes of their own.
The general term in Latin is sedile (= ka948pa)
for all kinds of seats, while the varieties are the
scammum or subsellium (= 8&6pov), the sella
( = 8lºppos), the cathédra, and the solium.
[THRONUS.]
The sella was the commonest form, and was
used by all classes, both men and women ;
whereas the cathedra was specially an easy
chair for ladies, children, and sickly folk. It
was used no less in private houses than in
workshops (Cic. Cat. iv. 8, 17; Verr. iv. 25, 56),
and in schools, though whether the pupils were
allowed to use it, or were confined to the
subsellia, has been disputed: Göll, in Becker's
Gallus, ii. p. 347, maintains, with good reason,
against Marquardt, that the pupils had only
subsellia. [LUDUS LITTERARIUS, p. 97.] Like
the Öſppos, it might be plain or very highly
ornamented, and was covered when in use by a
cushion (pulvinus), but never upholstered. It
was made not only with four upright legs, but
in the form of a campstool; and this shape,
though in common use for every-day purposes,
is best known as peculiar to the sellae curules of
the higher Roman magistrates, the office they
held being on this account called a magistratus
curulis. The derivation of curulis is uncertain,
but that from currus, which was given by the
ancients (cf. Gavius Bassus, quoted by Gellius,
iii. 18, and Festus, Ep. p. 49), seems best to ac-
cord with the customs connected with the magi-
strate’s chair, which was originally, it would
seem, placed in the magistrate's chariot. The
actual carrying of the chair is not mentioned
in historical times; but the underlying idea,
that the right of moving the sella curulis be-
tokened a jurisdiction that was not confined to
any one place, like a tribunal, but extended
wherever the magistrate had a right to drive,
is clear enough (cf. Liv. iii. 11, “consules in
conspectu edrum positis sellis delectum habe-
bant”). Even out of Rome, the magistrate
brought with him, as symbol of his rule, a
sella castrensis (Suet. Galba, 18). The import-
ance of being seated when acting officially runs
through the whole of Roman ceremonial eti-
quette, subordination being expressed when the
people stood before the seated magistrate,
equality when the senate sat in his presence.
The same was the rule in social life; for the
paterfamilias received visitors sitting, and
younger people or those of lower rank rose
in the presence of an older or more honourable
man. So, too, the public rose when the magi-
strate entered the amphitheatre during the
games (Suet. Claud. 12). The difference in the
position of magistrates was also shown by the
fact that the sella curulis was confined to the
consuls and praetors, all magistrates with the
consular or praetorian imperium (e.g. decemviri
and tribuni militares: cf. Liv. iii. 44, 9, iv. 7),
the Dictator, the Magister Equitum, the Censor,
and the Flamen Dialis.
Sellae Curules, from Pompeii. (Mus. Borbon. vi. tav. 28.)
The sella curulis was a campstool, which, when
open, had a square seat and was without a back
or arms. Its legs were curved, whence it is


620 SELLA
SENATUS
called 8tºppos &yavXórows by Greek writers
(Plut. Mar. 5), a form which is shown on
numerous monuments, especially coins; cf. a
gravestone in the Museum at Avignon (Cahier
and Martin, Mé-
langes d. Arch.
i. p. 166), where
it is shown
having a seat of
straps, covered
with cushions.
The sella cas-
trensis is shown
on the coins of
the praetors and
quaestors of the
Cyrenaica (cf.
Longperier, Rev.
- Arch. 1868, p.
106), and is of simpler shape with straight legs.
The sella curulis was also used by magistrates
in the municipia (cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht,
i. 384). Other magistrates had chairs of office,
that of the quaestor having
feur straight legs, but not
arranged for shutting to-
gether (cf. Longperier, Rev.
Arch. 1868, p. 58; called by
him subsellium), while the
tribunes and other colleges
had a bench (subsellium).
The bisellium is not a ma-
gistrate's seat, and its use
was confined to the muni-
cipia, where it was given as
an honour to the Augustales.
It was in this case a double
seat, set apart in the amphi-
theatre and theatre (Orelli,
4044, 4046). The decu-
riones seem to have had it
by right of their office, as
the biselliatus honor is not
given among their titles on
inscriptions. Some of the
inscriptions are accompanied
by a representation of a seat,
but it is not at all certain
that this is intended to be a
bisellium, and in one case it
is more like a sella curulis (cf.
Jordan, Annali d. Inst. 1862, p. 293; and Castel-
lani, Bullettino della Commissione Arch. Municip.
1874, p. 22). In any case there does not seem to
be the slightest reason (Varro, L. L. v. 128, is not
definite) for giving the name bisellium to a class
of Sellae found at Pompeii, and represented in
the accompanying cut, taken from the specimen
in the Hamilton Collection at the British
Museum, in which it is to be noted that the
supports on which the cushions rested have been
wrongly restored as supports below instead of
above the seat. [PULVINUs.]
Sedan chairs were known as sellae gestatoriae,
portatoriae, or fertoriae, and are contrasted with
the litter (lectica; cf. Mart. x. 10, 7; xi. 98,
10), though occasionally the distinction is not
observed (cf. Mart. iv. 51, where the ingens
hea aphoron can only be a lectica, and yet is
called sella). These were known in Greece as
an Oriental innovation, and were at Rome used
by ladies, senators' wives having, it would seem,
º º º
iſſiº
Sella Castrensis.
Subsellium.
a special sort (Dio Cass. lvii. 15), but under the
Empire their use became common with men.
Thus they were used by Augustus (Suet. Aug.
NJ
Sella. (British Museum.)
53) and Claudius (Dio Cass. lx. 2, §ſqpq, kara-
a réye trpátos ‘Papuatov čxphorato), and in
later times almost universally. They were often
large enough to hold two persons (Plin. Ep. iii.
5, 15), and were either open (apertae) or covered
over (opertae), and could be shut close (cf. Juv.
i. 124), sometimes with windows of “bull's-eye”
glass (Juv. iv. 21). Another variety of sedan
chair is the cathedra, which is probably the same
as the Sella mullebris in Suetonius, Oth. 6, and in
any case was covered, for Seneca regards it as
one of the scandals of his time that women went
about in open chairs (de Benef. i. 9, 3). The
roof of the Sella was called arcus (cf. Tac. Ann.
xv. 57, where a woman hangs herself from the
arcus). (Buchholz, Die hom. Realien, ii. 138;
Helbig, Das hom. Epos, 1887, p. 118; Hermann-
Blümner, Lehrbuch, p. 158; — Becker - Göll,
Charikles, iii. p. 82; Gallus, ii. p. 347, iii. p. 7 ;
—Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i. pp. 370 ft., 380 ft. ;
Marquardt, Privalleben, 1886, p. 725; Blümner,
Techn. v. Index, s. v. Sessel; Kunstgewerbe, ii.
p. 29; Iwan Müller, Handbuch, iv. pp. 379, 381,
386, 509, 519; Daremberg and Saglio, Dict.
Antiq., art. Bisellium, Cathedra; Baumeister,
Denkmäler, art. Sessel; Mayor, Juvenal, notes
on i. 124, iv. 21.) [W. F. C. A.]
SELLAE EQUESTRES.. [EPHIPPIUM.]
SEMENTI'VAE. [FERIAE]
SENATUS. The “senate ” or “council of
elders” (seniores: comp. the Greek yepovata)
ranked with the kingship, and the assembly of
burgesses among the oldest of Roman institutions,
and, like the two latter, existed also among the
kindred communities of Latium . (Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. 836, note 2). Its creation is ascribed
by tradition to Romulus (Liv. i. 8). The
members of the senate were senatores. The
collective appellation patres (= “chiefs” rather
than “fathers”) belonged of right to the purely
patrician senate of the earliest days, but was
transferred to the mixed patricio-plebeian body
of later times (Cicero, Sallust, and Livy, passim),
and used as equivalent to senatus. Similarly
the two functions inherited by the mixed senate
from its patrician predecessor, the appointment









' SENATUS
SENATUS 621
of the interrex, and the ratification of votes given
by the assembly, are always spoken of as acts
of the patres, though in fact performed by the
senate as a whole. [For this and for Mommsen's
rival theory, that patres in these cases always
meant only the patrician members of the senate,
see below.] The fact that the patrician patres had
once formed the whole senate, and that plebeians
were not admitted until a later time, was possibly
commemorated by the official term patres con-
Scripti; the conscripti denoting originally the
plebeian members called up by the magistrate
(Festus, p. 254; Liv. ii. 1; Mommsen, Staatsr.
iii. 839; Madvig, Verfass. i. 125. Willems, Le
Senat, i. 37 sqq., maintains on the contrary
that the term means simply “assembled fathers.”
For Mommsen's view of the inferior position of
the plebeian conscripti, see below).
I. Number of the Senate.—Roman tradition
represents the senate as consisting originally
of 100 members (Liv. i. 8), and as having been
gradually enlarged to 300, though of the steps
by which this increase was effected it gives
no consistent account. That 300 remained
the normal number down to the time of Sulla
is generally agreed. From 81 B.C. to the dic-
tatorship of Caesar, the nominal maximum
was 600. Under Caesar the numbers rose to
900 (Dio Cass. xliii. 47); under the triumvirs
to over 1000 (Suet. Aug. 35, “erant enim super
mille: ” cf. Mon. Ancyr. 5, 6). Augustus re-
duced them once more to 600 (Suet. l. c.; Dio
Cass. liv. 13); but there is no proof that either
by himself or his successors was this limit
strictly observed. [The advice given by Maecenas
to Augustus not to be particular as to the
number of senators (umbèv repl rod traff00us
airóv &Rp180Aoyotſuevos, Dio Cass, lii. 19) may
be taken, with Mommsen, to represent the
practice of Dio's own time. See Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. 850, note 3.]
II. Admission and eapulsion of Senators.-
It was a distinctive peculiarity of the Roman
senate, that admission to its ranks was always
given, not by popular election or by cooptation,
but by the act of the magistrate, who has for
the time being the authority legere in senatum;
and though, as will be shown, his freedom of
choice was under the later Republic so restricted
by law as to reduce the lectio Senatus to little
more than the formal enrolment of persons with
a legal claim to be enrolled, yet his action con-
tinued to be indispensable (Val. Max. ii. 3, 1),
and under the Empire regained much of its
original liberty. The two principles that the
Senate was only a council of advice for the ma-
gistrate, and that the magistrate selected his
councillors, though modified in practice by the
anxiety of the senate to assert its independence,
were never formally abandoned, and were suc-
cessfully re-asserted by the Caesars. Prof.
Mommsen indeed has a theory that in pre-historic
times the case was otherwise, and that the
original senate, as consisting of the assembled
heads (patres) of the patrician gentes, was in-
dependent as to its composition of the authority
of the magistrate (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 844,
854). That the early senate was composed
exclusively of patricians may be safely assumed.
It is, moreover, probable that from this original
and close connexion with the gentes were derived
the claims which the patrician senate bequeathed
to its patricio-plebeian successor to be the special
guardians of the auspicia, and of the ancient
order of things bound up with them. But of a
strictly representative gentile council there is,
as Mommsen himself confesses, no evidence.
The senate as first known to us appears as a
council composed of patricians, but of patricians
selected by the chief magistrate [Liv. i. 8,
“Romulus centum creat senatores.” Willems’
theory (Le Sénat, i. 26) that the senate was
originally a “réunion de tous les patres fami-
liarum seniores des familles patriciennes,” and
that subsequently “le choix royal succèda au
droit d'hérédité,” is an equally unfounded and a
less plausible conjecture].
Starting from the earliest system known to us,
, that under which the senators were chosen by
the magistrate, we have to consider, (1) to what
magistrates this right of choice was successively
granted; (2) by what conditions, legal or
customary, the choice was limited; and (3) the
mode in which the lectio Senatus was carried out.
(1.) The prerogative of choosing senators
belonged at first to the king. From the king it
passed to the consuls, and was during a brief
period granted to their temporary substitutes,
the tribuni militum consulari potestate (Festus,
p. 246, “ut reges sibi legebant, sublegebantgue
quos in consilio publico haberent, ita post exactos
eos consules quoque et tribuni militum consulari
potestate conjunctissimos sibi quosque patrici-
orum et deinde plebeiorum legebant ’). The
date at which it was transferred to the censors
is uncertain. That the change was not made
before 387 A.U.C. = 367 B.C., the last year
in which consular tribunes were appointed,
is implied in the passage quoted above from
Festus; and it was not therefore coeval with
the institution of the censorship itself (443 B.C.).
According to the same passage, it was effected
by a Lex Ovinia tribunicia: “donec Ovinia tri-
bunicia intercessit qua sanctum est ut censores
ex omni ordine optimum quemgue curiatim (sic)
in senatum legerent ; ” and may be assumed to
have been, as such, made in the interest of the
plebs. We may consequently place it after the
passing of the Lex Publilia (339 B.C.), which
enacted that one censor must be a plebeian (Liv.
viii. 12), since a tribune of the plebs at that period
would not have been likely to entrust the choice
of senators to patrician magistrates. The first
recorded lectio senatus by censors is the famous
one in the censorship of Appius Claudius Caecus
(312 B.C.; Liv. ix. 29), so that the Lex Ovinia
and the transference of the lectio Senatus to the
censors may be assigned to some date between
339 B.C. and 312 B.C. (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 395 ;
Willems, i. 155). With the censors the duty
remained down to the close of the Republic,
though on two occasions it was entrusted, as an
exceptional measure, to a dictator. In 216 B.C.,
after the battle of Cannae, M. Fabius Buteo was
created dictator for this purpose (Liv. xxiii. 22,
“quisenatum legeret”); and Sulla exercised the
prerogative as dictator in 81 B.C. (Appian, B. C-
i. 100). Both Julius Caesar and the triumvirs
“selected senators” in virtue of the extra-
ordinary powers vested in them. Augustus,
true to his general policy, made a partial return
to the old practice. Although the censorship
proper ceased to exist, and the creation of
senators devolved upon the princeps, the old
622 SENATUS
SENATUS
connexion between this act and the censorial
authority was not entirely lost sight of. Of
the three regular lectiones Senatus held by
Augustus (Mon. Ancyr. ii. 1, “senatum ter legi”),
the first certainly and the two others probably
coincided with the three census of Roman
citizens taken by him in 28 B.C., 8 B.C., and
14 A.D. Moreover, though under Augustus and
his successors both the calling up into the senate
of persons legally qualified by the tenure of
the quaestorship, and the removal from the
list of the names of such senators as had died
or proved themselves unworthy, took place
annually and quite independently of any cen.
sorial authority, the direct admission (adlectio)
of men freely selected by Caesar was a power
only occasionally exercised in the first century
and always in virtue of the censorial authority,
e.g. by Claudius, Vespasian, and Titus (C. I. L. v.
3117; Orelli, 3659; Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 877,
iii. 857). Domitian, as censor for life, first
exercised it continuously. From his time on-
wards the right was possessed and used by all
emperors at their discretion, and without any
reference to censorial authority as a power in-
herent in the imperial prerogative (Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. 857).
(2.) The old constitution left the king or
consul free to choose as senators the men he
thought best fitted for the post. Full citizen-
ship, free birth (ingenuitas), and good character
were no doubt always indispensable for a seat
in the senate as for a magistracy; but although
custom may have limited the choice of the king
to patricians, there is no proof that he was pro-
hibited by law from admitting plebeians; and
the admission of the latter is represented in
tradition as the free act of the king or consul,
not as the consequence of special legislation.
[Liv. ii. 1. Mommsen's theory, that originally
a seat in the senate was an exclusively patrician
privilege (Staatsr. iii. 870), must stand or fall
with his hypothesis mentioned above, of a time
when the senate was a representative council of
the gentes. As he confesses himself, no traces
are discoverable of any formal representation in
the senate of the gentes or curiae..] The classical
passage in Festus describes the kings and consuls
as choosing freely : “conjunctissimos sibi quos-
que ... legebant ; ” so that to be passed over in-
flicted no disgrace, “praeteriti senatores in op-
probrio non erant’ (Id. ib.). Even by the Lex
Ovinia the censors were directed to choose “ex
omni ordine optimum quemgue; ” and Cicero
declares (pro Sest. 65, 137) that the original in-
tention of the constitution was, that the senate
should be open “omnium civium industriae ac
virtuti.” But this early freedom of choice was
gradually restricted. It is probable that the
consuls at the end of their year of office had
always a claim to be enrolled as senators, and
we may assume that this privilege was con-
ceded from the first to praetores. When, owing
to the transference of the lectio Senatus to the
censors, the revision of the senatorial list took
place not annually but quinquennially, the ex-
magistrates who had a claim to be enrolled were
permitted, after the end of their year of office
and while waiting for the next quinquennial
lectio, to enter the senate-house, and though not
yet senators to give their sententiae with the rest.
Hence the distinction drawn between “senatores”
and those “quibus in senatu sententiam dicere
licet.” (Liv. xxiii. 32; Fest. p. 339; Varro,
ap. Gell. iii. 18, “qui nondum a censoribus in
senatum lecti, Senatores non erant, sed quia
honoribus populiusi erant, in senatum veniebant,
et sententiae jus habebant.”) The number of
magistracies carrying this privilege increased
as time went on. By 216 B.C. it had evidently
been extended to the curule aedileship, since
Livy, in describing the lectio of that excep-
tional year, plainly includes the curule aedile-
ship among the offices which entitled their
holders to a seat in the senate (Liv. xxii. 49,
“unde in senatum legi deberent,” xxiii. 23;
and Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 860, note 3). On
the other hand, the minor magistracies, the
plebeian aedileship, tribunate, and quaestorship
gave no such right as yet; although, as we
might expect, former holders of these offices
were selected next to ex-curule magistrates, and
before such private citizens as had distinguished
themselves in war: “primum in demortuorum
locum legit, qui post L. Aemilium, C. Flami-
nium censores curulem magistratum cepissent,
necdum in Senatum lecti essent...tum legit qui
aediles, tribuni plebis, quaestoresve fuerant ; .
tum ex iis qui magistratus non cepissent, qui
spolia ex hoste fixa domi haberent aut civicam
coronam accepissent’’ (Liv. xxiii. 23). By Sulla's
time, if not before, the customary preference
hitherto given to ex-holders of the plebeian
aedileship and tribuneship had been exchanged
for a legal claim both to the provisional seat
and jus sententiae in the senate, pending the
next censorial lectio, and to formal enrolment
as senators when the time for the lectio arrived.
[These privileges were apparently given to the
tribunes by the plebiscitum Atinium (Gell. xiv.
8, 2, “senatores non essent ante Atinium plebi-
scitum ”), the date of which must fall, according
to Mommsen, between 123 B.C. and 102 B.C.
(Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 862, note 2). When
the plebeian aediles obtained them is uncertain.
Mommsen infers, from their inclusion in the
Lex Acilia among those “quei in senatu sient,”
that they had done so before 122 B.C. (ib. 861,
note 2).] Finally, the same rights were attached
to the quaestorship by Sulla (Tac. Ann. xi. 22,
“viginti quaestores creati supplendo senatui '').
But these rights had long lost all value for the
holders of the higher offices; since, owing to
the gradual establishment of a fixed order of
succession to these posts, a man was presumably
already a senator by the time that he reached
even the lowest curule magistracy. After
Sulla, they were of importance only for the
quaestorship, which was then legally established
as the first step in the ladder of promotion. As
a rule even the tribunate was taken after the
quaestorship, and its holders were consequently
already senators. The effect of these changes
was practically to destroy the magistrate's
freedom of choice. He still created senators,
but as a rule the number of ex-quaestors
awaiting his call, and with a legal claim to be
called, must have been sufficient to fill the
vacancies, and have left no room for others.
Of senators admitted by free selection of the
magistrate, there is no trace after 70 B.C., until
we reach the dictatorship of Caesar. The votes
of the people in Comitia in fact gave admis-
sion to the senate. (Cic. pro Cluent. 56, 153,
SENATUS
SENATUS 623
“judicio populi Romani in amplissimum locum
pervenire.”) But the “call” of the magistrate
was still indispensable; and with the Empire it
became once more a reality. The quaestorship
still retained its right to give a seat; and it is
true that the transference of the elections for
the quaestorship to the senate by Tiberius gave
that body in appearance a complete control over
its own composition, and substituted cooptation
both for the free choice of the magistrate and
for the votes of the people. But it was only in
appearance; for, apart from the influence which
his control of the quaestorian elections gave him,
the emperor possessed and exercised the old
right of direct admission, now known as adlectio,
possibly to distinguish it from the old periodic
lectiones of republican times (Mommsen, Staatsr.
ii. 877, note). This right, used occasionally (see
above) by the earlier emperors, was from the
reign of Nerva onwards constantly exercised.
The person so admitted was assigned a definite
place on the roll, usually “inter tribunicios,”
occasionally “inter praetorios,” and in the 3rd
century even “inter consulares; ” this titular
rank counting as equivalent to the actual tenure
of the office itself. The increasing frequency of
these adlectiones indicates the use of the method
as a means of strengthening the emperor's hold
over the senate, and of promoting his friends and
protégés (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 877 sqq.; Vita
Pert. 6, “cum Commodus adlectionibus innu-
meris praetorios miscuisset; ” Vita Marci, 10,
“multos examicis adlegit’).
No qualification of age or property was origin-
ally fixed by law for a seat in the senate; but
from the time when election to the quaestorship
became the normal mode of entry into the senate,
the legal age for this office became practically
that for the senate also. Under the later Re-
public it was consequently thirty; from the
time of Augustus onwards, twenty-five (Dio
Cass, lii. 20; QUAESTOR). A property quali-
fication was first introduced by Augustus, who
fixed it at one million sesterces (Dio Cass, liv.17;
Suet. Aug. 41; Tac. Ann. i. 75, ii. 37). Under
Trajan, all candidates for office, and therefore
for a seat in the senate, were compelled to invest
a third of their property in Italian land (Plin.
Epp. vi. 19). This proportion was reduced to a
fourth by M. Aurelius (Wit. 11).
It should lastly be mentioned that in the early
days of the Empire the Roman franchise was
given to Gauls (Tac. Ann. xi. 23), and pos-
sibly to other provincials, without the right of
standing for office in Rome (jus honorum); and
to such men, therefore, unless directly admitted
by the emperor, the senate-house was closed.
But of this special disability no trace is found
after the reign of Claudius.
With the right of creating senators was
closely connected that of removing them (loco
movere), or omitting them from the revised list
(praeterire). Of the mode in which it was
exercised by the kings and consuls we know
nothing beyond the statement in Festus, that,
inasmuch as the magistrate then drew up the
list as he chose, no stigma attached to those
whose names were left out (Festus, p. 246 : see
above). It is easy to understand that the senate
would resent being so completely at the magis-
trate's mercy; and the Lex Ovinia, carried as it
was when the senate was slowly establishing its
ascendancy (339–312 B.C.), seems to have given
greater security to the senator's tenure of his
seat. By transferring the “revision of the list’”
to the censors, it substituted a quinquennial for
an annual revision; and though the removal or
omission of a name henceforward inflicted dis-
grace, this was probably due in part to the fact
that the censors, possibly under a clause of the
law, were obliged not only to be agreed in doing
so (App. i. 28; Liv. xl. 51; Cic. pro Cluent. 43,
122), but to state in writing their reasons for
inflicting the penalty (Ascon. in tog. Cand. p. 84;
Liv. xxxix. 42, “adscriberent notas”). The
power was no doubt abused more than once for
party or personal purposes, but in the main the
evidence points to the conclusion that the
arrangement gave a senator fixity of tenure,
unless he were guilty of some act, or had in-
curred some public disgrace, which by law or
custom disqualified him for sitting in the senate
(e.g. deprivation of his office for misconduct, loss
of civic rights, conviction in certain cases in a
court of justice, gross immorality, extravagance,
&c.). After 70 B.C., when the censors expelled a
number of the unworthy members placed on the
list possibly by Sulla, the power of expulsion or
omission remained in, abeyance (Sull., Cat. 23,
gives an instance, belonging to 70 B.C.), though
Cicero in the Laws advocates its revival (“pro-
brum in senatu ne relinquunto,” de Legg. iii.
3, 7). Under the Empire it came again into
exercise. The thorough “purgings" of the
overgrown senate by Augustus in 29–28 B.C.,
and again in 18 B.C., were no doubt exceptional
(Suet. Aug. 35; Dio Cass, lii. 42, liv. 12), as was
that carried out by Vespasian after the civil
wars of 69 A.D. (Suet. Vesp. 9, “summotis in-
dignissimis"). But alike at the periodic lectiones
held by Claudius, Vespasian, and Titus as censors,
and at the yearly revision of the senatorial list,
not only were the names removed of those who
had vacated their seats by death, by loss of
the necessary property qualification (unless the
loss, as frequently happened, was made good by
the emperor: Tac. Ann. i. 75, ii. 37, xiii. 34;
Suet. Nero, 10), or by condemnation in a court
of law; but those were also expelled who for one
reason or another were held by the emperor to
be unworthy (Ann. ii. 48, “prodigos et ob
flagitia egentes; ” iv. 42, “quod in acta d.
Augusti non juraverat; ” xi. 25, “famosos; ”
Suet. Domit. 8, “quod gesticulandi Saltandique
studio teneretur: ” the alternative of voluntary,
withdrawal was sometimes given, Ann. ii. 48).
This power of removal, exercised as it was with
increasing freedom and even arbitrariness as time
went on, combined with the more frequent use
of the right of adlectio completely to destroy
that practical independence of magisterial control
which the republican senate had gradually won
for itself. The senate under the Principate
became again what it must have been in early
days—a body of councillors, largely selected by
the chief magistrate at his discretion, and re-
taining their seats at his good pleasure.
(3.) The mode in which the lectio or revision of
the list was carried out has next to be described.
Our knowledge of this commences with the
period when the revision of the senate was in
the hands of the censors, i.e. at the earliest after
339 B.C. Although the lectio Senatus was not
apparently an integral part of the census, like
624 SENATUS
SENATUS
the recognitio equitum (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii.
396, and so Willems), it seems to have im-
mediately preceded it (Liv. xxiv. 18; xxvii. 11,
&c.). It was conducted usually by both censors
jointly (Liv. xxxii. 7, xl. 50 ; Willems, i. 241),
though on one occasion at least it was decided
by lot which of the two should undertake the
work (Liv. xxvii. 11, “sors legendi”). The
first point, down to 81 B.C., was to select
the senator whose name should stand at the
head of the list as “princeps senatus * and
enjoy the privilege of giving his sententia first.
This honour belonged by ancient custom to the
oldest patrician censorius (Liv. l.c.; Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. 970). After 209 B.C. any patrician
censorius might be chosen irrespective of seni-
ority. From the time of Sulla onwards, it is
not clear that any princeps senatus in the old
sense was appointed: the list in the Ciceronian
age was possibly headed by the senior consular,
and at any rate the post, if it survived at all,
must have been deprived of most of its import-
ance by the change made in the order of taking
the sententiae, which took away from the princeps
the privilege of being asked first (Varro, ap.
Gell. xiv. 7; Willems, i. 114, maintains not only
that principes Senatus existed after Sulla, but
that they were no longer necessarily patricians.
Indeed, the three whose names he gives—
Q. Lutatius Catulus, P. Servilius Vatia, and
Cicero—were all plebeians. But his arguments
are not conclusive). Under the Empire, the
emperors, following the example of Augustus
(Mon. Anc. Gk. 4, 2, trpátov &étáparos rôtrov ris
orvvicAffirov), placed their own names at the head
of the list, though only in the case of Pertinax
(Dio Cass. lxxiii. 4) was the old title princeps
senatus revived. The princeps Senatus chosen,
the old list of the senate was gone through,
the names of deceased members or of those
legally disqualified struck out, those who had
risen to higher office in the interval placed in
their proper position; and finally, any whom
the censors judged unfit, struck off the roll. [In
the lectio of 216 B.C. there were no such erasions,
but this was exceptional (Liv. xxiii. 23).] The
vacancies were then filled up according to the
order described above, though here again the
censors might pass over one or more of the
legally qualified claimants. In the completed
list the senators were arranged according to
their official rank, from the dictatorii and censorii
down to the quaestorii; those, if there were any,
who had held no office, being no doubt placed
last. Down to the time of Sulla, the patricians
in each magisterial category took precedence of
the plebeians ; in the post-Sullan period, the
members of each category were arranged simply
by official seniority (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii.
968; Willems, i. 259). Under the Empire a
senator might obtain precedence by the grant of
the jus trium liberorum, and earlier still by the
successful prosecution in a public court of a
senator higher in rank than himself, whose
place he took (Mommsen, l. c. 971; Dio Cass.
xxxvi. 40). Those persons directly admitted
(adlecti) by the emperor, among the praetorii or
tribunicii, were properly placed below the genuine
ex-praetors or ex-tribunes (Vit. Pertin. 6). The
list when made up was in Republican times read
aloud from the rostra (Liv. xxiii. 23); under the
Empire it was regularly published (Dio Cass. lv.
3). It held good until the next revision, i.e.
under the Republic, until the next censors came
into office. Under the Empire the revision was
annual (Dio Cass. l. c.). The official name for
the list, “album senatorium,” first occurs in
Tacitus (Ann. iv. 42).
III. Composition and Character of the Senate.—
The first important change in the composition of
the senate must have been effected by the admis-
sion of plebeians—a measure ascribed by tradition
to Brutus, and certainly anterior to their admis-
sion to the consulship. With the opening of the
magistracies to plebeians, and the additions
made to the list of magistracies giving a legal
claim to a seat, the plebeian element in the
senate grew in strength; and at the close of the
Punic wars largely outnumbered the patrician.
(See the calculations made by Willems, i. pp. 285
sqq.) The question then arises, how far any
distinction was maintained as regards rights
and privileges between these two elements 2
That the interrex was necessarily, and the
princeps senatus customarily, a patrician, is
certain (see above and art. INTERREX), as also
that on the roll patrician senators took pre-
cedence of plebeian senators of equal official
rank. But on two points there is a division of
opinion: (1) Were the functions of appointing
the interrex (prodere interregem) and of ratify-
ing votes of the assembly (patrum auctoritas)
reserved exclusively for patrician senators?
(2) Were plebeian senators at any time without
the right sententiam dicere? The first question
is answered in the affirmative by Mommsen
(Röm. Forschungen, i. 218; Staatsr. iii. 871).
and Madvig (Verfass. i. 233, 496); in the
negative by Willems (ii. 1 and 33. See also
INTERREx). The difficulty in the way of a
decision is increased by the ambiguous sense in
which the term patres is used by ancient writers,
and by the fact that while the appointment of
interreges had become extremely rare during
the period to which our best authorities (Cicero,
Livy) belong, the patrum auctoritas had long
before that time been reduced to a meaningless
form (by the Lex Publilia, 339 B.C.). The most
probable view on the whole seems to be that,
while both acts belonged originally to the senate
as a purely patrician body, they were in later
times performed by the patricio-plebeian senate
as a whole. [Cf. the extension of the term patres
to cover the whole senate, and the retention of the
phrase patricii magistratus for the curule offices
long after these had been opened to plebeians
(Cic. ad Brut. i. 5). It is only in connexion
with the three earliest interregna under the
Republic that Livy speaks of patricii (iii. 40,
iv. 7, iv. 43: 421 B.C.). On later occasions he
speaks always of patres, as does Cicero through-
out. The patrum auctoritas is never expressly
connected with the patricii. For a full dis-
cussion, see Willems, l.c., and INTERREX.] The
second question admits of a more confident
answer. It is agreed on all hands that in post-
Sullan times no distinction is traceable between
patricians and plebeians as regards the right
sententiam dicere, and that the term pedarić had
no legal value, but merely denoted the lower
ranks of senators (i.e. in fact the non-curules),
whose names, from want of time, were rarely
reached in taking the sententiae, and who were
therefore, as a rule, obliged pedibus ire in sen-
SENATUS
SENATUS 625
tentiam, i.e. to cross to one side or the other of
the senate-house. [Gell. iii. 18, “qui in alienam
sententiam pedibus irent.” The explanation of
the term quoted in the same passage from Gavius
Bassus (1st century A.D.), “Senatores qui magis-
tratum curulem nondum cepissent pedibus itavisse
in curiam,” though in fact non-curules and pedarić
coincide, is a bad guess, which, strangely enough,
Willems accepts (op. cit. i. 137). The confusion
which follows between the pedarii and the ex-
curule magistrates “nondum a censoribus lecti’’
is probably due to Gellius himself. The latter
class were not senators, but had the jus Sen-
tentiae dicendae; the pedarii were senators, but
in practice were unable sententiam dicere. The
confusion is repeated in Lewis and Shortt's Latin
Dict. The sense of inferiority associated with
the pedarii in the senate sufficiently explains
the “equites pedarii” of Varro (=common or
inferior equites).]
, ºut Mommsen, while agreeing that in the
Ciceronian age pedarius was merely a conventional
epithet describing the actual but not the legal
position of the lower senators, holds that in
earlier times the term had a statutable meaning,
and denoted “plebeian senators directly admitted
by consuls or censors, as distinct from those
Qualified by office”—a class which ceased to
exist after 81 B.C. These plebeian senators were,
he thinks, legally incapable of delivering sen-
tentiae, and only allowed to vote (pedibus ire).
The objections to this theory are: (1) That no
such distinction can be drawn between the right
sententiam dicere and the right to vote. For the
Roman senator, the sententia and the vote were
the same thing, though the sententia might be
given in different ways, of which the pedibus ire
was one [see below under Procedure], (2) That
though there were certainly at one time men in
the senate with the jus sententiae who were not
senators, there is no evidence of the existence
at any time of senators without this right.
(3) There is no proof that there was ever a
legally distinct class of pedarii, or that the term
had ever any other meaning than that which
it bore in the Ciceronian age.
The admission of plebeians has been assigned
to the early days of the Republic; the period
from the Lex Ovinia to the dictatorship of Sulla
witnessed another change which stood in close
connexion with the growing ascendancy of the
senate in the political system. The class of
senators freely chosen by the magistrate as
distinct from those whom election to office had
given a legal claim on his call, gradually dis-
appeared (Cic. de Legg. iii. 12, “neminem in
summum locum nisi per populum venire”), and
the senate came to be composed entirely of
actual and ex-officials, to the exclusion of lay
interests and opinions — an exclusiveness inten-
sified by the extent to which from 200 B.C.
onwards the official class was recruited from a
single section of Roman society, that of the
mobiles. In Cicero's day the only working classi-
fication of senators was classification by official
rank.
Further changes followed under the Empire.
The class of those who, while awaiting the next
lectio, were permitted to sit in the senate and
give sententiae (see above), must have ceased
to exist, when the yearly revision enabled the
emperor to call them up immediately on the
VOL. II.
expiry of their year of office. On the other
hand, though the official classification continued,
and even those directly adlecti by Caesar were
placed in one official category or another, and
though the majority of senators as a rule entered
by the old official door, the quaestorship, the
increasing number of the adlecti unquestionably
served not only to strengthen the emperor's con-
trol over the senate, but to widen the area from
which its members were drawn. The effect of
Vespasian's admission of numerous Italians and
provincials is specially noticed by Tacitus (Ann.
iii. 55, “novi homines e municipiis et coloniis
atque etiam provinciis—domesticam parsimoniam
intulerunt.” Senators from the eastern pro-
vinces are very rare before the 2nd century).
But while in this way the senate became in its
composition more representative of the whole
Empire, a narrowing effect was exercised by the
tendency to confine the senatorial dignity to a
particular class, by making it hereditary. The
way for this latter change was prepared in the
last century of the Republic. In the time of
Cicero, the male members of the great families
passed into the senate through the quaestorship,
almost as a matter of course. The son of a
senator was expected and as a rule did thus
qualify himself for senatorial rank; and Cicero
contrasts the senatorial and official career proper
to young nobles, with the quieter and less
ambitious course marked out by custom for
members of the equestrian order (Cic. pro
Cluent. 56, 153). But as yet the son of a
senator had no legal claim to be himself a
senator, nor did he as such enjoy any legal
distinctions or privileges. Even the phrase
ordo Senatorius is usually limited in meaning
to the actual senate (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii.
459). Julius, it is true, extended the restric-
tion on foreign travel from senators to their
sons (Suet. Jul. 42); but from Augustus dates
the first attempt to make the senatorial dignity
formally hereditary, and to give the ordo
senatorius, as distinct from the senate, a legal
existence. According to his regulations, the
sons of senators were authorised to assume the
broad stripe (latus clavus) on the assumption of
the toga virilis, and to attend meetings of the
senate (a revival of an ancient custom, Gell.
i. 23). They entered the army as tribuni
militum or praefect: alarum, and were dis-
tinguished from other young officers as lati-
clavii (Suet. Aug. 38, “liberis senatorum, quo
celerius reipublicae assuescerent, protinus a
virili toga, latum clavum induere et curiae
interesse permisit, militiamdue auspicantibus
non tribunatum modo legionum, sed et prae-
fecturas alarum dedit ... bimos plerumque lati-
clavios praeposuit singulis alis.” The ordinary
trib. mil. were angusticlavii, Suet. Otho, 10).
From military service they passed on to the
quaestorship and a seat in the senate. That
under the earlier emperors this career was
morally incumbent both on senators’ sons and
on other young men, to whom the emperor had
granted the latus clavus, seems certain (they
are described as honores petituri; Plin. Ep.
viii. 14; Dio Cass. lix. 10, €r, tſ, rås Bovais
*Art5), but there is no proof that in the 1st
century A.D. it was legally necessary. [We
hear of several cases in which a man either
declines to assume the latus alsº or dis-
S
626 SENATUS
SENATUS
cards it after a time. Suet. Vesp. 2, “latum
clavum diu aversatus” (Vespasian); Tac. Ann.
xvi. 17, “Mela petitione honorum abstinuerat; ”
Hist. ii. 86, “prima juventa Senatorium ordinem
exuerat; ” Ovid, Trist. iv. 10, 35. Claudius,
however, as censor took a strict view of the
obligation (Suet. Claud. 24, “senatoriam digni-
tatem recusantibus equestrem quoque ademit.”
Augustus, at the lectio, in B.C. 13, compelled
qualified persons under 35 “Bovaeda at ” (Dio
Cass. liv. 26).] A further illustration of the
same policy is the enactment due to Augustus
prohibiting both senators and their sons from
marriage with libertinae (Lex Papia Poppaea, Dig.
23, 2, 23). The development of the policy by
the emperors of the 2nd century cannot be traced
in detail. At the close of that century, however,
we find the two orders, senatorial and equestrian,
clearly and sharply distinguished. Each has its
own privileges. The careers appropriate to the
members of each order are different, and the
passage from one to the other difficult and
rarely made. [EQUITEs; PRINCIPATUS; PRO-
CURATOR.] Suetonius already contrasts “sena-
toria et equestria officia,” Galb. 15; cf. Vita
Commodi, 4, “per laticlavi honorem a prae-
fêcturae (sc. praetorio, an equestrian office)
administratione summovit.” By the lawyers
of the early part of the 3rd century senatorial
rank is treated as strictly hereditary. Not only
the sons, but the grandsons of senators are born
into the senatorial order, and cannot escape
either the honours or the burdens attached to
the dignitas senatoria. Neither posthumous
birth, nor adoption into a family of lower rank,
affects their position (Dig. 7, 35, 9, 7). As
Mommsen has well said (Staatsr. iii. 467), the
senatorial order took the place as a hereditary
nobility of the nobiles of the later Republic,
as they had in their turn superseded the patri-
ciate. [For the distinctive privileges and lia-
bilities of the senatorial order as thus con-
stituted, see the next section ;-for its general
position, cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 865, iii. 466;
Madvig, Werf. i. 123 sqq.; Friedländer, Sitten-
gesch. i. 197 sqq.]
IV. Insignia, Privileges, &c.—In Republican
times the senator bore no distinctive title, for
“senator Romanus” was never like “eques Roma-
nus” in official use. The title of courtesy claris-
simus, though not unfrequently applied to sena-
tors at an early date, was first formally assigned
to them in the 2nd century A.D. (Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. 565), and then or soon afterwards ex-
tended not only to their sons, but to their wives
and daughters. The outward insignia of the
senator were always the broad purple stripe on
the tunic (latus clavus) and the red sandals
(calcei) with the crescent-shaped buckle (luna),
and the leathern thongs wound round the leg
(lora). The former of these insignia was pos-
sibly not older than the Gracchan period (sero,
Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 29); the latter were ori-
ginally the distinctive mark of the patrician.
Under the Empire the latus clavus was assumed
by a senator's son on reaching manhood; while
the red sandals were worn even in childhood
(Stat. Silv. v. 2, 28). Separate seats in the
theatre were first assigned to senators in 194
B.C. (Liv. xxxiv. 44), and at the shows in
the circus by Claudius (Suet. Claud. 21). A
variety of fresh distinctions were conceded
as the senatorial order under the Empire in-
creasingly assumed the character of a here-
ditary peerage, e.g. the right of entrée to the
imperial presence (Dio Cass. lvii. 11), and of
banquets at the public cost (Suet. Aug. 35), the
use of covered carriages by their wives (Dio
Cass. lvii. 15), of silver plating upon their own
vehicles (Wit. Sev. Alex. 43), and of running
footmen (cursores, Vit. Aurel. 49). In the 3rd
century A.D., and probably earlier still, they
were exempt from all burdens, though still
eligible for honores in their own municipia (Dig.
50, 1, 23, “municeps esse desinit senatoriam
adeptus dignitatem, quantum ad munera ;
quantum vero ad honorem, retinere creditur
originem; ” cf. the omission in inscriptions of
senators of their place of domicile; see Momm-
sen, Staatsr. iii. 2, 887, note 1). Though
subject, like other citizens, to the ordinary law,
they were outside the jurisdiction of municipal
authorities. From Hadrian dated the custom
for the emperor to summon only senatorial
assessors to sit with him in judgment on a
senator (Vit. Hadr. 8), a practice revived by
Severus Alexander (Wit. 21, “ne quis mon
senator de Romano senatore judicaret’). But
the increased outward dignity of their position
under the Empire brought with it not only
increased risk under the worse emperors, but
increased liabilities and restrictions. Their
exclusion from trade and from taking state
contracts, as also their liability and that of
their sons to prosecution under the leges de
repetundis, date from republican times (Lex
Claudia, Liv. xxi. 63: cf. Dig. 50, 5; Lex Acilia
de pec. repet. 2; Bruns, Fontes jur. Rom. 54;
Cic. pro Cluent. 55, 150). In addition, Severus
Alexander forbade them to lend money except at
a low rate of interest (Wit. 26). The prohibition
issued in Tiberius’ reign against intercourse with
stage-buffoons (Ann. i. 77) was, like that against
marriage with libertinae, intended to preserve
the dignity of the order. But Claudius's edict
forbidding praetorian guardsmen to attend the
morning levees of senators (Suet. Claud. 25)
was no doubt provoked by the same jealousy of
senatorial interference with the army, which
finally led to their exclusion from military com-
mands and from the camps by Gallienus (Victor.
Caes. 33). The separate taxation of senators
did not exist as a system before Diocletian
(Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 2, 900 f.). The costly
obligation of providing games was a magisterial
rather than a senatorial burden. [LUDI; PRAE-
TOR; QUAESTOR. For the privilege originally
enjoyed by senators of voting in the equitum cen-
turiae, and for their duty of serving as judices
in the quaestiones perpetuae, see COMITLA; JUDEX:
QUAESTIO.]
W. Procedure.—The right to hold a meeting of
the senate (senatum habere), to consult it (con-
sulere, referre, relationem facere), and to carry
a decree (senatusconsultum facere) belonged in
the Ciceronian age to consuls, praetors, and
tribunes of the plebs; but if all were present in
Rome together, they could only exercise it in the
above order of precedence. The right no doubt
attached to the consulship and praetorship from
the moment of their establishment. It was
acquired by the tribunate at some period previous
to the plebiscitum Atinium (? before 133 B.C.).
The right was also given to the dictator, interrex,
SENATUS
SENATUS 627
and praefectus urbi. [See the classical passage,
Gell. xiv. 7, 8, “Primum ibi ponit (Varro) per
quos more majorum senatus haberi Soleret,
eosque nominat, dictatorem, consules, praetores,
tribunos plebi, interregem, praefectum urbi . . .
tribunis plebi senatus habendijus erat quamguam
senatores non essent ante Atinium plebiscitum.”]
Any one of these magistrates could be prevented
from exercising the right by the interference of
a colleague, or of a superior, or of a tribune.
[INTERCEssio; TRIBUNUs.] In the earlier times,
when the consuls were frequently absent from
Rome in the field, the duty of convening the
senate constantly developed upon the praetor
urbanus (Liv. xxii. 7; xxvi. 21 ; xlii. 8, &c.).
In the Ciceronian age, it is regularly performed
by the consuls (Cic. ad Fam. xii. 28; CONSUL).
Augustus in 23 B.C. was specially empowered to .
hold a senate as often as he would, even when
not consul (Dio Cass. liv. 3), and the power was
continued to his successors (Lex de Imp. Vesp. 2,
“utique ei senatum habere . . . . liceat, ita uti
licuit divo Augusto,” &c. Tiberius before he
was formally invested with this power convened
the senate “tribuniciae potestatis praescriptione
sub Augusto acceptae,” Tac. Ann. i. 7). But
even under the emperors it was usually the
consuls who convened the senate and presided at
its meetings (Plin. Epp. ii. 11, “princeps prae-
sidebat erat enim consul; ” cf. Id. Paneg. 76).
The magistrate who convened the senate
determined also the place of meeting, subject,
however, to certain conditions. --A lawful senate
could only be held in a templum, and, except in
special cases, within the pomerium (Gell. xiv. 7,
“ in loco per augurem constituto, quod templum
appellaretur: ” see TEMPLUM). Among the ordi-
nary meeting-places of the senate in repub-
lican times were the Curia Hostilia and the
temples of Concord, of Castor, of Jupiter Stator,
and of Tellus. The senate could be convened
outside the pomerium, but “intra milia pas-
suum,” if either embassies from states not in
alliance with Rome or a pro-magistrate [PRO-
CONSUL ; PROPRAETOR) were to take part in the
proceedings (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 930. As
meeting-places outside the pomerium, the tem-
ples of Apollo and of Bellona are mentioned:
Liv. xxxiv. 43; Cic. ad Fam. viii. 4 ; Plut.
Sull. 30).
The senate could not be summoned to meet
before sunrise or sit after sunset (Gell. xiv. 7).
But under the Republic there were no fixed days
for its meetings any more than for those of the
Comitia. Augustus first enacted that there
should be two regular meetings held in each
Inonth (Suet. Aug. 35, “ne plus quam bis in
mense legitimus senatus ageretur Kal. et Idibus,”
Dio Cass. lv. 3). Nor is it clear that in early
times there were any days on which a senate
could not be lawfully held. But by a Lex
Pupia, the date of which Mommsen fixes at
about 154 B.C., the magistrates were apparently
forbidden to hold a senate upon any day actually
appointed for Comitia, or possibly upon any of
the days on which Comitia might legally be held
(dies comitiales, Cic. ad Fam. i. 4, “senatus haberi
ante Kal. Febr. per legem Pupiam ... non potest;”
Id. ad Q. Fr. ii. 2, “consecuti sunt dies
comitiales per quos senatus haberi non potest: ”
cf. ad Fam. viii. 8; Mommsen, Staatsr. iii.
921–923).
The usual mode of summoning the senate
(cogere senatum) was by a proclamation issued by
one or both the consuls, naming the date and
place of meeting, and occasionally stating the
special business to be considered (Liv. xxviii. 9,
“praemisso edicto ut triduo post senatus ad
aedem Bellonae adesset; ” Suet. Caes. 28, “edicto
praefatus se summa de republica relaturum; ”
Cic. ad Fam. xi. 6, “quam edixissent ... senatus
adesset"). The procedure was the same if the
magistrate concerned was a praetor or tribune.
The magistrate was empowered, if necessary, to
compel the attendance of senators by taking
pledges, for their attendance, or by fining those
who failed to appear (Gell. xiv. 7; Cic. de Legg.
iii. 4, Phil. i. 12); but this power was, it would
seem, sparingly exercised under the later Re-
public, and the increased numbers of the senate
after 81 B.C., added to the fact that no quorum
was required by law, gave little occasion for its
use. Under the Empire it was otherwise.
Augustus found it necessary not only to fix a
quorum (Dio Cass. lv. 3: see below), but to
increase the penalties for non-attendance (Dio
Cass. liv. 18), and Claudius did the same (Dio
Cass. lx. 11: cf. Tac. Ann. xvi. 27, “patres
arguebat (Nero) quod publica munia desererent”).
On the assembling of the senate, usually im
the early morning, the senators took their
seats, as they chose, upon the benches (sub-
sellia) ranged in rows to the right and left of
the curule chairs of the presiding magistrates;
the latter being so placed as to face the door of
the house. [Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 932, has
shown that under the Republic neither the
ordinary senators nor, as Willems (ii. 173)
maintains, the magistrates generally, had any
special or fixed seats.] Under the Empire the
emperor's chair was placed between those of the
consuls (this seat was first assigned to Augustus
in 19 B.C.: Dio Cass. liv. 10); and separate seats
were assigned to the praetors, tribunes, and
possibly to the other magistrates (Mommsen,
op. cit. p. 934). The proceedings opened with
a sacrifice, followed by the inspection of the
victim's entrails (Gell. xiv. 7; Mommsen, op.
cit. p. 935).
The magistrate who summoned the senate
also presided at its meetings, and it is he who,
subject to certain customary rules, determines
what business shall be laid before the house and
in what order. It was his duty, in the first
place, to communicate to the senate any news
of importance, to read despatches received from
officials abroad, and to introduce provincial or
foreign deputations (Caesar, B. C. i. 2; Cic. ad
Fam. x. 12, 3; Liv. xliv. 20, 21). On his
demand, or with his permission, any individual
senator might similarly read letters, communi-
cate information, or make a statement to the
house. The same privilege belonged to praetors
and tribunes, as having the right to consult the
senate, even when not actually presiding.
The magistrate might follow up these pre-
liminary communications by referring one or
more of the points raised to the senate for its
opinion, and the senate not unfrequently de-
manded by acclamation that such a reference
should be made. It rested, however, with the
magistrate to decide whether or not this further
step should be taken (Liv. xxx. 21, “ con-
clamatum ex omni parte curiae est, *
2 S
628 SENATUS
SENATUS
P. Aelius praetor;” ib. xlii. 3, “ex omnibus
partibus postulabatur ut consules eam rem ad
senatum referrent ; ” Cic. ad Fam. x. 16; Caes.
B. C. i. 1, “ut ex litteris ad senatum referretur,
impetrari non potuit”).
The formal consultation of the senate (relatio)
was governed by a variety of customary rules.
After, usually, an explanation of the business in
question (“verba facere,” Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8;
Phil. viii. 14, &c.), the magistrate asked the
senate “quid de eare fieri placet,” without him-
self submitting a definite proposition (Sall. Cat.
30; Cic. Cat. i. 10, iii. 13). Occasionally the
magistrate indicated his own view (Liv. xxxix. 39,
“sibi nisi quid aliud eis videretur in animo esse
... comitia habere.” For instances of a definite
proposition, see Suet. Caes. 28, “rettulit ad
senatum ut ei succederetur; ” Cic. Phil. i. 1,
“scriptum senatusconsultum quod fieri vellet"
attulit; ” cf. Cic. Phil. x. 17). It is significant
of the more dependent position of the Senate in
relation to the emperor that the latter, when
consulting the senate, usually made at the same
time a definite proposal (see below). The refer-
ence to the senate might either be general
(“infinite de republica,” Gell. xiv. 7; cf. Liv.
xxvi. 10, “de summa republica consultatum ”)
or special (“de singulis rebus finite,” Gell. xiv.
7; Cic. Phil. vii. 1, “de Appia Via et de
Moneta"), and the senators might, in giving
their sententiae, express a wish for the separate
reference of some particular question (Cic. Phil.
x. 24, “ de M. Appuleio separatim censeo refer-
endum,” ad Fam. viii. 8, “ne quid conjunctim
referatur”). Custom again prescribed in general
terms the order in which the business should be
taken: “de rebus divinis priusquam humanis ad
senatum referendum esse” (Gell. xiv. 7 ; cf.
Liv. xxii. 9, “ab diis orsus—tum de bello deque
republica”); but here again the practice at
least of the later Republic allowed a certain
weight to the wishes of the senators themselves,
who might either directly demand urgency for
a particular question (Cic. ad Fam. x. 16, “flagi-
tare senatus institit . . . ut referret statin "),
or indirectly force the magistrate's hand by
refusing to give opinions upon any matter until
the desired point had been submitted to them
(Cic. ad Att. iii. 24, “senatum nihil decernere,
antequam de nobis actum esset ; ” in Pison. 13,
29, “quum quacunque de re verbum facere
coeperatis aut referre ad senatum, cunctus ordo
reclamabat, ostendebatgue, nihil esse vos ac-
turos, nisi prius de me rettulissetis"). The
right of reference (jus referendi, consulendi sena-
tum, cum patribus agendi) belonged, exclusively of
extraordinary magistrates, to consuls, tribunes
of the plebs, and praetors; the latter, however,
do not appear to have exercised it except in
the absence of the consuls. As between consuls
and tribunes, the consul’s business took pre-
cedence, though it would seem from Cic. Phil.
vii. 1, that if the questions were small ones, the
references of both consuls and tribunes might
be put conjointly to the house (“de Appia Via
et de Moneta consul; de Lupercis tribunus plebis
refert”). To the emperors a special right of
reference, as of convening the senate, was granted
by statute, in addition to that which they pos-
sessed in virtue of the tribunicia potestas. This
right, granted to Augustus in 23 B.C. on his
resignation of the consulship (Dio Cass, liii. 32),
and confirmed to his successors (Lex Vespas. 2,
Bruns, 128), invested him with the power of
making the first relatio (repl évés ruos, Dio
Cass. op. cit.) at each meeting of the senate,
and was afterwards extended so as to enable
him to make four and even five relationes before
the regular magistrates took their turn (“jus
quartae relationis,” Wit. Pert. 5; “quintae
relationis,” Sev. Alear. 1; cf. Pelham, Journal of
Philology, xvii. pp. 41, 42). At first at any
rate the emperor, like the consul, made his
relatio in person; or, if unable to do so, com-
municated it in writing through the consuls
(Tiberius, Dio Cass. iv.iii. 11; Nero, Suet. Nero,
15). But from the close of the first century
onwards the practice, occasionally adopted by
Augustus (Dio Cass. liv. 25) and by Claudius
(Id. lx. 2), of employing the quaestor principis
as the emperor's mouthpiece, became the regular
one (QUAESTOR: cf. Digest 1, 13, 1, “quaestores
... libris principalibus in senatu legendis vacant;”
ib. 4, “quique epistulas eius in sematu legunt”).
The relationes of the emperor thus took the form
of written “speeches” (orationes) or “letters”
(litterae, epistulae), and are usually referred to
as such (Suet. Tit. 6; Dig. 23, 2, 16, &c.).
The formal introduction of the business was
followed, not by a debate, in the modern sense.
of the word, but by the taking of the sententiae
(sententias rogare, perrogare) of the individual
senators in order. Just as the senate was in
theory only a council of advice consulted by the
magistrate, so the senator's one duty was to give
his opinion (sententiam dicere), and technically
in this one act both speech and vote were in-
cluded. But, as we shall see, considerations of
convenience, as well as the growing tendency
to treat the senate’s expression of opinion as a
positive decision, developed in practice a process
of counting votes actually, though not theoreti-
cally, distinct from the taking of sententiae.
The magistrate, in taking the sententiae, was
expected to follow a well-established order of
precedence, corresponding in the main to that
observed in the official roll (see above). Down
to the time of Sulla, the first sententia taken
was that of the princeps senatus. In the Cicero-
nian age the magistrate might select for this
honour any consular, subject only to two re-
strictions, as (1) he was expected to adhere to
the order adopted by him on his first day of
office; (2) after the consular elections, i.e. during
the latter half of the year, he was bound to give
the priority to the consuls-designate. The other
consulares were taken next, usually in order
of seniority; after them the praetorii, aedilicii,
&c. [It is possible that in earlier times, before
senatorial ascendancy was well established, the
magistrate's discretion in this respect was wider
(Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 974). The classical pas-
sage on the ordo sententiarum is Varro, ap. Gell.
xiv. 7, “singulos autem debere consuli gradatin,
incipique a consulari gradu, ex quo gradu . . .
antea primum rogari solitum qui princeps in
senatum lectus esset, tum autem cum haec scri-
beret ... ut is primus rogaretur, quem rogare
vellet qui haberet senatum, dum is tamen ex
gradu consulari esset; ” cf. ib. iv. 10; Suet.
Caes. 21, “post novam adfinitatem Pompeium
primum rogare sententiam coepit ’’ (Caesar).
For the consules designati, comp. Sall. Cat. 50:
“Silanus primus sententiam rogatus quod eo
SENATUS
SENATUS 629
tempore consul designatus erat; ” and Cic. ad
Fam. viii. 4; Tac. Ann. iii. 22.] The right to
give an opinion, jus sententiam dicendae, belonged
to all senators, excepting only the magistrates of
the year; the latter being in theory the con-
sulting and not the consulted parties (Liv. viii.
20; Willems, ii. 189). It was only when the
emperor made a relatio in virtue of his special
powers, that the sententiae of magistrates were
taken (Tac. Ann. iii. 17; Hist. iv. 41). But
every magistrate could at any moment interpose
with a speech on the subject in hand. [Momm-
Sen, Staatsr. iii. 943. The same author holds
that in earlier days plebeians directly admitted
to the senate by consuls or censors, without
having held a qualifying magistracy, had no
jus sententiae dicendae (Staatsr. iii. 963), but
could merely take part (pedibus eundo) in the
final discessio. Of this, however, there is no
sufficient evidence.] The question was put to
each senator in turn in the simple form “dic M.
Tulli (quid censes) * (Liv. i. 32; Cic. ad Att.
vii. 1), but the modes of reply were various.
(1) The Senator might rise, discuss the question in
a set speech, and close with a formal statement
of his opinion, so worded as to form the basis
of a decree (“stantem sententiam dicere,” Liv.
xxvii. 34 ; Cic. ad Att. i. 14, “surrexit, orna-
tissimeque locutus est.” For the form of the
closing statement of opinion, comp. Phil. xiv. 29,
“decerno igitur,” &c.; ib. x. 25, “quod consul |
... verba fecit de litteris de ea re ita censeo; ”
3b. v. 46, “ita censeo decernendum ”). It was,
occasionally drafted in writing beforehand (Phil.
iii. 20). This method was that which, in cases
of any importance, consulars and other pro-
minent senators were expected to adopt (Liv.
xxvii. 34). (2) He might, without rising, ex-
press his agreement with some previous sen-
tentia, either verbo (Cic. ad Att. vii. 3, “dic M.
Tulli: orávtopa, Cn. Pompeio adsentior”), or by
a nod, or by holding up his hand (“verbo assen-
tiebatur; ” Liv. xxvii. 34; cf. Sall. Cat. 52,
“sedens assensi; ” Cic. ad Fam. v. 2). (3) He
might cross over to the side of a senator with
whose opinion he agreed (“pedibus ire in sen-
tentiam,” Liv. xxvii. 34; Cic. ad Q. Fr. ii. 1, 3;
Wit. Aureliani, 20, “interrogati plerique sena-
tores sententias dixerunt ... deinde aliis manus
porrigentibus, aliis pedibus in sententias eun-
tibus, plerisque verbo consentientibus”). By
this method, a senator who had already given
his sententia at length, might indicate that he
had changed his mind (Sall. Cat. 50, “Silanus
. . . primus sententiam rogatus . . . decreverat:
isque postea permotus oratione G. Caesaris
pedibus in sententiam Tiberi Neronis iturum
se dixerat”).
In strictness this orderly taking of opinions
on business introduced by a magistrate pre-
cluded both the introduction of fresh matter
by those consulted, and also any debate in the
modern sense of the word. But, in the Cicero-
nian age, custom sanctioned a freedom of speech
really inconsistent with the theory of the pro-
cedure. For a senator, when asked for his
opinion on a particular point, to seize the op-
portunity to deliver a lengthy oration on some
wholly irrelevant matter, was a privilege
thoroughly well recognised and frequently
exercised (“egredi relationem,” Gell. iv. 10;
Tac. Ann. ii. 38; Cic. ad Fam. x. 28, “quum
*-----
tribuni plebis...de alia re referrent, totam rem-
publicam sum complexus ”). It was indeed the
only means open to the senator of forcing upon
the attention of the senate subjects which the
magistrates were unwilling formally to bring
before it (Cic. Phil. vii. 1, “parvis de rebus con-
Sulimur . . . tamen animus aberrat a sententia,
suspensus curis majoribus”). That the pre-
siding magistrate could not compel a senator to
speak to the question is clear, and it is doubtful
how far he was able to limit the duration of his
speech. According to Ateius Capito (Gell. iv.
10), a senator could say, “quicquid vellet
... et quoad vellet ; ” and several instances
are recorded in which a measure was, as
we should say, “talked out” (Cic. ad Att.
iv. 3, “calumnia dicendi tempus exemit; ”
Gell. iv. 10, “eximebat dicendo diem; ” cf.
Cic. ad Att. iv. 2, ad Q. Fr. ii. 1, 3). One
instance only is recorded in which the presiding
magistrate exercised his authority to check this
abuse, and then the feeling of the house was
decidedly against him (Caesar's arrest of Cato,
Gell. iv. 10). On another occasion the senate
by resolution decided that the speeches should
be brief (Cic. ad Fam. i. 2). The altercationes,
which were not infrequent in the Ciceronian age,
were certainly out of order, but were as certainly
tolerated (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 947; Willems,
ii. 191).
The theory of the procedure unquestionably
implied that the magistrate took the sense of
the house on the matter which he had laid be-
fore them, by asking each senator in turn to
give his opinion (perrogare sententias); and
there is no evidence that he could, by any form
of closure, abridge the process (Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. 983, as against Willems, i. 194).
It is also possible that in the early days, when
the senate was still a subordinate and purely
consultative body, the sense of the house as
expressed in the course of this process was taken
as sufficient, and that no formal division (dis-
cessio) followed. But when the senate became
in fact the governing council, the business before
it increased in amount and complexity, and the
importance of its decisions increased also. These
changes, coupled with the rise in its numbers
from 300 to 600, modified the character of the
perrogatio sententiarum, and necessitated a more
exact method of “taking a vote,” i.e. of deter-
mining where the majority of sententiae lay.
(But the “voting ” was not technically distinct
from the “giving an opinion; ” nor is it con-
ceivable that, as Mommsen holds, there were
senators who could vote but who were legally
unable sententiam dicere.) The accounts we
have of the procedure in the senate during the
Ciceronian age, make it clear that sententiae, in
the shape of formal proposals explained and
advocated in speeches, were as a rule only given
by the highest category of senators, the con-
sulares and praetorii, and that the rest contented
themselves with a brief assent (verbo), or ranged
themselves behind the speaker they agreed with
(pedarii. The cases of Cato in 63 B.C., who,
though only tribunus designatus, gave the Sen.
tentia which was ultimately adopted, and of
P. Servilius Isauricus, Cic. ad Att. i. 19, were
no doubt exceptional). On the perrogatio
followed, at least in Cicero's time, the pro-
nunţiatio sententiarum; where only one definite
630
SENATUS
SENATUS
proposal had been made; or when the sense of
the house was clearly in favour of a particular
sententia, the case was simple. But where, as
in the debate on the restoration of Ptolemy
Auletes (Cic. ad Fam. i. 1 and 2), several con-
flicting sententiae had been given, and there was
a real division of opinion, the difficulty was con-
siderable. It rested with the magistrate who
had made the relatio to take the division on such
sententiae, and in such order as he thought best ;
and he might decline to put such as seemed to
him inexpedient (Willems, ii. 194; Cic. Phil. xiv.
22), or to be covered, or better expressed by others
(Cic, ad Att. xii. 21, “cur ergo in sententiam
Catonis, quia verbis luculentioribus et pluribus
rem eandem comprehenderat’). As a rule, how-
ever, the sententiae were put to the vote in the
order in which they had been given. If the first
was carried, the rest, if inconsistent with it,
naturally fell to the ground. A single sententia
might lastly be divided and put as two (Cic. pro
Mil. 14, “divisa est sententia ; ” cf. ad Fam.
i. 2). The difficulties involved in the putting
a variety of sententiae to the house so as to get
a clear decision are well described by Pliny
(Epp. viii. 14, “quae distinctio pugnantium sen-
tentiarum quae exsecutio prioribus addentium,”
&c.). The sententia once put (pronunţiata),
the magistrate took the division by bidding the
“ayes” cross to the side of the senate-house on
which its author sat, the “noes” to the other
(Plin. l.c., “qui haec sentitis in hanc partem,
qui alia omnia in illam partem ite ... in hanc
partem, id est in eam in qua sedet qui censuit; ”
cf. Cic. ad Fam. i. 2, “frequentes ierunt in alia
omnia; ” Festus, p. 261). He then declared on
which side the majority was (“haec pars major
videtur,” Senec. de Vit, beat. 2. There is no
evidence of any actual counting of heads, any
more than when the Speaker in the English
House of Commons declares that the “ayes’
have it : Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 993).
Such was the regular order of procedure.
But in certain cases the perrogatio sententiarum
might be dispensed with, and a division taken at
once (Senatusconsultum per discessionem facere).
This, however, was only allowable where the
business was formal, or where no difference of
opinion existed (Varro, ap. Gell. xiv. 7, “senatus-
consultum fieri duobus modis aut per discessionem
si consentiretur, aut si res dubia esset, per
singulorum sententias exquisitas; ” cf. Cic.
Phil. iii. 24).
The republican order of procedure was main-
tained with comparatively little change through-
out the first three centuries of the Empire
(cf. Plin. Epp. viii. 14; Wit. Aurel. 20); nor
can the “lex, quae nunc de senatu habendo
observatur” (Gell. iv. 10), possibly the work of
Augustus, have effected many alterations of im-
portance. The special jus referendi granted to
the emperor has been mentioned above. He had
also the right as a senator to give his sententia,
and to give it when he would, usually either
first or last (Dio Cass. lvii. 7 ; Tac. Ann. i. 74.
The emperors after Tiberius seem never to have
exercised this right: Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 977).
The claim of the consuls designate to be asked
first disappears early in the second century A.D.
(ib. iii. 976); and lastly, by Augustus, a certain
quorum was fixed as necessary for a valid dis-
cessio. (The exact number required is unknown:
ib. iii. 990; Dio Cass. lv. 3; Suet. Aug. 35).
In practice, however, the declining independence
of the senate led to a frequent disregard of the
elaborate routine of earlier days. A body which
met to accept submissively an imperial proposal,
to pass a complimentary vote, or decide some
trivial point, willingly dispensed with the rou-
time of the perrogatio, and its place was taken by
the undignified adolamationes [Plin. Epp. viii. 14,
“priorum temporum (sc. under Domitian) ser-
vitus . . . etiam juris senatorii oblivionem quan-
dam et ignorantiam induxit,” cf. Paneg. 54, 75,
76; “consulti omnes atque etiam dinumerati
sumus ” (under Trajan). For the adclamationes,
cf. Mommsen, op. cit. iii. 951, note 2, and the
Script. Hist. Aug. passim, especially Vit. Alew.
Sev. 6, 7; Wit. Taciti, 5].
The relationes of the magistrates once disposed
of by the perrogatio and discessio, the presiding
magistrate dismissed the senate with the words
“nihil vos teneo" or “tenemus patres conscripti’
(Cic. ad Q. Fr. ii. 2, or “nihil vos moramur,”
Wit. Marci, 10). The resolution or resolutions
were then formally drafted as senatusconsulta by
the magistrate who had made the relatio and taken
the division (“senatusconsultum perscribere,”
Cic. Cat. iii. 6; ad Fam. viii. 8) in the presence
of two or more senators (“scribendo adfuerunt,”
Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8; ad Att. iv. 17). If the
interference of a tribune prevented the “making”
of a senatusconsultum, the resolution was
nevertheless drafted as a “senatus auctoritas *
(Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8; TRIBUNUs). The regular
form of the senatusconsultum ran as follows:—
“Pridie Kal. Oct. in aede Apollinis scribendo
adfuerunt . . . quod consul verba fecit de pro-
vinciis consularibus, de ea re ita censuere, uti,”
&c. (Cic. ib.). The older decrees commence with
the formula “consul (or praetor, tribunus pl.)
senatum consuluit * (e.g. Senatusconsultum de
Bacchanalibus, C. J. L. i. 196; de Tiburtibus,
ib. i. 201). Under the Empire, if the proposal
carried had been introduced by the emperor, the
words were inserted “auctore Claudio,” &c.
(Senatusconsultum Hosidianum, Orelli, 3115).
Occasionally in the second century a private
senator is named as the author of the Sententia
on which the decree is based (Mommsen, op.
cit. iii. 1009). The number of senators present
at the division, but not the numbers for and
against, is often stated (“in senatu fuerunt C,”
C. I. L. viii. p. 270). The senatusconsultum
thus written out was then entrusted to the
quaestors, by them placed in the aerarium and
entered in the tabulae publicae (“ad aerarium
deferre,” Tac. Ann. iii. 51 ; Cic. ad Att. xiii. 33,
“liber in quo sunt senatusconsulta,” C. I. L. viii.
p. 270; “senatusconsultum descriptum et recog-
nitum ex libro sententiarum in senatu dictarum,”
138 A.D. [TABULARIUM). The entry of spurious
Senatusconsulta was not uncommon in the last
days of the Republic: Cic. Phil. v. 4, xii. 5).
Although the terms of a senatusconsultum were
communicated to the individuals or communities
interested, and occasionally to the public, by the
presiding magistrate (Liv. xlv. 20; Mommsen,
op. cit. iii. 1014), no official record of the pro-
ceedings in the senate was published until
Caesar's first consulship in 59 B.C. The acta
senatus instituted by him on the model of the
acta urbana were published after each sitting
of the senate, and contained, besides the decrees
SENATUS
SENATUS 631
passed, some account of the various sententiae
given, &c. (Suet. Caes. 20, “uttam senatus quam
populi diurna acta confierent et publicarentur.”
These acta were distinct from the com-
ºnentari; or notes kept by magistrates or
private senators: Mommsen, op. cit. iii. 1015;
Hübner, de Senatus Populique R. actis, Leipzig,
1860). Acta senatus continued to be regu-
larly compiled under the Empire, but Augustus
discontinued their publication (Suet. Aug. 36).
The duty of compiling them was by him en-
trusted to one of the younger senators (curator
actorum senatus, later “ab actis senatus; ”
Tac. Ann. v. 4, “ componendis patrum actis
delectus a Caesare ; ” Orelli, 5447, “curat(or)
actorum senatus (Domitian) 2273 ab actis”
(Trajan). The “commentarii senatus” (Tac.
Ann. xv. 74) are identical with the acta. Ex-
tracts from the acta were occasionally published
by order of the senate (Plin. Paneg. 75), and the
acta themselves could be consulted by privileged
students. Mommsen, op. cit. iii. 1021).
VI. Powers of the Senate.—The patricio-ple-
beian senate inherited from its patrician prede-
cessor two important prerogatives, those of rati-
fying votes of the assembly (patrum auctoritas),
and of appointing an interrex. The first of these
had been reduced to a meaningless form by 287
B.C. (Lex Publilia, 339 B.C.; Liv. viii. 12; Lex
Maenia, B.C. 338; Cic. Brut. xiv. 55; Lex Hor-
tensia, B.C. 287), though as such it long survived
(Liv. i. 17). The second retained its reality, but
the opportunities for its exercise became rare as
the number of the magistrates with the imperium
increased, and the necessity for declaring an
interregnum more remote [INTERREx]. Apart
from these prerogatives, the senate had con-
stitutionally no right or duty whatsoever but
that of advising the magistrate when consulted
by him.
Its members were, strictly speaking, chosen
by him, and he could remove them. Subject to
certain restrictions, he convened it when and
where he would. He determined what business
should be laid before it, and the duty of the
senators was merely to give their opinion on
the point submitted to them. The “senatus-
consultum ” was technically nothing more than
a recommendation to the magistrate (comp. the
phrase in senatusconsulta “si iis videretur”),
and its force depended on his adoption of it (so
the magistrate was said “facere senatusconsul-
tum ; ” cf. Mommsen, op. cit. iii. 995, for the older
use of the term decretum as implying a magis-
terial act). It is clear, in short, that even in
Cicero's time the senate was formally dependent
on the magistrate. It had no direct relation
with any department of administration, and the
extent to which it controlled affairs depended, not
upon any prerogatives of its own, but upon the
readiness of the magistrate to ask its advice and
to accept it when asked. The result was that
even in the period of its assured ascendancy, and
still more in the days of Cicero, the area of its
activity alternately contracted or expanded, as the
attitude of the executive magistrates was friendly
and deferential or the reverse. (Comp. Cicero's
description of Antony's change of front in 44 B.C.,
Phil. i. 1: “praeclara tum oratio, egregia
voluntas . . . ad hunc ordinem res optimas de-
ferebat . . . ecce . . . Kalendis Juniis . . . mutata
omnia: nihil per Senatum, multa et magna per
populum.”) We may safely assume (Mommsen,
op. cit. iii. 1023) that under the monarchy, and
even under the early Republic, the dependence
of the senate upon the magistrature was as great
in practice as in theory, and its control of affairs
proportionately limited. But throughout the
period of the great wars (300–146 B.C.) the
case was otherwise. It was by the senate that the
policy and the administration of the state were
really directed; and the magistrates were, with
rare exceptions, its obedient servants, consulting
it at every step, and conceding to its advice the
force of a command (“quasi ministros gravissimi
consilii,” Cic. pro Sest. 65, 137). The causes of
the change were various. The constant wars by
keeping the chief magistrates constantly in the
field threw the responsibility for the safe con-
duct of affairs upon the senate; the growing
complexity of political and administrative ques-
tions rendered the senate rather than either the
assembly or the magistrate the fittest authority
to discuss and settle them ; the increase in
the numbers of the magistracy, while it gave
the Senate additional importance as the one
body which could so organise and direct them
as to secure effective co-operation, weakened the
power and diminished the self-reliance of the
individual magistrate. To these causes must be
added the support afforded to the senate by its
intimate connexion with the nobility (Mommsen,
Röm. Gesch. bk. 3, cap. 11). The precise steps
by which the senate gained this ascendancy
cannot be followed in detail. In some cases
where in earlier times the magistrate had con-
sulted the people as well as the senate, the
reference to the former was quietly dropped, and
a decree of the senate was accepted as sufficient
(e.g. in the case of the prorogatio imperii : see
art. IMPERIUM, and Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii.
1091). In others (e.g. the arrangement of the
provinciae ; see PROVINCIA), a point originally
settled by the magistrates among themselves
was regularly submitted to the senate for de-
cision. Naturally, too, where an established
custom of consulting the senate grew up, the
tendency was to claim for the senate a consti-
tutional right to have its advice both asked and
followed. A conspicuous instance of this was
the assertion confidently made by senatorial
advocates that no measure could legally be in-
troduced into the assembly which had not
received the previous sanction of the senate
(Liv. xlv. 21, “praetor novo maloque exemplo
rem ingressus erat, quod non ante consulto
senatu ... rogationem ferret ’). It is also clear
that as the senate grew stronger, and the
magistrates weaker, the original theory of the
nature and force of its senatorial decrees, as
nothing but expressions of opinion on particu-
lar cases, was lost sight of, or rather was put
aside in favour of one better suited to the facts
of the case. The replacement of the older decre-
tum by senatusconsultum, of the phrase de Senatus
sententia by ea senatusconsulto, and the introduc-
tion of the custom that the magistrate should in
making his relatio abstain from anticipating the
decision of the senate by any definite proposal,
are significant illustrations of the change (see
supra, pp. 628 f.; Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 994 ft.).
Not less so was the tendency to regard the Senate
as capable by decree of suspending or invalidating
a law (e.g. the suspension of the law of appeal.
632 SENATUS
SENATUS
by the senatusconsultum ultimum; cf. Sallust,
Cat. 29), or of enacting general regulations for
the future (Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 2, 1230), as
distinct from special provisions for particular
cases. Nor is it surprising that the growth of
senatorial ascendancy should have been ac-
companied by attempts formally to emancipate
the senate from the magisterial control which, if
no longer effective, was yet irksome. Thus, as
we have seen, the magistrate’s freedom of choice
in the lectio Senatus was gradually destroyed
(see Supra, pp. 622 f.), the infliction of penalties
for non-attendance fell into disuse (Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, iii. 2, 916), and the licence egred;
relationem (see supra, p. 629) became an esta-
blished privilege.
The limits of the authority of the senate, at
the period of its most complete ascendancy (circa
300–133 B.C.), are not easy to define. There were
indeed certain things with which the senate
had no concern (e.g. the election of magistrates),
as falling wholly and exclusively within the
domain of the people. There are others where
its interference was limited properly to a pre-
liminary consideration, while the final decision
rested with the assembly (e.g. alterations in the
constitution, the declaration of war, the ratifi-
Qation of a formal treaty); though in these cases
the tendency was to depreciate the importance
of, and even to omit the second stage in, the pro-
ceeding. Finally, the ordinary routine business
of each department was as a rule left entirely to
the magistrate in charge of it. But within these
limits, there were hardly any administrative
questions which the Senate might not be called
upon to discuss and decide. In the first place,
the growing amount and variety of the work to
be done necessitated a more systematic division
and assignment of departments than had been
required in earlier days, and for this delicate
business only the senate was fitted. Year after
year, from the commencement of the Second
Punic war onwards, the consuls consulted the
Senate de provinciis ; and the senate decided
what these should be, which of them should be
consular and which praetorian. [This division
was, before 122 B.C., made at the first meeting
of the senate in the year: Liv. xxxii. 28 and
xxxix. 38. The Lex Sempronia de provinciis
consularibus (122 B.C.) enacted that the point
must be settled before the consular elections:
Sallust, Jug. 27; Cic. de Prov. Cons. 17. In
settling what the provinces should be, the senate
varied the arrangements as necessity required:
e.g. Liv. xlv. 16, “duas provincias Hispaniam
rursus fieri quae una per bellum Macedonicum
fuerat,” Willems, op.cit. ii. 544.] It decided
further in what cases a prorogatio imperii
was desirable (Liv. xxvi. 28 and passim); and
occasionally not only determined whether a
province should be consular or praetorian,
but assigned it extra sortem to a particular
individual (apparently only in the case of prae-
torian provinces, Willems, ii. 273, 545). When,
as was the case in the post-Sullan period,
all the provinces abroad were taken by pro-
magistrates, whose imperium had been pro-
longed, the duration of each command was also
fixed by the senate’s willingness or the reverse
to renew the prolongation at the close of each
year. (Cic. de Prov. Consul., passim ; cf. ad
4tt. v. 11, “ne provincia nobis prorogetur:”
see IMPERIUM.; PROVINCIA.) But the control
of the senate did not end here. It had also to
determine what equipment (ornatio) in the way
of troops, money, staff, &c., should be granted
to each magistrate or pro - magistrate (Cic.
ad Att. iv. 18, “in ornandis provinciis con-
sularibus; ” ad Q. Fr. ii. 3, “de ornandis prae-
toribus; ” in Pison. 57, “provinciam Senatus
auctoritate exercitu et pecunia instructam et
ornatam”), a right of supply which should have
been a more effective check upon the executive
than in practice it proved to be. Finally, it
may be noted that the actual administration of
the various departments was, in a variety of
ways, subject to senatorial supervision. Alike
at home and abroad, not only was the frequent
reference of special points to the senate required
from the magistrate by custom, but general
regulations were made by senatorial decree for
his guidance. In three cases especially the con-
trol of the senate was of great importance:
in the management of the finances, in the
government of the transmarine provinces, and
in the regulation of foreign affairs. (1) The
income of the Roman state was derived partly
from the state property, -the public lands,
mines, fisheries, &c., - partly from taxation.
As regards the first, although the alienation of
public land by assignation required the sanction
of the people, its management was under the
supervision of the senate, which authorised sur-
veys of its boundaries, the leasing of lands or
mines on certain conditions, and the collection
of the dues payable by the lessees. As to taxa-
tion, the imposition of a new tax upon Roman
citizens was indeed beyond the power of the
senate; but inasmuch as after 167 B.C. the
burden of taxation fell on the provincials, the
restriction was unimportant. On the other
hand, it was the senate which determined what
a province should pay, and in what form ;
which granted exemptions, increased the amount,
or altered the mode of collection. (Comp. the
senatusconsultum as to Macedonia in 167 B.C.
Liv. xlv. 18: see also Cic. Verr. iii. 16, 42;
Mommsen, op. cit. iii. 1120 sqq. The Lex Sem-
pronia de provincia Asia, which altered the
mode of collecting the tithes of Asia, was an
infringement of the customary rights of the
senate.) The case was much the same with
regard to the public expenditure. It was the
senate which sanctioned the expenditure, which
directed the payments to be made from the
treasury—except where these were in a few
cases fixed by law, and which authorised the
striking and issue of coins in Rome. (Mommsen,
op. cit. iii. 1126 sqq.; Polyb. vi. 13, kal yèp
rås eioróðov trgo’ms airm kpare? kal ths éčóðov
trapatramatos; Cic. in Wat. 15, 36, describes
the “aerarii dispensatio ‘’ as a prerogative of
the senate.) (2) The organisation, in the first
instance, of a new province was usually carried
out by a commission of senators in accordance
with a decree of the senate [PROVINCIA]; and
it was by the senate, as a rule, that any sub-
sequent modifications in its constitution were
made, and regulations laid down as to the
methods of its administration (Mommsen, op. cit.
iii. 2, 1211 sqq.; Liv. xliii. 2; Cic. Verr. ii. 39,
ad Att. v. 21). It was to the senate that the
provincial governor addressed his despatches,
and before the senate that provincial deputa-
SENATUS
SENATUS 633
tions appeared. (3) In foreign relations, it is
not easy to define exactly the functions of the
senate, as distinct on the one hand from the
constitutional rights of the people, and on the
other from the authority wielded on the spot
by the magistrate or pro-magistrate, vested with
the imperium and in command of troops. For
a formal declaration of war against a previously
friendly power, the consent of the people was
constitutionally necessary; while the repulse of
invaders and the chastisement of insurgents were
matters within the authority of the magistrate
himself. But for military expeditions on any
considerable scale, or for expeditions outside his
province, or against friendly peoples within it,
he was expected to obtain the sanction of the
senate (Liv. xxxix. 3, 55, xliii. 1 ; Appian,
Hisp. 81). The ratification of a formal and
permanent treaty of peace, like the formal
declaration of war, was properly the act of the
people [Polyb. vi. 14, itrèp eipſiums oitos Bov-
Aeteral kal tróAepov. Livy, xxx. 44, describes
the conditions of peace with Carthage (201 B.C.),
arranged by Scipio, as requiring confirmation
“patrum auctoritate populique jussu; ” comp.
Id. xxix. 12; Sall. Jug. 39, “senatus decernit
suo atque populi injussu nullum potuisse foedus
fieri'']; the arrangement of a temporary truce
that of the magistrate. But the terms of a
proposed treaty were discussed and settled in
the senate. It was before the senate that
foreign ambassadors appeared, and by the
senate’s authority that Roman legati were
sent out (Polyb. vi. 13). Of the numerous
alliances by which communities were admitted
to the status of dependent allies of the Roman
people, the majority seem to have been ratified
by the senate only. [Mommsen, op. cit., iii.
1172. The ratification by law of Pompey’s
arrangements in Asia (59 B.C.) was an exception
to the rule (Dio Cass. xxxviii. 7).] If to the
senate's control of the finances, of the adminis-
tration of the provinces, and of foreign relations
we add its general supervision of matters touch-
ing public peace and order in Rome and Italy
(described by Polyb. vi. 13), the justice of its
claim to be considered the actual ruler of the
Roman state will be evident.
But this claim did not pass unchallenged in
the last century of the Republic, and during the
latter half of that century (70–49 B.C.) it was
weakened by the growing ineffectiveness of
senatorial control in the very case where it was
most needed, in the government of the provinces.
The attacks made upon the ascendancy of the
senate by the Gracchi, and by the leaders of the
popular party after them, were directed in the
first place against the claim put forward on
behalf of the senate that its auctoritas was
necessary for any measure which a magistrate
wished to bring before the assembly. The ques-
tion of the legality of this claim, raised by the
opposition which the senate offered to the Sem-
pronian agrarian laws, was answered by the
successful passing of those laws “contra auctori-
tatem senatus.” Sulla indeed endeavoured to
reassert the claim by making the Senatus auc-
toritas legally necessary (88 B.C.; Appian, Bell.
Civ. i. 59, amāśv ért &mpoboſſaevrov -ès rêv
6%uov čarq6pegºat), but his work was undone in
70 B.C., and thenceforward the independent right
of the magistrate to propose and of the people to
pass any law, though denied in theory by sena-
torial advocates (Cic. de Rep. ii. 36; de Legg.
iii. 12), was allowed in practice and was re-
peatedly exercised. Similarly the summary
condemnation of the elder Gracchus' adherents
drew from the popular party an emphatic re-
pudiation of the principle that the senate by
decree could authorise the consuls to suspend the
law of appeal (Plut. C. G. 5; Cic. pro Rab. perd.
4, 12; pro Cluent. 55, 150), and the execution of
the Catilinarians in 63 B.C. led to a second re-
assertion of the inviolability of the law by
Clodius in 58 B.C. (Well. Pat. ii. 45; for a state-
men of the senatorial view of the force of the
decree in this case, comp. Sallust, Cat. 29).
More dangerous to senatorial ascendancy was
the policy pursued by Gaius Gracchus, who,
taking his stand on the legislative independence
of magistrate and people, invited the latter to
deal by law with a variety of questions, long
left by custom to the decision of the senate, such
as the distributions of corn, the conditions of
military service, the taxation of the provincials,
and even the mode of assigning the provinces.
[LEGES SEMPRONIAE.] The precedent set by
Gracchus was followed by his successors, and in
particular the interference of the assembly in
the assignment of provincial commands struck at
the very roots of the power of the senate (comp.
Gabinian and Manilian laws, 67-66 B.C.; Lex
Vatinia, 59; Lex Clodia, 58; Lex Trebonia, 55).
But the ascendancy of the senate might have
survived these attacks, had it been able to retain
its hold over the great officers who led the legions
and governed the provinces abroad. While, how-
ever, the senate from 81 onwards showed itself
increasingly anxious to retain in its own hands
the control of the provinces and of foreign
relations (see, for instances, Mommsen, op. cit.
iii. 1171, 1222), the virtual independence of the
proconsuls, and the impotence of the senate to
enforce the observance by them of its own decrees
or of laws, became daily clearer. And this was
so not only in the case of great autocratic officers,
such as Pompey or Caesar, holding important
commands by the direct vote of the people, but
of the ordinary provincial governor. (Comp. the
advice given by Cicero to Lentulus Spinther to
restore Ptolemy Auletes on his own responsibility:
ad Fam. i. 7, 4.) It was finally in a conflict, not
with the popular assembly and its leaders, but
with the powerful proconsul of the Gauls, that
the senate was decisively defeated.
VII. The Senate under the Emperors.—The
changes effected by the emperors in the composi-
tion and procedure of the senate have been already
described. It remains to consider the share it took
in the work of government. The restoration of the
Republic professedly accomplished by Augustus
formally replaced the senate in its ancient posi-
tion as the recognised council of advice for the
executive magistrates. The decay of the comitia
removed an ancient rival; it transferred to the
senate the election of magistrates, and substituted
senatorial decrees for laws. In conjunction with
the consuls the senate exercised throughout the
first century a criminal jurisdiction, such as it
had only claimed before in exceptional cases, and,
since 122, only under protest from the popular
party. The growing insignificance of the old
magistracies increased its prestige as the sur-
viving representative of the old Republic, and
634 SENATUS
SENATUS
the one constitutional check on the power of
Caesar. And when, on the death or deposition
of an emperor, the principate for the moment
ceased to exist, it was to consuls and senate
that its powers in theory reverted, and from
them came constitutionally the proposal to
confer them anew upon a successor. [PRINCI-
PATUS.]
But the political and administrative ascendancy
of the senate was gone for ever, and even the
partnership with Caesar in the government often
claimed for it was unreal and delusive. [For a
different view, see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii.
709; as to the supposed Dyarchie of Caesar and
senate, comp. ib. iii. 1252, “Der souveråne Senat
des Principats: ” see also PRINCIPATUS.] The
period of its real supremacy had been marked by
a gradual restriction of the magistrates’ control
over its composition and procedure. How far-
reaching on the other hand was the authority of
Caesar in these respects has been shown above.
Moreover, under the system established by Au-
gustus, the senate had a double part to play.
On the one hand it was still as of old the council
which advised, instructed, and even directed the
ordinary executive officials, the consuls, praetors,
&c., in Rome, and the governors of all provinces
other than those of Caesar abroad. Under this
aspect it had a sphere of activity conterminous
with theirs, covering nominally the administra-
tion of affairs in Rome, Italy, and the public
provinces. But in the first place this sphere of
activity was not only restricted by the wide area
originally assigned to Caesar, but became con-
tinually narrower as Caesar laid his hand on
one after another of the departments properly
belonging to the regular magistrates (see for
details PRINCIPATUS). Even within these limits
the power and influence of Caesar made them-
selves increasingly felt, to a degree which de-
prived the action of the senate of all real inde-
pendence. In the discussion of matters within
this sphere, brought forward by the consuls or
other magistrates, Caesar, if present, took part
as an ordinary senator, but his sententia carried
a weight which was usually decisive. (Tac.
Ann. i. 74; ii. 36. This is especially clear in
the case of trials before the senate, where
Caesar's Sententia is sometimes treated as equi-
valent to a judicial verdict, e.g. Ann. iv. 31.)
In virtue, moreover, of his tribunicia potestas,
Caesar could and did interfere at any stage of
the proceedings: to prevent the making of a
Telatio, the taking of sententiae, or the passing
of a decree. (In Tac. Ann. i. 13, Tiberius is
thanked “quia relationi consulum jure tribuni-
ciae potestatio non intercessisset ; ” comp. ib. iii.
70, xiv. 48.) It is evident also that, even under
the early emperors, the consciousness of Caesar's
overwhelming strength disinclined the senate to
discuss or decide any but the most ordinary and
unimportant questions except at his suggestion
or with his approval, and made it anxious to
transfer all serious responsibility to him. (Tac.
Ann. ii. 35, iii. 32, 52, xiii. 26, “consules non
ausi relationem incipere ignaro principe.” Plin.
Epp. vi. 19, “senatus sententiae loco postulavit ut
consules desiderium universorum notum principi
facerent ; ” ib. vii. 6, “consules omnia integra
principi servaverunt.” Tac. Hist. iv. 4, “eam
curam consul designatus ob magnitudinem oneris
. . . principi reservabat.” Nero thought it
necessary to profess his intention of respecting
the supposed division of labour between himself
and the senate. Ann. xiii. 4, “teneret antiqua
munia Senatus . . . consulum tribunalibus Italia
et publicae provinciae adsisterent.”) A glance
at the three departments of finance, of provincial
government, and of foreign relations, over which
under the Republic the senate exercised a real
authority, will sufficiently illustrate its altered
position under the emperors. In that of finance,
a limit was at once placed to the senate’s control
by the existence of the fiscus, which was from
the first wholly under Caesar's management
[FISCUS]. Over the old state chest, “aerarium
populi Romani,” the senate retained a nominal
supervision, but of its independent management
by the senate there is little trace. The ex-
penditure of money from it, or remissions of
payments due to it, were indeed, as late as the
second century, authorised by senatusconsulta,
but on the initiative of the emperor (Tac. Ann.
ii. 47, iv. 13. A natural exception was the
occasional outlay on temples in the emperor's
honour). Its custody was by Nero transferred
to imperial officers (praefecti aerarii, Tac. Ann.
xiii. 29); and though the fiscus and aerarium
remained for long formally distinct, Dio Cassius
pronounces the distinction to be at once unreal
and difficult to define (Dio Cass. liii. 16, 22).
As regards the government of the provinces,
the control of the senate was similarly at once
restricted in area, and shorn of all real inde-
pendence [PRINCIPATUS; PROVINCIA]. Over
two-thirds of the empire Caesar was sole master,
and over the rest he exercised a majus imperium,
which ultimately gave him all that he wanted.
Of its old duties in connexion with the assign-
ment even of the so-called “senatorial provinces *
all that remained was the formal selection of
the same two provinces each year as “consular.”
In the first century it is true that the responsi-
bility of proconsuls to the senate rather than to
Caesar, and the right of the senate to supervise
their administration, was recognised in theory
and occasionally in practice; but, as has been
shown elsewhere [PRINCIPATUs], in the second
century even this partial authority disappeared.
Over foreign relations the senate retained no
independent control whatever, even in name.
Although announcements as to foreign affairs
were constantly made in the senate or communi-
cated to it by the emperor (Tac. Ann. i. 52, ii.
52, iii. 32, 47; Mommsen, op. cit. iii. 1107,
1264), and though foreign embassies were some-
times introduced to it by him (Tac. Ann. xii. 10;
Hist. iv. 51), yet the exclusive command of all
troops, and the plenary authority to declare war
and conclude treaties given to Augustus and
his successors, deprived the senate of all real
power (Strabo, xvii. p. 840, kal troAéuou ka?
eipävns caréorm köptos. Lex Vespasiani, Bruns,
p. 128, “foedusve cum quibus volet facere
liceat "). It is lastly significant of the growing
dependence of the senate upon Caesar, even
within its own sphere, that by the close of the
second century even the criminal jurisdiction
seems to have been exercised only at the in-
vitation or by direction of the emperor (Momm-
Sen, op. cit. ii. 110).
But the senate was also the council of advice
for Caesar himself, who possessed by statute a
special right of convening it, of laying matters
SENATUS
SENATUS 635.
before it, and of carrying senatuseonsulta
(Lex Vespasiani, “utique ei senatum habere,
relationem facere remittere, senatusconsulta
per relationem discessionemque facere liceat '').
Here there was no question of divided authority;
from this point of view the activity of the senate
was determined by the willingness or reluctance
of Caesar to consult it, and to use its decrees, as
instruments of his own government, within the
sphere assigned to him.
Such a use of the senate had obvious advan-
tages. It was in accordance with republican
tradition; it gave an appearance of constitution-
alism to imperial rule, without involving any
real sacrifice of power; and it divided respon-
sibility. By nearly all the emperors of the
first and second centuries the usefulness of the
senate in this capacity was fully recognised.
The list of questions submitted to the senate
by Caesar and of decrees promoted by him
(auctore principe) is a long one; and besides non-
political matters, such as changes in the civil
law, regulations as to the theatre and gladiatorial
shows, restrictions on luxury, or the expulsion
of astrologers (for instances, see Haenel’s useful
work, entitled, rather inaccurately, Corpus
legum ab Imperatoribus latarum, Leipzig, 1857,
and art. SENATUSCONSULTUM), it includes a
variety of subjects directly connected with the
general administration of the Empire. (Suet.
Tib. 30, “de vectigalibus et monopoliis ... etiam
de legendo vel exauctorando milite ... denique
quibus imperium prorogari aut extraordinaria
bella mandari, quid et qua forma regum litteris
rescribi placeret; ” Tac. Ann. xi. 23, grant of
jus honorum to the Aedui; b. xii. 61, grant
of immunitas to Cos: comp. Haenel, op.cit.)
The usefulness of the senate as a subordinate
instrument of Caesar's government outlasted its
importance as an independent administrative
authority: but even in this capacity it ceased
after a time to fill any but a quite insignificant
place. By the time of the younger Pliny, the
emperor's relationes, whether oral or written,
were assuming the form of definite proposals,
accepted by the senate as a matter of course,
and sometimes without even a formal taking of
sententiae ; and the imperial oratio or epis-
tula, rather than the senatusconsultum which
followed, is quoted as authoritative (see supra,
under PROCEDURE, p. 628). In the third century
even this purely formal reference to the senate
became rare; and from the reign of Septimius
Severus onwards, government by imperial edicts,
constitutions, and rescripts is the rule. (Even
in the department of civil law, the references
to orationes, epistulae, and senatusconsulta
rapidly dwindle in number, while those to
constitutions and rescripts as rapidly increase.
See Haenel, op. cit.; Rein, Privatrecht, p. 86.)
On two or three occasions during the third
century, accident seemed to revive the impor-
tance of the senate. The formal investiture of
the person chosen to be princeps, with the cus-
tomary powers, had always been accomplished
by decree of the senate followed by a vote of the
people [PRINCIPATUs], though only rarely had
the senate exercised a voice in the selection
itself. But both Maximus and Balbinus and
Tacitus were actually chosen by the senate, the
responsibility of choosing being in the latter
case entrusted to the senate with the consent of
the army. It is clear, however, that with this
delicate and hazardous duty, thrust upon it by
the force of circumstances, the senate’s renewed
activity began and ended; and in spite of the
magniloquent language used in the senate on
the accession of Tacitus, and of some trifling
concessions to its vanity made by that emperor,
there was in no sense any revival of senatorial
authority. . [Schiller's phrase, “Senatskaiser-
thum,” is misleading (Gesch. d. Kaiserzeit, i. 795,
872), as also is his description of the reign of
Severus Alexander as a “Restauration der Senat-
herrschaft.” With the language used in the
Senate (Vit. Tac. 12), “in antiquum statum
redisse rempublicam,” &c., compare the naive
admission of the consul himself (ib. 3), “quare
agite, patres conscripti, et principem dicite, aut
accipiet enim exercitus quem elegeritis, aut, si
refutaverit, alterum faciet.”)
The Senate of the Republic, and even of the
early Empire, was emphatically the central
deliberative council of the Empire, and “sena-
tors” are the members of this council, with
seats and votes in the Curia. But the tendency of
imperial policy in the second and third centuries.
was, on the one hand, to exclude the senate
from any effective share in imperial policy,
and limit its activity to local Roman or Italian
matters; on the other, to create outside it a sena-
torial order (see Supra, p. 625). This policy was
carried to its extreme point by Diocletian, Con-
stantine, and their successors. The abandon-
ment of Rome by the emperors, and the creation
of a second Curia at Byzantium, destroyed the
significance of the senate as an imperial institu-
tion; while the extension given to the senatorial
order, and its importance as a numerous class
represented in every part of the Empire, formed
an effective contrast with the quasi-municipal
councils which at Rome and Constantinople
jointly inherited the name of “senate.”
Admission to the order—that is, to senatorial
rank—was gained either by birth, as the son or
grandson of a senator, or as in old times by elec-
tion to the quaestorship, or lastly as under the
early emperors by imperial adlectio. But admis-
sion by adlectio was now attached to the tenure
of certain offices in the imperial service. The
senatorial order of the fourth and fifth centuries,
is in consequence a numerous body, and includes
all but the subordinate officials and ex-officials
of the Empire. Within this body further degrees
of rank were gradually established. The title
clarissimus, originally common to the whole
order, had been by the time of Justinian re-
stricted to the lowest class within it, and above
the clarissimi stood the spectabiles, and highest
of all the illustres: a classification which was
based entirely on the scale of precedence esta-
blished for the various offices of state. The
members of this order enjoyed certain common
privileges (e.g. the right of being tried on cri-
minal charges before the praefectus urbi, and
special seats at games), and were liable to cer-
tain special burdens,—a liability which extended
to their wives and children. (See, for these,
Kuhn, Werf. d. rām. Reichs, i. 204.) But of
this numerous body only a minority actually sat
and voted in the senate-house at Rome or Con-
stantinople, for the jus sententiae, once the right
of every senator, was now limited to the highest
class in the senatorial order, that of the illustres;
636 SENATUSCONSULTUM
SENATUSCONSULTUM
i.e. to the holders and ex-holders of the great
offices of state, including ex-consuls, consulares.
[Mommsen, Ostgothische Studien, pp. 487, 488.
Schiller, Gesch. d. Kaiserzeit, ii. 41, would in-
clude also consulares in the wider and later use
of the term (see CONSUL ; CONSULARIS), but
allows that the point is doubtful. Among the
lower of the offices which gave the “jus sen-
tentiae,” “honorum lege” (Cassiod. War. v. 41),
were those of the “comes rerum privatarum,”
the “quaestor sacri palatii,” and the “vicarius
urbis Romae.”] To this select consistory of high
officials and ex-officials, all appointed by the
emperor, were still entrusted a few duties which
though robbed of all importance served to con-
mect them with the great past of the Senate.
They still chose the consules suffecti, the praetors,
and quaestors, offices of purely municipal im-
portance, but their choice required confirmation
by the emperor. They still passed decrees as to
the public games and the schools of the city,
and managed an aerarium which was now only
a city chest. On rare occasions the emperor
submitted to them an edict or constitution, or
entrusted to them the trial of a case of treason.
But nothing more clearly shows how low this
later senate had fallen than the fact that the
official president at its meetings, who kept the
senatorial roll, admitted new members, and sub-
mitted its decisions to the emperor, was not one
of the consuls, but the imperial prefect of the
city. (See,for the senate of this period, Cod. Theod.
v1.; Nov. Just. 62; Kuhn, Werf. d. rôm. Reichs,
i. 174—226; Schiller, Gesch. d. Kaiserzeit, ii.
36–43; Mommsen, Ostgothische Studien, pp.
485–493; Lécrivain, Le Sénat Romain depuis
Diocletien, Paris, 1888.) [H. F. P.]
SENATUSCONSULTUM. The powers of
the senate have been described in the preceding
article (pp. 631–635), and it has been seen that
the Senatusconsultum under the Republic ex-
pressed the advice of the senate to the magis-
trate who sought advice: the carrying out of
the resolution so expressed rested with the
magistrate : the reference to the senate was a
matter of custom, not of definite obligation.
The binding character of the advice embodied
in the SC. not only varied according to the
strength or weakness of the magistrate (though
a conflict was rare), but was greater at certain
periods (for which see p. 632), when the ad-
ministrative power left in the hands of the senate
gave to its resolutions much greater weight
than mere advice would seem to have; and with
the change of the constitution under Augustus
(see pp. 634, 635), legislation by the emperor
through the senate, as expressed in SC*, super-
seded the older practice of enacting leges and
plebiscita in the Comitia, and continued for about
two centuries. Hence senatusconsulta came
themselves to be termed leges (Gaius, i. 83–86),
though Gaius (i. 4) indicates the constitutional
controversy: “Senatusconsultum est quod sena-
tus jubet atque constituit: idque legis vicem
obtinet, quamvis fuerit quaesitum.” But we
must guard against any such idea of their legis-
lative force for republican times, and must cer-
tainly reject the view of Theophilus (Paraphr.
Inst. i. 5) that even after the Lex Hortensia
SC* had the force of law.
The senatusconsultum differed from the lex
partly in its scope, but especially in its effect.
As regards its scope, it concerned chiefly ad-
ministration, and only exceptionally attempted
to regulate public and private rights, as for
instance debts (Liv. xxxv. 7; Cic. ad Att. v. 21,
13). As regards its effect, whether its object
was administrative or partook of the legislative
character, as in the exceptional cases alluded to,
still it was not law, for its execution depended
on the will of the magistrate. It is true that
it was not as transitory in historical times as in
the early period mentioned by Dionysius (ix. 37;
see Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 987); for, if the magis-
trate neglected to execute it, it remained valid
for the next year and until the senate repealed
it [Willems however thinks that a fresh relatio
was needed, and cites Liv. xlii. 10; Cic. in Pis.
2, 4]: but if it became the direction for the
succeeding magistrate, it equally depended on
his will, and if SC* were to be made obligatory
they were transformed into laws by a rogatio
(cf. Cic. ad Att. i. 18, 3; pro Mur. 32, 67; Liv.
xxxix. 19). The Lex Cornelia of B.C. 67, “ne
quis nisi per populum legibus solveretur” [LEX,
p. 405], is sometimes adduced as a proof of
previous legislative power in the SC. which could
dispense from the action of the law: but this
dispensation without the sanction of the people
had been a usurpation by the senate and was
checked by the above-mentioned law. It was,
as Willems remarks (Le Senat, ii. 117), not
exercised till after the time of the Gracchi (cf.
Liv. x. 13, xxxi. 50; Ep. lvi.). Again, the
cases of a resolution “populum ea lege non
teneri,” or “placere legem abrogari,” alluded to
in Cicero (de Legg. ii. 6, 14 ; fr. Corn. § 11;
Phil. v. 4, 10, xii. 5, 12; de Dom. 16,41), are not
a repeal of laws by the senate, but merely a
declaration that the law in question was never
rightly passed, either because it contradicted an
existing law, or as contra auspicia, and therefore
to be referred to the augurs (cf. Cic. in Vat. 6,
14). As regards the effect of a senatuscon-
Sultum on the magistrate, the obligation to carry
it out was moral, not legal; yet it must be
noticed that the senate could bring certain in-
fluences to bear on the magistrate, who either
meglected to consult them more majorum, or,
having consulted, refused to execute the resolu-
tion. They might in the earlier period appoint
a dictator; they might invoke the interference
of the tribunes (Liv. xlii. 21), and a plebiscitum
might follow; they might inconvenience him by
refusing to entertain any other matters until
this was settled (Cic. in Pis. 13, 29); lastly,
there was always the consciousness that his
office was for a year, theirs for life. As a matter
of fact conflicts seldom arose, but for an instance
see Liv. xlii. 9, 10. The following instances of
SC" under the Republic may be instructive: a SC.
“ne quis in urbe sepeliretur; ” the SC. de Baccha-
nalibus, hereafter more particularly mentioned;
a SC. de libertinorum tribu (Liv. xlv. 15); a SC.
de Macedonia (ib. 18); a SC. relating to the
costs of the Ludi Megalenses (Gell. ii. 24); a
SC. “ne homo immolaretur” (Plin. H. W. xxx.
§ 12); a SC. de provinciis Quaestoriis; a
SC. made “M. Tullio Cicerone referente,” to
the effect “ut legationum liberarum tempus
annuum esset;” various SC* de collegiis dissol-
vendis; an old SC. “ne liceret Africanas (bestias)
in Italiam advehere,” which was so far repealed
by a plebiscitum proposed by Ch. Aufidius, tr.
SENATUSCONSULTUM
SENATUSCONSULTUM 637
pl., that the importation for the purpose of the
Circenses was made legal (Plin. H. N. viii. § 64);
and an old SC. by which “quaestio (servorum)
in caput domini prohibebatur” (Tac. Ann. ii.30),
a rule of law whose foundation Cicero (pro
Milon. 22, 59) refers to majores. The general
character of these senatusconsulta shows that,
though not equivalent to laws under the Repub-
lic, they exercised a control in matters which
concerned administration, the maintenance of re-
ligion, the rights of the Aerarium and the Pub-
licani, and the treatment of the Italians and
Provincials (cf. Liv. xxvi. 34; xxxix. 3; xli. 9).
The resolutions of the senate were called con-
Sulta, because the magistrate (Consul, Tribune,
or Praetor) summoned it to consult upon some
special matter which he wished to lay before it
(referre, relatio): thus in the SC. de Bacchana-
libus we have “Marcius L. F. S. Postumius L. F.
Cos Senatum consoluerunt,” and in the SC. de
Philosophis et de Rhetoribus (Gell. xv. 11) the
Praetor “consuluit.” In the enacting part of a
lex the populus was said jubere, and in a plebi-
Scitum Scire, but in senatusconsulta the senate
is usually said censere (e.g. “ita exdeicendum
censuere,” SC. de Bacch.), though in ordinary
language decernere is used of it (e.g. Cic. ad
Fam. viii. 8; ad Att. i. 19), and the words
decretum and senatusconsultum are often used
indiscriminately and with little precision (Gell.
ii. 24: cf. Aelius Gallus ap. Fest. s. v. senatus
decretum, and the article on DECRETUM). On
this point see also Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii.
994 f.; B. Pick, de Senatusconsultis, ch. i. (Ber-
lin, 1884). The view of Herr Pick, that the
clause of the SC. which conveyed the actual
resolution was sometimes distinguished as the
decretum, explains Fest. p. 339.
For the procedure in consulting the senate and
obtaining the resolutions thence called senatus-
consulta, see SENATUS, § v. The resolution was
not reduced to writing until it had been voted
(cf. Cic. Cat. iii. 6, 13). It was written down
(perscriptum, less often scriptum) in the place of
meeting soon after the vote, always on the same
day, by the scribae. The presiding magistrate
retained witnesses for the draft to prevent
fraudulent misrepresentation (Cic. Phil. v. 4,
12; ad Att. iv. 8). These were usually the
auctor sententiae, some of the supporters of the
vote, or in the case of a complimentary vote the
friends of the person honoured (Cic. ad Fam. xv.
6, 2). The phrase expressing the witnesses is
scribendo adfuerunt (SC. ARF. in the de Baccha-
malibus), in Greek versions ypapouévy trapmoav.
It is a mistake to suppose that the witnesses were
called “auctoritates.” In the passage relied
on (Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8) the preliminary words
(which Mommsen, St. iii. 1008, needlessly dis-
credits), SC. Auctoritates, are descriptive of the
two classes of resolutions which follow : the
first is a senatusconsultum, the others are
auctoritates, since there was an intercessio
against them. It is natural and easy to give the
same meaning to the word in Cic. de Or. iii. 2, 5.
[For the text of the former passage, see Tyrrell
and Purser, ad loc., critical note.
The form in which the resolution was drafted is
as follows: 1 (often omitted). SC. (or auctoritas,
as the case might be). 2 (up to B.C. 47). The
praescriptio, “senatum consuluit,” with name
of the relator. 3. The date. 4. The place of
assembly, e.g. “in aede Apollinis.” 5. The
witnesses, “scribendo adfuerunt.” 6. The relatio,
as a preamble, “quod verba fecit’” so and so.
7. The decree “d. e. r. i. c.” (de ea re ita cen-
suerunt) “uti,” &c.; to this might be added the
reason “cum ita se res habeat.” After the time
of Augustus the number of senators was added.
The document often concludes with C. or “cen-
suere.” On the authority of Val. Max. ii. 2, 7,
some (as B. Pick, de Senatusconsultis, p. 21) hold
that the tribune affixed the letter T to the reso-
lution against which there was no intercession,
when it was drafted and about to be deposited
in the tabularium ; and, on that theory, the
disputed letters in Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8, 5,
might be TR; but Mommsen takes them to re-
present Cſensuere], referring to the senators, and
this is borne out by the fact that in Greek ver-
sions we find #60&ev so placed. The view of
Willems (op. cit.) seems probable, that when the
SC. was not voted as a whole in one discessio,
but each clause (particula, Fest. p. 339) sepa-
rately, we find “censuere’’ or éðočev at the end
of each clause on which a vote was taken; but
when it was voted as a whole, the words d. e. r. i.
c. sufficed. Lastly, if it was necessary to obtain a
law, a clause was added, “ut de ea read populum
ferretur” (Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8, 5). [For the
custody of the document, see TABULARIUM, and
SENATUS, p. 630 b.] As regards the title of the
SC. it was named in reference to its contents,
“SC. de Bacchanalibus,” “SC. ne quis in urbe
sepeliretur,” &c.; it was never named after the
relator until the imperial period (see examples
below); the SC. Sempronianum in Cic. ad Fam.
xii. 29 is probably =SC. de Sempronio.
A measure which it was proposed to submit
to the senate might be stopped by the intercessio
of a tribune, who could put a veto on the relatio
(Polyb. vi. 16); and not only tribunes, but any
magistrate of higher or equal rank with the
referens, might exercise the right of intercessio
at the voting (Varro ap. Gell. xiv. 7, 6; Cic.
de Legg. iii. 3, 10), and, though they could not
prevent the resolution from being carried (Val.
Max. ii. 2, 7; Tac. Hist. iv. 9; Cic. ad Fam. x.
12, 3), might deprive it for the present of admin-
istrative force. A proposal so carried, and in-
validated by intercessio, was called “senatus
auctoritas” (a term which is also loosely used to
denote any expression of opinion by a majority
of the senate, whether it became a senatus-
consultum or not, Cic. de Legg. ii. 15, 37; de
Orat. iii. 2, 5; ad Fam. i. 2, 7, viii. 8). In Livy
the technical distinction disappears (see Momm-
sen, St. iii. 1033). [For the totally different
patrum auctoritas, see p. 631.] It was formally
drawn up and recorded, in the hope that, the veto
being subsequently removed, it might acquire
validity by reference back to and confirmation by
the senate, but without being rediscussed (cf.
the clause in the SC* in Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8:
“Si quis huic SCº intercessisset, senatui placere
auctoritatem perscribi et de ea re ad hune
ordinem referri; ” compare also ad Fam. i. 2, 4;
i. 7, 4; ad Att. iv. 16, 6; Dio Cass. lv. 3).
This right of intercessio belonged to the tribunes
against one another, the consuls, and praetors;
and to consuls against one another and the
praetors, but not against the tribunes; but in
the later period of the republican history it
seems to have been exercised by tribunes only.
638 SENATUSCONSULTUM
SENATUSCONSULTUM
If the SC. referred to Latin-speaking communi-
ties, nothing beyond the original wording was
required; but if it referred to Greeks, a version
in Greek was made. The style shows that it
was translated in a conventional form at Rome
and sent to Greece or elsewhere : no pains are
taken to turn such Latinisms as év Koueríg trpo
#wepôv étra eiðvióv 'Okrøðſov. Of the SC"
which are known to us of the republican period,
some have come down in the original form.
They may be classed (following Willems) as 1.
Those of which the Latin text remains, wholly
or in part, engraved in bronze : fragment of de
Bacchanalibus, in a letter of the consuls “ad
Teuranos,” B.C. 186 (C. I. L. i. 43): part of
SC. de Tiburtibus, in a letter written by the
praetor to the Tiburtes (C. J. L. i. 201); the
date of this, as Mommsen finally decides, is B.C.
159, and consequently Niebuhr erred in making
it the oldest document: fragment of the Latin
text of the de Asclepiade, B.C. 87 (C. I. L. i. 111).
2. The Greek engraved versions: fragment of the
de Delphis, B.C. 198—the oldest existing SC.—
(Le Bas, 852b): S.C., or rather two SC*, de Thisbis,
B.C. 170 (Ephem. Epig. i. 278, ii. 102): a frag-
ment de Prienensibus et Samiis, B.C. 135 (Le Bas-
Waddington, 95, 196); the Greek text de Asclepio
(C. I. i. 112); a fragment de Aphrodisiensibus,
B.C. 56 (Le Bas-Waddington, 1627); de Strato-
nicensibus, B.C. 39 (Bull. Corr. Hell. 1887, 225).
3. Latin teacts or Greek versions preserved in
Jiterature : SC. de philosophis et rhetoribus, B.C.
161 (Suet. Rhet. i. ; Gell. xv. 11); de hastis
Martiis, B.C. 99 (Gell. iv. 6); de provinciis con-
sularibus (Cic. ad Fam. viii. 8); three SC" de
Judaeis, dated B.C. 139, 133, 44 (Joseph. Ant.
xiv. 8, xiii. 9, xiv. 10). Besides this we have
SC* about aqueducts in Frontinus, book ii., and
various others preserved in more or less the
original form in the Digest. [G. L.] [G. E. M.]
The following list of senatusconsulta con-
tains, perhaps, all of them which are dis-
tinguished by the personal name of a consul or
other magistrate. Numerous SC* passed under
the Empire are referred to in the Latin writers,
for which we find no distinctive name, though
it is probable that, like Leges, they all had a
title; but many of them, being of little import-
ance, were not much cited or referred to, and
thus their names were forgotten. Tacitus, for
instance, often speaks of SC* without giving their
names, though in some cases we are able to affix
the titles from other authorities.
AFINIANUM: mentioned in Cod. 8, 48, 10, 3;
Inst. iii. 1, 14 (where some of the MSS. read
Sabinianum, Papinianum, and Fabianum). Ac-
cording to the paraphrase of Theophilus, it
enacted that when a man gave one of three
sons in adoption the pater adoptans should be
bound to leave the adopted son at least a fourth
of his property.
APRONIANUM: probably passed in the time of
Hadrian; it enables civitates (i.e. municipal
corporations) to take an hereditas by way of
fideicommissum (Dig. 36, 1, 26; cf. Ulpian,
Reg. 22, 5). In the same passage Ulpian says
that civitates had been enabled by a senatus-
consultum to be directly instituted heirs by
their freedmen (cf. Dig. 38, 3, 1, 1). Both
enactments were occasioned by the want of
testamentifactio in civitates, as being incertae
personae (Ulpian, l.c.; Pliny, Ep. v. 7); but
there does not seem to be any ground for
supposing them to be one single senatusconsul-
tum. By construction they were held to entitle
municipal corporations instituted as heirs to
demand bonorum possessio Secundum tabulas (Dig.
38, 3, 1, 1). Nerva made it lawful for them to
take legacies (Ulpian, Reg. 24, 28), a right ex-
tended to lawful collegia by a senatusconsultum
under Marcus Aurelius (Dig. 34, 5, 20).
ARTICULEIANUM (A.D. 101) enabled provincial
governors to declare a slave free to whom liberty
had been bequeathed by a fideicommissum when
the master was domiciled in a different province
(Dig. 40, 5, 51, 7).
DE BACCHANALIBUs (B.C. 186): discovered on
a bronze tablet, which is now at Vienna, in
Calabria, A.D. 1640. The text is given by
Mommsen, C. J. L. i. No. 196, and in facsimile
in the first volume of the inscriptions edited by
the Royal Prussian Academy, 1862, Tab. xviii.
Its main enactment was the prohibition of the
Bacchanalia throughout all Italy (Liv. xxxix. 18):
see the article on BACCHANALIA, Vol. I. p. 265.
Bynkershoek has written a treatise on this SC.
(de Cultu Religionis peregrinae apud veteres
Romanos, Opusc. i. 412), with which may be
compared Senatusconsulti de Bucchanalibus, &c.
Ea:plicatio, auctore Matthaeo Aegyptio, Neapol.
1729, and Lewald, de Religionibus peregrinis apud
veteres Romanos paulatim Introductis, Heidelberg,
1844. There appears to be no ancient authority
for the name Marcianum sometimes given to this
SC., for, though this might have been its proper
title if it had been named after one of the
consuls of the year, that practice, as we have
seen, first came in under the Empire.
CALVITIANUM : passed under Nero, and con-
firming the SC. Persicianum (q. v.) against a
presumption based on a senatusconsultum of
Claudius. It enacted that neither a man under
sixty years of age, nor a woman over fifty, who
intermarried with one another, should be relieved
from the disabilities of caelibatus: see JULIA
ET PAPIA Poppa EA LEx (Ulpian, Reg. 16, 3;
Suet. Claudius, 23; Plin. Ep. viii. 28; Cod.
5, 4, 27).
CLAUDIANUM : this enactment, passed by the
Emperor Claudius A.D. 52, introduced certain
exceptions to the rule of the Jus Gentium, that
the status of children is determined by that
of their mother, after referring to which Gaius
says (i. 83), “We must observe, however,
whether the law of nations in any given instance
is overruled by a statute or ordinance having the
authority of a statute.” These exceptions of the
SC. Claudianum (in addition to two others stated
by Ulpian, Reg. 5, 8) are three in number:-
(1) If a female citizen of Rome cohabited or
had intercourse with a servus alienus with the
consent of the latter's master, the children born
of the connexion were to be slaves and the
property of the father's owner, though by
agreement with the latter she could remain
free herself: such agreement, it would seem,
might be inferred from the master's not giving
her the notice referred to under (3) below. This
exception was repealed by Hadrian as “inelegans,”
who “restituit juris gentium regulam, ut cum
ipsa mulier libera permaneat, liberum pariat”
(Gaius, i. 84). It appears, however, from
Tac. Ann. xii. 53, and Paul. Sent. Rec. iv. 10, 1,
that the woman herself was degraded from the
SENATUSCONSULTUM
SENATUSCONSULTUM 639
status of ingenua (if she were freeborn) to that
of liberta. Perhaps we should connect with
this the anomalous rule, stated in the Codex
Theodosianus (iv. 9, 3), that children of a free
woman by a servus fiscalis were born Latini.
(2) The children of a free man by a slave
woman whom he believed to be free, were to
be freeborn if males, slaves and the property of
the mother’s master if females. This exception,
again, was repealed as inelegans, and the rule of
the Jus Gentium restored, by Vespasian (Gaius,
i. 85).
(3) If a free woman cohabited with a servus
alienus (known to her to be such) without the
master’s sanction to the connexion, and persisted
in the intercourse after a notice (denunciatio)
thrice repeated to her to withdraw by the
master (or his tutor, curator, or agent, and
even without any such notice if the slave
belonged to a municipal corporation), the master
could have her adjudged to himself as a slave
by the magistrate, along with the children born
of the intercourse, whether before or after this
adjudication. Her property passed with her by
a universal succession [SUCCESSIO) (Paul. Sent.
Rec. ii. 21 a ; Gaius, i. 86). This part of the
senatusconsultum was first repealed by Jus-
tinian, as “indignum nostris temporibus ” (Inst.
iii. 12, 1 ; Cod. 7, 24). It appears from Gaius
(i. 91) that some jurists went so far as to main-
tain that if a woman, being pregnant, was
reduced to slavery under the senatusconsultum,
the child became a slave on birth, even though
actually conceived in civil wedlock (justis
nuptiis); but this opinion was counter to the
rule stated by Gaius (i. 88, 92), Ulpian (Reg.
5, 10), and Neratius in Dig. 50, 1, 9, that
children born of justae nuptiae took the status
of the father at the time of conception.
There is some doubt whether the last two
exceptions (so far as relates to the status of the
children) were established by the SC. Claudianum
or by some statute whose name is unknown to
us. The latter view is supported by Rein,
Huschke, and Bethmann-Hollweg, on account of
Gaius’ language in i. 85, 86, where he says,
“ex lege . . . . sed illa pars ejusdem legis.” In
the earlier editions of this work this unknown
statute was assumed to be the Lex Aelia Sentia,
which, however, does not seem to have dealt
with the children born of intercourse between
free persons and slaves, but rather with the
subjection to patria potestas of children born of
marriage between cives and Latinae or peregrinae,
after erroris causae probatio (Gaius, i. 65, 75).
But there seems to be more reason in the view
of Zimmern and Rudorff, who held that the
term lea, is in these paragraphs loosely used by
Gaius as synonymous with senatusconsultum,
..and it is difficult to believe that the rules stated
under (1) and (3) were not established by the
same enactment.
There are other senatusconsulta named after
the Emperor Claudius, in particular one which
exempted from the disabilities of caelibatus men
over sixty who married wives under fifty years
of age (Ulpian, Req. 16, 3; Suet. Claud. 23):
possibly also his enactments relating to “rewo-
catio libertorum in servitutem” and bestowing
freedom on slaves abandoned by their masters
(Suet. ib. 25) were made through the senate.
. Upon these less known senatusconsulta of Clau-
dius, see Jo. Augusti Bachii Historia Jurispru-
dentiae Romanae.
DE COLLUSIONE DETEGENDA : passed in the
time of Domitian to restrain fraudulent acquisi-
tion of the status of ingenuitas by collusion
between masters and slaves, patrons and freed-
men (Dig. 40, 16, 1 ; ib. 4). It is sometimes
called the SC. Junianum.
DASUMIANUM: passed under Trajan, and
enabling the magistrates to declare free slaves
to whom liberty had been bequeathed by
fideicommissum, but whose masters were pre-
vented from performing the act of manumission
by absence on reasonable grounds: in this case
the master was to be patronus (Dig. 40, 5, 22, 2;
ib. 36, pr: ; b. 51, 4–6; cf. Rudorff in Savigny’s
Zeitschrift, xii. pp. 307-311, Das Testament des
Dasumius).
HADRIANI SENATUSCONSULTA. Of the sena-
tusconsulta made on the proposal of Hadrian
(e.g. Gaius, i. 47, ii. 285; Dig. 5, 3, 20, 6, &c.),
and of which a considerable number are enume-
rated in the work of Bachius referred to at the
end of the remarks on the SC. Claudianum, none
seem to have been called by the name Hadrianum.
[See JUVENTIANUM.]
HOSIDIANUM : enacted A.D. 47, and referred to
in the SC. VoluSIANUM (see Orelli's Inscriptiones,
No. 3115). It appears to have prohibited, under
severe pecuniary penalties, the pulling down of
houses in order to sell the site for more than
one gave for it, or to make money in other ways,
and is well explained by Bachofen, Ausgew.
Lehren, pp. 185–227.
JUNCIANUM (A.D. 182) related to the manu-
mission of slaves belonging to other persons than
the testator, to whom the latter had bequeathed
liberty by a fideicommissum (Dig. 40, 5, 28, 4;
ib. 51, 8; cf. Zimmern, Geschichte des rêmischen
Privatrechts, i. § 203).
JUNIANUM (Dig. 40, 16).
SIONE DETEGENDA. J
JUVENTIANUM is the title given by civilians
to the senatusconsultum passed at the instance
of Hadrian (A.D. 129) after the name of one
of the four consuls (two ordinarii and two
suffecti) mentioned in connexion with it in Dig.
5, 3, 20, 6; but the real proposal seems to have
come from the consules suffecti, who were Titius
Aufidius and Oenus Severianus. It enacted that
hereditatis petitio should lie for the recovery
not merely of res hereditariae from those in
whose possession they were, but for restitution
of fruits and accessions, and of any gain which a
possessor, whether in good or in bad faith, had
made thereby (e.g. by the sale of a res here-
ditaria): in fact, its main object seems to have
been to settle some old points of dispute re-
lating to things belonging to inheritances which
had been sold by persons other than the heir
(see Dernburg, Hereditatis Petitio, 1852,
p. 20 sq.): “post senatusconsultum omne lucrum
auferendum esse bonae fidei possessori quam prae-
doni dicendum est,” Dig. 5, 3, 28. Another
result of the enactment was to make usucapio
pro herede revocable by the heir [USUCAPIO:
cf. Gaius, ii. 57; Cod. 3, 31, 7]. Hereditatis
petitio (to the article on which reference should
be made) thus became a species of “mixed"
action; originally “in rem,” it now lay for
“praestationes personales” as well as for the
recovery of property ; cf. Cod. 3, 31, 12, 3.
[See DE COLLU-
640 SENATUSCONSULTUM
SENATUSCONSULTUM .
LARGIANUM regulated the succession to the
property of Latini Juniani, by providing that
where the actual manumitter was dead it
should not go necessarily to his heres, but to
such of his children as were not expressly dis-
inherited by him: “eo SC" actum esse, ut manu-
missoris liberi, qui nominatim exheredati non
sint, praeferantur extraneis heredibus.” (Gaius,
iii. 64–71; Inst. iii. 7, 4; Cod. 7, 6, pr. and
12; Nov. 78; cf. PATRONUs). The date some-
times assigned to this senatusconsultum (A.D.
42) is wrong; for, though a Largus was consui
in that year, his colleague was not called Lupus.
It must necessarily fall later than the Lex
Junia Norbana, generally supposed to have been
enacted A.D. 19, and not later than the death of
the jurist Cassius (Gaius, iii. 71), who was
consul in A.D. 29.
LIBONIANUM (A.D. 16): enacted that where a
man's will was written out for him by another
person, any disposition which it contained in
the latter’s favour should be void and taken
pro non scripto: for illustrations, see Dig. 48,
10, 6, 1 and 2; ib. 22, 7, 6 and 7; Dig. 26, 2, 29.
It was added by an edict of the Emperor
Claudius that such person should, in addition,
incur the penalties of the Lex Cornelia de falsis,
though this provision is ascribed to the senatus-
consultum itself in the Collatio Leg. Mos. et Rom.
viii. 7, 1 (Dig. 48, 10, 15, pr.). See FALSUM ;
and Dig. 48, 10; Cod. 9, 23; Suet. Nero, 3.
DE LUDIS SAECULARIBUs (B.C. 18). See
Gruter, Inscr. p. 326, and Haubold (Spangen-
berg), Monumenta Legalia, p. 163.
MACEDONIANUM: passed according to Tacitus
(Ann. xi. 13) under Claudius, according to
Suetonius (Vesp. 11) under Vespasian, and
enacting that no action should lie on a loan of
money made to a filiusfamilias. It seems, how-
ever, that the praetor was in the habit of
granting an action where the facts were doubt-
ful, leaving the defendant, if he could prove his
title to the benefit of the law, to repel the
plaintiff by exceptio SC Macedoniani. Theo-
philus says that the name of the enactment was
derived from one Macedo, who committed the
crime of parricide in order to extricate himself
from his pecuniary embarrassments, a story to
which some colour is lent by Inst. iv. 7, 7 ; but
other writers affirm that Macedo was a notorious
money-lender and usurer, though Dig. 14, 6, 1,
which is commonly cited in support of this,
makes more for the derivation of Theophilus.
The SC. related to no contracts except pecuniary
loans, and to these it applied even though veiled
beneath some other transaction, such as a loan
of wine which the borrower immediately con-
verted into money by sale (Dig. 14, 6, 7, 3);
and the rank or age of the filiusfamilias by
whom the money was borrowed was immaterial
(Dig. ib. 2). Such loans, however, were not
declared void by the law, so that the “natural”
duty [OBLIGATIO) to repay it remained ; and
if payment was actually made, the condictio
indebiti was excluded, unless made by the son
with money of the father's.
There were certain cases in which the opera-
tion of the SC. was excluded : as where the
filiusfamilias was a soldier at the time of
borrowing the money (Cod. 4, 28, 7, 1), or had
a peculium castrense or quasi castrense of his
own (Dig. 14, 6, 2), or ratified the contract
after becoming sui juris (Cod. 4, 28, 2); or if
the lender had reason to believe the filiusfamilias
to be independent (Dig. 14, 6, 3, pr. and 1).
Even the father could be sued if he had assented
to the loan either expressly or by implication,
or had subsequently ratified it (Cod. 4, 28, 2;
ib. 7, pr.), or so far as the money had been
expended in his interest (“in rem patris
versum,” Dig. 14, 6, 7, 12 and 13). (Dig. 14,6;
Cod. 4, 28; Inst. iv. 7, 7; Paul, Sent. Rec. ii.
10; Loebenstern, de SC". Macedoniano, Marburg,
1828; Dietzel, Das SC. Macedonianum, Leipzig,
1856.)
MEMMIANUM : the name usually given to a
senatusconsultum passed in the time of Nero to
prevent evasion of the disabilities of orbitas
[JULIA ET PAPIA POPPAEA LEx], by adopting a
child and then emancipating him immediately
the inheritance or legacy had been acquired.
It appears from Tacitus (Ann. xv. 19) that the
same device was resorted to in order to escape
public burdens (e.g. tutela: see Inst. i. 25, pr.),
and that this also was in future put a stop to
by this enactment—“ne simulata adoptio in ulla
parte muneris publici juvaret.”
NERONIANUM DE LEGATIs (Gaius, ii. 197,
212, 218, 220; Ulpian, Reg. 24, 11"; Fragm.
Wat. 85). [See LEGATUM.]
NERONIANUM (Paul. Sent. Rec. iii. 5, 5): also
called Claudianum (Dig. 29, 5, Rubr.) and
Pisonianum (Dig. ib. 8, pr.), because enacted in
the consulship of Nero and L. Calpurnius Piso,
A.D. 57. Among its provisions Tacitus (Ann.
xiii. 32) states the following: “Ut si quis a suis
servis interfectus esset, ii quoque, qui testa-
mento manumissi sub eodem tecto mansissent,
inter servos supplicia penderent :” to which
Paulus adds (Sent. Rec. iii. 5, 5 and 6), “sed
et hi torquentur, qui cum occiso in itinere
fuerunt,” and “ut occisa uxore etiam de familia
viri quaestio habeatur, idemque ut juxta uxoris
familiam observetur, si vir dicatur occisus.” In
Dig. 29, 5, 8, pr., we find the further provision,
“ut si poenae obnoxius servus venisset, quan-
doque animadversum in eum esset, venditor
pretium praestaret, ne emptori injuriam fecisse
videatur senatus.”
ORFITIANUM : passed under M. Aurelius and
Commodus, perhaps A.D. 178 (Ulpian, Reg.
26, 7; Capitolinus, Marc. 11), and relating to
the right of children to succeed to the property
of their mother on her decease intestate. Under
the law of the Twelve Tables they were ex-
cluded, as a woman could have no sui heredes,
and in the sole case in which they were her
agnates (i.e. where she was in mann mariti) she,
as a rule, could leave no property to inherit.
By the praetorian bonorum possessio the child-
ren were admitted next in succession to agnates
(Gaius, iii. 30), but by this senatusconsultum
they were preferred even to the latter, and so
succeeded in the first rank, though, if the mother
had been a freedwoman, the patron was entitled
to a share equal to that taken by each child
(Dig. 38, 17, 1, 9). The illegitimacy of the
children was immaterial (Dig. ib. 1, 2; Inst. iii.
4, 3), nor was their right to succeed affected by
their undergoing capitis deminutio minima
(Inst. ib. 2.; Dig. ib. 1, 8). It is uncertain
whether the Senatusconsultum Orfitianum
referred to by Paulus (Sent. Rec. iv. 14, 1) is the
same enactment. This explained the rule of the
SENATUSCONSULTUM
SENATUSCONSULTUM 641
Lex Fufia Caninia, that slaves could be manu-
mitted in a will only by name (nominatim), by
allowing the same effect to an unmistakable
description : “officiorum enim et artium appel-
latio nihil de significatione nominum mutat, nisi
forte plures sint, qui eo officio designentur.”
(Inst. iii. 4; Dig. 38, 17; Cod. 6, 57; Ulpian,
Reg. 26, 7; Paul. Sent. Rec. iv. 10.)
PEGASIANUM : passed under Vespasian, perhaps
in A.D. 73 (Gaius, ii. 254–259; Inst. iii. 23, 5
and 6; Ulpian, Reg. 25, 14–16). Its principal
provisions are noticed under FIDEICOMMISSUM
and LEGATUM. Another part of it (or possibly
a different senatusconsultum passed by the same
consuls Pegasus and Pusio) modified the Lex
Aelia Sentia in reference to the capacity of a
Latinus Junianus to become a civis (Gaius,
i. 31).
*sº passed under Tiberius, A.D. 34.
It took away the exemption from the penalties
of caelibatus, without exception, from all males
over sixty and all females over fifty years of
age, who appear till then not to have been
subject to the rules of the Lex Julia et Papia
Poppaea on this subject: Suet. Claudius, 23;
Ulpian, Reg. 16, 3 (where the reading is Perni-
cianum).
PISONIANUM. [NERONIANUM.]
PLANCIANUM: assigned by some writers to the
time of Vespasian, and making an addition to a
rule of law either contained in the Lex Julia
et Papia Poppaea, or grafted upon it by con-
struction or some amending enactment, that
any fideicommissum which a heres or legatarius
bound himself by a written instrument or in
any other secret mode to pay or give to a person
who was legally incapacitated from taking it
should be forfeited to the fiscus (Dig. 30, 103;
34, 9, 10 and 18; 49, 14, 3). Such a fidei-
commissum was called “tacitum,” and was said
to be “in fraudem legis,” as designed to evade
the statute; but if the promise to execute the
trust was made openly (palam, Dig. 49, 14, 3),
there was no fraus; and though the fidei-
commissum would fail by reason of the in-
capacity of the fideicommissarius to take it, the
rights of the fiscus would not necessarily
attach, other persons benefited by the will
being preferred in such a case of lapse. It
would seem that, even where a “tacit” trust
had been undertaken, the fiduciarius was
entitled to retain his quarta under the SC.
Pegasianum [FIDEICOMMISSUM]; but the SC.
Plancianum altered this by denying him the
quarta, and also disabled the fraudulent fidu-
ciarius from claiming the fideicommissum as
caducum, which he could naturally have done if
he had children [LEGATUM ; BonA CADUCA]:
Ulpian, Reg. 25, 17; cf. Dig. 34, 9, 11; 35,2,
59 (where the name of the senatusconsultum is
given, and where it is added that the fourth
thus forfeited was given to the fiscus by a
rescript of Antoninus Pius). The penalty for
the fraud applied only to that part of the
property to which the fraud itself extended;
and if the heres had a larger share in the in-
heritance than the property tainted with the
fraud, he had the benefit of the Lex Falcidia (or
more precisely, of the SC. Pegasianum) in
respect of the residue : or, as it is expressed by
Papinian (Dig. 34, 9, 11), “sed et si major
modus institutionis quam fraudis fuerit quod ad
WOL. II.
Falcidiam attinet, de superfluo quarta reti-
nebitur.”
There was a senatusconsultum which enabled
a woman who had been divorced to establish the
status of her child, even though yet unborn, by
a judicial denunciatio addressed to the father
within thirty days of the divorce, and which by
some writers (e.g. Bethmann-Hollweg, Civil
Process, ii. p. 341 ; and Windscheid, Lehrbuch
des Pandektenrechts, ii. § 520, note 5) is called
Plancianum ; but there seems to be no authority
for this in the passages (Dig. 25, 3, 1, 1 and 12)
to which they refer.
RUBRIANUM : enacted circ. A.D. 101, and em-
powering the magistrate to declare free slaves
to whom liberty had been bequeathed by fidei-
commissum, but whose masters attempted to
evade the obligation to manumit them by
absence (Dig. 40, 5, 26, 7 sqq.; cf. Savigny, Zeit-
Schrift, &c. xii. pp. 307–311).
SABINIANUM. [AFINIANUM.]
SILANIANUM. The first senatusconsultum
which we definitely know to have been entitled
after its proposer, was passed under Augustus,
probably A.D. 10, in the consulship of P.
Cornelius Dolabella and C. Junius Silanus. In
a way it made slaves answerable for their
masters’ lives, by providing that, where a man
was murdered, all his slaves who were in the
house with him at the time, or with him else-
where, should be examined under torture as to
the perpetrators and counsellors of the crime,
and then put to death for not having rendered
him assistance (Dig. 29, 5, 1, pr. and sq.; ib. 6;
—Paul. Sent. Rec. iii. 5, passim). It would
seem from Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 42, in his note on
which Lipsius refers to Cicero, ad Fam. iv. 12)
that this was merely an old usage which the
senatusconsultum made compulsory in all cases
of murder; but slaves who were under the age
of puberty did not fall under the enactment, by
which, too, freedom was bestowed as a reward on
any slave who discovered his master's murderer
(Dig. 40, 8, 5; 38, 2, 4, pr. ; 38, 16, 3, 4 ;
Cod. 7, 13, 1). It was further provided that, in
all cases where it was suspected that a man had
been murdered by persons belonging to his own
establishment, acceptance of the inheritance
before the examination of the slaves should cause
its forfeiture to the fiscus from the heres as
indignus (Paul. Sent. Rec. iii. 5, 1, 2 and 10;-
Dig. 29, 5, 3, 29; ib. 5, 2;-Cod. 6, 35, 3): the
same penalty attached to merely opening the
will, or applying for the bonorum possessio, and
a heavy fine was inflicted in addition. A
senatusconsultum passed in the consulship of
Taurus and Lepidus (A.D. 11) enacted that the
penalty for opening the will of a murdered
person could not be inflicted after the lapse of
five years, unless it was a case of parricide, to
which this temporis praescriptio did not apply
(Paul. Sent. Rec. iii. 5; Dig. 29, 5; Cod. 6, 35).
TERTULLIANUM: stated by Justinian (Inst.
iii. 3, 2) to have been passed under Hadrian,
but in reality enacted in the reign of An-
toninus Pius, who succeeded Hadrian A.D. 138,
and was himself succeeded by M. Aurelius,
A.D. 161: its precise date seems to have been
A.D. 158 (Zonaras, xii. 1). It related to the
succession of children, on their dying intestate,
by the mother, who had no right to inherit by
the Twelve Tables, and whose positiº was only
642 SENATUSCONSULTUM
SENATUSCONSULTUM
partially improved in this respect by the
Edict (which gave her a title among cognates,
postponing her to all agnati), and the Lex
Julia et Papia Poppaea. By this senatuscon-
sultum she became entitled to succeed her
issue intestate if, being freeborn, she had three,
or being libertina she had four children (Paul.
Sent. Rec. iv. 9; Ulpian, Reg. 26, 8; Inst. iii.
3, 2); but she was postponed to children of
the deceased (Inst. ib. 3.; Dig. 38, 17, 2, 9;
—Cod. 6, 57, 1, 4; 6, 55, 11), to the father
(Ulpian, loc. cit.), and to the frater consan-
guineus (Inst. ib.); while other relations were
allowed a certain share in the inheritance
with her (Inst. and Ulpian, ll. cc.). Justinian
(Inst. ib. 4) did away with the necessity of the
jus liberorum as a title to the benefits of this
enactment, and also with the deductions made
in favour of other relations; he preferred the
mother to all other persons having a statutory
title (legitimi), except that brothers and sisters
of the deceased shared the inheritance with her:
if there were brothers only, or brothers and
sisters, it was divided in equal shares between
them and her; if sisters only, she and they
took in moieties. By Nov. 22, 47, he modified
the rule last stated, enacting that even where
there were sisters only the division should be
in capita. As under the SC. ORFITIANUM, the
rights of the mother were not affected by her
undergoing capitis deminutio minima, or by the
illegitimacy of the deceased child.
TREBELLIANUM : circ. A.D. 62. Its provisions
are described under FIDEICOMMISSUM. (Gaius,
ii. 253–258; Inst. ii. 23, 4 sq.; Ulpian, Reg.
14–16; Paul. Sent. Rec. iv. 2.; Dig. 36, 1 ; Cod.
6, 49.)
TURPILIANUM: enacted under Nero, probably
in A.D. 61, for the purpose of preventing prae-
varicatio, the fraudulent or collusive abandon-
ment of a criminal charge once preferred. The
penalty is described by Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 41):
“qui talem operam emptitasset vendidissetve,
perinde poena teneretur ac publico judicio
calumniae [CALUMNIA] condemnatus.” [Dig.
38, 2, 14, 2; 47, 15, 3, 3; 48, 16 (ad Senatus-
consultum Turpilianum); Cod. 9, 45 (ad SC.
Turp.).]
DE USUFRUCTU earum rerum quae usu con-
sumuntur [USUSFRUCTUS].
WELLEIANUM : enacted according to Ulpian
(in Dig. 16, 1, 2, 1) in the consulship of M.
Silanus and Welleius Tutor. There was a
M. Silanus consul with Walerius Asiaticus in
A.D. 46 (Dio Cass. lx. 27), and one of the same
name with L. Norbanus Balbus in A.D. 19 (Tac.
Ann. ii. 59): if a Welleius Tutor was consul at
all with a Silanus, it was with L. Junius Si-
lanus in A.D. 27 ; but this would seem to be
too early for this senatusconsultum, which,
from Ulpian’s language in the Digest, cannot
well be placed before the reign of Claudius, so
that if any date must be assigned to it the first
of those given is apparently the most probable.
It provided that no action should lie upon any
contract of Suretyship entered into by a woman
as promissor; at any rate this was its main
effect, as interpreted by responsa of the jurists
and imperial constitutions (Dig. 16, 1, 1, pr. ; ib.
2, 4). It would seem, however, to have been
the common practice (as in the case of the SC.
Macedonianum) for the praetor to grant the
action where there was any doubt as to the
facts of the case, leaving the defendant to
protect herself by a plea (eaceptio) based on the
senatusconsultum, which is frequently men-
tioned in the texts, and which could be pleaded
against execution even after judgment had been
delivered adversely to the woman (Dig. 14, 6,
11). Unlike the SC. Macedonianum, this enact-
ment did not allow of the creation of even a
“natural ” obligation by the contracts against
which it was directed; so that, if a woman paid
the debt of another person for which she had
made herself answerable in ignorance of her
rights under the senatusconsultum, she could
recover the money back by condictio indebiti
(Dig. 12, 6, 40, pr.). There were, however, a
variety of cases in which she was disentitled to
the protection of this enactment: e.g. where
she had been guilty of dolus towards the cre-
ditor (Dig. 16, 1, 2, 3); where the latter had
no reason to believe the surety to be a woman
(Dig. ib. 12); where the guarantee was given
for valuable consideration (Cod. 4, 29, 23, pr.),
or for a liability which practically was the
woman’s own; or where the creditor was a
minor, and the principal debtor insolvent (Dig.
4, 4, 12).
As to the history of the principle expressed
in the senatusconsultum, there are two views.
According to one, which is supported by the
actual terms of the enactment preserved in the
Digest (“tametsi ante videtur ita jus dictum
esse, ne eo nomine ab his petitio neve in eas
actio detur, cum eas virilibus officiis fungi et
ejus generis obligationibus obstringi non sit
aequum,” Dig. 16, 1, 2), women had been for-
bidden to become sureties for other persons
even by the old Jus Civile, whose rules on this
subject had ceased to be operative, and were
merely re-enacted by the senatusconsultum ;
according to the other, the law was no older
than edicts of Augustus and Claudius, pro-
hibiting wives from becoming answerable for
the debts of their husbands (Dig. 16, 1, 2, pr.),
and the greater stringency and extent of the
senatusconsultum were due to the recklessness
with which women, after Claudius had abolished
the tutela legitima of agnati over them, exer-
cised their rights of administering and disposing
of their property on behalf of other persons.
[Dig. 16, 1; Cod. 4, 29; Bachofen, Das
Welleianische Senatusconsult, Ausgewahlte Lehren,
pp. 1–58; Hellfeld, de Intercessione Mulieru;;z et
Senatusconsulto Velleiano (Op. Min. No. 4) ;
Vangerow, Lehrbuch der Pandekten, § 581: see
also the article on INTERCESSIO.]
WITRASIANUM : by some writers assigned to
the reign of Vespasian, by others to that of
Hadrian; but without any very substantial
reason in either case: it provided that if the
owner of a slave to whom a third person had
bequeathed freedom of fideicommissum was an
infans, and so unable to manumit, the act
might be performed on his behalf by the praetor
(Dig. 40, 5, 30, 6).
WoLUSIANUM (A.D. 56): penalising the pulling
down of houses for the sake of profit (Dig. 18,
1, 52; Orelli, Inscript. No. 3115; cf. SC. Hosi-
dianum). Tacitus (Ann. xiii. 28) mentions a
senatusconsultum passed in this year, and pre-
sumably entitled after the consuls (Q. Volusius
Saturninus and P. Cornelius Scipio), which
SENIORES
SEPULCRUM 643
limited the powers of the aediles in respect of
taking pignora and inflicting fines. Another
SC. Volusianum, mentioned in Dig. 48, 7, 6,
contained a rule similar to the English law of
champerty, that persons who joined in the suit
of another, with the bargain that they should
share with him the damages awarded by the
condemnatio, should incur the penalties of the
Lex Julia de vi privata. [G. L.] [J. B. M.]
SENIO'RES.. [CoMITIA, Vol. I. p. 505.]
SEPTA. [CoMITIA, Vol. I. p. 507.]
SEPTIMONTIUM. [SACRA, p. 578.]
SEPTUNX. [As.]
SEPULCRUM. — I. GREEK. Sepulchral
chambers cut in the rock are found at all
periods and in all parts of the Greek world.
The so-called “prison of Socrates * at Athens
is a well-known example of this kind of grave
(Curtius, Atlas von Athen, vii. 4). The form and
arrangement of these rock-cut tombs are very
various. They consist sometimes of a single
chamber, sometimes of an assemblage of cham-
bers forming a small catacomb. Generally one
or more shelves are cut in the rock, at the side
of each chamber, for the reception of the bodies,
and for the vases and other objects which are
placed beside them. (For accounts of rock-cut
graves in Cyprus, at and near Paphos, J. H. S.
[Journal of Hellenic Studies], 1888, p. 264 f.;
at Rhodes, Ross, Arch. Zig. 1850, p. 209; at
Selinus in Sicily, Cavallari, Bullet. Sicil. v. 1872,
p. 10 fſ. ; in Karpathos, Bent, J. H. S. vi.
236.)
In the greater part of the Hellenic world
rock-tombs are rather the exception than the
rule, and were probably a luxury of the rich;
but in Asia Minor, and especially in Phrygia
and Lycia, they are found in enormous numbers,
and often of elaborate and ornate kinds.
(1) The commonest type of ornate rock-tomb
in Lycia is a very close imitation of a wooden
structure, in which a framework of beams, the
intervening spaces being filled with wooden
panels, supports a flat roof with projecting
eaves. The minutest details of wood-construc-
tion are reproduced in stone. Sometimes the
façade only of such a house is cut in a wall of
rock ; sometimes it stands cornerwise, with two
sides free ; sometimes it is attached to the rock
at the back only; and sometimes it stands
entirely free (Benndorf and Niemann, Reisen in
Lykien und Karien, p. 95 ft.). The interior con-
sists of a small low chamber, generally furnished
with three stone couches upon which to place
the bodies. In some cases a pointed arch is
found above the flat roof, similar to that which
forms the top of the sarcophagus tombs (see
below). In the later examples the whole façade
is gradually assimilated to the typical façade of
orthodox Greek architecture, with columns and
architrave. The pointed arch then becomes con-
verted into a pediment.
(2) The sarcophagus tombs are very numerous.
Benndorf estimates that there are some two
thousand of them in Lycia. The following
woodcut of a tomb at Antiphellus, taken from
Fellows’. Eaccursion in Asia Minor, p. 219, gives
a typical example; and two specimens may be
seen in the British Museum.
In the earlier examples the peculiarities of
wood - construction are very closely followed.
The arched covering seems to represent a tent-
like erection upon the flat roof of the house.
As in the case of the rock-tombs already men-
tioned, there is some assimilation to ordinary
Greek architecture in the later examples. This
º
< -------> “ — T'
* – -->" - -
*
omb in Lycia.
assimilation has been carried some way in the
tomb represented in the woodcut.
(3) Tombs in the shape of a high square
column or pedestal, with a projecting cornice
at the top, are found at Xanthos and elsewhere.
Benndorf (op. cit, p. 108) enumerates eleven of
them. The best known example is the “Harpy
Tomb?”—the sculptures from which are now in
the British Museum (Eaccursion in Asia Minor,
pp. 126, 231 ff.; Discoveries in Lycia, p. 168 ft.).
In Phrygia many rock-tombs are found. In
some cases the façade is architectural in cha-
racter, and ornamented with geometrical patterns
(as the “Midas” tomb; Ramsay, J. H. S. ix.
380; Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de l’Art dans
l’Antiquite, v. p. 82, pl. 48); in other cases the
ornament is sculptural, as at the “Lion Tomb"
and the “Broken Lion Tomb" (J. H. S. ix. 361,
363, 368, &c. For Phrygian tombs, see Ramsay,
J. H. S. iii. 1, 256, v. 241, ix. 350, x. 147; and
Perrot and Chipiez, op. cit. pp. 81–147).
Large temple-tombs or heroa are found in
various parts of Asia Minor. A central chamber
stands upon a high basis or podium, and is sur-
rounded by a colonnade. The “Nereid Monu-
ment” at Xanthus was of this type, and was
probably sepulchral. A somewhat similar tomb
at Mylasa in Caria is represented by Fellows
(Discoveries in Lycia, p. 76). This type found
its highest development in the Mausoleum at
Halicarnassus in Caria [MAUSOLEUM), which
was so widely celebrated in the ancient world
that the word Mausoleum was used by the
Romans in the meaning of a splendid tomb.
Large stone or marble structures of this type
are seldom found in Greece proper; perhaps to
some extent on account of the sumptuary laws,
which restrained expenditure upon monuments:
Thus, at Athens, it was provided by one of
Solon’s laws that no one should erect a monu"
ment which could not be completed by ten men
in the course of three days; * pºint.
T



644 SEPULCRUM
SEPULCRUM
Phalereus forbade the erection of any funeral
monument more than three cubits in height
(Cic. de Legg. ii. 26, 66).
An early and very remarkable form of tomb
is that known as the bee-hive, or domed tomb.
The best known example of this type is the so-
called “Treasury of Atreus” at Mycenae,
which is shown in section and plan below. A
large circular chamber is built of courses of
stones, which gradually overlap until they
meet at the apex, so as to form a dome-shaped
building, but not a true dome. The space for
this chamber is excavated in the side of a hill,
so that the whole projects very little above the
natural level of the ground. It is approached
by a stone-lined passage or öpáuos cut into the
slope of the hill. The lintel of the door to
which the Spóuos leads is formed of a single
enormous block of stone. A door at one side of
the domed chamber leads into the small sepul-
*
~~~
SECTION,
_AE
PLAN.
A, entrance; B, principal chamber; C, small side
chamber.
chral chamber cut in the rock. (Athen. Mittheil.
...; 177-182; Helbig, Das homerische Epos,
p. od.
Other graves of a similar type have been
found at Mycenae, and at many other places on
the eastern shores of Greece; for example, at
Menidhi (Acharnae) (Köhler, Lolling, and
others, Das Kuppelgrab bei Menidi), Spata in
Attica, Orchomenos, Nauplia, near the Heraeon
in the neighbourhood of Argos, and at Volo in
Thessaly. It seems probable that these tombs
represent a later stage of the same civilisation
which produced the graves excavated by Dr.
Schliemann upon the Acropolis at Mycenae;
but it is impossible here to discuss the questions
which arise in connexion with them. (For
references to literature upon the subject, see
Helbig, l.c.)
The normal form of Greek grave may be con-
sidered to be a hole or trench in the ground,
whether dug in earth or cut in rock. These
are generally found in groups; forming, in fact,
cemeteries. They are often marked with a
monument ; and they contain many objects
besides the body. We have therefore to consider
(1) the position in which graves were placed ;
(2) the form of the grave; (3) the monument
placed above the grave; (4) the contents of the
grave.
1. Place of Burial.—In the earliest times it
was the custom, in Attica at any rate, for the
dead to be buried in their own houses (Plat.
Minos, 315 D); and traces of graves inside
houses have been found at Athens (Curtius,
Atlas von Athen, p. 19). At Mycenae the very
early graves excavated by Dr. Schliemann are
within the circuit of the citadel walls; and at
certain places the burial of the dead within the
city was not forbidden in historical times; as at
Sparta (Plut. Lyc. 27: [Lycurgus] v tí, tróAet
6&rrelv rows verpot's kal TAmoriov čxelv rá
pºvăuata rāv ispáv oilk kāAvore), Megara
(Paus. i. 43, 3), and Tarentum (Polyb. viii. 30).
As a general rule, however, the places of burial
were outside the city walls, and frequently by
the side of roads and near the gates of the city.
Thus at Athens the place of burial for those who
had fallen in war was the outer Kerameikos,
outside the Dipylon gate, on the road leading to
the Academia (Thuc. ii. 34; Aristoph. Av. 395;
Paus. i. 29, 4); and the common place of burial
was outside the Itonian Gate, near the road
leading to the Piraeus (’Hptai trčAal, Etym. Mag.
and Harpocr. s. v.; Theophr. Char. 14); while
burial within the walls was strictly forbidden
(Cic. ad Fam. iv. 12, 3). At Tanagra the tombs
are outside the ancient town ; the three chief
cemeteries being on the E., N., and S. (Haus-
soullier, Quomodo Sepulcra. Tanagraei decora-
verint, p. 3), and the groups of tombs chiefly
cluster round the roads (ib. p. 69).
2. The Forms of Graves.—At the Necropolis
of Myrina, far the commonest form of grave was
an oblong trench cut in the tufa, corresponding in
size with the body to be buried. This sometimes
had a covering of stone plaques, but often was
merely filled in with earth (Reinach and Pottier,
La Necropole de Myrina, p. 59). This form of
grave was also common at Tanagra ; but when
it was covered, tiles were used instead of stone
plaques, and the trenches are for the most part
dug in the earth, not cut in rock (Haussoullier,
op. cit. p. 60). At Tanagra round pits, 1 ft.
6 in. to 5 ft. in diameter, are also found. At
both places the graves are sometimes lined with
stone slabs. In Cyprus, in the neighbourhood
of Paphos, the tombs consist almost entirely of
vaulted chambers, cut in the rock or earth,
sometimes with niches radiating from a central
chamber. The cut below shows one of the more
elaborate rock-tombs (J. H. S. ix. p. 264 ft., for
a description of the different varieties).
There are various statements in ancient
authors as to the orientation of tombs (Plut.
Solon, c. 10; Aelian, V. Hist. v. 14; Diog.
Laert. i. 2, 48); but in cases in which careful
observations have been made, no uniformity of
direction has been found. (Myrina, La Nécropole



SEPULCRUM
SEPULCRUM 645
de M., p. 57; Tanagra, Haussoullier, op. cit.
p. 69 ; Leontari Vouni, in Cyprus, J. H. S. ix.
p. 156.)
3. Outer Adornment or Monument. — The
earliest kind of mark placed over a grave was
probably the simple tumulus. In later times
|-º-º: || "..., ||- º!," (4 ... iſ
= ... I ſº º 'º fºss==
i º' tº 3 = º
-: | *– *- recº-ſº
53 e - *** { . i r— wº-" * v-n *f; | il. º 3/ > º/? º:
ł== -** zºº. 2: 22
! --> TS |Sºſsºſ
2 º Y. |
| lºſſ ă 39; 2 i. *º :
ºiſ; #|| v. S #. **º ~.
$ * * *
- .**
*E=-
F-----------
tº-
cº ~~~~ f : tº-
…~~ & * •º. º * gººse - º
~ a we-º-º-º. :==
º - | --
****".
Tombs at Paphos. (Cesnola.)
a grave-stone of some kind was generally set
up. The shapes of these grave-stones are ex-
tremely various. They are divided by Kouman-
oudes (AT r k fis ét yp a p a étr+t #48 to t,
p. 18 f.; cf. Von Sybel, Die Sculpturen von Athen,
i. p. ix. ff.) into the following classes: —(1)
ictovía kot. Small round columns, often with a
simple moulding near the top, below which is
the inscription. This is the commonest shape.
(2) TAdkes, rectangular slabs, lying upon the
ground. (3) or Aal. [See STELA.] (4) Aedi-
culae or shrine-shaped stones. The top is
generally of pedimental form, supported by
pilasters or free columns. The space thus en-
closed is filled by a sculptured representation,
in very high relief in the later examples. (5)
Mensae (a term used by Cicero, apparently for
monuments of this class). Large rectangular
blocks of stone, with architectural ornament at
the base and on the cornice. (6) Hydriae. Large
marble vases, in the shape of a lekythus, or of
a tall amphora, of the kind used for funeral
purposes [FUNUs], were sometimes set up as
funeral monuments. Eustathius (ad Îl. xxiii.
141) says that roſs trpo yauov Texevtågu fi
Aovtpopópos, pariv, Širettºeto Káatris, eis #P-
Settiv too &rt &Aovros ré, vvuqukö, kal &yovos
&metori. Koumanoudes argues from this passage
that these marble vases were Aovrpoq’ópol, and
marked the graves of unmarried persons, and
confirms his view by the fact that out of 171
cases in which the tombstone is a vase or bears
a representation of one, all but five are certainly
to be referred to unmarried persons. Other
passages, however (Demosth. adv. Leoc. p. 1086,
§ 18; Pollux, viii. 66; Harpocr. s. v.), seem to
show that the Aoutpoq’ôpos was a figure bearing
a vase: as, indeed, the formation of the word
would indicate. (7) 07kal, stone receptacles,
for the ashes after cremation; round or square,
with a lid. (8) Sarcophagi. The word aráxm is
also used in a more general sense to include
most kinds of funeral monuments; and a fuller
discussion of the artistic ornament of funeral
monuments will be found in the articles STELA
and SARCOPHAGUS.
This classification of Attic monuments will
apply with little modification to other parts of
Greece. Thus at Tanagra we find classes (1),
(3), (4), and in addition tombstones in the shape
of altars (Haussoullier, op. cit. p. 15 f, pll.
ii.-v.). Altar-tombs are also common in Delos.
4. The Contents of the Grave.—It was the
universal custom, at all periods and in all parts
of the Greek world, to bury objects, of a great
variety of kinds and often in great numbers,
with the corpse. Our knowledge of the minor
Greek arts—pottery, vase-painting, jewellery,
terra-cotta work, gem-engraving, &c.—is almost
entirely due to this custom. The scores of
thousands of vases and terra-cottas contained in
the Museums of Europe were, with few excep-
tions, discovered in tombs.
That the custom goes back to very early
times is shown by the rich contents of the
Mycenaean graves, now in the Polytechnic
Museum at Athens. These include gold and
silver cups and ornaments ; bronze caldrons
and other vessels ; bronze sword-blades and
other weapons, sometimes decorated with inlaid
work of gold or other metals; and other objects,
too numerous to mention here.
The objects usually placed in tombs may be
thus classified (La Necropole de Myrina, p. 105):
—(a) The vase which contained the ashes, if the
body had been burnt. This was most often of
pottery, but sometimes of gold, silver, or other
precious material. If the body had not been
burnt, a coffin was often used. This was either
of wood (as in some Greek graves in the Crimea,
Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1865, pl. vi. 4, 5, p. 9;
1866, pll. i. and ii. p. 6 ft.; 1869, p. 177 ff.;
1875, pl. i. p. 5 ft.), or of earthenware, or of
stone. Some forms of earthenware coffins are
shown in the accompanying woodcut, taken from
Earthenware coffins. (Stackelberg.)
Stackelberg, Die Gräber Hellenen, pl. 7. (b)
Objects which apparently belonged to the dead,
and were used by him when alive: such as
strigils, mirrors, perfume bottles, needles, &c.;
rings, brooches, and other personal ornaments,
including wreaths and diadems, which were
often made of flimsy material for funeral pur-
poses. (c) Vessels intended to hold meat and
drink for the dead. Sometimes remains of food
are found in these vessels. The number of them
is sometimes very large ; in some tombs at
Myrina as many as sixty or seventy earthenware

646 SEPULCRUM
bottles and vases were found. (d) Small terra-
cotta figures. The reason for placing these in
the tomb has been much discussed. (For refi.
to literature upon the subject, see La Necrople
de Mºrinº, p. 107, note.) They are specially
frequent in Boeotia, and are usually named
after Tanagra, the place where they were first
found in large numbers. They were sometimes
intentionally broken before being placed in the
tomb (Haussoullier, op. cit. p. 79). Some con-
nexion may be traced between the subject re-
presented and the owner of the grave. Statuettes
of women and of female divinities are more com.
mon in the graves of women; male divinities,
as Dionysus, Heracles, Atys, in those of men:
and toys in those of children (La Necropole de
Myrina, p. 107 : TERRA-cotta). (e) Charon's
coin [see FUNus]. To these must be added a
variety of miscellaneous objects, such as en-
graved gems, earthenware lamps, small objects
of bronze, glass bottles and cups, so far as they
are not included under the first category.
[The more important books have been fre-
º
It will be observed that this tomb is hewn
in imitation of wood-construction; and in fact
the sepulchral chambers generally imitate the
abodes of the living. For example, a tomb at
Corneto (Micali, Antichi Monument; per servire
alla Storia, &c., lxiv. 3; Baumeister, Denkm.
pl. xi. 563) has its roof cut in the fºrm of .
ºedium displuniatum. In these tombs the
bodies were generally placed upon stone couches,
accompanied by numerous vases and other objects
(see below). The walls also are frequently
adorned with paintings, representing scenes of
the cult of the dead, and of daily life, and, in
some ºf the late examples, scenes from gº.
mythology (Baumeister, denºm. p. 512, and
figs, 554, 555; Micali, op.cit. pl. lxv-xx.)
But, as in Greece, so in Italy, rock-tombs
are not the most common form. Extensive
and careful excavations in the neighbourhood of
Bologna, at Falerii, and in other places, have
given us full knowledge of several Italianceme.
teries. The objects found in graves at Bologna
Tomb of the Tarquins.
SEPULCRUM
quently referred to in the course of the article.
For Greek graves in S. Russia, Compte Rendu,
1865, pp. 9 f ; 1859, pl. v. and yi. For -11
account of the graves at Poli tes Chrysochou in
Cyprus, see Journal of Hellenic Studies, vol. xi.
1. For a general account of the subject,
Stackelberg, Die Grüber der Hellenen, Becker,
Chariºles, 4th English edit., pp. 383-402–
Becker-Göll, iii. 114–167; Hermann-Blümmer,
Privataſt. pp. 373-387, where will be found
| references to the literature of the subject, which
is large and scattered.]
II: Italias. Among the nations of Italy
the Etruscans are remarkable for the care which
they gave to their graves. These graves are
almost always subterranean. The more sump-
tuous tombs consist of chambers hewn in the
rock; either beneath the surface of the ground,
* Pºnetrating horizºntally into a cliff. A large
number of such tombs are described and repre-
sented in Dennis's Etruria, and the accompany-
ing woodcut of the Tomb of the Tarquins at
Cervetri is taken from that work (i. 242).
*.*dhirably arranged in the Museo civice at
that place. The results obtained from com-
Pºison of them are, shortly, as follows (E.
ºrizio, Guida del Museo dº dº Bologna).
The graves may be divided into three classes.
(1) Umbrian. The graves are oblong, polygonal,
* square holes lined with stone, in each tom,
is a large earthenware vase, containing the ashes
of the burnt body. In a few of the later tº:
unburnt skeletons are found, but these are very
* Arms, knives, and ornaments are found in
great numbers; in the earlier tombs of bronze
only, in the later of iron also. Vases, spindles,
and whorls of pottery also occur in great
numbers. In the later tombs a great advance
is shown in the skill with which the potter
varies the forms and adornment of the vases.
(2) Etruscan. The earliest Etruscan tombs
Umbrian: possibly of the 6th century B.C. They
are distinguished from the Umbrian tombs
partly by the method of burial,—two-thirds


SEPULCRUM
SEPULCRUM 647
of the bodies are buried without burning, and
one-third only are burnt, partly by the tomb-
stones, often bearing representations of Etruscan
religious scenes, which are placed above the
graves, and partly by the contents. The shapes
of the bronze objects found are characteristic
and varied; and the pottery is almost all of
Greek workmanship, or imitated from Greek
models. The Greek vases are for the most part
red-figured; but vessels of the “Corinthian *
style, and an amphora partly black-figured and
partly red-figured, have been found in the earlier
tombs. (3) Gallic. A certain number of graves,
of a rather late period, appear to be Gallic in
character.
The collection of objects found at Falerii is
now displayed in the new museum at the Villa
Giulia, outside the Porta del Popolo at Rome.
An account of it, by E. Brizio, is published in
the Nuova Antologia (Dec. 1889, p. 419 ft.). The
graves at Falerii consist for the most part of
chambers furnished with a number of niches,
and so capable of receiving the remains of a
number of persons. This peculiarity makes the
investigation of the chronological sequence of
the graves difficult; for the interments in each
chamber extend over a considerable period. It
is impossible here to discuss in detail the ques-
tions involved. It must suffice to mention one
remarkable method of burial. In several cases
coffins have been found made of the trunk of a
tree, cut in half and hollowed. A similar coffin
has been found near Gabii; and at Rome, be-
neath the agger of Servius, a terra-cotta sar-
cophagus has been discovered, resembling in
form the trunk of a tree. This form of tree-
coffin appears frequently in Northern Europe,
especially in Westphalia.
At Rome it has been shown by recent excava-
tions that a large cemetery lay on the east side
of the city, outside the Porta Viminalis, and
that it was still in use in the latest times of the
Republic. This was the place of burial for
slaves and poor people (Hor. Sat. i. 8, 8). The
graves are of various kinds; among others puti-
culi or well-graves; that is to say, pits which
out of the city.
served as a common grave for the bodies of
those who could not afford the expense of
separate burial. (Varro, L. L. 5, 25: “a puteis
puticuli, quod ibi in puteis obruebantur homines,
nisi potius, ut Aelius scribit, puticulae, quod
putescebant ibi cadavera projecta. Qui locus
publicus ultra Exquilias.” Festus, Ep. p. 216 ;
Com. Cruq. ad Hor. Sat. i. 8, 10, &c.) Here, too,
the bodies of executed criminals were thrown
unburied (Hor. Sat. i. 8, 17; Epod. 5, 99;
Dionys. xx. 16). This cemetery was disused
from the time of Augustus onwards, and was
turned into gardens, to the great improvement
of the sanitary condition of the district (Hor.
; i. 8, 14 ; Porphyrio and Com. Cruq. in
OC. J.
Burial within the city was forbidden, from
the time of the Twelve Tables; but exceptions
might be made in the case of specially dis-
tinguished persons—as, for example, in the case
of C. Fabricius (Cic. de Legg. ii. 23, 58) and
Valerius (Plut. Q. R. 79), and generally in the
case of those who had celebrated a triumph (Plut.
ib.). The Westal Virgins and the emperors were
buried in the city, according to Servius (ad
Aen. xi. 205), because they were not bound by
the laws, but Eutropius (8, 5) tells us that
Trajan was the only emperor for whom the
priyilege was used. By a rescript of Hadrian,
those who buried a person in the city were
liable to a penalty of 40 aurei (Dig. 47, 12, 3,
§ 5). The practice was also forbidden by
Antoninus Pius (Capitol. Anton. Pius, 12) and
Theodosius II. (Cod. Theod. 9, 17, 6). A similar
prohibition was in force elsewhere (Lea Coloniae
Genetivae, lxxiii.; Ephem. Ep. iii. p. 94).
The customary place for the tombs cf well-
to-do families was by the side of the roads leading
Many such tombs are still
preserved by the side of the roads leading out
of Rome, especially the Appian Way, and many
more have been destroyed in comparatively
recent times. A row of them also stands out-
side the Herculanean gate at Pompeii. Part of
this Pompeian street of tombs is represented in
the accompanying woodcut, taken from Mazois,
The Street of Tombs at Pompeii.
Pompeiana, part i. pl. 18. These private tombs
vary very widely in arrangement and archi-
tecture. In some cases we have underground
chambers, similar to those found in Etruria; as,
for instance, the tomb of the Scipios on the Via
Appia. But generally the tomb consists of a
building enclosing a chamber ; and in this
chamber are placed the urns containing the
ashes of the dead. Some not uncommon forms
are shown in the above representation of tombs
at Pompeii. Other forms are the pyramid, as
in the case of the tomb of C. Cestius, near the
Porta Ostiensis; the round tower, as in the
well-known tomb of Caecilia Metella ; and the
conical turret, as in the so-called tomb of Virgil
near Naples, and the so-called tomb of Aruns
or of the Horatii and Curiatii near Albano.
This last shape seems to follow an Etruscan
model, for conical turrets are the chief feature
of the tomb of Porsenna, as described by Pliny
(H. N. xxxvi. §§ 91–93; Fergusson, J. H. S. vi.
207-232). One of the most splendid sepulchral
edifices was the Mausoleum of Hadrian (see
pp. 149 f.). (For an enumeration of tombs out-
side Rome and for references to literature
concerning them, see Marquardt, Privatleben,
pp. 361, 362.)
Another form of grave is the columbarium.
This is found not unfrequently at Rome, but is
hardly known elsewhere; probably because land

648 SEPULCRUM
at Rome was much more valuable than at any
other place. It consists of a building provided
on the inside with a large number of niches,
flat at the bottom, arched at the top. Each
Columbarium at Rome.
niche, as a rule, is intended to hold two urns
[OLLAE], in which the ashes were placed. The
name columbarium was given to such graves
because of the resemblance which these niches
bear to the holes of a pigeon-house. The general
arrangement of a columbarium is shown in
the above woodcut, which represents one
found in the year 1822 at the Villa Rufini,
about two miles beyond the Porta Pia. Colum-
baria were sometimes provided by great families
as a burying-place for their slaves, freedmen,
and dependents: e.g. by the Statilii Tauri
(Bull. della Commissione arch, municip. 1875,
p. 151 ff.: C. I. L. vi. p. 994 f.), by the
- in
º
º º
- º
º
-
ºrº-
º
* -
Y
|
º
The urn takes many forms. The hut-urns
found at Albanos [see cut under Tugurium]
are made of earthenware, and represent a pri-
mitive hut, with a peaked straw roof, similar
apparently to the contemporary dwellings of
the living (Ghirardini, Notizie degli Scari, 1881,
p. 354 f. pl. v.; Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 216;
Dennis, Etruria, i. lxix.). The urns also in the
Bolognese cemeteries and in the columbaria are
generally of earthenware. In Etruria a favour-
Tomb at Veii. (Birch.)
SEPULCRUM
Volussi (C. I. I. vi. p. 1043), and by Livia
(Gori, Columbarium Liviae Augustae, 1727;
Ghizzi, Camere sepolcral de liberti e liberted;
Livia Augusta e de' altri Cesari, 173; C. J. L. vi.
p. 877). But most frequently they were erected
by burial societies, formed by persons who
were too poor to purchase a place of burial for
themselves. Considerable light has been thrown
upon the constitution and arrangement of these
societies by inscriptions, and especially by those
found in the year 1852 in a columbarium upon
the Via Appia, not far from the tomb of the
Scipios (C. I. I. vi. p. 930 f. The inscriptions
are given in full, with comments and a descrip-
tion of the columbarium, by Wilmanns, pp. 125–
146; Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 372). The
inscriptions from columbaria are collected in
C. J. L. vi. p. 875 ft. (cf. Wilmanns, p. 117 ff.);
and further references to literature upon the
subject are given by Marquardt, op.cit. pp. 135,
371, 372.
An account of Roman tombs would not be
complete without some mention of the Cata-
combs; but as they were almost exclusively
used by the Christians, it must suffice here to
refer to the Dictionary of Christian Antiquities
and the authorities there cited.
Contents of Tombs—If the body was not
burnt, it was placed in the tomb either enclosed
in a coffin or sarcophagus [SARcoPHAgus], or
unenclosed. In the latter case in Etruscantombs
it is generally placed upon a couch of stone, as
is shown in the accompanying representation of
atomb at Veii (from Birch, Anc. Pottery, p. 149).
If the body was burnt, the ashes were placed in
an urn or pot (urma, olla).
ite form is a miniature sarcophagus of earthen-
ware or stone, with a recumbent figure upon
the lid. Marble, stone, and alabaster are
commonly used; and the next woodcut repre-
sents a sepulchral urn of marble in the British
Museum. The inscription shows that it con-
tained the ashes of Cossutia Prima. It is of
an upright rectangular form, richly ornamented
with foliage and supported at the side by
pilasters. Its height is 21 inches, and its



SEPULCRUM
SERICUM 649
width about 15. Other materials used are
glass, and various metals, lead, bronze, silver,
and even gold.
§
*
sº
Roman Sepulchral Urn. (Brit. Mus.)
A large number of other objects (of which
some mention has been made above) were
generally placed in the tomb, apparently with
the intention of supplying the dead with the
customary apparatus of life. Thus in the early
tombs weapons and armour frequently occur.
Later, agricultural implements and tools are
often found; and in the case of women, articles
of the toilet, scent-bottles, ornaments, and so
forth. Clothes, money, food and drink, and
vessels for containing them, were often added.
The last purpose may explain to some extent
the large number of vases which are often found
in tombs. Several are to be seen in the picture
of a tomb at Veii given above. In Etruria
Greek vases and native imitations of Greek vases
were used in very large numbers for this purpose;
and it is from Etruscan tombs that the majority
of extant Greek vases comes. With the ex-
ception of those which were found at Pompeii,
nearly all the objects of daily use in our
Museums have been taken from graves. We
must add lastly altars, lamps and candelabra,
intended for ritual purposes. (For references
on this subject, see Marquardt, Privatleben,
p. 365 ft.)
(Marquardt, Privatleben, pp. 340–385; Becker,
Gallus, 4th English edit., pp. 505–523 = Becker-
Göll, iii. 481–547; Raoul-Rochette, Troisième
Mémoire sur les Antiquités chrétiennes des Cata-
combes, in Mém. de l'Acad. des Inscriptions, vol.
xiii. 1838, pp. 529–788; Guhl and Koner, Life
of the Greeks and Romans, pp. 375–387; Bau-
meister, Denkmäler, art. Gräber. . For Etruscan
tombs, Dennis, Etruria. For Pompeian tombs,
Overbeck and Mau, Pompeji, 4th edit., pp. 396–
422. The more important sepulchral inscrip-
tions are conveniently collected by Wilmanns,
Eacempla Inscriptionum Latinarum, cap. ii. vol. i.
pp. 49–173.) [FUNUS.] [H. B. S.]
SEQUESTRES.. [AMBITUs.]
SERA, [JANUA..]
SERICUM (anpików, Bouflékia). Silk ap-
pears in Roman literature under three different
names—vestes Coae, bombycinae, and sericae—
though in strict usage only the last was what
we should recognise as true silk. For the
passages descriptive of the first, see CoA
VESTIS; it is mentioned by no writer later
than Pliny, and we may suppose this industry
to have died out early in the Empire. Though
Isidore (Orig. xix. 22) makes the Coae and bom-
bycinae identical, there can be no doubt that
he was mistaken. The difference was not
merely that the one was manufactured in Cos,
the other in Assyria (Aristot. H. A. v. 19,
p. 551; Plin. H. W. xi. §§ 76–78; Propert. ii.
3, 15, where Arabius is loosely used for
“eastern "), but the worms themselves were
different. The bombyx of Cos was a species
living on the oak, the ash, and the cypress;
that of Assyria was the true mulberry silk-
worm : the material therefore was originally
different, but was treated in the same way;
for in both districts the insect was allowed to
develop itself, and the pierced cocoons were
used. These were impossible to unwind, be-
cause the continuity of the threads had been
broken ; so they were carded, and then spun
like cotton, and gave a coarser silk which is
called galette. The fact of the worm being left
in its wild state to spin on trees whence the
deserted cocoon was gathered (cf. Verg. Georg.
ii. 121; Petron. 119; Plin. H. N. vi. § 54;
Sil. Ital. vi. 4, xiv. 664; Dionys. Perieg.
752) gave rise to the notion, which we find
expressed even in Strab. xv. p. 693, that the silk
grew on the leaves, and was scraped off them.
Pausanias (vi. 26), however, gives the true
account.
The distinction between vestes sericae and
bombycinae is marked in Ulp. Dig. 34, 2, 23, 1;
Apul. Met. viii. 27 (where the priests wear bom-
bycina: the image of the goddess is “serico
contecta amiculo’”). As will be seen from
what has already been said, the essential
difference lay not in the silkworm (since the
produce of the mulberry silkworm was used at
all times in India, Persia, and Assyria), but in
the fact that the Chinese alone discovered the
method of unwinding the cocoon while it was
entire, and cultivated the silkworm for that
purpose instead of carding the pierced cocoons.
This true silk was therefore imported from
China, usually overland through Samarcand
to the Persian Gulf, thence to Phoenicia or
Egypt, and finally to Rome (Procop. Anecd.
25; [Arrian, Per. M. Eryth. 56). It is stated by .
most modern writers (Blümmer, Marquardt,
Becker-Göll) that the Chinese silk was im-
ported at first in woven pieces (366via ormpurcá),
that these were laboriously unravelled, and the
silken thread thence obtained re-woven with
an admixture of wool. We must confess that
this theory, which is antecedently unlikely,
seems to us to rest on very slight evidence.
Pliny (who merely translates Aristotle), when
he speaks of the “redordiri rursusque texere"
(xi. § 76) and of the “geminus feminis labor
redordiendi fila rursusque texendi,” is, like Ari-
stotle, speaking only of carding out cocoons
whence to spin a thread and then to weave.

650 SERICUM
SERRA
The theory, then, rests on the lines of Lucan
(x. 140):
“Candida Sidonio perlucent pectora filo,
Quod Nilotis acus percussum pectine serum
Solvit et extenso laxavit stamina velo,”
which Marquardt takes to mean that the stuff
was woven in China, dyed at Sidon, and then
unpicked and re-woven in Egypt. But it is
dangerous to trust in so technical a matter to
poetical description, and moreover the version
of Mr. Haskins in his recent edition of Lucan
is more probable, “loosened the threads by
stretching the fabric; ” i.e. the material was
close-woven by the Chinese and thinned out, so
as to be transparent, by the Egyptians: the
word acus, perhaps, also implies embroidery. If
this view is correct, the mixed fabrics which
were worn under the earlier Empire must
(when made of Chinese silk as sericae, not bom-
bycinae) have been made of the silk thread (viipa
ormpurov) or of the raw silk (uéraća) interwoven
with flaxen or cotton thread into a cheaper,
lighter, and more transparent dress than the
Chinese silk stuffs. This material became
more and more fashionable. Even men dressed
in silk; and hence the senate, early in
the reign of Tiberius, enacted “ne vestis
serica viros foedaret” (Tac. Ann. ii. 33; Dio
Cass. lvii. 15). In the succeeding reigns we
find the most rigorous measures adopted by
those emperors who were characterised by
severity of manners, to restrict the use of silk,
while others, like Caligula, encouraged it (Suet.
Cal. 52; Dio Cass. lix. 12: cf. Joseph. B. J. vii.
5; Mart. xi. 9, 27, xiv. 24).
This mixed fabric, based on Chinese silk, was
generally called sericae vestes, but received a dis-
tinct name when the Romans began to import the
pure woven silk stuffs, which were called holose-
vicae and were introduced by Elagabalus (Lam-
prid. Heliog. 26): the silk flags on the Parthian
standards, which struck the eyes of the Romans
in the battle of Carrhae more than two cen-
turies earlier, were doubtless of this material
(Flor. iii. 11). The expense of it was so great
that the successor of Elagabalus, Alexander
Severus, never wore it (Lamprid. Alea. Sev.
40), and it was said to have been sold for its
actual weight in gold (Vopisc. Aurelian. 45).
Thenceforth, though the general name sericum,
or Sericae vestes, included both kinds, and
naturally more often means the less costly
mixed silk, there was strictly the distinction
between holosericae (pure silk) and subsericae
(or tramoséricae), in which the woof was silk,
and the warp of flax or wool (Isid. Orig. xix.
22). The increasingly common use of both
holosericae and subsericae may be seen as time
went on (Solin. p. 202; Vopisc. Tacit. 10,
Carin. 19; Ammian. xxiii. 6; Symmach. Ep.
iv. 8). Christian writers condemn it (Clem.
Alex. Paedag. ii. 10; Tertull. de Pall. 4); St.
Jerome (ad Marcell.) says that those who did
not wear it were taken for monks: actors were
forbidden to wear figured and gold-embroidered
silks, but were allowed plain silks (Cod. Theod.
15, 11, 7). We find among trades the sericarii,
holosericopratae, and metaxarii (C. I. L. vi.
9678, 9898; Cod. Just. 8, 13, 27), and a ornpiko-
Troiás (C. I. G. 5834).
The production of raw silk (uéraća) in Europe
was first attempted under Justinian, A.D. 530.
The eggs of the silkworm were conveyed to
Byzantium in the hollow stem of a plant from
“Serinda,” which was probably Khotan in
Little Bucharia, by some monks, who had
learnt the method of hatching and rearing
them. The worms were fed with the leaf of
the Black or Common Mulberry (ovkduivos :
Procop. B. Goth. iv. 17; Glycas, Ann. iv.
p. 209; Zonar. Ann. xiv. p. 69, ed. Du Cange ;
Phot. Bibl. p. 80, ed. Roth). The cultivation
both of this species and of the White Mulberry,
the breeding of silkworms, and the manufacture
of their produce, having been long confined to
Greece, were at length in the twelfth century
transported into Sicily, and thence extended
over the South of Europe. (Otto Frisingen,
Hist. Imp. Freder. i. 33; Man. Comnenus, ii. 8.)
The progress of this important branch of in-
dustry was, however, greatly impeded even in
Greece, both by sumptuary laws restricting the
use of silk except in the church service or in
the dress and ornaments of the court, and also
by fines and prohibitions against private silk-
mills, and by other attempts to regulate the
price both of the raw and manufactured article.
It was at one time determined that the business
should be carried on solely by the imperial
treasurer (praefectus thesauro). Peter Barsames,
probably a Phoenician, held the office, and con-
ducted himself in the most oppressive manner, so
that the silk trade was ruined both in Byzan-
tium and at Tyre and Berytus; whilst Jus-
tinian, the Empress Theodora, and their
treasurer amassed great wealth by the monopoly
(Procop. Hist. Arcan. 25).
(The best treatment of this subject will be
found in Pariset, Hist. de la Soie, vol. i.
pp. 1-90 : see also Marquardt, Privatleben,
pp. 491–499; Blümner, Technol. i. 192; Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 283; Yates, Teatrinum, p.
160 ft.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
SERRA, dim. SE'RRULA (irpiov), a saw.
It is not improbable, as Virgil says (Georg. i.
144, a line rejected by some critics), that it
was an invention which superseded the primi-
tive use of wedges, but it is at any rate very
ancient, and its origin is lost in the mythical
ages, being attributed either to Daedalus (Plin.
H. N. vii. § 188; Sen. Epist. 90), or to his
nephew Perdix (Hygin. Fab. 274; Ovid, Met.
viii. 246) [CIRCINUs], also called Talos, who,
having found the jaw of a serpent and divided a
piece of wood with it, was led to imitate the
teeth in iron (Diod. Sic. iv. 76; Apollodor. iii.
15). Hyginus and Isidore (Orig. xix. 19) make
the backbone of a fish the original pattern. In
a bas-relief published by Winckelmann (Mon.
Ined. ii. fig. 94), Daedalus is represented holding
a saw approaching very closely in form to the
Egyptian saw delineated below. The iron
blade of the saw was called ráporos in Greek
(Opp. Hal. v. 201), lamina in Latin (Verg.
Georg. i. 143); the teeth, 36évres and dentes.
The form of the larger saw used for cutting
timber is seen in the woodcut below, which is
taken from a miniature in the celebrated Dio-
scorides written at the beginning of the sixth
century (Montfaucon, Pal. Graec. p. 203). It
is of the kind which we call the frame-saw,
because it is fixed in a rectangular frame. It
was held by a workman (Serrarius, Sen. Epist.
SERRA
SERVITUTES 651
57) at each end. The line was used to mark
the timber in order to guide the saw (Sen.
Epist. 90); and its movement was facilitated
by driving wedges with a hammer between the
planks (tenues tabulae) or rafters (trabes). (Co-
rippus, de Laud. Just. iv. 45–48.) A similar
representation of the use of the frame-saw is
given in a painting found at Herculaneum, the
operators being winged genii, as in this woodcut
(Ant. d’Ercol. i. tav. 34); but in a bas-relief
Published by Micali (Ital ar. iſ Dom. dei Rom.
tav. 49) the two sawyers wear tunics girt
round the waist like that of the ship-builder
in the woodcut under Ascia. The woodcut
here introduced also shows the blade of
the saw detached from its frame, with a ring
at each end for fixing it in the frame, and ex-
hibited on a tomb-stone published by Gruter.
Serrae.
On each side of the last-mentioned figure is
represented a hand-saw adapted to be used
by a single person. That on the left is from
the same monument as the blade of the
frame-saw; that on the right is the figure of
an ancient Egyptian saw preserved in the
British Museum. These saws (serrulae manu-
briatae) were used to divide the smaller objects.
Some of them, called lupi, had a particular
shape, by which they were adapted for ampu-
tating the branches of trees (Pallad. de Re Rust.
i. 43). It is not unlikely that these were saws
with a wide “set" to the teeth. The primitive
saws, no doubt, had teeth running in the same
line as the blade: it must have been animprove-
ment to have what is called a “set,” i.e. the
alternate teeth bent sideways in opposite di-
rections to prevent the saw from getting
jammed in its passage, and the lupi for sawing
trees would naturally be improved by having a
wide “set.” This is what Pliny (H. N. xvi.
§ 227) must mean by alterna inclinatio.
Pliny (H. N. ×xxvi. § 159) mentions the use
of the saw in the ancient Belgium for cutting
white building-stone: some of the oolitic and
cretaceous rocks are still treated in the same
manner both in that part of the Continent and
in the south of England. In this case Pliny
must be understood to speak of a proper or
toothed saw. The saw without teeth was then
used, just as it is now, by the workers in
marble, and the place of teeth was supplied,
according to the hardness of the stone, either by
emery or by various kinds of sand of inferior
hardness (Plin. H. N. ×xxvi. § 51). In this
manner the ancient artificers were able to cut
slabs of the hardest rocks, which consequently
were adapted to receive the highest polish, such
as granite porphyry, lapis-lazuli, and amethyst.
[Mola : PARIES.] The serrula in Cic. pro
Cluent. 64, 180, with which the bottom of a
chest was cut out, has given rise to some dis-
cussion. In a recent number of the Classical
Review (Oct. 1889) Mr. Owen suggests that it
was a rºund saw, shaped like a tea-cup in-
verted, which worked on the bottom of the chest
by means of a handle moving on the principle
of a brace and bit.” A drawing of such a tºol
is given in the article referred to. We are
assured by a working carpenter that, though
nothing of the kind is known in the modern
trade, it would act efficiently and also more
silently than a saw drawn backwards and for-
wards, assuming that it has a pivot to work
on; and moreover that it would not be difficult
to make such an implement with a thin
“ribbon" saw. We think, therefore, that the
suggestion is plausible: otherwise there is no
difficulty in imagining a hole first bored in the
natural way with a centrebit [see TEREBRUM)
and the piece cut out with a small saw, like our
“key-hole” saw, with a thin end, toothed on
both sides and capable of being turned round.
Cicerº was of course, not describing anything
that he had seen: the only necessary condition
is that it should not be of the patterns in most
ordinary use. (On the general subject, see
Beckmann, Hist, of Inventions, i. 361; Blümmer,
Technolºgiº, ii. 216–221.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
SERRATUS. Tacitus says of the Germans
(Germania, 5), “pecuniam probant veterem et
diu notam, serratos bigatosque.” These were
denarii struck under the Roman Republic; the
Denarius Serratus.
serrati having a serrated edge, the bigati bear-
ing the type of a biga. (Here we have a quad-
riga.) That the Germans should prefer these
coins of the Republic to those of the Empire,
inferior in weight and purity, was natural; and
treasures found in Germany have confirmed
Tacitus's testimony. (Mommsen, Röm. Münz-
wesen, p. 771.) [P. G.]
SERTA. [Corona, Vol. I. p. 545.]
SERVIANA ACTIO. [PIGNUs.]
SERVITUS. [SERVUs]
SERVITU'TES. Where one person has a
right over property of another, which he can
assert by legal remedy against any one who
interferes with its exercise, and not merely
against the owner of the property, he is said to
have a jus in re aliena, and his right belongs to
those which are “real” or in rem. By the
existence of such a right the legal position of
the owner is diminished in value: his owner-
ship, which otherwise would be unrestricted, is
curtailed, not in duration, but in extensiºn:
The presumption of law was in favour of the
freedom of property, and the burden of prºving
his right over it lay on the other party: hence,
when a thing was sold as optima wº this



652 SERVITUTES
SERVITUTES
was legally understood to mean that it was
warranted free from any real rights in persons
other than the owner (Dig. 50, 16, 90 and 169:
cf. Cic. de Leg. Agr. iii. 2, 7). Two classes of such
jura in re aliena are known to Roman law : one
recognised by the old Jus Civile, and termed
servitutes; the other of praetorian origin, and
known by specific names, viz. EMPHYTEUSIs,
PIGNUs, and SUPERFICIES.
The term servitus properly denotes the quasi
non-free condition of an object over which rights
are enjoyed by a person other than its owner
(Dig. 39, 1, 5, 9), but more commonly it is used
to express the deducted right itself. As to
such rights in general, there are a few funda-
mental rules admitting of very brief statement.
No one can have a servitude over property of
his own (“nulli res sua servit,” Dig. 8, 2, 26),
so that a servitude will be extinguished ipso
facto as soon as the person in whom it is vested
becomes owner of the property over which it is
exercisable (res serviens) or vice versä. No one
servitude can be the object of another, for
“servitus servitutis esse non potest” (Dig. 33, 2,
1); but there can be servitudes over other
incorporeal things, e.g. over an emphyteusis or
a superficies (Dig. 43, 18, 1, 6, 7, 9). Being
created solely for the benefit of a determinate
subject, servitudes are intransferable, or in-
separable from the subject itself (Dig. 10, 2, 15;
8, 4, 12); and, lastly, a servitude must not
merely limit the rights of the owner of the res
serviens, but must confer a positive advantage
on the other party (Dig. 8, 1, 15).
These rights may be classified in various ways.
They are divided, with reference to the owner of
the res serviens, into affirmative and negative.
If he has to allow the other party to do some-
thing from which otherwise he could legally
hinder him (e.g. to walk across his field), the
servitude is affirmative, and is said to consist in
patiendo ; if he is obliged himself to refrain from
doing some act which otherwise he would be at
perfect liberty to do (e.g. to add a story to his
house), the servitude is negative, and is said to
consist in non faciendo. But no servitude can
consist in faciendo, in the sense of the owner of
the res serviens being compellable to perform
some positive duty : for to this would correspond
only a right in personam, whereas a servitude is
a right in rem (Dig. 8, 1, 15, 1). He may owe
a positive act in respect of the res serviens (e.g.
to keep a road in repair over which his neighbour
has a right of way), but a violation of this duty
would generally be redressed by a personal
action, not by the real action arising from the
servitude. Where the owner of a wall on which
his neighbour had the right of support for his
house (servitus oneris ferendi) undertook to keep
the wall in repair, this duty could be enforced
(according to Servius Sulpicius, whose view
prevailed over that of Aquilius Gallus) by action
on the servitude; but the legal principle last
stated was so far observed that the owner of the
wall was able to release himself from the duty
by abandonment (derelictio), and could not be
compelled to support the house by other means
while the wall was being repaired (Dig. 8, 5, 6,
25; ib. 8, pr. and 2; 8, 2, 33).
But the current Roman classification of servi-
tudes is into praedial and personal (Dig. 8, 2, 1).
A praedial servitude can belong to a man only
as being owner or tenant of a parcel of land or a
house (praedium), whereas he can have a personal
servitude without any such restriction. Again,
the latter can be enjoyed over any object of pro-
perty; the former only over another praedium
(Inst. ii. 3, 3) adjoining (Dig. 8, 3, 5, 1) that in
whose favour it exists, and to which it is appurte-
nant. Thus there can be no praedial servitude
without both a praedium serviens and a praedium
dominans. The right must be of such a nature
that by it the use and enjoyment of the latter are
enhanced or rendered more complete and effectual
(Dig. 8, 2, 8, pr. ; ib. 15, pr.); it is consequently
inseparable therefrom, passing with it when
conveyed, and its extension is determined only
by the requirements of the praedium dominans
itself (Dig. 8, 3, 5, 1). But the latter's owner
must exercise his right with proper regard for
those of the owner of the praedium serviens
(“civiliter modo,” Dig. 8, 1, 9), who must
himself permit the former to do all acts necessary
for its due enjoyment (e.g. repairs, Dig. ib. 10).
The rule “omnes servitutes praediorum perpetuas
causas habere debent’ (Dig. 8, 2, 28) signifies
that the servitude must permanently benefit the
praedium dominans (whence “neque ex lacu
neque ex stagno concedi aquaeductus potest,”
Dig. ib., and “servitutes [praediorum] ipso
quidem jure neque extempore, neque ad tempus,
neque sub condicione, neque ad certam condicio-
mem constitui possunt,” Dig. 8, 1, 4), and also
that no right can be a praedial servitude whose
enjoyment necessitates constant action on the
part of the owner of the praedium serviens.
A personal servitude (servitus personarum,
Dig. 8, 2, 1; personalis Servitus, Dig. 34, 3, 8,
3) is one which belongs simply to a man as
such, and not as owner or tenant of this or that
land or house : it is limited in duration at least
by that of his own lifetime, and, as has been
already remarked, can exist over any object of
property whatever. All servitudes of this class
are affirmative ; praedial servitudes can be
either affirmative or negative, as will be seen by
reference to those of which an account is given
below.
Personal servitudes are four in number, viz.
USUS, USUSFRUCTUS, habitatio, and operae ser-
vorum sive animalium. Whether the last two
were distinct rights from use and usufruct was
for a long time a question among the Roman
jurists (Dig. 7, 7, 5; 7, 8, 10; Cod. 33, 3, 13:
cf. Gaius, ii. 32), but eventually the distinction
was admitted. Habitatio is the right of living
in another person's house, and differs from usus
aedium in the person who possesses it being
entitled to let it out to others (Inst. ii. 5, 5),
and from both use and usufruct in the fact that
it was not extinguished by his capitis deminutio
or by non-user (Dig. 7, 8, 10, pr.). If created
by a donatio inter vivos, it could be set aside by
the heirs of the grantor. Operae servorum or
animalium consisted in a man’s having a right
to the use and services of another's slave or
beast, so long as he or it lived. It differed from
a mere usus or ususfructus in the same respects
as habitatio.
Praedial servitudes are either rustic or urban
(jura praediorum rusticorum, urbanorum); a
distinction as to the precise rationale of which
there are differences of opinion. It is clear
that not all servitudes in towns are urban, nor
SERVITUTES
SERVITUTES 653
all in the country rustic, for “urbana praedia
omnia aedificia accipimus, non solum ea quae
sunt in oppidis, sed et si forte stabula sunt vel
alia meritoria in villis vel in vicis vel si praetoria
voluptati tantum deservientia, quia urbanum
praedium non locus facit sed materia” (Dig. 50,
16, 198). Many of the praedial servitudes are
referred to by Cicero, pro Caec. 13, 19 and 26.
Of the urban class the following are the most
important:—1. Oneris ferendi : the right which
a man has to use the wall or edifice of his
neighbour as a support for his own (Inst. ii. 3,
1;-Dig. 8, 2, 33; 8, 5, 6, 2). The owner of the
servient property had to keep it in repair, but
could escape this liability by derelictio. 2. Tig-
ni immittendi: the right of planting a beam in
or upon a neighbour's wall (Dig. 8, 2, 2 and 6;
8, 6, 18, 2; 8, 5, 8: cf. Tac. Ann. xv. 43; Cic.
de Orat. i. 38, 173). 3. Protegendi or projiciendi :
the right of throwing a balcony or verandah out
from one’s own house so as to project over one's
neighbour's land (Dig. 8, 2, 2; 43, 17, 3, 5, 6,
&c.). 4. Stillicidii: the right to have the rain-
water drip in its natural course from one's roof
on to a neighbour's land. A sub-variety is the
servitus fluminis recipiendi, immittendi, or aver-
tendi, the right of throwing such water on
adjoining land from a pipe (Dig. 8, 2, 17, 3; ib.
20, 3–6;-Varro, L. L. iv. 5;-Cic. de Orat. i.
38, 173; Top. 4, 22;-Vitruv. de Architect. ii.
1, vi. 3, vii. 5). 5. Cloacae immittendae: the
right of emptying a drain into or conducting it
through a neighbour's premises (Dig. 8, 1, 7 ;
43, 23, 1, 4). 6. Fumi immittendi : the right of
sending one’s smoke through the chimney of
one who lives above or next door (Dig. 8, 5;
8, 5–7). 7. Latrinae sive sterculinii : the right
of having a dung-heap against a neighbour's
wall (Dig. 8, 5, 17, 2). 8. Altius non tollendi :
the right of preventing a man from building (or
raising buildings already standing) above a
certain height (Dig. 8, 2, 2; ib. 4 and 11, &c.).
9. We luminibus and me prospectui officiatur: the
right of having one’s supply of daylight and
one’s view uninterfered with by any act of one’s
neighbour, such as planting of trees or erections
of any kind (Dig. 8, 2, 3, 12, 15–17, &c.; Cic.
de Orat. i. 39, 179; Gaius, ii. 31). 10. Servitus
luminum or luminis immittendi: the nature of
which is disputed, but which probably consisted
in the right of making windows in a neighbour's
wall in order to procure oneself more daylight
(Dig. 8, 2, 4, 40; Cod. 3, 34, 8).
We read in the authorities also of a servitus
stillicidii and fluminis non recipiend. (Inst. ii. 3,
1; Dig. 8, 2, 2), a servitus altius tollendi (Dig. ib.),
and a servitus officiend; luminibus vicini (Gaius,
ii. 31, iv. 3; Inst. iv. 6, 2, &c.), of the nature of
which, however, no explanation is given. Such
rights are not properly servitudes at all, but
were ordinary incidents of ownership, and this
treatment of them has caused no little difficulty.
According to Theophilus and others, these ex-
pressions are simply intended to denote the
condition of a praedium after the extinction of a
servitus stillicidii, &c., to which it was previously
subject. Others explain them by reference to
local regulations prohibiting buildings above a
certain height, &c. (e.g. Cod. 8, 10, 12 and 13),
which they suppose could be overridden by the
establishment of servitudes to the contrary; but
this hypothesis seems untenable by reason of the
aphorism, “jus publicum privatorum pactis
mutari non potest.” A third school holds that
the object of a grant of a servitus altius tollendi,
&c., was partially to extinguish a servitus altius
non tollendi, &c. (cf. Dig. 44, 2, 26, pr.).
Of rustic servitudes the following are the most
important:-1. Iter (or jus eundi, Gaius, iv. 3):
the right of walking or riding along a footpath
on another man's land, and of being carried over
it in a litter (Inst. ii. 3, pr. ; Dig. 8, 3, 7 and
12), though either of the latter rights might be
excluded by express provision (Dig. 8, 1, 4, 1).
2. Actus (which includes iter): a similar right of
driving cattle or vehicles (Isidor. Orig. xv. 16;-
Dig. 8, 3, 1, pr. ; b. 7, pr. and 12, &c.), though
the last could be excluded (Dig. 8, 1, 13).
3. Via (which includes both iter and actus): the
right of using a regular road (via munita) over
another's land for heavy traffic with highly-
laden waggons (“hastam rectam ferre,” Dig. 8,
3, 7, pr.), so that the owner of the praedium
serviens must lop the trees. The road, in the
absence of express agreement, must be at least
eight feet where straight, and sixteen where it
curved (Dig. 8, 3, 8: cf. Varro, L. L. iv. 4;
R. R. i. 2, 14 ; Isidor. Orig. l. c.). 4. Aquae-
ductus: the right of conducting water on an-
other's land away to one’s own in pipes, or over
another's land on to one’s own by a leat, e.g. for
the purposes of a mill (Inst. ii. 3, pr. ;-Dig. 8,
3, 1, pr. ; ib. 9). The exercise of this servi-
tude might be limited to the summer or the
winter, in which case it was called aqua aestiva
or hiberna in opposition to aqua quotidiana (Dig.
43, 20, 1, 2 and 3); or it might be restricted by
measure or time (aqua diurna, nocturma, Dig. ib.
2 and 5, pr.). 5. Aquae haustus: the right of
taking water in vessels from another's land (Inst.
ii. 3, 2;-Dig. 8, 3, 1 ; ib. 3, 3; ib. 9), and
admitting of the same limitations as those just
mentioned (Dig. 8, 3, 2, 1). 6. Pecoris ad aquam
appulsus: the right of watering one’s cattle on
the land of a neighbour (Dig. 8, 3, 1, 1 ; ib. 4
and 6). 7. Jus pascendi: the right to pasture
cattle there (Dig. ib. 3, pr., 4 and 6). Besides
these, there are mentioned jura silvae caeduae,
cretae easimendae, lapidis easimendi, arenae fodi-
endae, calcis coquendae, and other rights without
specific names, in Dig. 8, 3, 3, 1 and 2 ; ib. 6;
8, 1, 15, pr. ; 43, 20, 1, 28. If a locus publicus
or via publica intervened, no servitus aquaeductus
could be imposed; but it was necessary to apply
to the emperor for permission to form an aquae-
ductus across a public road. The intervention
of a locus sacer or religiosus was an obstacle to
imposing a servitus itineris or other right of way,
for land of such a character could not by law
become “servient.”
The modes in which servitudes were created
or acquired are six in number, viz.:-1. A dis-
position inter vivos by or in pursuance of a con-
tract. The general form of this was originally
in jure cessio, though rustic servitudes over
solum Italicum could be created also by manci-
patio (Gaius, ii. 29, 30). As provincial soil, not
being in commercio, could not be conveyed by either
of these methods, so neither could servitudes over
it be so created (Gaius, ib. 31); and its occupiers
took refuge (Gaius, ib.) in formless agreements,
subsequently expressed in a solemn contract
(stipulationes), by which the owner of the land
over which the right was to be created bound
654 SERVITUTES
SERVITUTES
himself to allow its enjoyment, or in default to
pay a penal sum (e.g. Dig. 45, 1, 2, 5). Such
agreements would not, however, in themselves
bind an alienee of the praedium Serviens, nor
would they confer any right on one of the prae-
dium dominans; but the praetors introduced a
wtilis actio by which the latter owner and all
his successors in title were enabled to assert the
right against the owner of the praedium serviens
and similar successors of his, so that in this way
it acquired a “real” character. In the time of
Justinian both in jure cessio and mancipatio had
disappeared, and pactio et stipulatio, having ap-
parently been for some time used for this pur-
pose even on Solum Italicum, remained the
universal mode of contractually creating servi-
tudes (Inst. ii. 3, 4). It is contended by many
writers that, besides the contract (pactio et
stipulatio), a quasi-traditio or figurative delivery
of the right was necessary; but their argument
is based on analogy rather than on any real
textual authority. 2. In a conveyance of land,
whether in Italy by in jure cessio or mancipatio,
or in the provinces by traditio, a servitude over
it might be reserved (deductio: Gaius, ii. 33;
Inst. ii. 4, 1 ;-Dig. 8, 2, 34, 35 ; 8, 3, 30 and
33), and the same might be done when the land
was bequeathed by will. 3. Testamentary dis-
position. An owner of property might either
directly bequeath a servitude over it (which was
a very common mode of creating those of the
personal class), in which case the right to it was
acquired when the “dies legati cessit ’’ [LEGA-
TUM), or he might direct his heir duly to con-
stitute it in favour of a third person as legatee
(Paul. Sent. Rec. iii. 6, 17; Dig. 8, 4, 16; Inst. ii.
4, 1). 4. Adjudicatio: the judge (a) awarding to
one party in a judicium divisorium or partition
action a servitude over the whole or a portion of
the property which he adjudged to the other
(Dig. 7, 1, 6, 1; 10, 2, 22, 3); or (b) declaring
a servitude duly constituted as against a contu-
macious defendant who refuses to create it him-
self; or (c) reviving by “in integrum restitu-
tio’ [RESTITUTIO) a servitude which had been
lost (Dig. 8, 5, 8, 4). 5. Prescription, or en-
joyment of the right for a prescribed period of
time. Servitudes could not properly be thus
acquired apart from the praedia to which they
were appurtenant (Dig. 41, 3, 10), though it
would seem that this principle was at one time
not fully admitted (see Cic. ad Att. xv. 26), for
a Lex Scribonia of uncertain date forbade usu-
capion of servitudes, except the anomalous class
(e.g. altius tollendi) spoken of above (Dig. 41, 3,
4, 29). Other writers hold that the principle
never applied to urban servitudes, in which there
is a greater semblance of uninterrupted posses-
sion than in those of the rustic class, and that
it was to the usucapion of the former that the
Lex Scribonia related. Servitudes over pro-
vincial soil could, however, be acquired by longa
quasi-possessio—actual exercise of the right for
ten years if the owner of the praedium serviens
lived in the same province, for twenty if in
another (Dig. 8, 5, 10, pr. ; 8, 6, 25); and this
title gradually came to be recognised in Italy
also, and under Justinian was in full operation
(Cod. 7, 33, 12). 6. Lea : e.g. the acquisition
by a paterfamilias of a usufruct in the peculium
adventicium of his son (Inst. ii. 9, pr.).
The following are the chief modes in which
servitudes were extinguished:—1. Destruction
of the res serviens, or its withdrawal from com-
mercium (Inst. ii. 4, 1 ; Dig. 7, 1, 2); but if it
was restored the right revived (Dig. 8, 2, 20;
8, 6, 14). Personal servitudes perished also if
the res serviens underwent a complete and
essential transformation (Dig. 7, 4, 5, 2 and 3).
2. Praedial servitudes were extinguished by the
destruction of the praedium dominans or by its
ceasing to be in commercium (Dig. 8, 2, 20, 2),
but were revived by its restoration within the
period of usucapio : e.g. if a building to which
a servitude was appurtenant was pulled down in
order to be rebuilt, and was rebuilt in the same
form, the servitude revived (Dig. l.c.). Simi-
larly, personal servitudes determined with the
decease of the person entitled (Inst. ii. 4, 3; Dig.
7, 4, 3, 3), and under the older law w8ws and
wsusfructus were destroyed also by his capitis
deminutio (Gaius, iii. 83); but by an enactment
of Justinian (Inst. l.c. and iii. 10, 1; Cod. 3, 33,
16, 2) capitis deminutio minima ceased to have
this effect. If a personal servitude belonged to a
juristic person, it perished with the dissolution
of that person (Dig. 7, 4, 21), and also with the
lapse of 100 years from its creation in the
absence of express provision to the contrary (Dig.
7, 1, 56). 3. Release of the right by the person
entitled to the owner of the res serviens (Inst. ii.
4, 3), in the form either of bequest (Dig. 30,
86, 4) or of contract: for the latter in jure cessio
or mancipatio was the proper form under the
older law (Gaius, ii. 30; Paul. Sent. Rec. iii. 6,
28, 32), but under Justinian a bare agreement
(cessio or concessio) sufficed without any formal
surrender, and in some cases a tacit release was
presumed from conclusive acts (e.g. Dig. 44, 4,
4, 12; 8, 6, 8, pr.). There is some ground for
supposing that abandonment (derelictio) ex-
tinguished usufruct, but not other servitudes:
its real effect, however, seems to have been to
destroy not the usufructuary's rights, but only
his liabilities. 4. Confusio: in praedial servi-
tudes the vesting of ownership over the res
dominans and the res serviens in the same person;
in personal servitudes a similar union of the
dominium and the servitus (Dig. 7, 4, 17;
8, 6, 1). Where the right was a usufruct, this
was termed specifically consolidatio (Inst. ii. 4,
3). If the separate owners of two separate
estates jointly acquired a praedium which was
servient to both, the servitudes were not ex-
tinguished; but it was otherwise if the joint
owners of a praedium dominans jointly acquired
the praedium serviens (Dig. 8, 3, 27). 5. Non-
exercise of the right for a prescribed time: rustic
servitudes being lost by non-exercise for two
years, personal servitudes by non-user for one
year or two according as the res serviens was
nobilis or immobilis (Paul. Sent. Rec. iii. 6, 30).
For the loss of an urban servitude mere non-user
was not enough, it being necessary that the
owner of the praedium serviens should do some
positive act, such as raising his house or building
up the hole in which his neighbour's beam had
rested (Dig. 8, 2, 6). For the loss of servitudes
over provincial soil the periods were ten years
inter praesentes, twenty years inter absentes,
and these were retained for servitudes of all
kinds by Justinian, whether over movables or
immovables (Cod. 3, 33, 16, 1; 3, 34, 13).
Habitatio and operae, as has been observed
SERVITUTES
SERVITUTES 65
5
above, were never liable to extinction by non-
eXerCISé.
As possession is the actual exercise of the
rights of ownership, so the enjoyment or exer-
cise of a right of servitude may be conceived as
a quasi-possession, though the Roman jurists
sometimes explicitly deny the applicability to
them of the conception (e.g. Dig. 43, 3, 8; 41,
3, 4, 27; 8, 2, 32, 1), and sometimes speak
plainly of possessio or quasi-possessio juris (Dig.
43, 26, 2, 3; 43, 19, 7; 46, 23, 2) in contrast
with possessio corporis—the possession of a
tangible thing—while Javolenus goes so far as to
describe specifically the exercise of servitudes as
a taking of possession (Dig. 8, 1, 20). The
extension to them of the conception of possession
was important when we consider the legal
remedies by which they were protected: for, as
an owner can assert his dominium in its legal
aspect by an action, and protect its actual
exercise (possessio) by an interdict, so servitudes
came by analogy to be the subject of both kinds
of remedies. The action by which a person
entitled to a servitude was protected against its
infringement by any person whatsoever was
called confessoria in rem (Dig. 8, 5, 2, pr.), its
objects being judicial acknowledgment of the
plaintiff’s right, removal of any impediment to
its exercise, compensation for interference, the
entering into by the defendant of a “cautio de
non amplius turbando’’ (Dig. 7, 6, 5, 6; 8, 5, 7).
In Publician form [PUBLICIANA ACTIOJ it
could be brought by any person who bonā fide
possessed the praedium dominans, or in whose
favour the bond fide possessor of property had
in good faith constituted a servitude over it. If
a servitude was unjustly claimed over property,
its owner could take the offensive by bringing
an actio negatoria in rem against the claimant ;
its object being to establish the freedom of the
property from the alleged right, damages, and
security against future disturbance. The plain-
tiff had, of course, to prove the freedom of his
property (Gaius, iv. 3.; Dig. 8, 5). The quasi-
possessor of a personal servitude, who had
“detention ” of the object over which it existed,
could use the interdicts utrubi and de precario
(Dig. 43, 26, 2, 3) in their original, and uti
possidetis and de vi in their utilis form (Dig. 43,
17, 4 ; ib. 16, 3, 15–17). So far as rustic
servitudes are concerned, the various rights of
way and water were protected by special inter-
dicts—de itinere actuque privato (Dig. 43, 19), de
aqua (Dig. 43, 20), de rivis (Dig. 43, 21), de
fonte and de fonte reficiendo (Dig. 43, 22). As
to the application of interdicts to urban servi-
tudes, there is a difference of opinion; but the
better view would seem to be that only affirma-
tive rights of this class were thus protected
(Dig. 43, 17, 3, 6; 43, 23).
Some limitations were imposed on the exercise
of ownership at Rome, either upon religious
grounds or in the interest of neighbours or of
the public generally, and these are sometimes
called “legal servitudes,” though the name is
inappropriate because the property can hardly
be termed “servient” in the sense of a genuine
servitude. To considerations of religion were
due the rules relating to finis, a space of five
feet in width between adjoining estates, which
it was not permitted to cultivate, but which
was held sacred and was used by the owners of
the adjoining lands for sacrifice. To this class
also belong the rules that if a man had buried a
dead body on the land of another without his
consent, he could not as a general rule be com-
pelled to remove the body, but was bound to
make recompense (Dig. 11, 7, 2, 7, 8) ; and that
the owner of a burial-ground to which there is
no other access may demand a way to it over
adjoining land upon paying reasonable compen-
sation to the owner of the latter (Dig. 12, 7,
12, pr.). Among restrictions imposed upon the
exercise of ownership in the interests of adjoining
proprietors are the following:—1. A man's duty
to fell, at his neighbour's request, trees which
grow in his own land, but which hang over the
other's house or other building (Dig. 47, 27,
1, pr.—6), and to cut branches, less than fifteen
feet from the ground, which hang over any
adjoining land which is not his own (Dig. ib. 1,
7–9). 2. The rule permitting a man to go on
his neighbour's premises to gather the fruits
which had fallen thereon from his own trees:
with this limitation, that he could go only
“tertio quoque die” (Dig. 43, 28). 3. The
limitations described under the head of AQUA
PLUVIA.
“Legal servitudes '' established in the in-
terest of the public at large comprise:–1. A
man's obligation to allow any one to come on
his land in search of or for the removal of his
property (Dig. 10, 4, 15 ; 39, 2, 9, 1; 19, 1, 25).
2. The obligation of an owner of the bank of a
navigable river to allow persons in charge of
boats, &c. to land thereon, make fast their
vessels, and do all other acts required by their
business (Inst. ii. 1, 4 ; Dig. 1, 8, 5, pr.).
3. According to the Twelve Tables, every owner
of land in Rome was required to leave a vacant
space two feet and a half in width round any
building that he erected (legitimum spatium,
legitimus modus): consequently between two
adjoining houses there must be an interval of
five feet. This law was doubtless often dis-
regarded, for after the fire in Nero's reign (Tac.
Ann. xv. 43) it was forbidden to build houses
with a common wall (communio parietum), and
the old legitimum spatium was required to be
observed: see Dig. 8, 2, 14, where it is referred
to in a rescript of Antoninus and Verus. 4. Rules
as to the height and form of buildings. Augus-
tus (Suet. Aug. 89) fixed the height at 70 feet,
and after the great fire Nero made some regula-
tions on the same subject: by Trajan the
maximum height was fixed at 60 feet. 5. The
owner of land adjoining a public road must, if
the latter is partly destroyed by floods or other-
wise, surrender a portion of his estate in lieu
thereof (Dig. 8, 6, 14, 1; 43, 8, 2, 21).
6. Under the later Roman law a landowner was
compelled to allow explorations on his land for
minerals in consideration of a royalty of one-tenth
the wealth extracted (Cod. 11, 6, 3, 6); and the
rule declared that the owners of lands adjoining
public aqueducts must permit materials to be
taken therefrom for these public purposes upon
receiving proper compensation. 7. The owner of
timber which another had built into his house
or vineyard (tignum junctum aedibus vineaeve)
could not claim it by action until permanently
severed, though when severed he could recover
it, and in the meanwhile was entitled to demand
double its value (Inst. ii. 1, 29 ;-Dig. 41, 1, 7,
656 SERVUS
SERVUS
10; 47, 3, 1). , 8. The Twelve Tables forbade
the burning or burial of a dead body within the
city; a rule which was enforced by a Lex Duilia,
and which in the time of Antoninus Pius pre-
vailed both in Rome and other cities.
(Gaius, ii. 28–33; Inst. ii. tits. 3–5; Dig. 7
and 8; Cod. 3, 33 and 34. The best treatises on
the subject, apart from the ordinary Manuals of
Roman law, are Luden, Die Lehre von den Servi-
tuten, Gotha, 1837; Hoffmann, Die Lehre von
den Servituten nach rām. Rechte, 2 vols., Darm-
stadt, 1838, 1843; Zielonacki, Kritische Erörter-
ungen über die Servitutenlehre nach rém. Rechte,
Breslau, 1849; Elvers, Die rôm. Servitutenlehre,
Marburg, 1854–1856; Schonemann, Die Servi-
tuten, 1866; Molitor, La Possession ... et les
Servitutes en Droit romain, Gand, 1851, pp. 291
sqq. For the so-called Legal Servitudes, cf.
Dirksen's essay, Ueber die gesetzlichen Beschrink-
ungen des Eigenthums, &c. in the Zeitschrift für
gesch. Rechtswiss. p. 16 sq.) [J. B. M.]
SERVUS, 1 (GREEK). The Greek 600A0s, like
the Latin servus, corresponds to the usual mean-
ing of our word “slave.” Slavery existed almost
throughout the whole of Greece; and Aristotle
(Pol. i. 3= p. 1253 b, 4) says that a complete
household is that which consists of slaves and
freemen (oikta Sé réAetos éic SočAww kal éAev-
6épov), and he defines a slave to be a living
instrument, a living chattel (6 800Aos éuyv-
xov Špyavov, Eth. Nic. viii. 13=p. 1161 b, 4;
§ 600Xos kräuä ri čupuxov, Pol. i. 4- p. 1253 b,
32). None of the Greek philosophers ever seem
to have objected to slavery as a thing morally
wrong: Plato in his perfect State only desires
that no Greeks should be made slaves by Greeks
(de Rep. v. p. 469 C), and Aristotle defends
the justice of the institution on the ground of a
diversity of race, and divides mankind into the
free (éAeóðepot) and those who are slaves by
nature (oi pāorel 800Aoi): under the latter de-
scription he appears to have regarded all barba-
rians in the Greek sense of the word, and there-
fore considers their slavery justifiable.
There was a tradition that in the most ancient
times there had been no domestic slaves in
Greece, but that the women in all ranks did the
house-work themselves (Herod. vi. 137; Phere-
crat, ap. Ath. vi. p. 263 b-fr. 5, M.). We find
them, however, in the Homeric poems, our
earliest evidence for social conditions in Greece:
usually prisoners taken in war (50pud Motol),
but also kidnapped, and freely bought and sold
(Od. xv. 483). They were, however, at that
time mostly confined to the houses of the
wealthy. As on the one hand there were then
none of the scruples of later times about enslav-
ing Greeks, so on the other the condition of
slavery brought no disgrace with it. The
fortune of war levelled all distinctions; men
and women of good and even princely birth
accepted slavery as part of the chances of life;
there are indications, however, as Prof. Mahaffy
has pointed out, that such a well-born slave
might be treated as “socially his master's equal
. . . a member of the same caste society”
(Social Life in Greece, ed. 3, p. 57). Eumaeus
the swineherd and Eurycleia the nurse of
Ulysses, with their loyal adhesion to the cause
of their absent master, are among the most
charming figures in the Odyssey; at the same
time they enjoy, as confidential upper servants,
all the comforts of life : the inevitable dark
side of the institution is shown in the fate of
Melanthius and the erring handmaids (Od. xxii.
433–477).
Predial slavery does not seem to have existed
in the Homeric age; the 6%is was in all pro-
bability a free man, though a poor and despised
one (HELOTEs, Vol. I. p. 940 a ; THETEs). But
not long afterwards we find serfs ascript; glebae,
mostly, as in mediaeval times, the result of
conquest and migration. Such were the Helots
of Sparta [HELotes], the Penestae of Thessaly
[PENESTAE], the Aphamiotae or Clarotae of
Crete (Callistr. ap. Ath. vi. 263 f; COSMI). To
these may be added, although they are little
more than names to us, the Bithynians at
Byzantium (Phylarch. ap. Ath. vi. 271, b :
called trpoëvikot, Poll. vii. 132), the Mariandymi
at Heraclea in Pontus (Posidon. ap. Ath. vi.
263 d ; Strabo, xii. p. 542), and the Cyllyrii at
Syracuse (KvXAúptol, Herod. vii. 155; KaNA-
kūptol, Suid. s. v., Zenob. Cent. iv. 54; KiXXt-
köpioi, Phot. s. v.). Domestic slaves acquired by
purchase (àpyvpévmrol or xpvoróvmtot, cf. Isocr.
Plataic. § 18; Callistr. ap. Ath. vi. 263 e) were
entirely the property of their masters, and could
be disposed of like any other goods and chattels:
these were the 500Aoi properly so called, and
were the kind of slaves that existed at Athens
and Corinth. In commercial cities slaves were
very numerous, as they performed the work of
the artisans and manufacturers of modern
towns. In poorer republics which had little or
no capital, and which subsisted wholly by agri-
culture, they would be few : thus in Phocis and
Locris there are said to have been originally no
domestic slaves. (Timae. ap. Ath. vi. p. 264 c.;
Clinton, F. H. vol. ii. pp. 411, 412.) The
majority of slaves were purchased; few com-
paratively were born in the family of the master,
partly because the number of female slaves was
very small in comparison with the male, and
partly because the cohabitation of slaves was
discouraged, as it was considered cheaper to
purchase than to rear slaves. A slave born in
the house of a master was called oikörpuſ, in
contradistinction to one purchased, who was
called oikérms. ([Dem.] de Synt. p. 173, § 24;
Ammon. and Suid. s. v.) If both the father and
mother were slaves, the offspring was called
&pgtöovXos (Eustath. ad Od. ii. 290): if the
parents were oikörpiðes, the offspring was called
oikorpſ3atos (Pollux, iii. 76).
It was a recognised rule of Greek national
law that the persons of those who were taken
prisoners in war became the property of the
conqueror (Xen. Cyr. vii. 5, § 73), but it was
the practice for Greeks to give liberty to those
of their own nation on payment of a ransom.
Consequently almost all slaves in Greece, with
the exception of the serfs above mentioned,
were barbarians. It appears to follow from a
passage in Theopompus (ap. Ath. vi. p. 265 b)
that the Chians were the first who carried on
the slave trade; and there the slaves were
more numerous in comparison with the free
inhabitants than in any other place except
Sparta (Thuc. viii. 40). In the early ages of
Greece, a great number of slaves was obtained
by pirates, who kidnapped persons on the coasts,
but the chief supply seems to have come from
the Greek colonies in Asia Minor, who had
SERVUS
SERVUS 657
abundant opportunities of obtaining them from
their own neighbourhood and the interior of
Asia. A considerable number of slaves also
came from Thrace, where the parents frequently
sold their children (Herod. v. 6).
At Athens, as well as in other states, there
was a regular slave market, called the kūkaos
(Harpocrat. s. v.), because the slaves stood round
in a circle. They were also sometimes sold by
auction, and appear then to have been placed on
a stone called the trpathp A(60s (Pollux, iii. 78) :
the same was also the practice in Rome, whence
the phrase homo de lapide emptus. [AUCTIO.]
The slave market at Athens seems to have been
held on certain fixed days, usually the first day
of the month (vovumvía, Aristoph. Eq. 43, with
Schol.). The price of slaves naturally differed
according to their age, strength, and acquire-
ments. “Some slaves,” says Xenophon (Mem. ii.
5, §2), “are well worth two minas, others hardly
half a mina; some sell for five minas and others
even for ten; and Nicias the son of Niceratus is
said to have given no less than a talent for an
overseer in the mines.” Boeckh (P. E. p. 67 ff.:=
Sthh.* i. 85 ft.) has collected many particulars
respecting the price of slaves; he calculates the
value of a common mining slave at from 125 to
150 drachmas. The knowledge of any art had
a great influence upon the value of a slave. Of
the thirty-two or thirty-three sword-cutlers
who belonged to the father of Demosthenes,
some were worth five, some six, and the lowest
more than three minas; and his twenty couch-
makers together were worth 40 minas (in
Aphob. i. p. 816, § 9). Considerable sums were
paid for courtesans and female players on the
cithara; twenty and thirty minas were common
prices for such (Ter. Adelph. iii. 1, 37, iii. 2, 15,
iv. 7, 24; Phorm. iii. 3, 24): Neaera was sold
for thirty minas (Demosth. c. Neaer. p. 1354,
§ 29).
The number of slaves was very great in Athens.
According to the census made when Demetrius
Phalereus was archon (B.C. 309), there are said
to have been 21,000 free citizens, 10,000 metoecs,
and 400,000 slaves in Attica (Ctesicles, ap.
Ath. vi. p. 272 c). This statement was formerly
criticised on account of the immense disproportion
between the slave population and the free (Hume,
Essays, i. 419, ed. Green and Grose; Niebuhr,
Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. note 143). It is now
admitted, with Boeckh (P. E. p. 36 = Sthh.* i.
47) and Clinton (F. H. ii. p. 391), that in com-
puting the citizens and metoecs the object was
to ascertain their political and military strength,
and hence the census of only males of full age
was taken ; while in enumerating slaves, which
were property, it would be necessary to compute
all the individuals who composed that property.
Boeckh's estimate, of a total population of
500,000, made up of 90,000 citizens, 45,000
resident aliens, and 365,000 slaves, is regarded
as approximately correct (Büchsenschütz, Göll,
Fränkel). During the occupation of Decelea by
the Lacedaemonians more than 20,000 Athenian
slaves escaped to that place (Thuc. vii. 27).
From Hypereides (fr. 33, Sauppe, ap. Suid.
s. v. &meºnq (oraro) it appears that there were at
least 150,000 adult male slaves in Attica; we
know that the numbers of females and children
were relatively small (see above); and these
figures are not inconsistent with the estimate
WOL. II.
just given for the total slave population (cf. note
in Boeckh, Sthh.” i. 38). Two other statements
in the same passage of Athenaeus must be pro-
nounced far more open to criticism ; that of
Timaeus, that Corinth once had possessed
460,000, and that of Aristotle, that Aegina
had contained 470,000 slaves (Ath. vi. 272 b, d;
Schol. Pind. Ol. viii. 30). These numbers can
only be understood, especially in relation to
Aegina, of the early times before Athens had
obtained possession of the commerce of Greece.
Bursian has further pointed out that they may
include the crews of an immense fleet of ships,
and the slaves belonging to merchants settled
abroad (Geogr. von Griechenl. ii. 13 and 79):
nevertheless, we hold that Boeckh, in his later
editions, is right in pronouncing them exag-
gerated (Sthh.*. i. 51). We need not suspect
corruption in the texts of these authors; but
the best minds among the Greeks were without
the evidence which statistics now afford of the
limits of population that can be supported on a
given area. The Corinthian territory was much
smaller than Attica, and at least as moun-
tainous; while that of Aegina does not exceed
42 English square miles, only half of which is
capable of cultivation. No doubt slaves were
closely packed as regards space; but they would
require their choenix of corn a day (at Corinth,
xoivukouérpat was a name for the slaves, Ath.
l. c.); and with the supposed numbers, Aegina
would have been dependent upon importation
for almost the whole of her food. The light
soil of Attica grew about five-sevenths of the
corn required for its population [SITOs]; and it
is unlikely that the subsistence of any Greek
state was on a more artificial footing than this,
or that ancient commerce, particularly in those
early times, was sufficiently organised to be
equal to the strain.
At Athens even the poorest citizen had a slave
for the care of his household (Aristoph. Plut.
init.), and in every moderate establishment many
were employed for all possible occupations, as
bakers, cooks, tailors, &c. The number possessed
by one person was never so great as at Rome
during the later times of the Republic and under
the Empire, but it was still very considerable.
Plato (de Rep. ix. p. 578 D, E) expressly re-
marks, that some persons had fifty slaves and
even more. This was about the number which
the father of Demosthenes possessed (in Aphob. i.
p. 823, § 31); Lysias and Polemarchus had 120
(Lys. in Eratosth. § 19), Philemonides had 300,
Hipponicus 600, and Nicias 1000 slaves in the
mines alone (Xen. de Vect. 4, §§ 14, 15). It
must be borne in mind, when we read of one
person possessing so large a number of slaves,
that they were employed in various workshops,
mines, or manufactories: the number which a
person kept to attend to his own private wants,
or those of his household, was probably never
very large. And this constitutes one great dis-
tinction between Greek and Roman slaves, that
the labour of the former was regarded as the
means by which an owner might obtain profit
for the outlay of his capital in the purchase of
the slaves, while the latter were chiefly em-
ployed in ministering to the wants of their
master and his family, and in gratifying his
luxury and vanity. Thus Athenaeus (vi.
p. 272 e) remarks, that many of the Romans
2 U
658 SERVUS,
SERVUS
possess 10,000 or 20,000 slaves and even more,
but not, he adds, for the sake of bringing in a
revenue, as the wealthy Nicias. -
Slaves either worked on their masters’ account
or their own (in the latter case they paid their
masters a certain sum a day); or they were let
out by their master on hire either for the mines
or any other kind of labour, or as hired servants
for wages (&moſpopá). The rowers on board the
ships were usually slaves (Isocr. de Pace, § 48);
it is remarked as an unusual circumstance that
the seamen of the Paralos were freemen (Thuc.
viii. 73). These slaves either belonged to the
state or to private persons, who let them out
to the state on payment of a certain sum. It
appears that a considerable number of persons
kept large gangs of slaves merely for the pur-
pose of letting out, and found this a profitable
mode of investing their capital. Great numbers
were required for the mines, and in most cases
the mine-lessees would be obliged to hire some,
as they would not have sufficient capital to
purchase as many as they wanted. Generally
none but inferior slaves were confined in these
mines: they worked in chains, and numbers
died from the effects of the unwholesome
atmosphere (Boeckh, On the Silver, Mines of
Laurion). We cannot calculate with accuracy
what was the usual rate of profit which a slave-
proprietor obtained. The thirty-two or thirty-
three sword-cutlers belonging to the father of
Demosthenes produced annually a net profit of
30 minas, their purchase value being 190 minas,
and the twenty couch-makers a profit of
12 minas, their purchase value being 40 minas
(Demosth. in Aphob. i. p. 816, § 9). The leather-
workers of Timarchus produced to their masters
two, the overseers three, oboli a day (Aeschin. in
Tim. § 97): Nicias paid an obolus-a day for each
mining slave whom he hired (Xen. de Vect. 4,
§ 14). The rate of profit upon the purchase-
money of the slaves was naturally high, as their
value was destroyed by age, and those who died
had to be replaced by fresh purchases. The
proprietor was also exposed to the great danger
of their running away, when it became necessary
to pursue them and offer rewards for their re-
capture (oróorpa, Xen. Mem. ii. 10, § 1, 2; Plat.
Protag. p. 310 C). Antigenes of Rhodes was the
first who established an insurance of slaves.
For a yearly contribution of eight drachmas for
each slave that was in the army, he undertook
to make good the value of the slave at the time
of his running away (Pseudo-Arist. Oecon. ii.
35). Slaves who worked in the fields were
under an overseer (érírporos), to whom the
whole management of the estate was frequently
entrusted, while the master resided in the city;
the household slaves were under a steward
(rapitas), the female slaves under a stewardess
(rapita). (Xen. Oecon. 9, § 11; 12, § 2.)
The Athenian slaves did not, like the Helots
of Sparta and the Penestae of Thessaly, serve
in the armies; the battles of Marathon and Ar-
ginusae, when the Athenians armed their slaves
(Pausan. i. 32, § 3; Schol. ad Aristoph. Ran.
33), were exceptions to the general rule. .
The rights of possession with regard to slaves
differed in no respect from any other property;
they could be given or taken as pledges (Dem.
c. Aph. i. p. 821, § 24; c. Onet. i. p. 871, § 27;
c. Pantaen. p. 967, § 4), and in cases of distraint
were among the first “cattle" or “chattels "
seized (Dem. c. Androt. p. 610, § 56; c. Thinocr.
p. 762, § 197). Nevertheless, Greek slavery,
above all at Athens, will compare favourably
with the same institution at Rome, or as practised
by Christian nations in the New World. Plu-
tarch thought the Spartan slaves the most
unhappy in Greece (Lyc. 28); but the Helots
were by many degrees better off, and more
humanely treated, than the droves of slaves who
tilled, the latifundia of the Romans, or pastured .
their flocks in Calabria and Sicily (cf. CRUx,
Vol. I. p. 567 b). At Athens, again, they were
allowed a degree of liberty and indulgence which
seemed surprising to other Greeks. There was
no slave costume regulated by law, and differing
from the dress of the citizens; the slaves were
not to be distinguished externally from the
lower class of citizens, and in the richer houses
were often better clothed than these ; only the
wearing of long hair was not allowed them,
which, however, was only worn by a few of the
citizens. They did not make way in the street;
they could not be struck, for fear of assault-
ing, a freeman; and they enjoyed a saucy free-
dom of speech (ion)opſa). The writer of the
tract on the Athenian polity, in Xenophon’s
works, notices these points as characteristic of a
commercial state: the slaves were often em-
ployed in making money for their masters
([Xen.] Rep. Ath. 1, §§ 10–12). They were ex-
cluded from the gymnasium (Aeschin. c. Tºmarch.
§ 138; Plut. Sol. 34) and the ecclesia (Aristoph.
Thesm. 294; Plut. Phoc. 34); but they were
not forbidden to enter the temples and shrines,
or to assist at sacred rites, whether public or
private ([Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1374, § 85). On
the reception of a newly-purchased slave into a
house at Athens, it was the custom to scatter
sweetmeats and nuts (karaxtoplara) over him,
to be scrambled for by his fellow-servants; but
this was rather for the sake of a good omen
than on the slave's own account (Aristoph. Plut.
'768, with Schol. ; Dem. c. Steph. i. p. 1123, § 74,
with Sandys’ note; Hermann-Blümner, Privat-
alterth. p. 82). -
The denial of legal rights to a slave led to a
state of things “almost grotesque in its absurd
cruelty” (Mahaffy, p. 241), which however, at
least in the time of Demosthenes, was con-
siderably mitigated in practice; the law, namely,
by which the taking of slaves’ evidence was
regulated. When it is said that such evidence
in courts of justice was always taken with
torture, this does not mean that it was the rule
to torture slaves who gave evidence to a fact,
but only if they denied any knowledge or
appeared to suppress it in the interest of their
master. The giving of independent evidence was
a personal privilege of freemen, whether citizens
or aliens, but excluding women and &ripot
[MARTYRIA, init.]; hence the testimony of slaves
could not be resorted to in the first instance
with the honest desire of getting at the facts of a
case. What happened was this. It was assumed
that slaves through dread of their master's ven-
geance would always support his view of the
case, but that the truth might be elicited if
they were tortured by the other side. Hence
we find that in any dispute between two citizens
about the most trifling sum of money, or if (as
in the speech of Antiphon de Choreuta) it was
SERWUS
SERVUS 659
attempted from vindictive motives to import a
criminal charge into a case which was primá
facie accidental, either might challenge (ºrpo-
kaxeſo 0at) the other to give up his slaves for
torture, or tender his own to be similarly exa-
mined, on the mere chance that something
might be proved. To call for the production of
slaves in this way was Éaire?v, to comply with
the demand ékötöðval (Dem. c. Onet. i. p. 874,
§§ 35, 36). We see this theory in its most
repulsive shape in Antiphon, the oldest of the
extant orators (cf. Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 49,
de Choreut. § 25; Mahaffy, l. c.); in the pros-
perous days of the Peloponnesian war the
Athenians seem to have been harder-hearted
than they afterwards became under the influence
of misfortune; and in the time of Aristophanes
the torture was an every-day or at least fre-
quent incident in the law courts (orpe&Aoûre
kal Sukágere, Nub. 620). Afterwards, though
the law remained the same, a stronger feeling of
humanity sprang up, which finds its expression
in many passages of Demosthenes (e.g. c. Nicostr.
p. 1253, § 22; c. Conon. p. 1265, § 27); excuses
were made for not complying, though the other
side made a strong point of the refusal; the
challenge was put forward as a manoeuvre to
gain time, or with the hope of scoring a point
with the jury, but with no serious expectation
that it would be complied with. The Private
Orations in general leave the impression that, in
this one respect, Athenian practice was more
humane than the theory. In his action against
his guardian, Demosthenes himself demands the
torture of three female slaves on the point
whether Onetor's sister has really (and not,
as he contends, collusively) been divorced by
Aphobus; Onetor, who ultimately lost his cause,
has the grace to refuse the demand (Dem. c. Onet.
l. c.; for another example, see Lysias, Or. 4,
trepi row rpaſſparos, $ 12). Other questions
connected with the torture of slaves are dis-
cussed under TORMENTUM. In his relations
with his master a slave might naturally expect
corporal chastisement, which was the last mode
of punishment inflicted on a freeman (Dem.
c. Timocr. p. 752, § 167); but in the case either
of extreme cruelty or of outrage against his
chastity, he could take sanctuary in the temple
of Theseus [ASYLUM, Vol. I. p. 235 bl, and there
claim the privilege of being sold away from
his oppressor (rpāoriv aireºv, Plut. Thes. 36;
Pollux, vii. 13; Aristoph. Eq. 1312 with Schol. ;
Att. Process, p. 625 f., Lipsius). His life, unlike
that of Roman slaves in republican times, was
safe even from his master; he could not be put
to death without legal sentence (Eurip. Hec. 291,
292; Antiph. de caed. Herod. § 34). But the
barbarous rule that if a master were murdered
(even, it seems, if his life were attempted), and
the perpetrator remained undetected, the whole
household should be executed, prevailed also at
Athens (Antiph. op. cit. § 69; Mahaffy, p. 243).
Against assault or outrage by any one else than ||
his master the slave was protected by law. (See
HyBRIs, Vol. I. p. 983 b, and the references
there.)
Notwithstanding the comparatively mild
treatment of slaves in Greece, their insurrection
was not unfrequent (Plat. Legg. vi. p. 777 C):
but in Attica these insurrections were mostly
confined to the mining slaves, who were treated
more harshly than the others. On one occasion
they murdered their guards, took possession of
the fortifications of Sunium, and from this
point ravaged the country for a considerable
time (Ath. vi. p. 272 f).
Slaves were sometimes manumitted at Athens,
though not so frequently as at Rome; but it
seems doubtful whether a master was ever
obliged to liberate a slave against his will for a
certain sum of money, as some writers have con-
cluded from a passage of Plautus (Casin. ii. 5,
7), Those who were manumitted (árexe49epot)
did not become citizens, as they did at Rome,
but passed into the condition of metoecs. They
were obliged to honour their former master as
their patron (mpoardrus), and to fulfil certain
duties towards him, the neglect of which ren-
dered them liable to the Sikm &rograorſov, by
which they might again be sold into slavery
[LIBERTUS, p. 62 a ; APOSTASIOU DIKá, APRd.-
STASIOU DIKé, in Vol. I.].
Respecting the public slaves at Athens, see
DEMOSII.
It appears that there was a tax upon slaves
at Athens (Xen. de Vect. 4, § 25), which Boeckh
(P. E. pp. 331, 332 = Sthh.* i. 403) supposes
was three oboli a year for each slave; it is
more probable, however, that this was a tax
upon the import of slaves, and their transfer by
sale, not a license duty paid annually by their
owners (Fränkel, n. 546 on Boeckh).
Authorities.—Boeckh, book i. cc. 7, 13, book
iii. c. 7; K. F. Hermann, Staatsalterth. § 114;
Hermann-Blümner, Privatalterth. §§ 12, 13;
Schömann, Antiq. i. 348–353, E. T.; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. i. 163–169; Mahaffy, Social Life
in Greece, ed. 3, p. 240 ft.; and esp. Becker-Göll,
Charikles, iii. pp. 1–47; Büchsenschütz, Besitz
und Erwerb, pp. 104–208. [W. S.] [W. W.]
SERVUS, 2 (ROMAN), SERVITUS. In the
writings of the Roman jurists and philosophers
slavery appears as the chief, if not the only,
instance of an opposition between the jus gen-
tium and the jus naturale. That it was contra
naturam is repeatedly stated, as by Justinian, in
Inst. i. 3, 2 (“servitus . . . . qua quis dominio
alieno contra naturam subjicitur"), following
Florentinus in Dig. 1, 5, 4 (cf. Inst. i. 2, 2;
Athen. vi. pp. 263,267; Macrob. Saturn. i. 7;
Augustin. de Civitate Dei, xix. 15; Dig. 12, 6,
64; Cod. 7, 24), though the philosophers had
considered some forms at least of slavery as
natural (Aristot. Pol. i. 2, §§ 15, 18 : cf. Cic. de
Rep. iii. 25, 37). That it was due to the jus
gentium, or universal practice of mankind, is
affirmed by Gaius (i. 52); Ulpian in Dig. 1, 1,
4, pr. ; Luctatius, in Stat. Theb. v.; Dig. 12, 6,
64: the notion being perhaps based on the
hypothesis of a tacit compact between the
peoples of the earth, as is suggested by Aris-
totle—6 y&p vónos épio'Aoyſa rís éorriv, Čv ć tº
karð tróAegov kpatočaeva röv kparoëvrov
eivat (paariv (Pol. i. 2).
The relation of the master to his slave is
expressed by the term dominium, as in the pas-
sage cited above from the Institutes: cf. Dig.
50, 16, 215; Aristot. Pol. i. 2, 4, 6 800Aos
où uévov Serrárov SoßAos, &AA& . . . . 8×ws
éketvow: ib. 7, 6 u% airroß . . . . &AA’ &AAov (cf.
Eth. Wicom. iv. 3); Zeno in Diog. Laert. vii.
121, Sovaeſa, a répmats abrorpayſas: Dion Chry-
sost. Or, 15. The master is dominus of his
2 U. 2
660 SERVUS
SERVUS
slave just as he is dominus of his horses or any
other object of property, among which he is
classified as a res mancipi by Ulpian (Reg. 19, 1)
and Gaius (ii. 15): the slave is conceived not as
a persona, but as a res [CAPUT: cf. Dig. 50, 17,
209, “servitutem mortalitati fere compara-
mus”], and the master may accordingly deal
with him just as he may with any other res of
which he is owner ; he may sell him, and has
jus vitae necisque over his person (Gaius, i. 52:
cf. Dionys. vii. 69 ; Plut. Cato Major, 21;
Appian, B. C. i. 98). But there are points in
which the slave stands on a different footing
from other res. The master is said to exercise
potestas over him, a term properly descriptive
of control only over reasonable beings (“verbum
potestatis non solun ad liberos trahimus, verum
etiam ad servos,” Dig. 24, 1, 3: cf. Inst. i. 8, 1);
and between “power” over a filiusfamilias and
“power” over a slave there was originally per-
haps little difference, though in other respects
the former always occupied a very superior
legal position to the latter. It was through
this potestas that the slave became, as it were,
a member or limb of the dominus, whereby he
could act as his agent in commerce, and acquired
capacity to be heir or legatee under a will. But
a person who had a mere nudum jus Quiritium
in a slave had no potestas over him : he must at
least have him in bonis (Gaius, i. 54). Again,
unlike a mere animal, a slave could become free,
and thus a persona, and his acts and dispositions
entail legal consequences as well on his master
as on himself. Lastly, the tie of kinship is
recognised ; the respect which a child owes to
its parents is due even between such relations
who have been manumitted (Dig. 2, 4, 4, 3), and
who are also debarred from intermarrying if
within the degrees prohibited by law (Inst. i.
10, 10; Dig. 23, 2, 14, 2).
The extreme exercise of a master’s strict
right to deal with the person of his slave in any
way he pleased was in practice considerably
restrained by usage. In the older times slaves
were well treated, and ate frequently at the
same table with their masters (Macrob. i. 7, 10,
11; Cato, R. R. 5), of whose children they
were the instructors, nurses, and playmates
(Plut. Cor. 24; Cato Major, 3, 20, 21; Macrob.
l. c.; Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 26; Sen. Epist. 47);
and a master who starved or otherwise ill-
treated his slaves was punished as a bad citizen
by the censors (Dionys. fragm. xx. ed. Mai.).
The slaves also shared with the free in many of
the privileges and offices of religion (Dionys. iv.
14; Cato, R. R. 57). Still, when the Roman
national habit had been corrupted by the luxury
and brutality of the Empire, it was found neces-
sary to legislate against excessive cruelty. A
Lex Petronia, enacted perhaps as early as Augus-
tus, and a number of amending senatusconsulta,
forbade the arbitrary sale of slaves for combating
wild beasts in the arena, even though they had
done some act deserving punishment (Gell. v. 14;
Dig. 48, 8, 11, 1 and 2; 18, 1, 42), On the
other hand, the old practice of putting slaves
to the torture for the purpose of discovering
their master's murderer was about the same
time made a universal statutory rule by the
Senatusconsultum Silanianum, which also pun-
ished those who refused assistance to the master
(Dig. 29, 5). Claudius bestowed freedom on
slaves whom their masters exposed on account
of ill-health, and threatened penalties for killing
them under such circumstances (Suet. Claud.
25); and Hadrian forbade the killing of slaves
in any case without judicial sanction (Spartian.
Hadr. 18; Dig. 1, 6, 18, 2). Antoninus Pius
enunciated as a general principle that slaves
should be entitled to make complaints to the
praefectus urbi or praetorio, of ill-treatment at
their masters' hands (Dig. 1, 12, 1, 8) and
obtain protection therefrom (Coll. Leg. Mos. iii.
2; Dig. 1, 6, 2), the master being compelled to
sell them to some person more humane: if he
caused their death, he was (apart from certain
excepted cases, Dig. 48, 5, 24; 48, 8, 1, 4, &c.)
subjected to the penalties of the Lex Cornelia de
sicariis (Gaius, i. 53; Inst. i. 8, 2). It was also
enacted that in sales or divisions of property
slaves who were nearly related should not be
separated (Dig. 21, 1, 35; Cod. 3, 38, 11), and
that praedial slaves upon whom the tributum
capitis was paid should not be removed from
the land to which they were attached (Cod. 11,
47, 7). Yet these enactments must not be sup-
posed to have conferred any legal rights upon
the slave: they merely limited the general
rights of ownership on grounds of expediency,
and their rationale is well expressed by Gaius,
who says, “male enim nostro jure uti non de-
bemus: qua ratione et prodigis interdicitur
bonorum suorum administratio’’ (i. 53). Yet
in the rule stated by Justinian (Inst. iv. 4, 7),
that the damages for an injuria to a slave
should vary according to his position and em-
ployment, we approach very nearly to the con-
ception of a slave as having a persona or caput :
“hanc enim,” it is said, “et servum sentire
palam est.” If a slave was injured by a third
person, the master had his remedy in various
civil actions (Gaius, iii. 210, 217, 223; Paul.
Sent. i. 13, 6;-Dig. 47, 10, 15, 34 and 35 ;
11, 3, 1), and if he was killed wilfully could
prosecute the delinquent under the Lex Cornelia
de sicariis.
Slaves were incapable of marriage (sensit
legali) of any kind, but a permanent connexion
between two slaves, or a slave and a free person,
was called contubernium (Paul. Sent. ii. 19, 6;
Cod. 5, 5, 3). Here the natural relation of
parent and child was to some extent recognised,
e.g. as a justa causa manumissionis, Gaius, i. 19:
see AELIA SENTIA LEX. Accordingly, as has
been remarked above, when slaves had become
free, and so acquired capacity of intermarriage,
they were held to be within the rules as to pro-
hibited degrees.
A slave was as incapable of proprietary as of
other rights, and everything conveyed to him,
whether by mancipatio or traditio, became ipso
facto the property of his master (“etiam invitis
nobis per servos adquiritur paene ex omnibus
causis,” Dig. 41, 1, 32): a rule sometimes
supposed to be attributed by Gaius (i. 52) and
Justinian (Inst. i. 8, 1) to the Jus Gentium, but
instances to the contrary are found in the
Helots (Plut. Lycurg. 24) and among the Ger-
mans (Tac. Germ. 25). If one master had
over him a nudum jus Quiritium and he was
in bonis to another, his acquisitions belonged to
the latter only. If a man bond fide possessed
another man's slave or a free person bond fide
serviens, he only acquired in two cases, being
*
SERVUS
SERVUS 66}
entitled to all that the other gained by means
of the possessor's property (ex: re ejus) or by his
own labour (ea operis suis): the law was the
same with respect to a slave in whom a man
had only a usufruct. All other acquisition of
such slaves or free men bond fide servientes
belonged, according to their condition, to their
master or to themselves. If a slave were insti-
tuted heres, he could only accept the hereditas
with the consent of his master, in whom it
wested immediately on acceptance; but legacies
bequeathed to him became the master's without
any necessity for acceptance at all (Gaius, ii.
87, &c.).
A master could also acquire possession through
his slaves, and usucapion would begin to run
from the moment of its acquisition: but, unless
the master possessed the slave himself, the
latter could not acquire possession of other
things for him; for instance, this could not be
done by a slave who was in pledge [PIGNUs].
A bomá-fide possessor, i.e. one who believed the
slave to be his own, could acquire possession
through him in the same cases as those in which
he could acquire ownership, which excluded
acquisition for the pledgee by a slave in pledge:
and a usufructuary acquired possession through
the slave in the same two cases as the bond-fide
possessor; but, as he did not possess the slave
himself, he could not acquire him by usueapio
(Gaius, ii. 93; Inst. ii. 9, 4: cf. Savigny, Pos-
session, p. 314, ed. 5). 3.
An almost necessary modification of the
above-stated principles resulted from the com-
mon employment of slaves by their masters in
every variety of service and occupation—as
mechanics, artisans, clerks, stewards, business
managers, actors, surgeons and physicians,
teachers, &c.; in which avocations they might
by industry and economy (Dig. 15, 1, 39), and
even by pecuniary advances which the master
often made them in his own interest (Plut.
Cato Major, 21), accumulate no small wealth,
which they were usually allowed by special
permission (concessio, Dig. 15, 1, 4, pr. and 2) to
administer on their own behalf under the name
of peculium. The peculium technically remained
part of the master's property (Dig. 41, 1, 37, 1),
and could be resumed or appropriated by him
at pleasure (Dig. 15, 1, 8); but this does not
appear to have been commonly done, the prac-
tice being to promise slaves their freedom if
they could accumulate a peculium of a certain
value (Dionys. iv. 24; Tac. Ann. xiv. 42).
Generous masters even allowed them sometimes
to dispose of it on their death-bed (Plin. Ep.
viii. 16), and on manumission a slave was by
law entitled to retain his peculium unless ex-
pressly reserved by the master (fragm. Wat.
261; Dig. 15, 1, 53; Cod. 7, 23; Inst. ii. 20,
20). The institution of peculium made it pos-
sible for contracts to be entered into between
masters and slave (Dig. 15, 1, 49, 2), from
which, it is true, no right of action arose (Gaius,
iv. 78; Sen. de Benef. iii. 19), but which never-
theless created a “natural ” obligation [OBLIGA-
Tro); so that, if after the slave's manumission
the master paid him a debt which had arisen
before it, he could not redemand the money.on
the ground that it was not owed (Dig. 12, 6,
64), and his own debts to the master were
discharged by automatic reduction, so to speak,
of the peculium. In the event of external
creditors demanding the peculium for distribu-
tion among themselves on the ground of the
slave's insolvency, debts owing to his master by
him were first taken into account and deducted
(Dig. 15, 1, 5, 4; ib. 9, 2); and, if a free man
became surety for the debt of a slave to his
master or any one else, a right of action arose
and he could be sued (Gaius, iii. 119 ; Inst. iii.
20, 1). Servi publici, who belonged to the state,
had the special privilege of disposing of half
their peculium by will (Ulp. Reg. xx. 16).
The contracts which a slave made with third
persons gave rise, so far as he himself was
concerned, only to “natural ” obligations, and,
though the master could sue upon them, it
was a doctrine of the Jus Civile that in no
case could any liability attach to the master
upon transactions entered into between other
persons and those in his power, whether slaves
or children: “melior condicio nostra per servos
fieri potest, deterior fieri non potest” (Dig. 50,
17, 133). In this respect, however, a change
was made by the praetor, though the extent to
which the master became suable varied with
the circumstances of the case. Where he had
either expressly or by implication directed or
subsequently ratified the slave's contract, he
was made as fully liable in person as if he had
actually been the contracting party, the proper
action being quod jussu [JUSSU QUOD ACTIO),
ExERCITORIA, INSTITORIA, or quasi-institoria
(Gaius, iv. 70, 71; Inst. iv. 7, 1 and 2). Where
the slave engaged in trade with a peculium with
his master's knowledge, and became so em-
barrassed as to be unable to satisfy his trade
creditors in full, the latter could demand a
distribution of the pecu'ium among themselves,
so far at least as it was invested in the business
(mera; peculiaris), in the ratio of their several
claims: the division was made by the master,
who was here treated as an ordinary creditor,
and consequently could not deduct in full debts
owing to himself, though he was entitled to a
dividend on all his own claims whether arising
out of the business or not (Dig. 14, 4, 5-7);
but if any creditor was dissatisfied with his
conduct of the liquidation, he could get it
judicially reviewed by instituting an actio tribu-
tria against him (Gaius, iv. 72; Inst. iv. 7, 3;
Dig. 14, 4). If the slave made contracts with-
out the master's knowledge or against his
orders, the latter might be liable to an actio de
peculio et in rem verso (Gaius, iv. 73; Inst. iv.
7, 4), in which the judge had firstly to inquire
whether the master had himself derived any
material advantage from the contract in ques-
tion, as, if this were the case (in rem versio), his
own means were liable to that extent; and the
benefit which he had obtained might have been
so great that the creditor might conceivably get
full payment in this manner, as e.g. if the slave
had borrowed ten sestertia and spent the whole
of it in paying his master's debts. But if the
latter had derived no material advantage from
the slave's contract, or at least not enough to
make him liable to the creditor in solidiim, the
judge had to inquire into the amount of the
slave's peculium (deducting the master's own
claims against it) and to condemn the master to
pay the creditor from it what was due to him,
so far at least as it extended at the date of the
662 SERVUS
SERVUS
condemnation (Dig. 15, 1, 30, pr.). In deducting
the master's own claims, any debt owed by the
slave to another slave of the same master, but
who was part of the debtor's own peculium (as
was the case with servi vicarii, Dig. 15, 1, 17),
was not considered (Dig. 17, 1, 17). The
master’s liability to the actio de peculio lasted
for an annus wilis after the slave died, or was
alienated or manumitted (Dig. 15, 2, 1).
The benefit attaching to a slave's contract
belonged entirely to the master, and he could not
enforce it by action. If the slave was bond fide
possessed, or held in use or usufruct by a third
person, the latter derived advantage from his
contracts only so far as they involved the slave's
own labour (ex operis suis), or were made with
reference to or upon the credit of the property
of the bond-fide possessor, usufructuary, or
usuary (Gaius, iii. 164, 165; Inst. iii. 18, 1 and
2). The benefit of a contract made by a slave
belonging to two or more joint owners belonged
to them pro portione dominii, unless it was
entered into by the directions or in the name of
one or some of them only (Inst. iii. 18, 3 ;
ib. 28, 3).
For delicts committed by a slave against his
master, the latter might inflict punishment
himself (Dig. 13, 7, 24, 3; 24, 3, 24, 5; Cod.
Theod. 9, 12, 1, 2), though after Hadrian he
might not put him to death without magisterial
authority; but such delicts in no case gave rise
to a legal obligation (Gaius, iv. 78; Inst. iv. 8,
6; Dig. 47, 2, 17, pr. ; Cod. 4, 14, 6). The
effect of wrongs perpetrated by slaves against
third persons is discussed under NOXALIS ACTIO:
for those pursuable by a criminal prosecution,
they were subject to the ordinary procedure,
though sometimes the execution of the sentence
was entrusted to the master himself (Plut.
Cato Major, 21; Monum. Ancyranum, tab. ii.,
ll. 1, 2, 3).
It was strictly forbidden to receive or har-
bour runaway slaves (fugitivi, Dig. 11, 4, 1, 1 ;
Cod. 6, 1, 4, 7), in the pursuit of whom the law
co-operated with the master by requiring the
authorities to render him every assistance (Dig.
11, 4, 1, 2–8; ib. 3 and 4; Paul. Sent. Rec. i. 6 a,
3–5; Cod. 6, 1, 2): penalties were also imposed
on their alienation and acquisition (Paul. l.c.;
Dig. 48, 15; Cod. 9, 20, 6), and a special class
of persons, called fugitivarii, made their pursuit
and recapture a regular business (Florus, iii. 19;
Dig. 19, 5, 18), which however appears later to
have become the means of a great deal of fraud
(Cod. Theod. 10, 12, 1). The very running away
of the slave was regarded as a stealing of
himself (Dig. 47; 2, 60), so that he became a
res furtiva and could not be acquired by USU-
CAPIO (Inst. ii. 6, 1), and the possession of him
remained in law vested in his master (Dig. 41,
2, 50, 1). The kidnapping or enticing away
of slaves was dealt with by a Lex Fabia de
plagiariis (Inst. iv. 18, 10) and, apparently at
least, two senatusconsulta (Florus, l.c.; Varro,
F. R. iii. 14).
Men were either born siaves or made such
by law (servi aut mascuntur aut fivni, Inst. i.
3, 4). It was a general rule of the Jus Gentium
that children born out of lawful wedlock fol-
lowed the condition of the mother, whatever
might be that of the father (Dig. 1, 5, 24):
thus the children of a female slave (ancilla)
were slaves themselves (Gaius, i. 82), and if
born in their-master's house were called vernae.
In one or two cases, however, the general prin-
ciple was reversed by anomalous rules of law, it
being enacted by the Senatusconsultum Claudia-
num (Gaius, i. 84–86) (1) that the children of a
free man by an ancilla whom he believed to be
free, should be free if males, slaves if females;
but this exception to the rule of the Jus Gentium
was repealed by Vespasian: (2) that if a free
woman cohabited with a slave with his master's
sanction, the issue should belong to the latter,
though she remained free herself; this was
repealed by Hadrian (Gaius, i. 84): (3) that if
a free woman knowingly cohabited with a
servus alienus without the consent of the
latter's master, and persisted in the intercourse
after prohibition by him, after three denun-
ciations on his part she should be awarded
to him as a slave by the magistrate, her
children, whether born before or after this
award, sharing her fate, and her property going
with her person; this was not repealed till the
time of Justinian (Inst. iii. 12, 1). The status
of a child was determined by that of the father
at the time of conception, if born of lawful
wedlock; otherwise by that of the mother at
the time of birth (Gaius, i. 89): but the latter
rule had by the time of Paulus (Sent. Rec. ii. 24,
1–3) been altered so far as to admit the freedom
of a child born of a slave-mother who at the
time of conception had been free, or who had
been free at any moment between conception
and the birth (Paulus, l.c.; Inst. i. 4, pr. ;
Dig. 1, 5, 5).
Of the modes in which free persons became
slaves, one was attributed to the Jus Gentium,
the rest to the Jus Civile. The former was
capture by an enemy in war (Inst. i. 3, 4), or
capture even without war by a nation between
which and the captive’s people there was no.
friendly treaty or intercourse (Dig. 49, 15, 5, 2).
Prisoners taken by the Roman armies were
sold as slaves by the aerarium (Dionys. iv. 24;
Liv. iv. 34, vi. 4) or retained by the state as:
servi publici (Polyb. x. 17; Liv. xxvi. 47) : very
rarely they were distributed among the soldiers
by lot (Dionys. iv. 24, 50 ; Liv. iv. 34). The
practice of selling prisoners with a crown on
their heads is alluded to in the common expres-
sions sub corona cenire and vendere (Gell. vii. 4;
Liv. v. 22; Caes. B. G. iii. 16). Persons, how-
ever, who had become slaves by capture in war
might recover their freedom by PostLIMINIUM.
In certain cases the law allowed a free person to
be sold as a slave: e.g. those who attempted to
evade public burdens by not having their names
entered on the census (INCENSI; Dionys. iv. 15,
v. 75, xi. 63; Cic. de Leg. iii. 3, 7; Tab. Heracl.
ll. 142–148), or who shirked military service
(Varro, ap. Non. Marc. i. 67; Wal. Max. vi. 3, 4;
Cic. pro Caec. 34, 99: but cf. Dig. 49, 16, 4, 10),
and the insolvent debtor under the old law of
execution by MANUS INJECTIO. According to
the old law, a fur manifestus [FURTUM) was
liable to a capitalis poena and was adjudged
(addictus) to the person whose property he had
stolen; but it was doubted whether the effect of
the addictio was to make him a servus or to put
him in the condition of an adjudicatus (Gaius,
iii. 189). A free man over twenty years of age
who collusively allowed himself to be sold as a
SERVUS
SERWUS 663
slave in order to secretly share the purchase-
money with the vendor, was as early as the time
of Mucius Scaevola refused his proclamatio in
libertatem by the praetor, and so in effect
adjudged a slave: a usage which was confirmed
by senatusconsulta (Dig. 40, 13, 3 ; Inst. i. 3, 4 ;
Cod. 7, 18, 1). This kind of fraud was practised
even in the time of Plautus (Pers. i. 3, 58;
iii. 1). The mode in which a free woman might
become a slave under the SC. Claudianum has
been noticed above. By an enactment of
Claudius also (Suet. Claud. 25), a freedman who
had misconducted himself towards his patron
might be revocatus in servitutem; but this was
not the law in the time of Nero (Tac. Ann. xiii.
27): however, in the time of Commodus, and
possibly earlier, it was the rule that a freedman
who had been convicted of gross ingratitude to
his patron might be sold as a slave by the
latter, or (later) subjected again to his owner-
ship (Cod. 4, 10, 1). Under the emperors it
was established that a free man who was con-
demned to death, to penal servitude in the
mines, or to fight with gladiators or wild beasts,
became and died a slave (Inst. i. 12, 3; ib. 16, 1;
—Dig. 48, 19, 8, 11, 12), and so could not leave
a valid will (Dig. 28, 1, 8, 4; 28, 3, 6, 6, 7):
he was not a slave of the state or the emperor,
but a servus poenae, and had no master (Dig. 34,
8, 3), so that inheritances and legacies left. to
him were taken pro non scriptis (Dig. 29, 2, 25,
2, 3; 34, 8, 3, pr.). The condition of the
children of those condemned to the mines was
ameliorated by Justinian's enactment (Nov.
22, 8), that the criminal's marriage should not
be dissolved by his condemnation. Apart from
these cases, no man could lose his freedom
either by private contract (Cic. pro Caec. 34,
99; Dig. 40, 1, 2, 37; Cod. 7, 16, 10) or by
usucapio (Gaius, ii. 48;-Cod. 7, 14, 6; 7, 22, 3).
Of the modes in which a slave might become
free, the chief were MANUMISSIO and POSTLI-
MINIUM. There were, however, a number of
other ways in which liberty was bestowed by
the law, without the master's having anything
to say in the matter. Thus by the SC. Silani-
anum slaves were liberated who discovered their
master's murderers (Dig. 40, 8, 5), and the
same was done by later enactments as a reward
for the detection of certain other crimes, such as
abduction (Cod. 7, 13, 3) and offences, against
the mint (Cod. ib. 2). The edict of Claudius
giving their freedom to slaves whom their
master turned out of doors on account of ill-
health (Suet. Claud. 25; Dio Cass. lx. 29; Dig.
40, 8, 5; Cod. 7, 6, 3) has been already noticed.
An enactment of Wespasian did the same for
ancillae who were exposed to prostitution
against the terms of the disposition under
which they were acquired (Dig. 37, 14, 7, pr.),
and by one of Marcus and Commodus slaves were
declared free who were aliened under a promise
to manumit, which the alienee failed to perform
(Dig. 40, 8, 1): thus if a slave saved enough
money to purchase his freedom through a
friend, who refused to manumit him, he became
free ipso facto (Dig. 40, 1, 4, pr.—3). A number
of senatusconsulta beginning under Trajan (SC.
Rubrianum, Dasumianum, Articuleianum, Vitra-
sianum, Juncianum) provided in the same
manner for the enfranchisement of slaves to
whom liberty was bequeathed under a fidei-
commissum. Freedom could also be acquired
by prescription (Dig. 40, 9, 16, 3; Cod. 7, 22,
1–3; Cod. Theod. 4, 8, 3, 5), from the time of
Leo, by the slaves attaining certain high offices
at court (e.g. becoming a cubicularius, Cod. 12,
5, 3); and from that of Justinian, subject to
certain conditions, by his becoming a monk or
spiritual person (Nov. 5, 2, 1; 123, 7, 35). In
times of revolution under the Republic, it was
not unusual to proclaim the liberty of slaves to
induce them to join in revolt (Plut. Mar. 41,
42); but these were irregular proceedings,
and neither justifiable nor examples for imi-
tation. [J. B. M.]
The preceding account treats of the legal
condition of slaves in relation to their masters.
It remains to give an account of the history of
slavery among the Romans, of the sale and
value of slaves, of the different classes into
which they were divided, and of their general
treatment.
Slaves existed at Rome in the earliest times
of which we have any record; but they do not
appear to have been numerous under the kings
and in the earliest ages of the Republic. Ac-
cording to Dionysius (ix. 25), in B.C. 476 they
cannot have amounted to more than one-eighth
of the population, and were probably much less
(cf. Dureau de la Malle, Econ. Pol. i. 225).
The different trades and the mechanical arts
were chiefly carried on by the clientes of the
patricians, and the small farms in the country
were cultivated for the most part by the labours
of the proprietor and of his own family. But
as the territories of the Roman state were
extended, the patricians obtained the right of
occupying large portions of the ager publicus
(Mommsen, i. 276). These estates required a
larger number of hands for their cultivation
than could readily be obtained among the free
population; and since the free men were con-
stantly liable to be called away from their work
to serve in the armies, the lands began to be
cultivated almost entirely by slave labour.
(Cf. Liv. vi. 12; Appian, B. C. i. 7, yeap-
ºyots xpopuévov 6epātrovalv &vri éAev6épov.)
Through war and commerce slaves could easily
be obtained, and at a cheap rate, and their
number soon became so great that the poorer
class of free men was thrown almost entirely out
of employment. This state of things was one
of the chief arguments used by Licinius and the
Gracchi for limiting the quantity of public
land which a person might possess (Appian,
B. C. i. 7, 9, 10); and we know that there was
a provision in the Licinian Rogations that a
certain number of free men should be employed
on every estate (Appian, B. C. i. 8). This
regulation, however, was probably of little avail:
the lands still continued to be almost entirely
cultivated by slaves, although in the latest
times of the Republic we find that Julius Caesar
attempted to remedy this state of things to
some extent, by enacting that of those persons
who attended to cattle a third should always be
free men (Suet. Jul. 42). In Sicily, which sup-
plied Rome with so great a quantity of corn,
the number of agricultural slaves was immense $
the oppressions to which they were exposed
drove them twice to open rebellion, and their
numbers enabled them to defy for a time the
Roman power. The first of these Servile Wars
664 SERVUS
SERVUs
began in B.C. 134 and ended in B.C. 132, and the
second commenced in B.C. 102 and lasted almost
four years.
Long, however, after it had become the custom
to employ large gangs of slaves in the cultiva-
tion of the land, the number of those who
served as personal attendants still continued to
be small. Persons in good circumstances seem
usually to have had only one to wait upon them
(Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 26), who was generally
called by the name of his master with the word
por (that is, puer) affixed to it, as Gaipor,
Lucipor, Marcipor, Publipor, Quintipor, &c.;
and hence Quintilian (i. 4, 26), long before
whose time luxury had augmented the number
of personal attendants, says that such names no
longer existed. Cato, when he went to Spain
as consul, took only three slaves with him
(Apul. Apol. p. 431, ed. Ouden). But during
the later times of the Republic and under the
Empire the number of domestic slaves greatly
increased, and in every family of importance
there were separate slaves to attend to all the
necessities of domestic life. It was considered
a reproach to a man not to keep a considerable
number of slaves. Thus Cicero, in describing
the meanness of Piso's housekeeping, says,
“Idem coquus, idem atriensis: pistor domi
nullus ” (in Pis. 27). The first question asked
respecting a person's fortune was, “Quot pascit
servos ?” (Juv. iii. 141). Horace (Sat. i. 3, 12)
seems to speak of ten slaves as the lowest
number which a person in tolerable circum-
stances ought to keep, and he ridicules the
praetor Tullius for being attended by no more
than five slaves in going from his Tiburtine
villa to Rome (Sat. i. 6, 107). The immense
number of prisoners taken in the constant wars
of the Republic, and the increase of wealth and
luxury, augmented the number of slaves to a
prodigious extent. The statement of Athenaeus
(vi. p. 272 e), that very many Romans possessed
10,000 and 20,000 slaves and even more, is
probably an exaggeration; but a freedman under
Augustus, who had lost much property in the
Civil Wars, left at his death as many as 4,116
(Plin. H. W. xxxiii. § 135). Two hundred was
no uncommon number for one person to keep
(Hor. Sat. i. 3, 11), and Augustus permitted
even a person that was exiled to take twenty
slaves or freedmen with him (Dio Cass. lvi. 27).
The mechanical arts, which were formerly in
the hands of the clientes, were now entirely
exercised by slaves (Cic. de Off. i. 42, 150): a
natural growth of things, for where slaves
perform certain duties or practise certain arts,
such duties or arts will be thought degrading
to a freedman. It must not be forgotten that
the games of the amphitheatre required an
immense number of slaves trained for the
purpose. [GLADIATORES..] Like the slaves in
Sicily, the gladiatores in Italy rose in B.C. 73
against their oppressors, and, under the able
generalship of Spartacus, defeated a Roman
consular army, and were not subdued till B.C.
71, when 60,000 of them are said to have fallen
in battle (Liv. Epit. xcvii.).
Under the Empire various enactments, men-
tioned above (p. 660), were made to restrain
the cruelty of masters towards their slaves;
but the spread of Christianity tended most to
ameliorate their condition, though the possession,
of them was for a long time by no means con-
demned as contrary to Christian justice. The
Christian writers, however, inculcate the duty
of acting towards them as we would be acted
by (Clem. Alex. Paedagog. iii. 12); but down to
the age of Theodosius wealthy persons still con-
tinued to keep as many as two or three thou-
sand (Chrysost. vol. vii. p. 633). Justinian did
much to promote the ultimate extinction of
slavery; but the number of slaves was again
increased by the invasion of the barbarians from
the North, who not only brought with them
their own slaves, who were chiefly Sclavi or
Sclavonians (whence our word slave; cf. Gibbon,
c. 55), but also reduced many of the inhabitants
of the conquered provinces to the condition of
slaves. But all the various classes of slaves
became merged in course of time into the ad-
scripti glebae, or serfs of the Middle Ages.
The chief sources from which the Romans
obtained slaves have been pointed out above.
Under the Republic one of the chief supplies
consisted of prisoners taken in war, who were
sold by the quaestores (Plaut. Capt. Prol. 34)
with a crown on their heads (see above, p.
662 b), and usually on the spot where they
were taken, as the care of a large number of
captives was inconvenient (cf. Liv. x. 42, 46).
Consequently slave-dealers generally accom-
panied an army, and frequently after a great
battle had been gained many thousands were
sold at once (Caes. B. G. iii. 16), when the
slave-dealers obtained them for a mere nothing.
In the camp of Lucullus on one occasion slaves
were sold for four drachmae each. The slave
trade was also carried on to a great extent, and,
after the fall of Corinth and Carthage, Delos
was the chief mart for this traffic. When the
Cilician pirates had possession of the Mediter-
ranean, as many as 10,000 slaves are said to
have been imported and sold there in one day
(Strab. xiv. p. 668). A large number came
from Thrace and the countries in the North of
Europe, but the chief supply was from Africa,
and more especially Asia, whence we frequently
read of Phrygians, Lycians, Cappadocians, &c.,
as slaves (Cic. pro Flacc. 27, 65).
The trade of slave-dealers (mangones) was
considered disreputable, and expressly distin-
guished from that of merchants (mangones non
mercatores sed venaliciarii appellantur, Dig. 50,
16, 207; Plaut. Trin. ii. 2, 51); but it was
very lucrative, and great fortunes were fre-
quently realised from it. The slave-dealer
Thoranius, who lived in the time of Augustus,
was a well-known character (Suet. Aug. 69;
Macrob. Sat. ii. 4; Plin. H. W. vii. § 56).
Martial (viii. 13) mentions another celebrated
slave-dealer in his time, of the name of Gar-
gilianus.
Slaves were usually sold by auction at Rome.
They were placed either on a raised stene (hence
de lapide emptus, Cic. in Pis. 15, 36; Plaut.
Bacch. iv. 7, 17) or a raised platform (catasta,
Tibull. ii. 3, 60; Persius, vi. 77; Casaubon, ad
loc.), so that every one might see and handle
them, even if they did not wish to purchase
them. Purchasers usually took care to have
them stript naked (Sen. Ep. 80; Suet. Aug. 69),
for slave-dealers had recourse to as many tricks
to conceal personal defects as the horse-jockeys
of modern times: sometimes purchasers called
SERWUS
SERWUS 665
in the advice of medical men (Claudian, in
Eutrop. i. 35, 36). Slaves of great beauty and
rarity were not exhibited to public gaze in the
common slave-market, but were shown to
purchasers in private (arcanae tabulata catastae,
Mart. ix. 60). Newly imported slaves had their
feet whitened with chalk (Plin. H. N. xxxv.
§ 199; Ovid, Am. i. 8, 64), and those that came
from the East had their ears bored (Juv. i. 104),
which we know was a sign of slavery among
many Eastern nations. The slave-market, like
all other markets, was under the jurisdiction of
the aediles, who made many regulations by
edicts respecting the sale of slaves. The cha-
racter of the slave was set forth in a scroll
(titulus, Sen. Ep. 47) hanging round his neck,
which was a warranty to the purchaser (Gell.
iv. 2; Propert. v. 5, 51): the vendor was
bound to announce fairly all his defects (Dig. 21,
1, 1 ; Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 284), and if he gave a
false account had to take him back within six
months from the time of his sale (Dig. 21, 1,
19, 6), or make up to the purchaser what the
latter had lost through obtaining an inferior
kind of slave to what had been warranted (Dig.
19, 1, 13, 4; Cic. de Off. iii. 23, 91). The
vendor might, however, use general terms of
commendation without being bound to make
them good (Dig. 18, 1, 43; 21, 1, 19). The
chief points which the vendor had to warrant,
were the health of the slave, especially freedom
from epilepsy, and that he had not a tendency
to thievery, running away, or committing
suicide (Cic. de Off. iii. 17, 71). The nation of
a slave was considered important, and had
to be set forth by the vendor (Dig. 21, 1, 31,
21). Slaves sold without any warranty wore
at the time of sale a cap (pilleus) upon their
head (Gell. vii. 4). Slaves newly imported
were generally preferred for common work;
those who had served long were considered
artful (veteratores, Ter. Heaut. v. 1, 16), and
the pertness and impudence of those born in
their master's house (vernae: see above, p. 662)
were proverbial (vernae procaces, Hor. Sat. ii.
6, 66; Mart. i. 42, x. 3).
The value of slaves depended, of course, upon
their qualifications: under the Republic slaves
were not dear, and Cato never gave more than
1500 drachmae for one (Plut. Cat. Maj. 4); but
under the Empire the increase of luxury and the
corruption of morals led purchasers to pay
immense sums for beautiful slaves, or such as
ministered to the caprice or whim of the
purchaser. Eunuchs always fetched a very
high price (Plin. H. N. vii. § 129), and Martial
(iii. 62, xi. 70) speaks of beautiful boys who
sold for as much as 100,000 or 200,000 sesterces
each (£885 8s. 4d. and £1770 16s. 8d.). A
morio or fool sometimes sold for 20,000 ses-
terces (Mart. viii. 13). [NANI.] Slaves who
possessed a knowledge of any art which might
bring in profit to their owners, also sold for a
large sum. Thus literary men and doctors
frequently fetched a high price (Suet. de Ill.
Gram. 3; Plin. H. N. vii. § 129), and also
slaves fitted for the stage, as we see from Cicero's
speech on behalf of Q. Roscius (10,28). Female
slaves who might bring in gain to their masters
by prostitution were also dear: sometimes 60
minae were paid for a girl of this kind (Plaut.
Pers. iv. 4, 113). Five hundred drachmae
(perhaps at that time about £18) seem to have
been a fair price for a good ordinary slave in
the time of Horace (Sat. ii. 7, 43), and the
average price in the time of the Antonines must
have been about the same (cf. Wallin, ii. 172).
In the fourth century a slave capable of bearing
arms was valued at 25 solidi or aurei (Cod.
Theod. 7, 13, 13). In the time of Justinian
the legal valuation of slaves was as follows:
common slaves, both male and female, were
valued at 20 solidi apiece (about £12), and
under ten years of age at half that sum ; if
they were artificers they were worth 30 solidi,
if notarii 50, if medical men or midwives 60;
eunuchs under ten years of age were worth 30
solidi, above that age 50, and if they were
artificers also as much as 70 (Cod. 6, 4, 3, 3).
Female slaves, unless possessed of personal at-
tractions, were generally cheaper than male.
Six hundred sesterces (about £5) were thought
too much for a slave girl of indifferent character
in the time of Martial (vi. 66); and two aurei
or solidi were not considered so low a price for
a slave girl (ancilla) in the time of Hadrian as
to occasion doubt of her having come honestly
into the hands of the vendor (Dig. 47, 2, 76).
We have seen that in the time of Justinian the
legal value of female slaves was equal to that
of males; this may probably have arisen from
the circumstance that the supply of slaves was
not so abundant then as at earlier times, and
that therefore recourse was had to propagation
for keeping up the number of slaves. But under
the Republic and in the early times of the Empire
this was done to a very limited extent, as it
was found cheaper to purchase than to breed
slaves.
! Slaves were divided into many various classes:
the first division was into public or private.
The former belonged to the state and public
bodies, and their condition was preferable to
that of the common slaves. They were less
liable to be sold, and under less control than
ordinary slaves: they also possessed the privi-
lege of the testamenti factio to the amount of
one-half of their property (see above, p. 661),
which shows that they were regarded in a
different light from other slaves. Scipio, there-
fore, on the taking of Nova Carthago, promised
2000 artisans, who had been taken prisoners and
were consequently liable to be sold as common
slaves, that they should become public slaves of
the Roman people, with a hope of speedy manu-
mission, if they assisted him in the war (Liv.
xxvi. 47). Public slaves were employed to take
care of the public buildings (compare Tac. Hist.
i. 43), and to attend upon magistrates and
priests. Thus the aediles and quaestors had
great numbers of public slaves at their com-
mand (Gell. xiii. 13), as had also the triumviri
nocturni, who employed them to extinguish
fires by night (Dig. 1, 15, 1). They were also
employed as lictors, jailors, executioners, water-
men, &c. (Cf. Gessner, de Servis Romanorum
publicis, Berlin, 1844.)
A body of slaves belonging to one person was
called familia, but two were not considered suffi-
cient to constitute a familia (Dig. 50, 16, 40).
Private slaves were divided into urban (familia
urbana) and rustic (familia rustica): but the
name of “urban" was given to those slaves who
served in the villa or country residence as well
666 SERVUS
SERWUS
as in the town house; so that the words “urban.”
and “rustic” rather characterised the nature of
their occupations than the place where they
served (“urbana familia et rustica non loco, sed
genere distinguitur.” Dig. 50, 16, 166). The
familia urbana could therefore accompany their
master to his villa without being called rustica
on account of their remaining in the country.
When there was a large number of slaves in one
house, they were frequently divided into decuriae
(Petron. 47), each under the charge of a decurio,
whose title often occurs in inscriptions; but in-
dependently of this division they were arranged
in certain classes, which held a higher or a
lower rank according to the nature of their oc-
cupation. The distinction drawn by Ulpian
(Dig. 47, 10, 15, 44) between bonae frugi,
ordinarius, dispensator on the one hand, and
volgaris, mediastinus, qualis-qualis on the other,
is evidently not meant to be technical, but
general in its character; and it is doubtful
whether the litterati or literary slaves were
included in any of these classes. Those called
vicarii are spoken of above (p. 662).
Ordinarii seem to have been those slaves who
had the superintendence of certain parts of the
housekeeping. They were also chosen from
those who had the confidence of their master,
and they generally had certain slaves under
them, often called vicarii (Dig. 15, 1, 17). To the
same cláss also belong the slaves who had the
charge of the different stores, and who corre-
spond to our housekeepers and butlers: they are
called cellarit, promi, condi, procuratores peni, &c.
[CELLA.]
The first place in the familia wrbana was held
by the procurator, a term applied generally to
the agent of another, but especially to the slave
who was placed in charge of the household (cf.
Cic. ad Att. xiv. 16). The actor in the familia
Tustica was almost the same as the vilicus or
bailiff (Colum. i. 8; Plin. Ep. iii. 19). The
dispensator was the slave in charge of the cash
and the accounts, usually but not always, in the
familia urbana (Dig. 1, 16, 166; Suet. Galb. 12;
Vesp. 22). The dispensator was sometimes under
the procurator, but at other times was directly
in relation with his master. In earlier times
the atriensis had a general charge of the money
and of the household (Plaut. Pseud. ii. 2, 15).
Volgares included the great body of slaves in
a house who had to attend to any domestic
duty, and to minister generally to the wants of
their master. As there were distinct slaves or
a distinct slave for almost every department of
household economy, as bakers (pistores), cooks
(coqui), confectioners (dulciarii), picklers (sal-
mentarii), &c, it is unnecessary to mention these
more particularly. This class also included the
porters (ostiarič), the bed-chamber slaves [CUBI-
CULARIT], the litter-bearers (lecticarii) [LEC-
TICA], the pedisequi, and all personal attendants
of any kind.
Mediastini, [MEDIASTINI.]
Litterati, literary slaves, were used for various
purposes by their masters, either as readers
[ANAGNOSTAE], copyists, or amanuenses [LI-
BRARII; AMANUENSIs], &c. Others, again, were
employed as MEDICI, CHIRURGI, or IATRALIPTAE.
The treatment of slaves, of course, varied
greatly according to the disposition of their
masters; but they appear upon the whole to
have been treated with greater severity and
cruelty than among the Athenians. Originally
the master could use the slave as he pleased:
under the Republic the law does not seem to
have protected the person or life of the slave at
all, but the cruelty of masters was to some ex-
tent restrained under the Empire, as has been
stated above (p. 660), and the legal status of
the slave was gradually improved. The general
treatment of slaves, however, was probably
little affected by legislative enactments. In
early times, when the number of slaves was
small, they were treated with more indulgence,
and more like members of the family: they joined
their masters in offering up prayers and thanks-
givings to the gods (Hor. Ep. ii. 1, 142), and
partook of their meals in common with their
masters (Plut. Coriol. 24), though not at the
same table with them, but upon benches (sub-
Sellia) placed at the foot of the lectus. But
with the increase of numbers and of luxury
among masters, the ancient simplicity of manners
was changed: a certain quantity of food was
allowed them (dimensum or demensum), which
was granted to them either monthly (menstruum,
Plaut. Stich. i. 2, 3), or daily (diarium, Hor. Ep
i. 14, 41; Mart. xi. 108). Their chief food was
the corn called far, of which either four or five
modii were granted them a month (Donat. in
Ter. Phorm. i. 1, 9; Sen. Ep. 80), or one Roman
pound (libra) a day (Hor. Sat. i. 5, 69). They
also obtained an allowance of salt and oil : Cato
(R. R. 58) allowed his slaves a sextarius of oil
a month and a modius of salt a year. They also
got a small quantity of wine with an additional
allowance on the Saturnalia and Compitalia
(Cato, R. R. 57), and sometimes fruit, but sel-
dom vegetables. Butcher's meat seems to have
been hardly ever given them. *
Under the Republic they were not allowed to
serve in the army, though after the battle of
Cannae, when Rome was in such imminent
danger, 8000 slaves were employed by the state
for the army, and subsequently manumitted on
account of their bravery (Liv. xxii. 57; xxiv.
14–16). k.
The offences of slaves were punished with se-
verity and frequently with the utmost barbarity.
One of the mildest punishments was the removal
from the familia urbana to the rustica, where
they were obliged to work in chains or fetters
(Plaut. Most. i. 1, 18; Ter. Phorm. ii. 1, 20).
They were frequently beaten with sticks or
scourged with the whip (of which an account
is given under FLAGRUM), but these were such
everyday punishments, that many slaves ceased
almost to care for them ; thus Chrysalus says
(Plaut. Bacchid. ii. 3, 131):
“Si illi sunt virgae ruri, at mihi tergum domi est.”
Runaway slaves (fugitivi) and thieves (fures)
were branded on the forehead with a mark
(stigma), whence they are said to be notati or
inscripti (Mart. vii. 75, 9). Slaves were also
punished by being hung up by their hands with
weights suspended to their feet (Plaut. Asin. ii.
2, 31), or by being sent to work in the Ergastu-
lum or Pistrinum. [ERGASTULUM; MoLA.] The
carrying of the furca was a very common mode
of punishment [FURCA], and slaves were often
flogged while bearing it. The cross [CRUX] was
a specially servile supplicium. The toilet of the
SESTERTIUM
SESTERTIUS 667
Roman ladies was a dreadful ordeal to the female
slaves, who were often barbarously punished by
their mistresses for the slightest mistake in the
arrangement of the hair or a part of the dress
(Ovid, Am. i. 14, 15, Ar. Am. iii. 235; Mart. ii.
66; Juv. vi. 498, &c.).
Masters might work their slaves as many
hours in the day as they pleased, but they
usually allowed them holidays on the public
festivals. At the festival of Saturnus in par-
ticular, special indulgences were granted to
all slaves, of which an account is given under
SATURNalia.
There was no distinctive dress for slaves. It
was once proposed in the senate to give slaves a
distinctive costume, but it was rejected since it
was considered dangerous to show them how
numerous they were (Sen. de Clem. i. 24).
Male slaves were not allowed to wear the toga
or bulla, nor females the stola; but otherwise
they were dressed nearly in the same way as
poor people, in tunics and cloaks of a dark
colour (pullati) and slippers (crepidae), or in the
country SculpoxEAE or clogs (vestis servilis,
Cic. in Pis. 38, 93).
The rites of burial, however, were not denied
to slaves, for, as the Romans regarded slavery as
an institution of society, death was considered
to put an end to the distinction between slaves
and free men. Slaves were sometimes even buried
with their masters, and we find funeral inscrip-
tions addressed to the Di Manes of slaves (Dis
Manibus). It seems to have been considered a
duty for a master to bury his slave, since we
find that a person who buried the slaves of
another had a right of action against the master
for the expenses of the funeral (Dig. 11, 7, 31).
In 1726 the burial vaults of the slaves belonging
to Augustus and Livia were discovered near the
Via Appia, where numerous inscriptions were
found, which have been illustrated by Bianchini
and Gori and give us considerable information
respecting the different classes of slaves and
their various occupations. Other sepulchres of
the same time have been also discovered in the
neighbourhood of Rome (cp. Wilmann's Ev. Inscr.
Lat. i. 125 ft.). -
(Pignorius, de Servis et corum apud Veteres
Ministeris; Popma, de Operis Servorum; both
in Poleni Suppl. ad Graev. Thes, Antt. Rom.
vol. iii.; Blair, An Enquiry into the State of
Slavery amongst the Romans, Edinburgh, 1833;
Becker-Göll, Gallus, vol. ii. 99–154; Wallon,
Histoire de l'Esclavage dans l’Antiquite, 2nd
ed. Paris, 1879; Marquardt, Privatleben, 135–
191.) [W. S.] [A. S. W.]
SESTERTIUM. [CRux, Vol. I. p. 568 b.]
SESTER"TIUS. This term is a contraction
for semis tertius, which is the Latin way of
expressing 24. It may be used for various
weights and measures: for example, pessestertius
is 24 feet. But it has been more usually applied
to coin: the numus sestertius, sestertius, or, as
it is rendered in English, sesterce, was the unit
according to which sums of money were reckoned
by the Romans almost throughout their history.
It was expressed on the coins themselves and in
documents by the symbol IIS (two units and a
semis), or with a line through, H-6, a form
commonly though incorrectly printed as HS.
According to the view of Mommsen (Röm.
Münzw, p. 292), when silver coin was first
issued at Rome (B.c. 269: As, p. 205) it was
based on the equation of the scruple of silver
(17°5 grains) to one libral as of 10 ounces, or
24 of the current reduced asses of 4 ounces.
Thus the denarius (10 asses) was equal to 4
sestertii, and the quinarius to 2 sestertii. But
this equivalence of the sestertius to 24 copper
asses as current did not last long: in the time
of the Hannibalic wars it was decreed that
thenceforth 16 asses should go to the denarius
and 4 to the sertertius, excepting in case of
military pay, in which the old relations were
preserved. Up to that time, as the sestertius
and the libral as had been equivalent, money
had been reckoned in either indifferently; but
thereafter the sestertius became the regular
unit.
Shortly after its issue the sestertius fell in
weight from 174 to 15 grains. After a time
it ceased to be issued as a silver coin, though as
a quarter of the denarius it remained as money
of account. M. Antony issued sestertii in copper
with the marks of value HS and A5 that is,
sestertii of four asses. And Augustus ordained
that the ses-
tertius of 4
asses and the
dupondius of
2 should be
struck in
brass (ori-
chalcium),
while the as
should be
minted in
copper.
In reckon-
ing sums of
money the
Romans some-
times, but not
often, reck-
oned by de- - -
marii. But º
far more usu- ſº
ally they -
reck on ed
either by the
libral as (in
which case
aeris or aeris
gravis would - -->
be added) or º-
º
by the * sesterºus ºf sº, in bra.
tius, which
was originally the equivalent of the libral as:
Sums up to a thousand sestertii were simply
stated insestertii. But sums of severalthousand
sestertii were expressed as so many milia sester-
tiorum numorum or sestertium numum. Thus
decem milia sestertium is 10,000 sestertii; and
the same amount is sometimes expressed by the
formula decem sestertia, where sestertia is
usually regarded as the plural of a neuter form
sestertium (= 1000 sestertii), though to this
view there are grammatical objections. Sums
of a million sestertii and upwards are expressed
by a use of the numeral adverbs in-ies; cenº
milia, a hundred thousand, being expressed ºr
understood. Thus a million sestertii are decies
centena milia sestertium, a phrase abridged tº









668 SEWIR
SIBYLLINI LIBRI
decies sestertium. Similarly, vicies and tricies
sestertium stand for two and three million
sestertii, and so on. As an example, we find in
Cicero (Verr. Act. Sec. i. 39, 100) 2,235,417
sestertii thus expressed : “vicies ducenta triginta
quinque milia quadringentos xvii numos.” (i.e.
sestertios). The distinction between units, thou-
sands, and hundreds of thousands of Sestertii
is conventionally expressed merely by adding
lines above or beside the numeral : thus HS X=
10 sestertii; HS X = 10,000 sestertii or 10 ses-
tertia; HSX=decies sestertium or 1,000,000
sestertii.
The English equivalent of sums stated in
sestertii cannot be accurately ascertained, since
different values will be given according to the
relation presumed between the value of silver
and that of gold; but an approximation sufficient
for all purposes will be reached if the metal
value of a sestertius or sesterce is taken at two-
pence, and that of a sestertium at £8 sterling.
What was as regards purchasing power the equi-
valent of a sestertius in modern money, is a dif-
ferent and an insoluble problem. [P. G.]
SEWIR. [AUGUSTALEs, Vol. I. p. 259;
EQUITEs, Vol. I. p. 757.]
SEX SUFFRAGIA.
p. 754.]
SEXTANS. [As.]
SEXTA'RIUS, a Roman dry and liquid
measure, which may be considered one of the
principal measures in the Roman system, and
the connecting point between it and that of the
Greeks, for it was equal to the £éorrms of the
latter; and there can be little doubt that
the ééorms was not an original Greek measure,
but that the word was introduced into the
Greek system from the Roman, for the purpose
of establishing a unit of agreement. [QUAD-
RANTAL.] It was one-sixth of the congius, and
hence its name: in the Greek system it was
one-sixth of the x00s. It was divided, in the
same manner as the AS, into parts named uncia,
sextans, quadrans, triens, quincuna, semissis, &c.
The uncia, or twelfth part of the sextarius, was
the CYATHUS; its sextans was therefore two
cyathi, its quadrans three, its triens four, its
quincuna five, &c. (Wurm, de Pond. &c. p. 118;
Hultsch, Metrologie, p. 112: cf. the Tables at the
end of the volume.) [P. S.]
SE'XTULA, the sixth part of the uncia,
was the smallest denomination of money in use
among the Romans (Varro, L. L. v. 171). It
was also applied, like the uncia, to other kinds
of magnitude. [UNCIA.] [P. S.]
SIBYLLI'NI LIBRI. The books known by
this name at Rome down to the destruction of
the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in B.C. 82,
were said to have been offered to Tarquinius
Superbus (or, according to Varro, to Tar-
quinius Priscus: cf. Lactant. Inst. Div. i. 6,
10; Isid. Orig. viii. 8, 5) by a Sibylla, i.e. a
prophetess, who presented herself before the
king with nine books for sale. Upon his re-
fusing to purchase them, she went away and
burnt three, and then returning asked the same
price for the remaining six. Thinking her mad,
the king again declined the purchase; on which
she retired once more, burnt another three, and
still asked the same price for the three that
remained. Tarquin now consulted the augurs,
[EQUITES, Vol. I.
who urged him to buy the books, and give the
full price. This he did, and the woman
vanished. He then appointed two citizens of
rank to keep the books in the temple on the
Capitol, with two public slaves to assist them
(who were probably Greek interpreters, Zo-
naras, vii. 11). This is the account given by
Dionysius (iv. 62); it is found with slight
variations in some other authors (see Mar-
quardt, Staatsverw. iii. 353, and notes); Livy,
however, does not tell the story. Whatever
truth there may be in the details of the legend,
it is probable that it was in the reign of the
second Tarquin that these books were actually
acquired. Tradition is unanimous in ascribing
to that reign changes of great importance in
the religious history of Rome, the centre point
of which changes is the Capitoline temple of
Jupiter, where these books were stored. That
temple expressed the union in a religious centre
of the entire populus of Rome, comprising both
patricians and plebeians, and foreshadowed the
gradual equalisation of the two orders in all
matters of religion, as well as in political rights.
(Cf. esp. Ambrosch, Studien, p. 196 foll. ; Mar-
quardt, iii. 40.) All members of the state,
whether Latin, Sabine, or Etruscan, might
worship in it; and not only from the sacred
triad of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, but any
god might be the object of worship there. To
this Tarquin, then, as well as to his two pre-
decessors, we may ascribe a broad and catholic
religious policy, in striking contrast with the
narrow civic traditions of the Roman patrician
priesthood; and this policy was recognised by
the prevailing Roman tradition, which also con-
nected with this king the introduction of the
Sibylline books. For these books were not, like
some others presently to be mentioned, of
Roman or even of Italian origin: they were
beyond doubt Greek, and their importance in
Roman history is almost wholly concerned with
the introduction of foreign and chiefly Greek
worship into the Roman religious world.
Whence these books came, and how they were
originally compiled, are questions of great
obscurity. Sibylla was no doubt a Greek word
signifying a certain type or ideal of that
common phenomenon in antiquity, the inspired
prophetess. [See DIVINATIO; ORACULUM.] The
earliest mention of a Sibylla is in a fragment
of Heracleitus of Ephesus (ap. Plut. Pyth. Orac.
6; Bywater, fragm. 12, and note), who knew
of one only; but in course of time, as in the
case of divinities, the type became localised in
various cities, and Varro (ap. Lact. l. c.) knew
of no less than ten Sibyllae—Persica, Libyca,
Delphis, Cimmeria, Erythraea, Samia, Cumana,
Hellespontica, Phrygia, Albunea (or Tibur-
tina). If we look on these local Sibyllae as
merely mythical, but at the same time as sug-
gesting, in some cases at least, localities in
which floating prophecy was, as it were, caught
and fixed, we cannot be very far wrong; and
there is not much doubt as to which of these
places it was from which the books came to
Rome. The mere tradition that Tarquinius, on
his expulsion from Rome, took refuge at Cumae,
would in itself be sufficient evidence of an
actual connexion between that Greek city and
the Roman tyrant (Dionys. vi. 21); and the
great majority of ancient authorities directly
SIBYLLINI LIBRI
SIBYLLINI LIBRI 669
derive the books from Cumae (cf. Verg. Ecl.
iv. 4; Aen. vi. 42 ft. ;–Ov. Fast. iv. 158, 257:
other references will be found in Schwegler,
Röm. Gesch. i. 802, note, and Marquardt, iii.
352, note 5). Varro, on the other hand, seems
to have believed that their origin was to be
found at Erythrae, the reputed home of the
most renowned of all the Sibyllae (cf. Serv. ad
Aen. vi. 36 and 72), arguing that a prophetess
who was consulted by Aeneas, according to the
Roman form of the legend, could not have
lived on till the time of the Tarquinii. The
truth seems to be that these oracles came to
Rome from Cumae, but had previously found
their way thither from Erythrae, in the neigh-
bourhood of which, at Gergis in the Trojan
Mt. Ida, we seem to be able, since the re-
searches of Klausen (Aeneas und die Penaten,
p. 203 foll.), to discern the localisation of the
earliest collection of oracles. This collection,
according to Heraclides Ponticus (Lactant. l.c.;
Schol. Plat. Phaedr. p. 315; Isid. Orig. viii. 8,
6), was formed in the first half of the sixth
century B.C., a time when oracles were in great
request, and when also the conquest by the
Lydians and Persians of the Greek cities of
Asia Minor was causing a considerable migra-
tion from these parts to Italy and Sicily. For
further information on this difficult subject
the student may consult Klausen, l, c., and
Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire de la Divination dans
l’Antiquite, vol. ii. pp. 133 ff. The evidence
for the Erythraean origin of the Cumaean
oracles will be found collected in Marquardt,
iii. 352, note 7; the most striking fact in this
connexion being the selection of Erythrae,
Ilium, and Samos, among other places, for the
search for a new collection, after the burning of
the Capitoline temple in 83 B.C.
It is naturally impossible to determine how
and with what motive, these collections were
originally formed. At all times in Greece it is
likely that there were wandering prophets
(xpmogoń6)0i) and floating prophecies, in
connexion with Dionysiac and Orphic rites, and
distinct from the ancient and localised oracles
of Dodona, Delphi, and others. It was the
theory of Klausen that these were at the height
of their influence in the sixth century B.C., and
that they represented a kind of “protestant”
reaction against the fame, credit, and wealth of
the local oracular shrines; and thus came at
that time to be) collected and arranged. Of
late, Bouché-Leclèrcq, on the ground that the
northern coast of Asia Minor is the true home
of the Sibylla, has sought to show that the
Sibylline type of oracular utterance may be
traced to a Trojan origin in the form of Cas-
sandra and Manto, “both victims of Apollo,
and both attached by most intimate ties to the
worship of that god.” But these are no more
than hypotheses, and it is not possible to arrive
at any certainty in the matter.
As little can be determined about the nature
of the collection which found its way to Rome.
Something, indeed, is known of the later collec-
tion formed after the destruction of the original
one, but it is unsafe to argue back from the one
to the other. The oracles were said to have
been written on palm-leaves (Serv. ad Aen. iii.
444), a tree, as Bouché-Leclercq remarks (iv.
289), which was not to be found in Campania;
and it is quite possible that this may be merely
a fragment of an old mythical tradition of
which the substance is lost. Virgil makes use
of it when he makes Aeneas urge the Sibylla
to foretell his fate in words, instead of com-
mitting them to leaves, alluding, however, at
the same time to the Roman collection and its
guardians:
“Te quoque magna manent regnis penetralia nostris:
Hic ego namgue tuas sortes, arcanaque fata,
Dicta meae genti, ponam, lectosque sacrabo,
Alma, viros: foliis tantum ne carmina manda:
Ne turbata volent rapidis ludibria ventis.”
According to this tradition, it has been sup-
posed that they were referred to in the same
way as Eastern nations refer to the Koran and
Hafiz; that they did not search for a passage
and apply it, but only shuffled the leaves and
then drew one (cf. Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, i.
506 foll.). But it is probable that, owing to
the secrecy with which all such transactions
were guarded by the Roman priests, the method
of consultation was unknown even to the Romans
themselves. That these prophecies were in the
Greek language is almost beyond doubt, and
probably they were written in hexameters, like
other Greek oracular sayings, and like those of
the later collection of which we have remains.
Their application to the matter inquired about
was no doubt entirely accidental, or subject to
the arbitrary dealings of their interpreters; we
may perhaps conjecture that it resembled that
of the Biblical and Virgilian “sortes” of the
Middle Ages, a verse being taken at chance, and
twisted in any way so as to suit the circum-
stances. [SoRTES.] And there need be little
doubt that the interpreters frequently invented
not only the application, but the response itself;
as when, in order to drive Hannibal out of Italy,
the Magna Mater Idaea was ordered to be
brought to Rome (Liv. xxix. 10, 5), or for
party purposes, as when Cinna and six tribunes
were to be expelled from Italy in order to restore
peace and order. (Granius Licinianus, p. 35,
Bonn ed.) Another instance occurs in Liv.xxxviii.
45, 3.
They were deposited, as we have seen, in
the temple on the Capitol, and placed in charge
of duo viri sacris faciundis, a title which clearly
implies the introduction of new rites (Liv. v. 13,
6). These officials, or priests, were self-electing,
retained office for life, were free from military
service, and remained patrician until by the
Licinian rogations (B.C. 367) their number was
increased to ten, and half the number were
thenceforth to be of plebeian birth. As was
natural, they were the first priesthood opened to
the plebeians, their functions having no con-
nexion with the “sacra” of the old patrician
gentes (Liv. vi. 37, 12). The number ten held
good till towards the end of the Republic, when,
probably under. Sulla's government, they were
again increased to fifteen, which number is first
mentioned by Cicero in 51 B.C. (ad Fam. 8, 4, 1).
[See DECEMv1R1; SACERDOs.] This college of
fifteen lasted until the time of Stilicho, who in
A.D. 405 burnt the Sibylline books; it is men-
tioned frequently in inscriptions of the Empire.
(See Marquardt, iii. 381, note 7.)
It would seem that the decemviri were not
competent to consult the books on their own
670 SIBYLLINI LIBRI
SIBYLLINI LIBRI
account, but that every, such consultation was
ordered by a decree of the senate. The books
were the property of the state, the decemviri
only their guardians and interpreters; and, like
the pontifices and augurs, they were in consti-
tutional practice only the skilled assistants and
advisers of the magistrates and senate. (The
strictly state character of the oracles is well
seen in the story that Tarquin himself punished
a duumvir with the death of a parricide for
divulging their secrets to a foreigner : Dionys.
iv. 62; Wal. Max. i. 1, 13.) The senate ordered
the decemvirs to inspect (adire, inspicere) the
books, and to interpret the oracle they found
applicable, which was rarely if ever made
public, but only the general tenor of the reply
of the experts. This at any rate seems to
have been the case down to B.C. 82, with
which period only we are at present dealing ;
after that time, and the destruction of the
original books, the whole system may be said to
have become vulgarised. (Marquardt, iii. 382;
Liv. vii. 27, xxi. 62; Dionys. iv. 62; Cic. de Div.
ii. 54, 110.)
It was not on any ordinary occasion that the
senate took the important step of ordering a
consultation. On examining the passages of
Livy in which such consultations are mentioned,
it will appear that the books were only had
recourse to in the face of alarming prodigies,
pestilences, and other such disasters. (Cp. e.g.
Liv. iii. 10; v. 13; x. 47; xxi. 62; xxii. 1, 9;
xxix. 10; xxxvi. 37; xli. 21.) Rarely do we
hear of anything like a definite prophecy (Liv.
xxix. 10; xxxviii. 45); the result of the consul-
tation is almost always an admonition to adopt
a certain ritual, in order to expiate evil or avert
calamity. It is through this ritualistic au-
thority, and in the corresponding introduction
of new forms of worship into the state, that the
immense influence on the Roman religion of the
Sibylline books, and their interpreters, made
itself felt; and it will be necessary here to
summarise the innovations due to them.
These momentous changes will be better
understood if we recall the character of the
purely Italian element in the religion of the
early Romans. Their religious ideas were sober,
practical, and unimaginative. Their deities
were abstract conceptions rather than concrete
forms: they were not worshipped in temples
with florid ritual, or presented to view in the
forms of statues. All worship had an immediate
practical object, and the complications of Roman
ritual were occasioned by nothing more than the
intense desire to make no mistake which might
defeat that object. All warmth of religious
emotion, such as elsewhere favoured the growth
of myth, or choric song and dance, or sacra-
mental mysteries, was absent from the Italian
religious mind; the legal side of ritual took its
place, and at Rome was at all times maintained
by the paramount authority of the pontifices.
But it was an entirely new aspect of religion
which the Sibylline books and their keepers
introduced; and though the pontifices were wise
in their generation, and antagonism between
the two colleges is rarely apparent, they may
be regarded historically as rivals—the one as
championing the ritus Romanus, the other the
ritus Graecus—through the remainder of Roman
history. +
First, we have the introduction of a series of
new deities: either entirely Greek, as Apollo,
Latona, Mater Magna, Aesculapius; or Greek
deities attached to a Latin name and a pre-
existing Roman idea, as Diana (= Artemis),
Ceres (= Demeter), Proserpina (= Persephone),
and Hercules, who, originally a form of Jupiter
(=Semo Sancus), or possibly the Genius of
Jupiter, now absorbed the characteristics of the
Greek Hercules. The immediate cause of these
introductions was, as we saw, the occurrence of
pestilence, famine, or defeat (Liv. v. 13; x. 47;
xxi. 62); the motive was the feeling, stimulated
by the growing intercourse with foreigners and
especially Greeks, that where the home deities
did not suffice, or declined their aid, strangers
whose worship would be open to all, and not
only to patrician gentes, might be found effi-
cacious. Their immediate connexion with the
Sibylline books may easily be traced ; e.g.
Apollo is not only the god of prophecy, but a
god of pestilence; Aesculapius comes in on the
same ground; Ceres and Persephone may be
connected with the famines and distress of the
first half of the sixth century B.C., and it may be
noted that the worship of the former had
always a plebeian character, which illustrates
the anti-patrician tendency of the Tarquinian
policy, marked as we saw by the introduction of
the books. Cybele or the Magna Mater Idaea, the
great earth-deity of the original home of the
oracles, was invoked to Rome in order to secure
the expulsion of Hannibal from Italy, and so end
a long series of disasters. (The new cult will be
found examined in detail in Marquardt, iii. 358
foll., of which Bouché-Leclercq's account is only
an abstract.)
Equally important was the change in ritual.
This may be traced in the great development,
resulting directly or indirectly from the books
and the decemviri, in the Roman institution of
ludi, whether circenses or scenici [see LUDI];
and especially noteworthy are the two sets of
Apolline games, the Ludi Apollinares instituted
in time of pestilence in 212 B.C. (Liv. xxv. 12;
Macrob. i. 17, 29, “Bello Punico hi ludi ex
libris Sibyllinis primum sunt instituti”), and
the Ludi Saeculares, the history of which,
though obscure, can be distinctly traced to the
worship of Dis and Proserpina, and to the influ-
ence of these oracles. (Augustine, Civ. Dei,
iii. 18, writing with Varro before him, so
explains their origin. Cf. Marquardt, iii. 387.)
The importance of this line of development in
the social and religious life of the Romans
cannot well be exaggerated. But the character
of the new religion is best seen in the lectisternia,
where the anthropomorphic appearance of the
gods, the emotional and individual character of
the cult, and the comparative absence of legal
restraint and orderly procedure, are in marked
contrast with the earlier forms of Roman
worship. (See LECTISTERNIUM ; and for the
details of the Graecus ritus in all these cere-
monies, Marquardt, iii. 44 foll., 186 foll.) The
student who wishes to understand this contrast
fully, should study the accounts of the lecti-
sternia carefully, and compare them with the
ritual of the Fratres Aryales or that of any of
the purely Roman festivals. º
The Sibylline books had fairly done their
work when they were destroyed by fire in
SIBYLLINI LIBRI
SICA. 67.1
B.C. 83; in combination with other tendencies
and circumstances, they had wrought a revolu-
tion in Roman religious ideas, in morals, as well
as indirectly in literature and art. The history
of the new collection formed in B.C. 76 is far
less interesting, and must be briefly summed up
here.
While the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus was
rebuilding, envoys were sent to various towns
in Asia Minor, Greece, and Sicily (and especially
to Erythrae, where about 1000 verses were
collected), to gather a fresh supply of oracles,
which were deposited, like the old ones, in the
vaults of the temple on its completion, and given
into the charge of the collegium, increased to
fifteen previously by Sulla. Whether any
fragments of this collection are still imbedded
in the “Oracula Sibyllina’’ which have come
down to us, is an exceedingly difficult question,
and beyond the scope of this article. (Alexandre,
Oracula Sibyllina, ed. 2, Paris, 1869, with Sibyl-
line bibliography: cf. Bouché-Leclerq, ii. 133,
200;-Marquardt, iii. 351, note 10; 383, note 9.
According to Ewald, the earliest extant verses
are as early as 124 B.C.; but the great mass are
of Jewish and Christian origin. The collection
is a strange medley. Cf. also Fabricius, Bibl.
Graec. i. 227 foll.) Their influence may be
traced here and there in subsequent years, as in
the famous oracle (real or forged) which forbade
Ptolemy Auletes to be restored to Egypt by
force of arms (Cic. ad Fam. i. 7; Dio Cass.
xxxix. 15), or that which prophesied in B.C. 44
that a rea, was needed to overcome the Parthians
(Suet. Jul. 79). Augustus, finding spurious
verses in circulation, ordered a close inspection,
which resulted in the burning of 2000 so-
called prophetic books, and in the removal of
the genuine ones to the temple of Apollo on
the Palatine, which he himself had dedicated
(Suet. Aug. 31; Tac. Ann. vi. 12). Dio Cassius
also states that he had some of them, which had
faded, written over again by the priests (liv.17).
Others were rejected in the time of Tiberius,
who also refused to allow a new volume to be
added, as proposed in the senate by Caninius'
Gallus (Tac. l. c.). This later collection was
certainly written in Greek hexameters, and, if
we interpret Cicero rightly (de Div. ii. 54, 111:
cf. Varro ap. Dionys. iv. 62), some at least
of the verses were in the form of acrostics
(äkpoo rixfs); this is not likely, however, to have
been the case with all.
Under, the Empire the books were rarely
consulted: the duties of the quindecimviri were
confined chiefly to the superintendence of the
Cybele-worship, which now gained ground
rapidly, especially in the month of March
(Lucan, i. 599; C. J. L. vi. 488 foll.); and
their influence was lessened by the arrival of
other new cults in which they had no official
part, and by the personal supervision of religion
by the emperors. Occasional instances, however,
of consultation occur. Tiberius, in spite of his
proneness to ritual and superstition, had declined
to allow an inspection of the books during an
inundation of the Tiber in A.D. 15 (Tac. Ann.
i. 76); but Nero ordered them to be consulted
after the great fire in A.D. 64, and the old
ceremonies were gone through (ib. xv. 44).
In the period of intelligent government which
followed, we do not seem to hear of them;
but in 241, under Gordian, certain serious .
earthquakes were stopped by their means
(Capitolinus, Gordian, 26). Again, under
Aurelian in 270, when the Marcomanni had
crossed the Alps, they were consulted by order
of the emperor; and Vopiscus (Aurel. 20) gives
an interesting account of the manner of this
consultation, which shows that the quindecim-
viri were no longer indispensable, inasmuch as
the senators themselves went to the temple of
Apollo, and made the necessary search. Julian,
as might be expected, was one of the last to
make use of them (Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 1, 7).
They were in existence in 391 (Symmachus,
Epist. iv. 34, who was himself a quindecimvir;
Claudian, Bell. Get. 231); but in the year 400
they were burnt by Stilicho, and Prudentius
shortly afterwards alludes triumphantly to the
dead superstition of paganism:
“Mortua jam mutae lugent oracula Cumae.”
Apoth. 439 ff.
Lastly, it should be noticed that there are
other collections of prophecies mentioned by our
authorities, some of which at least were kept
with the Sibylline books in the Capitoline
temple, and may have been included in the
general term Sibyllini libri. This was the
case with the Etruscan oracles of Begoe or
Wegoe (Serv. ad Aen. vi. 72), and with the
sortes of the nymph Albunea of Tibur
(Lactant. Inst. i. 6, 12). In B.C. 213 the senate
ordered the praetor urbanus to investigate a
variety of current prophecies, with the result
that the Carmina Marciana of an unknown
Marcius (or of two brothers, according to Cic.
de Div. i. 40, 89; 50, 115; ii. 55, 113) were
declared genuine and given into the charge of
the decemvirs. This Marcius was probably a
mythical or ideal personage, the name being con-
nected with Mars, in whose worship some of the
oldest traces of native Italian oracles are to be
found. Livy has preserved the substance of two
of these carmina, which were probably written
in Saturnian verse (Liv. xxv. 12: cf. Macrob.
Sat. i. 17, 28). All these books and others, such
as those of Veii (Liv. v. 15, 11 : Cic. de Div. i.
44, 100), are included in the general expression
“libri fatales,” which frequently occurs (Liv.
l. c.; xxii. 9, 8, where it is synonymous with
libri Sibyllini; xxii. 57, 6; and other passages).
Libri alone is almost as common (iii. 10, 7;
xxii. 1, 16); and thus it is impossible to draw
any distinct line of demarcation between Greek
and Italian collections. Even in regard to their
usage this is to some extent so; for while, e.g.,
the Marcian oracles recommend the cult of the
Greek Apollo (Liv. xxv. 12), that of genuine
Roman deities as well as Greek is found pre-
scribed by the Sibylline books (as in Liv. xxi. 62
and xxiii. 1). The fact seems to have been that
the overwhelming prestige of the latter acted
by attraction on lesser local collections; and as
Rome became the focus of all Italy, so the
temple on the Capitol tended more and more to
become the centre-point of the floating Italian
divination. [W. W. F.]
SICA, a short curved sword, a weapon of the
Thracians (sica Opakikov štoos érikaſtrés, Gloss.
Labb.; cf. Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 16, 75; Isid.
Orig. xviii. 8). It was used therefore by the
672 SICARIUS
SIGNA MILITARIA
Threces in the gladiatorial combats (Suet. Cal.
32; Mart. iii. 16): its shape explains the “falx
supina” in Juv. viii. 201 (see Mayor ad loc.;
GLADIATOR, Vol. I. p. 918 b). The annexed
woodcut, from a terra-cotta
lamp, shows a sica held by
a Thracian (Baumeister,
Denkm. p. 2099). As being
smaller than the ordinary
sword, and therefore more
easily concealed, and perhaps
as being sharp and deadly
for a stab, it was the favour-
ite weapon of robbers and
murderers (sicarii), the ferrum
with which “grassator agit rem” (Juv. iii.
305: cf. Cic. Cut. iii. 3, 8; pro Mil. 14, 37);
and hence, as a legal term, inter sicarios comes
to mean “on a trial for murder.” [See LEx
CORNELIA, p. 39. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
SICA'RIUS. [SICA.]
SICI'LICUS. This was the fourth part of
the Roman uncia. For its value, see PONDERA,
p. 456. s P. G.]
SICLUS (aſyxos or oríkAos) is a translitera-
tion of the word shekel used by Semitic nations
of West Asia. The shekel was in Syria and
Babylon the unit of coinage, and varied in
weight according to locality: see PONDERA, ad
init. The ordinary Persian silver siglos weighed
about 86 grains, and was reckoned by Julius
Pollux as equivalent to 1. Attic drachms: the
heavy gold shekel of Phoenicia weighed nearly
260 grains. Thus it need not surprise us to
find, at a time when the Greek drachma was
the universal unit of currency, that the siglos
was in some places considered as a tetradrachm,
in some places as a didrachm, and in some as a
drachm. [P. G.]
SIDA'REUS (oričápeos). Julius Pollux (ix.
78) quotes from Strattis a mention of sidarei as
small iron coins current at Byzantium. None
of these are extant, nor of the celebrated iron
coins of Sparta [PELANOR}; but we have several
specimens of iron coins issued in the fifth century
B.C. at cities of Peloponnesus. [P. G.]
SIGILLA'RIA. [SATURNALIA.]
SIGMA. [TRICLINIUM ; MENSA, p. 157 b.]
Sica.
SIGNA M1LITARIA. We shall say a few
words first on the troops to which the separate
standards belonged and the function they ful-
filled in the army, and afterwards discuss the
form of the standards. The exhaustive, lucid,
and learned monograph of A. von Domazewski
(Die Fahnen im ròmischen Heere, 1885) must
form the basis of any such discussion. In much
of what follows, points have been taken for
granted which have been supported by evidence
in the article ExeRCITUS.
Passing over the bundle of hay (manipulus)
which is said to have been a standard in the
time of Romulus (Plut. Rom. 8), the principal
kinds of military standards may be classed as
(1) signa (in the special sense), (2) vezilla, (3)
imagines, (4) aquilae. It will be advisable to
treat the first two together.
(1) and (2) Signa and Weavilla.-The chief
distinctive feature of Roman warfare was that
it was mainly carried on with the sword, and
that the tactical unit was a small one, viz. the
maniple (Varro, L. J. v. 88, “manipulos exer-
citus minimas manus quae unum secuntur
signum :” cf. Serv. on Werg. Aen. xi. 463).
Each of these maniples had a signum, Liv. xxvii.
14, 8: “ni C. Decimius Flavus, signo arrepto
primi hastati, manipulum ejus signis sequi se
jussisset; ” but there appears to have been
generally, if not always, two signiferi in the
maniple (Polyb. vi. 24, 6), the second probably
to act as a reserve in case the first were disabled
or killed; so that we need not suppose that each
century had a standard. From thus having a
separate standard of its own, each maniple came
to be called signum, ormuaia, e.g. Liv. xxv. 23,
16; Polyb. vi. 24, 5.
These signa preceded the column on the march,
but stood in the hindmost rank of the maniple
during the fight. The term antesignani, taken
together with the fact that where sigma are
spoken of in a battle without any qualification
the reference is generally to the sigma bf the
hastati (Liv. viii. 11, 7); the insufficienéy of
the evidence for the existence of other standards
to justify the title antesignani (e.g. Plin. H. N.
x. § 16); the probability that the standard-
bearers, impeded with the excessively heavy
standards, would have been almost sure to have
been at once cut down if they stood in the front
rank of the sword-fight, and so the rallying-
point of the maniple gone (whereas the loss of
a standard and its bearer is generally spoken of
as an unusual occurrence and a sign of a serious
defeat of the division); the fact that the front-
rank men could be recalled by the trumpets if
they pushed away from the standards—all these
points tend to show that the case is not made
out, though argued with strong conviction by
Domazewski (pp. 10–12), that the standards
occupied the front line in the battle. But they
undoubtedly were at the head of the column on
the march ; and their great importance, as the
centre-point of the tactical unit, may be shown
from the number of phrases in which the word
signa occurs (signa tollere, sigma movere, signa
ferre, signa convertere, signa constituere, signa
obicere). The word of command was always
directed to the standard-bearers (Liv. v. 55, 1 ;
vi. 8, 1), and conveyed to them during the fight
by the tubicines, who stood near the general, the
signal of the tubicines being taken up by the
cornicines.
The signa of the legions, then, were the
standards of the maniples. Even after the
regular introduction of cohorts and centuries as
administrative units, the tactical unit remained
the maniple consisting of two centuries-' Caesar
often mentions the maniple and always in con-
nexion with the standards, e.g. Bell. Gall. vi.
34, 6, “si continere manipulos ad signa vellet,
ut instituta ratio et consuetudo exercitus Ro-
mani postulabat:” cf. ii. 15, 1 ; vi. 40, i.
Even under the Empire the manipular arrange-
ment remained in force as far as the standards
were concerned, jūst as it did as regards the
rank of the centurions; and so Tacitus makes
mention of maniples (Hist. iii. 22; iv. 77, 78),
and Dio Cassius, not having a word to express
“maniple,” renders it by 860 &rarovrapxias
(xlviii. 42, 2). In the battle at Forum Gallo-
rum in 43 B.C. there were 22 cohorts and about
60 signa lost (Galba ap. Cic. Fam. x. 30, 5);
the numbers show that the signa belong to the
maniples. In the coins given below we, see
the legionary signa with H(astati) and P(rin-

SIGNA MILITARIA
SIGNA MILITARIA 673
cipes) on them. But during the Empire the
manipular arrangement gradually disappeared,
and Vegetius is quite right in saying that in
his time (380 A.D.) each century had a signum.
That there was no special signum for the co-
horts may be proved from these considerations:
(1) that it would have served no purpose, (2)
that there is virtually only one form of legion-
ary signum on any representations we know of,
and (3) that there is no certain trace whatso-
ever in the inscriptions or authors of there
being two kinds of signiferi. When Caesar says
(Bell. Gall. ii. 25, 1), “quartae cohortis omnibus
centurionibus occisis signiferoque interfecto,
signo amisso,” he is doubtless thinking of the
standard-bearer of one of the maniples, probably
of that of the hastati; cf. Mommsen in Eph.
Epigr. iv. 360.
Vea illum (diminutive of velum, Festus, p. 377 ;
or perhaps velum may be a contraction of
vexillum, as Cicero says, de Orat. 45, 135) was
the oldest standard of the Roman army. It was
raised on the Janiculum while the Comitia
Centuriata were being held (Liv. xxxix. 15, 11;
Dio Cass. xxxvii. 28, 1); floating over the
general’s tent, it gave the signal for battle (Plut.
Fab. 15; cf. Caes. Bell. Gall. ii. 20, 1); it was
the rallying-point of the soldiers in the case of
a tumultus (Serv. ad Verg. Aen. viii. 1). The
sigma of the maniples during the Republic seem
to have had a vezillum on them (see the coins
below); and, indeed, both the names are applied
to the legionary standards by Livy, secundi
hastati signum (xxvi. 5, 15), weavilla [manipu-
lorum] (viii. 8, 8), for vezilla were the oldest
flags in the Roman army. It is probable that
the new form of signum which had no vezillum
at all was introduced by Augustus. But weavilla
were the peculiar standards (1) of those divisions
of infantry which were separated from the
main division for some special duty, (2) of the
troops of discharged veterans called out for
further service.
As regards the standards of the cavalry,
Domazewski (pp. 26, 27) draws a distinction
between the cavalry of those divisions which
consisted of both infantry and cavalry, such as
the legions or the cohortes equitatae; and those
troops which consisted solely of cavalry, such as
the alae or the equites singulares. To the
former belonged a vecillum, probably because
the signum was appropriated to the infantry;
to the latter both signa and weavilla—in each
case one standard for each turma. Where both
signa and vezilla appear, it is to be supposed
that the vexillum was the original cavalry
standard, which was later replaced, when no
confusion was likely to ensue, by the more
splendid signum.
Among the praetorians signiferi are found
attached, to both the centuries and the cohorts;
but, as the praetorians were arranged in maniples
(Tac. Ann. xii. 56; xv. 33, 58), we may readily
suppose from analogy that they were the divi-
sions to each of which a signum was allotted.
The auſcilia and the numeri had what we may
call signa, and we shall speak of these below.
(3) Imagines.—In the early Empire imaginifer;
are found belonging to the legions and to the
auxiliary cohorts; each legion and each auxiliary
cohort had one imaginifer. No evidence is found
to prove that they existed among the auxiliary
VOL. II.
cavalry; yet each ala of the latter probably had
a signum (cf. Tac. Hist. ii. 89) on which the
emperor’s imago was fixed. There is an inter-
esting relief of one on a tombstone
in Hexham Church, reproduced by
Dr. Bruce, Handbook to the Roman
Wall, p. 79. Imagines are never
found affixed to the standards of
the tactical units except in the
case of the praetorians, which was
a special body-guard of the em-
peror. In the legions the imagi-
nifer belonged to the first cohort
(C. J. L. iii. 6178, 20; Veget. ii.
6); in the cohortes equitatae, to
the cavalry of that body (C. I. L.
iii. 3256). *A
(4) Aquilae.—From the time of
Marius the ağuila was the standard
of the legion. It of course had no
tactical significance; but, besides
being the sign of union of the whole
legion, it marked where the com-
mander happened to be, and ac-
cordingly where the main body of
the legion was stationed. During
the battle it was in charge of the
primus pilus (Val. Max. i. 6, 11 ;
Tac. Hist. iii. 22). In time of
peace, during the Republic, it was
kept at Rome in the Aerarium
with the other standards (Liv. iii.
69, 8). In the camp it was placed
in a little shrine (Cic. Cat. i. 9,
24; Dio Cass. xl. 18, 1;—Hero-
dian, iv. 4, 5; v. 8, 6); for the
standards were held as sacred (Plin.
H. N. xiii. § 23), and regarded
as constituting an asylum (ib. i.
3
Legionary
Signum from
Mayence.
The Form of the Standards.
(1) Signa.-The sigma of the
legions were in the main essen-
tials similar to one another. The
pole was a lance with a point
at the lower end for fixing into
the ground (oëplaxos, App. Bell.
Civ. ii. 62; cuspes, Suet. Caes. 62)
and a cross-piece of wood a little
above this point to prevent the
pole sinking too deep into the
ground; sometimes, too, the pole
had a handle. The pole was
plated with silver (cf. Dexippus
ap. Müller, Frag. Hist. Graec. iii.
682: étrl £60 tow hpyupwpwévov).
Towards the top of the pole was
a transverse bar with ribands,
sometimes of purple, hanging
from it; and these often had at
their ends silver ornaments shaped
like ivy-leaves. Along this trans-
verse bar there appears to have
been placed a plate containing
the name of the legion, cohort, sººn
and maniple to which the signum Column.
belonged. Below the transverse , , -
bar came a series of discs, probably of silver (Plin.
H. W. xxxiii. § 58), like the phalerae. Hence We
can readily believe the statements cºns the
X


674 SIGNA MILITARIA
SIGNA MILITARIA
great weight of the standards: tá ràv orparoré-
ãov gºugoña . . . . uéAts Örö 'tav Yevvaiotătov
grpartwröv pepäueva (Herodian, iv. 7, 7). There
were military orders given to the maniple or
century; for we know from Zonaras (vii. 21) that
these orders were given to whole troops as well
as to individuals (oi kat’ &vöpa uávov &ptotet-
oravra raira éðföoro, &AA& kal Aéxous kal
orrparotréðous 3Aois Tapetxero). This accounts
for the fact that the number of discs varies,
sometimes being as many as seven, sometimes
only two. We hear that in early times a pudam
was given as a meed of value to a foot-soldier,
and pāAapa to a horse-soldier (Polyb. vi. 39, 3);
later, that påAapa were given to both horse- and
foot-soldiers; but we may perhaps assume that
the pd.Aapa given to the infantry were of the
shape of a pudam: and just as the alae of cavalry
got torques and were accordingly called torquata
(Orell. 516; C. J. L. vi. 3538), so the troops
of infantry got saucer-shaped phalerae. These
discs could be taken off the pole; and poles
without them were called incompta signa, and
appeared as such at military funerals (Tac. Ann.
iii. 2). Ornare signa (Suet. Claud. 13) seems to
have been the expression used for putting these
discs on the pole, though in this passage it is
said of the eagle, not of the signa properly so
called. Below these discs, generally acting as a
support, was a crescent moon, which was probably
a kind of amulet to avoid ill-luck (cf. Plaut.
Epid. v. 1, 38 (638); Hesych. s. v. orexmvís).
Above the transverse box was sometimes a corona
aurea, sometimes a small shield—both probably
kinds of orders, though one cannot feel at all
sure in the case of the latter—sometimes a small
vexillum, which was certainly an order (Sall. Jug.
85, 29), sometimes an upstretched hand, the
token of fidelity. Again beasts, especially the
capricorn, are sometimes found below the discs,
chiefly on the military coins of Gallienus, Vic-
torinus, and Carausius. They were of the nature
of amulets (cf. Saglio, Dict. des Antiq. i. 253).
For further details on this point see Domazewski,
pp. 54–56.
Two representatives are given above of legion-
ary signa. The first is from a tombstone in
Mayence (Domazewski, fig. 12): the knobs under
the crescent have no special significance. The
second (ib. fig. 23) is a signum taken from Tra-
jan's Column : note the hand and the vezillum.
The two coins below (ib. figs. 34, 35) are consular
Signa.
Coin of B.C. 83.
Coin of B.C. 49.
coins of B.C. 83 and B.C. 49, with an aquila
between two signa.
The standards of the auxiliary cohorts are so
very like those of the maniples that there is no
need to give a special representation of them.
The standards of the numeri are, however,
noticeable, as they appear to have had figures of
animals on the top: cf. Tac. Hist. iv. 22, “hinc
veteranorum cohortium signa, inde depromptae
silvis lucisque ferarum imagines ut cuique genti
inire proelium mos est.” One surmounted by a
bull taken from
a relief in the
Museum at
Chesters(the an-
cient Cilurnum
on the Roman
wall) is given
by Dr. Bruce
(Lapidarium
sept entrionale,
930 = Doma -
zewski, fig. 90).
The standards
of the praeto-
rians had, like
the signa of the
legions, the
transverse bar
and the ribands
and their ivy-
leaves — some-
times above the
bar, occasionally
separated by a
crown, a vezil-
lum or a shield,
an up right
crown, or an
image of a god.
The most re-
markable differ-
ence between
these standards
and those of the
legions was that
crowns (aurea,
muralis, classica,
or vallaris; see
CoRONAE) take the place of the phalerae. In
the middle of the pole was placed a medallion
containing a portrait of the emperor, or medal-
lions if there were more emperors
than one; the most important crown
belonging to the maniples was
placed between the medallions if
there were two. Above and below
the medallions were generally
crowns. Above are two praetorian
standards from Trajan’s Column.
On the top of the first is a figure
of perhaps Victory before a vexil-
lum, then a crown, the eagle sur-
rounded by a crown, the transverse
bar and one of its ribands with the
ivy-leaf at the end, a crown, an
imago, a corona classica (the beaks
are quite plain), a crown, another
imago, a crown, and a knob as a
support. On the top of the other
is the point of the lance, next a
vea, illum, crown, eagle surrounded
with a crown, transverse bar with
ribands, crown, imago, corona mu-
ralis, another crown, another imago,
a crown, and a knob.
The standards of the speculatores, Praetorian
as far as we can make them out, standard (2).
consisted of an upright hand or
a crown above the transverse bar. The latter
had pendent ribands and ivy-leaves; under it
º
g
3.
Praetorianstandard (1).





SIGNA MILITARIA
SIMPULUM 675
was a phalera, a crescent, and the rostrum
of a ship: the latter is especially noticeable.
The annexed cut is a
coin of Galba.
(2) Vexilla.-The
chief feature of the
vea,illa was, that
hanging down from
the transverse bar
was a rectangular
fringed piece of cloth
which bore the name
of the legion and
probably that of the
emperor. The cloth
was sometimes white, sometimes red, some-
times purple (Serv. on Aen. viii. 1; Capitol.
Gord. 8, 3). Occasionally above
this piece of cloth, which was
the vegillum proper, is found
a statue of Victory. Annexed
is such a vezillum from Trajan’s
Column.
(3) Imagines. – These were
medallions of the emperors
affixed to poles (irporopºs Kaſ-
orapos, at Taºs oºmpaíais trpooº-
Standards of Speculatores.
cf. Dio Cass. lxiii. 25, 1, eikā-
vas; lxv. 10, 3; Tac. Hist. iii.
13, 31), though probably the
imagines which were destroyed
in a revolution are not merely
those on the standards, but also the statues and
busts of the emperor which were in the camp.
That medallions of other emperors
than the reigning one—no doubt
those of the divi imperatores—
were carried on the standards, is
plain from Tac. Hist. iv. 62: “re-
volsae imperatorum imagines.”
(4) Aquila. — The eagle was
placed on the top of a long pole—
sometimes immediately, sometimes
resting on a metal plate. It gene-
rally held a thunderbolt in its
claws, and had its wings extended
for flight; we know that it was
considered a good omen for an
army when starting to see an
eagle in flight (Tac. Ann. ii. 17;
Hist. i. 62). Occasionally the
eagle was represented as holding
an oak-leaf in its beak. It was
made generally of silver (Cic. Cat.
i. 9, 24), sometimes of gold (Dio
Cass. xl. 18, 1; Herodian, iv. 7,
7). The pole had a spike, gene-
rally a cross-piece of wood above
the spike to prevent it sinking
too far, and sometimes a handle
in the middle for pulling it up.
If the legion as a whole had
gained any especial distinction or
ornament, that ornament was
affixed to the pole, as in the case
of the signa. The annexed aquila
from the relief at Verona (Domaz.
fig. 4) gives a good idea of the
standard, though unfortunately
the eagle's head is broken off.
Nearly all the material necessary for discuss-
Vexillum, from
Trajan's Column.
L
dr
Aquila, from
a relief at
Verona.
orav, Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 3, 1:
ing the signa is given by Domazewski, op. cit.
Besides that, some further assistance may be got
from articles by Rein in Pauly, vi. 1179–1182,
2542-3, and Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, ii.”
345, 353–7, 438–9. [L. C. P.]
SIGNINUM OPUS. [Pictura.
SIGNUM. [ExERGITUs, Vol. I. p. 807;
SIGNA.]
SILENTIA/RII. [PRAEPoSITUS.]
SILICERNIUM. [FUNUs, Vol. I. p. 893.]
SI'LIQUA (keptition) was the smallest Roman
weight, being the sixth part of a scruple, scri-
pulum, or 1% of an ounce. [PoNDERA.] Tho
siliqua auri is spoken of as a coin in the time of
Constantius II. : according to Mommsen (Röm.
Münzwesen, p. 791), it is represented by the
silver coins of the period of the weight of 36
grains, which may have been equivalent to 3 grs.,
the weight of the siliqua, in gold. [P. G.]
SIMPULUM or SIMPUVIUM, a ladie-
shaped earthenware vessel, like a cyathus, but
of ruder form. Varro (L. L. v. 124) tells us
that it was supplanted at the dinner table by its
Greek equivalent [CYATHUs], but retained for
sacrifices, and Pliny (H. W. xxxv. § 158) notes
that it was still, by old custom, made of earth-
enware. The definition of Festus is, “was
parvum non dissimile
cyatho quo vinum in
sacrificiis libatur:
unde et mulieres rebus
divinis deditae simpu-
latrices dicuntur.” "
The cut here given
is from the relief on
the Arcus Argenta-
riorum, and shows
the sacred simpulum
combined with the
malleus used for strik-
ing certain victims.
[See SECURIS.]
The question naturally presents itself, What
was the relation of this vessel to the patera?
Representations in Greek art show the wine
poured into the patera from a jug. Was the
jug similarly used in Roman sacrifices, and
filled by means of a simpulum, or was the wine
taken from the crater by a simpulum and
poured straight into the patera º Our impres-
sion is that neither supposition is correct, and
that the patera was not used at all in the ritus
Romanus [see SACRIFICIUM, p. 586], but was
introduced along with the ritus Graecus, in
which the simpulum had no place. The writer
has given his reasons for this view in the
Classical Review, vol. iv. p. 69. It may be
observed briefly here: 1. That the patera was
the emblem of the Epulones, a comparatively
recent order [see EPULONES], while the sim-
pulum is the emblem of the Pontifex, who
belongs to the old Roman religion (cf. Cic. de
Rep. vi. 2, 11; Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 221).
2. That the representation of sacrificial imple-
ments in the Arcus Argentariorum shows a
simpulum but no patera, which will be intelligi-
ble if the two were not used in the same rite.
3. That in the decree relating to silver articles
retained for sacred purposes in the year the
patella and salinum are mentioned, but not the
patera (Liv. xxvi. 36; PATELLA). This is ac-
counted for if we assume the rº º have
X
Simpulum and Malleus.




676 SIPARIUM
SITOS
been introduced later; the simpulum being
always of earthenware would naturally not be
mentioned. 4. The words of Warro and Festus
cited above tend to show that the simpulum
was a form of Roman vessel handed down from
primitive times before the introduction of Greek
shapes, and with this agrees the mention in
Juv. vi. 343 of the simpww.ium and niger catinus
of Numa (the latter perhaps a praefericulum) as
primitive sacrificial utensils. If the view here
taken is correct, we must suppose that the
sacrificial simpulum was used in sacrifices ritu
Romano to take wine from the larger vessel, or
crater, and either transfer it to the capis, or
pour it directly in libation, as appears in the
passages of Festus and Pliny. [G. E. M.]
SIPA'RIUM. [THEATRUM, p. 821 b.]
SISTRUM (oreſorpov), a mystical instrument
of music, used by the ancient Egyptians in their
ceremonies, and especially in the worship of Isis
(Ovid, Met. ix. 784; Amor. ii. 13, 11, iii. 9, 34;
de Ponto, i. 1, 38). It was held in the right
hand (see woodcut), and shaken, from which
circumstance it derived its name (aera repulsa
manu, Tibull. i. 3, 24). Its most common form
is seen in the right-hand figure of the annexed
woodcut, which represents an ancient sistrum (cf.
Micali, Mon. ined. tav. xvii.; Plut. de Is... et Osir.
pp. 670, 671). Apuleius (Met. xi. pp. 119, 121,
Sistra.
ed. Aldi) describes the sistrum as a bronze rattle
(aereum crepitaculum), consisting of a narrow
plate curved like a sword-belt (balteus), through
which passed a few rods, that rendered a loud
shrill sound. He says that these instruments
were sometimes made of silver or even of gold.
The introduction of the worship of Isis into
Italy shortly before the commencement of the
Christian era made the Romans familiar with
this instrument. The “linigeri calvi, sistra-
taque turba” (Mart. xii. 29), are most exactly
depicted in two paintings found at Portici (Ant.
d'Ercolano, vol. ii. pp. 309–320), and containing
the two figures of a priest of Isis and a woman
kneeling at her altar, which are introduced into
the preceding woodcut. The use of the sistrum
in Egypt as a military instrument to collect the
troops is probably a fiction (Verg. Aen. viii. 696;
Propert. iii. 11, 43). .
Sistrum is sometimes used for a child’s rattle
(Martial, xiv. 54; Pollux, ix.127). [J. Y.]
SITELLA. [SITULA.] _*
SITO'NAE (gurðval). [SITOs.]
SITOPHY'LACES (oritopäAakes), a board
of officers, chosen by lot, at Athens. Their
business was partly to watch the arrival of the
corn ships, take account of the quantity im-
ported, and see that the import laws were duly
observed ; partly to control the sales of corn in
the market, and take care that the prices were
fair and reasonable, and none but legal weights
and measures used by the factors; in which
respect their duties were much the same as
those of the AGORANOMI and METRONOMI with
regard to other saleable articles. Their num-
ber, according to the most probable correction
of the words of Aristotle (ap. Harpocrat. s. v.),
was the same as that of the other bodies with
analogous functions; namely ten, five for the
city and five for the Peiraeus (Vömel, Zeitschr.
f. Alterthumsw. 1852, p. 32; Gilbert, Staats-
alterth. i. 247; Fränkel, n. 145 on Boeckh).
Another reading, followed by Boeckh and the
authors of the Att. Process (p. 105 Lips.), gives
ten for the city and five for the Peiraeus, or
fifteen in all. The notion that there were
originally only three rests on a false reading in
Lysias (Or. 22, karū rôv >wrotra,Xów, § 8, where
Scheibe rightly corrects réorgapes (6') for 650:
see his note, and Fränkel l.c.). According to
Lysias (ib. § 16), the oriropäxares had often been
punished with death for mere inability to check
the proceedings of the oritoróAal, but the pas-
sionate unfairness of this speech indisposes us to
accept so extraordinary a statement on its sole
authority.
Demosthenes refers to the entry in the books
of the Sitophylaces (rºv trapë roſs oritoqºačiv
âtoypaqºv) to prove the quantity of corn
imported from Pontus, which (he says) was
equal to all that came from elsewhere, owing to
the liberality of Leucon, king of the Bosporus,
who allowed corn to be exported from Theudosia
to Athens free of duty (Dem. c. Lept. p. 467,
§ 32). These books were probably kept by the
five who acted for the Peiraeus, whose especial
business it would be to inspect the cargoes that
were unladen. (Harpocr. s. v. Xutoqūxakes :
Boeckh, P. E. p. 83= Sthh.*i. 105.)
[C. R. K.] [W. W.]
SITOPO'LAE (a wrotróAal). [SITOS.]
SITOS (airos), corn. The soil of Attica,
though favourable to the production of figs,
olives, and grapes, was not so well suited for
corn; and the population being very consider-
able in the flourishing period of the Athenian
republic, it was necessary to import corn for
their subsistence. According to the calculation
of Boeckh, which does not materially differ from
that of other writers, there were 135,000 free-
men and 365,000 slaves residing in Attica. The
country, which contained an area of 64,000
stadia, produced annually about 2,400,000 me-
dimni of corn, chiefly barley. The medimnus
was about 1 bushel, 3 gallons, and 5' 75 pints,
or 48 Attic xofukes. Å xolvić was considered
a fair daily allowance of meal (huepmoſa Too??)
for a slave. The consumption of the whole
population was about 3,400,000 medimni, re-
quiring therefore an importation of at least a
million. It came from the countries bordering
on the Euxine Sea (Pontus, as it was called. by
the Greeks), and more especially from the Cim-

SITOs
SITOS 677
merian Bosporus and the Thracian Chersonese;
also from Syria, Egypt, Libya, Cyprus, Rhodes,
Sicily, and Euboea. The necessities of the
Athenians made them exceedingly anxious to
secure a plentiful supply, and every precaution
was taken for that purpose by the government
as well as by the legislator. Sunium was forti-
fied, in order that the corn vessels (ottayaºyol
ðAlcáðes) might come safely round the promon-
tory. Ships of war were often employed to
convoy the cargo (trapatréutrew rov oſtrov) be-
yond the reach of an enemy (Dem. de Cor.
p. 251, § 77; c. Polycl. p. 1211, § 17). When
Pollis, the Lacedaemonian admiral, was stationed
with his fleet off Aegina, the Athenians em-
barked in haste, under the command of Chabrias,
and offered him battle, in order that the corn-
ships, which had arrived as far as Geraestus
in Euboea, might get into the Peiraeus (Xen.
Hell. v. 4, § 61). One of the principal objects
of Philip in his attack on Byzantium was that,
by taking that city, he might command the
entrance to the Euxine, and so have it in his
power to distress the Athenians in the corn
trade. Hence the great exertions made by
Demosthenes to relieve the Byzantines, of the
success of which he justly boasts (de Cor.
pp. 254, 307, 326, §§ 87,241, 302).
As with those commercial states which, in
modern times, import a large proportion of
their food, a regularly-organised corn trade was
a matter of the first necessity to the Athenians.
What we learn of this organisation shows the
business capacity of the Greeks, which in gene-
ral was greatly inferior to that of modern
Europe or even of the Romans, in a favourable
light. The destination of corn-ships was fre-
quently changed by advices after they had
sailed (Dem. c. Dionysod. p. 1285, § 8 ft.);
which could not have been done without a good
system of intelligence. This enabled the vendors
to sell in the best market, with the natural
effect, not merely of raising prices where corn
was cheap, but of lowering them where it was
dear. Prices were thus brought to an equili-
brium : for this, the true sense of avvripav in
the passage just cited, see Class. Rev. i. 14.
This natural flow of the commodity was checked
by the short-sighted selfishness of governments;
the Athenian in this respect being in all proba-
bility not the worst offender. Athenian legisla-
tion aimed at an artificial cheapness at the ex-
pense of speculators; exportation was entirely
forbidden; and the consignment of corn to any
other port than Athens (orirm'yeſv &AAoore ?)
'A9hvaſe) was made a capital offence (Dem.
c. Phorm. p. 918, § 37; Lycurg. c. Leocr. § 27).
This was the rule for Attic traders, whether
citizens or metoecs; while of the corn brought
into Peiraeus in foreign bottoms two-thirds were
to be carried up into the city and sold there
(Harpocr. s. v. 'Etriplexnths épiroptov). No one
might lend money to a ship that did not sail
with an express condition to bring a return
cargo, part of it corn, to Athens. If any mer-
chant, capitalist, or other person advanced
money or entered into any agreement in contra-
vention of these laws, not only was he liable to
the penalty, but the agreement itself was null
and void, nor could he recover any sum of
money, or bring any action in respect thereof
(Dem. c. Lacrit. p. 941, §§ 50, 51). Informa-
tion against the offenders was to be laid before
the étruexmºral rot, €utroptov [EPIMELETAE,
No. 3]. Strict regulations were made with
respect to the sale of corn in the market;
and the proceedings of the orirotröAat or middle-
men were narrowly watched both by the citizens
and the importers (épatropol, Lys. Or. 22, § 21).
Conspiracies to buy up the corn (avvaveirbai),
or raise the price (avvuardval r&s ripás), were
punished with death. The statement that they
were not allowed to make a profit of more than
one obol in the medimnus (ib. § 8) is illogical,
and contradicted by the whole tenor of the
passage; the true reading is beiv yūp abroos
k&w 380A3, p.6Mou Troxeſv ripid repov (Fränkel,
n. 144 on Boeckh). It was, however, unlawful
to buy more than fifty popuol at a time: the
size of this measure is uncertain, but Boeckh
supposes it to be nearly the same as a medimnus.
These provisions were (or were supposed to be)
carried out by the ouroqūAakes [SITOPHYLACES].
Offences against the corn laws are mentioned by
Demosthenes (c. Timocr., p. 743, § 136) among
those for which no bail was allowed before
trial ; whether he refers to the oritoróAat or
oritoqūAakes, or to both, is not clear. These
laws were systematically evaded in the pursuit
of gain (Lys. Or. 22, karð rôv ×urotraxáv,
passim ; Dem. c. Dionysod. l. c.).
In this interference with the natural course
of trade, the political economy of the Athenians
was scarcely more backward than that of
modern Europe, including England, until quite
recent times. Our own laws against “fore-
stalling, and regrating” were not extinguished
until the end of the last century (MºCulloch,
n. on Smith's Wealth of Nations, p. 237, ed.
1863); in Italy, it appears, bakers and flour-
dealers are still liable to summary punishment
both from mobs and municipalities. But the
wholesale enactment of the death penalty
brings out one of the worst features of the
Athenian character, and is partly to be ac-
counted for by the fact that the trade was
mostly in the hands of aliens, who might be
oppressed without remorse. Boeckh, who draws
largely from the speech of Lysias against the
Corn-dealers, seems scarcely aware of the im-
policy as well as cruelty of the legislation it
describes: an English scholar has criticised it in
the true spirit of political economy (Mahaffy,
Social Life in Greece, ed. 3, p. 403 f.).
We are not surprised to learn that scarcities
(oritoöeſai) frequently occurred at Athens,
either from bad harvests, the misfortunes of
war, or other accidental causes. The state then
made great efforts to supply the wants of the
people by importing large quantities of corn,
and selling it at a low price. Public granaries
were kept in the Odeum, Pompeum, Long
Porch (uakpā or rod), and dockyard at the
Peiraeus (Pollux, ix.45; Dem. c. Phorm. p. 918,
§ 37, where see Paley and Sandys). Sitonae
(oritóval) were appointed to get in the supply
and manage the sale. Demosthenes was ap-
pointed on one occasion to that office (de Cor.
p. 310, § 248). Persons called apodectae (àtro:
ãékrai) received the corn, measured it out, and
distributed it in certain quantities (Pollux,
viii. 114). Public-spirited individuals would
sometimes import grain at their own expense,
and sell it at a moderate price, or distribute it
678 SITOU IDIKE
SITOU IDIKE
gratuitously (Dem..., 0. Phorm. p. 918, §§ 38,
39). We read of the Athenian state receiving
presents of corn from kings and princes. Thus
Leucon, king of the Bosporus, sent a large pre-
sent, for which he had the honour of &réAeta
(exemption from customs-duties) conferred on
him by a decree of the people (Dem. c. Lept.
p. 467, §§ 33, 34; cf. Isocr. Trapez. § 57).
Psammetichus, an Egyptian prince, sent a pre-
sent in Olymp. 83.4, Demetrius in Olymp. 118.
2; Spartacus, king of the Bosporus, a few years
after. In later times, that made by the Roman
Atticus is well known. On the whole of this
subject the reader is referred to Boeckh (P. E.
p. 77 ff. = Sthh.* i. 97 ff.), where also he will
find the various prices of meal and bread at
Athens, and other details, copiously explained.
As to the duty payable on the importation of
corn, see PENTECOSTE.
>Pros is strictly wheat-flour, &Apura barley-
flour, Tupol wheat, kptôal barley, Śpros wheat
bread, uá(a barley-bread. Xiros, however, is
often applied to all kinds of corn, and even in a
larger sense to provisions in general.
[C. R. K.] [W. W.]
SITOU DIKE (orírov Sticm). The marriage
portion (rpolé) being intended as a provision
for the wife, although it was paid to the
husband by her father, brother, or other natural
guardian (köpios), if anything happened to sever
the marriage contract, or if, after a contract of
marriage and after the payment of the marriage
portion, the intended husband refused to perform
his engagement (Dem. c. Aphob. i. p. 811, § 17;
ii. p. 839, § 11 ; iii. p. 854, § 33), the husband
or his representative was bound to repay it; or,
if he failed to do so, he was liable to pay
interest upon it at the rate of 18 per cent. per
annum (ér' évvé à80Aoſs rokopopeiv, [Dem.]
c. Neaer. p. 1362, § 52; 12 per cent., Dem.
c. Aphob. i. p. 818, § 17). When the property
of the husband was seized, the wife's dowry was
exempted therefrom [(Dem.] c. Everg. et Mnes.
p. 1156, § 57; yet see Lys. de Bon. Aristoph.
§§ 9, 32); but the marriage was not dissolved on
that account, as Van den Es (de Jure Famil.
p. 50) supposes. Caillemer (La Restitution de
la Dot à Athènes) gives three causes for the
dissolution of marriage : (1) death, (2) civil
death, and (3) divorce. 1. Upon the death of
the husband without children, the wife and her
money went back to the natural guardian ; but
if he died leaving children, she had the option
of staying with them or going back to her
Kūptos. If she did the latter, the children (or
their guardian, if they were under age) were
bound to pay back the portion to the icºptos, or
18 per cent. interest in the meantime (Isae.
Pyrrh.. § 8 f., § 78); and if she married again,
her kūptos was bound in honour to give the
same sum to her new husband (Dem. c. Boeot.
ii. p. 1010, § 7). If she did the former, she
renounced thereby her right to her portion,
which became the property of the children, who
on their part undertook to provide for all her
wants (Dem. c. Phaen. p. 1047, § 27; c. Steph.
ii. p. 1135, § 20: cf. also Aeschin. c. Tºm. § 28).
Upon the wife's death without children, her
portion went back to her guardian (Isae. Pyrrh.
§§ 36, 38); but if she died leaving children,
and these were of age, their father had to hand
over to them their mother's portion, and, if
they were not yet of age, he kept it for them
until then (Dem. c. Boeot. ii. p. 1023, § 50 f.).
2. The law ordains that a person ransomed
from the enemy shall become the property of
the ransomer if he fails to pay the ransom (Dem.
c. Nicostr. p. 1250, § 11); such a person would
become a slave, and there could be no marriage
between a slave and a free woman. There are,
however, no instances recorded of this law
being set in force and of a marriage being
dissolved for that reason. 3. The portion of
the wife had to be restored to her kūpios or
interest paid upon it as stated above in case of
divorce, both when her husband sent his wife
away (&ºróreplyis, [Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1362,
§ 52; Isae. Pyrrh. § 28 : Schömann, Gr.
Alterth. i. p. 546, is wrong in supposing that
the husband might keep her portion if she had
committed adultery), and when the wife left her
husband (&tóAelibis, Isae. Pyrrh. §§ 8, 35, 78;
Dem. c. Onet. i. p. 866, § 8). Upon the transfer
of a woman from one husband to another, which
was not uncommon, the trpoić was transferred
with her (Isae. Menecl. § 9), or the former
husband had to pay interest upon it so long as
he retained it (Dem. c. Onet. i. p. 866, § 7: 10
per cent.).
A woman's fortune was usually secured by a
mortgage of the husband’s property [HORI];
but whether this was so or not, her guardian,
in any of the cases above mentioned, might
bring an action against the party who unjustly
withheld it—Sticn irpoikos to recover the princi-
pal, 6tten orírov for the interest. The interest
was called aºros (alimony or maintenance).
because it was the income out of which the
woman had to be maintained; i ötöoplévn
trpáoroöos eis Tpoq’hy rats Yuvaičiv, etc. (Harpocr.
s. v. ; cf. Pollux, viii. 33). In earlier times it
was probably customary to pay in kind, i.e. in
corn or some other sort of provisions (cf. the
expression in [Dem.] c. Stephan. ii. p. 1135,
§ 20, row aºrov werpeſv rà antpi, of the son of
an émíkAmpos who had come of age and taken
possession of her inheritance); but it was soon
found to be more convenient to commute this
for a money payment. The Sikm atrov was
tried before the archon in the Odeum ([Dem.]
c. Neaer. p. 1362, § 52; Pollux, viii. 33; Bekk.
Anecd. p. 317; Photius, s. v.); in which,
according to Boeckh (Sthh.. i.” p. 110), corn
stores were kept, though the passage he quotes
(Dem. c. Phorm. p. 918, § 37) scarcely bears
out this opinion. It is a matter of doubt
whether the building of Pericles is meant
(Hiller, Herm, 1872, p. 391 ff.), or the older one
near the spring Enneakrounos (Pausan. i. 14, 1)
built by Solon or Pisistratus (Bursian, Geogr. v.
Griechenl. i. p. 299), the existence of which
Wilamowitz denies (Herm. 1886, p. 602 n.).
This cause, like the 6them trpoucós, seems to have
belonged to the éppumvol 6tral, as it was pre-
sumed that the woman could not wait long for
the means of her daily subsistence. It was
àrium ros, for the damages were clearly liqui-
dated, being a mere matter of calculation,
when the payment of the marriage portion Was
proved (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 177 f,
510–527). e
The regulations about marriage-portions,etc.
were different in Gortyna. Whilst at Athens
giving a portion, though very usual, was not
SITULA
SOCCUS 679
mecessary, to establish marriage as such (as
distinguished from concubinage), and whilst
there the amount of the portion was not fixed,
we find that at Gortyna, if the father was
willing to give a portion, its amount was regu-
lated by the law of inheritance, viz. it was half
a son’s share (pepvh 3’ eartív, &v &öexpo. 301, to
#Augu Tàs toū &öexpod weptó0s, Strab. x. 4, 20),
and a daughter thus endowed had no further
claim on the inheritance. During marriage the
wife's property was regarded throughout as a
separate and individual possession. In case of
divorce the wife received her own property
brought to the marriage, half of the produce
of her property, half of what she had “woven,”
and five staters, if the man was the cause of the
divorce (atrios, ii. 1. 47 ff.). We do not know
what the law was if the wife was the cause,
e.g. if she had been unfaithful; she can scarcely
have forfeited her property. There is no
reason to suppose it was so at Athens, though
it seems from Dittenberger, Syll. I. Gr. No. 344,
l. 59 f., that at Ephesus in some cases the
portion remained with the husband (yìuavres
kal 6taxv0évtes pil &toãebøkagi rās pepvås
oforas &močárous karð row vöuov). Upon her
death without children, the husband had to
give to her relatives the same as in a case of
divorce, except the five staters (iii. 1.31 ff.); if
there were children they inherited her property
[HERES, II.]. Upon the husband's death with-
out children, she received her own property,
half of what she had “woven,” a portion of the
produce, and whatever her husband had given
her (iii. 1. 24 ft.); but if there were children
and she married again, she received her own
property only and her husband’s gifts (iii.
1. 17 ff.). Careful provisions were made against
her carrying off anything belonging to her
husband or children. [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SI'TULA, dim. SITELLA (58pía), a bucket
for drawing water from a draw-well (Dig. 18, 1,
Situla of bronze. (Dennis.)
40, § 6) or for carrying it (Plaut. Amph. ii. 2,
30; Isid. Orig. xx. 15). Those for carrying
water were either of earthenware (as in Egypt)
and carried two together by a yoke, or of
bronze (see Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 656). In
Plaut. Cas. ii. 4, 17, it was a voting-urn; but
in this sense we usually find the diminutive
form sitella (Plaut. Cas. ii. 6, 11 : Liv. xxv. 3,
xli. 18), as also urna and orca (Verg. Aen. vi.
431 ; Val. Max. vi. 3, 4 ; Lucan, v. 394 ;
Yopisc. Prob. 8). It seems that, as among the
Greeks, the urn in which the lots were placed
was filled with water; and when this was
poured out, the lot which appeared first float-
ing on it was decisive: hence in Plaut. l. c.,
“Situlam huc tecum afferto cum aqua et sortes : ”
and the expressions in Vopiscus, “qui primum
emergeret ’’ and “Probi nomen effusum est” (cf.
Cic. in Terr. ii. 51, 127; in Watin. 14, 34;
Marquardt, Privatl. p. 548). For the difference
between sitella, the urn from which the names
of the tribes or centuries were drawn to
determine the order of voting, and cista the
voting-box, see CISTA. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
SMINTHIA (Xuív6ta), a festival celebrated
at Rhodes (and perhaps elsewhere) in honour of
Apollo Smintheus (Athen. iii. 74 f; x.
p. 445 a cf. Hermann, Gottesd. Alt. § 67, note
10). As regards the places where Apollo was
so named, see Strabo, x. 486, xiii. 604 ; Schol.
ad Îl. i. 39; Ael. H. A. xiii. 5, who speaks of a
mouse fed in the temple of Apollo Smintheus.
It is beyond our scope to discuss whether the
name signifies “mouse-destroyer,” and therefore
“protector of crops,” or whether the mouse
symbolised a destroyer of enemies, or whether,
as is more recently held, the mouse was a
totem : see, however, Lang, Custom and Myth,
p. 103; Baumeister, Denkm. p. 1670 (s. v.
Scopas), where the subject is illustrated by a
representation on a coin. . . [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
SOCCUS, dim. SO'CCULUS, denoted a
slipper or low shoe, which did not fit closely, and
was not fastened by any tie (Isid. Orig. xix. 33).
Shoes of this description (e.g. the Tréporukat and
6td.626pov : see CALCEUS) were worn, more
especially among the Greeks, together with the
PALLIUM, both by men and by women. We find
“socci viriles et muliebres’ distinguished in
Ed. Diocl. 9, 25 : the latter seem to be usually
more ornamented
(Plin. H. N. xxxvii.
§ 17; cf. Suet. Cul.
52). In the time
of the Republic it
was considered un-
befitting a Roman
to wear them (Cic.
pro Rab. Post. 10,
27), and classed
with wearing the
pallium instead of
the toga.
As was stated
under the article
BAXA, the Soccus
was worn by comic
actors (Hor. Ars
Poèt. 80, 90), and
was in this respect
opposed to the * * *
Coth URNUs (Ov. Rem. Am. 376; Mart. viii.
3, 13; Plin. H. N. vii. § 111). The actor of the
MIMUs wore neither buskin nor slipper, and
A comic actor wearing Socci.



680 SOCIETAS
SOCIETAS
was therefore called planipes (Teuffel, § 7;
Mayor, ad Juv. viii. 191). The preceding
woodcut is taken from an ancient painting of a
comic actor, who is dancing in loose yellow
slippers (luteum soccum, Catull. Epithal. Jul.10).
Cf. Marquardt, Privatleben, 595; Becker-Göll,
Gallus, iii. 229. [SOLEA..] [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
SOCI’ETAS, “partnership,” is the name of
a contract which arises when two or more
persons agree together to conduct for their joint
account any lawful business, or to share the
profits and loss of any single piece of business,
or even of all their havings and doings. Accord-
ing to agreement, the partners may contribute
differently either in property or services, and
may have different shares in the result. In
default of agreement, the shares will be equal.
As a rule the share of profits determines also
the share of loss, and vice versé ; but this also is
subject to agreement, only all partners must
have some share in the profits. Otherwise, it
would be as Cassius used to call it, with an
allusion to the fable (cf. Phaedr. i. 5), a “lion-
like ’’ partnership (societas leonina), and invalid.
Mucius (i.e. Q. Mucius Scaevola) held that the
shares of loss must be the same as the shares of
profit, but Servius (i.e. Serv. Sulpicius Rufus)
held that this was not necessary, and his opinion
prevailed (Dig. 17, 2, ll. 29, 30).
Partnership rests on consent, and may either
be formed by particular words or inferred from
facts (“et re et verbis et per nuntium coiri,” Dig.
ib. 4). It ceases on the death of a partner or on his
bankruptcy, or on the extinction of the thing or
conclusion of the business which is the object of
the partnership, or on the occurrence of the
time or condition agreed to, or by notice given
by any partner to the others. Civil death
(capitis deminutio) in this as in other matters
was originally equivalent to natural death ; but
the later law confined such effect to the loss of
liberty or citizenship, while it preserved the
theory by holding that in the case of a mere
change of status (min. cap. dem.) a new partner-
ship arose by the consent of the partners as
often as the existing one was dissolved. Notice
of retirement is good only if the other partners
are not unfairly put to a disadvantage; other-
wise the retiring partner has to compensate
them, and loses his share in the profits (Gaius,
iii. 151–154; Dig. ib. 63, 10–65, 14 sq.).
A partner must account for all profits made
by him in partnership matters, and manage the
business as carefully as he does his own. He is
liable for losses occasioned by his negligence, and
cannot set off against them any profits produced
by his exertions (Dig. ib. 25, 26). He can
recover from his partners any expenses in the
conduct of the business which he has properly
incurred (Dig. ib. 52, 10–15 ; 60, 61; 67, 2;
72–74). The rights and responsibilities of
partners were enforced by a special action,
actio pro socio; i.e. a suit brought in the
character of a partner. It could be brought
not only by a partner against his fellows, but
by or against a partner's heir, without the heir
being himself a partner or being made so by
this action (Dig. ib. 35–38; 63, 8; 65, 9). It
was an action bonae fidei, i.e. it took account of
equitable considerations on both sides. Hence
the judge was called arbiter (Cic. pro Rosc. Com.
8, 24, 25; Dig. ib. 38). Condemnation in such
a suit made a man infamous (Gaius, iv. 182;
Dig. 3, 2, 1), but, as in other cases of close
relationship, was not to be executed with such
stringency as to deprive the defendant of the
necessary means of subsistence (“in id quod
facere potest condemnari oportet,” Dig. 17, 2,
63 pr., 3). Other rights of action were not ex-
cluded, but their effect was limited to satisfaction
in excess of what had been already won by this.
It differed from the actio communi dividundo by
being confined to partners in the strict sense of
the term, i.e. persons to whom a community of
goods has come by their own choice and purpose,
and not merely by accident or legal devolution,
and by its scope embracing not merely corporeal
things, but debts and all kinds of mutual claims
and equities (Dig. ib. 43; 10, 3, 1–3).
Partnership did not make its members into
one legal body: its effects were confined to the
members themselves; outsiders were in no way
concerned. As a rule a partner bound himself
only to third parties; and he could alienate
only his own share of the partnership property
(68, pr.). But some tendencies towards a
different rule are found. From ad Heren. ii. 13,
19, it would appear that solidarity among the
partners of a bank was sometimes customary
(“id quod argentario tuleris expensum ab socio
eius recte petere possis "), and the convenience
of the public is given as the cause of a similar
joint liability in the case of companies of slave-
dealers (Dig. 21, 1, 44, 1) and of shipmasters
(Dig. 14, 1, 1, 25, 1–4). And when partners
appoint a captain of a ship or a manager of a
shop, his action makes each and all liable to a suit
at the hands of third parties. Of course a person
thus singled out would have claims to be re-
imbursed proportionally by his partner.
As examples of partnerships may be men-
tioned: between neighbours to buy a field for
profit (Dig. ib. 52, pr., 31); between an owner
of cattle or of land and a farmer to pasture the
cattle or till the land (2); trading in cloaks
(sagaria negotiatio, 4); letting chambers (10);
building a common wall (13); contributing
horses to make up a team for sale (58, pr.);
teaching grammar (71, pr.), &c. One of the
Transylvanian wax tablets (A.D. 167) is a record
of an agreement for partnership in a banking
business (danistaria) concluded by stipulation
(C. I. L. iii. p. 950; also in Bruns, Fontes).
Two of Cicero's early speeches deal more or less
with partnerships. That pro Roscio Comoedo
relates to a slave belonging to Fannius, whom
Roscius agreed to train as an actor, the slave
thus trained to be employed for their common
profit. The speech pro Quinctio relates to a
partnership in a grazing farm.
Two special forms of partnership require
distinct mention.
1. Societas wniversorum bonorum is often
spoken of, and may very probably have ori-
ginated in the position of brothers who were
coheirs (cf. Dig. ib. 52, 8; 10, 2, 39, 3; 31, 89,
1), a relationship to which the name of con-
sortium seems to have been specially applied
(Dig. 27. 1, 31, 4; cf. Gell. i. 9, § 12). In this
case all the corporeal property of each partner
becomes at once without specific delivery com-
mon to both, and their future acquisitions by
trade, inheritance, gift, damages for bodily hurt,
&c. fell into the common stock (Dig. ib. 1-3).
SOCII
SOCII 681
2. Societates publicanorum. The companies
who farmed the public taxes stood from
their magnitude in a different position from
ordinary partnerships; but little is known of
their legal character. An heir, however, became
a partner if accepted by the others, and, if not
accepted, still shared in the profits and loss
(Dig. ib. 59; 63, 8). Such interested persons
may be meant by the term adfines (Liv. xliii.
16, 2; Kuntze, Curs. § 697). The shares (partes)
in these companies were sold and rose and fell
in price (Cic. pro Rab. Post. 2, 4; in Vat. 12,
29). Some account of their proceedings is given
in Cic. Verr. ii. 70–77, §§ 170–190. [H. J. R.]
SOCII. The term socii is the most general
of the many terms used to denote a class of
states which, though in partial dependence on
Rome and acknowledging to the full the
Roman hegemony, were yet, through the pos-
session of certain political privileges, not re-
garded as subject states, and were therefore
strictly outside the circle of provincial adminis-
tration. It was the most general term, since
it denoted the only common bond which united
these states with one another and with Rome.
The separate relations that Rome might have
with these states were manifold, but the
basis of this union was the idea of an armed
alliance, of which Rome was the head. This is
expressed in the word socius, and still more
clearly in its Greek form of a jupaxos. The
socii of Rome were those who were regarded
as having entered into a perpetual military
alliance with the ruling state ; but the term
socius hardly extends so far as the alliance
itself. The original nucleus of this alliance,
which embraced the whole of Italy and many
states outside Italy, was the Latin league. But
the Latins were as a rule distinguished from
the socii, chiefly on account of the peculiar
privileges they enjoyed in relation to Rome
[LATINITAS], which were not shared by the
other allied communities. This distinction is
shown in such expressions as socii ac nominis
Latini (Liv. xli. 8, 9), socii et Latium (Sall.
Hist. i. 17), and perhaps in socii Latini nominis,
if this is to be regarded as an asyndeton
(Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 661, n. 2 and 3). At
the other end of the scale we find socii some-
times used loosely to describe purely subject
states. Such usage naturally gained ground
after the Social war had merged the Italian
states, the original socii, in Rome, and caused
a sharp distinction to be drawn between Ro-
manised Italy and the mainly dependent outer
world : but the usage is incorrect, and down to
the end of the Republic we find the distinction
drawn between the socii, whose alliance with
Rome necessarily implied some degree of inde-
pendence, and the purely subject states which
fell under provincial rule (Cic. in Caecin. 3, 7,
“socii stipendiariique.” Suet. Caes. 25, “om-
nem Galliam praeter socias civitates in pro-
vinciae formam redegit”).
The earliest political union under Rome,
which formed the type of future unions, was
the Latin league. The circle of alliance was
subsequently extended outside the bounds of
Latium by the break up of confederacies such as
the Hernican and the Samnite, and the reception
of the states, as well as of the Greek towns of
the south of Italy, into the Roman confederacy;
while the mixed nationalities of these new
acquisitions, and the definite military burdens
imposed upon the states so received, gave the
alliance a purely military and political sig-
nificance, in which the older bonds which drew
these states together, community of blood and
language, were wholly lost. The effect of this
extension was to present Italy (Greek, Latin and
Oscan) as a united whole, and to create a new
nationality, of which the geographical and
political significances were coincident, that of the
Italici. This term was at first coincident with
the expression Socii nominisque Latini; but as the
socii soon came to include favoured states in
the extra-Italian world, such as Athens and
Rhodes, it soon ceased to denote an exclusive
political status, and became merely a descriptive
expression. To the similar connexion, into
which Rome entered with states outside Italy,
the already organised Italian alliance gave the
form in all its main outlines; there was the
same recognition of independence and autonomy
which was necessary to constitute alliance,
although of necessity certain elements which
entered into the Italian were less strongly
marked in the extra-Italian union. . This was
particularly the case as regards the fixed
military duties of the allies. In Italy such
military requisitions were fixed, regular, and
frequent, and the Italians furnished the large
portion of the land forces which were Rome's
chief source of power: the Greek states, on the
contrary, like Neapolis and Rhodes, were
generally requisitioned to furnish ships; and
as the marine of the Romans attained nothing
like the permanent importance of their land
army, fixed requisitions on the extra-Italian
allies were less frequent, and far less of a
ruling element in the bond that connected them
with the Romans. But the power to make
requisitions always remained an essential part
of the theory (Liv. xlv. 25 ; Polyb. xxi. 1, 4),
and this condition was the same for the Italian
and the non-Italian socii; it carried with it
the idea of subjection as clearly as that of
partial independence.
But the notion of subjection was expressed
more in the fact than in the legal theory. It
was shown most clearly by that intermediate
position in which the state in question stood,
before the terms of alliance were definitely
concluded with it. This was the condition ex-
pressed by the word deditio. A community that
as yet had no definite status in the Roman
Empire, and yet sought such a status, had first
to surrender itself to the power (in dicionem,
Liv. xxxvii. 45, 2; in potestatem, Liv. xxxix.
54, 7), or the honour (in fidem, Liv. viii. 2, 13)
of the Roman people, for the expressions “in
fidem.” and “in dicionem,” though they are
sometimes distinguished, according as the ex-
pectations and desires of the conquered people
are considered, express the same condition
(Polyb. xx. 9, 12, trapā ‘Papatois io'obvuage? Té
re eis rºv triotiv airov čyxeiptoral kai to thw
&tirporhv 500val repl airoij Tę kparoßvri). A
community that had come into this condition
had no legal rights to be considered, and no
legal claims to urge. If an alliance was sought
and accepted, the terms of this alliance were
dictated by the Romans; if such autonomy
continued to be possessed by the state as was
682 SOCII
SOCII
necessary to constitute it a socia civitas, such
autonomy was restored to it by the Romans.
The international relations that followed this
condition of temporary subjection were mani-
fold: and the various relations towards herself
that Rome imposed on such communities, as
expressed by the terms foedus, libertas, airo-
woula, cannot be sharply distinguished. These
terms, though they may be used to denote
different sides of the same status, yet express
an ascending scale of rights, airovouía involving
least, foedus most. A state is self-governing
(aúróvouos) in virtue of the enjoyment of its
own laws: free (libera) in virtue of the
nominally sovereign independence it enjoys in
relation with Rome. Lastly, foedus existed
between Rome and any state that had a sworn
and therefore binding compact with Rome ;
but the term foederati was apparently not
applied to all states that had such a treaty.
It was not usually applied to the Latin com-
munities, although strictly speaking they were
foederati (Cic. pro Balbo, 24, 54, “Latinis, id
est foederatis”), for the same reason that they
did not come under the generic title Socii,
because their position was higher than that of
the ordinary socii or foederati. Again the
term foederati was not employed to denote the
dependent kingdoms or dynasties that had
terms of alliance with Rome. The standing re-
lations between Rome and these reges socii being
only regarded as binding during the lifetime of
the ruling prince and having to be renewed
with his successor, these communities, though
regarded as members of the armed alliance, and
therefore as socii, were not regarded as having
their position secured by a lasting and irre-
vocable alliance, and were not therefore spoken
of as foederati: and thus we find the reges not
included in but classed by the side of the populi
liberi and the foederati, in the enumeration of
the different kinds of states that stood in any
degree of permanent relationship with Rome
(Aelius Gallus, ap. Fest. s. v. postliminium,
p. 218, “cum populis liberis et cum foederatis
et cum regibus postliminium nobis est ita uti
cum hostibus.”). The distinction between liberi
and foederati is the distinction between states
that were independent of any other sovereign
power (Dig. 49, 15, 7, 1, “liber populus' est qui
nullius alterius populi potestati est subjectus’),
and states the independence of which was re-
cognised by a binding treaty. Every foederata
was of necessity also a libera civitas, since no
treaty could be concluded with a state that
did not possess the sovereign power.expressed
in libertas: but a state might be libera, and
have all the advantages which the recognition
of independence conferred, without having what
was in this case merely a permitted indepen-
dence, recognised by a treaty the observance of
which was guaranteed by the community that
dictated it, without being, that is, a foederata
civitas (étrº ovv8.hicals ēvopkoi, App. Bell. Civ. 1,
102), or as it was sometimes more fully called
a libera et foederata civitas (Plin. Ep. 92; Suet.
Cal. 3; Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, iii. p. 616;
Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. pp. 656, 657). In the
terms of the foedus concluded between Rome
and an Italian or non-Italian state, there was
always practically a recognition of semi-depen-
dence in the latter, and an assertion that the
fullest hegemony was vested in the central
state; but in some of these treaties there was
a formal recognition to the same effect contained
in the clause that the state to which the treaty
was granted “should respect the majesty of
the Roman people.” A treaty containing this
clause did not technically diminish the libertas
of the state with which it was concluded, but
merely asserted—what in every foedus was
tacitly implied—the superiority of the state
which dictated the treaty (Dig. 49, 15, 7, 1,
“hoc adjicitur, ut intellegatur alterum popu-
lum superiorem esse, non ut intellegatur al-
terum non esse liberum.” Cic. pro Balbo, 16,
35, “ille in foedere inferior cum alterius populi
majestas conservari jubetur”). Vague as the
expressions foedus aequum, foedus iniquum are,
yet, when strictly employed, they appear respec-
tively to denote a treaty the character of which
was determined by the absence or presence of
this restrictive clause (Dig. l.c. : “is foederatus
est item sive aequo foedere in amicitiam Venit
sive comprehensum est ut is populus alterius
populi majestatem comiter conservaret ’).
Every alliance implies the sacrifice of some
rights on the part of the contracting states.
The nature of the rights sacrificed on either
side shows the equality or inequality of the
alliance: and the real dependence of the socii
on Rome was strongly marked by the perpetual
sacrifice of certain rights on their part which
were inconsistent with the hegemony of Rome.
Such was the renunciation of the free right of
declaring war, which was accompanied by the
loss of the parallel right of making independent
treaties; the sole exceptions are to be found in
the case of the more distant reges socii, such as
those of Mauritania and Cappadocia, who exer-
cised the right, which was perhaps not formally
denied to them, of conducting border wars on
their own account. The Roman principle of the
separation of interests also insisted on the
breaking up of the standing national confedera-
tions within the allied states. The merging of
the Latin confederacy in Rome had been followed
by the break-up of the Hernican and Etruscan
leagues, and no hegemony, such as that exercised
by Rome over her socii, was permitted to any of
these allied states over others, the “octo oppida
sub dicione Praenestinorum ” mentioned by Livy
(vi. 29) being probably an exceptional clientela
entered into for the purposes of revolt (Momm-
sen, Staatsr. iii. p. 658, n. 1). In the provinces
also the ancient ovuuaxtat were broken up.
This was the case with Athens, whose depen-
dencies when retained became, as the island of
Delos did, her actual possessions, which may
have been regarded as cleruchies, and which
were governed directly by Athenian émplexntat
(Gilbert, Staatsalterth. i. p. 425). Similarly,
with the entrance of Rhodes into direct societas
with Rome, her hegemony over Lycia and Caria
was lost (Polyb. xxx. 5, 12; Liv. xliv. 15, 1).
The most distinctive duties performed by the
allies of Rome were those connected with pur-
poses of war. The idea of the alliance presup-
posed warlike service, and the position of Rome
with respect to her allies no doubt carried with
it the right to an indefinite demand for such
service whenever occasion required. As regards
the Italian allies, there were definite regulations
as to the amount of the contingents they were
SOCII
SOCII 683.
expected to furnish. The same was the case
with the Greek states, the usual requisition on
which was ships of war. The amount of the
contingent was definitely fixed, and in some
cases, as in that of the Rhodians, was changed
from time to time (Dio Chrysost. Or. 31, p. 620),
while to some of these states a special exemption
from regular service was granted (Cic. in Verr.
v. 19, 50). But it was from the land army of
the Italians, the togati, or, as the Roman formula
more fully expressed it, the “socii nominisve
Latini, quibus ex formula togatorum milites in
Italia imperare solent” (C. I. L. i. 200), that
the main strength of the auxiliary forces was
derived. The number of troops required was
decreed every year by the senate (Liv. xli. 5, &c.),
and the consuls fixed the amount which each
allied state was to send, in proportion to its
population capable of service. The names of
persons so liable were contained in the formulae
of the several states (Liv. xxii. 57, xxvii. 10,
“milites ex formula paratos esse’’), service
being regulated by the census, which was
modelled on that of Rome (Liv. xxix. 15, “cen-
sumque in iis coloniis agi ex formula ab Romanis
censoribus data”), and under the conditions of
the special exemptions from service granted by
the treaty (“vacatio rei militaris ex foedere,”
Lex Jul. Munic. l. 93; C. I. L. i. n. 206). The
consuls appointed the place and time at which
the troops of the socii were to meet him and
his legions (Polyb. vi. 21, 4; Liv. xxxiv. 56,
xxxvi. 3, &c.). The contingents of the several
states remained together in separate cohorts,
each under its own commander, and each fur-
nished with its own quaestor (Polyb. vi. 21, 5).
The commander was, probably, in most cases
the magistrate of the state, as the praetor of
Praeneste (Liv. xxiii. 19, 7) and the soldiers of
the separate states took the sacramentum to
their own commander (Polyb. l. c.). Besides
these separate officers, the consuls appointed
twelve prefects, apparently Roman, as com-
manders of the whole body of the socii, and
their power answered to that of the military
tribunes in a consular army (Polyb. vi. 26, 5),
the whole staff of officers acting in obedience to
the consul. These prefects selected of the
cavalry and # of the infantry of the socii, who
formed a select body called the extraordinarii.
The remainder were then divided into two large
divisions, called the right and the left wing
(Polyb. l.c.; Liv. xxxv. 5); each of these alae,
composed of cohorts and commanded by six
praefecti, closely resembled a Roman legion, and
we find the socii on one occasion organised as
legions (Liv. xxxvii. 39). The infantry of the
allies, on the occasion of a single levy, was
usually more numerous than that of the Romans;
their cavalry, which was divided into turmae,
generally three times more numerous (Polyb.
vi. 26). Pay and clothing were given to the
allied troops by the states to which they
belonged, the quaestors who accompanied each
contingent being appointed for this purpose;
but Rome furnished them with provisions at
the expense of the Republic, the allied infantry
receiving the same as the Roman, the cavalry
somewhat less [STIPENDIUM). The right of the
allies to share in the distribution of the spoils
of war and of conquered lands was freely recog-
nised, and on some occasions they received an
equal share with the Romans (Liv. xxxix. 5;
xl. 43). But that they had no standing right
to such an equal distribution, such as that said
to have been possessed in ancient times by the
Latin and Hernican confederacies (Dionys. vi. 95;
viii. 77), is shown by the fact that on some
occasions these proportions were not maintained
(Liv. xli. 13). The contingents of the Italian
socii are sometimes called auxilia (Sall. Jug. 39),
those of the allies outside Italy being described
as auxilia externa or provincialia (Liv. xxii. 37,
7; xl. 31, 1). After the Social war, however,
which merged the Italian allies in Rome, the
Italian awazilia or togati disappear, and the word
auzilia, during the later Republic and the
Empire, always signifies non-Italian contingents,
chiefly those which made up the light-armed
troops of the Roman forces.
Although the furnishing of regular contin-
gents was not held inconsistent with the
autonomy of the states in alliance with Rome,
the furnishing of a regular tribute was. It is
true that some of the dependent kingdoms paid
a tribute (Polyb. ii. 12, 13) which was in the
nature of a war-indemnity; but during the
early period of the Roman Empire liability to
tribute was a token of subjection, and neither
the Italian allies nor the liberae or foederatae
civitates in the provinces were subject to it;
foedus implies libertas, and libertas (éAev6epta) is
invariably conjoined with immunitas (&réAeta,
Paus. viii. 43, Aev6eptav kal &réxelav. Strabo,
p. 595, ÉXev6eptav Kal &Aettowpymortav. Cic. in
Verr. iii. 6, 13, “liberae et immunes”). Although
this principle was modified to some extent in the
later Republic [IMMUNITAS], yet stipendiarii was
ever the main antithesis to socii (Cic. pro Balbo,
9, 24; Marquardt, Staatsverw. p. 346). This
general immunity of the allied states was
accompanied by an assertion, such as that con-
tained in the Lex Antonia de Termessensibus of
71 B.C., that their territory was under their
own control, and that such public revenues as
were raised from it should be raised by their
own governments and for their own local pur-
poses (Lex de Term. C. J. L. i. n. 204, § i. 10,
“quei agri, quae loca, &c., utei antea habeant
possideant.” Cf. C. I. G. 2737, Xajoriv reparāoriv
xpévrai kapirſſovrat Te Trévrov trpayudºrov
&rexels &vres), and it is on this right that the
exemptions from the quartering of troops recog-
nised in the law of Termessus (ii. 5) is based.
Rome, however, claimed of her own right to
confer exemptions from local burdens on the
citizens of such states (Liv. xxiii. 20, 2; C. I. L.
i. n. 206, l. 93) and to claim exemptions for her
own citizens from local dues (Lex de Term. i.
35). The enjoyment of the control of their own
territory by the allies was necessarily accom-
panied by the fullest permission of local admin-
istration both in respect to jurisdiction and the
power of living according to local ordinances or
of making local laws, provided these did not
conflict with the terms of the treaty or the con-
ditions expressed in the lex data (Lex de Term.
i. 10, “suis legibus utei liceto, quod advorsus
hanc legemnon fiat "). As regards jurisdiction,
the allied state, if in Italy, was outside the
authority of the Roman magistrate; if without
the bounds of Italy, of the provincial adminis-
trator; and the exercise of jurisdiction by such
an official was improper (Cic. de Prov. Cons. 3, 6,
684 SOCII
SOLEA.
“ omitto jurisdictionem in libera civitate contra
legis senatusque consulta;” cf. pro Domo, 9, 23).
An important fact in the history of the allies is
the extent to which they were affected by Roman
legislation. A great distinction was observed
in this respect between the nearer and the more
distinct socii. Circumstances demanded that
the near neighbours of the Romans, the Italici,
should be brought into closer conformity with
Roman customs than the more distant allies:
and many institutions of the Roman civil law as
well as many legislative acts were extended to
tne former. With regard to the laws mentioned
by Cicero, of inheritances, testaments, and “in-
numerabiles aliae leges de civili jure” which
were accepted by the allies (“quas Latini
voluerunt adsciverunt,” Cic. pro Balbo, 8, 21),
there is no difficulty, but many others are
mentioned as having bound the Italian allies,
such as the plebiscitum regulating the jus
creditae pecuniae (Liv. xxxv. 7) and the sump-
tuary Lex Didia which was an extension of the
Lex Fannia to the Italici apparently against
their will (Macrob. Sat. iii. 17, 6), in which
there is no mention of the usual formula of
acceptance, “fundi (i.e. auctores, Fest. p. 89)
facti sunt.” Formal acceptance, however, there
may have been in these cases, and this was most
distinctly recognised in the important matter
of the conferring of the civitas [FoEDERATAE
CIVITATES]. As regards this right of acceptance
or rejection there was, in accordance with the
principle already mentioned, no distinction
drawn between a libera and a foederata civitas
(Cic. pro Balbo, 8, 20, “foederatos populos fieri
fundos oportere non magis est proprium foedera-
torum quam omnium liberorum ”). By far the
most striking instance we possess of the direct
interference of Rome with the allied states is
the Senatusconsultum de Bacchanalibus, which
extended penalties to the members of the
Bacchanalian conspiracy all over Italy (Liv.
xxxix. 19 ; C. J. L. i. n. 190). This was an
exceptional assumption of the senate's power
even for Rome, and their power, as exercised in
this case, was based on their actual control of
the Roman world, and does not affect any legal
theory of autonomy. The general position of
the Roman senate, as regards the allies, was
that of a uniting and controlling power. It
might revoke grants which, as not being held by
a fixed treaty, were terminable at pleasure (Lex
de Term. ii. 5, “ne quis magistratus milites
introducito nisi senatus nominatim decreverit"),
and it adjusted the conflicting claims of states
both within and without the bounds of Italy
(Liv. xlv. 13; Dittenberger, n. 240): some-
times referring questions respecting the internal
difficulties of these states to the decision of
Roman patroni, with whom they had entered
into relations of clientship (Liv. ix. 20; Cic. pro
Sulla, 21, 60). The senate’s control, as it was
usually exercised, did not conflict with the
amount of autonomy implied in the fact of
alliance, since this did not extend to independent
international relations. The tenure of indepen-
dence by a foederata civitas lasted theoretically
as long as the conditions of the foedus were
observed: the autonomy of the states that were
merely liberae was always from its very nature
of a precarious tenure: but the notorious abuse
of self-government by a foederata civitas might,
during the principate, cause a foedus to be
rescinded, and the direct provincial government
to replace the misused autonomy (Suet. Aug.
47; Claud. 25; Vesp. 8). The tendency of the
imperial administration was towards an equali-
sation in the position of provincial states, and
even when libertas was not taken from the
states which possessed it, yet the supervision of
these by the Stop6.aral or étravopfloral (cor-
rectores) and the Aoya ral (curatores) appointed
by the emperor (Mommsen, Staatsr. ii.” p. 858;
Marquardt, Staatsverw. i. p. 358) rendered their
position but little different from that of the pro-
vincial subject towns: and the libertas, which
was the necessary condition of societas, practically
disappeared; but the name liberae still continued
to be applied to certain states even after the
extension of the civitas by Caracalla, and down
to the time of Constantine (Marquardt, Staats-
verw. i. p. 359).
(Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. pp. 645–715;
Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, i. pp. 18–89 and
pp. 345–353; Walter, Geschichte des römischen
Rechts, p. 192 ft.) [A. H. G.]
SO'CIUS. . [SocIETAs.]
SODA'LES. [Collegium.]
SODALI'TIUM. [AMBITUs.]
SOLA'RIUM. [HoRologIUM ; DOMUs.]
SO'LEA. 1. The most primitive form of foot-
gear is the sandal. It consists simply of a sole
of matting, leather, felt, or wood bound to the
foot by thongs and straps. It was not only
worn by the Greeks and Romans of all periods,
but still survives. In studying its use in classical
times, there is great difficulty in distinguishing
it from the various forms of boots and shoes
which were used side by side with it. Even if
we were able to identify the various shapes
mentioned in literature with those shown on the
monuments, the question would not be settled,
for the transition from one class to another is
represented by so many intermediate forms that
a hard and fast line cannot be drawn.
In the Homeric age the tréâu?\a, which were
worn by men (Il. ii. 44, &c.), are doubtless
sandals, for they are called Üroöhuara (Od. viii.
368) and bound to the foot (Il. xxiv. 340, &c.).
Whether women used them or not is doubtful,
though goddesses wore them out-of-doors (Il.
xiv. 186). The epithets kaad, xpworeſa, àugpá-
oria, given to them, convey no information as to
their shape and make. Those, however, worn
by common folk must have been simplicity itself,
for we are told how Eumaeus, when setting out
for the city, made himself a pair out of a well-
dressed ox-hide (Od. xiv. 23). Such sandals
remained in use in the country, being mentioned
by Sappho (Frag. 98, Bergk, rà. 88 ordugaxa
treate&ma), and Hesiod's advice to have them
lined with felt (Op. 541) suggests that they
were of the same kind as the sandals, worn over
very thick stockings by the peoples of the lower
Danube, the form adopted by the Bulgarian
army being the best known. Such sandals
were made in extremities even out of raw
hide, and were known as kap&aríval (Xen. Anab.
iv. 5). .
In classical times it was not unusual among
the Greeks to go barefoot. With the Spartans
this was indeed part of their discipline (Xen.
Rep. Lac. ii. 3, and passages on Čvorobnortz in
Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 267), and philosophers
SOLEA
SOLEA 685
and others of an ascetic turn adopted the custom
of Athens and elsewhere (cf. Theocr. xiv. 5,
IIv6ayoputräs &xpos kāvviróðmros). Yet even
Socrates, the best known of the barefoot philo-
sophers (Aristoph. Nub. 103), though he wore
no shoes in the snow and ice at Potidaea, put on
slippers when going to Agathon's supper (Plato,
Symp. 174), as was the fashion (Aristoph. Eq.
889). The cut and fit of his sandals and shoes
was indeed not one of the least of the Greek
dandy's anxieties (Plato, Phaedo, p. 64 D), and
many are the jokes at ill-fitting boots (Aristoph.
Eq. 321), which were the sure mark of a
boor (Theophr. Char. 4). The general name for
all sandals is Śróðmua, the word oravödatov or
orévôaxov being also used in the same sense (the
old distinction between these words is due to a
mistake of Salmasius; cf. Pollux, vii. 84, ed.
Kuhn).
The sole of the sandal (tréAua, kárrupa) was
of one piece or several layers of leather. One,
for instance, discovered in the Tauric Cher-
sonnese and now at St. Petersburg, has a sole
made of eleven or twelve layers of leather, the
upper surface being ornamented with gold
(Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1865; cf. 1881, p. 142,
and Taf, iii. 4 and 5). Thick soles were in
fact worn, like modern high heels, to give ladies
greater height (cf. Xen. Oec. 10, 2). Wood was
used as well as leather, not only for coarse
cheap clogs (kpotſtregat, sculponeae), but for
expensive and delicate sandals for ladies’ wear
(ruppmviká, Poll. vii. 92; Clem. Alex. Paed., ii.
11, 116). A specimen, which however probably
belongs to Roman times, was discovered in 1876
near Kertsch in the Crimea. It is formed of
three layers, joined together by pegs, the top
layer being painted red and covered with leather.
Round the edge are a number of pairs of holes
for attaching strings or thongs (Compte Rendu,
1881, p. 143, with fig.). Cork was also used
for soles (cf. Alexis ap. Athen. xiii. p. 568).
The most characteristic feature of the sandal
was the guyos or Guyóv, a strap which passed
across the toes and held it on the foot (Arist. Lys.
416, and Schol. ad loc.). (In Strabo, vi. p. 259,
however, &ſurya oravö. certainly means, as Becker
takes it in opposition to Bötticher, odd sandals,
i.e. not a pair.) To the Çvyös was attached a
thong, which passed between the great toe and
the second toe. This and the other straps which
held the other parts of the sole were, as a rule,
kept tight by a latchet (lingula) over the instep.
This was of metal, and of a heart- or leaf-shape.
It was part of Parrhasius's magnificence to have
had latchets of gold on his slippers (xpvoo's re
âvaortraoroſs étréorgiyye rôv 8Aavröv robs &va-
'ya')éas, Athen. xii. 543 f). The network of
straps and thongs was sometimes so thick as to
make the sandals practically a shoe, and often
reached as far as the calves. Such were doubt-
less the patówa, which Pollux (vii. 64) explains
as troAvéAiktov Šráðmua.
Of the different varieties, for the 8Aajrat see
CALCEUs, Wol. I. p. 332. The Bavktöes, which
were also fashionable and expensive (Poll. vii.
94), were probably somewhat the same, but
only worn by women. , Aristophanes also men-
tions trepiflapíðes as a luxurious form of sandal
(Lys. 45, 47, 53), though Pollux says that it
was only worn by slaves. [For the kpātris, see
CREPIDA.]
As we have said, inroofiuara is a word used
vaguely, and, though generally meaning san-
dals, stands sometimes for shoes. Thus in
the Edict of Diocletian we have $106%pata
BaßvAww.ucd., the Latin equivalents being soleae
Babylonicae (ix. 17) and socci Babylonici (ix. 23).
Again, the reporikaſ, a favourite woman’s shoe at
Athens (Arist. Thesm. 734; Eccl. 319), must
have had a close upper (cf. Id. Nub. 151).
At Rome it was not the custom to go about
barefoot, and all freemen wore boots or shoes
when out of doors. Sandals and slippers were
reserved for indoor use; and to wear them out-
side, in Greek fashion, was considered effeminate.
Indeed, this was the favourite gibe which the
Romans of the old school cast at those who
found the pallium and crepidae more comfortable
than the toga and calceus. Scipio the elder
(Liv. xxix. 19, 12), Verres (Cic. in Verr. v. 33),
Antony (Cic. Phil. ii. 30), Germanicus (Tac.
Ann. ii. 59), and Caligula (Suet. Cal. 52)
scandalised the sticklers at propriety in this
way, and the prejudice lingered on even until
the age of Hadrian (Gell. xiii. 22, 1).
The wearing of sandals or slippers when going
out to supper was, however, quite a recognised
one; for as it was the custom to have one’s
slippers taken off by the slave on reclining at
the table (soleas demere, Plaut. Trucul. 367;
soleas depomere, Mart. iii. 50, 3), sandals were
much more convenient than boots. Hence the
phrase soleas poscere (Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 77, &c.),
“to prepare to take leave.” Most guests came
in a litter, but those who could not afford this
walked in boots and carried their soleae under
their arm (Hor. Epp. i. 13, 15). The general
name for sandals in Latin is solea, Sandalium
being a transliteration which never became
naturalised at Rome. [For CREPIDA, see that
article.] Of other varieties the gallicae are the
best known and were longest in use. The Edict of
Diocletian mentions a number of different kinds
for men and women with single or double soles,
for travelling or country wear (gallicae viriles
rusticanae bisoles, gallicae viriles monosoles, gal-
licae cursoriae, taurinae muliebres bisoles and
monosoles, ix. 12), which shows that their use
must have been popular and very extended.
Of other sorts, those from Patara and Baby-
lon and the Tyrrhenian (v. ante) were not
peculiarly Roman, but worn all over the Hellen-
istic world.
The monuments showing Roman Sandals do
not differ in any important respect from the
Greek shapes. (Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 267,
281 ; Gallus, iii. 227; — Hermann-Blümmer,
Lehrbuch, 181 foll., 196; Guhl and Koner, p.
225; Iwan Müller, Handbuch, iv. pp. 404, 409,
427,432,806, 880, 930; Marquardt, Privatleben,
1886, pp. 322, 595,705; Baumeister, Denkmäler,
art. Fussbekleidung; Daremberg and Saglio, Dict.
d’Antiq., arts. Blautai, Crepida;—Blümner,
Technologie, i. 276; Leben w. Sitten, i. 60;-Büch-
senschütz, Hauptstätte, p. 91.) [W. C. F. A.]
2. Solea, a shoe for horses or mules. It
is a matter for dispute at what date horses
were shod for ordinary use in Europe; and a
further and different question, when horse-shoes
were first attached by nails. In Greek literature
of a date before the Roman conquest there is no
trace of any shoe for animals at all, except in
the case of camels, who, according to Aristotle
686 SOLEA
SOLEA
(H. A. ii. 6 = p. 499 a), on a campaign had a
sort of shoe (kap&artvm) bound beneath the foot;
but his remark, that this was done because the
camel's foot was soft (a apictóðms), makes this
passage an argument against the existence of
horse-shoes in Greece at that date. It is perhaps
hardly necessary to point out that the Homeric
epithet xaakóTovs (Il. xiii. 23), like xaakokpáros
in Aristoph. Eq. 551, merely refers to the noise
of the horses’ hoofs, and is no more an argument
as to material than XaXkeópavos. Further than
this we have in Xenophon's de Re Equestri not
only the argument of his silence about shoes, but
also the fact that he gives (ch. 4) directions for
the sort of pavement in the stable or stable-yard
which would best harden the hoofs. In the
Anabasis (iv. 5,36) he describes a practice in the
Armenian hill-country of binding bags (orakkia:
unless we are to read orakia, i.e. discs, like small
shields) under the feet of horses and mules; but
this was only in the snow, to prevent them from
sinking : some kind of “bog-shoes” is similarly
used for horses to this day in Holland and in
parts of Scotland (Fleming, Horse-shoes, p. 319).
Lastly, the evidence of ancient art points the
same way. We have no representation of shoes
on horses, though on the frieze of the Parthenon,
for instance, we should expect to see traces of
shoes had they existed, as well as of bridles. It
is quite possible that with all their methods for
hardening the hoofs, they may have worn out
quickly on roads: and as a fact historians note
that this happened (Thuc. vii. 27; Diod. xvii. 94).
In Roman literature we find a very slight
mention of shoes for mules: the ferrea solea left
in the mud (Catull. viii. 23): the shoeing of
Vespasian's mules (Suet. Vesp. 23): the silver
shoes of Nero's mules (Id. Ner. 30), and the
golden shoes of Poppaea's (Plin. H. W. xxxiii.
§ 140; cf. Dio Cass. lxii. 28). Upon these
passages it must be remarked (1) that all refer
to mules, (2) that they are probably exceptional
cases, either for mules with weak or injured feet,
or, as in the last two cases, for ostentation. We
can have little doubt also that these shoes were
not nailed, but bound on as will be described
below: Arrian (in Epict. 3) speaks of Štroëmudria
for asses. -
The use of shoes or sandals made of hemp
(spartei), bound on injured hoofs, is noticed by
Columella (vi. 12), Galen (de Alim. i. 9), and
Vegetius (i. 26), who gives precise instructions
that in case of tender or injured feet they should
be calceati, the shoes being either iron or hempen
and attached by lemnisci or fasciolae. It is clear
that these writers are speaking of use for ex-
ceptional cases; and moreover in Columella, i.
73, we find a recommendation that stables should
have oak floors, “mam hoc genus ligni equorum
ungulas ad saxorum instar obdurat,” which
implies that he did not mean the horses to be
shod. The same deduction, that shoes were only
for exceptional cases, may be made from their
absence in the list of intrikā orkedºm given by
Pollux, x. 56.
As regards nailed shoes, though the lines of
Tryphiodorus (IAtov &Awaris, 86) of uév ćirl
kvåumo w śxaNicées ééexov Štraat, &c. scems to
show that in his time (? 5th century A.D.) it
was customary to shoe horses, yet it is impossible
to say whether he means nailed shoes or sandals.
Beckmann, in the passage which he cites from
Leo (Tactica, v. 4), is probably right in setting
down as the earliest mention of mailed horse-
shoes. The words there (describing part of the
cavalry equipment) are areamvata ortómpā were:
kapºptov, i.e. “iron horse-shoes with nails.”
That this mention in the 9th century A.D.
marks the earliest use of nailed horse-shoes
shaped as they are now, is, we think, a wrong
conclusion. Not only have we the relief from
Gaul (see Baumeister, Denkm. fig. 2322) of a
carruca drawn by horses with nailed shoes, but
also numbers of ancient horses’ shoes, not differing
in shape from those now, in use, have been dis-
covered in France, Switzerland, and Germany,
and a few in this country. A description of
them with illustration will be found in Fleming
(op. cit. ch. 3–6). That they are of a high
antiquity there is no doubt, but we think him
wrong in making some of them as old as the
time of Julius Caesar. The evidence from position
is not so clear as to necessitate any such belief,
and had they been then in use in Gaul we can
hardly doubt that they would have been adopted
at least to some extent in Italy; and in that
case, though it is quite possible that there might
be no mention of them in general literature, we
should expect it in Vegetius; and still more we
should certainly find a forge at Pompeii. It
would besides be strange that Caesar does not
notice them. We should rather conclude that
the Gauls began to nail horse-shoes considerably
later than Caesar's time, perhaps after the date
of Vegetius, and that the invention spread thence
to Italy and Greece. Whether Greece had then,
as now, the practice of nailing on iron plates
with merely a hole in the centre is uncertain:
but, inasmuch as it is the Turkish system now,
we should judge that this pattern of shoe was
brought into the Morea by the Turks, and that
the true horse-shoe shape is marked by Leo's
word orexinvaſia. The objects figured below re-
present what are often called “Roman horse-
shoes.” They are found in France and elsewhere:
several are in the Museum of Besançon: fig. 1.
shows one in the British Museum, found at
Reignac (Indre et Loire); another exactly like it
was found in the Thames among Roman relics,
and is described in the Archaeological Journal, xi.


SOLIDUS
SORTES 687
p. 416, as a lamp-stand. Fig. 2 (from Fleming)
shows one preserved at Besançon. Mr. Fleming
(ch. 7) thinks that they are slippers or skids for
a wheel [SUFFLAMEN): but many, if not all,
are ill adapted for that purpose. We think
that the more correct view is to accept them
as “horse-sandals,” attached as represented in
fig. 3, but used only exceptionally for injured
or cracked hoofs. This will account for their
not being found more frequently, and also for
the fact that they have been discovered close to
ancient nailed horse-shoes. (See also Beckmann,
Hist, of Inventions, ii. 270 f ; and for still
fuller details, Fleming, Horse-shoes and Horse-
shoeing, ch. 1-7.) [G. E. M.]
SOLIDUS (ºutra). The aurei or gold
coins issued by the Roman emperors underwent
from the time of Nero onwards a gradual but
irregular reduction in weight, until they practi.
cally ceased to be a measure of value, and gold
coin went only by weight. To remedy this
state of things, Constantine introduced a new
gold coinage, of which the pieces weighed of
Gold Solidus.
a Roman libra, about 70 English grains. The
importance of this issue and its gradually de-
based successors is shown by the use in our own
time of soldo, sou, and cognate terms. [P. G.]
SOLITAURIL'IA. [Scovºtauridia.]
SOLIUM. [THRONUs.]
SOPHRONISTAE. [GYMNAsium.]
SORTES, lots. Among the modes of divina-
tion practised by the Italian nations, the draw-
ing of lots was one of the most common and
most characteristic. We do indeed find it also
in Greece (Cic. de Div. i. 34, 76), but there it
was entirely overshadowed by the prophetic
frenzy, and inspiration through dreams. In
Italy we must distinguish between the sortes
which were localised in special temples, and
which corresponded more or less to the Grecian
oracles [ORAculum, p. 292], and those which
could be drawn by any person and in any place.
Of the former kind, we hear specially of the
sortes at Praeneste (Cic. de Div. ii. 41, 85, the
locus classicus on the subject: cf. Propert. ii.
32, 3; Suet. Th. 63), at Caere (Liv. xxi. 62), at
Falerii (Id. xxii. 1), at the temple, celebrated
afterwards by Byron, on the Clitumnus (Plin.
Ep. viii. 8), and at the fons Aponus near
Patavium (Suet. Tib. 14). It is probable that
there were also sortes at the oracular seat of
Fortuna at Antium, but the evidence is not
quite clear that this mode of divination was
practised there. The sortes were little tablets
or counters, made of wood or other materials:
after they had been mixed together, a boy would
draw one at random, which then was taken as
an omen. Some rough verse or proverb was
written on each, such as the one mentioned by
Livy (), c.), “Mavors telum suum concutit,”
which appropriately enough is said to have leapt
out from the other lots at Falerii when Hannibal
was marching towards lake Trasimene. As a
prognostication of misfortune, the lots are said
to have become miraculously smaller in size
(Id. ib.). Seventeen lots in bronze, oblong, and
pierced with a hole (so that they could be strung
together) have been discovered near Padua (and
so not far from the fons Aponus above men-
tioned): the lines written on them are given by
Th. Mommsen (C. I. L. i. 267–270). As a
specimen take the following:- Estequos per-
pulcer, sed tu vehinon potesistoc.” A peculiar
way of drawing the lots, common when mere
chance was appealed to (without any thought
of a prophetic intimation), will be found men-
tioned under the article Situla. It is not
clear whether the dice mentioned in the passage
referred to from Suetonius (Tib. 14) would
themselves have been called sortes or not. The
range of prophecy comprised by these “lots.”
must have been limited, and their application
often doubtful; hence we cannot be surprised
at what Cicero tells us (l.c.), that this kind of
divination was in his time obsolete, except at
Praeneste. It had, however, been sufficiently
famous in its time for the term sortes to be
a customary name for any kind of oracular
deliverance (cf. Cic. de Div. ii. 56, 115; Verg.
Aen. iv. 346, 377. In Aen. vi. 72 the word is
applied to the Sibylline books). The sortes of
the fons Aponus had a revival in later times
(see the Augustan history, Claud. 10; Firmus, 3).
While, however, the sortes as a branch of
official religion died out more rapidly than
perhaps any other kind of divination, as an
irregular superstition they were the most long-
lived of all the elements of heathenism, and
lasted far into Christian times. The Sortes
Vergilianae were famous (Lamprid. Alew. Sever.
14; Spartian. Hadr. 2). Just in the same way
in which the heathens used Homer or Virgil,
and as the Mussulmen of the present day use
the Koran and Hafiz, so did Christians use the
Bible and Psalter, by opening them at random,
and taking the first line on which the eye fell
as an indication of future occurrences. (See
Augustin. Confess. iv. 3; and the very curious
sermon de Auguriis, numbered celkºviii. in the
appendix to the sermons of Augustine, but
probably by Caesarius.) Even the very form of
tablets was borrowed from heathenism; they
were made either of wood or bread, as we see
from their prohibition by the council held at
Auxerre (Autissiodurum) about A.D. 578. These
sortes sanctorum (of which we learn that a
volume existed) were frequently condemned by
the councils; but so natural was the tendency,
that even a conference of orthodox bishops could
not help drawing omens from the accidental
occurrence of passages in the lessons for the
day, and recording them in their minutes (see
Acta Concillorum, vol. ii. p. 965. A reference
to the words Sortes and Sortilegi in the index to
these Acta will show a number of interesting
passages on the subject; cf. also Gibbon, Decline
and Fall, c. xxxviii., note 51. The curious word
caragi or caragi apparently is used as more or
less equivalent to sortilegi).
The Sortes Conviviales were tablets sealed up,
which were sold at entertainments, and upon
being opened or unsealed entitled the purchaser


688 SPECULUM
SPECULUM
to things of very unequal value; they were
therefore a kind of lottery. (Suet. Aug. 75;
Lamprid. Heliogabal. 22.) [W. S.] [J. R. M.]
SPECULUM (kärotrºpov, *gorrpov, Švo-
Trpov), a mirror. The mirrors of the Greeks,
Romans, and Etruscans consisted almost inva-
riably of small circular disks of metal, which
could be placed upright on a table or held in
the hand. Mirrors of glass are mentioned by
Pliny (H. N. xxxvi. § 66) as being made at
Sidon, and from a later source (Alex. Aphrod.,
Probl. i. 132 in Ideler, “Physici et medici Graeci
minores,” i. p. 45) we learn that glass mirrors
were coated with tin, not, as with us, with
quicksilver (61& rí rê šéAuva károttpo. Adutrov-
aw &mav; Śtt évô00ev airröv xptovol Kaoraitépg).
No remains of such mirrors exist, however, and
they were evidently little used. The usual
material was bronze, i.e. an alloy of copper and
tin, composed, as the analysis of various Roman
mirrors has shown (Blümner, Technologie, iv.
p. 192), of from 19 to 32 per cent. of the latter
metal. In Imperial times, the best alloy for
mirrors was made at Brundisium (Plin. H. N.
xxxiii. § 45; xxxiv. § 48). The majority of
extant mirrors are of bronze, but some made of
silver have also come down to us: see e.g. Bull.
d. Inst., 1885, p. 180, a mirror found at Pompeii,
and the silver mirror in the tomb of Seianti Tha-
nunia (Brit. Mus.). Silver mirrors came into
fashion under the Roman Republic (Pliny, H. W.
xxxiii. § 45, says in the time of Pompey the
Great), and in Imperial times were frequently
used, even it is said by maid-servants (Plin. H. W.
xxxiv. § 48; cf. xxxiii. § 45). They are often
mentioned in the Digest (33, 6, 3; 34, 2, 19,
§ 8). A better reflexion was supposed to be
given when the plate of silver was thick
(Vitruv. vii. 3). At first, the silver was very
pure, but metal of inferior quality was after-
wards employed (Plin. H. W. xxxiii. § 45).
Cheap imitations were manufactured, and some
extant mirrors having the appearance of silver
are in reality only plated with that metal, or
are composed of a mixture of copper and lead
(Friederichs, Berl. ant. Bildw. ii. p. 86).
There is no mention of mirrors in Homer, and
the earliest Greek mirrors extant are not earlier
than circ. B.C. 500. The prototype of the Greek
mirror must, on our present evidence, be looked
for in Egypt. The Egyptian mirrors now extant
consist of bronze disks of oval or oblate form,-
a shape, therefore, nearly the same as that of
the Greek mirrors, though somewhat less ele-
gant. They have, like many Greek mirrors,
ornamented handles (of wood, stone, or metal),
some in the form of the papyrus-sceptre or of a
figure of a goddess (see the illustrations in
Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians, ed. Birch, vol. ii.
pp. 350, 351). From the time of the Attic
tragedians onwards mirrors are frequently men-
tioned in literature (Aesch. in Stob. Serm. xviii.
13; Eurip. Troad. 1107; Medea, 1161; Onet.
11.12;-Xen. Cyr. vii. 1, § 2, &c.), and they are
often represented on the monuments. On the
vase-paintings female attendants are seen hold-
ing them before their mistresses, and among the
Greek terra-cottas are figures of women hold-
ing circular mirrors while arranging their hair
(Gazette arch. 1878, pl. 10 = Baumeister,
Denkm, art. “Spiegel,” fig. 1775; Gaz. arch.
1880, p. 39). On the Etruscan terra-cotta
sarcophagus of Seianti Thanunia, in the British
Museum (from Chiusi), is a reclining female
figure holding a mirror. Before dealing with
Hand-mirror. (From a relief in the British Museum.)
the special characteristics of Greek, Roman, and
Etruscan mirrors respectively, it should be
stated that wall-mirrors were little used in
antiquity. Large metal mirrors were suspended
in barbers’ shops (Lucian, adv. Ind. 29; Vitruv.
ix. 9, 2); and we hear, under the Roman Em-
pire, of mirrors large enough to reflect the
whole person (Senec. Quaest. nat. i. 17, 8,
“specula totis paria corporibus; ” Ulpian, Dig.
34, 2, 19, § 8, “speculum ... parieti adfixum ; ”
cf. Plin. H. N. xxxvi. § 196).
GREEK MIRRORS.—Examples of mirrors of
Greek workmanship and provenance were un-
known till recent years, and the number at
present discovered (at Corinth and elsewhere) is
comparatively small. Like other articles of the
toilet, mirrors were buried by the Greeks with
the dead. They have two forms: (i.) the disk-
mirror with a handle or a stand, (ii.) the box-
mirror.
(i.) The disk-mirrors have one side (usually
slightly convex) left plain and polished for
reflexion. The
other side is
engraved with
a design, or is
left plain. The
handle is often
ornamented, or
consists of a
statuette—fig-
ures of Aphro-
dite being pre-
ferred. Many
of these mir-
rors have a
pedestal at-
tached to the
statuette, to
enable them to
be stood up-
right on the
table. Some of
the early ex-
tant mirrors
are furnished
with these sta-
tuette - stands,
and sometimes
Erotes, animals,
or other orna-
ments are attached to the lower part of the disk.
A good example is figured in the Arch. Zeitung,
Disk-mirror on a pedestal.


SPECULUM
SPECULUM 689
xxxvii. pl. 12 = Baumeister, Denkmäler, art.
“Spiegel,” fig. 1773.
(ii.) The box-mirror consists of two circular
disks shutting into one another, and sometimes
united by a hinge. The upper disk or cover is
ornamented on the outside with a design in
relief, and its interior is polished for reflexion.
The lower disk, or box itself, is adorned inside
The reliefs on the box-
with engraved figures.
Etruscan Mirror.
(engraved in Collignon, Man. d’Arch. p. 351)
may be cited as a fine example of this class.
Among the finest examples of engravings on
mirrors are the Korinthos and Leucas mirror
engraved in Rev. arch., N. S., xxiii. (1872),
pl. zi. p. 79, and in Monuments grees de l'Assoc.
des Études grecques, 1873, pl. iii.; the Genius of
the Cock-fights mirror in the Lyons Museum
(Rev. arch., N. S., xvii. (1868), pl. xiii. p. 372 f);
and the Nymph and Pan playing with astragali,
VOL. II.
mirrors and the engraved designs found both on
the box- and the disk-mirrors are among the
most beautiful and interesting remains of Greek
art. The best specimens may be attributed to
the 4th century B.C. Good examples may be
seen in the Bronze Room of the British Museum.
| The reliefs usually consist of subjects relating
to the cycle of Aphrodite and Dionysos. The
relief of “Ganymede carried away by the eagle”
(Dennis.)
in the British Museum (Classical Review, vol. iii.
p. 86). (On the technique of the “engraved”
mirrors, which were perhaps etched as well as
engraved, see Blümmer, Technol. iv. pp. 266,
267.) -
ETRUSCAN MIRRORs.-The extant examples,
many of which are figured in Gerhard’s Etrus;
kische Spiegel (continued by Klügmann , and
Körte), are extremely numerous. They have
been found in tombs in Etruria an; Latium,
Y

690 SPECULUM
SPIRA
some in cistae, others placed on the top of vases,
or lying separately. They resemble the Greek
mirrors in form. Box-mirrors occur, but most
of the extant specimens are simple disks with
the convex side polished for reflexion and the
concave side engraved, and having a handle
which was made in one piece with the mirror
and sometimes inserted in an outer handle—now
often missing—of bone or wood. The Etruscan
mirrors that have come down to us are mainly
of the fourth and third centuries B.C. The
subjects represented are mainly drawn from
Greek mythology (especially the Trojan legends),
such as the Birth of Minerva, the Birth of
Bacchus, Venus and Adonis, Achilles and Thetis,
Castor and Pollux, &c. Various scenes from
daily life (the toilet, the bath, and the palaestra)
are also represented. The names of the per-
sonages depicted are nearly always written near
them in Etruscan characters (e.g. Apuli–Apollo;
Achle=Achilles; Atunis-Adonis). The designs
are nearly always the production of Etruscan
copyists of Greek models, especially the vase-
paintings. The work is often rough and careless,
and the space generally overcrowded with
figures. The reliefs on the box-mirrors are
much inferior to those on the Greek box-mirrors.
Various examples may be seen in the Etruscan
Room at the British Museum, among which may
be noticed Ganymede carried off by the Eagle,
and other figures on the cover of a mirror from
Praeneste (Mon. dell’ Inst. arch. viii. pl. 47,
fig. 2). Among the engraved mirrors some
elegant and delicately treated designs occasion-
ally occur, such as Semele, &c. on a mirror at
Berlin (Mon. dell’Inst. i. 56= Baumeister, Denkm.
art. “Etrurien,” fig. 557); the Healing of Tele-
phus (Gerhard, Etrusk. Spiegel, pl. 228= Bau-
meister, Denkm., art. “Spiegel,” fig. 1774); and
the meeting of Helen and Menelaus after the
taking of Troy (in the Brit. Mus. : Mon. d. Inst.
arch. viii. pl. 33).
ROMAN MIRRORS.—These are of little artistic
importance, and are usually disk-mirrors pro-
vided with an ornamented handle, which is
sometimes in the form of a figure. The back of
the disk (i.e. the side not used for the reflexion)
is, if engraved, usually ornamented with decora-
tive patterns and not with a subject-design.
Typical examples of various hand-mirrors found
at Pompeii may be seen in Overbeck-Mau,
Pompeii, 4th ed. p. 453, fig. 252.
[Authorities.—Friederichs, Berl. ant. Bildw.
ii. 18 ft. ; Blümmer, Technologie, iv. pp. 192, 194,
265 ft., 403; Blümmer, art. “Spiegel ” in Bau-
meister’s Denkmäler; De Witte, Les Miroirs
chez les Anciens, Bruxelles, 1873; Stephani,
Compte rendu, 1870–71, p. 27; Hermann, Lehr-
buch (ed. Blümner), iv. pp. 170, 171; Collignon,
Man. d’Arch. grecque, p. 146 ft.; Mylonas,
‘EA A m v i k & k & rotr Tpa, Athens, 1876, 8°,
reviewed in Bull. Corr. hell. i. (1877), p. 108 f.;
Bull. Corr. hell. viii. pp. 398, 399 (with refer-
ences to earlier publications); Rev. arch. 1868,
pl. xiii.; Collect. Castellani, Paris, 1884, No. 430;
Collect. Greau, Paris, 1885, No. 580. Other
Greek mirrors have been published in the Bull.
Corr, hell. ; in the Gazette archéologique and
other periodicals; E. Gerhard’s Etruskische
Spiegel, Berlin, 1843, &c., continued by Klüg-
mann and Körte; Marquardt - Mommsen,
Handbuch der röm. Alt. viii. 669, 692, 736;
and other authorities cited above in the
article.] K W–H.]
SPECUS. [AQUAEDUCTUs.j
SPHAERISTE’RIUM.[Gymnasium; PILA.]
SPHAEROMACHIA. [PILA.T
SPHYRELATUS (orqupiñAaros: or some-
times, as a noun, org.upſiAarov, sc. &yaapa, or
ëp'yov), “beaten out with the hammer,” a simple
method of working metal, which was used before
the invention of casting, and also, in later times,
especially for gold. All the works to which the
name is applied by classical authors seem to
have been of gold; for instance, the sphyrelatum
of Zeus dedicated by Cypselus or the Cypselids
(Strabo, p. 376; Plat. Phaedr. p. 136 B), a statue
made of one of his wives by Darius (Herod. vii.
69), and the close-fitting gold covering made for
the body of Alexander the Great (Diod. xviii. 26).
And for so soft a material this process was
doubtless the best adapted. Hence the compari-
son by the Pseudo-Theocritus (xxii. 47) of “iron
muscles” to a gqvpfixatos koxoo.orbs is peculiarly
unhappy, and due to an association with opvpil-
Aarol tréðal, &c. Though the name org/vpſiAata.
was seldom or never applied to bronze statues
(L. and S. quote XaAkſ, from Anth. P. 14, 2,
where the MS. reading is xpvorå), Pausanias
(iii. 17, 6) describes a statue at Sparta made of
beaten plates of bronze and riveted together by
Clearchus of Rhegium. His statement that it
was the earliest of all bronze statues is more
consistent with the assertion that Clearchus was
the pupil of some primitive artists, such as
Dipoenus and Scyllis, than with another that
he was the master of Pythagoras of Rhegium.
There is, however, no classical authority for
giving the name a qupiñAarov to a work of this
description. [E. A. G.]
SPICULUM. [HASTA.]
SPIRA (greſpa), dim. SPI'RULA (Servius
in Verg. Aen. ii. 217), the base of a column.
The word ortreſpa is used in this signification in
Greek inscriptions, being applied to the bases of
the columns of the Erechtheum and of the
temple of Zeus at Labranda (C. I. G. 160, l. 64;
2713, 2714). Spira is the term regularly used
by Vitruvius and other Latin writers in the
same signification (see esp. iii. 5, when the forms
and proportions are prescribed).
The base, which is absent in Doric columns
but always present in those of the Ionic or
Corinthian order, may be either Attic or Ionic ;
it may be used either with or without a plinth
beneath it. The Attic form [ATTICURGES] con-
sists of an upper and a lower torus (torus
superior, inferior), with a Scotia (Tpox{Aos)
2S232Xº
Zºº 2%, 2.2 ar zzº
Cº--> -- * - -º-º-º- a
between them, bordered above and below by a
quadra : it is found in all the Ionic buildings at









SPITHAME
SPOLIA 691
Athens, whether they have the Ionic or Attic
form of the capital. The example given is
from the Erechtheum (see right-hand part of
cut). The Ionic consists of an upper torus, and
of a lower member and two trochili, with double
astragali above, between, and below. It is seen
in the temple of Athena at Priene (see left half
of cut) and elsewhere. That this is the original
Ionic base is shown by the base of the primitive
Ionic column from Naucratis (Petrie, Naukratis,
i. pl. 3), where the lower part of the base,
though not showing the two trochili, is of the
same general character, and quite different from
an Attic base.
The upper torus is sometimes fluted (5&6-
Sarás), as in the left-hand part of the cut, some-
times ornamented with a plaited ornament, as
in the right-hand part; both treatments of the
torus of the Attic base may be found even in
the same building, in the Erechtheum.
In Etruscan columns the base consists simply
of a torus resting on a plinth ; in Roman build-
ings the plinth is almost always present, and all
the Greek forms, but especially the Attic, are
imitated. [E. A. G.]
SPI'THAME (orrióaph), a span, a Greek
measure equal to 3-4ths of the foot. There
was no proper Roman measure corresponding to
it, but the later writers used palmus in this
sense; the early writers express the Greek span
properly by dodrans. [MENSURA, p. 161b;
PALMUS.] [P. S.]
SPO'LLA. Four words are commonly em-
ployed to denote booty taken in war, praeda,
manubiae, exuviae, spolia. Of these, praeda
bears the most comprehensive meaning, being
used for plunder of every description [PRAEDA]
Manubiae was the money which the quaestor
realised from the sale of those objects which
constituted praeda (Gell. xiii. 24; Cic. de Leg.
Agr. ii. 22, 59). The term exuviae indicates
any thing stripped from the person of a foe,
while spolia, properly speaking, ought to be
confined to armour and weapons, although both
words are applied loosely to trophies such as
chariots, standards, beaks of ships, and the like,
which might be preserved and displayed. (See
Doederlein, Lat. Syn. vol. iv. p. 337; Ramshorn,
Lat. Syn. p. 869; Habicht, Syn. Handwórterbuch,
n. 758.)
In the Heroic ages no victory was considered
complete unless the conquerors could succeed in
stripping the bodies of the slain, the spoils thus
obtained being viewed (like scalps among the
North American Indians) as the only unques-
tionable evidence of successful valour; and we
find in Homer that when two champions came for-
ward to contend in single combat, the manner in
which the body and arms of the vanquished
were to be disposed of formed the subject of a
regular compact between the parties (Hom. Il.
vii. 77, &c.; xxii. 258, &c.). Among the Ro-
mans, spoils taken in battle were considered the
most honourable of all distinctions; to have
twice stripped an enemy, in ancient times,
entitled the soldier to promotion (Val. Max. ii.
7, § 14); and during the Second Punic War,
Fabius, when filling up the numerous vacancies
in the senate caused by the slaughter at Cannae
and by other disastrous defeats, after having
selected such as had borne some of the great
offices of state, named those next “qui Spolia ex
hoste fixa domi haberent, aut civicam coronam
accepissent * (Liv. xxiii. 23). Spoils collected
on the battle-field after an engagement, or found
in a captured town, were employed to decorate
the temples of the gods, triumphal arches,
porticoes, and other places of public resort, and
sometimes in the hour of extreme need served
to arm the people (Liv. xxii. 57, xxiv. 21; Wal.
Max. viii. 6, § 1 ; Sil. Ital. x. 599), but those
which were gained by individual prowess were
considered the undoubted property of the suc-
cessful combatant, and were exhibited in the
most conspicuous part of his dwelling (Polyb.
vi. 39), being hung up in the atrium, suspended
from the door-posts, or arranged in the vesti-
bulum, with appropriate inscriptions (Liv. x. 7,
xxxviii. 43; Cic. Philipp. ii. 28,68; Suet. Nero,
38; Verg. Aen. ii. 504, iii. 286; Tibull. i. 1.54;
Propert. iii. 9, 26; Ovid, Ar. Am. ii. 743; Sil.
Ital. vi. 446). They were regarded as peculiarly
sacred, so that even if the house was sold the
new possessor was not permitted to remove
them (Plin. H. N. xxxv. § 7). A remarkable
instance of this occurred in the “rostrata
domus ” of Pompey, which was decorated with
the beaks of ships captured in his war against
the pirates; this house passed into the hands of
Antonius the triumvir (Cic. Philipp. l. c.), and
was eventually inherited by the Emperor Gor-
dian, in whose time it appears to have still
retained its ancient ornaments (Capitolin. Gor-
dian. 3). But, while on the one hand it was
unlawful to remove spoils, so it was forbidden
to replace or repair them when they had fallen
down or become decayed through age (Plut.
Quaest. Rom. 37), the object being doubtless to
guard against the frauds of false pretenders.
Spolia Opima.-This term applied only to
spoils which were won in the field of battle by
a Roman soldier from the leader of the opposing
army. It is usually (though, as will be seen,
not invariably) further limited by the condition
that the Roman who thus slays and strips the
chief opposing general must himself be the
actual commander-in-chief of the Roman army
(having the auspicia). These conditions were
only fulfilled on three occasions (Plut. Marcell.
8; Propert. v. 11): first, when Romulus took
the spolia opima from Acro, king of the Caenin-
enses; secondly, when A. Cornelius Cossus won
them from Lar Tolumnius, king of the Weientes;
and thirdly, when Marcellus won them from
Viridomarus (or Bpurópaptos, as he is called by
Plutarch), king of the Insubrians (Liv. i. 10,
iv. 20, Epit. xx. ; Propert. l.c.; Plut. Rom. 16,
Marcell. 8; Sil. Ital. i. 133, iii. 587; C. J. L. x.
809). We have to notice, however, that Festus,
s. v., while he confirms the above limitation, as
generally recognised in the use of the term,
quotes Varro as saying, “Opima spolia esse
etiam, si manipularis miles detraxerit, dum-
modo duci hostium [sed prima esse utique, quae
dux duci. Vetari enim quae a duce recepta]
non sint, ad aedem Jovis Feretrii poni.” (The
reading of Hertzberg, De Spolis Opimis in
Philologus, i. 331, is here followed.) The quota-
tion from Varro goes on to distinguish the
offerings made by the winners of prima, secunda,
and tertia spolia opima respectively: and We
gather that, though the spolia opima when
spoken of without qualification meant rightly the
prima, i.e. those won by general º general
2 Y
692 SPONDA.
SPORTULA
yet there were also the secunda, when they
were won by a Roman officer slaying the hostile
commander-in-chief, and the tertia, when a
common soldier performed the same exploit.
In the first case alone could they be dedicated in
the temple of Jupiter Feretrius: in the other
two cases, though dignified by the special name,
they were no doubt preserved only in the same
way as other spolia. This view obtains further
support from a comparison of Florus, i. 33, 11,
with Val. Max. iii. 2, 6; and the probable
meaning of Dio Cass. li. 24 is, that when
Crassus slew Deldo, king of the Bastarnae, not
being airokpārap orparmyós, he could not
dedicate the spoils to Jupiter Feretrius, though
they were opima (às kai Štrupia). It should be
observed in conclusion that the term was also
used loosely in voting the “spolia opima ‘’ to
Julius Caesar (Dio Cass. xliv. 4), and by Livy in
speaking of the spolia provocatoria won in single
combat with a subordinate in the hostile army
as though they were spolia opima, but in this
latter case it is probably adopted as the ex-
pression of a braggart. The question of
spolia opima is discussed by Perizonius, Animad.
Hist. c. 7, and more recently by Hertzberg,
in Philolog. i. 331 : see Marquardt, Staatsverw.
ii. 579. [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
SPONDA. [LECTUs.]
SPO'NDEO. [OBLIGATIONES.]
SPO'NGIA (orró).Yos), a sponge. The use of
sponges has come down from very early times,
for the cleansing both of the body (Hom. Il.
xviii. 414) and of tables (Od. i. 111). For the
latter purpose, i.e. cleaning furniture, walls, and
floors, it is more especially noticed in Latin
literature (Mart. xiv. 144; Ulp. Dig. 32, 7, 12):
as regards the use of sponges by invalids in
Roman baths, see BALNEAE, Vol. I. p. 279.
Small sponges were often fastened on a stick,
and were then called peniculi (Ter. Eun. iv. 7, 7;
cf. Mart. xii. 48; Plaut. Stich. ii. 2, 23), and
were then used not only with long sticks for
cleaning walls, &c., but also with short handles
for cleaning boots (Plaut. Menaechm. ii. 3, 40;
Fest. p. 230). The penicillus used for painting
was no doubt generally a brush made with hair
[PICTURA], but for laying on colour broadly and
coarsely a penicillus made with sponge was also
used (Plin. ix. § 148; Blümmer, Technol. iv.
429). For its use to obliterate writing, see
Mart. iv. 10; LIBER, p. 59 a ; Marquardt,
Privatl. 824; and to this use also we must refer
Aesch. Ag. 1283, Pliny (H. W. ix. §§ 148–150)
mentions especially the neighbourhood of Torone,
the Syrtes, the Hellespont, and Malea as hunt-
ing-grounds for sponges, and the coasts of Lycia
for the softest kind. Three kinds are dis-
tinguished—the hard and coarse rpáyos, the
softer Pavés, and the fine àxtAAetov [cf. OCREA).
In this he is following Aristot. H. A. v. 16,
p. 548. The searcher for sponges is called
ortroyyo0ñpas, otroy yokoxvuònths or otroyyets
(Poll. i. 96, vii. 137; Athen. vii. p. 282 c;
Becker-Göll, Gallus, i. 36; Hermann-Blümmer,
iv. p. 31). [G. E. M.]
SPONSA, SPONSALLA, SPONSUS.
ATRIMONIUM.]
SPONSOR. [INTERCESSIO.]
SPORTULA, the diminutive from sporta =
orrupts, a wicker basket. In the days of Roman
freedom clients were in the habit of testifying
respect for their patron by thronging his atrium
at an early hour, and escorting him to places of
public resort when he went abroad. As an
acknowledgment of these courtesies some of the
number were usually invited to partake of the
evening meal. After the extinction of liberty
the presence of such guests, who had now lost
all political importance, was soon regarded as an
irksome restraint, while at the same time many
of the noble and wealthy were unwilling to
sacrifice the pompous display of a numerous
body of retainers. Hence the practice was in-
troduced under the Empire (probably as early as
the time of Nero) of bestowing on each client,
when he presented himself for his morning visit,
a certain portion of food as a substitute and
compensation for the occasional invitation to a
regular dinner (cena recta); and this dole, being
carried off in a little basket provided for the
purpose, received the name of sportula. Hence
also it is termed by Greek writers on Roman
affairs Öeſtvov &ro gruptă0s, which however
must not be confounded with the Öeirvov &trö
otrupiðos of earlier authors, which was a sort of
picnic. [CENA, Vol. I. p. 393 a.] For the sake
of convenience, it soon became common to give
an equivalent in money, the sum established by
general usage being a hundred quadrantes (Juv.
i. 120; Martial, x. 70, 75). Martial indeed
often speaks of this as a shabby pittance (centum
miselli quadrantes, iii. 7 ; compare i. 60, iii. 14,
x. 74), which, however, he did not scorn himself
to accept (x. 75), but at the same time does not
fail to sneer at an upstart who endeavoured to
distinguish himself by a largess to a greater
amount on his birthday (x. 26). About the year
87 the practice of inviting clients to the cena
recta appears to have been revived under the
influence of Domitian (cf. Martial, book iii. 7,
14, 60, &c.); but the change was disliked both
by patrons and by clients: and a return was
generally made to the money dole. The donation
in money, however, did not entirely supersede
the sportula given in kind, for we find in Juvenal
at a somewhat later date a lively description of
a great man's vestibule crowded with dependents,
each attended by a slave bearing a portable
kitchen to receive the viands and keep them hot
while they were carried home (iii. 249). If the
sketches of the satirist are not too highly coloured,
we must conclude that in his time great numbers
of the lower orders derived their whole suste-
nance and the funds for ordinary expenditure
exclusively from this source, while even the high-
born did not scruple to increase their incomes by
taking advantage of the ostentatious profusion
of the rich and vain (Juv. i. 95). It is, however,
a natural conjecture of Friedländer's, that the
small sums of money (less than a shilling a head)
so received were regarded by the wealthier as
merely formal presents, given by them in turn
to their dependents. The custom of rich men
receiving such gifts is not mentioned before the
death of Domitian. A regular roll was kept at
each mansion of the persons, male and female,
entitled to receive the allowance ; the names
were called over in order, the individuals were
required to appear in person, and the almoner
was ever on his guard to frustrate the roguery
of false pretenders (Juv. l.c.), whence the proverb
quoted by Tertullian (c. Marcion, iii. 16), Sportu-
lam furunculus captat. The morning, as we have
STABULARIUS
STADIUM 693
seen above (Juv. i. 128), was the usual period for
these distributions, but they were sometimes
made in the afternoon (Martial, x. 70).
Nero, perhaps imitating the custom of private
persons, ordained that, instead of a place at the
public banquets (publicae cenae) given to the
people on certain high solemnities, the poorer
citizens should receive a portion of meat, after-
wards commuted for a sum of money ; but this
unpopular regulation was repealed by Domitian
(Suet. Ner. 16, Dom. 7; Martial, viii. 50).
When the Emperor Claudius on one occasion
resolved unexpectedly to entertain the populace
with some games which were to last for a short
time only, he styled the exhibition a sportula
(Suet. Claud. 21), and in the age of the younger
Pliny the word was commonly employed to
signify a gratuity, gift, or emolument of any
description (Plin. Ep. ii. 14, x. 118).
(Compare a dissertation on the Sportula by
Buttmann in the Kritische Bibliothek for 1821;
see also Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii.204 f.; Marquardt,
Privatalt. i.” 207–212; Friedländer, Sittengesch.
i. 438–442.) [W. R.] [A. S. W.]
STABULA'RIUS. [RECEPTA Actio.]
STA'DIUM (orróðvov, pl. in prose most often
orráðuou: Doric atráðtov; cf. Lat. spatium). 1. The
foot-race course at Olympia and the other places
in Greece where games were celebrated. It was
originally intended for the foot-race, but the
other contests which were added to the games
from time to time [OLYMPIA] were also exhibited
in the Stadium, except the horse-raees, for which
a place was set apart, of a similar form with the
stadium, but larger : this was called the HIPPO-
DROMUS (firröðpopuos).
The plan of the Olympic stadium, as discovered
by recent excavations, was rectangular. This,
however, is exceptional, for most others known
to us were terminated at one end by a straight
line, at the other by a semicircle having the
breadth of the stadium for its base. Round this
area were ranges of seats rising above one another
in steps.
It was constructed in three different ways, ac-
cording to the nature of the ground. The sim-
plest form was that in which a place could be
found which had by nature the required. shape,
as at Laodicea. Most commonly, however, a
position was chosen on the side of a hill, and the
stadium was formed on one side by the natural
slope, on the other by a mound of earth (yńs
Xópia), as at Olympia, Thebes, and Epidaurus
(Paus. ii. 27, § 6; vi. 20, §§ 5, 6 ; ix. 23, § 1).
Sometimes, however, the stadium was on level
ground, and mounds of earth were cast up round
it to form seats, and covered with stone or
marble. We have two celebrated examples of
this construction in the Pythian stadium at
Delphi and the Panathenaic at Athens. The
former was originally constructed of Parnassian
stone, and afterwards covered with Pentelic
marble by Herodes Atticus (Paus. x. 32, § 1),
who adorned in the same manner the stadium at
Athens, which had been originally constructed
on the banks of the Ilissus by the orator Lycur-
gus. The marble covering, which took four
years to complete, has now disappeared, but the
area is still left, with some ruins of the masonry
(Paus. i. 19, $7; Leake's Topography of Athens).
The stadium sometimes formed a part of the
buildings of the gymnasium [GYMNASIUM), at
other times it was placed in its neighbourhood,
and often, as at Athens, stood entirely by itself.
That at Olympia was just outside and slightly to
the N.E. of the sacred enclosure called Altis.
The size of the Grecian stadia varied both in
length and breadth; but this variety is possibly
in some cases to be understood of the size of the
whole enclosure, not of the length of the part
marked out for the race; the latter would natu-
rally have been fixed, while the former differed
according to the accommodation to be provided
for spectators, or the magnificence which the
builder might wish to confer upon the structure.
The length of the course, between the pillars
which marked the beginning and the end of the
race, was always 600 (Greek) feet, but the foot
unit varied in size [vide MENSURA]. There was
a tradition that Hercules measured it out at
Olympia originally by his own foot. It is not
improbable that Pheidon, who claimed to be a
descendant of Hercules, and who presided as
agonothete at the Olympic games, may have
fixed the length of the stadium according to the
standard of measure which he established.
The accounts left by ancient writers of the
arrangement of the parts of the stadium are
scanty, but from a comparison of them with
existing remains of stadia we may collect the
following particulars.
At one end a straight wall shut in the area,
and here were the entrances, the starting-place
for the runners, and (at Olympia) an altar of
Endymion. At the other end, at or near the
centre of the semicircle, and at the fixed distance
from the starting-place, was the goal, which was
... the termination of the simple foot-race, the run-
ners in which were called a tabloëpóplot: the race
itself is called ardów.v and 6pówos : in the Stavaos
ëpópos the racers turned round this and came
back to the starting-place. The starting-place
and goal had various names: the former was
called āqeoris, ypappuh, iſotramă, and 8&A8ts: the
latter réppa, Barłip, réAos, kaputrip, and vôoroa.
The term ypapºpº) is explained as the line along
which the racers were placed before starting;
iſotramë, which means the lash of a whip, is sup-
posed to have been a cord which was stretched
in front of the racers to restrain their impatience,
and which was let fall when the signal was given
to start; the name kaputrºp was applied to the
goal because the runners in the 6tavX0s and
6óAuxos turned round it to complete their course.
These terms are often applied indifferently to the
starting-place and the goal; probably because
the starting-place was also the end of all races,
except the simple ordölov. The starting-place
and goal were each marked by a square pillar
(orrãAal, kíoves Kuboetēsis), and half-way between
these was a third. On the first was inscribed
the word āptorreve, on the second a treče, on the
third kāuipov. The 60Xixoëpóplot turned round
both the extreme pillars till they had completed
the number of stadia of which their course con-
sisted, which appears to have been different on
different occasions, for the length of the 66Atxos
âpéuos is variously stated at 6, 7, 8, 12, 20, and
24 stadia (Schol. ad Soph. Electr. 691).
The semicircular end of the area, which was
called ordevöová, and was not used in the races,
was probably devoted to the other athletic sports.
This gºevöovº is still clearly seen in the Ephesian
and Messenian stadia, in the latter of which it is
694 STADIUM
STADIUM
surrounded by 16 rows of seats. The area of the
stadium was surrounded by the seats for specta-
tors, which were separated from it by a low wall
or podium.
Opposite to the goal, on one side of the sta-
dium, were the seats of the Hellanodicae, for
whom there was a secret entrance into the sta-
dium (kpurrº èooãos), and on the other side was
an altar of white marble, on which the priestesses
of Demeter Chamyne sat to view the games.
The area was generally adorned with altars and
statues.
Such were the general form and arrangement
of the Greek stadium. After the Roman con-
quest of Greece the form of the stadium was
often modified so as to resemble the amphi-
theatre by making both its ends semicircular,
and by surrounding it with seats supported by
vaulted masonry, as in the Roman amphitheatre.
The Ephesian stadium still has such seats round
a portion of it. A restoration of this stadium is
given in the following woodcut, copied from
Krause.
Stadium at Ephesus, restored.
A is the boundary wall at the Aphesis, 77 feet
deep, B C the sides, and D the semicircular end,
of the same depth as A.; F F the area, including
the org/evöová; bb pieces of masonry jutting out
into the area; ee the entrances; from o to p is
the length of an Olympic stadium; from q to z
the range of amphitheatrical seats mentioned
above.
The stadium at Olympia (as distinct from the
area which formed the course) was, as has been
already mentioned, rectangular, with a breadth
of about 32 and a length of 211 metres. The
foot of the embankments which enclosed the area
was bordered by a ledge of stone. The area it-
self lay at a depth of about three metres below
the level of the adjoining Altis. We may here
mention a few details respecting the Olympic
stadium restored to view by recent excavations.
In the simple course—the otóðvov or öpópos—
the runners merely traversed once the space
from the starting line to the goal. But in the
double course, or ötavXos, they traversed this
space twice. The judges were stationed at the
end where the goal stood. Hence runners in
the 6tavXos—and also in the 66Auxos, which
always consisted of an even number of ordöua—
must be supposed to have started from this end,
in order to finish in the immediate presence of
the judges. Thus the arrangements for starting
were of necessity alike at both ends. At Olympia,
accordingly, a row of flags, reaching across the
course at either end, formed the common basis
on which the competitors took their places before
starting. Standing here in a line, they were
separated from one another by posts inserted per-
pendicularly in the stone. The sockets in which
these posts stood are still visible. Each is about
four Olympia feet distant from the one next to
it, thus allowing ample room for that play of
arms customary among ancient Greek runners.
Stadia were in later times used for other pur-
poses than running, e.g. for wild-beast shows or
hunts (kuwmysoríai). Hence (as appears from the
ruins of the stadium at Ephesus, and from two
inscriptions found in the ruins of the stadium at
Laodicea) an amphitheatre was sometimes built
in connexion with the stadium. The podium
was built round the course, and furnished with
iron rails as a protection against the wild
animals.
Stadia were late in appearing at Rome. Julius
Caesar erected a stadium for athletes upon the
occasion of his fivefold triumph (Suet. Jul. 39).
Augustus, too, seems to have built a stadium in
the Campus Martius (Id. Aug. 43,45). Domitian
also is named as having founded a stadium in
which young women competed for prizes in run-
ning (Id. Domit. 4 and 5). But the exercises of
the stadium never attained at Rome the same
degree of popularity as those of the circus and
amphitheatre.
(Krause, Die Gymnastik und Agonistik der Hel-
lenen, p. 131, § 14; Müller, Archäol. der Kunst,
§ 200; OLYMPIA.)
2. The word also signifies the chief Greek
measure for itinerary distances, which was
adopted by the Romans also, chiefly for nautical
and astronomical measurements. It was equal
to 600 Greek or 625 Roman feet, or to 125
Roman paces; and the Roman mile contained
8 stadia (Herod. ii. 149; Plin. H. W. ii. 23,
$21; Columell. R. R. v. 1; Strabo, vii. p. 497).
This standard prevailed throughout Greece,
under the name of the Olympic stadium, so called
because, as above stated, it was the exact length
of the stadium or foot-race course at Olympia,
measured between the pillars at the two ex-
tremities of the course.

STAMINUS
STATER 695
As to the length of the Olympic stadium,
actual measurement has now put an end to all
dispute. From starting-point to goal the dis-
tance is 192-27 metres. Divided by 600, this
gives -3205 metre as the length of the Olympic
foot. As the Attic and Olympic foot-lengths
were considerably less than this, we can under-
stand how the fable obtained credence that the
Olympic stadium was originally measured out
by the foot of Hérakles,
Respecting the origin of the stadium as unit
of measurement, different opinions have been
advanced. A recent view propounded by Prof.
Ridgeway [for which see MENsuka, p. 161] bids
fair to become generally accepted. According
to this, the stadium is simply the ancient furrow-
length. He traces the institution of this unit
back to the time when the Aryan peoples had
not yet separated. (Wide, in addition to the
authors above referred to, Bötticher, Olympia,”
and Denkmäler des klassischen Altertums, Nos.
28, 29, 29*.)
There were multiples of the measure, corre-
sponding to the longer races; thus the 5tavaos
was 2 aráðua, and the 56xxos 6 or more. (See
above.) The in turbw of 4 stadia we may pre-
sume to have been the length of one double
course in the chariot-race, which would give
2 stadia for the distance between the pillars
in the hippodrome. In mathematical geo-
graphy, the ordinary computation was 600
stadia to a degree of a great circle of the earth's
surface. [P. S.] [J. I. B.]
STAMINUS (orráuvos, arrauvtov), an earthen-
ware jar, often with red figures, used to hold
wine or oil (Aristoph. Lys. 196, cf. Ran. 42;
Athen. xi. p. 499 e). The word is still so used
in Greece. It is sufficiently described by Dennis
Stamnos. (Dennis.) Apulian Stamnos.
as “a high-shouldered, short-necked plethoric
vase with two small handles.” The same writer
gives also an “Apulian stamnos,” a small and
later variety with a lid, probably intended to
hold honey or sweetmeats. [G. E. M.]
STATER (a rathp) was the standard unit
both of weight and (more especially) of money,
corresponding to the Oriental word shekel. As
the coins which were the standard units in
various districts varied in metal and in weight,
the term stater was applied in antiquity to a
great variety of pieces of money. The Greeks
would have called the sovereign, the dollar, and
the rupee all staters.
Gold Staters.-The earliest coins struck in
gold were the Lydian pieces attributed to
Croesus, stamped with the fore parts of a lion
(Dennis.)
and a bull, and weighing about 130 grains.
| These were called arraripes Kpotaſeto… they
were succeeded by the Persian gold coins of the
same weight, called. Darics or arraripes Aape-
| rot. About B.c. 400 Athens, Rhodes, Olynthus,
and other cities began the issue of gold staters
of nearly the same weight (about is3 grains),
and this weight was also preserved in the gold
Gold Stater of Alexander.
staters of Philip and Alexander of Macedon and
the successors of Alexander. Thus the gold
stater was almost invariably in antiquity an
Attic or Euboic didrachm [Pospºra] and of the
metal value of about 23 shillings. Mr. Ridge-
way has in the Journal of Hellenic Studies
(vols. viii., ix.) produced evidence that the gold
stater was originally regarded as representing
the value of an ox.
Silver Staters.-As in Greece proper silver,
not gold, was the staple of the currency, the
stater was in the cities of that district of silver.
| Among the Aeginetans the stater, arratºp Aiyº-
vaſos, was the didrachm of about 194 grains;
and among the Corinthians the tridrachm of
| 135 grains, which was termed in Sicily Sekdau-
rpos araráp, because it was equal in value to
ten Sicilian litrae. But the litra (q.v.) was
also in Sicily called a stater, as being a local
measure of value. In Italy the coins which
would elsewhere have been termed staters
were called numi: as the Tarentine
numus, and the Roman denarius and
sestertius. At Athens the term stater
was applied not only to the gold didrachm,
but also to the silver tetradrachm, at all
events in later times; and as in the
Roman age the Attic drachm was re-
garded as equivalent to the denarius, and
the denarius was the eighth part of a
Roman ounce in weight, the stater or
tetradrachm was stated to be of the
weight of half an ounce. Similarly the
Ptolemaic and Hebrew staters were tetra-
drachms of silver.
Electrum Staters.-The coins in elec-
trum issued in early times by the Greek
cities of Asia Minor were commonly spoken of
as staters. Thus we frequently read in Attic
inscriptions entries of arraripes ºwkaikoſ, Aaj-
armyoſ, and Kuſukmºot, and Demosthenes speaks
of a Cyzicene stater as equivalent in value to 28
Attic drachms (adv. Phorm, p. 914): there are
reasons for thinking that it was of the same
value as a Daric (Gardner, Numismatic Chronicle,
1887, p. 185). Cyzicene and Lampsacene staters
(weight 248 grains) still exist in great abund-
ance, but few Phocaic staters. Some electrum
staters are figured under ELECTRUM-
It has been impossible in this slight summary
to quote the passages from ancient, writers,
Pollux, Hesychius, &c., on which the above
statements are based. But by turning tº
arratºp in the index to Hultsch's Metrologic;


696 STATERA
STATUARIA ARS
Scriptores, authority will be found for all of
them. The common notion that the stater is
necessarily a didrachm is erroneous. [P. G.]
STATE’RA, a steelyard. This seems to have
been an invention of Italy: according to Isidore
(Orig. xvi. 24), it was first used in Campania,
and was called trutina campana ; and it may be
remarked that in Roman remains generally the
steelyard is the commonest form of weighing
machine discovered. There can be no doubt
that the balance [LIBRA] was a far older con-
trivance than the steelyard : Blümner (in Bau-
meister's Denkmäler, p. 2078) conjectures as the
primitive form a simple bar of wood placed
through a ring or loop with the articles to be
weighed against each other hung at the two
ends. The more elaborate balance was a natural
improvement on this, but the steelyard clearly
involved more ingenuity and calculation.
An account of the steelyard will be found in
Vitruvius, x. 3, 4. The parts defined are the
beam or yard (scapus) suspended by a hook or
chain which is called the handle (ansa); in this
is the point of revolution (centrum), and near
it is the caput, from which depends the scale
(lancula); on the other side of the centrum, the
scapus is marked with points (puncta), which
express the weight of objects in the scale as the
aequipondium, or hanging weight, moves along
the beam. This aequipondium was generally
adorned with a head divine, human or animal.
Statera. (From Museum at Rome.)
The example here given is from the Museum
of the Capitol at Rome. Others differ in having
less ornament; and it is common also to find
a hook attached to the shorter arm between the
centrum and the caput, which was intended to
hold articles whose size and shape made it con-
venient to hang them on, instead of putting them
in the scale, and, as this altered the leverage,
there was a double set of puncta on the beam to
suit either arrangement. A third kind is shown
in Baumeister (Denkm. fig. 2316), where a weight
hangs on one arm of an ordinary balance, this
arm being marked with puncta. It is clear that
this was intended for use either as libra or
statera: in the former case the weight would be
detached; in the latter one scale would be
detached (or allowance made for it in the puncta),
and the other would be used as in the steel-
yard.
It must be observed that, though statera is
strictly the steelyard, it is often used for a
weighing machine of any kind: e.g. in Suet.
Vesp. 25, the statera of the dream is clearly a
balance with two scales; so also the aurificis
statera is doubtless a balance of a peculiarly
delicate kind contrasted with the popularistritina,
or less carefully adjusted balance; for trutina
is used for any weighing machine, without dis-
tinction of form. (An illustration of this gold-
smith’s balance from an ancient relief is shown
in Blümner, Technologie, iv. 312.)
The engraving in this article shows various
weights (aequipondia, onkówara), such as may
be seen in many museums, and of which a large
collection may be studied in the British Museum.
There was at Rome a special guild of Sacomarii,
or makers of weights (C. I. L. x. 1930; Mar-
quardt, Privatl. 713). For a marble altar set
up by a guild of Sacomarii at Ostia, see Lan-
ciani, Ancient Rome, p. 34, London, 1889.
[G. E. M.]
STATIO'NES FISCI. The Fiscus (q. v.)
was divided into various departments, called
stationes, according to the different revenues or
business belonging to it (Cod. 4, 31, 1 ; 8,43,
2; 10, 5, 1). Thus we hear of a statio heredita-
tium (Wilmanns, Ea'empla Inscriptionwm Latina-
rum, 1272); a statio a.a. hereditatium (Wilmanns,
1272, 1389); a statio quadragesima Galliarum
(Wilmanns, 1397, 1398; see QUADRAGESIMA); a
statio ferrariarum (Wilmanns, 1408); a statio
wrbana (Wilmanns, 2810); a statio marmorum
(Wilmanns, 1377); a statio annonae (Orelli, Inscr.
4107 =4420). We meet also with a statio pri-
vatarum (Wilmanns, 1277), and a statio patri-
moni; Augusti (Wilmanns, 1353, 2811). Officials
connected with a statio are mentioned in the
above inscriptions under the names of procurator,
praepositus, contrascriptor, princeps tabularius,
optio tabellariorum, pedisequus. F.T. R.]
STATIONES MUNICIPIO'RUM. [GRAE-
COSTASIS.]
STATOR. [ExERGITUs, Vol. I. p. 794 b.]
STATUAVRLA ARS. This title will be
used in the present article in its widest inter-
pretation, including in fact all that we call by
the name “sculpture,” whether in relief or in
the round, and whatever be the material in
which it is executed. For details in various
branches of the subject, special articles must
be consulted; and for information as to the life,
works, and style of the various artists men-
tioned, see the articles under their respective
names in the Dictionary of Biography and My-
thology. Here" will be found—I. a description
of the materials and technique of ancient
sculpture; and II. a historical sketch of its
development and decline, with special reference
to the relations and periods of the various
schools, and to extant works of sculpture.
I. Materials and Technique.
As to materials, we may distinguish (a) stone
and marble; (b) bronze and other metals, such
as silver; (c) wood, sometimes inlaid and gilded,
or with portions in marble (acrolithi) or gold
and ivory (chryselephantina); (d) terra-cotta.
The technique must be considered in each case
separately.
(a) Stone or Marble.—This is the most im-
portant to us, because, from the nature of the

STATUARLA ARS
STATUARIA A-RS 697
materials, nearly all the statues still preserved
are of this class. But it must always be re-
membered that this material had no such pre-
ponderance over the others in ancient times as
it has in modern museums. But it was at all
times very extensively used, and consequently
we possess examples of all periods in stone or
marble, from the shapeless dolls which show
the first rude attempts to represent the human
form, through the rise, finest period, and decline
of sculpture, to the last decadence of Roman
work.
The “invention” of sculpture in marble is
traditionally attributed to Melas of Chios and
his family, in which Archermus is the best-
known name. Like other traditions of “inven-
tions,” this must not be insisted upon.
In the earliest period of sculpture, the square-
ness of the form of the body has often
been noticed. Some have wrongly attributed
this to an influence of wood technique. It is
doubtless due to the fact that the early sculp-
tors, like beginners of to-day, traced first the
full aspect or profile of a figure on the front or
side of their block, and then worked through at
right angles to the surface: traces of this pro-
ceeding are clear on some unfinished statues,
which have the flat surfaces and corners pro-
duced by it not yet rounded off.
Much confusion exists in the opinions of
archaeologists as to the extent to which pointing
from a finished clay model was used. In some
cases points are still visible, not completely
worked off the statue. But this is only in the
case of late Hellenistic or Roman works, and
it may be seriously doubted whether any such
practice prevailed in the best times of Greek
sculpture. Unfinished Greek statues—of which
several exist in Athens—show no sign of it.
The block is worked away in successive layers,
more delicate instruments being used as the
sculpture progressed. For the probable facts
as to the use of clay models (proplasmata) see
sub voc., and also section (d) below. The tools
mostly used were the punch, with a mallet, and
various chisels; in a more advanced stage of the
statue a claw chisel was used; it was then
finished with an ordinary chisel. Traces of all
these processes are clear in unfinished statues.
The drill seems to have been used in earlier
times only for fixing ornaments, &c. Callima-
chus is said to have been the first to make
sculptural use of it. Later it was extensively
used for the hair and the deeper folds of the
drapery, and in careless work its marks were
never worked off. A very highly polished
surface is characteristic of works of the Hel-
lenistic period, and especially of the Perga-
mene school. The application of colour is a
question of great importance, which can now
be decided with regard to archaic works, though
there is still some difficulty as to statues of
later periods. Where rough stone was used,
colour was applied to all parts, more or less
conventionally—red for the nude parts, and
blue for hair, clothes, &c., being the colours
most used. But as marble came to be more
extensively and afterwards almost exclusively
used, the beauty of the material and its ex-
quisite rendering of the texture of the skin
naturally precluded the use of colour on the
nude parts: this was especially the case with
female statues, the white colour for the skin
of women being already prevalent on archaic
vases. In the best preserved series, the archaic
female statues on the Acropolis at Athens, we
find the skin and the whole mass of the drapery
left uncoloured; red is applied to the hair, lips,
and eyes, in the last case with touches in dark
purple or brown, and other colours; and the
drapery has borders and scattered ornaments
painted on it in red, blue, green, and dark
purple or brown. A garment is completely
coloured only when but a small portion of it
shows; e.g. the breast and sleeve of a chiton
when an outer garment is worn that conceals
the rest of it. To judge from this evidence, it
seems impossible that in the finest period it was
customary to apply colour to the whole or
great part of the surface of a statue. (We are,
however, told that Praxiteles considered those
works to be his best which were improved by
the “circumlitio’’ of the painter Nicias.) Sur-
viving examples of tinted statues of later period
—one or two are known—may possibly be
either experiments or imitations of terracotta
or other materials. But it is impossible to be
certain until we have as complete and well-
preserved a set of statues surviving from some
later period as those on the Acropolis from the
time preceding the Persian wars—a discovery
perhaps beyond hope.
In the earliest times all kinds of local marble
were used ; that of Paros, sometimes called
lychnites, came early into common use from the
fame of local artists, and its excellence made it
always remain the favourite. Pentelic marble
was extensively used at Athens during and
after the fifth century; Hymettic only for
inferior work, except in the earliest time. In
the Roman period the quarries of Luna, the
modern Carrara, were worked very extensively.
(b) Bronze, &c.—Bronze was probably the
material most used by the great artists of
antiquity, but the ease with which it was de-
stroyed and melted down into useful metal has
spared us but few examples. Beside statuettes,
which are innumerable, only a few life-size or
larger statues remain: among the most impor-
tant are the archaic bearded head found on the
Acropolis at Athens in 1887, a seated statue
of a boxer found in Rome in 1886, and the head
of Aphrodite in the British Museum. Various
mixtures of bronze were known, and preferred
by different artists; the Corinthian and Aegi-
netan were the best known [see AES].
The most primitive method of bronze-working
implies no knowledge of casting, but merely
hammering plates into the required shape and
then riveting them together. Bronze-founding
is said to have been “invented” by Rhoecus
and Theodorus of Samos, about the middle of
the sixth century; the nature and extent of
this “invention ” are not clear; a colossal bowl
of bronze is said to have been made in Samos
long before their time. It is doubtful at what
period hollow casting of complete statues be-
came usual. This was probably done, as it is
now, by the cire perdue process. In this process
the modelling is finished on a layer of wax over
a fire-proof core. A casing is added, and the
wax is then melted out and bronze poured in.
On a vase, probably of the fifth century, is
represented a bronze founder's workshop, where
698 STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS
the body, head, and limbs, cast separately, are
being finished and inserted into their places by
workmen. The final polishing and finish of
detail took place after casting, and on the same
vase are some workmen employed in these pro-
cesses, which properly belong to CAELATURA,
q. v. Caelatura also includes all purely deco-
rative work in metal, such as was frequently
applied to the details of great statues.
Silver and gold, as well as bronze, were
occasionally used for statues; e.g. a gold
sphyrelatum of Zeus was dedicated by the Cy-
pselidae of Corinth at Olympia. Such a work is
quite distinct from the chryselephantina, which
probably are a development of the next material.
(c) Wood, often gilt and enriched with other
materials. This material was extensively used
in early times, but naturally has not been pre-
served: the primitive £6ava were frequently,
but not exclusively, of wood; the influence of
wood technique on early sculpture has probably
been exaggerated. The development of this
material is seen in the works of Dipoenus and
Scyllis of Crete, and the school they founded in
Sparta. First comes the use of ivory and
ebony; then the wood is coated with gold, and
so the transition is easy to the great chrysele-
phantine works, in which gold and ivory only
are seen. Of course such statues must have had a
core of wood when small (at Megara the wooden
portions of an unfinished gold and ivory statue
were preserved): this was replaced by an in-
ternal framework when on a large scale. Acro-
lithi, in which the ivory is replaced by marble,
and the gold by gilded wood, were a cheap
substitute for chryselephantina.
(d) Terracotta was very little used for monu-
mental purposes by the Greeks, though it is said
to have been used for temple sculptures at an
early period in Italy. But the use of clay-
moulding is a question of great importance and
difficulty. Figurines in terracotta, mostly
made for dedication in temples or burial in
tombs, are preserved in very large quantities in
all museums. They supply the models of the
earliest and rudest art; they reproduce the
masterpieces of all periods, and many artists
devoted great skill and originality to their
manufacture [TERRACOTTA]. These terracottas
can only be referred to here for the information
they give us as to the larger and more monu-
mental works which form the subject of the
present article. But in connexion with this
material and the process of modelling it, must
be also considered the use of finished clay
models in making statues of marble or bronze.
The clearest passage concerning this is in Pliny,
xxxv. § 156: “Pasitelen, qui plasticen matrem
caelaturae et statuariae sculpturaeque dixit, . . .
et nihil umquam fecit antequam finxit; ” and
he makes similar statements as to Arcesilaus.
We thus see that the practice was used by the
chief artists of the first century B.C. We do
not know for certain how much earlier it
began. Just above (§ 153), but in confused
context, Pliny seems to state that after the
time of Lysistratus, the brother of Lysippus,
no statues were made without the use of clay
models. Thus it seems to be implied that a
universal use of finished clay models came in
after the end of the fourth century. On the
other hand, the famous remark of Polycleitus,
who worked mostly in bronze, xaxercºratov ro
épyov, 3rav čv Švvy, 6 trnxós, seems to imply a
use of finished clay models, at least in the case
of bronze works, at a considerably earlier date.
Great works in gold and ivory also seem to
imply a finished clay model after which the
scales could be worked. And we hear of one
such work (by Theocosmus at Megara) in which,
the materials failing, the body was supplied with
plaster and clay—doubtless the model prepared
for the work. But at least in the case of marble
we have seen that execution was more or less
free hand in the best period, and that pointing
from a finished clay model was certainly not
universal till Roman times, if even then. It is
at any rate certain that the practice of making
first a clay model, whatever was to be the final
material, and leaving the rest to copying by
more or less mechanical means, was not in use
among Greek sculptors, who always carried out
the details of practical execution in the final
material as far as possible with their own
hands. On unfinished works of Greek or even
Hellenistic period (e.g. the small frieze of Per-
gamus) puntelli are not usually to be found;
they occur on works of the Roman period.
II. Historical Sketch.
The beginnings of Greek sculpture may be
assigned to about the year 600 B.C. What art
existed before in Greece was either purely
decorative, or entirely subordinate to foreign
influences. It will be well to divide the whole
history into periods, for greater facility in its
consideration.
1. Before 600 B.C. Earliest traditions; foreign
influences.
2. 600 B.C.—480 B.C.
schools.
3. 480 B.C.—400 B.C.
Phidias, Polycleitus.
4. 400 B.C.—320 B.C. Greek fourth century—
Praxiteles, Scopas, Lysippus.
5. 320 B.C.—150 B.C.
Schools.
6. 150 B.C.—300 A.D.
Roman.
1. Before 600 B.C. Earliest traditions; foreign
influences.—Before considering Greek tradition,
we must first recall the state of foreign arts at
this time, and the channels by which they could
influence the nascent art of Greece.
Egyptian art had in the seventh century
reached a low ebb, having declined since the
period of colossal works which accompanied the
national revival under the Ramessid dynasty.
But another revival took place under the pros-
perous rule of Psammetichus, marked more by
delicacy of execution than greatness of con-
ception. Psammetichus seems to have favoured
foreign intercourse, and the first Milesian colony
at Naucratis was founded in his reign. The
direct influence of Egyptian art on Greece must,
however, been less than the indirect, conveyed
chiefly through the Phoenicians. . The same
people probably conveyed to Greece the influence
of Assyrian art, which had passed through all
the stages of its development before sculpture
can be said to have begun in Greece. But at a
time when no copies, casts, or drawings of
foreign works of art existed, and when artists
Greek archaic–Early
Greek fifth century—
Hellenistic—Asiatic
Graeco-Roman and
STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS 699
cannot often have travelled to study foreign
masterpieces, the only possible means for con-
veying foreign influence must have consisted in
small and portable articles, arms and utensils,
reliefs, statuettes and carvings in ivory, wood,
metal, &c., such as could easily be made articles
of traffic. Such objects might either be Phoe-
nician imitations, or might be genuine products
of the art they represented. With the arts of
Asia Minor the case is different. The numerous
Greek colonies here superseded any need of
Phoenician intermediaries, and intercourse with
Phrygia, Lydia, Caria, and Lycia is to be in-
ferred both from tradition and extant remains.
Various rock-cut sculptures of Asia Minor, such
as the Niobe of Mount Sipylus, were known to
the Greeks from early times. Above all, several
of the islands served as centres where Oriental
and Greek art met: the position of Cyprus in
this respect is often misunderstood; the Greek
element there was always subordinate, and all
arts seem to have lingered and died out, but
never to have developed. To Rhodes, on the
other hand, may be traced many of the most
fruitful influences in early Greece; and it seems
probable that a similar position was held in the
earliest times by Crete, though this cannot be
certainly known till extensive excavations have
taken place in that island.
Some vague tradition of the influences just
mentioned may be traced in the myths of such
creatures as the Cyclopes, Idaean Dactyli, and
Telchines—monsters or daemons of superhuman
strength and skill. The Cyclopes are usually
said to come from Lycia ; they are usually
represented as the builders of colossal walls,
such as those of Mycenae and Tiryns; but works
of sculpture are attributed to them—a head of
Medusa at Argos and the Lions over the gate at
Mycenae (which really belong to a Phrygian
series). The Idaean Dactyli, or Fingers from
Mount Ida, are attributed sometimes to Ida in
Phrygia, sometimes to Ida in Crete; besides
possessing skill in magic, they are said to have
invented the working of iron. The Telchines,
often in later times confused with the Dactyli
even in names, seem to belong to Rhodes (Ov.
Met. vii. 365), but are also connected with
Crete and Cyprus. They, too, work in iron and
bronze, and also practise magic. To these
mythical workmen are attributed such objects
as the Trident of Poseidon, the thunderbolts
of Zeus, the Sickle of Cronus. It is obviously
absurd to look for historical races or persons
in such stories; but the countries to which they
are assigned may indicate the belief of the
Greeks as to the quarters whence were derived
the technical appliances of art in the earliest
times.
The next step in tradition brings us to Dae-
dalus and other names of what is sometimes
called the Heroic period of art. Late writers
describe the improvements made by Daedalus in
sculpture, by opening the eyes, separating the
legs, and freeing the arms from the body, and
ascribe extant works to him, as if he were a
historical person. But these statements are
obviously mere euhemeristic or rationalistic ex-
planations of old tales of magic ; Plato, Euri-
pides, and Aristotle ascribe to him, not only
sculptural attainments, but feats of magic, such
as are ascribed also to Hephaestus. It is also
obvious that statues with eyes shut probably
never existed, that the legs are separated in the
conventional stride in Egyptian and other im-
ported statuettes, and that the arms remained
close to the body far later than any period that
could be assigned to Daedalus. In Homer he is
only referred to as devising a xopos (i.e. a dance
or dancing-place) for Ariadne—not necessarily
as a sculptor; a late misinterpretation identified
the actual relief he made with one extant at
Cnossus in Crete. But there is no more reason
for attributing historical truth to his inventions
in the art of sculpture than in that of flying.
By the earlier Greeks he was regarded as a
mythical inventor and magician, from whom
families in Athens and in Crete claimed descent;
he became later the personification of early
Greek art, and hence, naturally enough, statues
of Greek origin and unknown antiquity came to
be attributed to him.
One or two other names of artists belong to
the heroic period. As the maker of the Trojan
wooden horse, Epeius has more claim to being
mentioned as a sculptor in Homer than Dae-
dalus has; later, at least one extant statue was
attributed to him ; but his character seems no
less legendary. So, too, statues said to have been
dedicated by various heroes were probably either
imported or native works of unknown antiquity.
Even Pausanias notes that a bronze statue said
to be dedicated by Ulysses was cast in one piece,
and so could not go back to his time. Two or
three of the earliest Greek sculptors may perhaps
belong to this period before 600 B.C.; but there
are as yet no schools, and no regular succession.
Some works of decorative relief must, however,
be noticed, which, though not properly works of
sculpture, are usually included in all books upon
the subject. The Shield of Achilles is the first
of this series. It is not to be imagined that the
description in Homer (which, though probably
an interpolation, is still as early as 700 B.C.) is
derived from any single shield, or even that its
individual scenes describe actual reliefs seen by
the poet. But though the arrangement is his
own, the detailed description of such a work
seems to imply that the poet had seen similar
subjects similarly treated, though not necessarily
by a Greek artist; the nearest analogy is to be
found in Phoenician bowls: with these, too, the
arrangement in five concentric zones corresponds.
The scenes, as in Oriental reliefs, are all from
ordinary life. In the Shield of Heracles, wrongly
ascribed to Hesiod, the same arrangement in
zones, but more complicated, is described; but
the scenes are already partly mythological.
We may compare these poetical descriptions
of imaginary works with the Chest of Cypselus,
dedicated at Olympia, which Pausanias describes.
[ARCA.] Cypselus reigned in Corinth 657–
629 B.C.; and as the chest was dedicated by his
descendants the Cypselids, it may probably be
assigned to the end of the seventh century. (Most
authorities place it much earlier, saying that
it is the identical chest in which Cypselus was:
hidden when a child; but even if it were so, the
decorations were probably added just before
dedication, as their character and the added
inscriptions show.) Here the scenes, which were
arranged in five friezes along the chest, and
were carved in the wood with additions in ivory
and gold, are taken entirely from mythology.
700 STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS
The nearest analogy to this work is seen in the
Corinthian vases of the sixth century; being a
decorative work, it can only be here quoted
incidentally, to show the standard attained both
in subjects and technical facility at the time
when sculpture was first beginning in Greece.
It is, however, recorded that certain images of
the gods existed even in this earliest period.
The only apparent exception to the statement
that sculpture is unknown to Homer is offered
by the figure of Athena in Troy, upon whose
knees the matrons lay a robe. But this need
not imply a completely finished statue; those
covered in later times with votive drapery were
of the rudest and most primitive description.
The golden youths bearing torches in the palace
of Alcinous, like the golden maidens of Hephaes-
tus, belong to magic rather than to sculpture.
Doubtless some of the representations of the
gods dated from a very remote period; they are
described as mere logs or rough stones, 66rcava
or Atôot àpyot, and in some cases are said to
have fallen from heaven: these were often
ornamented in various ways; often they were
wrapped in drapery; sometimes they were plated
with bronze: the Apollo of Amyclae was a bronze
column, with helmeted head and hands and feet
attached. Such rude images of the gods exist
among all primitive peoples; but it was not the
development of these images, of which the type
was fixed by religious conservatism, that led to
the rise of Greek sculpture. Statues, whether
of the worshipper or the god, dedicated in temples,
offered freer scope than the temple statue itself;
and these were rather enlarged imitations, at
first, of imported foreign models, than repetitions
of the sacred image.
(For more details as to this period, see ACRO-
LITHI, DAEDALA, DOKANA in Vol. I., and Dict.
Biog. & Myth. : Cyclopes, Dactyli, Telchines,
Hephaestus, Daedalus, Epeius.)
2. 600 B.C.—480 B.C. Greek Archaic–Early
Schools.-During the rise of Greek sculpture,
the artists recorded by literature belong to local
schools or even families, which, while they
influence one another, preserve a character of
their own. It is not always easy to associate
these schools with extant works. Tradition
assigns various schools, working in various
materials, to the islands: Chian marble workers,
the family of Melas, Micciades, Archermus,
Bupalus, and Athenis; Samian bronze-founders,
Rhoecus, Theodorus, and Telecles; Cretans work-
ing in marble and wood, Dipoenus and Scyllis,
the “Daedalids,” who worked also in many cities
of the mainland, and had scholars in Sparta and
elsewhere. Generally we notice the importance
of the islands, and not the same islands as in the
previous period, except Crete with its tradition
of Daedalid masters. Naxos and Paros with their
marble quarries, Samos and Chios, in close touch
with the art of eastern Asia Minor, and Thasos,
are all conspicuous either for recorded artists or
actual works that they have yielded.
Among the most primitive statues extant is
that of Hera from Samos, in Paris (fig. 1), which
is merely a round column below, with elaborate
drapery. Parts of two similar figures are on
the Acropolis at Athens.
From various indications, we are led to believe
that what we may best call the Ionic style was
in early times of great influence and importance.
Several works are still preserved from Asia
Minor: the seated statues from the sacred way
at Branchidae near Miletus; the earlier temple
of the Ephesian Artemis,
with sculptured columns,
some of them dedicated by
Croesus (specimens of both
these are in the British
Museum); the frieze from
the temple of Assos in the
Troad (now mostly in the
Louvre). A similar cha-
racter may be noticed in
some early Lycian sculp-
tures, probably under Ionic
influence — especially the
Harpy monument (in the
British Museum), and also
in works found in some of
the islands, and even the
N.W. of Greece. Instances
are a tombstone relief of
a man and a dog (in Na-
ples) from Asia Minor or
an island; another tomb-
stone, with a seated lady,
a child and attendant
(called Ino Leucothea, in
the Villa Albani at Rome),
also from the same region;
a relief with Apollo, Her-
mes and the nymphs from
Thasos (in the Louvre),
and various tomb reliefs
from Thessaly (mostly in
Athens). All these works
have some characteristics in common, which
may be shortly described as softness and laxity
of style, as opposed to the hard and precise
sculpture of the Peloponnesian schools. Perhaps
Fig. 1.
Hera, from Samos.
(Louvre.)
i
º a
*
º Zº
42
&
o
tº ſº
ſº
Sºść
º
º:
Fig. 2.
Winged figure by Archermus. (Athens.)









STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS 701
we may see also the influence of painting in the
excellence of composition and generalimpression,
combined with many inadequacies and even
carelessness in details, which is often found in
the sculpture of Northern Greece and the islands.
The artists of the Ionic coast and islands doubt-
less travelled and exercised a wide influence. It
is recorded that the Chian Archermus worked
at Delos, and a pedestal has been discovered,
with his name and that of his father, Micciades,
to which belongs almost certainly, a female flying
figure of very primitive style (fig. 2). It is re-
corded that Archermus was the first to represent
Victory with wings, and here is probably the
very statue in which he did this. The name of
Archermus, inscribed in a different alphabet,
occurs also on a base on the Acropolis at
Athens; in the same place the names of Endoeus,
Aristocles, and many other artists, probably
Ionians, have been found. The Ionic influence
in Athens is clearly visible in some early archi-
tectural sculptures found on the Acropolis,
eut in rough stone and entirely coloured.
These are mostly the pediments of early temples,
and represent in low or high relief the combats
of Heracles or Zeus with fish-tailed or snake-
tailed monsters—Triton, as at Assos, Typhon,
the Hydra, &c., whose tails conveniently fill the
angles of the pediment, while the bodies show
the heavy and sometimes grotesque forms
characteristic of Asiatic Ionic art. The most
important series of statues of early Attic art are
a set of female figures (similar to others found
in Delos and elsewhere), most of which were
found in a position where they must have been
buried just after the Persian invasion, and there-
fore date from the period immediately preceding
it, say about 550-480 B.C. In these it is
Fig. 3.
Head of statue on Acropolis, Athens.
possible to trace the gradual development of
Attic style, from the rude figures with stiff
drapery and grimacing smile inherited from
Ionic art, to the graceful drapery and “un-
conscious” smile noted by Lucian as character-
istics of Calamis, the representative of this
Ionic-Attic school in the fifth century. (The
most advanced head of this type is represented
in fig. 3.) Such female statues, often dedicated
in sacred precincts and representing either a
goddess or her worshipper, are the ultimate
development of the type first seen in the primi-
tive draped female statuettes found on early
Greek sites, and often, doubtless, of foreign
origin. A corresponding nude male type was
developed into the series of statues commonly
called “Apollo,” and known by the place where
they were found,+the Apollo of Thera, of Tenea
(fig. 4), &c.
Discussions have arisen whether these are
statues of that god, or portraits of the deceased
erected on graves, or athlete statues; the fact
is that they simply represent the common male
type, and that without special indications, such
as attributes or circumstances of finding, it is
impossible to decide what was the artist's in-
tention in making them. Here may be quoted
especially the Apollo of Thera, which may be
attributed to an island school. The stela of
Aristocles also shows the tradition of the Ionic
school in Athens. The pictorial and harmonious
composition and expression, with the notion of
power and rest they convey, offer the greatest
contrast to Aeginetan and Peloponnesian works,
lively and excellent in muscular detail, but
angular and forced in attitude.
In the art of the Peloponnese various influences
may be traced; some early grave reliefs from
near Sparta, which show the deceased as a hero,
with worshippers, are in flat planes with square-


702 STATUARIA ARS
st ATUARIA ARs
ºut edges, perhaps a reminiscence of wood
technique. The earliest Spartan artists are
said to have been scholars of the Cretans Di-
poenus and Scyllis, and to
have developed the combina-
tion of wood-carving and
inlaying into chryselephan-
time sculpture. The works
of this nature by Theocles,
Dontas, and Doryclidas were
preserved in the treasury of
the Megarians and in the
Heraeum at Olympia, and
some of them were extensive
groups. Even into Laconia
Ionic influence also pene-
trated; Bathycles of Mag-
nesia was employed to make
a “throne” for the Apollo of
Amyclae, already referred to.
This throne must, from the
description, have been a
kind of carved screen sur-
rounding the statue, orna-
mented with mythological
scenes and statues, including
“ portraits” of the artist
and his assistants. Gºiadas
of Sparta, whose date rela-
tive to the other artists just
mentioned is uncertain, made
the statue and decorated the
temple of Athena Chalcioe-
cus at Sparta; its walls were
covered with bronze reliefs of
mythological subjects. Per-
haps he may represent the Doric style of such
decoration, as Bathycles does the Ionic; both
were to be seen in the treasury of the Sicy-
onians at Olympia. Gittadas made also statues
of Aphrodite and Artemis “under tripods,”
corresponding to another made by Callon of Elis,
and this fact is of importance for his chronology.
Another artist who worked in Sparta was
Clearchus of Rhegium, also a pupil of Dipoenus
and Scyllis, who made a bronze statue of Zeus,
beaten in plates and riveted. He was the master
of Pythagoras of Samos and Rhegium.
Two allied styles, those of Megara and its
colony Selinus in Sicily, are known to us by
architectural sculptures still preserved. The
pediment of the Treasury of the Megarians at
Olympia represents a gigantomachy, which both
in subject and style strongly resembles the
metopes of a Selinus temple of middle period.
There is another temple at Selinus considerably
older, and probably not much later than the
foundation of the colony, and so belonging to the
beginning of the sixth century. Its metopes, in
high and round relief, but with thick ungainly
forms and grotesque subjects and treatment,
represent Perseus slaying the Gorgon, Heracles
with the Cercopes slung on a stick across his
shoulders, and a chariot, the last apparently of
a more advanced art. There is also a third and
much later temple at Selinus, in which the style
of the metopes isgraceful, but softer and weaker
in composition and execution. In them the nude
parts (faces and arms) of female figures are in-
serted in white marble, the rest being of coarse
stone. (All the Selinus sculptures are now in
Palermo.)
Fig. 4.
Apollo, from
Tenea. (Munich.)
Many examples of archaic sculpture have been
discovered in Boeotia, mostly showing the cha-
racteristics of a local school; but a grave relief
of a draped man,
signed by Alicenor
of Naxos, shows
that here also the
influence of Asia
Minor and the
islands was not un-
known; it shows
pictorial treat-
ment and remark-
able foreshorten-
ing. But other
works seem to
show an indepen-
dent local style,
developing from
the most primi-
tive types, as seen
in the grave relief
of Dermys and
Citylus, two
roughly - shaped
male figures, with
long hair and no
drapery, standing
with their backs
against a slab and
their arms round
one another’s
necks. The most
important Boeo-
tian works are a
set of nude male
statues of the so-called “Apollo” type; the
Apollo of Orchomenus (fig. 5) has a stolid ex-
pression and careful but exaggerated surface
rendering of muscles and skin. Several other
statues showing similar but more advanced style
have been found in the temple of Apollo Ptous.
These all show a roundness of waist and conical
shape of chest that contrast with Ionic statues.
The latest of them has a grimacing smile, perhaps
due to Attic or Aeginetan influence, and the
forms of the body also approach the Aeginetan
style. Similar characteristics may be seen in
the Strangford Apollo in the British Museum.
In the development of the rendering of the
nude male figure, the influence of the various
athletic games, and of erecting statues of victors
in the contests, can hardly be over-estimated.
The first portraits of this sort are said to have
been dedicated at Olympia about 540 B.C., but some
are recorded earlier elsewhere, e.g. of Arrachion
at Phigaleia, who was victor about 560 B.C., of
a most primitive type from its description by
Pausanias. But of course the statue need not
in all cases be as old as the victory. These
statues were doubtless at first mere reproduc-
tions of the conventional male type, not to be
distinguished from the “Apollo” statues, but a
specialisation of the type for various kinds of
athletes, and even individual portraits followed:
Pliny says that the last were only permitted to
those who had been thrice victors. Throughout
the course of Greek history the class of athletic
statues was especially, but not exclusively, as-
sociated with the schools of Argos and Sicyon. In
the later archaic period Sicyon is represented by
Canachus, who made the bronze statue of Apollo
Fig. 5.
Apollo, from Orchomenus.
(Athens.)



STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS 703
at Branchidae, carried off by Xerxes (or Darius).
Cicero quotes his works as “rigidiora quam ut
imitentur veritatem,” and harder than those of
Calamis. Canachus’ brother Aristocles founded
a school of sculptors of athletes that lasted seven
generations.
At Argos, Chrysothemis and Eutelidas, who
made athlete statues about 520 B.C., assert
in an inscription that they belong to a regular
school. But the best known early Argive
artist was Ageladas, famous as the master
of Phidias, Polycleitus, and Myron. He made
statues of gods as well as of athletes: his artistic
activity was prolonged over an extensive period,
from the end of the sixth to the middle of the
fifth century or even later ; but his style we
can only infer from his influence on others.
The Argive type was transmitted to and per-
fected by Polycleitus; but Phidias seems to have
added under this influence a Doric earnestness.
to the Ionic grace of Attic sculpture, and Myron
to have developed a different athletic ideal.
Other Argive artists are Glaucus and Dionysius,
who made some great groups at Olympia, in-
cluding an allegorical one of the founder of the
games amidst a group of deities and personifi-
•cations.
The place of Aegina in sculpture seems to be
like its geographical position, intermediate be-
tween Argos and Athens. Its artists were of
wide reputation in early times, and worked at
‘Olympia, Athens, and elsewhere, as well as in
their own island. Their favourite material was
the Aeginetan bronze. Smilis (“the carver”),
the earliest Aeginetan artist, is by many re-
garded as a purely mythical character, like
Daedalus, with whom he is sometimes associated;
but others regard him as a historical character,
quoting the name of Stesichorus as analogous.
The Xoanon of Hera at Samos was attributed to
him. In historical times Callon and Onatas are
the most prominent names. They flourished
about the beginning of the fifth century. Callon
is said to have been a pupil of Tectaeus and
Angelion, who themselves were pupils of the
Cretan Dipoenus and Scyllis, and who made the
statue of Apollo at Delos. Thus we have two
traditional connexions with the primitive sculp-
ture of Samos and Delos. Callon's style is said
by Quintilian to be harder than that of Calamis.
Onatas worked in many places, and several im-
portant statues of divinities by him were known
to Pausanias. At Olympia he made a group of
the heroes before Troy casting lots; and another
of the fall of the Iapygian king Opis, for the
Tarentines. This last is very similar in subject
to the pediments from Aegina now in Munich.
“Other distinguished artists of Aegina were
Glaukias and Anawagoras, both of whom worked
at Olympia, the former for Gelo of Syracuse and
others, and the latter for a common dedication by
the Greeks after the battle of Plataea. Even in
: ancient times, some writers note the distinction
between the Aeginetan and Attic styles, as the
two best known types of archaic sculpture.
The pediments from Aegina, though archi-
tectural works and so of marble, not of bronze,
supply the most certain evidence as to the
Aeginetan style. The composition is not adapted
to fill the given field by decorative means, as in
the much earlier pediments of the Ionic style,
but by a symmetrical and graduated arrange-
“Ionic style
hence in two marble statues at Naples.
ment of the figures. Both pediments are of
similar composition, portraying the fight over a
fallen warrior in the centre, by warriors standing
and kneeling, the corners being filled with other
wounded men (fig. 6). The admirable and sculp-
Fig. 6.
Fallen warrior, from Aegina.
turesque rendering of all details and the careful
study of the nude male form recall the athletic
schools. The remains of the east pediment,
though more scanty, are the better finished both
in details, such as the rendering of veins and in
expression of face, the conventional smile being
retained but modified; it has been suggested
with probability that it was executed by a
younger artist, who had to carry out the original
design. The names of both Callon and Onatas have
been found on bases on the Acropolis at Athens.
Thus it is easy to trace the influence other-
wise probably of Aegina upon some classes of
Attic sculpture. The influence of athletic
sculpture was felt also in Athens, where there
was another set of sculptors representing a
different tendency from the development of the
already mentioned. These are
Antenor and Critius and Nesiotes. Antenor was
employed to make the statues of the Tyranni-
cides łº, and Aristogeiton which were
carried off by Xerxes, and replaced by others by
Critius and Nesiotes. These statues have been
identified on Athenian coins and reliefs, and
It is
uncertain whether these reproduce the originals
by Antenor or those later made to replace them;
but both may probably have represented the
same motive. The very fine, but dry and sinewy
treatment of the body is remarkable, and more
advanced than the treatment of the face (in the
one remaining head), drapery, and hair—exactly
the reverse of what we find in the Ionic-Attic
style. Here may be mentioned also Hegias, said
to have been the first master of Phidias; he is
coupled by Quintilian with the Aeginetan Callon,
as harder in style than Calamis.
After these names follow those of the imme-
diate predecessors of Phidias, who belong to the
next period. In all the great centres of art
local styles and predilections as to subject had
already been produced; and it was their rapid
development that led up to the great sculpture
of the fifth century.
The year 480 B.C., here adopted as the con-
clusion of the archaic period, forms a convenient
boundary. On the one hand, the Persian wars
mark the beginning of a new era in Greek
art as in Greek history; on the other the
expedition of Xerxes has in its material, results
afforded us the most certain criteria for fixing
the age of later archaic and transitional works.
On the Acropolis at Athens he defaced all works
of art, and the fragments that remained were
buried by the Athenians on their return, and

704 STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS
replaced by new works, thus affording scope to
the artists of the time. But the buried frag-
ments have been recovered, and when pieced
together give us an excellent notion of the con-
dition of sculpture immediately before the Persian
wars. The same discovery may well be made
on other sites that suffered a similar fate.
Thus the circumstances of our knowledge as
well as the historical crisis make this a fit point
at which to review briefly the archaic period,
and afterwards to notice the advances that im-
mediately followed.
We have seen that, according to tradition,
sculpture took its rise, so far as Greece is con-
cerned, among the islands, Samos, Chios, and
Crete; and that it spread on the one hand
through Asia Minor, the Aegean Islands, Northern
Greece, and Attica, in what we may conveniently
name the softer or Ionic style; while on the
other hand the Cretan artists had scholars in
the Peloponnese, Central Greece, and elsewhere:
in most of these regions we find a harder style,
which may be named Doric ; but even here we
sometimes find Ionic artists employed. The
two styles concentrated themselves in Argos,
Sicyon, and Aegina on the one hand, and in
Athens on the other. Towards the close of the
archaic period they seem, while retaining their
essential characteristics, to have influenced each
other to a considerable extent.
(For details as to artists of this period and
their works, see Dict. Biog. and Myth. :-Corinth
— Butades (Dibutades). Samos — Rhoecus,
Theodorus, Telecles. Chios—Melas, Micciades,
Archermus, Bupalus, Athenis. Crete—Dipoenus,
Scyllis; their scholars, Tectaeus and Angelion.
Athens—Simmias, Endoeus, Aristion, Aristocles,
Antenor, Amphicrates. Critius and Nesiotes.
Magnesia—Bathycles. Sparta—Hegylus, Theo-
cles, Dontas, Dorychidas, Gitiadas. Rhegium—
Clearchus. Sicily—Perillus. Aegina—Smilis,
Callon, Onatas, Glaucias, Anaxagoras, Calliteles.
Argos—Eutelidas and Chrysothemis, Ageladas,
Aristomedon, Glaucus and Dionysius. Sicyon–
Camachus, Aristocles. Elis—Callon.)
3. 480 B.C.—400 B.C. Greek Fifth Century.—
From this period onward it is less necessary to
give any connected account, because the style
and works of individual artists are far more
prominent and better known; and for all such
matters the articles in the Dict, of Biog. and
Myth. must be consulted. Here, will be found
only such facts of this kind as serve to indicate
relation or connexion of different artists and
schools, and such notices of extant works as
concern more than the individual artists to whom
they are assigned.
During the previous period we found all styles
of sculpture nearing the perfection of technical
development; and we also found that all the
artistic centres of Greece had already adopted
their own speciality. Hence, in the fifth century,
though Aegina disappears in art as in history,
Argos and Sicyon remain, as before, noted for
athlete statues in bronze, Athens for the variety
of its artists and for the use of marble. It was
now possible for great artists to express their
ideas without the subordination to the difficul-
ties of technical execution, or the constant
struggling with those difficulties, that had
hitherto been visible even in the highest at-
tainments of sculpture. The attainment of a
complete mastery over material difficulties pre-
pared the way for the highest attainments of
Greek art. Among the works of this period we
meet for the first time with statues that are
spoken of with unqualified admiration by
classical writers, as of the highest excellence,
and not merely interesting for their ancient
period or the advance they show on previous
attempts. This rapid advance in sculpture
corresponds with a similar advance in literature
and in thought and feeling, which leads up to
the great century of Greece. The expeditions
and defeat of the Persians had completely altered
the relation of the Greeks to neighbouring
peoples. For the ancient nations of the East,
vaguely heard of as of unknown power, skill,
and wisdom, were substituted the Persians,
whom the Greeks hated and could conquer.
Hence the feeling of Panhellenic unity, and of
the conscious superiority of the Greeks as a race
above all other people known to them. The
numerous monuments erected from the spoils
of the Persians or in commemoration of their
defeat gave a new stimulus to all the arts, and
the contest itself afforded subjects for both
historical and allegorical representation. And
in Athens, at least, the constitution was pe-
culiarly favourable for the production of the
greatest works; the democratic form of govern-
ment encouraged that idealisation of the people
without which its exploits could not be worthy
of the highest artistic commemoration, while
the actual predominance of such men as Cimon
and Pericles gave the originality, greatness,
and continuity of design which a purely popular
government could not attain. Moreover, the
combination of the Greeks in common dedica-
tions, and the successive supremacy of various
cities, made larger sums available for artistic
expenditure than could have been afforded by
isolated states or individuals.
The fittest places for common national dedi-
cations were
the great re-
ligious cen-
tres, Olympia
and Delphi.
Olympia was
also noted for
the great tem-
ple of Zeus,
built by the
Eleans them-
selves ; both
its architectu-
ral forms and
historical evi-
dence show
that it was
probably com-
pleted about
460 B.C.; and
the extant
architectural
sculptures
must be as-
signed to this
period; they
consist of me-
topes over the
internal columns of the front and back, repre-
senting the labours of Heracles (partly in the
sº-
Fig. 7.
Apollo, from Temple of Zeus.
(Olympia.)

º STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS 705
Louvre, partly at Olympia), the east pediment
with the preparations for the chariot-race of
Pelops and Oenomaus, and the west pediment
with the battle between the 'Lapiths and Cen-
taurs. Pausanias ascribes these two pediments
to Paeonius and Alcamenes respectively; and,
as Alcamenes is said to have been a pupil of
Phidias, difficulties have arisen, both as to
chronology and as to style. Alternative ex-
planations are that Pausanias was mistaken, or
that the pediments were early works, before
Alcamenes came under the influence of Phidias.
All the sculptures of the temple, beside certain
defects of detail that may be due to local
execution, show a peculiar style, which is per-
haps due to a combination of various influences.
They show a breadth and freedom of pictorial
composition that contrast strongly with the
strict symmetry of the Aegină pediments; but
in the execution there is none of the precision
and delicacy that mark those groups. The un-
certainty of line and carelessness or awkward-
ness of details must have been remedied to some
extent by colour; and the distant effect was
more considered than sculptural accuracy.
Archaic hardness is thus avoided, and a softness
and laxity takes its place. In composition,
the pediments are symmetrical, but not mono-
tonously so; they show in many ways an advance
towards the perfection we see in the Parthenon;
the front or east pediment is quiet, the back or
west one full of groups in contorted motion:
they have been to a great extent recovered, and
are now at Olympia.
. Before considering the great architectural
sculptures, made under the direction of Phidias,
which are the most characteristic surviving
specimens of the art of the fifth century, three
artists must be mentioned who are, as it were,
the forerunners of the highest period, Calamis
and Myron, who both belong to Athens, and
Pythagoras of Rhegium (previously of Samos).
Calamis, as has been said, seems to represent the
highest development of the grace and delicacy
df treatment properly belonging to the Attic
development of the Ionic style, and he is chosen
out by Lucian for the expression of face (a spawbv
ical AeAmöös aetótopia, in which we may perhaps
see the last relic of the archaic smile) and for
the treatment of drapery. Copies of statues by
him have been recognised on an altar at Athens,
Myron inherits the vigour of the athletic Attic
school of Critius and Nesiotes; but as a pupil
of Ageladas he also fell under Argive influence.
Several extant statues after Myron, reproductions
of the famous Discobolus (see Vol. I. p. 644) and
the Marsyas, show how completely he had mas-
£ered the difficulties of technique. His works even
transgress the bonds of sculpturesque treatment
in their choice of momentary attitudes and even
of contortions,—a natural reaction against the
rigidity of early works in the first consciousness
of artistic freedom. Myron had scholars in
Athens, who seem to have carried these tenden-
cies still farther, and to have selected subjects
for the sake of the difficulty or interest of the
execution,-the first appearance of “genre *
sculpture. The cow by Myron himself, one of
the most famous statues of antiquity, seems to
belong to the same class of works. :
Pythagoras, like Myron, was fond of repre-
senting figures in vigorous movement; he also
WOL. II.
excelled in athlete portrait statues. He is
praised by Pliny for symmetry and variety, and
he also sought truth to nature in details such
as the veins and muscles and hair: his limping
Philoctetes was famous for the indication of the
effect of his wounded foot on all parts of the
body and limbs. Except on gems, no certain
copy of a statue by Pythagoras survives, though
the attribution to him of extant works, such as
the “Choiseul-Gouffier Apollo’’ in the British
Museum (an athlete statue), has been sug-
gested.
Athens was at this time the chief centre of
artistic work, and the beautifying of the city,
first by Cimon and afterwards by Pericles,
attracted foreign artists and encouraged native
ones. The delicacy and grace of the Attic-
Ionic style was carried to its highest point
by Calamis; but Myron and Phidias both studied
under Ageladas of Argos, and we find the in-
fluence of the Doric schools working strongly
in Athens; e.g. in a marble head of an athlete
and in one of a girl, both on the Acropolis at
Athens. It has been suggested that Polygnotus
of Thasos, who made many paintings in Athens,
may have renewed the N. Ionic influence.
The architectural sculptures of Athens give
a good notion of the state of art at this period;
they are still to be seen, partly on the Parthenon,
the Theseum, the Erechtheum, the temple of
Wingless Victory, partly in the Museums of
Athens and London. The sculptures of the
Parthenon fall into three divisions—the metopes,
the pediments, and the continuous inner
frieze, which runs round the outside of the
cella. It is probable that these three were put
up in the order mentioned; and the style is
consistent with this supposition. The metopes
are of uneven merit, and some of them are the
least advanced of the Parthenon sculptures,
though others are of the most spirited design.
The east pediment represented the birth of
Athena; the west, her contest with Poseidon for
the land: the surviving statues of these pedi-
ments are perhaps the finest works of sculpture
extant. The continuous frieze is in very low
relief, and shows the most perfect mastery of
composition and technique; it represents the
Panathenaic procession, horsemen, chariots, men,
and women, advancing to the assembly of the
gods above the east door. There is no especial .
reason for attributing the architectural sculp-
tures of the Parthenon to Phidias, who is known
to have made the chryselephantine statue
within the temple, except that he is said to have
had the general superintendence of the works of
this period in Athens; the Parthenon sculptures
show the excellence of those who worked under
him. The Theseum sculptures consist of ten
metopes at the east front and four on each of
the sides adjoining; they show an angular,
athletic style which may probably be attributed
to the school of Myron ; they resemble some of
the earlier metopes of the Parthenon. The
other two friezes of the Theseum, over the
second row of columns at the back and front,
though continuous, seem to divide themselves
into groups derived from the Parthenon metopes.
Thus the Theseum and Parthenon seem to be
almost contemporary; the Parthenon was pro-
bably built between 447 and 434 B.C. The
Erechtheum, as it now stands, Was later; We
24 Z.
706 STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS
know from inscriptions that it was still un-
finished in 409 B.C.: a great feature of this
building is the portico borne by six Caryatids;
the Ionic frieze was of white marble figures
attached to a background of black Eleusinian
marble — a substitute for a coloured back-
ground. The temple of Wingless Victory is
most famous for its balustrade, with figures of
Athena and winged Victories erecting trophies,
&c.; they must belong to the close of the fifth
century, and show the most beautiful studies of
flowing draperies as an accompaniment and
background to the figures. But it was not only
in temples and public monuments that the per-
fection of sculpture showed itself at Athens.
The influence spread even to the workmen who
made tombstones; so that early in the fourth
century we find numerous grave-reliefs, votive
offerings, headings of decrees, &c., that recall
by their style the great period of sculpture of
the end of the fifth century.
Outside Athens, Athenian artists were some-
times employed at this time; thus the temple
of Bassae near Phigaleia was built by Ictinus,
the architect of the Parthenon; and so we
may probably see in the frieze of that temple
(now in London) the work of his associates. The
subjects are the combats with Amazons and
Centaurs; but the execution shows an inequality
partly due to provincial style; and there is a
striving after effect, especially in the treatment
of drapery, that seems transitional to the next
period.
Similar characteristics may be seen in several
other works of this period or slightly later—the
acroteria of the temple at Delos, the earlier of
the temple sculptures at Epidaurus (both in
Athens), the so-called Nereid monument from
Xanthus in Lycia (now in London), and the
reliefs of a tomb at Djölbaschi in Lycia (now
in Vienna); but in the pictorial and effective
treatment of these works some prefer to see the
continuous Ionic tradition, rather than Attic
influence. (A similarity is also visible in the
Victory at Olympia by Paeonius, of the Ionic
colony of Mende in Thrace. If he also made
the eastern pediment at Olympia, it must have
been under very different influence.)
So far works of architectural sculpture have
been considered, because they alone survive to
show us the style of the Phidian school. But
these are only indirectly to be assigned to the
master himself or his most distinguished pupils.
The great works of which they most carefully
superintended the execution were the colossal
temple statues of gold and ivory [see CHRYSELE-
PHANTINA], such as the Zeus at Olympia and the
Athena Parthenos at Athens by Phidias, always
regarded in antiquity as the highest attainments
of sculpture [see cut on p. 316 al. These rich
materials were in the fifth century regarded as
the most fitting for the execution of great
statues of divinities, which embodied a national
ideal. The difficulty of technique as well as the
expense—the gold alone of the Athena was
worth £155,000—prevented the possibility of
such works except under favourable circum-
stances, and in the fifth century alone we find
an art with a mastery over material difficulties
adequate for the production of such colossal
works, and also possessing so noble an ideal of
the gods it strove to represent.
Though the Attic school had so wide-spread
and so varied an influence, that of the Argive
Polycleitus was also of the utmost importance;
and the narrower -
and more definite
nature of his attain- ſº #
ments made them º
more open to the
imitation of subse-
quent artists than
the lofty ideals of
Phidias. Many ex- k-
tant works have º
been recognised as £3: -º-º-º:
copies of known ă ă =’ =
works of Polyclei- ºš-- *
e 㺠F. # 2-3.
tus, the Diadumenus, Hyº
the Doryphorus, the Aº º żºłż ż
wounded Amazon, (ºl % ºf .
&c. It is charac- $ W tº
teristic of the defi- %%\%
e º - - à% %
nite nature of his & Żº Vºž
attainments that he º §
fixed a canon of £% W.
bodily proportions,
which he also em-
bodied in a statue,
probably the dory- Rºz.
phorus ; and this | 2
canon was accepted #º *
by the athlete ſº -*. º i;
sculptors of the º
schools of Argos and |
Sicyon as fixing a Fig. 8.
type, till afterwards Doryphorus, after Polycleitus.
modified by Eu- (Naples.)
phranor and Lysip-
pus. In details of execution, and especially in
the treatment of bronze, his favourite material,
Polycleitus is said to have excelled even; Phidias;
but there was a certain monotony in the con-
ception and even the pose of his works. Though
his athletic statues and his canon are his best
known works, and most important for their in-
fluence on later art, it must not be forgotten
that Polycleitus fixed the type of Hera by his
chryselephantine statue in the Heraeum at Argos,
just as Phidias did those of Zeus and Athena. His
school, in Argos and also in Sicyon, numbered
many important artists, who seemed to have
followed their master closely, and to have held
to their traditions with more tenacity than any
other school in Greece.
(For this period, see Dict. Biog. and Myth. :
Calamis, Myron, Pythagoras; Paeonius of Mende,
Phidias, Cimon, Pericles, Polygnotus, Mys.
School of Calamis — Praxias, Androsthenes.
School of Phidias — Alcamenes, Agoracritus,
Colotes, Thrasymedes, Theocosmus. School of
Myron—Lycius, Styppax, Cresilas, Strongylion.
Athens — Callimachus, Demetrius, Pyrrhus,
Socrates, Niceratus, Phyromachus (Pyromachus),
Dinomenes. Argos and Sicyon — Polycleitus,
Aristides, Canachus, Periclytus, Antiphanes,
Patrocles, Daedalus, Naucydes, Alypus, Poly-
cleitus (younger), Phradmon. Peloponnese-
Apellas, Nicodamus, Cleoetas, Aristocles. Me-
gara—Callicles, Telephanes.)
4. 400 B.C.–320 B.C. Greek Fourth Century.
—During this period we find that much more
depends on the individual character and pre-
dilections of the various artists; there is a











STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS 707
tendency, both in choice of subject and in
execution, rather to give free scope to the
imagination and skill of the artist than to
employ him to embody in his works any national
ideals or aspirations. The artist was thus more
free from any considerations or influences not
purely artistic; but already in the fifth century
art had risen above the trammels of priestcraft,
even in the case of religious sculpture; and it
was not an unmixed advantage for the sculptor
to be free to work from his own imagination,
rather than from those ideals which belonged to
the race or the city. Thus in the place of
great works like the Olympian Zeus, the Athena
Parthenos, or the Hera of Argos, we meet in
the fourth century with subtly distinguished
impersonations such as the Eros, Pothos, and
Himeros of Scopas, or the half-human beings of
the cycle of Dionysus. Even groups of subor-
dinate divinities before represented, like the
Graces, as embodying some attributes of Zeus or
other great divinities, are changed to attendants
of the cycle of Aphrodite, and treated accord-
ingly. Again, instead of truly sculpturesque
representations of permanent character (#60s),
we notice renderings of more transient passions
or excitements (tré0m), as in the raving Maenad
of Scopas—subjects obviously not so well adapted
to sculpture, though perhaps exhibiting more the
skill of the artist.
As might be expected from the freedom and
importance of individual artists, we find less
limit than before in the number of the schools
where artists were trained, and of the centres
of their activity. Athens and Argos or Sicyon
still remain important, but there are many
notable artists who belong to neither; and the
statues produced are scattered all over the
Hellenic world. Thus Scopas was a native of
Paros, and worked in his early years in the
Peloponnese, and later in many parts of Asia
Minor. The two greatest artists of this period
were Scopas and Praxiteles. Scopas, who was
probably of Parian origin, and worked in the
Peloponnese in his youth and in Asia in his later
years, introduced the representation of passion-
ate subjects which afterwards was developed in
Pergamus and Rhodes.
Praxiteles represents the highest attainment
of the Attic school of marble sculpture, and is
famous for the most beautiful forms, as Phidias
for the noblest
ideals, of Greek
sculpture.
From the na-
ture of the period,
it follows that
most of the sculp-
ture surviving
which can be as-
signed to it with
certainty may be
found under the
names of the
sculptors: but it
should be here
e stated that recent
Head by sºon Tegea. discoveries have
(Athens.) added to these
works. Thus
there are in Athens two heads (fig. 9) and other
fragments from the pediments made by Scopas
for the temple of Athena Alea at Tegea, and the
basis of the statue of Apollo at Mantinea by
Praaciteles, with
a relief of Apollo
Marsyas and
the Muses, and
above all the
Hermes of Prax-
iteles at Olym-
pia. These are
original works,
and so superior
to the numerous
late copies in
various muse-
ums from the
works of these
artists. (One of
these, a copy of
the Faun of
Praxiteles, is re-
produced in fig.
10.) For the
Ma w so le M m
sculptures, by
Scopas and other
artists (now in
London), see sub
voc. In London
also are some of
the sculptured
columns from
Ephesus, one of
which is recor-
ded to have been
carved by Scopas, and the seated statue of
Demeter from Cnidus, the Mater Dolorosa of
ancient sculpture. The group of the Niobids of
which copies exist in Florence and elsewhere:
Fig. 10.
Satyr, after Praxiteles. (Rome,
Capitol.)
Fig. 11.
Head of Niobe. (Florence.)
(fig. 11) belong to this period. Pliny mentions
a doubt whether they were by Praxiteles or
Scopas; this probably means merely that Ro-
man tradition assigned them to the age when
these two masters flourished. §º
Lysippus of Sicyon continued the traditions of
the school of Polyclitus; he modified the “canon,”
so as to make the head smaller in proportion,
and the body more slender. Thº, *
Z



708 STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS
istics may be seen in his Apowyomenos (fig. 12).
To his school are also attributed certain inven-
tions that imply a ten-
dency towards realism
on the one side, and
purely academic work
on the other — the
making of casts from
statues, and also the
working up of casts
made from the living
model, both attributed
to Lysistratus, brother
of Lysippus.
Towards the close of
this period, the per-
sonality of Alexander
begins to dominate the
art of sculpture. But
the influences visible
in sculpture were very
complicated; and the
younger Attic school
carried the softness of
Praxiteles to an ex-
treme, while elsewhere
athletic works tended
to harden into ana-
tomical studies ; but
all these tendencies
only developed during
the succeeding period.
S
§§Sº
SºSS
Š
jº:
º
A. #: ift But besides these
}. %. tendencies, which ulti-
Vatican.) ' mately led to the de-
cline of art, we find
some artists striving to retain the higher ideals
of the fifth century; the most notable is Da-
mophon of Messene, who seems in his choice of
subjects and of materials to be influenced by the
school of Phidias. Thus he may also be re-
garded as the first instance of a great artist who
consciously imitated the style of an earlier period.
Fragments of a group by him have been found
at Lycosura in Arcadia, and are now in Athens.
(For details concerning sculptors of this
period, see Dict. Biog. and Myth. Paros—Xeno-
phon, Scopas; Mausoleum, Leochares, Bryaxis,
Timotheus, Pythis. Athens — Cephisodotus,
Polycles, Euclides, Praxiteles, Cephisodotus
the younger, Timarchus, Sthennis, Silanion,
Zeuxiades, Apollodorus, Polycrates, Euphranor,
Polymnestus, and Cenchramus. Sicyon–Ly.
sippus, Lysistratus, Daippus, Euthycrates, Tisi-
Crates, Xenocrates. Messene — Damophon.
Thebes—Hypatodorus and Aristogiton.)
5. 320 B.C.—150 B.C. Hellenistic; Asiatic
Schools-The political change which marks the
beginning of this period had a great influence
upon the history of art as of literature. The
conquests of Alexander and their subsequent
division opened up the East to Greek enterprise;
and it is the new and flourishing cities which
thus arose into prominence that form the great
art centres of the next period, - Pergamus,
Rhodes, Tralles, Ephesus, Alexandria, Antioch :
some of these were not of course new cities, but
a new era began for all of them with the age of
Alexander. In the case of sculpture, the in-
fluence of Alexander was in part direct and
personal, in part indirect. The numerous
portraits of Alexander by Lysippus and his
followers, in all characters and surroundings,
led to a modification of the customary type of
face so remarkable that many heads of this
period have been misnamed Alexander from
their resemblance to him, though the artist pro-
bably was merely representing the ordinary
type of his school. And other personalities,
mostly of the successors of Alexander, came to
have almost as great an influence for a time.
The courts of these Greek kings in Asia and
Egypt formed the chief centres of literature and
art, and sculptors as well as others worked
under their patronage. Under such influences
art strove to make up by the colossal scale of
its works and the dramatic effect of its expression
for the grandeur and simplicity that were lost;
and academic study led to eclecticism, so that
we recognise in works of this period methods
and characteristics of various earlier schools,
united or confused. On the other hand, the
artificial life of courts and cities induced a
craving for primitive simplicity, which found
expression on the one hand in pastoral litera-
ture, and in some reliefs with country scenes,
under pictorial influence; on the other in repre-
sentations of child life, which now are more
frequently rendered with truth to nature, as in
the statue of a boy struggling with a goose,
by Boethus.
It is an indication of the time that the
Rhodians, when they had repelled an invasion,
did not seek to honour their god by a statue
expressing the national ideal, but to glorify him
by erecting the biggest statue known—the
colossus of the Sun-god by Chares, a pupil of
Lysippus, who thus is associated with the new
tendencies. A great statue of Victory from
Samothrace (in Paris) was erected by Demetrius
Poliorcetes about 300 B.C.; it shows a spirited
treatment, but all the straining after effect that
marks the Hellenistic period. But Pergamus
was the most important art centre, and the
victories of the Greek kings over the Gauls (or
Galatians) afforded occasions and subjects for
great dedicatory groups. To the period of
Attalus I., 241–197 B.C., are to be assigned
several statues and groups of Gauls, dying or
killing themselves; the best known being the
Dying Gaul of the Capitol at Rome. Attalus I.
also dedicated statues in bronze, half life-size, of
contests both between Greeks and Gauls, Per-
sians, or Amazons, and gods and giants on the
Acropolis at Athens, of which marble copies
exist in many museums. Under Eumenes II.,
197–159 B.C., was erected the great altar at
Pergamus, ornamented with reliefs of the battle
of gods and giants (now in Berlin): this, with
its struggles, contortions, and dramatic expres-
sions of excitement or pain, is the great example
of this style(fig. 13). In the pathetic and dramatic
rather than sculpturesque nature of subject and
style in all these works we may see the ultimate
development of the expression of passion and
emotion in marble which Scopas introduced into
Asia Minor. An even more extreme instance
may be seen in the Laocoon, made by Agesan-
dros of Rhodes and his companions; another
famous group is the Farnese bull, or punishment
of Dirce, by Apollonius and Tauriscus of Tralles.
Fine specimens of the development of athlete
sculpture in the Hellenistic period may be seen
in the bronze statue of a boxer found recently

STATUARIA ARS STATUARIA ARS
709
in Rome; and a head of another, also in bronze,
at Olympia. All these works, and especially
SSUlſ mº
||||
º
à
%
&
s
|
ſHI.Š
º
º*
º
º
}
-ºn aſº-- %W
º2.- --ººgºº
ſº2.flº-
3.º-|PRº
si
%-
º,”
*W
Fig. 13.
Athena and Giant, from great altar at Pergamus. (Berlin.)
those of the Pergamene school, deserve from
their magnificent rendering of anatomy and
their spirited conception and treatment to be chronologically may be here mentioned, because
ranked among the greatest achievements of they seem to carry on the Hellenistic traditions.
&
Fig. 14.
Laocoon. (Rome, Vatican.)
sculpture, though the selection of subjects
marks a period of decadence. But some artists
still strove to retain the noble ideals and sim-
plicity and breadth of treatment of an earlier
time; and the result may be seen in the Aphro-
dite of Melos, which must be assigned to this
period. Sometimes the same tendency led to a º
cold and academic treatment, as may be seen º ^2}\{\}
in works like the Apollo Belvedere and the ºs -- -
Artemis of the Louvre. The tendency to local
###$!
§
ſ -
personifications must also be noticed; the first § § º; ń.
and best known instance is the statue of Antioch *i;####|lift ń.
by Eutychides, another scholar of Lysippus. Fig. 15.
The next period is assigned to Graeco-Roman Aphrodite, from Melos. (From Murray, Ancient
art, but some of the artists who belong to it Sculpture.)






































710 STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS
There is, for instance, an Ephesian family of
artists of about 100 B.C., well known for their
statues of fighting warriors, especially the so-
called Borghese Gladiator (in Paris) by Agasias,
which is unsurpassed as an anatomical study,
and a statue from Delos by Menophilus. These
may be regarded as the last products of the
athletic school of Lysippus, though already
contemporary with the beginnings of Graeco-
Roman sculpture.
(See Dictionary of Biog. & Myth. : Alexander,
Ptolemaeus, Attalus, Eumenes. Pergamus —
Phyromachus, Stratonicus, Antigonus. Rhodes—r
Chares, Timocharis, Phyles, Sosipater, Mnasi-
timus and Teleson, Agesandrus, Polydorus, and
Athenodorus. Asia Minor—Apollonius, Tauris-
cus, Apollodorus, Menophilus, Dositheus, Aga-
sias. Other artists—Eutychides, Cantharus,
Boethus. Other names in this and the succeed-
ing period, for the most part associated only
with isolated works, need not be quoted here.)
150 B.C.—312 A.D. Graeco-Roman and Roman.
—The sack of Corinth 146 B.C.—or, roughly,
the middle of the second century—may be re-
garded as the beginning of the Graeco-Roman
era; the era, that is, when Greek artists no
more worked either for their art or for their
own people, but in order to please the tastes
of their conquerors. But it was not only
the art of the time that was affected ; for
from the beginning of this period all the
best known works of art already existing
were collected at Rome from all quarters,
and at the end of it transferred to Constan-
tinople in great numbers; and, thus collected
together in great centres, they were more liable
to accidents or to wholesale destruction than
if scattered in quiet local centres of worship.
Obviously no great or original schools are to be
looked for in this period; but among the nume-
rous independent Greek artists who worked
either in Greece or Rome for the Roman market,
some few stand out as of wider influence.
Fig. 16.
Orestes and Electra, by Stephanus. (Naples.)
Among these are Arcesilaus and Pasiteles, who
both lived in the first century B.C. Arcesilaus
is said to have sold his proplasmata at higher
prices than finished works by others com-
manded. Of Pasiteles and his scholars, Ste-
phanus and Menelaus, we possess some extant
works (fig. 16) which show that he at-
tempted to imitate the severe style of the
athlete sculptors of the fifth century. But
the majority of sculptors during this period
were employed in meeting the enormous
demand for sculpture to decorate baths,
gymnasia, villas, &c., by the production not
so much of original works as of copies of all
the favourite statues that had been made by
Greek artists of all previous periods,--a process
of the utmost importance to us; for now that
nearly all the originals have been lost or de-
stroyed, it is this class of copies that now fills
the museums of Europe, and more especially of
Italy. In addition to copies of statues, sculp-
tors of this age also reproduced as separate
works figures from well-known groups or re-
liefs, and even signed these as the artist, as in
the case of the “Farnese” Heracles by Glycon,
a type originally belonging to the Hellenistic
age. Only one branch of sculpture can be said
to have had an independent development under
Roman influence. Individual and naturalistic
portraits had been made in the school of Lysip-
pus, and were continued through the Hellenistic
age; such commemoration of the individual
was peculiarly pleasing to Roman taste, and
Roman portrait statues and busts, especially of
the great historical characters of the Augustan
age and of the earlier emperors, are of un-
equalled excellence in their life-like execution
and portrayal of personal character.
In the age of the Emperor Hadrian, who was
a great patron of the arts, some revival may be
noticed; this is especially associated with the
portraits of Antinous, the favourite of the
emperor, whose type of face and figure dominates
the art of this period almost as those of Alex-
ander dominated that of the Hellenistic age.
But after this brief revival, the decline of the
art of sculpture was even more rapid than
before, until it began a new era in Byzantine
times. Under the emperors, sculpture was
called upon to commemorate historical events,
and especially victories over the barbarians.
The reliefs of the Column of Trajan are the
finest of these, and represent with spirit and
truth to fact the incidents of a Roman cam-
paign. The Column of Antoninus is already
very inferior in conception and execution. The
various triumphal arches in Rome offered a wide
field for decorations of this nature, and in those
which still survive it is easy to trace the decline
of sculpture from the age of Augustus to that
of Constantine. Another favourite, field for
decoration, in Roman times, was offered by the
sculptured Sarcophagi, which were covered with
reliefs of historical and mythical subjects. The
earlier among these show good design and work-
manship; but in the later we can see the com-
plete decay of all artistic power and feeling.
A few words may be added as to the preserva-
tion and survival of examples of ancient sculp-
ture, and the classes into which they may be
divided. When there was no care for the pre-
servation of works of art, either among bar-
barous invaders or among those in whose posses-

STATUARIA ARS
STATUARIA ARS 711
sion they remained, it is obvious that only an
accident could preserve any statue which was of
an intrinsically valuable material, such as bronze
or other metal; and though marble statues
were not exposed to so great danger, they were
constantly burnt for lime or broken up and
used for building material. We may roughly
assert that the statues that survive owe their
preservation to one of three causes—either they
were purposely secreted by their worshippers or
admirers, as was the case with the Hermes of
Praxiteles at Olympia and the Aphrodite of
Melos ; or they were accidentally buried amidst
the ruins of the buildings that contained them,
whether by a sudden destruction, or a gradual
decay,–this is the chance that has preserved
most of the statues that are recovered by ex-
cavation; or they have remained in a conspicu-
ous position, and have been protected by some
reverence or superstition, probably mistaken in
its origin: thus the bronze statue of Marcus
Aurelius on the Capitol was religiously pre-
served through the dark ages because it was
supposed to represent Constantine. In study-
ing the history of ancient sculpture, it is very
important to estimate correctly the value of
the monumental evidence, and to understand
the exact relation of extant statues to the
artist or school with which they are associated.
In this aspect we may divide all the works of
ancient sculpture that survive into four classes,
as follows:—
(1) Originals: that is to say, statues actually
made by the artist to whom they are assigned ;
but we may here distinguish— (a) Originals
from the hand of known artists; such works
of art as they executed themselves, and which
thus show the perfection of their style and
execution. Such works are very rare : the
Hermes of Prawiteles is the finest example.
(b) Works such as architectural sculptures,
which were doubtless designed by some great
sculptor, but of which the execution must have
been left to assistants; in these, of course, great
inequality of execution may be expected.
(c) Works made in the period and by the artists
of the school to which they must be assigned;
but merely reproducing the ordinary character
and types of that school, by the hand of inferior
sculptors or mere artisans: these may vary
from very high excellence to careless and in-
ferior work. The best example is offered by the
Attic grave reliefs.
(2) Copies, as faithful as the artist could
make them, from originals by earlier sculptors:
to this class belong the great majority of the
statues in European museums, and especially in
Rome and Italy. These vary very much both
in the carefulness of their execution and in their
faithfulness to the original from which they are
derived. A great deal depends on the period
and school of the copyist; if he is not far re-
moved in period or style from the artist who
made his original, his copy may very accurately
reproduce its character: a Greek copyist is
more likely to reproduce the style and spirit of
his original, while one of Roman times is more
likely to be accurate in the reproduction of
details and accessories. Thus the characteristics
of the school and period to which the copy must
be assigned must always be taken carefully
into consideration before any inferences are
drawn as to the original from which it is
derived. ".
(3) Works of Artists who studied or imitated the
style of an earlier period. If these artists succeed
completely in catching the spirit and style of
the period they study, their works may be diffi-
cult to distinguish from those of an earlier
period; but in most cases they cannot entirely
free themselves from the influences that sur-
round them: thus though in the Aphrodite of
Melos we see the noble forms and broad treat-
ment of the fifth century, in the artificial
arrangement of the drapery the spirit of the
Hellenistic age betrays itself. Sometimes we
find later artists not merely seeking inspiration
from the ideals of an earlier age, but imitating
the characteristics of particular schools, as
was the case with Pasiteles and his associates,
who sometimes even made copies that must be
assigned to the second class.
Fig. 17.
Dedication to Apollo Citharoedus. (Berlin.)
(4) Archaistic works: that is to say, works
that imitate the mannerisms and details of
execution of the archaic period; it is of course
possible for this class in some cases to overlap the
last : but the name “archaistic * is commonly
applied to more mechanical works, made with an
affectation of primitive characteristics. This
affectation is introduced either from hieratic
influence for dedications; or on decorative prin-
ciples, the archaic stiffness supplying a conven-
tionality suitable to such use; or, at a late
period, from a mere seeking after the quaint or
uncouth. Archaistic works must be carefully
distinguished from authentic copies of archaic
works of art, though sometimes they show the
same characteristics as these. In a few cases
it is possible to doubt whether a work is really
archaic or archaistic, but it is rare to find an
archaistic work so free from exaggeration of the
mannerisms and quaintnesses of archaic works
that any confusion is possible. Thus, in archa-
istic works the figures walk on tiptoe, and the
floating ends of drapery are worked into the stiffest
of conventional zigzags, and even curved up in
an impossible manner; while in really archaic
works, though in some details conventionality
may be seen, yet we can also see the attempt of
the artist to render nature so far as is possible
within the limits of his power of expression.
The maker of an archaistic work also betrays
himself often by a later treatment of some
details, as in the Athena at Dresden, in which,
though the folds of the drapery are stiff and
conventional, the designs on the border are
worked with perfect freedom. But the distinc-

712 STELE
STELE
tion always extends beyond details, and the
earnest attempt of an early artist to do his
best is totally different from the affected man-
merisms of a later imitator.
[On special periods or artists, the works pub-
lished are too numerous to quote, but the fol-
lowing books contain a general treatment of the
subject:-Brunn, Geschichte der griechischen
Künstler, Brunswick, 1853, and Stuttgart,
1859 (the second edition, Stuttgart, 1889, is
a mere reprint); Overbeck, Die antiken Schrift-
quellen zur Geschichte der bildenden Künste,
Leipzig, 1868 (classical authorities have not
been quoted in this article, as they may all be
found in this book); Overbeck, Geschichte der
griechischen Plastik, 3rd edit., Leipzig, 1881–2;
Mitchell, History of Ancient Sculpture, London,
1883 (excellent for references to the literature
of the subject); Murray, History of Greek
Sculpture, London, 1880–3; Perry, History of
Greek Sculpture, London, 1882; Paris, La Sculp-
ture antique, Paris, 1888; Loewy, Inschriften
griechischer Bildhauer, Leipzig, 1885. See also
the articles on Sculptors and Sculpture in Bau-
meister, Denkmäler des classischen Alterthums,
Leipzig, 1885–8.] [E. A. G.]
STELE (orrijam) is the name given to any
block (usually of stone or marble) set up for a
monumental purpose; thus it is constantly
applied in inscriptions to the block on which a
public document is to be incised. But the best
known use of the term is to denote a monument
set up over a tomb, either plain or with merely
ornamental decorations, or containing a com-
memorative inscription, or a portrait of the
deceased, painted or in relief, alone or grouped
with other figures; combinations of these cha-
racteristics are common. The simplest form of
stele consists of a plain marble slab or pillar
surmounted by an anthemion, and inscribed with
the name of the deceased; often two rosettes.
side by side, are added—possibly a survival of
_*-
N O PA & KAE | A
[-
==
Fig. 1.
Tombstone of Phrasiclea. (Athens.)
an anthropomorphic representation. The most
common subjects represented on grave reliefs
may be thus classified:—
(1) Simple representations of the deceased, often
in some common employment of daily life.
Thus the warrior appears fully armed, standing
as if on parade (Aristion), or on horseback
slaying a prostrate foe (Dexileos). An athlete
holds his strigil or exercises, and is attended by
his trainer or his slave; a lady sits playing
with her jewels, also accompanied by her atten-
dants (fig. 1). A man or child is often repre-
sented playing with a pet animal.
(2) Parting scenes.—The deceased, standing
or seated, takes leave of his or her relatives or
friends; family scenes are usually depicted. In
later and more elaborate designs a horse appears,
as if the deceased were about to start on a
journey, and a serpent also is seen as a symbol
of the dead. These two symbolic figures are,
however, only common in the next class; and
in parting scenes of the best period the subject
is only indicated by the appearance of melan-
choly in the faces and attitudes of the persons
represented (fig. 2).
Fig. 2.
Parting scene; Stele of Damasistrata. (Athens.) .
. (3) Banquet scenes. – These seem to have
originated in a kind of ancestor-worship, as is
seen in the very early stelae from Sparta: in
them the deceased, as a “hero,” holds out a cup
as if to require a drink-offering; his wife is
seated on another throne behind him, and smal?
worshippers approach with offerings. In later
times we find some similar examples; on the
painted stele of Lysias at Athens the deceased
stands, holding a cup in his hand. In the
Spartan reliefs a great serpent coils over the
back of the throne, representing, probably, the
deceased as the inhabitant of his tomb. In the
typical banquet scene of later times the deceased
reclines on a couch, and his wife sits on the foot
of the couch or on a chair beside it ; before
them is a feast, of which they partake, and
servants with cups or viands take the place of


STELE
STILUS 713
the worshippers; a snake and a dog are often
present; and a horse's head, as a symbol of a
journey, often appears in a square at the upper
corner (fig. 3). it has been suggested that we
should see here the funeral banquet idealised, or
Fig. 3.
Tomb-stone with banquet scene. (Marm. 02:07.)
the enjoyments of the deceased in another life:
the typical succession seems to indicate that we
see rather a development of the representation in
which the deceased, as a hero, receives offerings
from worshippers, and reminds his descendants
to give him more; but the enjoyment of those
Fig. 4.
Marble Stele, found at Sparta. (From Murray, Ancient Sculpture.)
presents in another life is doubtless included.
The type of these reliefs is often reproduced in
dedications to Asclepius and Hygieia or other
minor divinities; and thus we receive a confir-
mation of the view that the deceased is, origin-
ally at least, to be regarded as a deified hero.
The numerous series of Greek stelae which
still survive is of great value, not only for their
subjects but also for their execution; they were
mostly the work of inferior artists or mere
artisans, but reflect the style of the greater
artists of the place or period to which they
belong. The most important are those found in
Athens, and preserved either in situ in the
Outer Ceramicus or in the National Museum at
Athens.
The inscription on a grave stele usually gives
merely the name of the deceased, with his
father's name and his country or deme, and her
husband’s also in the case of a woman: this
simplicity was almost universal in Attica, but
simple metrical inscriptions containing the same
information are found from the earliest times.
Elsewhere, and commonly later, xaſpe or xpmotº
xaſpe is added; but elaborate eulogies are
extremely rare, at least before Roman times.
(A complete collection of ancient grave-stelae
is now being published by the German Institute,
Die antiken Grabreliefs, Berlin, 1890. See also
Le Bas, Antiquités figurées, p. 85; Welcker,
Alte Denkmäler, ii. p. 232; Stephani, Der
ausruhende Herakles; Pervanoglu, Das Familien-
mahl auf altgriechischen Grabstelen; Holländer,
De operibus anaglyphis, &c.; Salinas, Monument;
Sepolcrali; Mittheilungen des deutschen Insti-
tuts zu Athen, ii. p. 459, iv. p. 161, vii. p. 160,
&c.; Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1884.
p. 105; Pottier, Les Lécythes blancs
antiques; Furtwängler, Die Samm-
lung Sabouroff. A discussion by P.
Gardner and references to previous
authorities may be found in the
Journal of Hellenic Studies, 1884, pp.
105–142.) [E. A. G.]
STHE'NIA (orðévia), a festival
with contests celebrated by the Ar-
gives in honour of Zeus surnamed
Sthenius, who had an altar consisting
of a large rock in the neighbourhood
of Hermione (Hesych. s. v. X6évia:
compare Paus. ii. 32, § 7; 34, § 6).
Plutarch (de Mus. p. 1140 c) states
that the trøAm or wrestling, which
formed a part of the contests at this
festival, was accompanied by the
flute; and he also mentions a tradi-
tion according to which the festival
had originally been held in honour of
Danaus, and that it was afterwards
consecrated to Zeus Sthenius. [L. S.]
STIBA'DIUM. [MENSA.] r
STILLICIDIUM. [SERVITUTES,
p. 653.] º .
STILUS (ypaq'ſs, ypaqeſov, in
late writers attºos). There can be
no doubt that whatever the origin
of the word the correct spelling is
stilus, not stylus, and it is highly
probable, if not certain, that the con-
nexion in etymology with attºos
(whence the spelling stylus) is mis-
taken also: the quantity of the two words is
always different, and the root o'rvy, whence
otígo, stimulus, &c. (Corssen, Gr. Etym. 214);
suits the meaning better. Since orrāAos is used
in this sense only by late writers, it is not impro-
bable that they took it by a false reasoning to


714. STIPENDIARII
STIPENDIUM
represent the Latin word. For the true Greek
words Ypaqls and Ypapetov, see Plat. Protag.
p. 326 D; Athen, p. 562 c, artvakiöa kal Ypapetov,
émprºmuévov (a line of Macho in 3rd cent. B.C.);
Arist. Phys. vii. 4, 4; Pollux, x. 59. The stilus
signifies—
1. An iron instrument (Ovid, Met. ix. 521;
Martial, xiv. 21), resembling a pencil in size and
shape, used for writing upon waxed tablets
(Plaut. Bacch. iv. 4, 63; Plin. H. N. xxxiv.
§ 139). At one end it was sharpened to a point
for scratching the characters upon the wax
(Quintil. i. 1, § 27), while the other end being
flat and circular served to render the surface of
the tablets smooth again, and so to obliterate
what had been written. Thus, vertere stilum
means “to erase,” and hence “to correct,” as in
the well-known precept saepe stilum vertas (Hor.
Sat. i. 10, 72; Cic. Verr. ii. 41, 101). The
stilus was also termed graphium (Ovid, Amor. i.
11, 23; Suet. Jul. 82), and the case in which it
was kept graphiarium (Martial, xiv. 21) or
graphiaria theea (Suet. Claud. 35). The annexed
cut is from a picture found in Herculaneum.
2. –
Stilus.
(Mus. Borbon. vol. vi. tav. 35.)
2. A sharp stake or spike placed in pitfalls
before an entrenchment to embarrass the progress
of an attacking enemy (Bell. African. 31 ; Sil.
Ital. x. 415). It was intended to answer the
same purpose as the contrivances called cippi,
lilia, and stimuli by Caesar (B. G. vii. 73).
3. A bronze needle or rod for picking worms
off fruit-trees (Pallad. iv. 10, § 20), also a wooden
probe employed in gardening operations (Colu-
mell. xi. 3, § 53).
Stili were made also of bone or ivory (Isid.
Orig. vi. 9, 2): a bronze stilus elaborately carved
from Orvieto is figured in Baumeister, Denkm.
1585. See also Sen. de Clement. 1, 14; Augustin.
de Vet. Rel. 39. The passages cited from Pliny
and Suetonius show the possible use of a large-
sized stilus as a weapon. [W. R.] [G. E. M.]
STIPENDIA'RII. (1) Persons who re-
ceived a fixed pay or salary, as stipendiariae
cohortes (Hirtius, Bell. Afr. 43; cf. Livy, viii.
8
(2) Those peoples in the Roman provinces
were so called who had to pay a fixed money
tribute, stipendium, in contradistinction to the
vectigales (Cic. Verr. iv. 60, 134), who paid
decumae, or a fixed percentage of the produce of
their lands or other income [see WECTIGALIA ;
PROVINCIAE]. The word stipendium was used
for “tribute,” because it was originally appro-
priated to the purpose of furnishing the Roman
soldiers with pay (stipendium, Livy, iv. 36, 60 ;
Tac. Hist. iv. 74). All provinces paid stipen-
dium, except Sicily, and except Asia between
B.g. 123–48. The money was for the most part
raised and paid over by each township.
Later, the lawyers of the Empire distinguished
stipendium from tributum, making both mean a
land-tax of fixed amount; but the former was
raised in Senatorial provinces, the latter in Im-
perial provinces (Gaius, ii. 21).
(See also under WECTIGALIA, No. 13.)
[F. T. R.]
STIPENDIUM (contracted for stipi-pen-
dium) is derived from stips and pendo, from the
fact of original payments for service having
been made by weight (Varro, L. L. v. 36, 50,
“Milites stipendia ideo quod eam stipem pende-
bant; ” cf. Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 43): stips, of
which only the oblique cases are found, mean-
ing a donation in small coin (Dig. 55, 16, 17,
“stipendium a stipe—quod per stipes, id est
modica aera colligatur; ” cf. Festus, pp. 296,
297). Its earliest meaning appears to be that
of pay for the army, from which two kindred
meanings are derived: that of military service,
as in the phrases facere stipendia, emereri
stipendia; and that of a campaign, as in the
expressions semestria, annua stipendia. The
sense of a tax or impost is probably a secondary
use of the word derived from its primary mean-
ing of military payment, the original taxes
being those levied to defray military expenses.
(For this meaning, see TRIBUTUM.)
In B.C. 406, at the beginning of the Veien-
tine War, a regular payment (stipendium) was
first made to the army; previously to this there
had been no provision made for the foot-soldiers
(milites), but each had served at his own cost
(Liv. v. 4, “moleste autem ferebat miles de
suo sumptu operam reipublicae praebere; ”
Zonaras, vii. 20, &pua 61 yap aéxpt tore real
oikóairou èarparedovro), although Dionysius
says of the year B.C. 466 that a semestre sti-
pendium had been given to the army for the
supply of provisions (eis 6thoviaguóv, Dionys. v.
47). The more probable date, however, is that
of the siege of Veii; the ten years’ campaign and
the necessity of remaining in winter-quarters
making it impossible for the legionaries to
furnish their own support (Florus, i. 12, “tum
primum hiematum sub pellibus;” Lydus, de
Mag. i. 46). Previously to this some provision
had been made for the equites, not in the way
of furnishing them with necessaries during the
campaign, but only for the purpose of supplying
and maintaining their horses [AES EQUESTRE
and AES HORDEARIUM); but some years after
the stipendium had been granted to the infantry
we find the equites also receiving a similar
support (Liv. v. 7, “equiti certus numerus aeris
est assignatus; ” Zonaras, vii. 20). This ori-
ginal stipendium, however, was not a regular
payment for services (utor06s), but an indemnity
for the expenses of the soldiers during a cam-
paign; it is described by the expressions éq6öta
(Diodor. iv. 16), oritmpéotov (Lydus, de Mag.
i. 45), Ö/wviaopiós (Dionys. v. 47); but that it
left some margin over as a reward for service
seems shown by the words of Livy (v. 4, “miles
gaudet nunc fructui sibi rempublicam esse”),
as in the time of Polybius, when the stipendium
was still regarded as an épéviov, the daily pay-
ment certainly exceeded the cost of the pro-
visions supplied (Polyb. vi. 39). The payments

STIPENDIUM
STIPENDIUM 715
were made, either half-yearly (Dionys. ix. 59;
ix. 17, xpfiuato, eis àipoviaguèv č; amvæv) or
yearly (Diodor. xiv. 16), according as the cam-
paign lasted under or over six months. Hence
the transference of stipendium from its meaning
of “pay ” to that of “length of service or
campaign.” The year of war service began on
March 1st, the old official New Year's day, and
the six-months’ service (semestre stipendium)
ended with the close of August (Mommsen,
Rechtsfrage zwischen Caesar und dem Senat,
p. 15 sq.). Before the creation of the standing
army for the purpose of provincial control, a
period of service over six months was unusual;
but eventually military duties extended over
the whole year, a period of service over six
months or two periods of six months being
regarded as an annuum stipendium (Lex Julia
Munic. C. I. L. 1, n. 206, l. 92, “quae stipendia
majorem partem sui quojusque anni fecerit,
aut bina semestria, quae ei pro singuleis annueis
procedere oporteat"). The usual mode of pay-
ment before the time of the dictator Caesar was
probably half-yearly ; during the Empire, as
will be seen in discussing the reforms in the
rate of payment, the troops were paid every
four months.
The effect of the regular stipendium was
that the cost of the provisions given to the
Roman soldiers was subtracted from their pay
by the quaestor; while the socii, who were not
paid by the state, had such advances made to
them free of charge (Polyb. vi. 39). The allow-
ance for the allies in Polybius’ time was, for
the infantry 3 medimnus of wheat a month, for
the cavalry 1; medimni of wheat a month and
five of barley. The allowance for the infantry
soldier of Rome was the same as that for the
infantry soldier of the allied states, but the
Roman equites received two medimni of wheat a
month and seven of barley. The expenses for
fresh supplies of uniform and arms were de-
ducted, like the cost, of provisions, from the
Roman soldier's pay (Polyb. l.c.), and this was
still the case in the early Empire. ‘We find,
indeed, that C. Gracchus passed a law which
gave to the soldiers their uniforms free of charge
(Plut. C. Gracch. 5); but even if this law was
passed, it could not have been permanent, since
we find from the complaints of the legionaries
in the reign of Tiberius that the cost of uniforms,
weapons, and tents was taken from their pay
(Tac. Ann. i. 17). It is conjectured from two
passages in Suetonius (Jul. 26 and 68) that in the
later Republic corn was sometimes supplied by
the state free of charge to the troops, and this
certainly seems to be the case in the earlier
Empire, since, on the meeting of the legions in
the reign of Tiberius, they count among their
grievances the fact that the expenditure for
arms and uniforms was deducted from their pay,
but do not mention the frumentum, which, if it.
had not been supplied gratis, would have been
quite the largest item deducted (Tac. Ann. i. 17).
The praetorian cohorts were first supplied with
free corn in Nero's reign (Tac. Ann. xv. 72;
Suet. Ner. 10), and during the later Empire it
is known to have been supplied free of charge
to the whole army (Lamprid. Alex. Sev. 52).
The same was eventually the case with arms
and uniform, and under the later Caesars the
legionary's pay was unburdened by any military
expenses (Dig. 49, 16, 14, 1; Lamprid. l. c.
“non contra eum—Alexandrum—qui annonam,
qui vestem, qui stipendia vobis attribuit”).
As regards the rate of payment, there is no
evidence to show that there was a fixed rate
when the stipendium was first introduced. We
first hear of regular proportions of pay in the
time of Polybius, who tells us that the legion-
aries received two obols, the centurions four
obols, and the equites a drachma a day (Polyb.
vi. 39, 12). The drachma is equivalent to the
denarius, which was originally worth ten asses;
the foot-soldier received two obols, that is
# denarius, or 3} asses a day, which Plautus,
leaving out the fraction, calls tres mummi
(Plaut. Mostell. ii. 1, 10). For the year of 360
days this makes for the annuum stipendium of
the foot-soldier, 1200 asses (360 x 3}); of the
centurion, who received double this amount,
2400 asses; of the eques, who received a full
denarius, 3600 asses. In B.C. 217 the new
uncial measurement was introduced, and the
denarius is from this time forth worth sixteen
instead of ten asses. Pliny, in his account of
this lowering of the copper standard, says, “In
militari tamen stipendio semper denarius pro
decem assibus datus” (H. W. xxxiii. § 45): that
is, where ten asses (the old denarius) had been
given before, the new denarius (sixteen asses)
was given now, and “the soldiers received in
silver as much pay as before ” (Boeckh, Metrol.
Unters. p. 425). The pay, therefore, was still
120 denarii a year, but this, instead of being
1200 asses a year (120 × 10), was 1920 asses a
year (120 × 16), or 5% asses a day instead of
3% asses, the former rate of payment. Till the
time of Caesar the daily pay of the legionaries
was 5% asses; Caesar is said by Suetonius to
have doubled the pay (Suet. Jul. 26, “legionibus
stipendium in perpetuum duplicavit"). If this
were strictly true, the pay should have been
raised to 103 asses, but we find from Tacitus
that it was only raised to ten asses (Tac. Ann.
i. 17, “denis in diem assibus animam et corpus
aestimari”). The true nature of Caesar's
reform is explained by Marquardt by reference
to a passage in Suetonius, who tells us that
Domitian “addidit et quartum stipendium militi
aureos ternos.”. A stipendium is here said to
be three aurei; the aureus was twenty-five.
denarii, and three aurei would be seventy-five
denarii or 1200 asses (75 × 16). This shows
that 1200 asses were still counted a stipendium
in the new coinage as it had been in the old;
and since Domitian is said to have added a
fourth stipendium, Caesar's reform consisted in
giving the soldiers three stipendia, reckoned as
a stipendium had been in the old coinage (1200
asses) instead of one stipendium reckoned as it
had been in the new coinage (1920 asses). The
soldiers now, instead of 1920 asses a year,
received 3600 asses a year (1200 x 3); that is,
as Tacitus says, ten asses a day; or, reckoning
the stipendium in denarii, the soldiers from the
time of Caesar, instead of receiving 120 new
denarii (1920 asses) a year, received 225 new
denarii (3600 asses). Domitian increased the
pay by three aurei, that is seventy-five denarii,
so that after Domitian their pay would have
been 300 new denarii a year (225 + 7.5) (Mar-
quardt, Staatsverw. v. p. 93). That Caesar, in
raising the pay to three stipendia a year, had
716 STIPENDIUM
STOLA
made the payments every four months, and that
Domitian, although he added a fourth stipen-
dium, still retained this mode of payment, is
shown by the passage of Zonaras in which he
speaks of Domitian's increase of the pay: kal
Toſs otpatidºtals étmºmore thy uta:00popów -
Trévre yūp ſcal épôouńkovra. Öpaxuās ékáorov
Aapºdivovros, ékarov čkéAevore 6tó006al (Zonar.
xi. 29): that is, as Caesar had divided the
whole year's pay of 225 denarii into three
stipendia of seventy-five denarii each, so Do-
mitian divided the increased year's pay of 300
denarii into three stipendia of 100 denarii
each. What the amount of the stipendium was
in the time of the old libral as is unknown ;
but it has been conjectured that it was 240
of these libral asses, which would be about
equivalent to 1200 of the later asses, at their
value before the year B.C. 217; five of these
asses sextantarii being, according to Boeckh,
equivalent to one libral as (Boeckh, Metrolog.
Unters. p. 458; Mommsen, Die rômische Tribus,
p. 43). We find in Gaius the mention of an old
‘custom permitting the Roman soldier, in case of
his not receiving the stipendium due to him, to
distrain on the goods of the officer whose duty
it was to administer the pay (Gaius, iv. 26).
Under the Empire the Roman forces were
divided into four parts—the legionaries, the
home troops (consisting of the urban and prae-
torian cohorts), the auxilia, and the fleet. Of the
strength and rate of payment of these last two
branches of the force we know nothing. That
the soldiers of the praetorian cohorts received
two full denarii—that is, thirty-two asses a day
—is implied in the passage of Tacitus (Ann.
i. 17; cf. 26), where the legionaries claim a full
denarius or sixteen asses a day, alleging that
the praetorians received bini denarii, although it
is elsewhere stated that they received double
pay (Dio Cass. liii. 11, 5), which, as the legion-
aries received ten asses a day, would be twenty
and not thirty-two asses; and it is possible that
this latter statement is strictly true, and that
Tacitus makes the legionaries purposely ex-
aggerate the rate of pay of the praetorian.
The gross annual amount expended on the
legionaries “and the home troops in the reign
of Tiberius is estimated by Marquardt at
186,840,000 sesterces (Staatsverw. v. p. 94), so
far as the common soldiers are concerned : for
the pay of the higher officers in the period of the
early Empire is not known; that of a tribune
seems to have been high (Juv. iii. 133), and we
find in the third century that it was as much
as 250 aurei or 25,000 sesterces (Mommsen in
the Berichte der Kaiserl. Gesellschaft der Wissen-
Schaften, 1852, p. 240). The historians of the
later Empire furnish us with instances of very
large annual grants furnished by the emperors,
both in money and in kind, to tribunes of the
legion (Trebell. Poll. Claud. 14, where the grant
is called salarium ea nostro privato aerario :
cf. Vopisc. Prob. 4); but these were rather in
the nature of private grants made to distin-
guished officers, such as Aurelian the future
emperor, to enable them to maintain more state
than their ordinary pay permitted (Vopisc.
Aurel. 9). - -
(Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, v. p. 90 sq.;
Boeckh, Metrologische Untersuchungen, p.423 sq.;
Dureau de la Malle, Economie politique des
Romains, i. p. 134 sq.; Mommsen, Die römische
Tribus, p. 31 sq.) [A. H. G.]
STIPULATIO. [OBLIGATIONES, p. 256.j
STOLA. The stola was a garment peculiar
to the Roman matron, and was worn as a badge
of lawful marriage (cf. Val. Max. vi. 1; Hor.
Sat. i. 2, 94). It was a tunica put on over the
shift or tunica interior, and reached down to the
ankles. There is reason to believe that it was
identical with the tunica recta or regilla, which
the bride wore at the marriage ceremony (cf.
Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 27). It was bordered
below with a flounce or hem called instita (Hor.
Sat. i. 2, 29), and seems from certain monuments
to have also had a purple stripe as a border
round the neck. This has been identified with
the patagium, perhaps correctly, though the
passages in which it is mentioned speak of the
patagium as being of gold (Nonius, p. 540, 4 ;
Tert. de Pallio, 3; TOGA), not purple. It had
sleeves, reaching down to the elbows, fastened
with a row of clasps, and not sewn. If, however,
the tunica interior had
sleeves, the stola was with-
out them, as in the well-
known statue of Livia,
shown in the accompanying
cut.
Like the corresponding
Greek garment, the stola
was girded (cf. Ennius, ap.
Non. p. 198, “et quis
illaec est lugubri succincta
stola;” though this is not
conclusive, as is shown be-
low) generally high above
the waist, forming a clus-
ter of folds (cf. Martial, iii.
93, 4). This, too, is shown
by the monuments on which
it appears. The word
stola, as derived from the
Greek or roxſh, had originally a quite general
meaning (Nonius, p. 537, 24: “Stolam veteres
non honestam vestem solum sed etiam omnem
quae corpus tegeret”), and in Ennius it is used
of men’s as well as women's clothes (Frag. ed.
Ribbeck, vv. 285, 287, 345). There is no record
of the date at which it was adopted by the
Roman women, but one cannot be wrong in
connecting the change with the transformation
which the PALLA had undergone. That is to
say, when the palla, which was originally worn
like the Doric shift, was used as a shawl or
mantle, another undergarment besides the tunica
interior became necessary, and that adopted by
the matrons was the stola. The disuse of the
TOGA, which was in the earliest times worn by
women as well as men, is probably not uncon-
nected with this change. However this may be,
the longa vestis is mentioned as early as the
Second Punic War as the privilege of married
women (Macrob. Saturn. i. 6, 13; cf. C. I. L.
i. 1194, “ita leibertate illei me, hic me decor-
aſr]at stola”). It remained in use as the garb
of the matronae (Cic. Phil. ii. 18, 44;-Varro,
L. L. 8, 28; 9, 48; 10, 27) until the time of
Tiberius, when it ceased to be fashionable. Re-
ferences to it in literature are, however, none
the less frequent in post-Augustan, writers
(Mart. i. 35, 8, &c.), and in Ulpian it is one of
the muliebria vestimenta: “quae matris familiae
Statue of Livia.

STRATEGUS
STRATEGUS 717
causa sunt comparata” (Dig. 34, 2, 23, 2).
Under the Empire, as its use in actual life be-
came less common, it was apparently given a
symbolic meaning, and bestowed on matrons
who had the jus liberorum. Such at least is the
most probable explanation of the title stolata
femina, which occurs as a name of honour on
inscriptions, chiefly of the 2nd and 3rd centuries
A.D. (Orelli-Henzen, 3030, 7190, note 2; C. I. L.
iii. 5225, 5283, 6155, p. 998: cf. Hübner,
Hermes, 1878, xiii. p. 425 seq., and Comm. phil.
in hon. Thes. Mommsenii, p. 104 seq.). Such a
stola was doubtless distinguished in some way
from that in ordinary use. (Marquardt, Privat-
leben, pp. 60, 573–575, 581; Iwan Müller, Hand-
buch, pp. 803, 876–77; Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii.
27, iii. 253; Baumeister, Denkmäler, art. Toga,
p. 1841.) [W. C. F. A.]
STRATE'GUS (arparmyos) was the title
applied to the chief military commanders in
most of the constitutional governments of
Greece; as a rule they had the direction of
foreign affairs as well as the leadership in war:
and, as the control of external relations was the
most important part of administration in a
Greek state, the otpatmyta was practically the
chief magistracy in the communities in which
it is found.
Strategi were set up in the Ionian states of
Asia Minor after the despotisms had been over-
thrown in 504 B.C. (Herod. v. 38); at Argos we
find of Trévre orparmyol who commanded the
five Argive lochi (Thuc. v. 59, 72): similar
magistrates are also met with at Syracuse
(Thuc. vi. 72), in later times in Boeotia (Keil,
Inscrip. Boeot. p. 114), and in Amorgus (Gilbert,
Staatsalt. ii. p. 209). They are also found
frequently at the head of leagues; after the
founding of Megalopolis we find a oſtparmyos at
the head of to kowow ’Apkáčov (Xen. Hell. vii.
3, 1), and in the third century orparmyol at the
head of the kowov Tów’Akapwdvov (Polyb. v. 6;
Liv. xxxvi. 11) and the koubv rôv ‘Atreuporów
(Dittenberger, n. 211). They were also the chief
military officers of the Achaean and Aetolian
leagues [ACHAICUM and AETOLICUM FOEDUS];
and after the reconstruction of the Thessalian
alliance in 196 B.C., a strategus appointed yearly
is found at the head of this confederacy [TAGUs].
In Egypt, under the Ptolemies and under Roman
rule, the orparmyol were the governors of the
nomes; over these were the étriotpdºrmºyol, the
governors of the three great districts of the
Delta, Heptanomis, and Thebais : both these
classes of officers being under the authority of
the Praefectus Aegypti (Kuhn, Verfassung des
römischen Reichs, pp. 481–493).
The orpartlyta at Athens, according to the
unanimous verdict of ancient writers, was the
highest political office in the state. Its im-
portance was due to the great extent of the
duties of administration which it involved, and
to the special power of initiative in legislation
with which its holder was invested; while the
continuity in the office, due to the possibility of
indefinite re-election, rendered possible a con-
tinuity of policy on the part of its holder. That
this power of permanent administration was
actually realised in the history of Athens, there
can be no doubt; whether it was definitely
contemplated in the theory of the constitution
will depend on the view that is taken as to the
mode in which the functions of this office were
distributed ; but in any case it may be asserted
that in the otpatmyta we have the central point
of Athenian administration, and any opinion as
to the position of the strategus must inevitably
affect our views as to the whole system of
executive government at Athens. The strategi
formed a college of ten, based on the ten tribes
of the Cleisthenean constitution: and the number
seems to have continued unaltered, as long as
the collegiate principle was observed; it was
not until a late period, falling between the years
52 and 42 B.C., that the college of generals was
replaced, probably through an act of the dictator
Caesar's, by a single magistrate bearing the title
6 otpatmy&s, 6 orparmyos étrº rā ātrāa or ém Toys
ôtrattas (C. I. A. ii. n. 481, iii. n. 248; Gilbert,
Staatsalt. i. 156, n. 3).
Amongst the powers of the strategi, the most
distinctive was that of summoning the assembly.
The debate in the assemblies thus specially
convened (aºykxmtol) seems to have been limited
strictly to the proposal put before them by the
general ; and such assemblies took precedence of
all other meetings of the ékkAmata (C. I. A. i.
40, l. 57, &AAo 8& trpoxpmaattoral roëtwv umöé,
éâv uſiri of otpatnyol 6éovrat); yet it seems
that in convening them the generals could not
omit the formality of consulting the trpvráveis,
and that their motions, though standing first on
the orders of the day, could only be introduced
through the regular standing committee of the
BovXà (Thuc. iv. 118, ÉkkAmoſav Šē trouhaavtas
Tois a Tparmyobs kal rows trpvráveis, K.T.A.). An
important power, which resulted from this right
of convening the assembly on matters of foreign
administration, would have been the setting
forth of the estimates of the military budget
for the year, together with proposals for raising
the requisite supplies. Foreign administration
and finance must necessarily have gone closely
together during the greater part of the history
of Athens, and have been united in the same
person; but the power of the generals was not
limited to initiating measures for such grants;
they had the control of the details of expenditure:
the moneys voted from the treasuries of Athens
for military purposes were placed in their hands
(C. I. A. n. 273), and there were other extra-
ordinary sources of revenue, such as those from
booty (Lys. c. Ergocl. § 5), from the payments
made by merchant-ships convoyed in time of
war (trapö. Töv wavkAfipov kal éutrópov, Id. de Bon.
Aristoph. § 50) and from fines imposed at their
own discretion, over which they would probably
have had entire control. As minister of finance
for foreign affairs, it was the strategus who
nominated to the trierarchy, in the 4th and
probably in the 5th century (Dem. adv. Boeot.
p. 997, § 8), and who had the jºyeptovía Śukaatm-
ptov in suits arising from it (Suid. s. v. jºysu.
Sukaot.), as well as a similar presidency in the
court constituted for the settlement of disputes
arising from the eiorqopd. (Suid. l.c.). Amongst
the special military duties that devolved on the
strategi at home were the distribution and
command of the home forces, including the
treptroxol, and the control of the home defences
(puxaka karū yńv kal karð 64Aaoro av, Thuc. ii.
24); duties which, after different functions were
distributed amongst different members of the
college, devolved on the general who bore the
718 STRATEGUS
STRATEGUS
title orparmyos éri rās x&pas (Plut. Phoc. 32).
In the case of certain levies the generals exercised
the right of personal selection (Philostr. Wit.
Soph. i. 23, 1; Lys. c. Alcib. i. § 6; Gilbert,
Staatsalt. p. 303, n. 1). They also had juris-
diction in military matters; the appeals against
the levy were made to them (Lys. de Mil. § 4),
and they had the jºyeuovía Sukaatmptov in the
case of the military charges known as the Ypapal
ãoºrpatetas, Auroračíov and belxias (Lys. c.
Alcib. i. § 21), which they either undertook in
person or remitted to the raśtapxot (Dem. adv.
Boeot. p. 999, § 17). Besides this jurisdiction
at home, the general seems to have had the
power to punish' with death the most serious
offences, such as treasonable negotiations with
the enemy, and to confer military honours for
bravery in the field (Lys. c. Alcib. i. § 22; Plut.
Alcib. 7); while the public funeral for citizens
who had fallen in battle (6mudotos ºrd pos) was
proposed by him (Aristoph. Aves, 395 sq.). The
initiative in cases of treason seems also to have
been amongst his duties ([Plut.] Wit. Antiph.
23); and one of his chief responsibilities was
the corn-supply of Athens (rºw trapatropºrºv roß
otrov, Boeckh, Seewrk. xiii. p. 423; cf. C. J. A.
ii. n. 331). The duties of the generals as regards
foreign administration must have involved the
introduction of most of such business to the
assembly; questions arising from treaties or the
details of foreign policy must have been usually
brought forward by them ; while we find that
they were responsible for the execution of a
treaty, saw that the oath was taken, and that
the proper sacrifices were offered on the occasion
(C. I. A. Suppl. vol. i. p. 10, 11. 67 and 19). The
existence of the Athenian Empire also added
to the sphere of the general’s powers; they
must have been the commanders-in-chief of the
ºpovpapxol and the ‘ppovpal, which we find in
the subject states, as in Erythrae (C. I. A. i. 9).
They saw to the exaction of the tribute when it
was in arrears, by commanding the épºyvpoxöyot
whes (C. I. A. iii. 19); and probably had the
levying of contingents from the allies in ships
and men (Droysen, Hermes, ix. p. 12).
It will be seen from this enumeration of their
functions that the generals at Athens were at
once leaders in war, ministers of war, foreign
ministers, and to a great extent ministers of
finance. It is difficult to see how such powers
could have been exercised collectively by a
college. Distributed they must have been, even
in the 5th century B.C., where we as yet meet
no trace of the subsequent differentiation of
functions; but it is not easy to say how this
distribution was effected, whether by agreement
amongst the members of the college, or by lot,
of the use of which some traces are found (Thuc.
vi. 42, 62; viii. 30), or finally by the presidency
of (one of the members of the college who as-
signed the duties of the others. It is not until
the close of the 4th century, about the year 325
B.C., that we find the practice arising of assigning
different spheres of action to the generals on
election. As late as the year 306–305 B.C. we
find several generals elected for the performance
of the same function (orrparmyol of éml Thy roſ,
troAéuov trapaakeviv icexelporovnuévol, C. I. A.
ii. n. 2733); but as early as 349 B.C. a mention
is traced of a general with a special competence,
the supervision of the eio popó (Dem. Olynth. ii.
p. 26, § 29; Gilbert, Beiträge, pp. 35–37), and
at a later period we find the functions assigned
to the several generals distinctly expressed in
the titles borne by each. Such titles are (6
otpatnyos) 6 €rl thy Movvvºſav kal r& veðpia.
6 rº Tov IIelpaiſ, 6 &t. Thu x&pav - 3 &n rhy
xópav táv trapaxfav 6 étrº *EXevaſivos - 6 &t) rºs
ovuuopias 6 éml thv trapaakeviv - 6 &t rous
£évows 6 áirl to vavruków - 6 €irl rô &txa or 6 &tº
Tovs 6traſtas, this last title being borne by the
general who stood at the head of the college
and was elected to the first place by the people
(xelporovnéelsºčirl Tä, ötraa trpáros ūtro roß Shuov,
C. J. A. ii. 331; Gilbert, Staatsalt. i. pp. 221,
222).
The only known insignia of the general were
the chlamys or military cloak (Ael. W. H. xiv.
10; Plut. Quaest. Conviv. i. 4, 2) and the
a répavos which was worn by all Athenian
magistrates. They had specially reserved seats
in the theatre (Theophr. Char. 21), and conducted
the military processions at the Panathenaea
(Dem. Phil. i. p. 47, § 26). Their place of
business was the otpathytov (Plut. Nic. 5, 15;
Per. 37; Phoc. 8), where they dined at the
public cost (Dem. de fals. Leg. p. 490, § 190).
Special honours were sometimes conferred on
successful generals, which took the form of
statues ([Andoc.] c. Alcib. § 31), of public
dinners in the Prytaneum (Aristoph. Eq. 709),
or of Tpoeëpta (ib. 575, 702). There is some
evidence that the generals received payment on
foreign service, and it has been concluded from
a passage in Aristophanes (Acharn. 602) that
the rate was three drachmae a day, which
was perhaps given as a gurmpériov rather than
as a pator06s.
There are some difficulties connected with the
date at which the generals were elected ; but
there is almost a consensus of opinion in favour
of the view that during the greater part of the
5th century and onwards they were elected
towards the close of Munychion, at the beginning
of the ninth prytany, and entered office on the
first of Hecatombaeon, the beginning of the
Attic year (Gilbert, Beiträge, p. 7; Beloch,
Attische Politik seit Pericles, pp. 271-273;
Droysen, Hermes, ix. p. 16 ft. ; K. F. Hermann,
Griech. Staatsalt. § 148, 7). They would thus
have been elected in April or May, and entered
office in July, the interval between the two acts
being employed no doubt for the purpose of the
Sokupuaata. But in time of war a general’s
command might be prolonged beyond his term
of office, even though he were not re-elected ;
thus Laches, who was orparmyös during 427–
426, was first replaced by Pythodorus, orparmyös
for 426–425 in the winter of that year (Thuc. iii.
86, 115; Gilbert, l.c. p. 14). The generals gave
in their names before the nine archons (Poll. viii.
87), and the elections were conducted by them
on the Pnyx (Hesych. s. v. IIváš): election
seems to have been preceded by canvassing (Plut.
Phoc. 8), and was, in the 4th century, not
unfrequently tainted by bribery. The generals
took an oath on coming into office, a special
clause in which was roos &a Tparetºrovs cata-
Aékely (Lys. de Mil. § 15). Besides the ordinary
qualifications required for Athenian magistrates,
the special qualifications required for the
generals were that they should be married and
have children, and possess property within the
STRATEGUS
STRATEGUS 719
bounds of Attica (Dinarch. in Demosth. § 71).
There was apparently no qualification of age,
but the orparmyta was not usually held before
the age of forty (Gilbert, l.c. p. 25). Re-election
to the office in successive years was frequent ;
Pericles was general for fifteen years and Phocion
forty-five times (Plut. Per. 15; Phoc. 8). A
general might be deposed from office in the
4th century at the étrixelporovía held at the
beginning of each prytany, and at the close of
his office was subject to the usual audit (eißvvai),
which in his case was conducted before a heliastic
jury under guidance of the thesmothetae (Poll.
viii. 88). This was mainly concerned with the
account of the moneys which had passed through
his hands; it was probably on a charge of
malversation of funds that Pericles was con-
victed and fined (Thuc. ii. 65; Plut. Per. 23
and 35), but a special ypaqºl RAotrfis might be
preferred against him, either at the eijóvvºi or
after the étroxelporovía, together with other
charges, such as the ypaſp?) trpoãootas or Ypaph
66pov [see EUTHYNE; EPICHEIROTONIA].
The question as to what was the precise
process of election to the orparmyia is at once
the most important of those connected with
the office and the most difficult to answer. It
is equally doubtful who the electors were, and
from what body the elected were chosen; and
according to our decision on these points must
depend to a large extent our estimate of the
position of the otpatmyos in the state. In the
early period of Athenian history the ten generals
bore a close relation to the ten tribes; at
Marathon each general commanded a tribe
(Plut. Arist. 5), and Plutarch’s language in this
passage and in another, where he describes the
employment of Cimon and his nine colleagues as
judges in the theatre, tends strongly to the
view that the general belonged to the tribe
which he commanded (Plut. Cim. 8, &to puxºis
puās Kaotov: but see Gilbert, Beiträge, p. 23,
who points out that Miltiades, who belonged to
the tribe Oeneis, probably commanded the
Aeantis). This was, however, certainly not the
case at a later period: Pollux tells us that the
generals were chosen out of all the citizens (é;
ātrāvrov, Poll. viii. 86); several instances are
found of two generals in the same year belonging
to the same tribe; and, as Gilbert says, “It
would have violated all considerations of political
expediency if the Athenians, through the con-
dition that a general must be taken from each
tribe, had robbed themselves of the possibility
of employing two gifted and experienced men,
because they happened to belong to the same
tribe’” (Beiträge, p. 24). Yet it is known that
at the close of the 5th century the generals
offered themselves as representatives of special
tribes (Xen. Mem. iii. 4, 1); and, as they were
chosen out of all Athenian citizens, two modes
of election have been suggested: either that the
generals were elected out of all the Athenian
people by the special tribes and for the special
tribes, or the view which is held by Droysen,
that they were elected for each tribe from all
the Athenians by the whole people (Hermes, ix.
p. 8). The first, though in accordance with
modern ideas of representation, is thought to be
inconsistent with ancient ideas on the subject
(Beloch, l.c. p. 279), while the second is con-
trary to all the analogies of tribal election in
Athens (Pastoret, Histoire de la Législation, vi.
p. 290). A modified view has been put forward
by Beloch, which, while it gives a theory of
election, contains a definite suggestion as to the
distribution of powers within the college. He
holds that the college consisted, not of ten equal
members, but of a trpáravis and ovvápxovres, on
the analogy of the treasurers of Athens and of
the Hellenotamiae: the expression 6 Selva kal
guvépxovres being found applied to the arparmyta
in , an inscription (grparnyol's ‘Irrokpare?
XoAap yet kal avvápxovgiv, C. I. A. n. 273).
This president, he considers, was elected by all
and out of all, but his nine colleagues each by
his own tribe and from his own tribe, one of the
ten tribes each year giving up its right to
election. Consequently “in nine cases out of
ten a general must have belonged to a phyle
that was already represented, or conversely,
when two generals are found to belong to the
same phyle, one of them must be the prytanis”
(Beloch, l.c. p. 287). This seems confirmed by
the fact that between the years 441–0 and 356–5
there are nine certain instances of two generals,
but no certain instance of more than two, be-
longing to the same tribe in the same year
(Beloch, l. g., p. 276; Droysen, Hermes, ix. pp.
3 and 4): this occurs twice when Pericles, once
when Laches is general, and one of the names
is usually of sufficient eminence for us to
consider its bearer a possible president of the
college. The trpvraveta of the college he also
thinks to be signified by the expression orpa-
Trºyos 6ékaros airós, which is twice used in
reference to Pericles (Thuc. i. 116; ii. 13).
Gilbert had thought that the additions réutritos,
Téraptos airbs to a general’s name signified
some superiority of power possessed by that
general over his colleagues, and that this power
is the same as that expressed in the words Torpa-
tnyès aitokpátop: thus 6 Selva réutros airbs
would mean that the general possessed au-
thority over his four colleagues who went on
the expedition with him ; 6 Seſva. Sékaros airbs
would signify, not necessarily that the general’s
nine colleagues went with him on an expedition,
but that he possessed the power of an aitokpárap
over the whole college (Gilbert, Beiträge, p. 42
Sq.). It is certain that a general was appointed
airokpárap, not at the elections, but with
reference to a definite service, although it is
possible that, in the face of a pressing danger,
a general might be elected with autocratic
powers at , the archaeresia (Plut. Arist. 8,
xelpotovnbels abrokpótop). Only the most
general instructions were given to such a
commander: he was freed from the necessity of
consulting the Bovāh and the ékkamaſa on the
details of administration, could raise supplies at
his own discretion (Thuc. vi. 26), and had
perhaps authority over his other colleagues;
three generals were so appointed for the Sicilian
expedition (Thuc. l. c.; of ’A6mvalot ºnq'foravro
eiðis airokpáropas sival kal repl orpartās
TAftöovs kal repl too travros traoû roës orpa-
Tmyobs, trpáorosiv fi &v airtois Sokº Šptorra elval
*A6mvatois: cf. Plut. Arist. 8 and 11), and
Alcibiades in 408 B.C. was ātrāvrov jºyepièv
airokpátop (Xen. Hell. i. 5, 20). Beloch's
theory, on the other hand, is that the ºrpūravis
differed from the airokpárop in that a general
was appointed ºrpiºtavis at the āpxalpsorial,
720 STRATOR
STROPHIUM
airokpárwp with reference to a definite service;
that the one had a standing, the other only a
temporary superiority over his colleagues; and
that the two expressions would have coincided
only when one otpatmyos aitokpátop was ap-
pointed, in which case the president of the
college would undoubtedly have been selected as
the general on whom these special exemptions
were conferred. If Beloch's theory is valid, this
president of the college was the first minister of
Athens; and it is no anachronism to speak of
“party’ government in the sense of “minis-
terial” government, when we are dealing with
Athenian politics.
That this “ministerial” power was realised
in later times is shown by an inscription of a
otpatmºyos étrº rò &txa, who records that
Treptotavrov Tà tróAet kapāv ŠvakóAwv Šte-
q6Aašev rhv eipſiumv rá x&pg &tropatváuevos
aiel Tê icpáriota — kal Tºv tróAlv éAev6épau
kal &muokparovuévny airóvouou trapéâwkev kal
T&s vou?)s kvptovs roſs pe6 &avrów (C. J. A. ii.
n. 331). For the earlier period of Athenian
history, it is difficult to establish a constitu-
tional basis for this power: yet that it existed
cannot be doubted. It is shown by the language
in which Pericles' position is described (Thuc.
ii. 65, orparmyöv eixovro kal travta Tè trpäy-
para étrérpelyav : cf. Diod. xiii. 42): he was
alone responsible for the conduct of affairs, and
had the power to prevent the ékk}\mata from
assembling (Thuc. ii. 23, 2). It is true that
the expression à Selva kal avvápxovres may
only denote a changing presidency; and the
expressions ºrptros, réraptos, and even 6ékaros
airbs may be explained of specially conferred
powers, yet something more seems to be de-
manded for a position such as that of Themi-
stocles at Salamis (Plut. Arist. 8), of Pericles
during the last fifteen years of his life, and of
Nicias in 425 B.C. (Thuc. iv. 28): in these cases
a definite leadership of the college seems to be
implied, however vague and conjectural may be
the powers which we are enabled to attribute
to such a presidency.
(Gilbert, Beiträge zur innern Geschichte Atticus
im. Zeitalter des Peloponnesischen Krieges, pp.
1–72; Handbuch der griechischen Staatsalter-
thimer, i. p. 220 ft.;-Beloch, Die Attische Politik
seit Perikles, Anhang i. pp. 265–330; Droysen,
Hermes, ix. 1875 (Bemerkungen über die Atti-
schen Strategen); K. F. Hermann, Lehrbuch der
griechischen Antiquitäten, i. Die Staatsalter-
thimer (fünfte Auflage), $$123, 2; 129, 9; 148;
152; 166. On minor points see Müller-Strubing,
Aristophanes, pp. 484 f.; Müller, de tempore quo
bellum Pelop. initium ceperit, p. 44.) [A. H. G.]
STRATOR. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 804 a.]
STRENAE (whence the French étrennes)
were presents given on the 1st of January, as
Festus says, “ominis boni causa " (cf. Plaut.
Stich. v. 2, 24, and the precisely similar French
proverb “à bon jour bonne étrenne"). The
£ustom was supposed to be connected with the
goddess Strenia, who brought good luck to the
household “ab exortu fere urbis strenarum usus
adolevit auctoritate Tatii regis, qui verbenas
felicis arboris ex luco Strepiae anni novi auspices
primus accepit” (Symmach. Ep. x. 35): these
verbenae are defined as laurel leaves (Lyd. de
Mens. iv. 4). The custom is described in Ovid
(Fast. i. 185 ft.). Some of the actual presents
still exist: a cup with the inscription, “Anno
novo faustum felix tibi" (Orelli, 4306); a lamp
with the same (Id. 4307). Coins also were
given, and a gold coin was the best of omens in
Ovid's time (Fast. i. 221): the poorer client
brought a copper coin, and, to represent the
gold, a gilded date (Mart. viii. 33, xiii. 27).
New year's gifts were presented to Augustus
in the Capitol, even when he was absent (Suet.
Aug. 57; cf. Dio Cass. liv. 35). [WoroRUM
NUNCUPATIO.] The person who received such
presents was accustomed to make others in
return (strenarum commercium); but Tiberius,
who did not like the custom on account of the
trouble it gave him, and also of the expense in
making larger presents in return, frequently
left Rome at the beginning of January, that he
might be out of the way (Dio Cass. lvii. 8), and
also forbade any such presents to be offered him
after the 1st of January, as he used to be
annoyed by them during the whole of the month
(Suet. Tib. 34; Dio Cass. lvii. 17). The custom,
so far as the emperor was concerned, thus seems
to have fallen almost entirely into disuse during
the reign of Tiberius. It was revived again by
Caligula (Suet. Cal. 42; Dio Cass. lix. 24), but
abolished by Claudius (Dio Cass. lx. 6); it must,
however, have been restored afterwards, as we
find it mentioned as late as the reigns of Theo-
dosius and Arcadius (Auson. Ep. xviii. 4; Cod.
Just. 12,48; Gothofred, ad Cod. Theod. 7, 24, 1).
The festival is inveighed against as pagan by
Christian writers (Augustin. Serm. 198, 2;
Tertull. de Idol. 10. Other passages will be
found in Graevius, Thesaur. xii. p. 409 ft.,
strenarum historia); but it lasted long, and still
existed to be condemned by the Quinisextan
Council at Constantinople (“Concilium in
Trullo’’), A.D. 692, if indeed we should not
say that the French étrennes preserve the custom
as well as the name.
On the strenae, see also Marquardt, Staats-
verwalt. iii. 266; Privatl. 251.
[W. S.] [G. E. M.]
STRIAE. [ColumMA, Wol. I. p. 490 b.]
STRIGA. [CASTRA, Vol. I. p. 381.]
STRIGIL. [BALNEAE, Vol. I. p. 278.]
STRO'PHIUM. Greek women wore in
place of a corset a large variety of bands and
straps, which were bound round the breast
either under or over the shift. The names
otpáquov, Kövlov, &tóðeogos, and even raivia.
and puttpa, were given to these; but in all the
meaning is general, and has no reference to
their special purpose. Even orpóquov is used by
Athenaeus (xii. p. 543 f.) of the band which
Parrhasius wore round his head. Roman ma-
trons seem to have used a kind of corset, the
capitium (cf. Varro, L. I. v. § 131), which, from
Juvenal's reference to it (v. 143) as a thorax,
viridis, must have been stiff. Younger ladies wore
bands and belts, like the Greek, for the same
purpose (Catull. 64, 65). To these the names
amictarium (Mart. xiv. 149), taenia (Apuleius,
Met. x. 21), mamillare, strophium (Cic. de Har.
Resp. 21, 44), and fascia pectoralis (Ovid, A.
A. iii. 274) were given. From Martial (xiv. 65)
one may infer that they were usually of leathel.
The monuments show not only bands girt round
the breast of women, but in toilet scenes women
bathing are often represented in a short close-
fitting vest, which seems to be the capitium.
STRUCTOR
SUCCESSIO 721
A statuette from Herculaneum shows a nude
female figure putting the fascia (ratvia) over
the breasts (Ant. di Ercolano, vi. tav. 17, 3 =
Baumeister, Denkm. fig. 390).
On many female statues, especially those of
the later periods, bands are shown which are
not so much for the purpose of supporting the
bust, but to keep the folds of a voluminous
under-garment from shifting. They pass over
the shoulders, cross at the breast, and are
brought behind and fastened at the waist.
What they were called is not known.
(Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 226; Gallus, iii.
25i; Hermann - Blümner, Privatalterthümer;
Baumeister, Denkmäler, art. “Busenband,” p.
366; Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 484; Iwan
Müller, Handbuch, pp. 431, 876; Böttiger,
Sabina, ii. 114.) W. F. C. A.]
STRUCTOR. [CENA.
- STULTORUM FE'RIAE. [For NACALIA.]
STUPRUM. [ADULTERIUM ; INCESTUM.]
SUBLIGA/CULUM. A piece of cloth tied or
wrapped round the waist and worn as an apron
or loin-cloth is one of the most primitive of
garments, and is found in some form or other all
the world over. That it was worn in Greece in
pre-historic times is shown by the hunters on the
inlaid sword-blade from the fourth grave at
Mycenae (cf. Schuchardt, Schliemann's Ausgrab-
wngen, p. 263, fig. 227; Milchhoefer, Anfänge,
p. 145) and other monuments of the same age.
In later times it is found frequently on archaic
bronzes, and on early black-figured vase-paintings,
as the dress of smiths and other craftsmen, as
well as of labourers (cf. the olive-gatherers on
a black-figured vase, in Baumeister, Denkm.
p. 1047). It was also worn by warriors below
$heir armour, but only in early times, for in later
times it was supplanted by the linen shirt or xitév.
There is some difficulty in tracing the use of
the garment in literature. In Homer, for in-
stance, Euryalus the boxer in Il. xxiii. 683 wears
a @pa, which is undoubtedly a loin-cloth, taking
perhaps the shape of bathing drawers; but else-
where the use of the word is not consistent
(being sometimes evidently a kind of belt ; cf.
Studniczka, Beiträge, p. 67 foll.). The fact of
the matter seems to be that, owing to the com-
parative severity of the Greek climate, it was
never used, as in the East, as a man's sole gar-
ment, except where he was engaged in very
violent exercise. Thus, in early times, 6taçöuata
were worn at the Olympic games (Thuc. i. 6).
The custom, however, fell into disuse after
Orsippos (Paus. i. 44, 1), who was victor in Ol.
15 (720 B.C.), had run without (cf. C. I. G. 1050).
In classical times the apron is better known as
the characteristic garb of cook (Hegesipp. 'A3. i.
7), the general name being replgoua or trepiſº-
orpa (see LUCTATIO, and the woodcut on page
82 b). -
* * Rome, as in Greece, the apron or loin-cloth
seems to have been an older undergarment than
the shirt or TUNICA. It was worn not only by
men, but also by women (Mart. iii. 87, 4), and
was known as the subligaculum (Non. p. 29, 20),
subligar, or campestre. In the Twelve Tables it
goes by the name of licium (Gaius, iii. 192, 193).
Its use in imperial times was chiefly confined to
servants (succincti linteo, Suet. Cat. 26), and it
was indeed generally regarded as the character-
istic garb of the early Republic. Thus Horace
WOL. II.
speaks of cinctuti Cethegi as models of heroic
simplicity (A. P. 50; cf. Porphyrion ad loc.).
So, too, candidates for election had it as part
of their old-fashioned costume (Plut. Coriol. 14;
Quaest. Rom. 49, p. 340), while ascetics, like
Cato the younger, adopted it as a protest against
luxury (Plut. Cat. Min. 6; Wal. Max. iii. 6, 7).
One form of the apron, the campestre (cf. Isid.
Orig. xix. 22, 5), was especially used by soldiers
(= reptſoua, Dionys. Hal.), though it was
scarcely sufficient to compete with the tunica as
a protection from cold (cf. Hor. Ep. i. 11, 6), and
was doubtless soon given up for the shirt.
Of much the same shape were the drawers
worn by actors (Cic. de Off. i. 35, 129) and
dancers, which were also used by bathers, especi-
ally ladies (Mart. l.c.). An illustration is given
under SALTATIO, p. 594. (Furtwängler, Archaeo-
logische Zeitung, 1882, p. 329; 1884, p. 167;-
Daremberg and Saglio, Dict. d'Ant., s. v. Cinctus,
p. 1172; Marquardt, Privatleben, pp. 282, 484,
580; Iwan Müller, Handbuch, pp. 803, 927;
Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln, $169, 31.) : [W. F. C. A.]
SUCCESSIO is a term employed by the
Roman jurists when speaking of the modes in
which legal rights are acquired and lost. The
relation of person and right, or of right and its
subject, varies with the nature of the right
itself. In respect of many rights, what is
essential and permanent is the person in whom
they reside: the rights themselves are merely
transitory attributes. But in respect of property
(using that term in its widest sense) this re-
lation is reversed. Rights of property can as a
rule pass from subject to subject: so far as they
are concerned it is immaterial in whom they are
vested for the time being, or, as Dr. Bruns has
remarked, “as the coat changes its wearer, but
itself remains the same, so can the right to the
coat change its subject without being changed
itself.” Successio is the acquisition by one
person of a right or rights hitherto vested in
another, but not every such acquisition: it is
in fact a species of what jurists call “derivative
acquisition,” of which there are two kinds. In
the one a person tranfers to another a portion
of his own rights, as where an owner constitutes
a jus in re aliena [SERVITUTES], such as a usu-
fruct or a right of way, over property of his
own in favour of another: here the right of the
latter is acquired derivatively, but there is no
successio, the owner carving as it were a right
differing in orbit from his own out of his own
dominium. In the other, which is successio, the
right of the one party passes in its integrity to
the other, of whom it is said, “Succedit in locum
ejus.” Here a legal relation is presupposed
between the two persons, the one of whom ceases
to be invested with the right eo instanti that it
becomes vested in the other; and to the latter
it cannot be (in the eye of the law) a higher,
larger, or more valuable right than it was to
the former : “non debeo melioris condicionis esse
quam auctor meus, a quo jus in me transit,”
Dig. 50, 17, 175; “memo plus juris ad alium
transferre potest, quam ipse haberet,” Dig. ib. 54.
Thus in the case of the transfer of ownership by
traditio, the new ownership begins when the
old ownership ceases, and it only arises in case
the former possessor of the thing was also owner;
that is, prior ownership is a necessary condi-
tion of subsequent ownership. Without a legal
3 A
722 SUCCESSIO
SUCCESSIO
relation between the two parties, the one of
whom intends to transfer his right to the other,
there can be no successio. For instance, if A
acquires ownership in property hitherto belong-
ing to B by usucapio, B ceases to be its owner,
but there is no legal relation between A and B,
and therefore no succession: the acquisition by
A is original, not derivative. So, too, if B
abandons property (derelictio) of which A takes
possession with the intention of appropriating it,
it becomes A's without more ado (Inst. ii. 1,47):
but here again the acquisition is original, and
there is no succession. The requirement that
the right should vest in the successor contempo-
raneously with its divestment from the other
party is sometimes satisfied by a fiction, as in
the succession of a heres: for though there
might be a considerable interval between the
death and the aditio of the inheritance, yet the
latter, when once made, had by a legal fiction
relation back to the moment of decease: “heres
quandoque adeundo hereditatem jam tune a
morte successisse defuncto intelligitur,” Dig. 29,
2, 54; “omnis hereditas, quamvis postea adeatur,
tamen cum tempore mortis continuatur,” Dig.
50, 17, 138.
Of successio there are two kinds. A man
either succeeds to a single right or a number of
single rights by themselves, which is called
“singular succession: ” or he succeeds to the
whole property or proprietary relations of
another, whereby the individual rights pass also,
which is called “universal succession.” The
Roman phrases are somewhat different. It is
said in Dig. 43, 3, 1, 13 (cf. Gaius, ii. 97), “in
locum successisse accipimus sive in universitatem
sive in rem sit successum: ” so too we have “in
eam duntaxat rem succedere” (Dig. 21, 3, 3),
“in singularum rerum dominium succedere’”
(Dig. 29, 2, 37), “in rei tantum dominium
succedere” (Dig. 39, 3, 24); “in universum jus,
in universa bona’’ (Dig. 23, 3, 3, 1; 39, 2, 1).
In singular succession the person from whom
the right passes is called the other's auctor
(Dig. 50, 17, 175, cited above: “auctorum
successio,” Dig. 1, 2, 2, 13). As to the rights
of which a singular succession is possible, some-
thing is said below; but the succession requires
an act between the parties capable of transferring
the right, whether it be mancipatio, traditio, or
mere grant. The object of universal succession
is a man's whole property, so far as it exceeds
mere life interests, comprising res in corporales
(e.g. what we term “choses in action ”) no less
than res corporales, and in most cases his liabili-
ties as well as his rights: the notion upon which
it is based being usually a fictitious identity of
person between the party hitherto entitled and
the successor, so that the former, in relation to
the object of succession, is not (as in singular
succession) opposed to the latter as a disconnected
person, and consequently is not here as a rule
termed his auctor, though an instance of this (in
inheritance) occurs in a constitution of Diocletian
in the Codex Hermogenianus. The universal
successor may very properly be regarded as and
termed successor to a part of the whole, but
only because it is such a part: he succeeds to the
part because he succeeds to the whole. Of univer-
sal succession there is a variety of forms, of which
the most important is succession upon death.
On a man's decease, his heir or heirs, whether
tney took by civil (heredes) or by praetorian
law (bonorum possessores), took his property as an
ideal whole: “bona autem hic, at plerumque
solemus dicere, ita accipienda Sunt: universitatis
cujusque successionem, qua succeditur in jus
demortui, suscipiturque ejus rei commodum et
incommodum. Nam sive solvendo sunt bona
sive non sunt, sive damnum habent sive lucrum,
sive in corporibus sunt sive in actionibus, in hoc
loco proprie bona appellabuntur” (Dig. 37, 1, 3,
pr.). After the Senatusconsulta Trebellianum
and Pegasianum, the same occurred where an
heir transferred the whole inheritance to another
under a trust [FIDEICOMMISSUM]. In the other
cases of universal succession the so-called passiva.
of the person succeeded (i.e. his liabilities) did not
by the civil law pass to the successor: but by
the Edict this was generally so far modified that
the latter became answerable for the passiva so
far as the activa (assets) went. They comprise
the following:—(1) The passing of a woman in
manum mariti : “Cum mulier viro in manum
convenit, omnia quae mulieris fuerunt viri fillnt
dotis nomine,” Cic. Top. 4, 23: “cum mulier in
manum convenit, omnes ejus res incorporales et
corporales quaeque ei debitae sunt coemptionatori
adquiruntur, exceptis his quae per capitis de-
minutionem pereunt . . . ex diverso quod ea
debuit quae in manum convenit non transit ad
coemptionatorem . . . nisi si hereditarium aes
alienum fuerit: tunc enim, quia ipse coemption-
ator heres fit, directo tenetur jure” (Gaius, iii.
83–4); and Gaius goes on to explain that though
by the civil law no liability attaches after the
coemptio for debts contracted by the woman
before it either to herself or the husband, yet the
praetor granted utiles actiones against her to the
creditors, who, unless she were defended, would
be put in possession for purposes of liquidation
of all property which they might have proceeded
against at civil law, but for the coemptio.
(2) The giving of an independent person by himself
in adrogation: “Sipaterfamilias adoptatus sit,
omnia quae ejus fuerunt et adguiri possunt,
tacito jure ad eum transeunt qui adoptavit ’’
(Dig. 1, 11, 15, pr.). Mutatis mutandis, Gaius
says precisely the same of this, in respect of
debts owed by the adrogatus, as he does of
conventio in manum. (3) Bonorum emptio or
bankruptcy, for which see Gaius, iii. 77–81;
Inst. iii. 12, pr. (4) The reduction of a free
woman to servitude under the Senatusconsultum
Claudianum, in which case her whole property
passed with her to her new master [SERVUs,
662 bl. In many other cases, though the
object is to transfer the whole property, it is
in fact effected by the transfer of the several
things—e.g. in gift, in the constitution of a dos,
in the formation of a societas, or the sale of an
inheritance by the heres.
There are many rights which cannot be ac-
quired by succession at all, and others which
can be acquired by universal but not by singular
succession. Speaking generally, none can thus
pass but proprietary rights: for instance, the
rights of patronatus over a libertus civis could
not be bequeathed away to an ea traneus heres,
because, properly speaking, they were personal
and based on a fictitious kinship: they devolved
on the issue who were in the testator's power
at his death, and who were potentially possessed
of them even during the ancestor's lifetime
SUDARIUM
SUMPTUARIAE LEGES 723
(Gaius, iii. 58). But the jus patronatus over a
Latinus Junianus could be so bequeathed (Gaius,
ib.), because it was a mere property right, the
freedman becoming a slave again at the moment
of his decease (Inst. iii. 7, 4). Yet in some
rights there may be a successio which cannot
be regarded as of a proprietary nature : e.g. the
pater can transfer his patria potestas by datio in
adoptionem, and in some cases the guardian could
assign his rights of tutela (Gaius, i. 168 sq.).
Real rights, such as ownership, possession,
and jura in re aliena (with the exception of
servitudes), admit of succession of both kinds:
they can be transferred by the appropriate mode
of conveyance inter vivos, and devolve at death on
the heir. No servitudes can be succeeded to
“singularly,” and personal servitudes, being as a
rule mere life interests, were generally excluded
from universal succession upon death : up to the
time of Justinian usus and ususfructus were
destroyed by capitis deminutio of every kind, so
that they could not, before his change in the
law, pass upon a conventio in manum or adrogatio.
Nor can there be any singular succession to
obligations or rights in personam : if the subject
of the right were really changed (by Novatio),
the right itself was changed also; and if the
right were assigned, there was no real change of
subject, but the assignee merely exercised a right
of action which remained vested in his assigner:
upon this subject see OBLIGATIO.
The terms successio, successor, succedere by
themselves have a general meaning and comprise
both kinds of succession. Sometimes they denote
universal succession without any addition,
though where this is so the meaning is usually
clear from the context (e.g. Gaius, iii. 82), but
generally when universal succession is intended
the word universum or some cognate term is
added. Successio signifies the inheritance in many
passages (e.g. “ex testamento successionem
obtinere,” Cod. 6, 20, 1: cf. Cod. 2, 53, 5, 3;
7, 34, 4; 3, 36, 10), and in some even the heirs
(e.g. “Nullam ex priore matrimonio habere
successionem,” Cod. 5, 9, 3, pr. ; ib. 2): “alienas
successiones proprias anteponere * (Cod. 6, 42,
30). In Dig. 28, 2, 23, 1; ib. 29, 4, it denotes
the substitution of a remoter for a nearer heir
(cf. Dig. 38, 9, 1; 50, 17, 194): and in Dig. 20,
3, 3 ; 20, 4, 3, pr. ; ib. 12, 9; ib. 16, the substi-
tution of a subsequent for a prior mortgagee.
(Savigny, System, iii. 8 sq.; Puchta, Institu-
tionen, § 198; Hasse, Ueber Universal und Singu-
lar-Succession, “Archiv für civ, Praxis,” v. 1;
Kuntze, Die Obligationen und die Singular-Succes-
sion im röm. Rechte, Leipzig, 1856.) [J. B. M.]
SUDARIUM, a linen handkerchief, carried
in the hand or in the sinus, answering to our
pocket-handkerchief, but primarily intended, as
the word implies, to wipe the sweat from the
brow or face (Quintil. vi. 3, 60 ; xi. 3, 148). It
was a comparatively modern introduction, when
fine linen came into use at Rome, which may be
placed in the time of Cicero (Cic. Verr. v. 56,
146; Hehn, Kulturpflanzen, 146): with this
agree the mention of the sudarium being used
by Watinius (Quintil. l. c.), and the sudaria
Saetaba (of Spanish linen) spoken of by Catullus
(12, 14; 25, 7). The word is borrowed by
Hellenistic writers as orovčápiov (Luke xix. 20),
for which Pollux (vii. 71) says that the older
names were juvrö8tov (Aristoph. Plut. 729) and
kaptopdºriov. The later name at Rome was
orarium (Vopisc. Aurel. 48), and other less com-
mon names are found, such as facitergium,
manupiarium.
Besides its use for wiping the face, it was
worn round the neck (Petron. 67; Suet. Ner.
51), and was in the later period (as orarium)
waved in the circus to signify applause (Vopisc.
!. c.; cf. karaoſetely rals ööðvais év 6edrpois:
Euseb. H. E. vii. 30), for which the lappet of
the toga had formerly served (Ov. Am. iii. 2, 74).
Göll (Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii. 268) denies that
it was used to wipe the nose, which operation,
he says, was performed in “the most primitive
fashion.” It is difficult to prove or disprove
this as a universal rule; and the passage which
he cites from Mart. vii. 37 is capable of either
interpretation. The word emungo may imply
the use of a handkerchief or the hand alone,
the latter probably in Plautus, and certainly in
Anth. Pal. vii. 134, Diog. Laert. iv. 46: but it
may be questioned whether the use of the
pocket-handkerchief was not coming in under
the Empire, and the passage in Auct. ad Herenn.
iv. 54, 67, seems to imply this even for the
late Republic : that it was so in the time of
Arnobius is clear from the etymology of the
word mucinium, which (ii. 23) he uses as-
orarium. [G. E. M.]
SUDATORIUM. [BALNEAE]
SUFFLA'MEN. (rpoxotré6m, eroxxeds), a
drag to check the wheels of carriages or
waggons (Juv. viii. 148, xvi. 50). It is defined
by the scholiast on the former of these passages
as “vinculum ferreum, quod inter radios mittitur
dum clivum descendere coeperit reda: ” i.e. it
was usually a simple drag chain which locked
the wheel. Rich, however, is mistaken in
making the word Tpoxotréðm an argument for its
being a mere “fetter,” since Athenaeus (iii.
p. 99 c), who quotes that word from Herodes
Atticus, and is the only authority for it, says
that it was a $5Xov 6tabaxxâuevov 61& rôv
Tpoxöv, and goes on to state that the same
£öNov was called étroxAets by Simaristus. We
must therefore suppose that the ancient drag
was sometimes a drag-chain, sometimes a log of
wood attached by two chains so as to check the
wheel, as may be seen in waggons of the present
day. We have no indication of anything like a
“slipper” drag. Casaubon reads émoxets in
the passage of Athenaeus, but the occurrence of
the word pu&Aos in the context favours rather
the other reading. [G. E. M.]
SUFFRA'GIA SEX. [EQUITEs.]
SUFFRA'GIUM. §§ CIVITAs.]
SUGGESTUS, SUGGESTUM mean in
general any elevated place made of materials
heaped up (sub and gero), and is specially applied:
1. To the stage or pulpit from which the orators
addressed the people in the Comitia. [RosTRA.]
2. To the elevation from which a general ad-
dressed the soldiers (Tac. Hist. i. 35; Caes. B. G.
vi. 3). 3. To the elevated seat from which the
emperor beheld the public games (Suet. Jul. 76;
Plin. Paneg. 51), also called cubiculum. [CUBI-
CULUM. [W. S.]
SUGGRUNDA'RIUM. [SEPULCRUM.]
SUI HERE'DES. [HEREs, Vol. I. p. 952.]
SULPURATA. [IGNIARIUM.]
SUMPTUA'RIAE LEGES. Sumptuary
laws are those by which a state attempts to
3 A 2
724 SUMPTUARIAE LEGES
SUMPTUARIAE LEGES
restrict the expenditure of its individual mem-
bers. Occasionally regulations of this kind
were inherent in the very structure of states of
the ancient world, as was the case at Sparta;
but more often their necessity was first felt in
the later period of a nation’s history, when
conquest or commercial contact with the outer
world had raised the standard of comfort of the
people and had created new wants and desires.
This is a necessary consequence of advancing
civilisation; but, as Roscher says, “There is a
limit at which new or intensified wants cease to
be an element of higher civilisation, and become
elements of demoralisation ” (Roscher, Polit.
Econ. ii. p. 221, E.T.), and this was the stand-
point on which the ancient world based its
sumptuary legislation. The main object of it
was to effect an equalisation, regulated by some
standard, in individual life; and although the
definite aim at preserving a normal life amongst
the citizens was most marked in Greek politics
(Arist. Pol. ii. 9, 6; v. 11, 8;-Thuc. i. 6, 4),
yet this attempt at eacaequatio was also an
element in sumptuary legislation at Rome (Liv.
xxxiv. 4). Other objects were to preserve the
financial resources of the state, mainly in accor-
dance with the mercantile theory of ancient
economic legislation (Tac. Ann. ii. 54), to prevent
the aggressions of the rich against the poor from
the avaritia which was a necessary consequence
of luauria (Liv. xxxiv. 4), and to banish the
jealousies and consequent dangers which the
glaring contrast between the lives of rich and
poor inevitably fostered in a city state (Arist.
Pol. iv. 11, 6 and 7; v. 9, 13;-Liv. l.c.).
Sometimes this legislation attempted to remove
definite moral evils, such as drunkenness and
other forms of sensuality, from the community,
in which they were felt to be growing up
(Macrob. iii. 17, 4). The censorship at Rome,
and institutions with similar moral functions
corresponding to it in the Greek states, were
often employed for the restriction of luxury
(Arist. Pol. iv. 15, 13; Gell. xvii. 21, 39).
The sumptuary legislation of Greece was
contained for the most part in the codes of the
great lawgivers. A rhetra of Lycurgus is said
to have forbidden the Spartans to have their
houses made by any more elaborate implements
than the axe and the saw (Plut. Lyc. 13): sim-
plicity of food and clothing was enjoined to the
male members of the population (Plut. de San.
12; Arist. Pol. iv. 9, 8): iron money was ori-
ginally the only coinage in use (Plut. Apophth.
Lac. Lys. 3), and private possession of gold and
silver was forbidden even after these metals were
employed for public purposes (Xen. de Rep. Lac.
7, 6; Plut. Lys. 17). By the laws of Zaleucus
of Locri, we are told, the citizens of that state
were forbidden to drink undiluted wine, except
on the order of a physician, under pain of death
(Athen. p. 429); while simplicity of dress and a
limitation of the number of personal attendants
were also enjoined (Diod. xii. 21). The Solonian
legislation at . Athens contained enactments
against expensive female apparel and ornaments,
particularly those given in the dowry (pepv))
of a bride (Plut. Sol. 20), and against expensive
funerals (Plut. Sol. 21 ; Demosth. in Macart.
p. 1071); there were also laws in force at
Athens which limited the number of guests at
entertainments (Athen. p. 245). Funeral regu-
lations similar to those of Solon, we are told by
Plutarch, existed in his native town of Chae-
ronea (Plut. Sol. 21).
Roman sumptuary legislation was progressive;
it did not originate until a comparatively late
period in the history of the state, and each law
aimed at eradicating some definite and growing
evil. The inefficiency of these laws and the
extreme difficulty of enforcing them are amply
attested (Tac. Ann. ii. 55; Gell. ii. 24, 3; Ter-
tull. Apol. 6), but, even when recognised, were
not sufficient to check further attempts in this
direction. The fact that most of these laws
dealt with the same subject, namely the expenses
of the table, and enjoined very similar restric-
tions, shows how quickly each of them must
have sunk into desuetude.
The earliest sumptuary regulations were those
contained in the Twelve Tables limiting the
expenses of funerals (Cic. de Leg. ii. 23). They
were possibly copied from the similar regula-
tions of Solon.
The LEx OPPIA, passed in 215 B.C., provided
that no woman should possess more than 3 oz.
of gold, or wear a dress of different colours, or
ride in a carriage in the city or within a mile
of it except during public religious ceremonies.
This law, which was dictated by the necessities
of the Punic war, was repealed twenty years
later, in 195 B.C. (Liv. xxxiv. 1–8.; Wal. Max.
ix. 1, 3; Tac. Ann. iii. 33).
The LEx ORCHIA, passed three years after
Cato's censorship, and therefore in 181 B.C., was
the first law that restricted the expenses of the
table. It prescribed a limit to the number of
guests that might be invited to entertainments.
Cato is said to have opposed its introduction
(Festus, s. v. percemetatum), but he also opposed
its repeal in a speech, fragments of which have
been preserved (Macrob. ii. 13, iii. 17; Festus,
S. v. obsonitavere; Schol. Bob. in Cic. pro Sest.
p. 310; Meyer, Orat. Rom. Fragm. p. 91).
This was followed by the LEx FANNIA. The
date is fixed by Pliny (H. N. x. § 71) as 161 B.C.,
although Macrobius places this law twenty-two
years after the Lex Orchia, and therefore in
159 B.C. It was passed in the consulship of
C. Fannius and M. Valerius Messala, and grew
out of a senatusconsultum, which enjoined that
the principes civitatis should swear before the
consuls that they would not exceed a certain
limit of expense in the banquets given at the
Ludi Megalenses. Afterwards a consular law
was promulgated (Sammonicus Serenus ap.
Macrob. iii. 17, 4, “ipsi consules pertulerunt"),
which went further than the Lex Orchia, in that
it prescribed the nature and value of the eat-
ables which were allowed to be consumed. It
permitted the expenditure of 100 asses on the
Ludi Romani, the Ludi plebeii, and the Satur-
malia, and of 30 on some other festival occasions;
but on all other days of the year it allowed
only 10 asses to be spent. Hence Lucilius speaks
of the “Fanni centussis misellos.” It further
forbade the serving of any fowl but a single
hen, and that not fattened. One of its clauses
was of a protective character, since it enjoined
that only native wines should be consumed
(Gell. ii. 24; Macrob. iii. 17; Plin. H. N. x.
§ 71; Tertull. Apol. vi.).
The LEx DIDIA was passed eighteen years
later, in 143 B.C. It was a re-enactment of the .
SUMPTUARIAE LEGES
SUOWETAURILIA 725
Lex Fannia with two alterations. It included
in the penalties of the law not only the giver of
the feast, which violated its regulations, but
also the guests who were present at such a
banquet. And it extended the provisions of the
Lex Fannia to all the Italici, who had been under
the impression that this law applied only to
Rome (Macrob. l.c.).
The LEx LICINIA marks the next attempt at
sumptuary legislation. It is impossible to
assign any certain date to this law. It has
been placed by some as late as the second con-
sulship of Crassus and Pompey, 55 B.C. (Meyer,
Orat. Rom. Fragm.); but Macrobius attributes
it to P. Licinius Crassus Dives, and Gellius places
it between the Lex Fannia and the laws of Sulla.
It probably belongs either to the praetorship or
to the consulship of P. Licinius Crassus, and
therefore approximately either to the year 103
or to the year 97 B.C. It allowed 100 asses to
be spent on the table on certain days, 200 on
marriage feasts, and on certain other festivals
(such as the Calends, Nones, and Nundinae) 30
asses; it fixed a limit to the amount of meat
and fish that was to be consumed on ordinary
days, and encouraged the consumption of garden-
produce. A senatusconsultum enjoined that the
law should come into force as soon as it was
promulgated and before it was confirmed. Lu-
cilius and Laevius commemorated the law, and
Gellius relates that a Latin orator Favorinus
spoke in support of it (Gell. ii. 24, xv. 8;
Macrob. l. c. On the question of the date see
Dict. of Biog., arts. Favorinus and Lucilius).
The general neglect of the preceding laws
(“legibus istis situ atque senio obliteratis,” Gell.
l. c.) caused the LEGES CORNELIAE of the dictator
Sulla to be passed in 81 B.C. He carried a law
restricting the expenses on sepulchral monu-
ments (Cic. ad Att. xii. 35 and 36) and regu-
lating the cost of funerals, which he violated on
the death of his wife Metella (Plut. Sulla, 35).
Another law restricted the luxury of the table,
allowing 30 sesterces to be spent on the Calends,
Ides, Nones, the “dies Ludorum,” and certain
“feriae,” three on all other days (Gell. l.c.; read-
ing with Gronovius “tricenos” and “ternos.”
Hertz reads “tricentenos " and “tricenos ").
A LEx AEMILIA, which probably belongs to
the consulship of Aemilius Lepidus and Q. Luta-
tius Catulus, 78 B.C., did not fix a fresh limit to
expenses, but laid down regulations as to the
kinds and quantities of food. Pliny mentions
certain regulations of this kind as being em-
bodied in a sumptuary law which he refers to
the consulship of M. Aemilius Scaurus, 115 B.C.
(Plin. H. N. viii. § 82: cf. Aurel. Victor, de Vir.
ill. 72); and it is possible that there may have
been two Aemilian laws on the subject.
The LEx ANTIA, which was subsequent to the
last-named law, but cannot be dated precisely,
besides limiting the expenditure on banquets,
also limited the class of persons with whom a
magistrate might dine out during his time of
office (Gell. l.c.).
Next came the LEGES JULIAE. The dictator
Caesar enforced the former sumptuary laws
respecting entertainments, which had fallen into
disuse (Dio Cass. xliii. 25; Cic. ad Fam. ix. 15,
5); they were not attended to during his absence
(Cic. ad Att. xiii. 7), but, during his presence in
Rome, the enforcement of them was rigorous;
guards were placed round the market to seize
forbidden luxuries, and sometimes dishes were
taken from the tables of private individuals
(Suet. Jul. 43). He also passed a law pro-
hibiting the use of litters, of purple garments,
and of pearls, except in the case of persons of
a certain rank or age, or on certain days
(Suet. l. c.).
The Emperor Augustus, in B.C. 22, passed
laws regulating the expenses to be incurred on
ordinary and festal days (Dio Cass. liv. 2, 3;
Suet. Aug. 34). On the former an expenditure
of 200 sesterces was permitted, on the latter an
expenditure of 300, and on marriage festivals of
1000 sesterces; an edict of Augustus or Tiberius
allowed expenses on various festivals to range
from 300 to 2,000 sesterces, the increase in the
permitted expenditure being allowed in the hope
that this concession would secure obedience to
the law (Gell. l.c.).
Tiberius, in spite of his distrust of the effi-
cacy of sumptuary legislation (Tac. Ann. iii.
53, 54), was forced into making regulations to
check the inordinate expenses on banquets (Suet.
Tib. 34; Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 8). To his reign
also belongs a senatusconsultum prohibiting the
use of gold plate, except in sacred rites, and
preventing men from wearing silk (Tac. Ann.
ii. 33; Dio Cass. lvii. 15, 1). Further sump-
tuary regulations checking the expenditure on
food were made by Nero (Suet. Nero, 16);
amongst later emperors Antoninus Pius and
Marcus Aurelius regulated the expenses of
gladiatorial shows (Capitol. Wit. Antonin. 12;
Wit. M. Ant. Phil. 27), and the Emperor Tacitus
again prohibited men from wearing silk, and
forbade the wearing of gold-embroidered gar-
ments (Vopisc. Wit. Tac. 10). It was during
the later Republic and the early Empire that
luxury specially flourished, although the studied
simplicity of the courts of Augustus and Tiberius
must have had some influence in restraining it.
After Galba began a new era of moderation, an
effect which Tacitus traces to the decline of
private fortunes, to the dangers attending the
display of wealth, to the introduction of nová
homines into the senate and into the best society
of Rome, but principally to the influence of
Vespasian, a prince “antiquo cultu victuque *
(Tac. Ann. iii. 55). Other princes whose sim-
plicity of life exercised an influence on the
society of their times were Alexander Severus
and Aurelian (Lamprid. Wit. Sev. 4; Vit. Aurel.
49).
(The loci classici on Roman sumptuary laws
are Gellius, Noctes Atticae, ii. 24, and Macrobius,
Saturnalia, iii. 17. See also Platner, Eaxercit.
II. de legibus sumptuariis Romanis, Lips. 1752.
On the whole subject of sumptuary legislation,
see Roscher's Political Economy, ii. p. 220 (E.T.),
and his article Ueber den Luacus, republished in
the Ansichten der Volkswirthschaft aus dem
geschichtlichen Standpunkte.) [A. H. G.]
SUOVETAURI'LIA, the triple sacrifice of
bull, sheep, and pig, in the old Italian ritual of
lustration [see LUSTRATIO, AMBARVALIA]. The
word solitaurilia is also found, and was explained
at length by Verrius Flaccus (Festus, 293 a) as
having the same meaning; see on this question
Jordan in Preller's Röm. Myth. i. 421. This
sacrifice was doubtless of great antiquity in
Italy, the three animals representing the most
726 SUOWETAURILIA
SUPERFICLES
valuable stock of the old Italian farmer. We
find it in what was probably its original form in
Cato's treatise on Husbandry, where the ritual
is given for the lustration of the farm; the
animals were driven three times round the fields,
and sacrificed with a prayer to Mars. Here we
find not only the sacrifice of the three animals
when full-grown (majora), but also of their
young (lactentia or minora ; cf. Henzen, Acta
Fratr. Arv. p. 143). Next we have the same
ritual applied to towns, as in the Amburbia and
Ambarvalia, and to the lustration of the people
after the census; thus Livy, describing the census
of Servius Tullius (i. 44), says, “Ibi (in Campo
Martio) exercitum omnem suovetaurilibus lus-
travit; idque conditum lustrum appellatum, quia
is censendo finis erat.” The victims were here
driven round the host before sacrifice, as in the
country round the farm. In each case the ideas
lying at the root of the ritual were expiation
and purification; the two being inseparable in
the old Italian mind, which seems also to have
conceived of these religious performances as not
only effective in doing away with evil in the
past, but as at the same time protective against
evil in the future.
The same ritual of the triple sacrifice was
applied (in later times only, we may suppose) to
other religious ceremonies besides the formal
lustration. Thus, in Liv. viii. 10, we find it in
the devotio of Decius; it is here still in close
connexion with Mars, in whose worship it
certainly originated (see Cato, l.c.). So also,
in the sacrifices after the winning of the spolia
opima (Fest. 189), it is mentioned as taking
place in the Campus Martius, and at the altar
of Mars. But the connexion with the religion
of war gradually extended its use to the worship
of other deities in particular aspects: thus we
find it in the triumph, offered to Jupiter and
other deities (Serv. ad Aen. ix. 627; cf. the
triumphal sacrifice on the Column of Trajan).
It was indeed contrary to the old jus pontificium
to sacrifice the suovetaurilia to Jupiter (so
expressly Ateius Capito in Macrob. iii. 10, 3);
and Servius (l.c.) mentions the triumph as the
only exception to the rule. At the laying of
the foundation-stone of the Capitol in Vespasian's
reign (Tac. Hist. iv. 53) the site of the temple
which was to be dedicated to Jupiter, Juno, and
Minerva, was previously lustrated by the
suovetaurilia; but it does not appear certain
that this sacrifice had any direct reference to
those deities.
It may be noted that the history of this rite
runs in exactly parallel lines with that of the
deity with whom it was originally and at all
Suovetaurilia. (Relief in the Louvre.)
times specially connected. As Mars, the agri-
cultural deity, developed a warlike aspect which
eventually became the one by which he was best
known ; so the suovetaurilia, beginning as an
agricultural rite, was later applied to warlike
purposes. And as Mars gradually gave way to
Jupiter and the Capitoline deities, so his ancient
sacrifice came to be transferred to their
worship.
The accompanying cut is from a fine relief
now in the Louvre, formerly in Venice. The
suovetaurilia is also represented on many other
monuments and triumphal arches. [W. W. F.]
SUPERFICIES, SUPERFICIA'RIUS.
The doctrine of the civil as of our own law, in
respect of things attached to the soil, was that
they became part of the soil itself, and so the
property of its owner: “superficies solo cedit.”
(Gaius, ii. 73); “omne quod inaedificatur solo
cedit ’’ (Inst. ii. 1, 29). Hence, if A built on
the land of B, he had no remedy against the
latter if he claimed the land by vindicatio,
unless he was in bonā-fide possession of it him-
self, in which case, by entering the plea of
dolus malus, he was entitled to retain possession
until B would indemnify him for the expense of
building it (Inst. ib. 30). If the land were
built on land held under a lease, it acquired the
name of Aedes Superficiariae (cf. Cic. ad Att. iv.
2, “superficies aedium ”), but was in no way
excepted from the general rule. “Both by Civil
and Natural law,” says Gaius in. Dig. 43, 18, 2,
“it belongs to the landowner;” though, if ejected
against the terms of his agreement, the builder
might of course obtain damages against the
latter, but not restitution, by actio locati. But
owing to historical reasons, as will be seen below,
this species of interest became especially common
at Rome; and where the right had been conceded
by the landowner in perpetuity, or at least for
a very long term, the praetor gave it a “real”
character by entitling the person to whom it
belonged both to real actions and to interdicts;
a change based, according to Ulpian, on con-
siderations of public policy: “sed longe utile
visum est, quia et incertum erat, an locatio
existeret, et quia melius est, possidere potius
quam in personam experiri, hoc interdictum
perponere et quasi in rem actionem polliceri''
(Dig. 43, 18, 1, 1). The ownership of the
proprietor of the soil was not called in question,
but superficies, the interest of the other party,
acquired the character of a jus in re aliena ; and
in Dig. 30, 86, 4, it is actually termed servitus.
The right of the superficiarius, whether it ex-
tended over the whole house or only over a
portion of it (e.g. a flat, Dig. 43, 17, 3, 7), was
heritable (Dig. 43, 18, 1, 7) and alienable both
inter vivos and by will: he could assert it against
any one by whom it was infringed, and not
merely against the owners of the soil (Dig. 30,
86, 4; 39, 2, 19, pr.); had the fullest use of the
building and the servitudes annexed to it; could
pledge and create servitudes over it available
for the duration of his own interest (Dig. 43, 18,
1, 6, 7 and 9; 7, 7, 1, pr. ; 13, 7, 16, 2). The
duties of the superficiarius were in the main
determined by the disposition under which he
acquired his right, and usually comprised the
payment of a ground-rent (solarium) to the
landowner (Dig. 6, 1, 74; 20, 4, 15; 43, 8, 2,
17): he also had to pay all rates and taxes with
which the building as such was chargeable (Dig.
43, 18, 1, 6). For the recovery of the house, if

SUPERFICIES
SUPERSTITIO. 727
dispossessed, he could use in their utilis forms
all the actions which were competent to a
dominus, especially vindicatio, actio Publiciana,
negatoria, and confessoria (Dig. 43, 18, 1, 1, 3
and 6; 6, 1, 73, 1 ; ib. 74, 75; 6, 2, 12, 3): and
against the owner of the soil he could in most
cases bring also personal actions on sale or hire
(Dig. 43, 18, 1, 1). That he had some sort of
possession is proved by his title to interdicts,
though as to its precise nature there is a
difference of opinion. Some writers maintain
that he had representative or derivative pos-
session of the building and the soil as well, but
this is disproved by the landowner's capacity to
use the interdict Uti possidetis (Dig. 43, 17, 3, 7),
for “plures eandem rem in solidum possidere
non possunt " (Dig. 41, 2, 3, 5). That he could
use the interdicts Devi and De precario in their
direct, not witilis forms (Dig. 43, 16, 1, 5; 43,
26, 2, pr. and 3), establishes the view of those
who attribute to him original possession of the
building, and disproves that of others who
credit him with a mere juris quasi-possessio.
The praetor also gave him a special interdict De
superficiebus (Dig. 43, 18, 1, pr. and 2), which
was retinendae possessionis causa, and modelled
after Uti possidetis. There is no evidence that
the praetor required proof of traditio of the
superficies by the dominus to the superficiarius
as a condition of granting the latter his real
action, though some hold that traditio was
essential for the alienation of a superficies al-
ready created (cf. Dig. 43, 18, 1, 7). Of the
modes in which the right of superficies originated
the most important is contract with the owner
of the soil, who by gift, exchange, or lease (Dig.
43, 18, 1, pr. and 3; ib. 2) might permit the
other to build on his land. In Dig. 43, 18, 1, 1,
it is said that it might also arise from sale :
from which it may be inferred that it did not
always originate in the superficiarius’ building
on alienum solum, but that the owner of land
with a house on it might sell or let out the
latter without the soil for a very long term or
in perpetuity: an interest which after causae
cognitio the praetor might treat as a superficies,
it not having been his intention to ascribe civil
possession and real rights to any and every
lessee: “quod ait praetor . . . . causa cognita
. . . . sic intelligendum est, ut si ad tempus quis
superficium conduxerit, negetur ei in rem actio:
et Sane causa cognita ei, qui non ad modicum
tempus conduxit superficiem, in rem actio com-
petit’ (Dig. 43, 18, 1, 3). Besides this, super-
ficies might be created by a legacy in the
landowner's testament (Dig. 30, 86, 4) and by
adjudicatio in a judicum divisorium. Whether it
could be acquired by usucapio is disputed: the
passages bearing on the point are Dig. 6, 2, 12,
3, and 41, 3, 26.
The modes in which superficies was ex-
tinguished are substantially identical with those
in which EMPHYTEUSIS determined, though it is
a moot point here whether the landowner could
evict the superficiarius on non-payment of
solarium for two years: see Dig. 19, 2, 54, on
which the affirmative opinion is based.
The prominence of superficies at Rome is
commonly ascribed to the supposed fact that at
one time all land belonged to the state, which
refused as a general rule to grant ownership in
it to individuals, but was not averse to allowing
them to build on a locus publicus (Dig. 43, 8, 2,
17), an example of which is found in the assign-
ment of the Aventine to the plebs by the Lex
Icilia, B.C. 456 (Dionys. x. 31, 32: cf. Puchta,
Institutionen, § 244, note e). If this was its
origin, there is no doubt that when private
property in land was recognised the precedent
was largely followed by municipal corporations
(of which there is a good instance in an in-
scription of A.D. 193 in Orelli’s Inscriptiones, i.
No. 39; Bruns, Fontes, p. 91 : cf. Zeitschrift
für g. R. xi. 219–238, xv. 335–341) and in-
dividuals; so that in later times it was common
at Rome for the ground on which Insulae were
built to remain the property of the owner of
the soil, while other persons had a jus super-
ficiarium in the different stories, in respect of
which a rent was paid by them to him.
(Gaius, ii. 73–75; Dig. 43, 18; Niegolewski,
de jure Superficiario, Bonn, 1848; Rudorff, Beitrag
zur Geschichte der Superficies, “Zeitschrift fürg.
R.” xi. 219 sq.; Schmid, Handbuch, ii. pp. 57 sq.;
Degenkolb, Platzrecht und Miethe, Beiträge
zu ihrer Geschichte und. Theorie, 1867: to
these may be added Wächter, Das Superficiar-
oder Platzrecht, “Abhandlungen der Leipziger
Juristen-Facultât,” vol. i.) [J. B. M.]
SUPERSTI'TIO. In a certain sense, all
Greek and Roman religion may be reckoned as
superstition: for none of it was free from error.
But it is right to make a distinction between
such religious beliefs and practices as were ac-
companied with lofty thoughts and sound moral
tendencies, and others which were merely male-
volent or foolish. To the latter alone can the
word “superstition ” he properly applied. It
is impossible, however, to draw any sharp line
between religion and superstition; error lies
close to truth on these difficult subjects. How
far acts positively harmful, such for instance as
human sacrifices, were at any time mingled with
the official religion of Greece and Rome, is a
question not easy to decide, nor does it form the
subject of this article. [See SACRIFICIUM ;
OSCILLA; THARGELIA.]
Our subject here is superstition in the sense
of the unlawful and guilty dealing with super-
natural powers, a practice which is ex, vi termini
not religion, and of which the popular name
is witchcraft. We find, it is true, in early
literature the union of medicine with incanta-
tion (Hom. Od. xix. 457; Pind. Pyth. iii. 51),
which lasted, though with less credence from
educated men, into later times (Plat. Charmid.
p. 155 E.; Rep. iv. p. 426 B; Soph. Aj. 582,
with Jebb's note; Hermann-Blümmer, Privatalt.
355; MEDICINA): but this was beneficent ac-
tion and belonged to the medical practice of the
day; and moreover it was to some extent con-
nected with a religious idea of prayer to the
gods for recovery (cf. Pind. l. c.; Plin. H. N.
xxviii. § 10). Of what would strictly be called
witchcraft there is but rarely any mention in
the great Greek authors down to the end of
the 5th century B.G. There is, of course, the
legendary Circe of the Odyssey: but even she is
too much a goddess to be a witch; her powers
are supposed rightfully to belong to her. Medea
comes more near to the idea of a witch (in the
ordinary stories of her, which date as early as
Pherecydes and Simonides, and the author of
the Nógrow as at least the argument to the
728 SUPERSTITIO
SUPERSTITIO
Medea of Euripides affirms); but Medea also is
legendary, and, which also is to be noticed, she
comes of a barbarcus non-Greek race. The
Works and Days of Hesiod is a poem in which
we might certainly expect to find notice of witch-
craft, if it existed in his day; but there is none.
There are indeed some perfectly trivial super-
stitions in Hesiod, parallel to ours of the un-
luckiness of “spilling the salt; ” but of serious
superstition there is none. In Herodotus witch-
craft is just mentioned (ii. 33; iv. 105; vii.
191); but in the two former passages it is men-
tioned in connexion with purely barbarous tribes,
in the last passage in connexion with Persia.
The Magi of Persia are not, properly speaking,
magicians, though the word “magic.” is derived
from them ; they are the priests of a lawful
and regular worship, supposed to enjoy certain
supernatural powers. Neither in Aeschylus or
Sophocles, nor yet in Aristophanes, is there
any mention of witchcraft, though in the
last-named writer there are passages in which
it might most naturally have been intro-
duced ; e.g. a wizard might have been one of
the visitors to Peisthetaerus in the “Birds,”
just as the oracle-monger is ; or again, in the
“Clouds,” Socrates might have been accused of
witchcraft, whereas on the contrary he appears
there as a sort of positivist. In Euripides there
is mention of the yáms (sorcerer) and the étrøðós
(mutterer of incantations, Hippolyt. 1038 ;
Bacch. 234); and the connexion of incantations
with Asia, the “Lydian land,” in the last pas-
sage, is notable, as pointing to the natural home
of magic in the estimation of the Greeks. Yet
the mention is of the barest, in both these pas-
sages. In Antiphon, at the very end of the
5th century, there is the charge of poisoning
brought by a man against his own stepmother;
and the stepmother would seem to have de-
fended herself by alleging that she gave the
poison as a “philtre,” to bring back her hus-
band's love (Antiph. Karmyop. pappak. 9). Here
is an approximation to witchcraft, though of a
mild sort. Plato, again, mentions sorcerers,
e.g. in Symp. 203 D; but the extraordinarily
vague mixture of words in that passage, yāms
kal papparcet's kal oroquoit às (“sorcerer and
poisoner and sophist”) is against the view that
sorcery was a well-developed or specialised
occupation at that date. In another place he
speaks (Gorg. p. 513 A) of the Thessalian women
who “are said " to draw down the moon from
heaven. In [Demosth.] c. Aristogeit. p. 793,
§ 79, we have what is perhaps the earliest
historical instance (apart from the biblical one,
1 Sam. xxviii. 3, 9) of a woman being condemned
to death on the charge of witchcraft; and here,
again, the accusation of poisoning is mixed up
with the more mysterious offence; though, to
the common mind, poisoning was then as
mysterious as witchcraft. It will be observed
that the close of the 5th century, which is the
date when “sorcerers ” begin, however vaguely,
to be mentioned as moving about in Greece, is
exactly the era when that sincere religious belief
which we find in Aeschylus and Pindar begins
to fail, and scepticism, though abhorrent to the
multitude, takes a somewhat wide range among
inquisitive and thinking men. Pliny, indeed
(H. W. xxx. § 1), says that a Persian, Osthanes,
introduced magic into Greece about the time of
the Persian wars; but even if this was so, it
was but a seed that was then sown.
The superstition of the “evil eye ’’ is perhaps
first mentioned in Aristotle, Problem. xx. 34;
though the words Bao katva, and 8&orkavos, in
the sense of “to envy.” or “envious,” occur
frequently before that date, and in very early
writers. (The story of Peisistratus, given by
Hesychius, and mentioned under FASCINUM,
should, however, be noticed.)
It is not till we come to Theocritus, at the
commencement of the 3rd century B.C., that
witchcraft appears in full force, as in the well-
known second idyll of that writer. (For the
remedy of “spitting thrice” for the evil eye,
cf. Theocr. vi. 39.) At this period, the mixture
of religions over that vast area which was
governed by the successors of Alexander, the
weakening of each religion as a separate force,
and yet the inability of men to do without them,
afforded the most favourable possible nidus for
the birth of irregular superstitions.
At Rome, magical arts are mentioned as early
as the laws of the Twelve Tables, which forbid
the “charming-away” of another person's crops.
(cf. Seneca, Quaest. Nat. iv. 7, “et apud nos in
xii tabulis cavetur me quis alienos fructus ex-
cantassit; ” also Apuleius, de Magia, 47; Pliny,
H. N. xxviii. § 17). In 13.C. 329, we find a large
number of Roman matrons accused and con-
demned of the practice of poisoning, and per-
haps witchcraft as well (Liv. viii. 18: the words.
recondita alia should be noticed): the first time,
Livy says, that the offence of poisoning was
known in Roman history. He adds, that it was
regarded as a prodigy, and as a frenzy on the
part of the guilty persons; and to avert similar
catastrophes in future, a dictator was appointed,
who drove a nail into the right-hand wall of the
Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus (this place
is mentioned in vii. 3, where the custom is first.
recorded), an ancient rite, originally adopted
as a method of computing time, but afterwards
employed superstitiously, as a means of warding
off diseases bodily or mental. (See also Liv. ix.
28; Plin. H. N. xxviii. § 63.)
All through Roman history we find amulets
worn to avert the malign influence of witchcraft,
or of the evil eye [AMULETUM ; FASCINUM);
but this difference is noticeable between earlier
and later times, that in the earlier times the
amulet bears the symbol of the indigenous gods
of Italy (Picumnus, Carna, &c.), whereas in the
later times all sorts of foreign gods, Orienta}
and Egyptian, are indicated upon them.
It is when we come to the closing years of the
Roman republic, and to the times of the empe-
rors, that we find the most extraordinary de-
velopment of magical arts which the ancient
world affords. The irreligious character of the
art is then vividly borne in upon us by the fact
that the magician threatens, instead of suppli-
cating, the demons which he invokes (Lucan, vi.
441–492). It is impossible to doubt that at this
period attempts were made to injure enemies,
and to obtain private advantages, through super-
natural means, in such a way as to exhibit
magic as a really malevolent, if not also a male-
ficent, practice. Any injury which it really
effected must have been through the fascination
which it exerted on its victims; and perhaps
such an instance as that in C. I. L. viii. 2756
SUPERSTITIO
SUPPLICATIO 729
may be of this sort : “Eunia hic sita est Fruc-
tuosa. . . . Quae non ut meruit ita mortis sortem
retulit. Carminibus defixa jacuit per tempora
multa, ut ejus spiritus vi extorqueretur [prius]
quam naturae redderetur; cujus admissivel Manes
vel Di caelestes erunt sceleris vindices.” It is
certain that savage tribes have often supplied
examples of the disastrous weakness here sup-
posed. Numerous tablets of contents similar to
the above have been found (C. I. G. 538, 539,
1034, 5858°: in Newton's History of Discoveries
at Halicarnassus, Cnidus, and Branchidae, ii. 719,
and others). The method of witchcraft implied
in the words “carminibus defixa" in the last-
quoted passage speaks for itself. Other methods
were, the writing of the name of obnoxious
persons on tablets, and marking them with
magical signs and characters; the forming of
waxen inlages of a person, and causing them to
melt away or destroying them in some other
gradual manner, in order that the person himself
might share the fate of the image (Verg. Ecl.
viii. 80; Hor. Sat. i. 8, 32); the collection of
magical herbs and animal matter: in this last
we are at the point where magic touches upon
poisoning. Several incantations have been re-
cently found in Cyprus in subterranean tombs
(dating probably from the 1st century A.D.),
which may now be seen in the British Museum.
They consist of thin strips of lead (cf. “plum-
beae tabulae,” Tac. Ann. ii. 69), on which the
incantation is scratched, beginning in some such
way as “karaöéa, So-and-so, his shop and all his
property.” Often words of unintelligible magic
jargon are inserted. The strips have been rolled
up and nailed on the walls within the tomb: in
some cases the material is different, papyrus or
a flat piece of talc. It must be observed that
the essential point was to effect an entrance
into somebody’s tomb, no matter whose ; since
the spirits would then be sure to receive the
message, and work the evil. If the tablet could
be placed in a temenos of the Furies, it might
be laid above ground without so much trouble
or risk of fine [see VECTIGALIA TEMPLORUM ;
TYMBORUCHIA]: but otherwise the interior of a
tomb was the only sure place. The same oppor-
tunity could doubtless be utilised also for
obtaining bones to place under the house of the
doomed man (Tac. l. c.) or use in other ways
(Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 22; cf. Rhein. Mus. xviii. p. 568;
Wessely, Gr. Zauberpapyrus). Besides the
malevolent aims above indicated, magic also had
for its object the obtaining the love of an un-
willing person, the search into futurity, and the
making of gold (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 79).
Few Roman writers from Cicero's time on-
wards are without some mention of witchcraft.
The passages in Virgil and Horace are too well
known for detailed reference. In Juvenal and
Tacitus the astrologers (mathematici) are subjects
of frequent mention (Juv. vi. 562, xiv. 248; Tac.
Hist. i. 22, &c.). The death of Germanicus (Tac.
Ann. ii. 69 sqq.) is one of the most curious
problems in history for the doubt which it affords
as to what exactly caused the fatal result; but,
if we are to believe Tacitus (l.c.), the enemies of
the prince had recourse to imagic as one of the
means of removing him. The notices of magic
in Lucian are well known.
Christian emperors endeavoured, as Pagan
emperors had done, to put down all magical
arts; but the result was by no means equal
to their success in putting an end to the regular
heathen worship (cf. Beugnot, Destruction du
Paganisme, i. 243).
How far the philosophers of Greece and Rome
countenanced magic has been a subject of question.
Of course such persons as Apollonius of Tyana,
whose life is a collection of myths, and Alexander
of Abonotichos, who was an arrant knave, are
not here in question. But when Pliny, fox
instance, affirms that Pythagoras practised
magic, we must, considering all that we know
of Pythagoras from other quarters, withhold our
assent. Indeed, the grounds for affirming it of
any true philosopher are very slight. Aristotle,
according to Origen (c. Cels. i. p. 19), clearly
rejected it. So also did the celebrated physician
Galen (de Simpl. vi.), who laments the disposition
of a certain Pamphilus to go after sorcery and
incantations while picking herbs, and declares
that such practices are entirely outside the art
of medicine.
The principal writers who may be referred to
on this subject are Tiedemann, Dissertatio quae
fuerit artium magicarum origo; Wachsmuth,
Von der Zauberkunst der Griechen und I'êmer, in
the Athenaeum of Berlin (ii. 209 sqq.); Rochas
d’Aiglun, La Science des Philosophes et l’Art des
Thaumaturges dans l’Antiquité, Paris, 1882, &c.;
J. A. Hild, Etude sur les Demons . . . des
Grecs, Paris, 1881; Maury, La Magie et
l'Astrologie dans l’Antiquite, &c., 1860; and
Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, iii. 108 – 114.
To the latter book this article is much in-
debted. [J. R. M.]
SU'PPARUS. The supparus, which by
writers of the Silver age was also called sup-
parum (cf. Studniczka, Beiträge, p. 90, note 68),
was a linen garment worn at Rome in the early
days of the Republic. It was apparently used
by both sexes, though it was a woman's rather
than a man’s garment (cf. Afranius, Epist, p. 180,
ed. Ribbeck, “tace, puella non sum supparo si
induta sum ”). The passage which throws most
light on its shape is that of Lucan, where
speaking of Marcia, Cato's wife, he says:
“Humerisque haerentia primis
Suppara nudatos cingunt angusta lacertos.”
This seems to show that the supparus was a
form of mantle, not a long apron, as a passage
in Nonius (p. 540, 8), which is probably cor-
rupt, tells us. Unfortunately it has not yet
been recognised on any monument.
From a derivation from the Oscan, which
Varro mentions but rejects (L. L. 5, 131), it
has been thought that it was borrowed from the
people of that name. However this may be,
there seens little doubt that it is connected
with siparum and oriqapos (a sail), and through
them with pāpos. This derivation is corro-
borated by the fact that they are all of linen,
and by the curious coincidence that påpos also
was a name both for mantles, sails, and linen
cloth generally. (Studniczka, p. 90 ft. ; Iwan
Müller, Handbuch, pp. 876, 927; Marquardt,
Privatleben, p. 484.) [W. C. F. A.]
SUPPLICA"TIO. A religious rite, or series
of rites, decreed with two different objects:
viz., 1, as a solemn act of thanksgiving to the
gods on account of a victory or successful
campaign; or 2, as an act of humiliation, on
730 i SUPPLICATIO
SYCOPHANTES
account of some calamity, actual or impend-
ing, such as pestilence or defeat, or oftener on
account of the occurrence of prodigies and
portents, which were supposed to threaten evil
to the state.
When a supplicatio was decreed in the sense
of a thanksgiving, the procedure was as follows:
—The senate was consulted by a magistrate,
and authorised the consuls to issue an edict
fixing the number of days over which it should
extend, and other necessary particulars, such as
whether it should be confined to the city only,
or should take place throughout the extent of
the Tribus Rusticae also, or even in the allied
Italian communities; and to what god or gods
special adoration should be paid (cf. Liv. xxvii.
51, xxxiv. 42, xl. 28, xlv. 3; Cic. Phil. xiv.
14, 37, where the senatorial decree is given in
full; in this last case in the absence of both
consuls, as in many others, the edict is to issue
from the Praetor urbanus). This method of
procedure was continued even under the Empire
(Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. 2, 1061, hote 6).
A supplicatio, in the sense of prayer and
expiation, was also set on foot by senatorial
decree; but in this case the magisterial edict
(indictio) was based on the advice of a college
of priests (cf. Mommsen, l. c.). In simple
matters of expiation the senate would refer the
question to the pontifices, who decreed the
necessary simple piacula, according to old Roman
custom (Liv. xxiv. 44, 9; xxx. 38, 9), in the
form of a novendiale sacrum or obsecratio (Mar-
quardt, Staatsv. iii.” 260); but in difficult
matters, as for example where the meaning of a
portent is doubtful, they refer the question to
the keepers of the Sibylline books [DECEMVIRI
SACRIS FACIUNDIs], who, after consulting the
books, advise a supplicatio, sometimes with the
addition of a fast (jejunium) or of a novendiale
sacrum (Liv. xxxvi. 37). In one instance at
least, Livy represents a supplicatio, in this case
of one day only, as resulting from a decree of
the PoWTIFICES (Liv. xxvii. 37; cf. xxxii. 1,
where he makes the haruspices take the place of
the keepers of the Sibylline books). It does not
therefore seem certain that in every instance an
expiatory supplicatio was the result of an
examination of the sacred books; but in the
majority of cases it was so, and the ritual of the
<eremony must be considered as closely bound
up with the Greek forms of religious usage,
introduced into Rome through the instrumen-
tality of the books and their interpreters [see
LIBRI SIBYLLINI].
The development of the rites of supplicatio in
the course of Roman history cannot be traced
with certainty. The elaborate ritual of the
Lectisternia, which formed the chief part of an
expiatory supplicatio, as well as (in later times
at least) of those which were decreed as thanks-
givings (Cic. Phil. xiv. 14, 37), belonged to an
age in which Greek deities and Greek worship
had made their way into the Roman state [see
LECTISTERNIA]. All the prominent features of
the Lectisternia were Greek: the reclining
position of the images of the gods; the pros-
tration of the worshippers, and the garlands
they wore. Was there a purely Italian germ
on which this foreign ritual had engrafted itself?
Such a germ may perhaps be found in the
Italian piaculum or expiatory sacrifice, which
was capable of being extended in length and
importance in the case of either periodical lus-
tration or of alarming prodigia, and was often
accompanied by processions and other rites, as
we see it in the great ritual inscription of
Iguvium (Tab. vi. Bücheler, Umbrica, pp. 42
foll.). Some even of the features of the lecti-
sternia may possibly be traced to an Italian
origin (Preller, }. Myth. i.* 150): Varro, e.g.,
tells us (ap. Serv. ad Aen. x. 76) that at the
birth of a child a couch was spread in the
atrium of the house for Picumnus and Pilumnus
—deities whose antiquity is some guarantee
for that of the practice; and in the domestic
worship of the Lares it was customary to set
apart for them a part of each meal, and to use
wine, incense, and garlands (Marquardt, iii. 128).
Again, the obsecratio, which often formed a part
of the general ritual of the supplicatio (as in
Liv. iv. 21, 5; xxvii. 11), and which consisted of
a formal prayer led by the priests and repeated
by the people, in contradistinction to the prayers
and prostrations of the Graecus ritus, where
everyone prayed on his own behalf, betrays a
genuine Italian character. But as the Greek
spirit entered more and more into religious
usage, not only the ordinary features of the
lectisternia, but elaborate processions of singing
virgins, and other such rites as are described in
Liv. xxvii. 37, were added to the ordinary
ceremony of the supplicatio.
A supplicatio in early times lasted from one
to five days (Liv. iii. 63, 5 ; v. 23; x. 23; xxi.
8). Later on, in proportion as it lost the reality
of its religious meaning, its length increased to
ten, fifteen, twenty, and even fifty days; but in
these cases it seems always to have been a
ceremony of thanksgiving, and not of expiation.
A supplication of ten days was first decreed in
honour of Pompeius at the conclusion of the
Mithridatic war (Cic. de Prov. Cons. 11, 27), and Y
one of fifteen days after Caesar's victory over
the Belgae, an honour which Caesar himself
says had never been granted to anyone before
(Caes. B. G. ii. 35). Later a supplicatio of
twenty days was decreed after his conquest of
Vercingetorix (B. G. vii. 90). From this time
the senate seems to have frequently increased
the length out of mere compliment to the
general (Dio Cassº Xliii. 14 and 42; Cic. Phil.
xiv. 14, 37). In these cases it was of course
impossible that all the days should be public
holidays [FERIAE]; nor does it seem likely that
at any period a supplicatio necessarily implied a
holiday (Liv. iii. 5; xl. 28). A supplicatio was
in the last age of the Republic usually regarded
as a prelude to a triumph, but it was not always
followed by one, as Cato reminds Cicero in a
letter, after a supplicatio had been decreed in
his honour during his proconsulship in Cilicia
(Cic. ad Fam. xv. 5). The same honour was
conferred upon Cicero on account of his sup-
pression of the conspiracy of Catiline; this
being the first occasion on which it had been
awarded to any one acting in a civil capacity
[ToGATUs], as he frequently takes occasion to
mention (Cat. iii. 6, 10; in Pis. 3, 6; Phil. ii.
6, 13). W. W. F.]
SYCOPHANTES (avkopávrms). Plutarch
(Sol. 24) explains ovico pavréïv as the informing
against a man for exporting figs, and refers to
an ancient law forbidding the export. [Different
SYCOPHANTES
SYCOPHANTES 731
reasons have been suggested for this prohibition:
some say that the Athenians wished to keep this
fruit to themselves (Ister fr. 35=Athen. iii.
p. 74 e); others that the law was passed at the
time when the fruit had only just been dis-
covered (Schol. Plat. de Rep. i. p. 340 D ;
Photius and Suid. s. v. ovkopavreºv; cf. Schol.
Aristoph. Plut. 874), probably in order to
increase its cultivation in Attica.] Boeckh
(Sthh.. i.” p. 55) prefers to connect ovkoºpavtsºv
with information against the stealing, not the
exporting of figs, and suggests that the term may
either have arisen out of charges brought by
informers against persons who in some time of
famine had robbed the sacred fig-trees, or that,
since the theft of fruit in general was punished
with great severity at Athens (Alciphr. Epist.
iii. 40), it was in time applied to all those who
brought such charges, which came to be looked
upon as vexatious and harsh. Lancelot Shad-
well (in a commentary on Luke iii. 14) rejects
these explanations: “The first and obvious
meaning of a vicopévrms is not one who shows
up them that export figs or steal figs, but one
who discovers figs.” Starting from Photius'
explanation of ore?oral as a vicopavrāgal,—&Trb row
Tà &kpóðva aetóvrov. Tº Mekxetöms 'Appuktüoo’iv.
&AA’ &s trävrov &aróv Agarot o'efo'ai kal trpoo-
acañégavres trađoraq'6e Suków &AAmAoq d'yov (Mein.
Fr. Comic. ii. p. 364). Aparoqāvms Aalta-
Aeja tv. čaetov: firovy xpäuar” hºreſaouv trgaiv
&ovicoq durovv (ii. p. 1040, fr. 20), he supposes
“that the usage of oretely in the sense of
extorting money was derived from the notion of
shaking fruit trees, and that the common notion
of ovkoqavºreſv was also derived from the same
source. Xetely kai ovkodavreºv(Antiph. de Saltat.
§ 43) describes the operation of one who shakes
a fig-tree in order to discover the fruit; for by his
shaking the fig-tree, all the ripe figs are made to
fall off. When these words are transferred to
the business of an informer, oretely means to
agitate a man by threatening to inform against
him, and ovkopavºreºv means to discover his
money; i.e. to make him pay a large sum
of money in order to escape from the vexation
of a lawsuit. Thus a man’s money is called
his ‘figs,’ a rich man is said to be ‘full
of fruit, one who bleeds easily is said “to be
ripe,’ and to extort money from a man is called
‘plucking his figs’: e.g. Aristoph. Equ. 324, 259,
etc.” +
Whatever the term may have signified ori-
ginally, it came to be applied to all ill-natured,
malicious, groundless, and vexatious accusations;
it is defined by Suidas, rb pew86s rivos katm-
‘yopetv.
Sycophantes, in the time of Aristophanes and
Demosthenes, designated a person of a peculiar
class, not capable of being described by any single
word in our language, but well understood and
* A quite different explanation is suggested by Zeno-
dorus (tàv trepi orvyněsías &muropah in Miller, Mélanges
de Littérature grecque, p. 412) : púoruſſiav obv čxovres
ot 'A9mvaſot eis to trparot (l. Trpiotov) attoi AaBeiv
orjkov, kai irpos &yaôoi, otovow towto tw8éuevot eis roës
&ypots weakórevov kai eis rās ovkas Kºroivres Ti
Trémeupóv rustóou' kai ro Mév trporov ovkoorkótros ékAñ0m
& 9eopjoras airo trpióros, iſ a repov 8é avkołóvrms, &to
roº bival ro airov kai &AAots 8etéal. 6 youv treptépyws
&xov rept rois &AAorpiows 8:ovs kai akoretſov kai éu-
davišov avkoſbävrms ékAñ6m.
appreciated by an Athenian. He had not much
in common with our sycophant, but was a happy
compound of the common barretor, informer, petti-
fogger, busybody, rogue, liar, and slanderer. The
Athenian law permitted any citizen (row BovX6-
wevov) to give information against public offen-
ders, and prosecute them in courts of justice
(Plut. Sol. 18). This was done to encourage the
detection of crime, and a reward (e.g. rā āuform
Töv pav0évrov, [Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1325, § 13;
C. J. A. ii. No. 203 b, etc.;-rà rpía uépm & £ic
Töv vénøv tá ióidºrm tº &roypdjavri yºyveral,
Dem. C. Nicostr. p. 1247, § 2, etc.) was frequently
given to the successful accuser. Such a power,
with such a temptation, was likely to be abused,
unless checked by the force of public opinion, or
the vigilance of the judicial tribunals. Unfor-
tunately, the character of the Athenian demo-
cracy—and we may say of any democracy, Plut.
Timol. 37—and the temper of the judges, fur-
nished additional incentives to the informer
(Isocr. c. Callim. §§ 9, 10; Xenoph. Mem. iv.
8, 5; see, however, Hyper. pro Eual. c. 45).
Eminent statesmen, orators, generals, magistrates,
and all persons of wealth and influence, were
regarded with jealousy by the people. The
more causes came into court, the more fees
accrued to the judges, and fines and confiscations
enriched the public treasury. The prosecutor
therefore in public causes, as well as the plaintiff
in civil, was looked on with a more favourable
eye than the defendant, and the chances of suc-
cess made the employment a lucrative one (éy-
'YAarro'yaa’rópov yévos, Aristoph. Av. 1695 ft. ;
(iv čk row ovkoqavreiv, Isocr. de Permut. § 164;
Xenoph. Hell. ii. 3, 12, etc.). It was not always
necessary to go to trial, or even to commence
legal proceedings. The timid defendant was glad
to compromise the cause, to escape the annoy-
ance and anxiety of a public trial, or to save his
reputation, for not to have prosecuted nor to have
been prosecuted was a much-coveted distinc-
tion (Lys. de Affect. Tyran. Apol. § 3; Isocr. c.
Euthyn. §§ 5, 8; Plut. Comp. Nic. c. Crasso, 1;
Lys. c. Eratosth. § 4, pro Mantith. § 12; Isae.
Cleon. § 1 ; Hyperid. pro Lycophr. c. 14, etc.).
When Lycurgus bought off an information for a
talent, and Was charged with this, he said he was
much pleased that, after having administered the
affairs of the state for so long a time, he was
accused rather of giving than of receiving
([Plut.] Witt. X. Oratt. p. 842 B). Rich people
who were especially the prey of these informers
tried to be on good terms with them (9eparewelv,
Xenoph. Symp. 4, 29 f.). When Crito com-
plained to Socrates, that for a man who wished
to mind his own business it was difficult to live
at Athens,—that at this very time people were
bringing actions against him, not because they
had suffered any wrong from him, but because
they thought that he would rather pay them a
sum of money than have the trouble of law pro-
ceedings, Socrates advised him to secure the
services of a man skilled in the law, to defend
him against them; Crito did so and lived
henceforth in peace (Xenoph. Mem. ii. 9).
There was another source of income for these
sycophants: they laid informations against people
for money, e.g. Cephisius received 1000 drachmas
from Callias for laying an information against
Andocides (Andoc. de Myst. § 121). Thriving
informers found it not very difficult to procure
732 SYCOPHANTES
SYLAE
witnesses: according to Theopompus (Athen. vi.
p. 254 b), Athens was full of Stovvaokoxákov...
&rt 5& jevöopaprápov kal avicoqavröv kal pew-
Sokanrhpov. The character of the ovkopäviral
will be best understood by the examples and de-
scriptions found in the Attic writers. Aristo-
phanes directs the keenest edge of his satire
against them. (See particularly Acharn. 818 ft.;
Av. 1410ff.; Plut. 850 ft.) Demosthenes says:
trovnpöv 6 ovkoq àvrms àel kal travtaxó6ev Kal
Sáakavov kal pixatriov (de Cor. p. 307, § 242;
cf. c. Eubul. p. 1309, § 34). Xukopavretv
Tpudkovra uvås in Lysias (c. Evand. § 24) signi-
fies “to extort thirty minas by sycophant-
like practices.” (See further Aeschin. de F. L.
§ 145; Dem. de Cor. p. 291, § 189, etc.)
That the increase of litigation and perjury was
in some measure owing to the establishment of
clubs and political associations, and the violence
of party spirit, may be gathered from various
passages of the Attic writers (Thuc. viii. 54,
£vvopoatal émil Štraus kal &pxats; Dem. c. Boeot.
i. p. 995, § 2 = ii. p. 1010, § 9, Épyaorthplov
oruko pavrāv; cf. c. Zemoth. p. 885, § 10; c.
Pantaen. p. 978, § 39; c. Theocr. p. 1335, $42).
The Athenian law did indeed provide a remedy
against this mischievous class of men. There
was a ypaſp?) ovkoqavrias tried before the Thes-
mothetae (Poll. viii. 88, 46; the title of Lysias’
speech against Aeschines was not repl avkoqrav-
tías, as Diog. Laert. ii. 63 says, but repl xpéas :
cf. Sauppe, Oratt. Att. ii. p. 251). Any person
who brought a false charge against another, or
extorted money by threat of legal proceedings,
or suborned false witnesses to give evidence that
a summons had been served (Boeckh, Kleine
Schriften, iv. p. 4), was liable to this ypaq.f.
He might also be proceeded against by eioray-
'yexia, trpoSoxh, or paaſis (Isocr. de Perm. § 314;
Poll. viii. 47). The trial was an āyöv runtás
(Lys, c. Agorat. § 65, a fine of 10,000 drachmas:
cf. Harpocr. s. v. Traxlvaíperos ; &tipoi ék ovko-
q'avttas, Aeschin. de F. L. § 177, cf. Hyper, pro
Euz. c. 44—according to Heraldus, Anim. p. 555,
capital punishment was the rule, but Andoc. de
Myst. § 20 applies to a false uſivuorus, not to a
"paph ovkoq'avttas).” Besides this, if any man
brought a criminal charge against another, and
neglected to prosecute it (érečex9eiv), he was
liable to a penalty of 1000 drachmas, and lost
the privilege of instituting a similar proceeding
in future, which was considered to be a species
of &tipita ([Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1323, § 5 f.; Lev.
Rhet. Cantabr. p. 669, 20 f.; Dem. c. Mid. p. 548,
§ 103: when a paorus against a merchant was
not prosecuted, the punishment of the accuser
was specially severe, [Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1324,
§ 10 f, cf. Heffter, Ath. Gerichtsverf. p. 199).
The same consequence followed if he failed to
obtain a fifth part of the votes at the trial (Dem.
c. Androt. p. 601, § 26 ; p. 647, § 80, etc.) ex-
cept in an eioray yeXta kakóorews (Isae. Pyrrh.
$47; Dem. c. Pantaen. p. 980, $46), in a charge
for destroying a sacred olive (Lys. pro Sacra
Olea, § 37), and in an eiorayyeata for political
* Charondas ordained rotºs émi ovkoſhavrig karayvoor-
6évras reputrateſv ča reqavouévous pupikm (Diod. Sic.
xii 12); and Tennes, rots rà llevóñ karmyopodarty
&moróev trapearával rôv Šipºvov tréaekuv impuévov ºs
#Aeyx6évras trapaxpāua &vatpetabat (Suid. Tevé8tos
ãv6poros).
offences up to a certain time, after which the
unsuccessful accuser was made liable to a fine of
1000 drachmas without incurring &ripta (Poll.
viii. 53). The time when this change took place
can only be approximately fixed. The accuser
was āktvövvos at the date of Hyperides’ speech
pro Lycophr. (c. 7, 10); but when Demosthenes
was assailed in the period following the disaster
of Chaeronea by every kind of legal engine that
could be brought to bear upon him, the accuser
became liable to a penalty (and this was most
likely the one mentioned by Pollux and Har-
pocration, viz. 1000 drachmas), or Demosthenes’
prominent mention of the fact of his accusers
having not received to uépos róv iſ fiq,wy would
be pointless (de Cor. p. 310, $250, oikoúv év učv
ois eiomy)exdumv 3ré à meiºmpigeoffé uov kal to
Aépos róv liq ww roſs Suákova'u oë uéteåtåore,
etc.). The same fine was incurred if any man
denounced a scrutiny against an orator and failed
to obtain one-fifth of the votes (Dem. c. Androt.
p. 599, § 21; p. 600, § 23). The étraflexia in
civil actions was a penalty of the same kind
and having the same object: viz. to prevent the
abuse of legal process, and check frivolous and
unjust actions. Such were the remedies pro-
vided by law, but they were found inefficacious
in practice; and the words of Aristophanes
(Plut. 885) were not more severe than true:
“There is no charm against the bite of a
sycophantes” (Drumann, d. Arbeiter u. Commu-
nisten in Griechenl. pp. 96-105; Büchsenschütz,
Besitz w. Eriterb, p. 568 f.; Att. Process, ed.
Lipsius, p. 297 n. 285, pp. 413 ff., 914 f., 952 f.,
245). [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SYLAE (arºxal). When a Greek state declared
war against another (Xen. Hell. v. 1, 1 and
Schol. ; Dem. c. Mid. p. 570, § 173; Dem. c.
Timocr. p. 703, § 12, and Wayte’s note, etc.), or
when it or any of its members had received am
injury or insult from some other state or some
of its members, and the former was unwilling,
or not in a condition, to declare open war, it
was not unusual to give a commission or grant
public authority to individuals (who sometimes
formed a kind of company : oi émi Aetav oixduevot,
Dig. iv. de Coll. [ERANI]) to Imake reprisals.
This was called a 5xas or a WAa 616óval Tivl kata.
Tivos (Dem. c. Lacrit. p. 931, § 26; Bekk. Anecd.
p. 303, 27: a 0xa 500val katē rās XaAkmöovíay
tróAews étriypdipal Tāv tróAlv Amateñoral) or
Adqupov Čirikmpêtreuv, Édoua karayyéAAelv rivi
(Polyb. iv. 26, 36, 53, etc.). Suidas explains
a 5xas by a vAA#vels (cf. schol. Dem. c. Lacrit.
p. 927, and Etym. M. s. v. orj}\al). Scheibe
(Jahrb. f. class. Philol. Suppl. i. p. 352 f.) dis-
tinguishes thus between ord Aal and ordxa:
“oroxov valere praedam ipsam, a 5xas autem
pignora quae ob pecuniam debitam auferantur
(fere i. q. §§oria); ” but see [Arist.] Oecon. ii.
p. 1347 (ii. 10 Didot), ordNow éxeiv kará Tuos.
Thus, when the Lacedaemonians thought the
Athenians had broken the treaty with them by
making incursions from Pylus, they issued a
proclamation that any of their subjects might
commit depredations on the Athenians (Amtſeo 6al
toūs ‘A6mvalovs, Thucyd. v. 115). In Lys. c.
Nicom. § 22, we read Bowroës orixas trotovuévows,
because the Athenians were unable to repay two
talents which the Boeotians had probably ad-
vanced to the Athenian exiles (for the support
given to these, cf. Lys. fr. 78; Dinarch. c. Dem.
SYLLOGEIS
SYMBOLAEON 733
$25). Demosthenes (de Coron. Trierarch. p. 1232,
§ 13) declares that the deputy-captains of tri-
remes so misbehaved themselves in foreign
countries, plundering everybody they came near,
that no Athenian could travel safely 81& ràs irrö
toūrwv čvápoxmºſas kal at Aas karea kevaguévas,
where àvöpoxmiſtas refers to the arrest of the
person, a úAas to the seizure of goods (see also
de Cherson. p. 96, §§ 25, 28). In the vauruk)
gvyypaqº) in the speech of Demosthenes (c.
Lacrit. p. 927, § 93), one of the conditions is
that goods may be landed only 3rov &v uh ori Aal
&oiv 'A0mvatois, i.e. wherever the Athenians
have no rights of reprisal, and where therefore
Athenian ships in their turn were not in danger.
When any booty was taken by Athenian subjects,
the people of Athens reserved to themselves the
right of determining whether it was lawfully
taken, whether it ought to be kept or restored,
and what should be done with it (Dem. c.
Timocr. p. 703, § 12, Ös &toxelpotovão ab' jue's
Au}, bíAta elval, cf. argumentum, p. 695 f.;
Minerva of the Parthenon received the tithe,
p. 741, § 129, cf. Lys. c. Polystr. § 24; Boeckh,
Sthh.. i.” p. 399). The same practice prevailed
in other cities, e.g. in Chalcedon: Ötrép 8& Tów
ovXóvötebukáoravro toſs 6% uh Sukata's orvXm6eſouv
# tróxis &to róv trpooráčov &teåtåov, [Arist.]
Oecon. ii. p. 1347. It would seem that special
treaties were made between states for the pro-
tection of property against reprisals: thus the
covenant between Oeanthia and Chaleion (Ran-
gabé, Ant. Hellen. No. 356 b = Hicks, Gr. Histor.
Inscr. No. 31) prevented either state from
• injuring foreign merchants whilst visiting the
other's port, and gave moreover certain rules for
the court at either city before which a foreigner
who had unjustly suffered seizure might get
redress (cf. Bull. d. Corresp. hell. ix. p. 162).
Sometimes as a special privilege àorvXía was
granted to individuals: C. I. A. ii. No. 46, cf.
C. I. G. No. 2056, efortſNovs kai ékirAovs kal
troAéuov kai eipſiums &avàel kal &o movöeſ, etc.
The theatrical artists enjoyed it: cf. C. J. A. ii.
No. 551, l. 19 ft. : a) éééorra, 5è pimõevl &yetv
Töv Texvírav pºſite troAéuov pºſite eipävns uměč
ovXav traju &v xpéos éxwv tróAet f itóxpews
ſcal éâv ióſg iótárov Štróxpews 6 texvttas: 1.84,
Amö& ovXav uměš Āvoridgew: cf. Le Bas, As. Min.
No. 84, &avXta kal &a pāAeta ka9&s kal roſs
Atovvoriakofs Texvírats. The Athenian grain
fleet was usually accompanied by a convoy of
men-of-war to protect them against the priva-
teers (Dem. de Cor. p. 251, § 77; c. Polycl.
p. 1211, § 17). The ancient practice may be
compared with the modern one of granting
letters of marque. (Salmasius, de Mod. Usur.
p. 211 ff. ; R. Dareste, Revue des Etudes Gree-
ques, 1889, p. 305 ft. ; Büchsenschütz, Besitz und
Erw. p. 543 ff.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SY'LLOGEIS (orvXAoyeſs), collectors, the
name of two distinct offices at Athens. 1. The
orvXAoye's toū āfinov, or Collectors of the People,
seem to have been thirty members of the senate
(Bouxevrat) chosen annually, three from each
tribe; the three who were Prytanes for the
time being acted as presidents. It is further
conjectured with great probability that they
were identical with the thirty assistants of the
Lexiarchi, mentioned as checking the attendance
at the assembly (ECCLESIA, p. 698 b ; Köhler,
Mitth, des Archäol. Inst. vii. 102 ft. ; Fränkel on
Boeckh, notes 394, 430). They had also duties
in connexion with the state festivals. In the
important inscription of 334 B.C. respecting the
DERMATIKON (C. I. A. ii. 741, Boeckh, Sthh.* ii.
107 ff.) they are associated with the Boöval,
étruexntal rôv Atovvariov, and isporouot, and
recorded to have paid in 721 drachmas from the
Olympia (properly 'Oxvuriela, as in the Inscr.;
cf. OLYMPIA, p. 273 b). 2. There were also
avXAoyeſs appointed as special commissioners,
like the advölkot and Čntm'rat [SYNDICUs ;
ZETETAE], to make lists of the confiscated pro-
perty of oligarchs and bring it into the trea-
sury (Isae, ap. Harpocr. s. v.; Lea. Seguer.
p. 304, 4, oitives &meypdqovro ràs ovarías rāv
Öxtyapxuków). Schömann thinks that they were
appointed only on one particular occasion, after
the expulsion of the Thirty; and the gram-
marian who writes &meypdºpovro may easily
have mistaken this for a general rule (Schömann,
Assemblies, p. 317 = 301 tr. Paley; Meier, de
Bon. Dumn. p. 206; Att. Process, p. 125 Lips. ;
cf. pp. 310, 759, 959). Boeckh does not distin-
guish the two kinds of ovXAoyefs (P. E.
p. 158, 215 = Sthh.*i. 192, 272). [W. W.]
SYMBOLAEON, SYNALLAGMA, SYN-
THE'CE (orvºgóAatov, ovváAAayua, ovv6%km)
are all words used to signify a contract, but are
distinguishable from one another. XuubéAatov
is used of contracts and bargains between private
persons, and peculiarly of loans of money: thus
orvuòaxeſv eis rāvāpātroča is to lend upon the
security of the slaves, Dem. c. Aphob. p. 822,
§ 27, cf. Isae. Aristarch. § 10;—Dem. c. Zenoth.
p. 884, § 7; c. Phorm. p. 907, § 1 ; c. Timoth.
p. 1185, § 2; c. Dionysod. p. 1284, § 4).
>vvāAAayua signifies any matter negotiated or
transacted between two or more persons, whether
a contract or anything else (Dem. c. Onet.
p. 867, § 12; p. 869, § 21 ;-c. Apat. p. 896,
§ 12;—c. Timocr. p. 760, § 192; p. 766, § 213).
>vv8.hkm is used of more solemn and important
contracts, not only of those made between private
individuals, but also of treaties and conventions
between kings and states (Thuc. i. 40, v. 18,
viii. 37; Xen. Hell. vii. 1, 2; Dem. de Rhod. lib.
p. 199, § 20; c. Aristog. i. p. 774, § 16, etc.).
Here we may observe, that ovv67kai is mostly
used in the plural, instead of ovv6%km, the only
difference being, that strictly the former signifies
the terms or articles of agreement, in the same
manner as Staffākat, the testamentary dispositions,
is put for 6taôňkm, the will. Evupoxal and later
oriºu50Xa (Harpocr. s. v.) signified originally a
compact between two states, in late Greek
between two private persons [SYMBOLON, DIKAI
APO).
As to the necessity or advantage of having
written agreements between individuals, see
SYNGRAPHE. National compacts, on account of
their great importance, and the impossibility of
otherwise preserving evidence of them, were
almost always committed to writing, and com-
monly inscribed on pillars or tablets of some
durable material (Thuc. v. 23, 47: see Aristoph.
Acharn. 727). Upon a breach, or on the ex-
piration, of the treaty, the pillars were taken
down (Dem. pro Megalop. p. 209, § 27).
For breaches of contract various actions were
maintainable at Athens: (1) in a general way
avufloxalov (Lys. de Pec. Publ. § 3, Aax&v 6
rathp travros roi avu}oxalov'Epagatpárq), or
734 SYMBOLON
SYMBOLON
ovvönköv trapafláorews 6ticm (Poll. vi. 153; viii.
31); (2) more specially xpéovs (Poll. viii. 31),
wherever a debt had become due by reason of
some previous contract ; (3) épyvptov (Bekk.
Anecd. p. 201, sub fin. ;-Dem. c. Boeot. i.
p. 1002, § 25; c. Olympiod. p. 1179, § 45); Cal-
lippus brought this action against Apollodorus,
because the latter's father, the banker Pasion,
had paid over a certain sum of money deposited
with him by Lycon of Heraclea to Cephisiades
instead of to Callippus, the proxenus of Heraclea.
(4) & popuis (Dem. pro Phorm. p. 943, argument.
and p. 948, § 12: cf. Caillemer, Le Contrat de
prét & Athènes, p. 28 ft.). Apollodorus brought
this suit against Phormio, claiming after his
father’s death a sum of twenty talents alleged
to have been transferred to Phormio by his
father as part of the working capital of the
business; and (5) 8x48ms, e.g. the action against
Dionysodorus for the non-fulfilment of a contract
([Dem.] c. Dionysod. p. 1291, § 27). The main
point of difference might be this: that in a
general action for breach of contract, the plain-
tiff went for unliquidated damages, which the
court had to assess; whereas, upon a claim to
recover a debt or certain sum, the court had
nothing more to do than to determine whether
the plaintiff was entitled to it or not; the āyāv
was āºrtumºros. All such actions were tried
before oi retrapákovra (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius,
pp. 675 f., 697 f.; p. 220 f.). [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SY'MBOLON, DIKAIAPO (Stical &mb orvu-
Böxov). The ancient Greek states had no well-
defined international law for the protection of
their respective members. In the earlier times
troops of robbers used to roam about from one
country to another, and commit aggressions upon
individuals, who in their turn made reprisals,
and took the law into their own hands. Even
when the state took upon itself to resent the
injury done to its members, a violent remedy
was resorted to, such as the giving authority to
take of Aa, or §§oria, a sort of national distress.
As the Greeks advanced in civilisation, and a
closer intercourse sprang up among them, dis-
putes between the natives of different countries
were settled (whenever it was possible) by
friendly negotiation. It soon began to be
evident, that it would be much better, if, in-
stead of any interference on the part of the state,
such disputes could be decided by legal process,
either in the one country or the other. Among
every people, however, the laws were so framed
as to render the administration of justice more
favourable to a citizen than to a foreigner; and
therefore it would be disadvantageous, and often
dangerous, to sue a man, or be sued by him, in
his own country. The most friendly relation
might subsist between two states, such as ovu-
paxſa or émi'yapita, and yet the natives of each
be exposed to this disadvantage in their mutual
intercourse. To obviate such an evil, it was
necessary to have a special agreement, declaring
the conditions upon which justice was to be
reciprocally administered. International con-
tracts of this kind were called orāpiś0Aa, in older
language ºvufloxaſ (0. I. A. iv. No. 96, l. 4;
ii. No. 11, l. 13, etc.), defined by Harpocration
(s. v.) thus, guv67kat &s &v &AA#Azis ai tróAsis
ôéueva rättwat roſs troAirats àore Stöðval kal
Aqugávely rô Strata: and the causes tried in
pursuance of such contracts were called Stical
&trö orvuòóMov. No such agreement has been
preserved to us, and a few casual references by
writers and some fragmentary inscriptions afford
us but little information concerning the terms
usually prescribed. Perhaps the most im-
portant passage on this subject is [Dem.] de
Halon. p. 78, §§ 9-14, from which it appears
(1) that such agreements in the case of Athens
were ratified by a Heliastic court (under the
presidency of the Thesmothetae, Poll. viii. 88;
Reiske, Ind. Graec. Dem., and Goodwin in Amer.
Journ. of Philol. 1880, p. 10 ft., wrongly refer
the demand of Philip for the right of kūpoorts
not to the ratification of the agreement itself,
but to a confirmation of the judgments rendered
by the Athenian courts). The other contracting
state was therefore compelled to send envoys to
Athens with power to conclude the treaty as it
was drawn up and settled by the Thesmothetae
and the Heliastic court. Most of the states with
whom the Athenians had to deal were content
to acquiesce in this regulation. Philip, however,
would not submit to it, and demanded that the
terms should receive final ratification in Mace-
donia. Evidently his reason for this was, as is
plainly stated by the orator (Hegesippus), that
he might introduce in the treaty an admission
on the part of the Athenians of the lawfulness
of his holding Potidaea.
(2) That by such agreement there was as
between the citizens of the contracting cities
(and only these, cf. Polyb. xxxii. 37) reciprocity
of suing and being sued (cf. Arist. Pol. iii. 1, 3 S.,
où6' oi Tôv 6tratov uetéxovires oiros &orre kai
8tºmy úréxetv cai Sikdgeo-0aº toiro y&p Šrápxes
Kai Tois &to ovuð6Xov kolvøvotion; see also iii.
5 (9), 11, orépºoxa repl rod u? &ötketv : thus
the oºphoxa contained a special provision that
a freeman should not be arrested: where?va,
Aftó eſpéal wire 870 at, [Andoc.] c. Alcib. § 18).
(3) That the principle of such agreements
was causa sequitur forum rei, i.e. the decision
was given in the court of the defendant's city
(Platner, Proc. u. Klag. i. p. 109), whilst the
laws according to which the causes were decided
were not those of the adjudging city, but laws
made binding by the oºp. Soña upon those who
sued under them.
(4) That bikal &mb orvuſbóAwy had the same
sphere as the 6tral épatropucaí, and that com-
mercial people would stand in need of them the
most.
There were, however, as we learn from in-
scriptions, some essential points of difference
between 6trat &mb orvu}6Aov and 6tral éutropucaí.
In the latter the suit was held in the state
where the contract was made, i.e. causa sequitur
forum contractus, and was decided by the general
laws of that state, and not by the particular
stipulations of the orápagoxa: thus a 6tlem
éutropich could be maintained against an
Athenian on a contract made in Macedonia only
if the Athenian was caught in Macedonia. This
follows from C. J. A. ii. No. 11: suits on con-
tracts made at Athens with Phaselitans must be
tried at Athens before the Polemarch ka94 rep
Xtous: for all other contracts made with Phase-
litans’ suits must follow the terms of the orig-
Roxa, and such 6theat &rb orvu}óAwy were under
the jºyeuovía of the Thesmothetae (Poll. viii. 88).
Fränkel (de Condic. jure jurisdict. Soc. Ath. p. 71)
and Gilbert (Griech. Staatsalt. i. p.406) wrongly
SYMBOLON
SYMBOLON 735
infer from this inscription that the rule of
oriºuſ?oxa was causam sequi forum contractus;
for the decree makes a special exception as
regards contracts made at Athens by Phaselitans.
Again, it is evident from C. I. A. iv. No. 61 a,
l. 17 ff., that oriugoxa provided not only that
individual citizens of the contracting states
might sue one another, but also that one state
might sue an individual citizen of the other
state or vice versá (roſs iówórais irpos Tobs ió16tas
# idiórn trpos to koivov rô Kouvé trpos ibidºtmv).
In the case of an individual citizen of one state
bringing a suit against another state, resort was
probably had to a tróAus ékkAmtos (Stahl, de Soc.
Athen. iudiciis, p. 10. Goodwin, l. c. p. 8, Sup-
poses that in the oºpºoxa as a rule such a tróAis
ëkkantos was appointed ; see Hicks, Manual,
No. 149 A, § 6), i.e. the court of a third state
was called in to decide the dispute : e.g. if a
citizen of an allied city brought a suit against
Athens, it could hardly be expected that an
Athenian court would give judgment against
Athens; here therefore, for obvious reasons, the
rule causam sequi forum rei was departed from,
and the decision entrusted to the court of a
third city agreed upon by the two parties to
the suit. (In a similar manner the claim of
thirty talents made by the children of Diagoras
against the people of Calymna was decided by a
Cnidian tribunal, Anc. Greek Inscr. ed. Newton,
ii. No. 299.) It was a recognised practice
among the Greeks to refer disputes to the
tribunal of a third state: thus the Corcyrians
proposed to Corinth to refer the question of
Epidamnus to any Peloponnesian cities which
they both should agree upon: Thuc. i. 28, cf.
v. 79, at Sé ris róv čvuuäxwv tróAts tróAet
épfgot, €s tróAlv čA6eiv Švruva to av &piq'oïv rats
troxteori Šoketot, etc.; and such causes were
called ěkkAmrot Sikat (cf. Hesych. s. v. ai ért
£évms Aeyóueval kal obic Čv Tſi tróAet), and the
city chosen by the parties to the suit *kkAntos
róxis (cf. C. I. A. ii. No. 308: étreiðh roi, Shuov
rot, 'A0mvalov kal roo kowow Too Bowrów
orčugoNov troumorapévov trpos &AAñAovs kal éAo-
Mévov čkkAmrov Thy Aguiéov tróxiv &večéčaro
ka9leſv ro Sukaarhpuov, etc., Plut. Apophth.
Lacon. p. 215 c.; Aeschin. c. Tim. § 89, etc.).
There is no evidence for Hudtwalcker's (Diäteten,
p. 124 f.) opinion which makes a tróAus ékkAmros
merely one of the two contracting cities to
which a case is carried on appeal from the other,
each being a city of appeal for all suits tried in
the other's courts, so that e.g. a Rhodian in a
suit with an Athenian tried at Athens could
appeal to Rhodes, while an Athenian in a suit
with a Rhodian tried at Rhodes could appeal to
Athens. As Platner (l.c. i. p. 110) and Goodwin
(l.c. p. 8) point out, the whole purpose of a ju-
Boxa with their appointment of suits to be tried
in either country would be frustrated if either
party at his pleasure could annul the judgment
in any suit and carry the case for trial before
the courts of his own country.
According to the grammarians, the name Stical
&T) orvu}óAwv was given also to the causes
which the subject allies of the Athenians sent
to be tried at Athens (Bekk. Anecd. i. p. 436, 1 :
*A0mvaſol &mb ovg|36Awy €6traſov roſs ürmicóois .
off-ros 'AptorroréAms. Hesych. 8. v. &mb ovu-
BóAøv. čátkaſov’A6mvaſol &rb orvufféAwv roſs
ºrmkóois, kal roºro fiv xaxeróv. Poll. viii. 62,
&To ovuflóAwv Šē (6íkm fiv) &re of orippaxot
éöukágovro). The fact that the Athenians had
oriºuſ oxa both with autonomous and subject
allies is placed beyond doubt by inscriptions;
e.g. from the words karð r&s £vſubo]X&s at
foraſu trpo Totºrov roſ, Xpóvov), C. I. A. iv.
No. 96, in a decree referring to the Mytilenaeans
after their reduction in 427 B.C. we may con-
clude that the Athenians had orºugoña, with
them both before and after the revolt. C. I. A.
iv. No. 61 a and ii. No. 11 (if Köhler's reading
in 1. 13 is correct : karſ& rās arplv] £vuòoxás)
show us àtical &mb ovuò6Xav with subject allies;
and Thucydides (i. 77) also refers to this class
of causes (though Boeckh, Sthh.. i. p. 476 n. ;
Grote, Hist, of Greece, v. p. 306 n. ; and Goodwin,
l. c. p. 14 f. are of opinion that Stical £vuòoxt-
platou are not Stical &mb ovuò6Aww, but suits
about £vuß6Aala or business contracts). But
oriºu50Aa involve reciprocity, and trials held
under them were maintained in the courts of
the defendant's city; in statements, however,
like éðſkaſov 'A6mvatoi &ro orvuò6Awy roſs Širm-
kóois, there is no mention of this reciprocity.
However, as Morris (Amer. Journ. of Philol.
1884, p. 306) points out, “it would no doubt
practically come to pass that most of such suits
would, even by the terms of the treaties, have
to be tried in Athenian courts. For in most
cases the Athenians would be the defendants.
The feelings with which the dominant Athenian
demos, as a whole, regarded the subject allies,
could hardly fail to exhibit themselves in the
dealings of individual Athenians with those
with whom they had commercial relations; and
so it would come to pass that in the great
majority of such cases it would be the citizen of
an allied state who was the plaintiff, and he
must necessarily, therefore, sue in an Athenian
court. We may consider also that suits brought
against Athenians by citizens of any one of the
subject cities would all be tried at Athens;
whereas the suits brought by Athenians against
any citizens of their tributary states would be
tried one at Rhodes, another at Phaselis, another
at Samos, and so on. The judicial range, there-
fore, of the Athenian courts must have greatly
surpassed that of the courts of any one of the
allies, perhaps of all of them together; and
thus, even without any formal infraction of the
reciprocity implied by the existence of a ju60Xa,
the impression may easily have come to exist,
which the statements quoted from the gram-
marians express, that it was the Athenians who
decided, in accordance with the terms of the
several orépôoxa, the commercial suits of their
subjects.”—Perhaps the grammarians mixed up
two different sets of causes tried at Athens:
viz. the 6treat &mb ovuòóNov—which were tried in
the defendant's city, and as was but natural for
the most part at Athens—and the causes of the
subject allies, which were carried up for trial to
Athens, after the allies had been deprived of
most of their independent jurisdiction. Only
by degrees did the Athenians claim this supreme
jurisdiction over the members of their first con-
federacy. Thus, after the reduction of Chalcis
in 446-5 B.C., the Chalcidians were left their
own jurisdiction, with this limitation, that all
offences which were punishable by disfranchise-
ment, exile, or death were to be sent to Athens
for trial (G. I. A. iv. No. 27a, l. 71 ff., rås Sè
736 SYMMORIA
SYMMORIA
e50%vas XaAkiösögi karū og áv airów eival év
Xaxxf3, ka9árep ’A6#vmoriv 'A6mvatois TAhv
ºvyis kal 6avárov kol ātūtas , repl be rotºrwv
ãºpea iv elval 'A9hvage eis rºv #Atalav Tóv 0eo-
go9erów, etc.; for the meaning of épégis, cf.
Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 990 f., and Wila-
mowitz - Möllendorff, Aus Kydathem, p. 88 f.).
In the time of the Peloponnesian war, however,
Athenian jurisdiction extended much further, as
is evident from [Xen.] de Rep. Athen. 1, § 16 f.,
roës orvuuáxovs &vaykáçova, raelv ºr 6tras
*A0%vaſe (cf. Athen. ix. p. 407 b). Not only
were all charges of treason or hostility against
Athens carried thither for trial (C. I. A. i.
No. 38; Aristoph. Vesp. 282 f., Pac. 639 f.) and
the allied cities interdicted from the power of
capital punishment (Antiph. de caed. Her. § 47);
but as appears from Xenophon's mention of
ºrpwravela, civil suits also were decided by the
Athenian tribunals. It is not at all probable
that all the private suits between citizens of the
allied cities were carried up for trial to Athens,
yet with our present information it seems im-
possible to determine which suits were tried at
Athens and which were decided in the local
courts; perhaps the amount involved decided
the point (see C. I. A. iv. No. 22a). Probably
the precise regulations were different in the
case of different cities. Thucydides (i. 77) seems
to refer to the two sets of causes distinguished
above: kal éAagaroßgevoi yüp £v rais $vuòoxi-
patais (Cobet, Nov. Lect. p. 432 ; Hesych. s. v.
$vuòoxiuaſas Stras: 'Attikol Täs karū aſſufloxa)
rpos roës ºvuuáxovs 8trals kal trap' huſiv attoºs
£y roſs 6poſous vóplois trouſia'avtes tas kpíoets
qixoSikeſv Sokojuev; in the former clause he
refers to the 6tral &mb ovu}óAov which would
be tried in the courts of the defendant's city,
and in these the Athenians were at a dis-
advantage, inasmuch as the courts of their
allies usually decided against them; , in the
latter clause he speaks of the causes of the allies
tried in Athenian courts (trap' huiv attois) on
the basis of impartial laws for both of them.
Only one cause of this kind is preserved to us,
viz. the speech of Antiphon on the death of
Herodes. The defendant (Helus) and the accusers,
the relatives of Herodes, were citizens of Myti-
lene (Blass, Att. Bereds. i. p. 162, supposes that
Herodes was an Athenian, resident as Kampoixos
at Mytilene). We learn nothing from this
speech as to the proceedings of such a trial
except that the preliminary investigation was
made on the spot, as we might expect, but that
, the trial took place at Athens.
Grote (Hist. of Greece, v. p. 307 n.) Sup-
poses that Stical &to orup 56Awy between Athenians
and their allies existed only under the second
Athenian empire, and that the passages quoted
by grammarians from Aristotle apply only to
these ; but the term ārākooi is surely in-
applicable to the members of the second con-
federacy. (Att. Process, ed., Lipsius, pp. 994–
1005.) C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SYMMO'RIA (orvpplopta). The symmories
at Athens were, in the fourth century B.C.,
groupings of citizens for two main purposes—
for the contribution (when required) of the
war-tax (eirbopá), and for the fitting out and
general supervision of ships of war ("pinpapx|a).
The obscurity of the subject, which is great,
arises partly from the scantiness of the evidence,
partly from the doubt how far we can assume
that the groupings or symmories for the war-
tax were the same as those for the navy.
I. The symmories for the war-tax came first
in point of time. They were instituted at an
important era of Athenian history, the archon-
ship of Nausinicus in B.C. 378, when Athens
renewed the confederacy with the islands in the
Aegean, and assumed maritime sway for the
second time. Of this date we are informed by
Philochorus (as quoted by Harpocration, s. v.
ovuptopſa); but it is Polybius (ii. 62) who tells
us that at this time the Athenians made an
entire revision and classification of their landed
and personal property. Aristotle, indeed (Polit.
v. 7, 6), implies that such revisions were fre-
quent in Greek states; but not, clearly, on such
a scale as this under Nausinicus, which was a
systematisation of taxation of a kind never
before attempted at Athens. The fourfold Solonic
classification of Athenian citizens into Penta-
cosionedimni, Hippeis, Zeugitae, and Thetes,
was not necessarily abolished by the symmories;
but it seems to have been of little practical
importance after this date; though Dem. c.
Macart. p. 1067, § 54, and Isaeus, de Apollod.
Hered. § 14 (quoted by Boeckh, iv. 5), imply
some retention of the old terms.
The first and most difficult question which
meets us in consideration of the war-tax sym-
mories is this. Were the 1200, who undoubtedly
constituted the trierarchical symmories, also the
main (or perhaps the entire) constituents of the
war-tax symmories 2 The most recent German
scholarship has answered this question in the
negative ; and the present writer on the whole
adheres to this decision. Those who desire
merely to know results may therefore pass on to
the next paragraph; but meanwhile, these are
the arguments for and against. For the con-
nexion of the 1200 with the war-tax symmories,
Isocrates (de Antid. § 145) speaks of “the 1200
who pay the war-tax and perform liturgies’’
(tots Suakootous kal X1Xtovs Tows eio q’époviras
ical Aetºroup'yotivtas). It must be admitted that
this is a strong argument; but Isocrates is a
loose rhetorical writer, and, writing at a time
when the 1200 were prominent, he may have
used the term simply as synonymous with “the
richest men.” Isaeus, whose career is reputed
to have terminated at any rate not long after
the institution of the trierarchical symmories,
also spoke of “the 1200 ° in his speech against
Ischomachus (as we learn from Harpocration,
S. v. xíAtol Stakógiot). Still, the speech against
Ischomachus may have been delivered after the
establishment of the trierarchical symmories,
and the reference may be to these. Lastly, the
commentator Ulpian, writing on a passage at
the close of the second Olynthiac of Demo-
sthenes, gives an elaborate sketch of the con-
stitution of the war-tax symmories, affirming
them to have had 1200 members. But Ulpian is
demonstrably wrong in important points; for
instance, he affirms that there were two bodies
of 300 at Athens, making up 600 citizens,
accounted the richest. But from the orators it
is absolutely clear that there was only one body
of 300; and Ulpian probably got his 600 from a
misinterpretation of the passage on which he
was commenting. Hence his authority is but
small. Now for the arguments against the con-
SYMMORIA
SYMMORIA 737
nexion. Demosthenes (c. Meid. p. 564, § 155),
speaking after the establishment of the trier-
archical symmories, refers to this measure as
the first occasion when the Athenians made
1200 associates (3re trpárov ačv 8takootous
ical xixtovs retothkare avvrexel's fueſs), an
expression which certainly seems to imply that
1200 associates did not previously exist in the
war-tax symmories. Secondly, the historian
Philochorus treated of the symmories formed
under Nausinicus in his fifth book, but did not
treat of the 1200 till his sixth book (Harpocra-
tion, s. vo. ovuuopia and x{\to Stakéotoi); it
must be inferred that the 1200 were appointed
at a later date than the original symmories.
Thirdly, it seems undoubted that the whole
number of citizens who paid the war-tax was
more than 1200: Boeckh (iv. 9) has shown this
convincingly; but yet why should 1200 citizens
be appointed at all in connexion with the war-
tax, if not to be the sole payers of it? They
would not be separated in this definite way
merely because they paid more than the rest;
and they seem too many to have been appointed
for the sake of the trpoelogopd, or prepayment
of the tax in times of pressing need. Fourthly,
the phrase used by Demosthenes (c. Euerg. et
Mnesib. p. 1145, $ 21), in describing the appoint-
ment of the trierarchical symmories, should be
noticed : “The law of Periander, in accordance
with which the symmories were constituted.”
If the 1200 had been constituted before the law
of Periander, why should they need to be con-
stituted again by the law of Periander P for it is
a most farfetched supposition to think that two
different bodies of 1200 existed, each designed
to contain the wealthiest citizens, one intended
for the payment of the war-tax, the other for
the trierarchy.
It seems therefore that the 1200 had nothing
to do with the war-tax symmories. But there
was another body, whose connexion with the
war-tax symmories it is impossible to deny; and
that is the Three Hundred, who so constantly
recur in the pages of the Attic orators; whom
from Isaeus (de Philoct. hered. § 60) we know to
have been established a considerable time before
B.C. 364, and who by that orator are spoken of
almost as if they were the sole payers of the
war-tax; an expression which we may fairly
construe by Dem. c. Phaenipp. p. 1046, as being
the sole persons bound to prepay it on behalf of
others, or, in other words, under the obligation
of the trpoetorqopá. But what was the con-
nexion? Were they the “leaders of the
symmories,” #yeuðves orvuſuopiów, so often
mentioned? So it has often been supposed;
and if it was so, then we must hold that the
symmories were very large bodies, comprising
the whole number of taxpaying citizens. But,
though this view of the matter has something
to commend it, the evidence on the whole tends
to another view. The passage in the Meidias in
which the “leaders” are mentioned (p. 565) gives
the idea that they were a much smaller body
than 300; and it is hardly possible to resist
the impression which that passage (or rather
p. 564) conveys, that Meidias was one of the 300,
whereas Demosthenes distinctly states that he
was not a “leader” (àºyepidºv). If then the
Three Hundred were not the leaders of the
symmories, what were they Only one other
WOL. II.
conclusion seems possible; they were, them-
selves, the symmories. Not, of course, that
they were the sole taxpayers; the bulk of the
taxpaying citizens would be attached to them
(irpoovevéumorſe, Dem. 2nd Olynth. p. 26) by the
tribal tie (for we must hold true of the war-tax
Symmories, what from Dem. de Symm. p. 184
we know to be true of the trierarchical sym-
mories, that they were tribal bodies); but dis-
tinctly, the symmories themselves were small,
and not large bodies. Nor is this view at all
devoid of evidence. For first, assuming that
there were two symmories to each tribe, as
we know (Dem. l. c.) that there were in the
trierarchical Symmories, or twenty symmories
altogether; then Hyperides (ap. Harpocr. s. v.
ovuuopia) tells us that there were 15 men in
each symmory; and 20x15=300. (It is true
that Harpocration, who is puzzled by the state-
ment of Hyperides, interprets orvuuopſa as
equivalent here to ovutéAsia, or the association
of trierarchs who managed a single ship; and
Lipsius agrees with this. But the terms
ovuuopia and avvréWeta were perfectly distinct;
moreover there was no fixity in the numbers of
a ovvréxela, and it is rather curious that while
we have 5, 6, 7, 16 orvyteAeſs mentioned as
taking charge of a ship, the number 15 is
nowhere mentioned in this relation.) Again,
there is a passage in Dem. c. Boeot. de Nomine,
p. 997, § 5, which clearly shows that the
symmories were bodies of limited extent. The
speaker, Mantitheus, who is clearly a person of
considerable property, is contending against the
claim of a certain Boeotus to assume the name
of Mantitheus, and pointing out the inconve-
niences that will ensue if it be allowed; and
he instances this: “In what manner will the
generals enrol the name, if they enrol Man-
titheus into a symmory, or appoint him
trierarch 2° (Tíva 5’ of arpatnyol rpárov ćyypá-
povolv, &v eis ovuploptav ćyypāq,waiv, 3) &v
Tpiñpapxov ka910tógiv;) It is impossible to say
that the war-tax symmory is not here meant,
for Mantitheus runs through every possible
duty which Boeotus and himself might be
required to perform ; and if the war-tax is not
intended by this expression, it occurs nowhere
in the list. Clearly, then, the war-tax symmory
was a body to which Mantitheus might be
appointed, but to which he did not necessarily,
as a taxpaying citizen, belong. What, then,
can the war-tax symmories have been, but the
Three Hundred 2 and the form of the expression
in Dem. c. Phaenipp. p. 1040, § 5 (“the generals
were arranging the exchanges for the 300 °),
does at any rate véry aptly correspond with this
supposition.
If this be so, then the reform under Nausini-
cus included, besides a revision of the entire
property of Athenian citizens, also the establish-
ment of a body of Three Hundred, thirty from
each tribe, every thirty being divided into two
symmories of fifteen each, and the whole number
being the richest men in Athens. For what
purpose, then, were these Three Hundred set
apart 2 Doubtless there would be a convenience
in having the richest men in the state catalogued
and known, even for the mere payment of the
war-tax. But for a specific measure of this
kind, some more stringent motive seems needed ;
and such a motive is found in the need for pre-
3 B
W38 SYMMORLA.
SYMMORLA.
payment of the war-tax, in order that the state
might obtain the money without delay. How
important this prompt payment was to the state
can be readily understood; and while the Three
Hundred were permitted to recover from the less
wealthy citizens their share of the tax in due
course, the advance of the money was a real
burden on themselves. The trpoetorqopä (by
which name the prepayment was known) cannot
be shown to have been in use before B.C. 378:
whereas Lipsius (in Jahrbuch der Philologie, 1878,
pp. 297–299) has given strong reasons for think-
ing that this advance of the war-tax became
the normal method after the reform introduced
under Nausinicus. And Dem.c. Phaenipp. p. 1046,
§ 25 (before referred to), is strong authority
for thinking that the Three Hundred were
the only persons liable to pay this advance of
the war-tax. At the same time, when the
Three Hundred once became an established in-
stitution, it is not necessary to suppose that the
original motive which prompted their establish-
ment was always borne in mind: thus there
can be little doubt that Demosthenes in his
minority (when he would not be required to
advance the trpoetorqopâ) belonged to them, just
as in the trierarchical symmories there were
many members who could not be called upon to
discharge the office of trierarch (Dem. de Symm.
182, § 17).
At all events, this view gives an intelligible
meaning and purpose to the war-tax symmories;
while we need not deny that the reform under
Nausinicus may have included other elements,
as, perhaps, a fresh estimate of the ratable
value of each man’s property according to his
wealth (in the case of the richest persons the
ratable value was one-fifth of the whole, Dem.
c. Aphob. i. p. 816, § 9); but of this we can
say nothing. Nor can we absolutely say that no
change was introduced into the war-tax sym-
mories when the trierarchical symmories began
(B.C. 358); but there is no evidence to this
effect, unless the expression of Isocrates (l.c.)
be regarded as evidence. At all events the
opinion of Harpocration (whatever that may be
worth—it occurs s. v. orvpplopta) may be added
to the evidence above given that the symmories
were essentially limited bodies.
The difficulty of the whole subject is how-
ever so great, that it is desirable that a brief
summary of the views previously held about it
should be here given.
Ulpian considered that the members of the
war-tax symmories were 1200 in number, and
that they were the sole payers of the tax.
Boeckh considered that the members of the
war-tax symmories were 1200 in number, but
that they were not the sele payers of the tax;
and apparently he regarded the re-arrangement
of degrees of taxation as the real, and a suffi-
cient, reason for the symmories altogether.
Lipsius was the first to suggest (l.c.) that the
1200 did not belong to the war-tax symmories
at all. In substantial meaning, his view does
not differ much from that which has been here
given; but in nomenclature it differs. He holds
that the symmories comprised the great body
of taxpaying citizens, and that the Three
Hundred merely stood at their head; whereas
here the Three Hundred have been described as
being, actually, the symmories. Nor is it clear
what Lipsius thinks was precisely the object of
the symmories—whether a re-arrangement of
taxation, or the convenience of the prompt pay-
ment of the tax. Here the latter has been said
to be the main object, through the trposurqopá.
II. The trierarchical symmories were estab-
lished in consequence of the attempt of the
Thebans upon Euboea in B.C. 358, which occa-
sioned an urgent need for ships of war. That
need was for the moment supplied by voluntary
efforts (Dem. de Cor. 259); but this proved the
starting-point of a new system, and a law was
introduced by Periander (Dem. c. Euerg. 1145)
and carried, whereby a new set of symmories,
of 1200 members, was constituted expressly for
the purpose of furnishing triremes expeditiously.
For the working of this law, the article TRIER-
ARCHIA must be consulted; but the constitu-
tion of the symmories must be briefly stated
here, as far as we know it. First, the Three
Hundred formed an important part as leading
members of the Twelve Hundred (Deinarch.
c. Demosth. $42; and compare Aesch. c. Ctesiph.
§ 222; Hyperides ap. Harpocrat. s. v. ovuplopta;
and Dem. c. Meid. 564); the intention no
doubt was that the Three Hundred should
still pay the greater part of the expense of a
trireme, but for a long time they managed to
escape this, and to keep their own contribu-
tions down to the level of the poorer members
of the Twelve Hundred, until the reform carried
by Demosthenes (Dem. de Cor. 260, 261).
Secondly, we do know with absolute certainty
here that there were altogether 20 symmories
(Dem. de Symm. 182), 2 symmories to each
tribe (Id. p. 184), and 60 members to a sym-
mory; but of the whole number of 1200 many
were ineffectives (Id. p. 182). The speech of
Demosthenes, de Symmoriis, was in part intended
to correct this; but it had no practical effect.
The members of a symmory (5, 6, 7, or even 16)
who provided a single ship were called ovvtexeſs,
or collectively ovvréAeta, which last word must
be carefully distinguished from the ovuuopia out
of which the orvyteAets were taken.
With respect to the tribal relations of the
symmories, Boeckh has shown (cf. See-Urkunden,
p. 185, and the passages there referred to) that
members of different tribes might unite in the
management of one ship; yet Demosthenes (de
Symm. 184) seems to show that the tribal rela-
tion was always intended to exist, and we must
remember that a tribe might sometimes be re-
presented by a citizen not belonging to itself.
Thus Demosthenes stood in a relation of peculiar
alliance to the tribe Pandionis, of which he was
not a member (cf. c. Meid. 511, 519).
It remains to say a few words on the officers
of the symmories. Every symmory, whether
for the war-tax or for the trierarchy, had a
leader (hyepidºv). It does not, however, appear
that the leader had any formal duties; influence
no doubt he had. Probably Boeckh is right in
thinking that the person whose name is attached,
in inscriptions, to the name of the symmory,
was the “leader.” Every trierarchical sym-
mory had, besides the “leader,” an “overseer”
(ériuexnths). That the overseer had occasion-
ally very difficult duties in the way of recover-
ing public property, and that he was very in-
efficiently supported in these duties, is obvious
from Dem. c. Everg. et Mnesih, passim. The
SYMPHONIA
SYMPHONIA 739
“overseers” were probably the same as the
“twenty,” mentioned in an inscription referred
to by Gilbert (Griech. Staatsalterth. i. p. 352,
note 4) as connected with the strategi in the
choice of trierarchs. Necessarily also in close
connexion with the symmories were the officers
called äuaypaqets, who drew up lists of pro-
perty, and of the rates due. (Bekker, Anecd. 236,
9; Harpocrat. s. v. Suáypappa.)
The symmories of the resident aliens (uetot-
actical ovuploptal), mentioned by Pollux, viii. 144,
must be dismissed with merely a reference; we
can hardly be said to know anything about
them.
Perhaps the powers, elective and judicial,
which the generals (arpatnyol) exercised over
the symmories have not been definitely enough
stated in the preceding paragraphs. It is
another proof of their tribal character; for the
generals were tribal officers.
For the rest, the tenor of this article has been
to show that the trierarchical symmories were
neither identical with, nor yet wholly distinct
from, the war-tax symmories; but a develop-
ment and enlargement of them. And it is to
such a conclusion as this, surely, that a priori
probability points. We have every reason to
suppose that the symmories of both kinds lasted
as long as Athens continued an independent
state.
The principal works that may be consulted on
the subject are: Boeckh, Staatshaushaltung der
Athener (Berlin, 1886—with Fränkel’s notes);
the same writer's See-Urkunden (Berlin, 1840);
Thumser, de Civium Atheniensium Muneribus
(Vienna, 1880); Lipsius (Jahrbuch der Philologie,
1878, pp. 289–299); and Gilbert's Handbuch
der Griechischen, Staatsalterthümer (Leipsie,
1881). [J. R. M.
SYMPHO'NIA (orvuſpovía) is mentioned by
Cic. Verr. iii. 44, 105; Hor. A. P. 574; Liv.
xxxix. 10; Polyb. xxvi. 10, 5, xxxi. 4, 8 (Dind.),
as being a musical entertainment at banquets.
We hear also of specially-trained slaves, who
were called symphoniaci, and were kept by rich
men to provide this music (Cic. Mil. 21, 55;
Verr. v. 25, 64; cf. Gell. xix. 3; Macrob. Sat.
ii. 4, 28): in Cic. ad Fam. vi. 9 symphonia
means a dinner so accompanied. It was one of
the luxuries introduced from Asia about 187 B.C.
(Liv. xxxix. 6; Marquardt, Privatleben, 181;
Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 147, iii. 373).
There has been much difference of opinion on
the question what the symphonia was, and even
whether it was vocal or instrumental music.
Some, as Rich, hold that it was a sort of drum.
This, which is surely highly improbable when
we consider its use at dinner-parties, rests on
the authority of Isidore (Orig. ii. 21) and the
lexicographer Ugutio, who follows him (see Du
Cange, s.v.). It may be remarked on this that
Isidore, writing in the 7th century, is probably
interpreting a word which he finds in older
writers, not describing an instrument which he
had seen. On the other hand, Baumeister
(Denkm. p. 563) connects it with the Italian
sampogna, and considers it to be a sort of bag-
pipe: a view which had previously been taken
by some commentators on the passages in Dan.
iii., where the LXX. translates by orvuqovía the
similar Hebrew word (see Dict, of the Bible, s. v.
Dulcimer). Dr. Pusey, again, in a learned note
on this passage (Lectures on Daniel, p. 29), holds
positively that in Greek and Latin the word
never meant an instrument at all, but only
chorus singing; and his view might find support
in Jerome on St. Luke xv., who says that some
Latin writers have wrongly taken it to be an
organ, whereas it means only vocal harmony.
We cannot, however, be sure whether Jerome
is speaking generally or only in reference to this
passage.
It seems to us at any rate reasonable to
demand that whatever sense is given to pueri
symphoniaci should agree with that which we
accept for symphonia. If the ordinary view is
correct, that these slaves were trained singers
(so Marquardt, Privatl. p. 337; Becker-Göll,
!. c.), then it would follow that symphonia
meant concerted vocal music. But there is, it
seems to us, some evidence against this. In the
passages cited above from Cicero, Horace, Livy,
and Macrobius, it may safely be asserted that
the sense suits vocal or instrumental music
equally well; and so they bring us no nearer
to a conclusion. But when we read in Cic. Div.
£n Caecil. 17, 55, that a praefectus took posses-
sion of some pueri symphoniaci for his fleet, it
seems absolutely necessary to suppose that these
were slaves trained to play the flute and dis-
tributed through the fleet, to act each as a
Tpimpaşams. Further confirmation of this may
be gathered from the introduction of the sym-
phonia in naval use by Prudentius (in Sym. ii.
527), where the glosses (as also Ven. Fortunat.
in the 6th cent.) take it to be a wind instru-
ment, whether = tuba or tibia. Again, in Plin.
H. N. ix. § 24, “delphinus symphoniae cantu
mulcetur et praecipue hydrauli,” it is hard to
see how it could be coupled with the hydraulus,
unless it was an instrument. (The passage in
H. N. x. § 84 is not decisive.) The same deduc-
tion may be made from Petron. 34, where “sym-
phonia’’ is clearly distinguished from “chorus
cantans,” as it seems to be also in Cic. Coel. 15,
35. Lastly, in spite of Dr. Pusey's denial, it
seems to us necessary, in the two passages of
Polybius cited at the beginning of this article,
to understand orvuſpoovía as a band of flute-
players (the kepdºriov being distinguished from
it as a sort of cornet). Whether the flute so
used was a special Asiatic pattern, or whether
the point which differentiated it as Eastern con-
sisted in the flutes being so graduated as to per-
form concerted music, cannot be determined :
if the latter, the fact of the flutes being arranged
for different parts may have distinguished the
symphoniaci from the tibicines. We gather from
Dig. 9, 2, 22, 1, that the music was so concerted
that the loss of one of the symphoniaci would
render the rest comparatively valueless, and
therefore the damage was estimated in regard
to the depreciation of the other “corpora” also,
as in the case of a matched team of horses.
A single member of the ovuſpovía was pro-
bably the xopačams, who appears in Martial,
ix. 77, as chorawles, to avoid the awkward word
symphoniacus. It is possible, and indeed pro-
bable, that symphonia signified also a band com-
posed of different instruments, and not of the
flute only, like the private bands in some great
houses at the present day: all the evidence
seems to us against its meaning a single instru-
ment, except in very late writers Gº Pagange),
ad
740 SYMPHONIACI
SYMPOSIUM
where the word seems to have been adopted as
the term for a flute. In an inscription (Wil-
manns, 1344) we find a “Collegium Symphonia-
corum ” employed for public sacrifices.
The question whether the word orvuſpovía
was adopted as the nearest Greek approach to
a Hebrew or Chaldaic word, or whether the
Hebrew writer borrowed from the Greek, it is
beyond our scope to discuss: reference may be
made to Dict, of the Bible, and to Dr. Pusey as
cited above. [G. E. M.]
SYMPHONIACI. [SyMPHONIA.]
SYMPHOREIS (orvuſpopeſs). [ExERCITUS,
Wol. I., p. 772 a.]
SYMPO'SIUM (orvutóriov, comissatio, convi-
vium), a drinking-party. 1. GREEK. The avgró-
oriov, or the trótos, must be distinguished from
the Öeſirvoy: for though drinking almost always
followed a dinner-party, yet the former was re-
garded as entirely distinct from the latter, was
regulated by different customs, and frequently
received the addition of many guests, who were
not present at the dinner. For the Greeks did
not usually drink at their dinner, and it was not
till the conclusion of the meal that wreaths of
flowers and wine were introduced, as is explained
under CENA [Vol. I. p. 394 bl. Thus we read in
the Symposium of Plato (p. 176 A) that after
the dinner had been finished, the libations made,
and the paean sung, they turned to drinking
(Tpéreo 6al trpos rov trórov).
The enjoyment of Symposia was heightened
by agreeable conversation, by the introduction of
music and dancing, and by games and amuse-
ments of various kinds: sometimes, too, philo-
sophical subjects were discussed at them. The
Symposia of Plato and Xenophon give us a lively
idea of such entertainments at Athens. The
name itself shows that the enjoyment of drink-
ing was the main object of the Symposia: wine
from the juice of the grape (oivos &utréauvos)
was the only drink partaken of by the Greeks,
with the exception of water. For palm-wine
and beer [CEREVISIA], though known to many of
the Greeks from intercourse with foreign nations,
were never introduced among them ; and the
extraordinary cheapness of wine at Athens
[VINUMJ enabled persons even in moderate cir-
cumstances to give drinking-parties to their
friends. Even in the most ancient times the
enjoyment of wine was considered one of the
greatest sources of pleasure, and hence Musaeus
and his son supposed that the just passed their
time in Hades in a state of perpetual intoxica-
tion, as a reward of their virtue (#ymorduevot
káNAtarov &perås utorðov ué0my aid,viov, Plat.
Rep. ii. p. 363 D). It would appear from the
Symposium of Plato, that even the Athenians fre-
quently concluded their drinking-parties in rather
a riotous manner, and it was to guard against this
that such parties were forbidden at Sparta and
in Crete. (Plat. Min. p. 320 A; cf. Aristoph.
Wesp. 1253, and the speeches of Dem. in Conon.
and Lys, in Simon.) It is curious that a dis-
tinction is preserved in the words weóvorukás,
applied to men, and pué6voros to women, a usage
which, as Mr. Rutherford remarks (New Phry-
nichus, p. 240), probably originated from an
ethical cause: in the man it was more habitual,
in the woman more accidental.
The wine was almost invariably mixed with
water, and to drink it unmixed (äkparov) was con-
sidered a characteristic of barbarians (Plat. Leg.
i. p. 637 E). Zaleucus is said to have enacted a
law among the Locrians, by which any one who
was ill and drank of unmixed wine without the
command of his physician, was to be put to death
(Aelian, W. H. ii. 37); and the Greeks in general
considered unmixed wine as exceedingly preju-
dicial to physical and mental health (Athen. ii.
p. 38). The Spartans attributed the insanity of
Cleomenes to his indulging in this practice, which
he learnt from the Scythians (Herod. vi. 84). So
universal was it not to drink wine unless mixed
with water, that the word oivos is always applied
to such a mixture; and whenever wine is spoken
of in connexion with drinking, we are always to
understand wine mixed with water, unless the
word &kpatos is expressly added (tò kpapa,
kaitot iſ8atos ueréxov TAetovos, oivov caxoßprev,
Plut. Conjug. Praec. 20).
The proportion in which the wine and water
were mixed, naturally differed on different occa-
sions. To make a mixture of even half wine and
half water (forov toº) was considered injurious
(Athen. l. c.), and generally there was a much
greater quantity of water than of wine. It
appears from Plutarch (Symp. iii. 9), Athenaeus.
(x. p. 426), and Eustathius (ad Od. ix. 209,
p. 1624), that the most common proportions of
water to wine were 3 : 1, or 2 : 1, or 3: 2.
Hesiod (Op. 596) recommends the first of these,
but it was generally regarded as weak (56aphs)
and fit Batpdxois oivoxoetu (Athen. x. p. 430 e),
and 3:2 was the usual proportion for not in-
temperate drinkers.
The wine was mixed either with warm or cold
water : the former, which corresponded to the
Calida or Calda of the Romans [CALIDA], was by
far the less common. On the contrary, it was
endeavoured to obtain the water as cool as pos-
sible, and for this purpose both snow and ice
were frequently employed. [PSYCTER.] Honey
was sometimes put in the wine (Athen. i. p. 32 a),
and also spices (Id. p. 31 e): in the latter case it.
received the name of Tptuuq, and is frequently
mentioned by the writers of the New Comedy
(Pollux, vi. 18). Other ingredients were also
occasionally added (Athen. ii. p. 66; Lucian,
Nigrin. 31 ; Aelian, W. H. xii. 31).
The mixture was made in a large vessel called
the icparſip [CRATER, from which it was con-
veyed into the drinking-cups by means of oivoxéal
or kūaôot [CYATHUS]. The cups usually em-
ployed were the kūxté, ºpidam, kapxhortov, and
káv6apos, of which an account is given in separate
articles. The Évrév, or drinking horn, was also
very commonly used [RHYTON]. We find several
craters on vases representing drinking scenes.
(See, for example, Mus. Borbon. vol. v. t. 51.)
The guests at a Symposium reclined on couches
and were crowned with garlands of flowers, as
is explained under CENA. A master of the
revels (&pxov ris tróorews, orvutoortapxos or Ba-
oruńets) was usually chosen to conduct the Sym—
posium (tratèaywyeºw ovatróatov, Plat. Legg. i.
p. 641 A), whose commands the whole company
had to obey, and who regulated the whole order
of the entertainment, proposed the amusements,
&c. The choice was generally determined by
the throwing of astragali or tali; but we find
in Plato (Symp. p. 213 E) Alcibiades constituting
himself Symposiarch (in Plaut. Stich. v. 4, 15,
he is called strategus). The proportion in which
SYMPOSIUM
SYMPOSIUM 74.1
the wine and water were mixed was fixed by
him, and also how much each of the company
was to drink, and also the size of the drinking
vessel. Upon those who disregarded his autho-
rity he imposed penalties, often absurd acts of
buffoonery to make the victim ridiculous (Lucian,
Saturn. 4): sometimes he ordained similar ab-
surdities on the company generally, or special
members of it with a specified penalty in de-
fault of performance (Plat. Symp. i. 4, 3). To
such cases the “leges insanae" (Hor. Sat. ii. 6,
69) refer, and it is not surprising that Plato, in
the passage cited from the Laws, desires vigovtd.
Te Ral oropov špxovira as Symposiarch. . The ser-
vants (oivoxéot and oivnpol 6epátrovtes), usually
young slaves, who had to mix the wine and pre-
sent it to the company, were also under his
orders; but if there was no Symposiarch, the
company called for the wine just as they pleased.
The dexterity of a well-trained cup-bearer in
presenting the puéAm, held trl rôv Šakrôxav
&kpóv, is noticed by Poll. vi. 95; cf. toſs tpial
6aicrúAous, Xen. Cyrop. i. 3, 8. This method of
holding the pud Am épiqaxotos is explained on
p. 350 a, and is shown in the following woodcut,
but it applies only to the pudam. Other cups,
such as the kūAuš, were often similarly filled at
the crater and handed round, as may be seen in
vase-paintings (Panofka, xxxiv. 2 = Guhl and
Koner, fig. 201): but the more usual practice
was that the guest held the cylix and the
slave filled it with a small wine-jug (oivoxóm)
which he had dipped in the crater and carried
round the table (Od. ix. 10; Athen. x. p. 42;
Xen. Symp. ii. 27; Mon. Inst. iii. 12).
Before the drinking commenced, it was agreed
upon in what way they should drink (Plat.
Symp. p. 176, A, B), for it was not usually left
to the option of each of the company to drink
as much or as little as he pleased, but he was
compelled to take whatever the Symposiarch
might order. At Athens they usually began
drinking out of small cups (uérpia trothpia,
Athen. x. p. 431 e), but, as the entertainment
went on, larger ones were introduced (Diog.
Laërt. i. 104). In the Symposium of Plato
(pp. 213, 214) Alcibiades and Socrates each empty
an immense cup, containing eight cotylae, or
nearly four English pints; and frequently such
cups were emptied at one draught (&tvevatl or
&uvorr) rivetv, &uvorrígeuv, Athen. x. p. 431 b ;
Lucian, Lewiph. 8; Suidas, s. v. 'Auvoºrt).
The cups were always carried round from left
to right (ér Šešić), which Latin writers express
by “a summo” (Plaut. Pers. v. 1, 19; Asin. v.
4, 1), and the same order was observed in the
conversation and in everything that took place in
the entertainment (étrl Sečič, Starſvely, Plat. Rep.
iv. p. 420 E.; tr. Seátē, A6)ov eitreºv, Symp.
p. 214 B; Athen. xi. p. 463 e). The company
frequently drank to the health of one another
(ºrportveiv pixotmatas, Lucian, Gall. 12; Athen.
xi. p. 498 d.), and each did it especially to the
one to whom he handed the same cup. (Com-
pare Cic. Tusc. i. 40, 96, “Graeci in conviviis
solent nominare, cui poculum tradituri sunt.”)
Great men on great occasions often made the cup
a present to the guest who so received it (Pind.
Ol. vii. 5; Athen. xiii. pp. 575, 576), whence the
word ºrporivo acquired a new meaning.
Music and dancing were usually introduced, as
already stated, at Symposia, and we find few
representations of such scenes in ancient vases
without the presence of female players on the
flute and the cithara. Plato, indeed, decidedly
objects to their presence, and maintains that it
is only men incapable of amusing themselves by
rational conversation, that have recourse to such
means of enjoyment (Protag. p. 347 C, D; Symp.
p. 176 E); but this says nothing against the
general practice, and Xenophon in his Sympo-
sium represents Socrates mightily pleased with
the mimetic dancing and other feats performed:
on that occasion. The female dancers and the
players on the flute and the cithara were fre-
quently introduced at the Symposia of young
men for another purpose, and were oftentimes
actually Taipai [HETAERAE], as we see clearly
represented on many ancient vases (see for ex-
ample Mus. Borbon. Vol. v. t. 51). Respecting
the different kinds of dances performed at Sym-
posia, see SALTATIO. The okóAta were indeed a
more refined and intellectual kind of music, as
they were usually sung only by selected guests
who were known to be skilled in music, and often
in poetical composition. The song being started
by one singer, was continued by any other to
whom he handed the lyre and myrtle bough
(Aristoph. Vesp. 1219; Athen. xv. p. 694 f;
Müller, Lit. of Ancient Greece, i. p. 249).
Representations of Symposia are very common
on ancient vases. Two guests usually reclined
on each couch (KAtvm), as is explained in Vol. I.
p. 393, and illustrated by the following cut
§
Symposium, from a vase-painting.
from one of Sir W. Hamilton’s vases, where
the couch on the right hand contains two per-
sons, and that on the left is represented with
only one, which does not appear to have been
the usual practice. The guests wear garlands
of flowers, and the two who are reclining on the
same couch hold a pidAm in the right hand.
Sometimes there are four or five persons on
one couch, as in the following woodcut, taken
from Millin (Peintures de Vases Antiques, vol. ii.
pl. 53). Three young and two older men are
reclining on a couch (katvm), with their left
arms resting on striped pillows (irpooke ºdaata.
or Ömaykóvia). Before the couch are two tables.
Three of the men are holding a calia, or köxt{
suspended by one of the handles to the fore-
finger, the fourth holds a pud Am, and the fifth a
quéAm in one hand and a fivrov in the other.
[CALIx; PATERA; RHYTON.] In the middle
Comos is beating the tympanum.
Respecting the games and amusements by
which the Symposia were enlivened, it is un-
necessary to say much here, as most of them
are described in separate articles in this work.
Enigmas or riddles (aivtyaara or Ypſibol) were

742 SYMPOSIUM
SYMPOSIUM
among the most usual and favourite modes of
diversion [AENIGMA]. The Cottabos was also
another favourite game at Symposia, and was
º
rrn, o (Yeº (T_C *** * () º
| E=E.
played at in various ways [COTTABOs]. The
other games at Symposia, which requiremention,
are the āorpayaMo'ubs and kušefa, explained
-- ſ § 3%
#% & $3; §
Yº! $. º
% * / | i Fl
:
Nº!
2 §
& |
|É
| %
*
*.
*~
%
%
Symposium, from a vase-painting.
under TALI and TESSERAE; the retrefa, spoken
of under LATRUNCULI; and the xaxxtorućs. The
latter consisted in turning round a piece of
money placed upright on its edges, and causing
it suddenly to stop while moving by placing a
finger on its top (Pollux, ix. 118; Eustath. ad
Il. xiv. 291, p. 986).
Lest some of the details above given should
convey the idea that a Greek Symposium was
a mere drunken revel, we must point out that,
as Blümmer remarks (Leben wrºd Sitten der Gr.
ii. 42), it differed in its essential nature from
the drinking bout “of the Middle Ages and up
to the seventeenth century" (we might put it
later); for the main object and usual result was
intellectual conversation, as described by Plato,
Xenophon, and later writers, although it might
sometimes end in excess and disorder. On the
other hand, the extreme on this side also must
be avoided; we must not suppose that the high
philosophic level of Plato's Symposium was uni-
versal or indeed anything but exceptional.
Socrates was not always of the party, and besides
it must be recollected that Plato's scene is de-
signed to introduce philosophy, not primarily to
leave an exact picture of manners. On this point
there is a chapter by Professor Mahaffy (Social
Life in Greece), in which he suggests a Univer-
sity supper-party as the standard; and there is
much truth in this, for at the universities too
we have in an intellectual centre among diverse
sets of people all degrees of social converse,_
high philosophy, literature, aestheticism, sport-
ing topics (as various as from Olympic games to
quail-fights), and sometimes also the riotous
ending. (See also Becker-Göll, Charikles, ii.
335 fl. ; Blümmer, Privatalt. 245 f.; Mahaffy,
Social Life in Greece, ch. xi.) [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
2. COMISSATIO.-That this word (doubtless
connected with icópios) was the strict equivalent
at Rome to the Greek symposium (i.e. that it
was a wine-party quite distinct from the cena
which preceded it) is clear from several passages.
In the Mostellaria Callidamates, who has dined
elsewhere, says, “me ibi male convivii sermonis-
que taesum est, Nunc comissatum ibo ad Philo-
lachem; ” and so also Demetrius in Liv. xl. 7, at
the end of the cena, says, “Quis comissatum ad
fratrem imus?” (cf. Id. xl. 9.) The above
passages relate to Greek life, and it must be
observed that this going after dinner from one
house to another for the wine-party seems to
have been a Greek custom, rather than Roman
(it appears, however, in Petron. 65): , but at
Rome also the distinct break between the cena
and the ‘comissatio is noticeable, so that there
might be the one without the other, as in Suet.
Dom. 21, “convivebatur . . . nec ut postea.
comissaretur; ” and there is a passage of St.
Ambrose (de El. et Jejun. 13) which is worth
quoting as a description of manners precisely
the same at a much later date, “Cernas pocu-
lorum diversorum ordines, vasa exposita aurea
et argentea : deinde procedente potu longius
contentiones et certamina quis potu praecellat :
nota gravis si quis se excuset, si quis temper-
andum forte vinum putet: et haec donec ad
mensas perveniatur secundas: at ubi consum-
matae fuerint epulae, et putes jam esse sur-
gendum, tunc de integro potum instaurant et
cum consummarunt tunc inchoare se dicunt :
tunc deferuntur phialae, tunc maximi crateres:
mensura proponitur, certatur sub judice; sub.
lege decernitur.” Besides the regular term
comissatio, Cicero uses sometimes the word
compotatio; and convivium, being a general term.
for any “convivial" meeting (Cic. de Sen. 13,
45), may signify the wine-party as well as the
dinner, unless it is contrasted with comissatio :
it is used in this sense in Cic. Tusc. i. 40, 96.
It is not certain how far comissatio was a
genuine Roman custom and how far borrowed
from the Greeks. The passage of Cic. de Sen.
14, 46, implies a custom of social conversation
over wine after dinner in old times, but does
not, as Marquardt rather fancifully argues,
imply a magisterium of the wine-party; for
Göll is certainly right in saying that the two
sentences refer to totally different things. There
is, as will be seen, a slight indication of a magis-
ter bibendi in early times, but not a certainty-
The probable account is that the Graecus mos
brought in the regular organisation of the comis-
satio, on much the same lines as the Symposium









SYMPOSIUM.
|SYNDICUS 743
described above. We may therefore venture to
set down as the “Graecus mos bibendi’ at Rome
(1) the wreaths and perfumes [CORONA; UN-
GUENTUM), which were not as a rule worn
during dinner, but marked the beginning of the
ovutóatov or the comissatio (Plut. Symp. iii.
1, 1 ; Athen. xv. p. 685 d ; Mart. x. 19), and
were Greek in origin. The gradual rise of this
custom is perhaps marked in Pliny’s notice of
two persons punished for wearing flowers to-
wards the end of the Second Punic War (H. W.
xxi. § 8). (2) The appointment by the dice of
one among the company as president, - the
Symposiarch, and called rea, (Macrob. Sat. ii. 1;
Hor. Od. i. 4, 18), arbiter bibendi (Hor. 0d. ii.
7, 25), and magister (Varro ap. Non. 142, 8; cf.
Hor. Sat. ii. 2, 123). From this passage of
Varro we may perhaps infer, what is natural
enough, that the older Romans had some such
president of the party; but the magister here
also, like the magisterium of Varro, L. L. v.
122, may possibly refer only to a “publicum
convivium,” and we shall probably be right in
regarding as mainly derived from Greece the
duties of this post described in the first part of
the article—settling the proportions of wine to
water, making rules for the entertainment and
enforcing penalties (Cic. Verr. v. 11, 28);
while at those parties which had no such ruler
appointed, any guest could follow his own fancy
as to drinking much or little, being, as Horace
expresses it, “solutus legibus insanis” (Sat. ii.
6, 69: the same absence of Symposiarch is
signified by the “culpa magistra” of Sat. ii. 2,
123). (3) In particular the method of drinking
healths (propinatio), which is specially noted
as Graeco more bibere (compare Cic. Verr. i. 26,
66, and Ps.-Ascon. ad loc., with Cic. Tusc. i. 40,
96). This consisted in naming some person, and
then, after touching the wine with the lips,
handing the cup to him to drain. Before the
general propinatio there was a custom, whether
widely prevalent or not, of naming some deity.
We see this in Plaut. Asin. iv. 1, 35, and con-
nected with it is probably the “da Lunae pro-
pere novae º of Hor. Od. iii. 19, if we reject
the very ingenious, but, as it seems to us, too
fanciful interpretation which Mr. Verrall
(Studies in Horace) has given to that passage.
In imperial times there was the formal toast to
the emperor (Ov. Fast. ii. 637; Dio Cass. li. 19);
and then the propinatio of different persons
according to the fancy of individual guests.
There are, however, some intricate questions
connected with the Roman health-drinking
which need discussion, especially as regards the
number of cyathi. There is, of course, no doubt
that the rea, or arbiter fixed the proportions of
wine and water just as in the Greek symposium;
but it is probably an error to understand the
passages, which mention such and such a
number of cyathi, as referring to this propor-
tion: it is, we have little doubt, more correct
to explain them as specifying the amount of the
mixture, whatever its strength, which each cup
was to receive. If the drinking was to be hard,
large cups were called for (Cic. Verr. i. 26, 66;
Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 35; Plaut. Curcul. ii. 3,81), so that
whatever number was imposed might be received
by each guest in his cup and drained either at
one draught (like the Greek áuvoºris) or not,
according to the injunctions of the “leges in-
sanae" (cf. Plin. H. N. xiv. § 145). Accordingly
we find the specified numbers ranging from one
cyathus (Mart. i. 106) upwards; and when a
man drinks a “septunx’” (Mart. iii. 82) or
“septeni cyathi” (Plaut. Pers. v. 1, 19), it means
that he had seven cyathi, i.e. a little over half
a pint, poured into his cup at once: if he drinks
a “bes,” it means that he has 8 cyathi in his
cup, and so forth. Marquardt has declared for
this view, and Göll inclines to it: it appears to
us that it should be adopted for the following
reasons:–1. The other theory would involve a
perpetual change of the mixture in the crater
for each name that was proposed. 2. In this
case the proportions of wine and water would be
regulated by the proposer of the toast, instead
of, as is commonly believed, by the reac. 3. It
involves us in difficulties of numbers: is it con-
ceivable that when Martial speaks of drinking
“one cyathus” he means a mixture of which
# was water 2 (and if he does, what is the use
of adding “dilutiº 2) and again in Id. 11 of
Ausonius, which well illustrates a vexed passage
of Horace:
“Ter bibe, vel totiensternos; sic mystica lex est,
Vel tria potanti, vel ter tria multiplicanti
Imparibus novies ternos contexere cubum,”
the suggestion of 27 cyathi as a possibility ex-
cludes the idea of fractional numbers where the
unit=12 cyathi. No doubt it is seldom that the
number does exceed 12, but, as 12 cyathi =
about 1 pint, it is matural that the amount.
allowed to each cup was generally much less:
the poet in Hor. Od. iii. 19 prefers 9 (rather
under a pint) for each draught, the moderate
man only 3. In Ovid, Fast. iii. 532, this is
expressed by “ad numerum bibunt; ” and the
suggestion (of course a poetical exaggeration)
that in drinking ages of the guests they might
arrive at Nestor's (i.e. 90 cyathi) strengthens the
argument drawn above from Ausonius.
Similarly, in the fanciful adaptation of the
number of cyathi to the name mentioned in
each toast, as many cyathi are ordered as there
are letters in the name (see Mart. i. 71 ; xi. 36,
where Gaius gives 5 cyathi, Julius 6, and Pro-
culus a bes=7 cyathi); or the different names
of the same man taken singly or combined, in
the nominative or the vocative, might allow
great variety, “Det numerum cyathis Instantis
litera Rufi,” &c. (Mart. viii. 51).
[For the vessels used, and the means of cool-
ing or warming, see CALDA, COLUS, CRATER,
PSYCTER.] The amusements at these parties
are mentioned under CENA in Wol. I. p. 397 b:
that the Romans, as a less witty and refined
people than the Greeks, depended more on such
amusements and less on conversation, is certainly
the case; but it is a matter of degree : the only
essential difference lay in the fact that at Rome
wives and children might possibly be present
at these entertainments, which were often un-
edifying orgies (cf. Cic. Verr. i. 26, 66; Plut.
Quaest. Conv. vii. 8, 4; Sen. Ep. 95; Juv. vi.
425). See further on this subject Marquardt,
Privatleben, 331–340; Becker-Göll, Gallus, i.
203–211. G. E. M.]
SYNALLAGMA (avváAAayua). [SYMBO-
LAEON.T
SY'NDICUS (advölkos), an advocate, is fre-
quently used as synonymous with the word
744 SYNDICUS
SYNEGORUS
ovváyopos, to denote any one who pleads the
cause of another, whether in a court of justice
or elsewhere. Xvvölkeiv also is used indifferently
with Guvnºyopetv or ovvayavigeo-0al or ovvettretv
(Andoc. de Myst. § 150;-Dem. c. Zenoth. p. 885,
§ 12; c. Steph. i. p. 1127, § 84; de Coron.
Trierarch. p. 1232, § 16, etc.; c. Onet. i. p. 872,
§ 31; c. Mid, p. 576, § 190;-Hyper, pro Eua.
c. 25; [Dem.] c, Dionysod. p. 1298, § 50, etc.).
The state or a corporation or a private individual
might be represented by them. Thus, the five
(Dem. c. Timocr. p. 707, § 23, lea) public advo-
cates, who were appointed to defend the ancient
laws before the Nomothetae, when new laws in
their stead were proposed, are called givölkot
(Dem. c. Lept. p. 501, § 146; only four names
are given, but as Wolf, Proleg. p. 145, suggests,
that of Leptines must be added) or ovváryopot
(Dem. c. Timocr. p. 711, § 36). The same name
was applied to those orators who were sent by
the state to plead the cause of their countrymen
before a foreign tribunal. Aeschines, for ex-
ample, was appointed to plead before the
Amphictyonic council on the subject of the
Delian temple, but for some reason (Philostr.
Witt. Soph. i. 18, 4) the council of Areiopagus
removed him, and appointed Hypereides in his
stead (Dem. de Cor. p. 271, § 134, orévôukos:
[Plut.] Witt. X. Oratt. p. 840 E, ovväyopos).
These extraordinary advocates are not to be
confounded with the Pylagorae, or ordinary
Amphictyonic deputies (Schömann, de Com.
p. 321). To such gºvölkow refers the law (Dem.
c. Lept. p. 503, § 152): pº) ééeſval Útro too 6%pov
xelporovnóévta TAéov # &ma; orvyātkāoral; see
also Aeschin. c. Tim. § 19, &v ris 'A6mvatov
éraphorn ... uměč ovvöukma dra, tº 8muogiq.—
The Demarchus and orivölkot appear as accusers
of defaulters before a court of Demotae (Lolling,
Mitth. d, d. archäol. Inst. iv. p. 203: cf. p. 196).
>üvölkot, annually elected, took part in the
Sokuaoria of new members of an épavos (C. I. A.
iii. No. 23).—A private individual either chose
such advocates himself or his fellow-tribesmen
chose them for him (Andoc. de Myst. § 150, of
‘puséral of ipmuévot plot ovvölkeiv; Dem. c. Aris-
tocr. p. 689, § 206; Hyper, pro Eua, c. 26, 6éka
ovvmyópous ék Tös Aiyntôos puxſis ſitàow).
> üvölkot was also the name of extraordinary
functionaries at Athens, appointed soon after the
overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants, who exercised
jurisdiction in disputes concerning confiscated
property (Harpocr. s. v. trpos offs to 8muevéueva
&methépeto, etc.), e.g. when an information was
laid against a man for having in his possession
goods which were liable to be seized in execution
on behalf of the state (Lys. de Bon. Aristoph.
§ 32), or when somebody's property having been
confiscated, a claim was made by a mortgagee
or other creditor having a lien thereupon, to
have his debt satisfied out of the proceeds (Lys.
de Pecun. publ.), or by the wife to have her
dowry returned (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 525,
n. 127). Such a claim was called éveriorkºmupua,
and to prosecute it evertoichiyao'0at ([Dem.]
c. Timoth. p. 1197 f.; $45 f.; Harpocr. s. v., etc.).
One of the duties of these ordwóukou was to
receive informations from the pixapxot against
those persons who had served in the cavalry
under the Thirty Tyrants, and who by a special
decree of the people were ordered to restore to
the treasury the katáotaois, i.e. the sum paid
to them by the state for their equipment (Lys.
pro Mantith. § 7); from this passage it would
appear that such money was as a rule not paid
back (Boeckh, Sthh.. i.” p. 319 f.; Grote, Hist. of
Gr. viii. p. 106, differs from this view). (Att.
Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 921, n. 443; pp. 123–
125;-Schöll, Quaest. Fisc. Jur. Att.)
About the orévôtrol in Orchomenus, see Keil,
Syll. i. B, p. 15: in Sparta, Boeckh, C. I. G.
i. p. 610; Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverw. i.
p. 522. [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SYNE'GORUS (avvhyopos) may be trans-
lated an advocate or counsel, though such
translation will convey to the English reader a
more comprehensive meaning than the Greek
word strictly bears.
According to the ancient practice of the
Athenian law, parties to an action were obliged
to conduct their own causes without assistance
(Quint. Inst. ii. 15, 30); but on the increase of
litigation the sciences of law and rhetoric began
to unfold themselves, and men who had paid no
attention to these were unable to compete with
more experienced opponents. To consult a
friend before bringing an action, or about the
best means of preparing a defence, were obvious
expedients. It was but another step to have a
speech prepared by such friend out of court, to
be delivered by the party himself when the
cause was brought to trial. A class of persons
thus sprang up, somewhat in the nature of
chamber counsel, who received money for writing
speeches and giving legal advice to those who
consulted them (Isocr. de Perm. § 41). [LOGO-
GRAPHI.] Antiphon was the first who made a
profession of it ([Plut.] Witt. X. Oratt. p. 832 C;
according to Paus. vi. 17, 8, it was Tisias).
Still, whatever assistance the party might have
received out of court, the law which compelled
him to appear in person at the trial remained in
force; although the prohibition to speak by
counsel was so far relaxed, that if the party
was labouring under illness, or through any
physical or mental debility was unable to con-
duct his own cause without manifest disadvan-
tage, he might (by permission of the court)
procure a relation or friend to speak for him.
Thus, when Miltiades was impeached for treason,
and by reason of a gangrene in his hip was
unable to plead his own cause, he was brought
on a litter into court, and his brother Tisagoras
addressed the people on his behalf (Corn. Nep.
Milt. c. 7). So, when Isocrates was ill, his son
Aphareus spoke for him in the cause about the
&vrtöoats ([Plut.] Witt. X. Oratt. p. 839 C).
And in the speech of Demosthenes against
Leochares we see that the son conducts his
father's cause (p. 1081, § 4). As a general rule,
the party was expected to address the court
himself; for the judges liked to form an opinion
of him from his voice, look, and demeanour; and
therefore, if a man distrusted his own ability, he
would open the case himself by a short speech,
and then ask permission for his friend or friends
to come forward (Hyper. pro Euw. c. 25 f.; pro
Lycophr. c. 8 f.; [Dem.] c. Phorm. p. 922,
§ 52; c. Neaer. p. 1349, § 14; Aeschin. c. Ctes.
§ 202, etc.: cf. SYNDICUs). This was seldom
refused; and in the time of the orators the
practice was so well established, that the prin-
cipal speeches in the cause were not unfrequently
made by the advocate. The defence by Demo-
SYNEGORUS
SYNEGORUS 745
sthenes of Ctesiphon against Aeschines may be
cited as an example. In this it will be seen that
Demosthenes was as much interested as the
defendant himself; and it is further to be
observed, that the advocate was looked upon
with more favour on this very account; for as
no fees were allowed to be taken, a speaker was
regarded with suspicion who had no apparent
motive for undertaking the cause of another
person. Hence we find in most of the ovvm'yo-
pucol A&yot, that the speaker avows what his
motives are ; as, for instance, that he is con-
nected by blood or friendship with the one party,
or at enmity with the other, or that he has a
stake in the matter at issue between them. (See
the opening of the speeches of Isaeus de Nicost.
her. and de Philoct. her.; Isocrates, c. Euthyn.;
and Demosthenes, c. Lept. and c. Androt. : cf.
Lyc. c. Leocr. § 138, Čkrétram'yual pºdºxtorta étri
toſs uſire yével uſite pixig ambév trpoofikovoi,
puto 600 6& ovvatroXoyouſuévois àel rots ºpiuo-
puévois, etc.) In the cause against Leochares
above cited, it is evident that the son had an
equal interest with his father in preserving
the inheritance, and therefore he would be
considered in the light of a party. The law
which prohibited the advocate from taking
fees, under peril of a ypaqº) before the Thes-
mothetae ([Dem.] c. Steph. ii. p. 1137, § 26;
cf. Plat. Legg. xi. 15, p. 937 E. f.), made no
provision (and perhaps it was impossible
to make an effective provision) against an
influence of a more pernicious kind, viz. that
of political association, which induced men to
support the members of their club or party
without the least regard for the right or justice
of the case (§vvopoortal étrl Sticals kal &pxats,
Thucyd. viii. 54). Hence the frequent allusions
by the orators to the épyaorthpig orvkopavröv,
Alox6mpåv &v0p6trov ovveo Tºlkórov, trapaakeväs
A6) wu, uaprápov, avvoporów, all which expres-
sions have reference to that system of confedera-
tion at Athens, by which individuals endeavoured
to influence and control the courts of justice.
(See ERANI; SYCOPHANTES; Reiske, Index in
Orat. Att. s. v.v. 'Epyaathpiov and trapaakevä.)
That friends were often requested to plead, not
on account of any incapacity in the party, but
in order that by their presence they might exert
an influence on the bench, is evident from an
attentive perusal of the orators. In some cases
this might be a properly legitimate course, as
where a defendant charged with some serious
crime called a man of high reputation to speak
in his behalf, and pledge himself thereby that he
believed the charge was groundless. (For this
reason Lycurgus was in great request as ovvá-
ºyopos : [Plut.] Witt. X. Oratt, p. 841 E; Rutil.
Lup. de Fig. ii. 4.) With such view Aeschines,
on his trial for misconduct in the embassy,
prayed the aid of Eubulus and Phocion, the
latter of whom he had previously called as a
witness (Aeschin. F. L. sub fin.).
In cases of dispute concerning the amount of
tribute to be paid, the members of the confede-
racy might either plead their cause themselves
(Antiph. fr. 48 ft.) or through avváryopoi (Id. fr.
13). Five ovvi'yopoi were chosen to represent
the oikos Aekeaetóv in the assembly of the
phratry (C. I. A. ii. No. 841 b, l. 31 ff.).
>vväyopoi (or katá-yopoi) was also the name
given to the public advocates appointed to
manage the prosecution in causes of importance,
wherein the state was materially interested,
more especially in those which were brought
before the court upon an eigayyexta (in the
fifth century, Lipsius, Leipz. Stud. vi. p. 320).
Thus, Pericles was appointed, not at his own
desire, to assist in the impeachment of Cimon
(eſs rôv karmyópov Štrb toi, Shuow rpoSegAm-
Hévos, Plut. Pericl. 10). The generals might
choose from the senate orvyāyopol, not more than
ten in number, to assist in prosecuting Anti-
phon, Archiptolemus, and Onomacles for treason
([Plut..] Witt. X. Oratt. p. 833 E). Public
prosecutors were chosen by the people to bring
to trial Demosthenes, and others charged with
having received bribes from Harpalus (ten
Karłryopol, Dinarch. c. Dem. § 51; c. Aristog.
§ 6: see also Jebb, Att. Orators, i. p. 222).
[RHETORICE GRAPHE.] The fee of a drachm
(rb ovvmyopulcov) mentioned by Aristophanes
(Vesp. 691) was probably the sum paid to the
public advocate per diem whenever he was em-
ployed on behalf of the state.
In ordinary cases, however, the accuser or
prosecutor (katá-yopos) was a distinct person
from the avvāyopos, who acted only as auxiliary
to him. It might be, indeed, that the ovvá-
'yopos performed the most important part at the
trial, as Anytus and Lycon are said to have
done on the trial of Socrates, wherein Meletus
was prosecutor; or it might be that he per-
formed a subordinate part, making only a short
speech in support. But, however this might
be, he was in point of law an auxiliary only,
and was neither entitled to a share of the
reward (if any) given by the law to a successful
accuser, nor liable, on the other hand, to a
penalty of a thousand drachmas, or the étuía
consequent upon a failure to get a fifth part of
the votes. Here we must distinguish between
an advocate and a joint prosecutor. The latter
stood probably precisely in the same situation
as his colleague, just as a co-plaintiff in a civil
action. The names of both would appear in the
bill (#ykxmua), both would attend the Övákptorus,
and would in short have the same rights and
liabilities; the elder of the two only having
priority in certain matters of form, such as the
trparoxoryía (argum. Dem. c. Androt, p. 592).
In the proceeding against the law of Leptines,
there were two prosecutors, Aphepsion and
Ctesippus the son of Chabrias; each addressed
the court, Aphepsion first, as being the elder;
each had his advocate, the one Phormio, the
other Demosthenes (argum. p. 453 f.).
There seems to have been no law which
limited the number of persons who might appear
as advocates, either in public or private causes.
There was, however, this practical limitation,
that as the time allowed for speaking to either
party was in most cases measured by the clepsy-
dra, if either chose to employ a friend to speak
for him, he subtracted so much from the length
of his own speech as he meant to leave for that
of his friend, and the whole time allowed was
precisely the same, whatever the number of
persons who spoke on one side (this applied also
to the public advocates, Dinarch. c. Dem. § 114;
c. Aristog. § 6; for an exception, see HERES, iv.).
Both parties were usually (not always ; cf. Dem.
F. L. p. 407, § 213) allowed to make two
speeches, the plaintiff beginning, the defendant
*
746 SYNEGORUS
SYNGRAPHE
following, then the plaintiff replying, and lastly
the defendant again. These are often called
A6)ot rpárepot and to repot respectively, but are
not to be confounded with the avvmyopiat or
Sevrepoxoyſal which immediately followed the
speech of the party in whose favour they were
made. (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 920–925,
759.)
With respect to the custom of producing
friends to speak in mitigation of damages or
punishment, see TIMEM.A. As to the public
advocates appointed to defend the old laws
before a Heliastic court, see SYNDICUs, NoMo-
THETES.
It has been shown clearly by Schömann, that
Petitus was wrong in supposing that the orators
or statesmen who spoke in the assembly are
called ovvi'yopoi (Legg. Attic. iii. 3, p. 344 f.,
“Quamquam inter Magistratus censendi non
sint Oratores, tamen €v roſs ió16tais non sunt
numerandi, cum expressis verbis distinguantur
ab iis in Aeschinis Or. adv. Tim. (§ 8), Tpſtov
6' épečis robs repl rôv &AAwy #Auktów, où
Mévov trepl rôv iówtów &AA& kal repl rôv Ém-
rópov . . . Nemo autem temere huic Oratorum
albo adscribebatur, sed quotannis decem sorte
legebantur, qui drachmam de publico accipie-
bant, eo, quo orabant, die docet Aristoteles ap.
Schol. Aristoph. ad hunc e Vespis versum (689):
éAáušavov yūp of fiftopes 8paxuſiv, 3re avvm-
7ópovv Štěp ris tróAews # 5trèp &AAov rivös, Ök
toūrov 8& patveral àti ato 60 påpos ºv ji àpxh.
kAmpwrot's 5& yevouévovs 6éka ovvmyópous 'Apt-
orroréAms pnotv. Qui enim ovvāryopoi hic
dicuntur, ii sunt 5%topes,” etc.). The speakers
in the popular assembly are always distinguished
by the title of 6%topes or ömahyopol, or, if they
possessed much influence with the people,
6muayaºyot: and it is not to be supposed that
they constituted a distinct class of persons,
inasmuch as any Athenian citizen was at liberty
to address the assembly when he pleased;
though, as it was found in practice that the
possession of the 87ua was confined to a few
persons who were best fitted for it by their
talent and experience, such persons acquired
the title of 5%ropes, etc. (Schömann, de Comit.
pp. 107–109, 210; Journ. of Philol. iv. p. 90 f.).
There appears, however, to have been a regular
appointment of ovvi'yopol, ten in number, with
whom the Scholiast on Aristoph. l. c. confounded
the 5%topes or orators, viz. the officers who
assisted the Logistae in auditing magistrates'
accounts: cf. Bekk. Anecd. i. p. 301, 4, ovvá-
'yopoi &pxovres àoav k^mparol of rols Aoyuotaſs
é80%00vy trpos rês eş0ówas róv àp;&vrov rivă
&pxfiv; and Lea. Rhetor. Cantabr. p. 672, 24,
Aoyiotă's aipoovrat Séka . . . kal &AAous 6éka
ovvnyópous oitives ovvavakpivoval roſtois:
Photius, s. v. oi uévov of roºs ičićrals ovva-
'yopetovtes, &AA& Kal &pxovires 'A6%vnoruv. See
also the oath of the ovváryopot of the Myrrhinu-
sians in C. J. A. ii. No. 578; R. Schöll, de
Syneg. Att, p. 30 ft. Aristotle (Polit. vii. 5
(8 B), § 10) says that the authorities to whom
magistrates rendered their accounts were called
in some of the Greek states et,0uvot (e.g. in Teos,
Dittenberger, Syll. No. 349, 58 ft.), in others
Aoyiarai (e.g. in Ephesus, Dittenberger, Syll.
No. 253, 29 ft. ; Issa, C. I. G. No. 1834, etc.),
in others áčeraoraſ (e.g. in Erythrae, Ditten-
berger, Syll. No. 370, 25; in Nesos, Hicks,
Manual, No. 138, etc.), and in others ovvá)opol
(e.g. in Iasus, Dittenberger, No. 77, 11; Gilbert,
Iſandb, d., Griech. Staatsalt. ii. p. 336). (Att.
Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 115.) Three ovváyopol
are mentioned in a decree of Zelea, to be chosen
by lot from amongst nine citizens elected to act
as āveuperal rôv xoptov táv Šmuortov, etc.
(Dittenberger, Syll. No. 113, 1.30 f.) [H. H.]
SY'NGRAPHE (avyypap) signifies a
Written contract (ypaupareſov); whereas orvu-
86×atov does not necessarily import that the
contract is in writing; and Öpoxoyfa is, strictly
speaking, a verbal agreement (Walesius on
Harpocr. s. v. &avv6er&ratov); xeipóypapov is
a term foreign to Attic law (it first occurs
Polyb. xxx. 8, 4).
No particular form of words was necessary
to make the instrument valid in point of law,
the sole object being to furnish good evidence of
the parties’ intention. The agreement itself
was valid without any writing; and would
form the ground of an action against the party
who broke it, if it could be sufficiently proved.
Hence it was the practice to have witnesses to
a parol agreement. The law declared kvpías
eival ràs irpos &AA#Aovs 6poxonytas, &s &v évavtſov
paptipov trouhowvrai (CDem.] c. Phaenipp.
p. 1042, § 12; c. Everg. et Mnes. p. 1162, § 77;
c. Dionysod. p. 1283, § 2; Plat. Symp. p. 196
C). This was especially the practice in early
times (äppovial, Il. xxii. 255; avvmuootival,
Il. xxii. 261; or Éirpal, Od. xiv. 393; Platner,
Notion. juris et just. ex: Hom. et Hes. carm. eacpl.
p. 142 f.; see also Solon’s law in Bekk. Anecd, i.
p. 242, 20 ft.). But as the art of writing became
more widely known, parol agreements grew
rarer, and contracts were as a rule reduced to
writing ; * and it seems that for the maintenance
* It seems that such contracts were written either on
wax tablets or on papyrus. In Dem. c. Dionysod. p.
1283, § 1, the borrower has in every respect the advan-
tage over the money-lender: he gets from him money
* inhard cash and in sterling coin,” and leaves him for
it his agreement—év Ypapparetótº 8votv xaxkotv čovm-
uévº kai Bugxt&iq, pluxpº irávv. Salmasius rightly
distinguishes between ypaupareíðvov and Bugatóvov as
regards the material; but his view that by Ypapparei-
ôtov the avyypaſpi, was meant, and by BigAióvow the
xetpóypaſbov, is not correct, since xetpóypadov is a term
foreign to Attic law (de Mod. Usur. p. 403: “per ypapº-
pareiðvov intelligit tabulas Syngrapharum, per 8w8Xi8tov
chirographa, quia ut syngraphae in tabulis ceratis per-
scribebantur, ita chirographa in chartaceis, quo Buflatöta
appellabantur.” Xuyypaſpi, might be called either ypapº-
pareiðtov or Buff}\tövov, according to the material it was
written on. Thus Orus distinguished the two words
(Etym. Magn. p. 240 subjin.): ioréov 3rt ruves Ypappa-
Tetov Xéyovort to utºpov BigAiov' & 8é"Qpos Aéyet &rt ov
Aéyerat to utkpov Buflatov Ypapparetov &AA' h wikpā 8é\-
ros: cf. Birt, d. antike Buchwesen, p. 21, “by Buflatövov we
must understand one or more leaves of papyrus.” The
above explanation given by Gneist (d. formellen Ver-
träge des neueren rôm. Obligationsrechts, etc., p. 478),
by which kai is taken in a disjunctive sense, is more
probable than his suggestion that BigAiºlov was the
wrapper or cover of the ovyypaſpij. Toapparetov occurs
in the newly discovered speech of Hyper. c. 4thénog.
(of which columns 3 and 4 are published in the Revue
des Études Grecques, 1889, by Revillout, p. 1 ff., and by
Reinach, p. 169 f.), c. 4: $oray & attai ouv6ºkat trpos
épé &v čyū āvayuvoorkouévov učv #kovov - - - sai ormulat-
veral rās avv6;iras eiºs év rá airfi oikia, tva ºnčevi.
rºw stºpovoſvrov (; ākoúa'a rā eyyeypaupéva, trpoo’ey-
SYNGRAPHE
SYNOIKIA. 747
of an éutropikh Sirm it was necessary to have a
written contract (Dem. c. Zenoth. p. 882, § 1).
Such contracts were leases (utoróðgeis ; cf. Dem.
pro Phorm. p. 945, § 4, ai avv8%ical ka9 &s
éutorboare IIaolov thv rpátreſaw toãrg; c. Steph.
i. p. 1111, § 31; c. Pantaen. p. 968, § 5), loans
of money (Dem. c. Phorm. p. 908, § 6; ovy-
ºpaqal vavrikal and éyyetal, c. Lacrif. p. 932,
§ 27, and Bekk. Anecd. i. p. 283, 9 f, or ovuflé-
Aata vavrukö, and #yyeta, Dem. c. Apatur. p. 893,
§ 3), and all executory agreements, where
certain conditions were to be performed. "Ekāt-
6óval &vöpfavra karð orvy-ypaſp?iv is to give an
order for the making of a statue of certain
dimensions, of a certain fashion, at a certain
price, etc., as specified in the agreement (Dem.
de Cor. p. 268, § 122; cf. [Andoc.] c. Alcib.
§ 17; Xenoph. de Re Equest. 2, 2 : see also
Dem. c. Apatur. p. 897, § 14 f.; c. Olympiod.
p. 1170, § 10 f.; Lyc. c. Leocr. § 23; Aeschin.
c. Tim. §§ 160, 165, etc.). The rent, the rate of
interest, with other conditions, and also the
penalties for breach of contract ([Dem.] c.
Nicostr. p. 1249, § 10; c. Dionysod. p. 1291,
§ 27, etc.), were particularly mentioned in these
agreements, and the names of the witnesses
([Dem.] c. Olympiod. p. 1170, § 11, etc.) and of
the sureties (if any, Dem. c. Apatur. p. 904,
§ 35) were specified. The agreements them-
selves were sealed by the parties (also by the
surety, Dem. c. Lacrit. p. 928, § 15), and
deposited, before witnesses (p. 927, § 14), with
some person (or persons in case of duplicate
copies, Dem. c. Phorm. p. 916, § 32), mutually
agreed on between the parties (C. I. A. ii.
No. 573; Dem. c. Phorm. p 908, § 6; c.
Apatur. p. 904, § 36; Lyc. c. Leocr. § 23, etc.).
An example of a contract on a bottomry loan
(vavrukh ovyypaſp?) will be found in Dem.
c. Lacrit. p. 926, § 10 fſ., where the terms are
carefully drawn up, and there is a declaration
at the end, kvpudºrepov 8& repl rotroy &AAö
Aumöèv eival rās avyypaqºs, “which agreement
shall be valid, anything to the contrary not-
withstanding” [FENUs] (cf. Dareste, Bull. de
Corresp. Hellén. 1884, pp. 370–376). Bankers
were often chosen as the depositaries of agree-
ments and other documents, having peculiar
confidence reposed in them. Money was put
into their hands without any acknowledgment,
and often without witnesses. They entered
these and also the loans made by themselves to
others in their books (ypdupara or ötrouvâuata),
and such entries served practically the same
purpose as a ovyypaqºſ, being accepted as
evidence in courts of justice (Isocr. Trapez.
§§ 2, 53; Dem. pro Phorm. p. 950, § 20;
p. 956, § 36, etc. Philippi, however, denies
these bankers’ books any special authority,
Jahrb. f. class. Philol. 1866, p. 611 ff.).-In
Sparta such agreements were called k\dpua
(Plut. Agis. 13) or orkutáAal (Photius, s. v.);
for the peculiar formalities observed in drawing
them up, see Schol. Aristoph. Av. 1284, and
Suid. s. v. orkutáAm. Amongst the Locrians
ypápas wer’ ºpioi Nixova röv Kmºtoréa. A6óvres 8’
émi to pivportóAtov, to Pºv yoapparetov ribéue6a trapū
AvauxAe: Aevkovost ... tdr' #8m rows biaows kai rows
oixetovs avviyayov kai tā āvriypada row ovv6mków
&veyuvºorkouev, etc. This same speech in c. 3 and 4 has
twice mention of tramptotal rôv épávov.
ovyypapal were not allowed (Zenob. v. 4).
(Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 675 ft.)
For ovyypaſpal (C. I. A. lv. No. 22 a ; Lys.
c. Nicom. § 17 f.) in the sense of bills prepared
by special committees (ovyypaqets), “ordon-
nances, une catégorie de mesures législatives qui
est distincte des lois et des décrets,” see Foucart,
Bull. de Corresp. Hellen. 1880, p. 248 f.;
Sauppe, Attica et Eleus. p. 10 ºff. [NoMo-
THETES. [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SYNOI"KIA (ovvoucía) differs from oikta in
this: that the latter is a dwelling-house for a
single family ; the former is adapted to hold
several families, a lodging-house, insula, as the
Romans would say. The distinction is thus
expressed by Aeschines (c. Tim. § 124): 3rov
wºu Yêp troAAol uto 600 duevot uſay of cmciv Ste-
Aduevoi exoval, ovvoucíav kaxopuev, 3rov 3’ eſs
évouceſ, oilclav. The lodging-houses were let
mostly to foreigners who came to Athens on
business, and especially to the uéroucou, whom
the law did not allow to acquire real property,
and who therefore could not purchase houses of
their own (Dem. pro Phorm. p. 946, § 6). As
they, with their families, formed a population
of about 45,000, the number of avvoucial must
have been considerable. Pasion, the banker,
had a lodging-house valued at 100 minas ([Dem.]
c. Steph. i. p. 1110, § 28). Xenophon recom-
mended that the Aéroticoi should be encouraged
to invest their money in houses, and that leave
should be granted to the most respectable to
build and become house-proprietors (oikočoum-
orapévois élyicektā00al, de Vect. 2, 6). The
io'oteNeſs laboured under no such liability; for
Lysias and his brother Polemarchus, who be-
longed to that class, were the owners of three
houses (c. Eratosth. § 18). The value of houses
must have varied according to the size, the
build, the situation, and other circumstances.
Those in the city were more valuable than those
in the Peiraeus or the country, caeteris paribus.
Two country-houses are mentioned by Isaeus
(Hagn. § 42) as yielding a return of a little less
than 8% per cent. interest on the purchase-
money. But this probably was much below the
average. The summer season was the most
profitable for the letting of houses, when mer-
chants and other visitors flocked to Athens.
The rent was commonly paid by the month.
Lodging-houses were frequently taken on specu-
lation by persons called vačkämpot or a raðuod-
xot, who made a profit by underletting them,
and sometimes for not very reputable purposes
(Isae. Philoct. § 19). Hesychius explains the
word vačkampos 6 ovvoucías irposorbs arrað-
Modzos; and Harpocration (s. v.), and Leæ.
Rhet. Cantabr. p. 673, 20, remark that Hype-
rides used the word in a peculiar sense for 6
usuiorðouévos étri Tà tê évoticia èkAéyetv #
oiktas # avvoſkias. (Boeckh, Sthh.. i. pp. 49,
84, 176 f.) [C. R. K.] [H. H.]
SYNOIRIA (oruvoticia or ovvouréata), a
festival celebrated every year at Athens on the
16th of Hecatombaeon in honour of Athena. It
was believed to have been instituted by Theseus
to commemorate the concentration of the govern-
ment of the various towns of Attica and Athens
(Thucyd. ii. 15; Steph. Byz. s. v. 'Affival).
According to the Scholiast on Aristophanes
(Paw, 1019), an unbloody sacrifice was on this
day offered to the goddess of peace (eipfivm)
748 SYNTAXIS
SYRINX'
[C. I. A. i. 157]. This festival, which Plutarch
(Thes. 24) calls uetoſkia, is mentioned both by
him and by Thucydides as still held in their
days. It must not be connected with the
Panathenaea (which was a far more ancient
festival), as has been done by some writers, but
must be regarded rather as a separate peace fes-
tival. (A. Mommsen, Heortol. p. 114.) [L. S.]
SYNTAXIS (orávračis), a contribution,
assessment. Under the revived Athenian
empire in the 4th century B.C. the PHOROS of
the 5th century was euphemistically called by
this name. The reassertion of maritime supre-
macy by the Athenians dates formally from the
archonship of Nausinicus (B.C. 378–7); but
there are indications that the levying of tribute
had begun as early as 380, the date of the
Panegyricus of Isocrates (robs vmoridºras Saopio-
Aoyeſv, $ 132; rôv Kvkxéðov who ov &uqua Sm-
Todaev, § 136). The pretence of equal and
honourable alliance was soon dropped, and the
new confederacy became as unpopular as the
old. These avvráčets are frequently mentioned
by the Orators (Isocr. Areop. § 2; de Pace, § 36;
Antid. § 113;—Dem. de Pace, p. 60, § 13; de
Cor. p. 305, § 234; ovvráčeis kal q6povs, Isocr.
Panath. § 116); occasionally in inscriptions
(C. I. A. ii. 62 and 108; Mitth. d. Inst. ii. 142).
In Plutarch we find an illustration of the more
or less considerate way in which such contribu-
tions might be levied (Phoc. 7); and of the
Athenian habit of calling unpleasant things by
soft names (Ötrokopfgeo-0ai, Sol. 15: Tovs 6%
pópovs ovvráčeus is one of his instances).
(Boeckh, book, iii. ch. 17, “On the Tributes
and Allies of Athens after the Anarchy,” esp.
P. E. p. 418 ft. = Sthh.*i. 494 ft., with Fränkel's
notes; Grote, cc. 75, 77, vol. vii. pp. 38, 90, ed.
1862, and note on ovvráčets, p. 91.) [W. W.]
SY'NTHESIS. The synthesis was a costume
specially made for wearing at dinner, and was
also known as vestis cenatoria (aroxh Settviris)
or cenatorium alone. It seems, from the other
uses of the word synthesis, to have been a suit
rather than a single garment, and was apparently
easily put on and off, for we hear of dandies
wearing several changes of attire at the same
dinner (Mart. v. 79, 2). It was most in vogue
during the Saturnalia (Mart. xiv. 1, 1, &c.);
and it cannot have been altogether a fashion of
the times of the Empire, for the Arval brothers
wore it at their feasts (Acta, 27 [Mai, 218, 219),
17 [Mai, 241]). In their case, as befitted a
solemn festival, the synthesis was white; but
for ordinary occasions green (Mart. x. 29, 4),
purple (Petron. 30), and other bright colours
(Mart. ii. 46) were preferred. (Marquardt,
Privatleben, pp. 322, 371 ; Iwan Müller, Hand-
buch, pp. 875, 928; Becker-Göll, Gallus, i. 15.)
[W. C. F. A.]
SYRINX (orđplºyi), any sort of pipe or tube
(see Dictionaries), but especially the Pan's
Pipe, or Pandean Pipe. This was the appro-
priate musical instrument of the Arcadian and
other Grecian shepherds, and was regarded by
them as the invention of Pan, their tutelary god
(Verg. Ecl. ii. 32, viii. 24), who was sometimes
heard playing upon it (oupſ.gov: see Theocr. i.
3, 14, 19; Schol. in loc.; Longus, iv. 27), as
they imagined, on Mount Maenalus (Paus. viii.
36, § 5). It is similarly attributed to Faunus
(Hor. Od. i. 17, 10). When the Roman poets
had occasion to mention it, they called lit fistula
(Verg. Ecl. ii. 36, iii. 22, 25; Hor. Od. iv. 12,
10; Ovid, Met. viii. 192, xiii. 784; Mart. xiv.
63; Tibull. i. 6, 30; Cic. de Orat. iii. 61, 225).
It was also variously denominated according to
the materials of which it was constructed,
whether of cane (tenui arundine, Verg. Ecl. vi. 8;
Hom. Hymn. in Pana, 15; troupeviq àovákt,
Brunck, Anal. i. 489), reed (calamo, Verg. Ecl.
i. 10, ii. 34, v. 2; KäAapºos, Theocr. viii. 24;
Longus, i. 4), or hemlock (cicuta, Verg. Ecl. v.
85). In general seven hollow stems of these
plants were fitted together by means of wax,
having been previously cut to the proper lengths,
and adjusted so as to form an octave (Verg. Ecl.
ii. 32, 36); but sometimes nine were admitted,
giving an equal number of notes (Theocr. viii.
18–22). Another refinement in the construction
of this instrument, which, however, was rarely
practised, was to arrange the pipes in a curve
so as to fit the form of the lip, instead of
arranging them in a plane (Theocr. i. 129). A
syrinx of eight reeds is shown in the gem figured
on page 305. The inference from Athen. iv.
p. 184 is that the syrinx of joined reeds was an
improvement on the single reed-pipe, which he
calls uovokáAapos ordply; : in the tradition there
cited Hermes invented the single ordplºyé, Silenus
the troAvkáAapios, and Marsyas the method of
joining with wax. The annexed woodcut is
taken from a bas-relief in the collection at
Appuldurcombe in the Isle of Wight (Mus. Wors-
leyanum, pl. 9). It represents Pan reclining at
the entrance of the cave, which was dedicated
to him in the Acropolis at Athens. He holds in
his right hand a drinking-horn [RHYTON] and
in his left a syrinx, which is strengthened by
two transverse bands.
Pan with Syrinx. (From a bas-relief.)
The ancients always considered the Pan's
Pipe as a rustic instrument, chiefly used by
those who tended flocks and herds (Hom. Il.
xviii. 526; Apoll. Rhod. i. 577; Dionys. Perieg.
996; Longus, i. 2, 14–16, ii. 24–26); but also
admitted to regulate the dance (Hes. Sout. 278).
This instrument was the origin of the organ
[HYDRAULA]. -
The ordpry; uovokáAapos was played like our
flute, not by a mouthpiece like the aixòs [see
TIBIA]: hence the Schol. ad Pind. Puth. xii.
says that Midas, having broken the mouthpiece,
played on the rest of the aixòs, as if it, were
a flute, i.e. by blowing across the Tpurſuara,
The ajpty; of the aiºds, in Plut. Mus. 21
and Aristox. p. 28, was probably a tpirmuſ, near

SYSSITLA.
SYSSITIA 749
the mouthpiece (cf. Baumeister, Denkm. p. 561 ;
TIBIA). [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
SYSSITIA (avora tria). The custom of
taking the principal meal of the day in public
prevailed extensively amongst the Greeks from
very early ages. It existed not only with the
Spartans and Cretans, amongst both of whom it
was kept up till comparatively recent times,
but also at Megara in the age of Theognis
(v. 309), and at Corinth in the time of Periander,
who, it seems, abolished the practice as being
favourable to aristocracy (Aristot. Pol. v. 11
= p. 1313 a, 41). At Athens the practice sur-
vived in the public meals for official persons, for
which see PRyTANEUM. Nor was it confined to
the Hellenic nation: for according to Aristotle
(Pol. vii. 10=p. 1329b,7) it prevailed still earlier
amongst the Oenotrians in the south of Italy,
and also at Carthage, the political and social
institutions of which state resembled those of
Sparta and Crete (Pol. ii. 11 = p. 1272 b, 26).
The origin of the usage cannot be historically
established; but it seems reasonable to refer it to
infant or patriarchal communities, the members
of which, being intimately connected by the ties
of a close political union and kindred, may
naturally be supposed to have lived together
almost as members of the same family. But
however and wherever it originated, the natural
tendency of such a practice was to bind the
citizens of a state in the closest union; and
accordingly we find that at Sparta Lycurgus
availed himself of it for this purpose, though we
cannot determine with any certainty whether
he introduced it there, or merely perpetuated
and regulated an institution which the Spartans
brought with them from their mother-country
and retained at Sparta as being suitable to their
position and agreeable to their national habits.
The latter supposition is perhaps the more pro-
bable. The Cretan usage Aristotle (Pol. vii. 10
= p. 1329 b, 6) attributes to Minos; this, how-
ever, may be considered rather “the philo-
sopher’s opinion than as . historical tradi-
tion: ” but the institution was confessedly of so
high antiquity, that the Peloponnesian colonists
may well be supposed to have found it already
existing in Crete, even if there had been no
Dorian settlers in the island before them (Thirl-
wall, Hist. Gr. i. 287). 3? --
The Cretan name for the Syssitia was 'Avöpeſa
or "Avôpia (Aristot. Pol. ii. 10 = p. 1272 a, 3;
Ephor. ap. Strab. x. p. 483). This title affords
of itself a sufficient indication that the public
meals were confined to men and youths (cf.
Plat. Legg. vi. p. 780 E, 781 A); the women
and children were supported out of the same
revenues, but at their own homes (Aristot. Pol.
ii. 10 = 1272 a, 17; Dosiadas ap. Ath. iv. p.
143 b : cf. Thumser, Staatsalterth. p. 143 m.).
In some of the Dorian states, however, though
not in Crete, it has been inferred from an allu-
sion in Pindar that there were syssitia of the
young unmarried women (Pind. Pyth. ix. 35;
Hoeck, Kreta, iii. 123). All the adult citizens
among the Cretans partook of the public meals:
the companies or messes (étaipeſai) into which
they were distributed for this purpose were
likewise called &vöpeta (Ath, l.c.). These com-
panies were perhaps originally confined to per-
sons of the same house and kindred, but after-
wards any vacancies in them were filled up at
the discretion of the members (Hoeck, iii. 126).
The divinity worshipped under the name of
Zeis ‘Eralpeſos (Hesych. s. v.) was considered to
preside over them. These éraupetal are men-
tioned in inscriptions (Cauer,” 121; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. ii. 225 m. ; Thumser, Staatsalterth.
; º n. 5); see further COSMI, Vol. I., p.
555 b.
According to Dosiadas, who wrote a history
of Crete (Ath, l.c.), there were in every town
of the island (Tautaxoſ) two public buildings,
one for the lodging of strangers (koumråptov),
the other a common hall (āvāpeſov) for the
citizens. In the latter of these the Syssitia
were given, and in the upper part of it were
placed two tables for the entertainment of
foreign guests (ševikal Tpdºreſai), a circum-
stance deserving of notice, as indicating the
extent to which the Dorians of Crete encou-
raged mutual intercourse , and hospitality.
Then came the tables of the citizens. But
besides these there was also a third table on the
right of the entrance dedicated to Zeus $évios,
and perhaps used for the purpose of making
offerings and libations to the god.
The Syssitia of the Cretans were distinguished
by simplicity, and temperance. They always
sat at their tables, even in later times, when the
custom of reclining had been introduced at
Sparta (Cic. pro Mur. 35, § 74). The venter-
tainment began with prayer to the gods and
libations (Pyrgion ap. Ath. iv. p. 143 e). Each
of the adult citizens received an equal portion
of fare, with the exception of the “Archon,” or
“Master of the Tables,” who was perhaps in
ancient times one of the kóaplot, and more
recently a member of the yepaovía or council.
This magistrate received a fourfold portion:
“one as a common citizen, a second as president,
a third for the house or building, a fourth for
the furniture” (rów a revöv, Heraclid. Pont. 3,
§ 6 = Müller, Fragm. Hist. ii. 212): an expres-
sion from which it would seem that the care of
the building and the provision of the necessary
utensils and furniture devolved upon him.
Haase conjectures róv orvolcávov for rôv
orkevöv, and thinks that the president was
enabled, by means of this portion, to confer an
honour on any of the members of the mess at
his discretion (Schömann, Antiq. i. 309 m.).
The management of all the tables was under
the superintendence of a female of free birth (#
Trpoeotmkvia Tâs orvoortrías yuvh, Ath. l. c.
143 d), who openly took the best fare and pre-
sented it to the citizen who was most eminent
in council or the field. She had three or four
male assistants under her, each of whom again
was provided with two menial servants (kaxmpá-
pot, or wood-carriers, Ath. 143 b). There was
a trposépta of strangers, which seems to imply
that they were also helped first (Heracl. Pont.
l. c.; Ath. 143 c). On each of the tables was
placed a cup of mixed wine, from which the
messmates of the same company drank. At the
close of the repast this was replenished, but all
intemperance was strictly forbidden by a special
law (Plat. Minos, p. 320 A).
Till they had reached their eighteenth year,
when they were classed in the ÖyéAal, the
youths accompanied their fathers to the Syssitia,
where orphans also were provided (Hoeck, iii.
185); and the boys waited upon the men
750 SYSSITIA
SYSSITIA.
(Ephor. ap. Strab. x. p. 483). Sons were seated
near their fathers on a lower bench, and received
only a half portion of meat: the orphans appear
to have received the same quantity as the men,
but without any condiments (ā8auß&Kevra,
Pyrgion ap. Ath. iv. 143 e). The boys, like the
men, had also a cup of mixed wine in common,
which however was not replenished when
emptied. During the repast a general cheerful-
ness and gaiety prevailed, which were enlivened
and kept up by music and singing (Alcman ap.
Strab. p. 482 = fr. 22, Bergkº). It was followed
by conversation, which was first directed to the
public affairs of the state, and afterwards turned
on valiant deeds in war and the exploits of
illustrious men, whose praises might animate
the younger hearers to an honourable emula-
tion. To each ävöpetov there was a traičo-
vágos, who controlled the behaviour and man-
ners of the youths (Ephor. l. c.; cf. PAEDO-
NOMI).
In most of the Cretan cities, the expenses of
the Syssitia were defrayed out of the revenues
of the public lands and the tribute paid by the
Perioeci, the money arising from which was
applied partly to the service of the gods, and
partly to the maintenance of all the citizens,
both male and female (Arist. Pol. ii. 10 = p.
1272 a, 17); so that in this respect there might
be no difference between the rich and the poor.
From the statement of Aristotle compared with
Dosiadas (Ath. l. c.), it appears probable that
each individual received his separate share of
the public revenues, out of which he paid his
quota to the public table, and provided with
the rest for the support of the females of his
family. This practice, however, does not appear
to have prevailed exclusively at all times and
in all the cities of Crete. In Lyctus, for
instance, a colony from Sparta, the custom was
different: the citizens of that town contributed
to their respective tables a tenth of the produce
of their estates; a practice which may be sup-
posed to have obtained in other cities, where
the public domains were not sufficient to defray
the charges of the Syssitia. But both at Lyctus
and elsewhere, the poorer citizens were in all
probability supported at the public cost.
In connexion with the accounts given by the
ancient authors respecting the Cretan Syssitia,
there arises a question of some difficulty, viz.
How could one building accommodate the adult
citizens and youths of such towns as Lyctus and
Gortyn 2 The question admits of only two
solutions: we are either misinformed with
respect to there being only one building in each
town used as a common hall, or the number of
Dorian citizens in each town must have been
comparatively very small.
The Spartan Syssitia were in the main so
similar to those of Crete that one was said to be
borrowed from the other (Aristot. Pol. ii. 10 =
p. 1271 b, 22; 1272 a, 3). They were anciently
called äväpeta, as in Crete, but later pubtria
(Aristot. l.c.; Alcman, l.c.). Of this celebrated
name three possible etymologies are hinted at
by Plutarch (Lycurg. 12): (1) That the true
form was pixitia, “friendly feasts;” this was
long accepted as the right explanation (Müller,
Dor. iv. 3, § 3; Hoeck, iii. 123; Göttling on
Aristot. Oecon. p. 190; L. and S., ed. 7); (2)
from petäd, “frugal feasts;” but the first
p. 185 m.).
syllable is short (Antiphan. fr. 44 M.; Cobet,
Nov. Lect. p. 728): (3) from éðw, to eat, the
‘p representing a lost digamma; this is the
simplest and best (Bielschowsky, p. 12; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. i. 71 m. ; Thumser, Staatsalterth.
To these Schömann adds a con-
jecture of his own: (4) from İço, root #6, “sit-
tings” (Antiq. i. 271, 545 E. T.). It will be
seen that (3) and (4) agree in substituting a
labial for a lost digamma, about which there
can be no difficulty ; Bayos is connected with
&yo, &méAAa with &0\Afts. The Spartan
Syssitia differed from the Cretan in the follow-
ing respects. Instead of the expenses of the
tables being defrayed out of the public revenues,
every head of a family was obliged to contri-
bute a certain portion at his own cost and
charge; those who were not able to do so were
excluded from the public tables (Aristot. Pol.
ii. 10 = p. 1271 a, 35; Homo EI). The guests
were divided into companies generally of fifteen
persons each, and all vacancies were filled up by
ballot, in which unanimous consent was indis-
pensable for election. No persons, not even the
kings, were allowed what was called an āq'föttos
juépa (Hesych. s. v.), or excused from attend-
ance at the public tables, except for some satis-
factory reason, as when engaged in a sacrifice,
or a chase, in which latter case the absentee
was required to send a present to his mess
(Plut. Lycurg. 12; Agis, c. 10). Each person
was supplied with a cup of mixed wine, which
was filled again when required; but drinking
to excess was prohibited at Sparta as well as in
Crete. The repast was of a plain and simple
character, and the contribution of each member
of a mess or pubítms was settled by law
(Thumser, p. 188; Plut. l.c.). The principal
dish was the puéAas (wpubs or black broth, with
pork (Ath. iv. p. 141 b). The étréïkaov or
second course (from the Doric &ikāov, a meal)
was however more varied, and richly supplied
by presents of game, poultry, fruit, &c., and
other delicacies which no one was allowed to
purchase. Moreover, the entertainment was
enlivened by cheerful conversation, though on
public matters (Xen. Rep. Lac. 5, §6). Singing
also was frequently introduced, as we learn
from Alcman (l.c.), that “at the banquets and
drinking entertainments of the men it was fit
for the guests to sing the paean.” The arrange-
ments were under the superintendence of the
Polemarchs.
The use and purposes of the institutions de-
scribed above are very manifest. They united
the citizens by the closest ties of intimacy and
union, making them consider themselves as
members of one family, and children of one and
the same mother, the state. They maintained a
strict and perfect separation between the higher
and the subject classes both at Sparta and in
Crete, and kept up in the former a consciousness
of their superior worth and station, together
with a strong feeling of nationality. At Sparta
also they were eminently useful in a military
point of view, for the members of the Syssitia
were formed into corresponding military divi-
sions, and fought together in the field, as they
had lived together at home, with more bravery
and a keener sense of shame (aidos) than could
have been the case with merely chance com-
rades (Herod. i. 65). Moreover “they gave an
SYSTYLOS
TABELLARIAE LEGES 751
efficacy to the power of public opinion which
must have nearly superseded the necessity of
penal laws” (Thirlwall, vol. i. p. 289). With
respect to the political tendencies, they were
decidedly arranged upon aristocratical princi-
ples, though no individual of a company or mess
was looked upon as superior to his fellows.
Plutarch (Quaest. Sympos. vii. 9, p. 714 B)
accordingly calls them ovvéöpia èptotokpartică,
or aristocratical meetings, and compares them
with the Prytaneum and Thesmothesium at
Athens.
The simplicity and sobriety which were in
early times the characteristic both of , the
Spartan and Cretan Syssitia, were afterwards in
Sparta at least supplanted by luxury and effemi-
nate indulgence. The change was probably
gradual, but the kings Areus and Acrotatus
(B.C. 300) are recorded as having been mainly
instrumental in accelerating it. The reformer
Agis endeavoured but in vain to restore the old
order of things, and perished in the attempt.
Yet Cicero says that in his time the Lacedae-
monians reclined only upon wooden couches,
without cushions (“quotidianis epulis in robore
accumbunt,” pro Mur. 35, § 74). Athenaeus,
on the other hand, quotes Phylarchus for the
luxury, which may have been confined to
special occasions (iv. 141 eaſtr., 142: Phylarchus
lived about B.C. 215).
Authorities.—Hoeck, Kreta, iii. 120–139; Mül-
ler, Dorians, iv. 3; Thirlwall, i. 288,331; Grote,
pt. ii. ch. 6 = ii. 146; Schömann, Antiq. i.
269 ft., 306 f. E. T.; A. Bielschowsky, de Spar-
tanorum Syssitiis, Vratislav. 1869; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. i. 71, ii. 225; Thumser, Staats-
alterth. in Hermann-Blümmer, §§ 22, 28.
[R. W.] [W. W.]
SYSTY'LOS. [TEMPLUM.]
T.
TABELLA, the voting tablet, by means of
which votes were given at Rome both in the
assemblies and in the courts of law.
1. In the assemblies the votes were originally
the answers of the individual citizens to the
magistrate who consulted the people as to their
will and pleasure (rogavit populum quid vellent
juberent). All evidence goes to show that the
answers were originally given vivá voce to the
officials (rogatores) in attendance on the presiding
magistrate. In the case of an election these
officials pricked each vote on the tablet which
bore the name of the candidate in whose favour
it was given, who was said punctum ferre, a
phrase which remained in use metaphorically
after the custom on which it was based had been
abandoned (Hor. Epist. ii. 2,99; Art. Poet. 343).
The result was then reported to the magistrate,
who declared elected (creavit) the candidates
with a majority. The only difficulty in accept-
ing this view arises from the meaning of the
word suffragium : it can hardly be doubted that
this means originally a potsherd, a broken piece
of tile (Corssen, i. 397); but there is no evidence
or probability that voting by this means was
14, 5).
ever practised at Rome in the assembly; the
name may have been transferred from the use
of the potsherd under other circumstances, but
of this there is no proof (Mommsen, Röm.
Staatsr. iii. 402, n. 1). Wunder's attempt (War.
Lect. p. clxvii. sqq.) to show that voting by
pebbles (jigo) was in use, at least in passing
or rejecting proposed laws, has not found favour
with scholars. His arguments are derived
entirely from passages in Dionysius, which only
show that the writer transferred to an earlier
time the arrangements of his own day (Momm-
sen, ib. 494, 2). The ballot was introduced
first for the election of magistrates, B.C. 139
[TABELLARIAE LEGES]. After this date each
voter received one tabella, on which were written
the names, or more probably (cf. Cic. pro Domo,
43, 112) only the initials, of the candidates; and
apparently he voted by pricking the tablet at
the name of the favoured candidate. It is im-
portant to distinguish the tabella by means of
which the citizens gave their votes, from the
tabula or list on which the custodes checked off
the votes, as they were taken out of the cistae
and reported. (Cf. Tyrrell on Q. Cic. de Pet.
Cons. 8.)
In voting upon laws after the introduction of
the ballot, each citizen was provided with two
tickets, one inscribed V. R., i.e. uti rogas, for
assent ; the other A., i.e. antiquo, “I approve
the old law,” for rejection (cp. Cic. ad Att. i.
13, 3). When Clodius desired to secure the
failure of a rogatio, he contrived that no tickets
marked V. R. should be issued (Cic. ad Att. i.
Walther's view (Geschichte, i. 126,
note 117), that when the Comitia acted as a
court the tablets were different, does not seem
well supported (cf. Lange, Röm. Alt.* ii. 489).
2. In trials the judices were provided with
three tabellae, one marked A., for absolvo, “I
acquit; ” the second with C., for condemno,
“I condemn; ” the third with N. L., for non
liquet, “It is not clear to me.” The first of
them was called tabella absolutoria, the latter
tabella damnatorii (Suet. Aug. 33): Cicero also
calls the former littera salutaris, the latter
littera tristis (pro Mil. 6, 15). In Caesar (Bell.
Civ. iii. 83) we read that Domitius proposed
that the senators who followed Pompeius should
on their return to Rome be given each three
tabellae, by which they might pass a verdict
upon those who had remained at Rome: “ unam
fore tabellam, qui liberandos omni periculo cen-
serent; alteram qui capitis damnarent, tertiam
qui pecunia multarent.” A tabella marked
with the letters L. D. is represented on a denarius
of the Caelian gens; and as C. Caelius Caldus
introduced one of the tabellariae leges, it has
been plausibly suggested that these letters
denote Libero and Damno
respectively (cf. Spanheim,
Numism. ii. 198–200, ed.
1706; Mommsen, Röm.
Münzwesen, p. 636). The
annexed cut represents a coin
of (Cassius) Longinus it?
vir, referring to the Lex
Cassia; the tablet is marked
v. (Mommsen, ib. Cf. Cohen, Monnaie de la
République, pl. xi. and xix.) [A. S. W.]
TABELLA'RIAE LEGES, the laws by
which the ballot was introduced in voting in

752 TABELLARIUS
TABULA LUSORIA
the Comitia; tabellae being the tablets overlaid
with wax on which votes were secretly inscribed.
Secret voting was introduced for the purpose of
weakening the power of the optimates. As to
the ancient mode of voting at Rome, see TA-
BELLA. There were four enactments known by
the name of Tabellariae Leges, which are enu-
merated by Cicero (de Legg. iii. 16, 35). They
are mentioned below according to the order of
time in which they were passed.
1. LEx GABINIA, proposed by the tribune Ga-
binus B.C. 139, introduced the ballot in the
election of magistrates (Cic. l.c.); whence Cicero
(Agr. ii. 2, 4) calls the tabella “vindex tacitae
libertatis.”
2. LEX CASSIA, proposed by the tribune
L. Cassius Longinus B.C. 137, introduced the
ballot in the “Judicium Populi,” with the ex-
ception of cases of Perduellio. The “Judicium
Populi’’ undoubtedly applies to cases tried in
the Comitia by the whole body of the people
[JUDEx, Vol. I. p. 1027], although Ernesti (Indew
Leg.) wishes to give a different interpretation to
the words. This law was supported by Scipio
Africanus the younger, for which he was cen-
sured by the aristocratical party (Cic. de Legg.
iii. 16, 37; Brut. 25, 97; pro Sestio, 48, 103;
—Ascon. in Cornel. p. 78, ed. Orelli).
3. LEx PAPIRIA, proposed by the tribune C.
Papirius Carbo B.C. 131, introduced the ballot in
the enactment and repeal of laws (Cic. de Legg. iii.
16, 35).
4. LEx CAELIA, proposed by C. Caelius Caldus
B.C. 107, introduced the ballot in cases of Per-
duellio, which had been excepted in the Cassian
law (Cic. l. c.; pro Planc. 6, 16;- Plin. Ep.
iii. 20).
There was also a law brought forward by
Marius B.C. 119, which was intended to secure
freedom and order in voting (Cic. de Legg. iii. 17,
38; Plut. Mar. 4). [W. S.] [E. A. W.]
TABELLA'RIUS, a letter-carrier. As the
Romans had no public post, they were obliged to
employ slaves, who were called Tabellarii, as
special messengers to convey their letters when
they had not an opportunity of sending them
otherwise (Cic. Phil. ii. 31, 37; ad Fam. xii.
12, xiv. 22). Those who were out of Italy could
get their letters conveyed not only by ships’
captains, but also by the special tabellarii of
the provincial governor (Cic. ad Att. v. 19;
de Prov. Cons. 7, 15), or by those of the pub-
licani (Cic. ad Att. v. 15 and 16): for these
tabellarii of proconsuls, see also Auct. de Bell.
Hisp. 2. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
TABE'LLIO, a notary (Suidas, s. v.). Under
the Empire the Tabelliones succeeded to the
business of the Scribae in the times of the Re-
public [SCRIBAE]. They were chiefly employed
in drawing up legal documents, and for this pur-
pose usually took their stations in the market-
places of towns (Capitol. Macrin. 4; Cod. 4, 21,
17; Novell. 73, c. 5, &c.). They formed a
special order in the state (Gothofr. ad Cod. Theod.
12, 1, 3). [W. S.]
TABERNA. 1. (orkmvat, yéâşa), a shop or
booth. [DOMUs, Vol. I. pp. 679, 680; AGORA,
Vol. I. pp. 46, 47.]
2. A wine-shop or tavern.
TABERNA’CULUM, TENTO'HIUM
(kxiaſm, a knvii), a tent. The former of these
words was no doubt originally applied to a shed
[CAUPONA.
or hut of boards (cf. Fest. s. v. tabernacula;
TUGURIUM); but it became the ordinary term
for a tent (Cic. Brut. 9, 37; Caes. B. C. i.
81; Liv. xxii. 42). These were made of skins
stretched from wooden supports, like our canvas
tents; hence the name tentoria, which, as we
may gather from Festus (s. v. contubernales), is
put concisely for tentoriae pelles. The tent-
maker was called tabernacularius (Grut. 6428;
Henzen, 6101). Constant supplies of hides for
this purpose were drawn from the provinces by
armies in the field (Cic. Verr. ii. 2, 5, coria;
in Pis. 36, 87, pellium nomine). Campaigning
was “sub pellibus durare * (Liv. v. 2): during
winter the soldiers were either in towns, or, if
they held a permanent camp in remote and un--
civilised countries, they were lodged in huts of
wood, turf or stones [CASTRA]: to keep them in
tents during the winter was a mark of severity
(Tac. Ann. xiii. 35 ; cf. Caes. B. G. iii. 29; Long
ad loc.). The word papilio, “pavilion,” may be,
as Rich thinks, intended to describe the look of
a tent with its curtains looped up. [For the
size of Roman tents and their arrangements,
See ºwmwº Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii.
427.
The k}\to ſat of Homer were not tents, but
wooden or wattled huts; that of Achilles (larger
no doubt than the ordinary kxtorſm, and with
separate rooms, but of like material) was of
fir-planks and thatched with reeds (Il. xxiv.
451), and ečirmicros, which implies carpenter's
work (ib. 675). [See Buchholz, Hom. Realien,
ii. 340.] In later Greek warfare (where any
shelter is required) we find generally tents of
skins, like those of the Romans, which are usually
called okmvat (Xen. Anab. i. 5, 12; cf. o.kmvop-
pdqos, Zonar. p. 1655; Ael. W. H. ii. 1), but
also 614.6%pat (Xen. Anab. i. 5, 10); 61466pal
with iron tent-pegs (Arr. Anab. iv. 19): wooden
huts were also used and termed atcmwat, which
explains the burning of the orkmwat, as too trou-
blesome to carry, in Xen. Anab. iii. 2, 27: so
Droysen takes it, but it is also possible that
wooden framework for the Sup6épal may have
been burnt. (See Droysen, Kriegsalterth. § 11–
Hermann-Blümner, Lehrbuch, ii. 13.) [For the
augural tabernaculum, see AUGURIA ; TEMPLUM
ad init.] [G. E. M.]
TABLI'NUM. [DoMUs, Vol. I. p. 670 b.]
TA'BULA LUSO'RIA (trivaš), a board for
playing games, called also ALVEUS from having
a raised rim. Ancient backgammon and draughts,
and the boards on which they were played, are
treated under DUODECIM SCRIPTA and LATRUN-
CULI respectively. Other games, played with
and without dice, are described, though less
intelligibly, by the grammarians (Pollux, ix. 97,
98; Eustath. ad Od. p. 1397). Bruzza, writing
in 1877, states that upwards of 100 tabulae
lusoriae, serving for six different games, had
been found in Rome and the environs, mostly in
the Castra Praetoria and the Catacombs (Bullett.
comunale, 1877, pp. 81–99); from an examina-
tion of subsequent lists it does not appear that
any further discoveries of a like sort have been
made down to the present time. More than
60 of these are of the type given below, in which
36 letters are arranged in three double rows of
six each : others, instead of the letters, have 36
arbitrary signs which served the same purpose;
and one in particular repeats 36 times the words
TABULAE
TABULAE
75
palma feliciter expressed in a monogram. We
have selected a few of the more suggestive
examples; in order to make each row consist of
six letters, it will be seen that some liberties are
taken with the spelling. s'
1. VICTVS 0 LEBATE
LVIDERE 0. NESCIS
DALUSO 0 RILOCUIM].
2. SEMPER 0 IN HANC
TABV LA 0 HILARE
I,VIDAMW 0 SAMICI.
3. VICTOR WINCA8
NABICE FEELIX
SALBUS REDIAS.
4. INVIDA PWNCTA
IV BENT FELICE
LVIDERE DOCTV M.
5. ABEMUS INCENA
PWLLVM PISCEM
PERNAM PAONEMI,
IBENATORES.
Nos. 1 and 2 are divided in the middle by a
representation of the calculi with which the
game was played; No. 3 by the figure of a
sailing ship. Nos. 2 and 4 are metrical, after a
fashion. The forms LEBATE (leva te, “take
yourself off”), NABICE (naviga), SALBUs and
BENATOREs show the confusion of b and v, as in
Spanish and modern Greek; PAONEM illustrates
the French paon. In No. 1 the M of LOCVM
seems to have been inserted by mistake, as the
six letters are complete without it. The word
BENATOREs is of course not included in the letters
that mark the board; it may imply that the
game afforded a mild excitement to tired sports-
men after their day's work. Nos. 1 and 3 were
found in a Christian tomb, and have been quoted
to prove that the discipline of the early Church
as regards games of chance was not very strict.
Compare Dict. of Chr. Ant., s. v. Dice.
It is conjectured that this was a game in
which each player tried, under certain unspecified
conditions, to get three men into a row (Ov.
A. Am. iii. 365, Trist. ii. 481 ; cf. Isid. Orig.
xviii. 64). A tabula lusoria described by Martial
(xiv. 17) had backgammon and draught boards
on opposite sides. (Marquardt, Privatl, 836–
838.) W. W.]
TABULAE or PUGILLARES (trívakes,
8éArou, rvčíov, triváktov, ypaupatetov), writing
tablets. Although Livy, i. 24, seems to make a
formal distinction between tabulae, i.e. bronze
tablets, and cera, yet in general the plural of tubula
is used to signify thin slips of wood or other
material, usually of an oblong shape, covered over
with wax, whence cera and cerae are used for
the tablets themselves. The wax, which was
written upon by the stilus or Ypaq is [STILUS],
was coloured (red in Ov. Am. i. 12, 11, but
generally black), so that the letters “marked by
the stilus were white. The layer of wax was
sometimes so thin that the writing was marked
on the wood itself below, as may be seen in some
tablets that have been preserved. As to renew-
ing the tablets by scraping off the old and
pouring fresh melted wax over them, “cera . . .
tasis infusa tabellis’ (Ov. Art. Am. i. 437), see
Herod. vii. 239. Ordinary Greek writing tablets
were covered with uáà6m, a composite and softer
wax, which in Dem. c. Steph. ii. p. 1132, § 11, is
WOL. II.
contrasted with the tablets covered with gypsum
(ypappareſov AeAevkwuévov; cf. Aeëkwua, lea, ap.
Dem. Timocr. p. 707), intended for more perma-
nent documents. This composite wax was,
however, termed indifferently uáA6m or kmpás
(compare Aristoph. Vesp. 108 and Fr. 206). The
schoolboy's writing tablet was sometimes a
single tabula which he carried suspended by a
ring (Hor. Sat. i. 6, 74, Orelli ad loc.; Plaut.
Bacch. iii. 3, 37): tablets thus hung on the
wall of the school-room are shown in the cut
from the Duris vase under LUDUs LITTERARIUS
(p. 96).
More expensive tablets were made of citron-
wood or ivory (Mart. xiv. 3, 5), but the com-
moner woods were generally used, such as beech,
fir, and box (whence the name rvčíov). The
outer sides consisted of wood; the inner sides
only were covered with wax. They were fastened,
together at the back by means of wires, which,
answered the purpose of hinges, so that they-
opened and shut like our books; and to prevent,
the wax of one tablet rubbing against the wax.
of the other, there was a raised margin around
each, as is clearly seen in the woodcut under-
STILUs. There were sometimes two, three, four,
five, or even more tablets fastened together in
the above-mentioned manner. Tablets so folded
and bound together were called codea, or codi-
cilli (compare Catull. 42, 5 and 11) : where a
very large number were combined, they had a
handle, by which to carry or to hang them up,
and were called codices ansati (C. I. L. x. 7852).
[Codex.] Two such tablets were called diptycha
(6trituxa), which merely means “twice-folded "
(cf. 8tºrruxov Searſov, Herod. vii. 239) [DIPTY-
CHA]. The Latin word pugillares, which is the
name frequently given to tablets covered with
wax (Mart. xiv. 3; Gell. xvii. 9; Plin. Ep. i. 6), is
derived from pugnus, pugillus, because they were
small enough to be held in the hand. Such
tablets are mentioned as early as the Homeric
poems, which speak of a riva; trtvictós (Il. vi.
169; Munro ad loc.; Jebb, Homer, p. 112).
Three tablets fastened together were called
Triptycha (Tp(rruxa), which Martial (xiv. 6).
translates by triplices (cerae); in the same way
we also read of pentaptycha (trevrátruxa),
called by Martial (xiv. 4) quintuplices (cerae),
and of polyptycha (troXàtrTuxa) or multiplices:
(cerae). The above are called also ypaugaretov-
or Ypapparefölov číðupov, Tpſtruxov h traetóvov-
Trruxów (Poll. x. 51). [See woodcuts under
LIBER, p. 58.] The pages of these tablets were
frequently called by the name of cerae alone;
thus we read of prima cera, altera cera, “first
page,” “second page" (Suet. Ner. 17; Hor. Sat.
ii. 5, 53; Mart, iv. 72). In tablets containing
important legal documents, especially wills, the
outer edges were pierced through with holes
(foramina), through which a triple thread
(linum) was passed, and upon which a seal was
then placed. This was intended to guard against
forgery, and if it was not done such documents
were null and void (Suet. Ner. 17; Paulus, Sent.
Rec. v. 25, § 6; TESTAMENTUM).
Waxen tablets were used among the Romans
for almost every species of writing, where great
length was not required. Thus letters were
frequently written upon them, which were
secured by being fastened together with pack-
thread and sealed. Accordingly we read in
754 ſ'ABULAE
TABULARIUM
Plautus (Bacch. iv. 4, 64) when a letter is to be
written:
“Effer cito stilum, ceram, et tabellas, et linum.”
The sealing is mentioned afterwards (l. 96).
The impression of the seal was made either upon
wax (as in Plaut. l.c.; Ov. Am. ii. 15, 16; Plin.
H. N. ii. § 137), or upon a specially prepared
clay, called cretula (Cic. Verr. iv. 26, 58), creta
Asiatica (Cic. pro Flacc. 16, 3, where cera also is
mentioned as the alternative), yā a muavrpts
(Herod. ii 38), org/payls Amuvía (Aret. de Curat.
2, 2): sce also Cic. Cat. iii. 5, 10. For the seals
themselves, see SCALPTURA, p. 604. (Compare
Cic. in Catil. iii. 5.) Tabulae and tabellae are
therefore used in the sense of letters (Ovid, Met.
ix. 522). Love-letters were written on very
small tablets, called Vitelliani (Mart. xiv. 8, 9),
of which word, however, we do not know the
origin. Tablets of this kind are presented by
Amor to Polyphemus on an ancient painting
(Mus. Borbon. vol. i. tav. 2).
Legal documents, and especially wills, were
almost always written on waxen tablets, as
mentioned above; but even when written on
parchment or papyrus they were still technically
called tabulae (Ulp. Dig. 37, 11, 1 ; cf. 6éAtol,
Luc. Tim. 22). Such tablets were also used for
accounts, in which a person entered what he
received and expended (tabulae or codea, accepti
et eaſpensi, Cic. pro Rosc. Com. 2), whence novae
tabulae mean an abolition of debts either wholly
or in part (Suet. Jul. 42; Cic. de Off. ii. 23).
The above are merely some instances of the
extensive use of waxen tablets; others are given
in Marquardt, Privatleben, pp. 804, 805.
Two ancient waxen tablets have been dis-
covered in a perfect state of preservation, one in
a gold mine four or five miles from the village
of Abrudbānyā in Transylvania, and the other in
a gold mine in the village itself. Of this inter-
esting discovery an account has been published
by Massmann in a work entitled “Libellus
Aurarius, sive Tabulae Ceratae, et antiquissimae
et unice Romanae in Fodina Auraria apud
Abrudbanyam, oppidulum Transsylvanum, nuper
repertae,” Lipsiae (1841). An account of these
tablets, taken from Massmann’s description, will
serve as a commentary on what has been said
above. Both the tabulae are triptycha; that is,
consisting of three tablets each. One is made of
fir-wood, the other of beech-wood, and each is
about the size of what we call a small octavo.
The outer part of the two outside tablets of each
exhibits the plain surface of the wood; the inner
part is covered with wax, which is of a black
colour, and is surrounded with a raised margin.
The middle tablet has wax on both sides with
a margin around each; so that each of the two
tabulae contains four sides or four pages covered
with wax. The edges are pierced through, that
they might be fastened together by means of a
thread passed through them. The wax is not
thick in either; it is thinner on the beechen
tabulae, in which the stilus of the writer has
sometimes cut through the wax into the wood.
There are letters on both of them, but on the
beechen tabulae they are few and indistinct;
the beginning of the first tablet contains some
Greek letters, but they are suceeeded by a long
set of letters in unknown characters. The
writing on the tabulae made of fir-wood is both
greater in quantity and in a much better state
of preservation. It is written in Latin, and is a
copy of a document relating to some business
connected with a collegium. The name of the
consuls is given, which determines its date to be
A.D. 169. For the great collection of 127
diptychs and triptychs found at Pompeii in
1875, see Hermes, xii. 88; Overbeck, Pomp.” 489.
Wooden tablets written upon with ink, which
have been found in Egypt, are noticed by Mar-
quardt (Privatleben, p. 802).
Waxen tablets continued to be used in Europe
for the purposes of writing in the Middle Ages;
but the oldest of these with which we are ac-
quainted belongs to the year 1301 A.D., and is
preserved in the Florentine Museum.
The tablets used in voting in the comitia and
the courts of justice were also called tabulae as
well as tabellae. [TABELLA..] [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
TA'BULAE PU’BLICAE. [TABULARIUM.]
TABULA'RII were notaries or accountants,
who are first mentioned under this name in the
time of the Empire (Sen. Ep. 88;—Dig. 11, 6, 7;
50, 13, 1, § 6). Public notaries, who had the
charge of public documents, were also called
tabularii (Dig. 43, 5, 3), and these seem to have
differed from the tabelliones in the circumstance
that the latter had nothing to do with the
custody of the public registers. Public tabularii
were first established by M. Antoninus in the
provinces, who ordained that the births of all
children were to be announced to the tabularii
within thirty days from the birth (Capitol. M.
Anton. 9). Respecting the other duties of the
public tabularii, see Cod. Theod. 8, 2, and
Gothofr. ad loc. For the tabularii of the army,
see ExERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 803 a. [W. S.]
TABULA'RIUM, the place, at Rome and
elsewhere, where the tabulae publicae, or state
archives, were kept, corresponding to the
Amtpāov at Athens [ARCHEION]. The tabulae
publicae comprised rogations, senatusconsulta,
and plebiscita; records of finance, of public
contracts, of debtors to the state, the censors’
registers (tabulae censoriae), registers of births
and deaths (Capitol. M. Anton. Phil. 9); records
of judicial matters, not only of trials, but also
of jury lists (Cic. Phil. v. 5, 15), and records
of elections (Cic. Pis. 15, 36). But these were
not all, at all periods of history, kept together
in one place or under one control. The records
of the censors and finance were probably from
a very early date onwards kept in the treasury
in the Temple of Saturn, and under control
of the quaestors. [AERARIUM ; QUAESTOR.]
On the other hand, from the date 447 B.C.
the plebeian aediles had charge not only of
plebeian archives, but also of senatusconsulta,
subject to a general control or right of in-
spection by the tribunes (Liv. iii. 55; Zonar.
vii. 15); and when these records also were
transferred to the Aerarium (see below), the
quaestors shared with the aediles and tribunes
the charge of the state archives in general
(see Mommsen, Staatsr. ii. 490). This arrange-
ment, giving the custody to aediles and tribunes
conjointly with the regular officials of the
treasury, lasted till 12 B.C., when Augustus took
it away from them on account, as Dio says, of
their negligence (Dio Cass. liv. 36; cf. Cic. de
Leg. Agr. iii. 20, 46). In consequence again of
loss and decay of documents, Tiberius A.D. 16
TABULARIUM
TAGUS 755
appointed special curatores tabulariorum publ. to
assist the regular officers of the treasury (Dio
Cass. lvii. 16). The changes made by various
emperors between quaestors, praetors, and prae-
fects of the treasury are described under
AERARIUM, Wol. I. p. 36 a (cf. Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. 557–560).
The permanent depository, or tabularium, for
plebiscita and senatusconsulta was in the Temple
of Ceres until the year 187 B.C., when they were
transferred to the Aerarium (Liv. xxxix. 4),
which, so far as our evidence shows, became
then the sole permanent tabularium at Rome (cf.
Serv. ad Georg. ii. 502). It may be inferred
from this that the burning of the tabularium
during civil tumults early in the 1st century
B.C., alluded to by Cicero (pro Rab. perd. 3, 8;
de Nat. Deor. iii. 30, 74), must imply that the
part of the Temple of Saturn which formed the
tabularium was destroyed at that time and
afterwards rebuilt. The history of the remains
of a so-called tabularium above the Forum, and
the precise meaning of the statement that
Lutatius Catulus built a tabularium in B.C. 78
(C. I. L. vi. 1313, 1314), still need elucidation,
but need not be discussed here. [See Dict. of
Geography, s. v. Rome ; Middleton, Rome, p. 232;
O. Richter in Baumeister's Denkm. p. 1482;
Mommsen, Ann. Inst. 1858, p. 211, who thinks
that the substructio spoken of belonged to the
Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus.] There were also
temporary tabularia at Rome for the tabulae
censoriae, which seem to have given rise to the
belief in a number of permanent tabularia (Burn,
Rome and the Campagna, p. 97). The fact is
that the censors held the census of the people in
the Campus Martius, and deposited the records
during their term of office in the Temple of the
Nymphs (Cic. pro. Mil. 27, 73), which is believed
to have been in the Campus. The equestrian
census was held in the Forum, and accordingly
its records were deposited by the censors during
their term of office in the Atrium Libertatis (Liv.
xliii. 16), which from Cic. ad Att. iv. 16 seems
to have been in or near the Forum. At the
expiration of their office they deposited all their
records in the Aerarium (Liv. xxix. 37), except
possibly in very early times, when they seem to
have retained them in their private tablina
(Dionys. i. 74). The existence of these temporary
tabularia besides the permanent tabularium of
the treasury may be implied in the plural word
of Verg. Georg. ii. 502; but it is more probable
that the poet speaks of the tabularium and
merely uses the plural for the singular.
It is an error also to regard the Temple of
Jupiter Capitolinus as a tabularium (if we mean
thereby a receptacle for tabulae publicae). The
treaties and agreements with foreign states and
the senatusconsulta ratifying such agreements
were deposited in this temple, but they were
always engraved on bronze plates (tabulae aeneſſe,
Xaxictºuara), and were not included in the tabulae
publicae, nor was their repository called a tabu-
larium. (Polyb. iii. 26; Cic. Phil. iii. 12, 30;
ad Fam. xiii. 36; Suet. Vesp. 8 ; Liv. xxvi. 24;
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i. 255.)
As regards the method of entering decrees, &c.,
on the tabulae publicae, see SENATUSCONSULTUM,
p. 637; SCRIBA; Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. 1011–
1021. In the chief town of every province there
was a tabularium in which records of surveys
and the registers of the census (by Greek writers
called &vaypaqaf) were preserved (Marquardt,
Staatsverw. ii. 313, where numerous inscriptions
are cited): it appears, however, that abstracts
or copies were also sent to Rome, as is stated by
both Tertullian (adv. Marcion, 4, 7) and Chryso-
stom (vol. ii. p. 356 c, Montf.) in treating of the
&roypaqº mentioned in the Gospels (Marquardt,
ib. p. 216). So also there were tabularia in
Italian towns for municipal records (Cic. pro
Arch. 4, 8; cf. pro Cluent. 14, 41). [For the
tabularium castrense, see ExERCITUs, Wol. I.
p. 803 a.] [G. E. M.]
TAEDA (bats, Att. 54s, dim. 648tov), a torch
of fir-wood, called on this account pinea taeda
(Catull. 61, 15; Ovid, Fast. ii. 558). Hence the
name taeda is given to the tree itself (Plin.
H. N. xvi. § 44; cf. Hor. Od. iv. 4), for there
can be no doubt that “torch” was the primary
sense of the word. Before the adoption of the
more artificial modes of obtaining light, described
under CANDELA, FAX, FUNALE, and LUCERNA,
the inhabitants of Greece and Asia Minor
practised the following method, which still
prevails in those countries, and to a certain
extent in Scotland and Ireland, as well as in
other parts of Europe, which abound in forests
of pines (Fellows, Exc. in Asia Minor, pp. 140,
333–335):—A tree having been selected of the
species Pinus maritima, Linn., which was called
trečkm by the ancient Greeks from the time of
Homer (Il. xi. 494, xxiii. 328), and which retains
this name, with a slight change in its termina-
tion, to the present day, a large incision was
made near its root, causing the turpentine to
flow so as to accumulate in its vicinity. This
highly resinous wood was called Ögs, i.e. torch-
wood (Thuc. vii. 53); a tree so treated was
called évôgö0s, the process itself €vög500v, or
68809pyeiv, or more fully Saôokotrely trečkm!
(Theophr. H. P. v. 16, 2), and a tree so affected
is said by Pliny “taeda fieri" (H. N. xvi. § 45):
the workmen employed in the manufacture are
called Ögöoup'yoſ. After the lapse of twelve
months the portion thus impregnated was cut
out and divided into suitable lengths. This was
repeated for three successive years, and then,
as the tree began to decay, the heart of the trunk
was extracted, and the roots were dug up for
the same purpose (Theophr. H. P. i. 6, § 1 ;
iii. 9, §§ 3, 5; iv.16, § 1 ; x. 2, §§ 2, 3;-Athen.
xv. 700 f). These strips of resinous pine-wood
are now called 636ta by the Greeks of Mount
Ida (Hunt and Sibthorp, in Walpole's Mem.
pp. 120, 235).
For the uses of the torch by Greeks and
Romans and its significance in marriages and
funerals, see FAX. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TAE'NIA. [VITTA; STRoPHIUM.]
TAGUS (rayós), a commander or ruler, was
more particularly the name applied to the chief
magistrate of Thessaly, and to magistrates of
the Thessalian towns, at various periods of the
history of that country. Under this head it is
proposed to give a short account of the constitu-
tion of Thessaly.
The Thessalians are said to have been an
Epirot tribe, which crossed the Pindus, con-
quered the country to which it subsequently
gave its name, and either drove out or reduced
to subjection the original inhabitants (Herod.
vii. 176; Thuc. i. 12; Diod. iv. 57). They
3 C 2
756 TAGUS
TAGUS
seem to have settled originally in that part of
Thessaly known as escoraxtóris (Buttmann,
Mythol. xxii. p. 262), and soon after to have
completed the conquest of IIexagyiótts, for it
was to these two districts that the Penestae,
who were the remains of the earliest of the
native tribes which submitted to their dominion,
belonged (Archemach. ap. Athen. vi. p. 264; see
PENESTAE). They then completed the conquest
of the rest of Thessaly, and reduced the neigh-
bouring tribes of Achaeans, Perrhaebi, and Mag-
netes, with which they had been long at war
(Arist. Pol. ii. 9, 2), to the condition of perma-
nent dependencies (infikool, Thuc. ii. 101, iv. 78,
viii. 3.; see PERIOECI).
The princes who led the Thessalians to their
new homes across the Pindus were, like the
leaders of the Dorian invasion, Heracleidae
(Pind. Pyth. i. 10 sq.; Hom. Il. ii. 679; Butt-
mann, Mythol. ii. p. 260). As the Heracleidae
were found at Sparta in the families of the
Agids and Eurypontids, and at Corinth in that
of the Bacchiadae, so in Thessaly they were
represented chiefly by the Aleuadae and Scopa-
dae; and it is with the names first of Aleuas
and later of Scopas that the organisation of
Thessaly is connected. Thessaly appears as a
united whole under the rule of Aleuas the Red-
haired ('AAečas 6 IIáppos), a semi-mythical per-
sonage, to whom no date can even approximately
be assigned (Plut. de Fr. am. 21 ; Ael. de Nat.
anim. viii. 11). We are told, on the authority
of Aristotle, that he divided the country into
the four districts of Thessaliotis, Phthiotis,
Pelasgiotis, and Histiaeotis, which were called
Terpääes (Harpocrat. s. v. Terpapxia : Phot.,
Suid., s. v. ; Strabo, ix. p. 430). This division,
which was probably based on some preceding
natural division due to the mode in which the
country had been conquered, continued un-
changed to the latest times; and that it was
not merely nominal, but had a material signi-
ficance of the nature of which we are ignorant,
is shown by the frequency with which it asserted
itself as a real element in the Thessalian con-
stitution. Aleuas is also said to have fixed
certain regular military contingents, enjoining
each k×fipos, which was perhaps a subdivision of
the terpás, to furnish forty horsemen and eighty
hoplites (Arist. ap. Schol. vac. in Eur. Rhes.
307). We are further told that the tribute to
be paid by the subject states was fixed by a
certain Scopas (Xen. Hell. vi. 1, 19, trpoetre à:
kal roſs reptoſkous träori Tov påpov čo Trep &mi
>icóra rera yuévos ºv pépeuv), who is assigned
by modern authorities to the first half of the
sixth century B.C. (Gilbert, Staatsalt. ii. p. 8;
Buttmann, Abh. der Berl. Akad. 1832, p. 190 sq.).
From this time to the Persian wars Gilbert
thinks that there was always a king of Thessaly,
and that he was chosen from the Heracleidae,
though not always from the same family of this
race. Herodotus calls the Aleuadae “kings of
Thessaly ” at the time of the Persian invasion
(Herod. vii. 6), and he also states that in 510
B.C. Thessaly as a united whole (kolvi, Yvouſ,
xpedºuevoi) sent their king Kivému &vöpa
Kovialov (Kvruvalov, Stein) to help the Pisistra-
tidae (Herod. v. 63). As late as 454 B.C. we
find a certain Orestes of Pharsalus called king
of Thessaly (Thuc. i. 111), and even at this
period Thessaly may have been a united nation,
and the noble families have still considered
themselves vassals to a king of their own race
and perhaps of their own choosing. There is
no evidence to show that the names Baorixels
and Tayos were interchangeable; rayos may
have been one of the titles of the monarch, as
“dictator” and “magister populi” were probably
amongst the titles of the ancient kings of
Rome; and as the king at Athens became the
&pxwv, so in Thessaly he may have become the
rayós (Buttmann, Mythol. ii. p. 275). The
office was a temporary resumption of the mon-
archy, chiefly in respect of its military authority,
and was created for the purpose of uniting the
independent states of Thessaly for some common
purpose. The Tagus was apparently elected by
a majority of the states (Xen. Hell. vi. 1, 8);
and the whole military force of the country
was placed under his command: the surrounding
tribes, which seem, after the fall of the mon-
archy, to have been dependent on particular
states, as the Perrhaebi in Larisa (Strabo,
p. 440), were all brought under the control of
this temporary central government (Xen. Hell.
vi. 1, 9, tróvta rā Kūkāq, 369m ºthkoa uèv éorriv,
àrav rayos év646e karaorfi). The tribute
(pópos), which they seem usually to have paid
to the particular states on which they were
directly dependent (Strabo, l. c.), was now
exacted for the common purposes of the league
(Xen. Hell. vi. 1, 12); and they were made to
furnish light-armed troops, which the Tagus
levied (ib. vi. 1, 9). At the same time he raised
the greatest force which the free states of
Thessaly were capable of affording, and which
amounted on these occasions to 6,000 cavalry
and more than 10,000 infantry (Xen. Hell. vi.
1,
But such a union of the states of Thessaly
was rarely realised; and we meet with no actual
instance of the appointment of a Tagus until
after the Peloponnesian war. It is not known
when the monarchy came to an end, but it pro-
bably continued, in name at least, down to the
year 454 B.C. (Thuc. i. 111); it was followed by
a general break-up of the union of Thessaly;
and though the words of Thucydides (iv. 78, 3),
to travrov kolvöv, may point to some loose con-
federacy or common council, and though there
seems to have been a strong common democratic
sentiment running through the whole country,
yet the different states were largely independent
of one another and almost entirely under the
control of their separate hereditary oligarchies
(Thuc. l. c.). Thus Larisa was governed by the
Aleuadae, Cranon by the Scopadae, and Phar-
salus by the Creondae (Herod. vi. 127, vii. 6,
ix. 58; Diod. xv. 61, xvi. 14; Schol. in Theocr.
xvi. 34). The Aleuadae and Scopadae we know
were related (Ov. Tab. 512; Buttmann, Mythol.
ii. p. 270), and perhaps most of the great fami-
lies of Thessaly were connected, at least by
being Heraclidae, and therefore of the original
royal race, if Ilot by being offshoots of the
Aleuadae, who, we are told, ruled in many cities
(Pind. Pyth. 10 ad fin., áv 6’ &ya60ſort ke?ral
trarpatai kebval troAtwv kvgepvdories). Some-
times a powerful state, like Pharsalus, extended
its rule over other smaller cities (Xen. Hell. vi.
1, 8), but each of the larger states seems to
have been practically independent both in foreign
and domestic politics. In 431 B.C., at the com-
TAGUS
TAGUS 757
mencement of the Peloponnesian war, we find
that each of the cities which sent help to the
Athenians appointed its own commander, and
that the forces from Larisa were led by two
generals, each chosen from a separate clan or
faction in the city (&mb rās orrāorews ékárepos,
Thuc. ii. 22); and we also find nobles, like
Menon of Pharsalus in 364 B.C., arming their
Penestae and taking an independent part in the
wars of foreign nations (Dem. c. Aristocr. § 238).
These instances point to the disorganised condi-
tion of Thessaly, which was indeed a noted
characteristic of the country throughout its
history (Liv. xxxiv. 51). The towns were under
the control of a feudal nobility, who maintained
their power the more easily through the pre-
ponderance of cavalry amongst the Thessalians,
which their wealth and the character of the
country enabled them to support, and the com-
parative unimportance of the 6trattai (Arist.
Pol. iv. 3, 3; Thuc. ii. 22; Herod. v. 63; Dem.
J. c.). The country was distracted at once by
clan-feuds and by the struggles of the demo-
cracy against the dominant castes. In some
states a compromise was for a time effected, as
at Larisa, where a mediator (&pxov uéoričios)
was at one time called in to allay the feuds in
the ruling family (Arist. Pol. v. 6, 13), and
where different magistrates of a democratic
character, called troAvroq6Aakes and Ömutovpyot,
were appointed, to satisfy the claims of the
popular party (ib. v. 6, 6, iii. 2, 2.; Etym. M.
s.v. Ömutovpyós).
The rule of the nobility continued until the
close of the Peloponnesian war; and it was not
until 404 B.C. that the democratical reaction
became strong enough to cause its overthrow.
In this year Lycophron of Pherae attempted to
raise himself to the position of Tagus of Thes-
saly (Xen. Hell. ii. 3, 4). Unable to secure his
eflection by constitutional means, he made him-
self tyrant (Diod. xiv. 82), and attempted to
unite the whole of Thessaly under his sway.
This object was actually accomplished by his
successor Jason in 375 B.C. (Xen. Hell. vi. 1 sq.;
Diod. xv. 60); but after the assassination of the
latter in 370 B.C., his successors Polydorus,
Polyphron, and Alexander of Pherae were unable
to maintain the constitutional hegemony, and
the office of Tagus developed into an irregular
tyranny (Xen. Hell. vi. 4, 33; Diod. xv. 61),
for the suppression of which the aid of the
Thebans under Pelopidas was repeatedly called in.
Meanwhile we find that, about 364 B.C., an
attempt was made at a reconstruction of the
constitution of united Thessaly, for the purpose
of joint action against Alexander of Pherae.
We find again the koivov táv 6errañów, com-
posed of the four terpáðes (C.I.A. ii. n. 88).
At its head stood an āpxwv, and each retpās
seems to have had its troxéuapxot, with tréap-
xot for the command of the foot-soldiers and
irrapyot for the command of the cavalry, and
other officers, apparently of a religious charac-
ter, called ispouvhuoves (C. I. A. ii. n. 88, where
roxéuapxot and régapxot are mentioned; Ditten-
berger, n. 85 — a treaty of alliance between
Athens and Thessaly in 361 B.C. — 1. 17, rö
growby ro 9ertaxóv—rov &pxovra by etàovro
6erraxoſ : 1. 24, Éopkóoroo’iv 'AyéAaoy Tov
&pxovra kal rows troAspidpxous kal rows irráp-
xovs kal rows intréas kal rows iepoºvákovas
kal robs &AAous &pxoviras, 3rogoi Širèp to kowo
to 6erraxów &pxoguv). But this independent
organisation was not of long duration. The
subsequent usurpations of Sisiphorus and Lyco-
phron induced the aristocracy to call in the
assistance of Philip of Macedon, who deprived
Lycophron of his power in 352 B.C. (Dem.
Olynth. ii. p. 19, § 7); and this interference in the
affairs of Thessaly paved the way for its subjec-
tion to Macedonia, which was effected in 344 B.C.
Philip re-organised the country by instituting
tetrarchies (retpapxtal, Dem. Phil. iii. p. 120, § 35;
Harpocr. s. v.) and decarchies (Sekaðapxtal, Dem.
Phil. ii. p. 71, § 24); but it is doubtful whether
these two modes of organisation were coexistent,
and, if so, what relation the latter bore to the
former. The tetrarchy was no doubt a re-insti-
tution of the division into rerpaëes: and the
decarchy has been variously explained as a coun-
cil of ten under which each of the principal
cities was placed, or as a similar council which
governed each of the four divisions, or as a
supreme council which was invested with the
government of the whole country: this last
alternative being on the whole the most pro-
bable (Dem. l. c. Thy kaðeo rôorav vov Sekaðap-
xfav: see Whiston's note in loc.). Thessaly
remained henceforth dependent on the Mace-
donian kings until the year 196 B.C., when the
Romans, by the victory of Cynoscephalae,
wrested it from Philip V., and restored the
autonomy of the country.
From this time we get a renewal of the
alliance of the Thessalian states (kowov 6eorola-
Aów); at the head of this confederacy stood a
orrparmyós, appointed yearly, and we find the
names of such otpatmºyol recorded both in
inscriptions and on coins (Rev. Arch. xxxi. 1876,
pp. 256, 257). The tribes formerly dependent
on Thessaly—the Dolopes, Perrhaebi, and Mag-
netes—were now constituted as independent
states (Liv. xxxiii. 34; Polyb. xviii. 30, 6; see
Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 658, n. 1): thus we
find that the Magnetes had a general council
of their own (“Magnetum consilium,” Liv.
xxxv. 31), and a supreme magistrate who bore
the title Magnetarches (Liv. xxxv. 39 and 43).
The constitution of the separate Thessalian
states, as they were organised by T. Quintius
Flamininus, was of a timocratic character (Liv.
xxxiv. 51, “a cursu maxime et senatum et
judices legit, potentioremdue eam partem civita-
tium fecit, cui salva et tranquilla omnia magis
expediebant "). On the occasions when the states
were summoned to discuss measures which con-
cerned the whole of Thessaly, the general council
met at Larisa (Liv. xxxv. 31; xlii. 38, “Thes-
salorum Larissae fuit consilium”).
During the Macedonian and Roman rule we
find the word rayos occurring frequently as a
title of the magistrates of the Thessalian states;
it is found in the fourth century B.C. at Phar-
salus and Cranon (Cauer, nn. 395 and 400), in
the third century at Larisa (Cauer, n. 409
B.C. 219 and 214), and about the year 196, at
the commencement of the period of Roman rule,
at Cyretiae (C. I. G. n. 1770). At Larisa and
Cyretiae they were the chief magistrates; thus
letters of Philip W. of Macedon and of T. Quin-
tius Flamininus are addressed rols rayots kal rà
tróAet xaſpeiv (Cauer, n. 409; C. J. G. n. 1770):
in other states they appear as directing the pro-
7.58 TALARIA
TALIO
ceedings of the ēkkamata, and as the executive and
finance officers (Cauer, n. 386 a, trpoo rateúovros
rås ékkamaſas Tāv Tayóv pixovos: Gilbert,
Staatsalt. ii. p. 15). [Gilbert, Handb. der Griech.
Staatsalt. ii. pp. 5–16; Buttmann, Mythologus,
No. xxii. (Von dem Geschlecht der Alewaden);
Woemel, de Thessaliae incolis antiqu., Frankf.
1829; Hoew, de Thessalia Macedonum imperio
subjecta, Gryphiae, 1829; Schömann, Antiq. Jur.
publ. Graec. p. 401; C. F. Hermann, Political
Antiquities of Greece (Eng. trans.), § 178;
Wachsmuth, Hellen. Alterth. i. 2, § 60, p. 106;
Duncker, History of Greece (Eng. trans.), bk. ii.
ch. v. [A. H. G.]
TALA'RIA (trepčevra tré6ixa), coverings
for the feet, either boots or sandals, with small
wings attached. They are represented in ancient
art and literature as the attributes of Hermes
(Il. xxiv. 340; Od. v. 44; Verg. Aen. iv. 239,
Mercury) and of Perseus (Hes. Scut. 216–220;
Ov. Met. iv. 664 f.), and had the property of
carrying their wearers through the air, over
land and sea. On the monuments, Hermes is
often (though not invariably) depicted as wear-
ing these winged boots or sandals (see e.g. Furt-
wängler, Vasenk. 1753, 2182, 2345; Couze,
Heroen- u. Göttergest., Taf. 71, 1 ; Overbeck,
Gal. her. Bildw., Taf. 15, 12). In the Hellenistic
and Roman periods the wings are sometimes
attached to the bare ankles of Hermes or Mer-
cury (e.g. Baumeister, Denkm. art. Hermes, fig.
740 = Mus. Borb. vi. 2). On the resting
Hermes at Naples (Baumeister, Denkm. art.
Hermes, fig. 738; see also woodcut to the pre-
sent article) the wings are attached by straps to
the feet of Hermes. It should be noted that on
Foot with talaria. (From statue of Hermes at Naples.)
early Greek vase-paintings Hermes is found
wearing boots, to the upper rim of each of
which is attached a curved object. This appears
to be a strap for pulling on the boot, and not a
rude representation of a wing (Roscher, Lexikon,
art. Hermes, p. 2400;-Baumeister, Denkm. art.
Athena, fig. 171; ib. art. Herakles, fig. 722;
ib., art. Dreifuss- und Dreifussraub, fig. 512).
Examples of the talaria of Perseus may be seen
on the early vase figured in Monumenti, vol. x.
pl. 52= Rayet and Collignon, Hist, de la Cérami-
que, p. 75, fig. 38; see also Baumeister, op. cit.,
art. Perseus, fig. 1439, 1440. [W–K W–H.]
TALASSIO. [MATRIMONIUM.]
TALENTUM (ºrdNavrov) was the heaviest
unit of weight in use among the Greeks; and
as a talent of gold, silver, or copper was a defi-
nite amount of money, varying of course with
the standard by which it was weighed, the word
stood also for monetary units. A large number
of talents were in use in different parts of Greece
—the Euboic, the Aeginetan, the Phoenician, &c.
—the weights of which will be found in the
tables under PONDERA. Pollux (ix. 86) mentions
several of these, and gives their value in propor-
tion to the Attic talent. He also remarks that:
the talent of each district contained 60 minae of
that district, and the mina 100 drachmae.
There were, however, one or two talents of a
peculiar character which require special men-
tion. The talent of gold of Homer (Il. ix. 124;
xviii. 507; xxiii. 262) was certainly some quite
small amount; and ancient writers conjectured
that it was of the weight of a daric (128 grains),
a view which modern investigations tend to
confirm. Of somewhat greater value was a
talent of gold mentioned by the poet Philemon
as consisting of three xpvoroſ or gold staters.
Possibly they may have been the equivalent of a
talent of copper.
Like all other nations, the Greeks used various
talents for different classes of goods. The Baby-
lonians, as we have set forth under PONDERA,
had one talent for gold, one for silver, and one
for goods. In Athens in historical times the
emporic or commercial talent was quite differen
from the talent of the mint, bearing to it a
relation of about 3 to 2. And even for different
sorts of heavy goods special weights were em-
ployed. Thus we hear of a talent for weighing
wood (£vXuköv ráAavrov) as in use at Antioch
and at Alexandria; and in all places the Attic
weights seem to have been used for drugs. For
abundant references to ancient authorities, see
td.Aavrov in the index', to Hultsch's Metrologic;
Scriptores. [P. G.]
TALIO, from talis, signifies an equivalent,
but it is used only in the sense of a punishment,
or penalty the same in kind and degree as the
mischief which the guilty person has done to
the body of another (cf. Isidor. v. 27, “Talio est.
similitudo vindictae, uttaliter quis patiatur, ut
fecit. Hoc enim et natura et lege est institutum,
ut caedentem similis vindicta sequatur’). A
provision as to talio occurred in the Twelve
Tables: “Si membrum rupit ni cum eo pacit
talio esto” (Festus, s. v. Talionis; Gell. xxi. 1;
Gaius, iii. 223). It appears that, according to
this law, a defendant declared guilty in the
actio de membris ruptis of having broken the
limb of the plaintiff was condemned to the penalty
of retaliation at the hands of the individual
injured or his friends, unless he could agree
with his adversary that a pecuniary composition
should be substituted for retaliation (pactum de
redimenda talione). A practice came to be es-
tablished, that in case of disagreement as to the
amount of composition to be paid, the party who
had committed the wrong might demand an
arbitrator of the magistratus for the purpose
of having the damages fixed, so that he could
escape from liability to talio by paying a fair
composition (Gell. xx. 1, 37, &c. : “hanc quoque
ipsam talionem ad aestimationem judicis redigi
necessario solitam. Nam si reus, qui depacisci
noluerat, judici talionem imperanti non parebat,
aestimata lite judex hominem pecuniae dampna-
bat, atque ita, si reo et pactio gravis et acerba
talio visa fuerat, severitas legis ad pecuniae
multam redibat”). The punishment of talio
was only inflicted under the Twelve Tables on
account of the breaking of a limb (propter mem-
brum ruptum); for the breaking of a bone

TALUS
TALUS 759
(propter os fractum) as distinct from a limb, the
penalty was 300 asses if the person injured was
a freeman, and 150 if he was a slave; for other
injuries, 25 asses: such sums being considered
adequate compensation in early times of great
poverty, as Gaius tells us (iii. 223).
The principle of talio is generally found in
systems of primitive law, gradually giving place,
as at Rome, to that of pecuniary damages or
penalty. Cato, as quoted by Priscian (vi. p. 710,
Putsch), says in reference to Punic law: , “Si
quis membrum rupit, aut os fregit, talione
proximus cognatus ulciscatur.” Talio, as a
punishment, was a part of the Mosaic law :
“breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for
tooth; as he hath caused a blemish in a man,
so shall it be done to him again * (Levit. xxiv.
20). (Rein, Das Criminalrecht der Römer,
pp. 37,358, 816, 915; Rudorff, Römische Rechts-
geschichte, ii. 325, note 1; Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln,
ii. § 132.) « [E. A. W.]
TALUS (&orpáyaxos), the name of a bone
in the hind leg of cloven-footed animals which
articulates with the tibia and helps to form the
ankle-joint (Aristot. Hist. An. ii. 1, § 34). In the
language of anatomists it is still called astra-
galus; the English name is sometimes “huckle-
bone,” but more commonly “knuckle-bone *
(Germ. Knöchel). The astragali of sheep and
goats, from their peculiar squareness and smooth-
ness, have been used as playthings from the
earliest times, and have often been found in
Greek and Roman tombs, both natural and
imitated in ivory, bronze, glass, and agate
(Propert. iii. 24, 13; Mart. xiv. 14; Ficoroni,
Tav. 2). Those of the antelope (öopkáðelow)
were sought as objects of elegance and curiosity
(Theophr. Char. 5; Athen. v. p. 193 f). They
were used to play with, principally by women
and children (Plut. Alcib. 2), occasionally by
old men (Cic. de Sen. 16, § 58). A painting by
Alexander of Athens, found at Resina, represents
two women occupied with this game. One of
them, having thrown the bones upwards into
the air, has caught three of them on the back
of her hand (Ant d’Erc. i. tav. 1). See the fol-
lowing woodcut, and compare the account of the
Tali. (From a painting at Herculaneum.)
game in Pollux (ix. 99). Polygnotus executed
a similar work at Delphi, representing the two
daughters of Pandarus thus employed (traigoûoras
ãotpayáAois, Paus. X. 30, § 1). But a much
more celebrated production was the group of
two naked boys, executed in bronze by Poly-
cletus, and called the Astragalizontes (Plin.
H. N. xxxiv. § 55). A fractured marble group
of the same kind, preserved in the British
Museum, exhibits one of the two boys in the
act of biting the arm of his playfellow, so as to
present a lively illustration of the account in
Homer of the fatal quarrel of Patroclus (Il.
xxiii. 87,88). To play at this game was some-
times called trevreat64(eiv, because five bones or
other objects of a similar kind were employed
(Pollux, l.c.; Hermipp. fr. 33 M.); and this
number is retained among ourselves. This game
was entirely one of skill; and in ancient no less
than in modern times, it consisted not merely in
catching the five bones on the back of the hand,
as shown in the woodcut, but in a great variety
of exercises requiring quickness, agility, and
accuracy of sight.
The name was also given to dice for playing
games of chance [ALEA]; et first, no doubt,
merely the natural bones marked with pips,
afterwards of a conventional shape reproducing
the peculiarities of the knuckle-bone. The
length was greater than the breadth, so that
they had four long sides and two pointed ends,
one of them called kepata (Aristot. l.c.), the
other without a name. Of the four long sides,
which alone were marked, two were broader,
the others narrower. One of the broad sides was
convex (rpmvhs or ºrpavās), the other concave
(Örría); while of the narrow sides one was flat
and called Xīov, the other indented. This was
called kóov, and as the rarest was also the luck-
iest throw, marked 6: the Xīov was marked 1,
the broader sides 3 and 4, so that the numbers
2 and 5 were wanting. From the difference of
their shapes they did not absolutely require to
be marked, and sometimes the pips were dis-
pensed with (Poll. ix. 99, rb 88 orx?ua roºs car&
tov &otpdyaxov Träuatos épiðuot 56éav sixev).
It was the under side of the die, not the upper,
that counted, as must be inferred from the fact
of the narrowest side giving the highest throw
(Marquardt, Privatl. 828).
The Greek and Latin names of the numbers
were as follows (Pollux, l.c.; Eustath. in Hom.
Il. xxiii. 88; Suet. Aug. 73 ; Mart. xiii. 1, 6):
—1. Movás, eſs, küov, Xios (Brunck, Anal. i.
35, 242); 2. Ion, Otum : Unio, Volturius, canis
(Propert. v. (iv.) 8, 45; Ovid, A. A. ii. 206,
Trist. ii. 473); 3. Tpids: Ternio; 4. Terpás:
Quaternio ; 6. ‘Ełós, ÉÉtºrms, Kó0s: Senio.
As the bone is broader in one direction than in
the other, it was said to fall upright or prone
(óp68s 3) trpmvás, rectus aut pronus), according as
it rested on a narrow or a broad side (Plut. Quaest.
Sympos. v. 6, p. 680 a ; Cic. de Fin. iii. 16, § 54).
Two persons played together at this game,
using four bones, which they threw up into the
air, or emptied out of a dice-box [FRITILLUS].
The numbers on the four sides of the four bones
admitted of thirty-five different combinations.
The lowest throw of all was four aces (jacit
volturios quatuor, Plaut. Curc. ii. 3, 78). But
the value of a throw (86Aos, jactus) was not in
all cases the sum of the four numbers turned
up. The highest in value was that called Venus,
or jactus Venereus (Plaut. Asin. v. 2, 55 ; Cic.
de Div. ii. 59, § 121; Propert, Suet, ll.cc.), in
which the numbers cast up were all different
(Mart. xiv. 14), the sum of them being only
fourteen. It was by obtaining this throw that

760 TAMIAS
TAMIAS
&
the king of the feast was appointed among the
Romans (Hor. Carm. i. 4, 18; ii. 7, 25) [SYM-
Fosium], and hence it was called Basilicus (Plaut.
Curc. ii. 3, 80). Certain other throws were
called by particular names, taken from gods,
illustrious men and women, and heroes. Thus
the throw, consisting of two aces and two trays,
making eight, was denominated Stesichorus. A
multitude of these names of throws are given by
Pollux (vii. 204 f.), who quotes the following
lines from the Kv3évral of Eubulus (fr. 57 M.):—
Kevrporós, tepēs, app’iréppaNAov tróðas,
Kiipuwos, evöaiuov, Kuvorós, òprwa,
Aékoves, āvtirevXos, 'Apyelos, Šákvov,
Tºpičkpitos, &AAeimov, truaxirms, étriberos,
orbáAAtov, dyvprijs, olorrpos, &vakápºttrov, Šopeiſs,
Adºrov, Kūkāores, mudépov, XóAov, Xiuww.
The number of names far exceeds that of possible
throws, so that some must have been identical.
When the object was simply to throw the highest
numbers, the game was called traetorrobox{vöa
(Pollux, ix. 117). Before a person threw the
tali, he often invoked either a god or his mistress
(Plaut. Capt. i. 1, 5; Curc. ii. 3, 77–79). These
bones, marked and thrown as above described,
were also used in divination (Suet. Tib. 14).
For the cubical die marked on all six sides,
see TESSERA (Eustath. ad Il. xxiii. 87, p. 1397;
Becq de Fouquières, Jeux des Anciens, ed. 2,
pp. 325–356; Marquardt, Privatl. 826 ft.)
[J. Y.] [W. W.]
TA'MIAS (rapitas) was a name given to any
person who had the care, management, or dis-
pensing of money, stock, or property of any de-
scription, confided to him, as a steward, butler,
housekeeper, storehousekeeper, or treasurer. The
word is applied metaphorically in a variety of
ways. But the tautai who will fall under our
notice in this article, are more especially the
... treasurers of the temples and the revenues of
different Greek states. -
The name and office of rapital occur in inscrip-
tions throughout the Grecian world. One of the
duties most commonly assigned to them was
that of paying the expenses of public sacrifices;
they are likewise mentioned as responsible for
payments for the setting up of pillars with
inscriptions, for honorary crowns, for the enter-
tainment of foreign ambassadors and the salaries
of those sent out for contracts for leases on be-
half of the state, for lending at interest on its
account, &c. (See lists of towns and inscriptions,
mostly from Dittenberger, in Gilbert, Staats-
alterth. ii. 334, and the Index.)
In ancient times every temple of any im-
portance had property belonging to it, besides
its furniture and ornaments; and a treasury
where such property was kept. Lands were
attached to the temple, from which rents ac-
crued; fines were made payable to the god ;
trophies and other valuables were dedicated to
him by the public; and various sacred offerings
were made by individuals. The wealthiest of
all the temples at Athens was that of Athena in
the Acropolis, in which were kept the spoils
taken from the Persians (rö, äpia reſa ràs
tróAews), besides magnificent statues, painting,
and other works of art (Dem. c. Timocr. 741,
§ 129). To the goddess large fines were spe-
cially appropriated by the law or given by
decree of the courts or the assembly; and
besides this she received a tenth of all the fines
that went to the state, a tenth of all confisca-
tions and prizes taken in war, a sixtieth of the
tribute paid by the subject-allies [HELLENO-
TAMIAE]. Her treasurers were called rapiſai
Töv ispáv xpmudrov rhs 'A6mvaías (C. I. A. i.
117 ff., 188), or shortly, rapiſai rās 6eoû (ib. i.
324, &c.), and rapital rôv ràs 9600 (See-Urk.
p. 465; C. I. A. ii. 612, &c.), even simply
Tautai (ib. i. 273, 299). They appear to have
existed from an early period. Herodotus (viii.
51, 53) relates that the rapital row iepot with a
few other men awaited the attack of Xerxes
upon the Acropolis, and perished in its defence.
They were ten in number, chosen annually by
lot from the class of Pentacosiomedimni, and
afterwards, when the distinction of classes had
ceased to exist, from among the wealthiest of
Athenian citizens (Harpocr. and Suid., S. v.
Taufat: Poll. viii. 97; C. I. A. i. 32, 299).
In early times there seem to have been as
many boards of rapital as there were temples;
but in the archonship of Antilochides, 435–4 B.C.,
they were all united into one board (probably
also of ten members), the rapital rôv &AAww
6eóv: while those of Pallas still remained dis-
tinct (C. I. A. i. 32, 194). Their treasury was
at this time transferred to the same place as
that of Athena, to the Opisthodomos of the Par-
thenon, where the state-treasures were also
kept (Aristoph. Plut. 1193). In the archonship
of Eucleides (B.C. 403), or soon after, these two
boards were consolidated into one, now called oi
Tapital rôv iepāv xpmudrav ràs 'A6mvaías kai
rów &AAwy 6eów (C. I. A. ii. 2, 642 ft.). After
a few years—the date is fixed by inscriptions at
between 390–385 B.C. (Gilbert, i. 236 m.)—they
were again separated, and in the time of Demo-
sthenes we find the two bodies of rapital still
subsisting, oi rôv ris 6eoû and oi Tôv &AAwv
6eów (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 743, § 136).
All the funds of the state were considered as
being in a manner consecrated to Pallas ; while
on the other hand the people reserved to them-
selves the right of making use of the sacred
monies, as well as the other property of the
temples, if the safety of the state should require
it (Thucyd. ii. 13). It is to be observed that,
though the state-treasure (āoria xpiluata) and
the sacred treasure (ispá xpiuara) were kept for
security in the same place, the Opisthodomos,
they were always under distinct management.
On this point the statement of Boeckh (P. E.
p. 164–Sthh.* i. 200), that the rautai rās 9eoû
were the common treasurers of both funds, re-
quires correction from the researches of Kirchhoff
(Abh. d. Berl. Akad. 1876; Fränkel, n. 268 on
Boeckh). In the fifth century the state treasure
was in the custody of the Hellenotamiae; the
rapiſai rās 6.e06, and those of the other gods,
drew from the sacred treasure what was re-
quired for religious purposes, of course on their
own responsibility; and they advanced money
out of it to the state, in the form of loans bear-
ing interest (C. I. A. i. 273), though in hard
times the repayment was often delayed. After
the Peloponnesian war there must have been for
a long time little or no reserve in the state
treasury, and no special provision for its custody
was wanted.
Payments made to the temples were received
by the treasurers in the presence of some mem-
-
TAMIAS
TAPETE 761
bers of the senate, just as public monies were
by the Apodectae; and then the treasurers be-
came responsible for their safe custody. They
had no discretionary power of dealing with the
treasure committed to their care; it was by a
special decree that Androtion obtained authority
to melt down the golden crowns (Dem. c. Androt.
p. 615, § 70); and if the story is true that they
once lent money to the bankers for their own
profit (Schol. ad Dem. c. Timocr. p. 743, § 136),
it was an act of embezzlement. As to fines, see
EPIBOLE, PRACTOREs; and on the whole of this
subject, Boeckh, bk. ii. ch. 5.
The treasurer of the revenue, rapitas or étri-
Auexmrås ris kowns ºrpoo &Sov, was a more im-
portant personage than those last mentioned.
He was not a mere keeper of monies, like them,
nor a mere receiver, like the Apodectae ; but a
general paymaster, who received through the
Apodectae all money which was to be disbursed
for the purposes of the administration (except
the property-taxes which were paid into the
war-office, and the tribute from the allies, which
was at first paid to the Hellenotamiae, and after-
wards to other persons hereafter mentioned), and
then distributed it in such manner as he was re-
quired to do by the law : the surplus (if any) he
paid into the war-office or the Theoric fund. As
this person knew all the channels in which the
public money had to flow, and exercised a general
superintendence over the expenditure, he was
competent to give advice to the people upon
financial measures, with a view to improve the
revenue, introduce economy, and prevent abuses.
He is variously called rapitas rās kowns trpooróðov
(Decret. ap. Ps.-Plut. Witt. X. Oratt. p. 852 B;
in p. 841 B it is simply rapifas), or röv koiváv
Trpooróðav (Plut. Arist. 4), or à émil ris Stouch-
orews (spurious decrees, ap. Dem. de Cor. p. 238,
§ 38, p. 265, § 115), or more usually 6 &ti Ti,
5uoukioret : this last appears to have been the
official title (see Inscrp. in Gilbert, i. 233 n.):
and was the nearest approach that Athenian
institutions admitted to a modern finance
minister or “Chancellor of the Exchequer.” To
him Aristophanes refers in Eq. 948. He was
elected by xeuporovía, and held his office for four
years, but was capable of being re-elected. A
law, however, was passed during the administra-
tion of Lycurgus, prohibiting re-election (Witt.
2. Oratt. p. 841 C.); so that Lycurgus, who is
reported to have continued in office for twelve
years, must have held it for the last eight years
under the names of other persons. On the
financial career of Lycurgus, see Mahaffy, Gr.
Lit. ii. 368. The power of this officer was by
no means free from control; inasmuch as any
individual was at liberty to propose financial
measures, or institute criminal proceedings for
malversation or waste of the public funds; and
there was an āvriypaqets ris Stouchorews ap-
pointed to check the accounts of his superior.
On the tropio ral who at one time assisted him in
his duties, see Antiph. de Chor. §49; Aristoph. Ran.
1505; Fränkel, n. 273 on Boeckh. [PorisTAE.]
The money disbursed by the treasurer of the
revenue was sometimes paid directly to the
various persons in the employ of the govern-
ment, sometimes through subordinate pay offices.
Many public functionaries had their own pay-
masters, who were dependent on the rapiſas rijs
arooaráðov, receiving their funds from him, and
then distributing them in their respective de-
partments. Such were the rpimporouot, tel-
xorotot, 68orouot, rapporouot, Émplexntal vew-
píov, who received through their own rapital
such sums as they required from time to time
for the prosecution of their works. The pay-
ment of the judicial fees (5ucaa’rikov) was made
by the kwxakpétat. [ColacRETAE.] The taufat
of the sacred vessels, ris IIapáAov and ris Xa-
Aauvías, acted not only as treasurers, but as
trierarchs; the expenses (amounting for the two
ships together to about sixteen talents) being
provided by the state. They were elected by
xelpotovía (Demosth. c. Mid. p. 570, § 171;
Pollux, viii. 116). Other trierarchs had their
own private tapital, for the keeping of accounts
and better dispatch of business (Boeckh, P. E.
bk. ii. ch. 6; Schömann, Antiq. Jur. Publ. pp.
250, 312).
The duties of the ‘EAAmvorawſat are spoken of
in a separate article. [HELLENOTAMIAE.]
The war fund at Athens (independently of the
tribute) was provided from two sources: 1st,
the property-tax [EISPHORA], and 2ndly, the
surplus of the yearly revenue, which remained
after defraying the expenses of the civil admin-
istration, rà repuávra xpſiuara rås Stoucho’ews
([Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1346, § 4). They had
under them a treasurer, called Tautas róvotpa-
riaruków, who gave out the pay of the troops,
and defrayed all other expenses incident to the
service. Demosthenes, perhaps on account of
some abuses which had sprung up, recommended
that the generals should have nothing to do
with the military fund, but that this should be
placed under the care of special officers, rapital
kal 6muôortoi, who should be accountable for its
proper application: röv učv táv xpmudrov
A6) ov trap, rotºrwy Aapédévely, tow 5% rāv čpywy
trap& rod orparmyot (de Cherson. p. 101, § 47).
The notion of Boeckh (P. E. p. 181 = Sthh.* i.
223), Meier (in Att. Process), and Schömann
(Ant. Jur. Publ. p. 252, n. 7), that one of the
Strategi was called ortparnybs 6 &ti rās 8touch-
orea's, is now rejected (Fränkel, n. 322 on Boeckh;
Lipsius, Att. Process, p. 120, n. 243). No such
phrase occurs among the special titles of Strategi
gathered from inscriptions by Gilbert (Staats-
alterth. i. 221 f.).
So much of the surplus revenue as was not
required for the purposes of war, was to be paid
by the treasurer of the revenue into the Theoric
fund; of which, after the Archonship of Euclides,
special managers were created. [THEORICA.]
Lastly, we have to notice the treasurers of
the demi, Shuwu Taufal, and those of the tribes,
qvXóv rawfai, who had the care of the funds
belonging to their respective communities, and
performed duties analogous to those of the
state treasurers. The demi, as well as the
tribes, had their common lands, which were
usually let to farm. The rents of these formed
the principal part of their revenue. PöNapxot,
6%uapxot, and other local functionaries were
appointed for various purposes; but with respect
to their internal economy we have but scanty
information. (Schömann, Assemblies, pp. 371-
378 = 349–355 tr. Paley; Ant. Jur. Publ.
pp. 203, 204.) [C. R. K.]. [W. W.]
TAPE"TE (rárms, rémis, or Sáris), a piece of
tapestry, a carpet. tº
The use of tapestry was in very ancient times
762
TAUROBOLIUM.
TAPETE
characteristic of Oriental rather than of Euro-
pean habits (Athen. ii. p. 48 m); we find that
the Asiatics, and also the Carthaginians, who
were of Asiatic origin, and the Egyptians, ex-
celled in the manufacture of carpets, displayed
them on festivals and other public occasions,
and gave them as presents to their friends (Xen.
Anab. vii. 3, § 18, 27). They were nevertheless
used by the Greeks as early as the age of Homer,
sometimes as pillows, sometimes as coverlets
(Il. x. 156; xvi. 224; xxiv. 230, 645; –Od. iv.
298; vii. 337), and by some of the later Roman
emperors they were given as presents to the
combatants at the Circensian Games (Sidon.
Apoll. Carm. xxiii. 427). The places most re-
nowned for the manufacture were Babylon
(Arrian, Eaped. Alea’. vi. 29, § 5; Sidon. Apoll.
Epist. ix. 13), Tyre and Sidon (Heliodor. v.
p. 252, ed. Commelin.), Sardes (Athen. ii. p. 48 b,
vi. p. 255 e, xii. p. 514 c ; Non. Marcell. p. 542),
Miletus (Aristoph. Ran. 542), Alexandria (Plaut.
Pseud. i. 2, 13), Carthage (Athen. i. p. 28 a),
and Corinth (Id. i. p. 27 d). In reference to
the texture, these articles were distinguished as
those which were light and thin with but little
nap, chiefly made at Sardes and called pixo-
Túriðes (Athen. vi. p. 255 e, xii. p. 514 c; Diog.
Laërt. v. 72), and those in which the nap
(uańAbs) was more abundant, and which were
soft and woolly (of Aot, Hom. Il. xvi. 224;
Maxarcot, Épíow, Od. iv. 124). The thicker and
more expensive kinds (uańAwtol) resembled our
baize or drugget, or even our soft and warm
blankets, and were of two sorts, viz. those
which had the nap on one side only (śrepô-
MaXXol), and those which had it on both sides,
called åpºpframou (Athen. v. p. 197 b, vi.
p. 255 e ; Diog. Laërt. v. 72, 73), amphitapae
(Non. Marcell. p. 540; Lucil. Sat. i. p. 188, ed.
Bip.), or &uſpirgrºtes (Eustath. in Hom. Il. ix.
200), and also &uqtuaxNot or amphimalla (Plin.
H. W. viii. § 193). They were frequently of
splendid colours, being dyed either with the
kermes (Hor. Sat. ii. 6, 102–106) or with the
murex (conchyliata, āAoup'yeſs, àAttroppūpol), and
having figures, especially hunting-pieces, woven
into them (Sidon. Apoll. l.c. : Plaut. Pseud. i.
2, 14; Stich. ii. 2, 54; Lucret. ii. 35 ; Oribas. ii.
p. 310, ed. Daremberg). These fine specimens
of tapestry were spread upon thrones or chairs,
and upon benches, couches, or sofas, at enter-
tainments (Hom. I. ix. 200, Od. iv. 124, xx.
150; Verg. Aen. i. 639, 697–700; Ovid, Met.
xiii. 638; Cic. Tusc. v. 21, 61; LECTUs), more
especially at the nuptials of persons of distinc-
tion. Catullus (lxiv. 47–220) represents one to
have been so employed, which exhibited the
whole story of Theseus and Ariadne. They were
also used to sleep upon (Hom. Il. x. 156; Anac.
viii. 1, 2; Theocr. xv. 125; Aristoph. Plut. 540;
Werg. Aen. ix. 325, 358), and for the clothing of
horses (Aen. vii. 277). The tapestry used to
decorate the bier and catafalque at the APOTHE-
OSIS of a Roman emperor was interwoven with
gold (Herodian, iv. 2, p. 82, ed. Bekker). The
Orientals upon occasions of state and ceremony
spread carpets both over their floors and upon
the ground (Aeschyl. Agam. 910–960; Athen.
iv. p. 131 b, xii. p. 514 c). [For the use of
tapestry or Persian carpets as wall-hangings,
portières, &c., see AULAEA..] -
The toralia (valances, cf. LECTUS, p. 19 a)
were sometimes segmentatae, i.e. either patch-
work, or ornamented with “appliqué º work,
pieces of tapestry or of embroidery in gold and
colours sewn upon the toral (or vestis) in differ-
ent shapes, as squares, rounds or stripes (Juv.
vi. 89), and frequently in Arval inscriptions (see
Marquardt, Primatl. 548). Tertullian calls the
process “vestes purpura oculare’ (de Pud. 8).
Besides the terms which have now been ex-
plained, the same articles of domestic furniture
had denominations arising from the mode of
using them, either in the TRICLINIUM (tri-
cliniaria Babylonica, Plin. H. N. viii. 48, § 196)
or in the CUBICULUM (cubicularia polymita, Mart.
xiv. 150), and especially from the constant
practice of spreading them out (textile strºgº-
lum, Cic. Tusc. v. 21, 61; vestis stragula, Liv.
xxxiv. 7; Hor. Sat. ii. 3, 118; otpouvai, Plut.
Lycurg. p. 86; Athen. iv. p. 142 a. otpéuara, *
ii. p. 48 d.). The Greek term peristroma, which
was transferred into the Latin (Diog. Laërt. W. C. §
Plaut. Stich. ii. 2, 54; Cic. Phil. ii. 27, 167),
had probably the special signification of valance
or drapery round the sides of the couch; the
distinction is marked in Athen. ii. p. 48 c (cf. V.
p. 197 b), and a representation of such peri-
stromata on a funeral couch may be seen under
FUNUs, Vol. I. p. 890. Its meaning therefore
is much the same as that of toral, but it probably
included (as indeed toral may have done) cover-
lets so large that they not only covered the
couch, as atpáuara, but also hung down in
drapery (Becker-Göll, Charikles, ii. 77; Mar-
quardt, Privatl. 586; Semper, der Stil. p. 258).
The word plagulae is sometimes used as equiva-
lent to stragula or orpéuara, but usually means
a curtain [see LECTICA]. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TAPHUS (régos). [SEPULCRUM.]
TARENTINILUDI. [LUDI SAECULARES..]
TARRHUS (rajñós). [NAVIS, p. 224.]
TAU'RIA, a name given to the festival of
Poseidon at Ephesus, in which those ministering
were called raſpol (Hesych. S. v.; Athen. x.
p. 425 c ; Artemid. Oneir. i. 5). [L. S.]
TAU/RII LUDI. [LUDI TAURII.]
TAUROBO'LIUM. This rite was intro-
duced at Rome when the worship of Syrian and
Persian deities was established or extended there
under the Antonines (Capitol. M. Ant. Phil. 13;
Gibbon, Rom. Emp. ii. 265), and especially that
of Mithras, the Persian sun-god, which lasted
down to the end of the third century (Lamprid.
Comm. 9; Hieronym. Ep. 57, vol. iv. 2, p. 591),
and of Cybele in its later development [compare
MEGALESIA]. A temple of the Magna Mater
where these rites of taurobolium were celebrated
stood on the Vatican, and a portion of St. Peter's
is built over its site (C. I. L. vi. 494-564) :
a Mithraeum or temple of Mithras stood in the
Campus on the edge of the seventh region and
the Via lata (ib. 749–754); another on the
Esquiline (ib. 748); others in different parts of
Italy, as Ostia (Burn, Rome and Campagna, 371).
Priesthoods were established with elaborate
grades and strange titles, kópakes, kpúbiot, legrº,
leaenae, #xtoãpäuot, patres (Hieronym: . . e. 5
Tertull. de Cor. iś). Whether this worship was
coloured by an engrafting of a perverted Chris-
tianity, it is not our purpose here to inquire
(see Tertull. de Praescr. Haeret. 40 ; Matern.
27, 8; Pressensé, Hist. des Trois Premiers
Siècles, ii. 2, pp. 12–20). A special feature of
TAXIARCHI
TEGULA 763
these mysteries was the baptism of blood from a
slaughtered bull or ram (taurobolium or crio-
bolium), which was supposed to regenerate those
who were so sprinkled. In the reign of Julian
persons of the highest rank and the great priest-
hoods of the state participated "[SACERDOs,
p. 576]. We find a description of the ceremonies
in Prudent. Peristeph. x. 1011–1050: the per-
Sons who were to be so consecrated to regenera-
tion, wearing the mitra with a golden circlet and
the cinctus Gabinus, were placed beneath a
platform upon which a bull or ram decked with
garlands and having gilded horns was slain: the
blood flowing through the chinks in the plat-
form streamed over those beneath, each of whom
was supposed to return home “taurobolio in
aeternum renatus” (C. I. L. vi. 510). Nume-
rous ancient reliefs represent these rites (see
cut under ACINACES; Zoega, Bassirel. i. 59,
103; Baumeister, Denkm. p. 925). The votive
altars have symbols on them: e.g., on one found
on the Vatican and dedicated to Cybele by a
xv. vir Julius Italicus, A.D. 305, is engraved a
pine-tree with a syrinx, pedum, tympana, and the
heads of a bull and ram and the words “tauro-
bolium percepi’’ (C. I. L. vi. 497): on an altar
to Mithras of the year A.D. 376, two pine-trees,
under which respectively are bound a ram and a
bull, in the branches hang pedum, fistulae, and
sistra. This is dedicated by Ulpius Faventinus:
“Augur, pater et hieroceryx Dei solis invicti
Mithrae, archibucolus Dei Liberi, hierophanta
Hecatae, sacerdos Isidis,” and the inscription
concludes with the lines—
“Wota Faventinus bis deni suscipit orbis
|Ut mactet repetens aurata fronte bicornes,”
which probably means that the ceremony is to
be renewed in twenty years (ib. 504). Espe-
cially un-Roman in its phraseology is one which
a praefectus urbis dedicates, A.D. 374, to Mater
Magna, Hermes, and Attis Menotyrannus, “ diis
animae suae mentisque custodibus ” (ib. 499).
The taurobolium was introduced not only in the
rites of Mithras and Cybele, but also in those of
Venus Caelestis (C. J. L. x. 1546). For further
details, see Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 87 ff.;
Pressensé, l.c.; Lanciani, Ancient Rome, pp. 166,
192. [G. E. M.]
TAXIARCHI (račíapxol) were military
officers at Athens, who were next in rank to the
strategi [STRATEGUS]. They were ten in num-
ber, like the strategi, one for each tribe, and
were elected in the same way, namely by xel-
potovía (Dem. Phil. i. p. 47, §§ 26, 27; Pollux,
viii. 87). In war each commanded the infantry
of his own tribe (Dem. c. Boeot. i. p. 999, § 17;
Aesch. de fals. Leg. § 169), and they were some-
times, at any rate, summoned to the council of
war (Thucyd. vii. 60). In peace they assisted
the strategi in levying and enlisting soldiers;
the preparation of the register (kard Aoyos) of
those liable to service rested upon the demarchs
for each deme, and the taxiarchs as representing
the tribes, under the strategi. They might also
be called upon to act as the deputies of the
strategi in military trials (Dem. c. Boeot. l. c.).
The taxiarchs were so called from their com-
manding riflets, which were the principal divi-
sions of the hoplites in the Athenian army.
Each tribe (pux}) formed a tdºts, whence we
find pux) used as synonymous with rášis (Lys.
in Agorat. §§ 79, 82). As there were ten tribes,
there were consequently in a complete Athenian
army ten réfets, but the number of men con-
tained in each would of course vary according
to the importance of the war. Among the other
Greeks the ºrd;is was the name of a much smaller
division of troops. . The A6xos among the Athe-
nians was a subdivision of the rāšus, and the
Noxayol were probably appointed by the taxi-
archs (Schömann, Ant. Jur. Publ. p. 253 ff.).
[W. S.] [W. W.]
TAXIS (rééis). [TAXIARCHI.]
TECTO'RIUM OPUS. [PARIES.]
TEGULA (képapios, kepapiſs), a tile, made of
baked clay, yellow or red. Under the name of
tegulae are included (1) wall-tiles = testae or
lateres cocti, so called to distinguish them from
the lateres or sun-dried bricks [LATER.]; for the
manner in which these were used in building,
see MURUS, pp. 189, 190, and DOMUs, Vol. 1.
p. 684 : (2) having tiles either laid simply as
large flat tiles 1% feet or 2 feet square (tegulae
sesquipedales, bipedales, Vitruv. v. 10, 2; Pallad.
i. 19, 1), or in small pieces (tesserae) to form
patterns (see Birch, Ancient Pottery, p. 478;
BALNEAE, Vol. I. p. 278; PICTURA, p. 397):
(3) flue tiles, either tubi or tegulae mammatae
[see BALNEAE, Vol. I. p. 277]: (4) roofing tiles,
which have more particularly to be described in
this article. At Rome the houses were (after
the period of the ruder thatch) roofed with
shingles (scandulae), down to the time of Pyrrhus,
when tiles began to supersede the old roofing
material (Plin. H. N. xvi. § 36; Niebuhr, Hist.
of Rome, vol. iii. p. 559). [For Greek roofs,
see DOMUs, Wol. I. p. 663.] .
Tiles were originally made perfectly flat, or
with nothing more than the hook or nozzle under-
neath the upper border, which fulfilled the pur-
pose of fixing them upon the rafters. They were
afterwards formed with a raised flange on each
side, as is shown in the annexed woodcut repre-
senting the section of four of the tiles remaining
at Pompeii.
^N (ºS)
—º-º-º-
Section of tiles at I'ompeii.
º
A@HNAſſºiſ
Frontons of tiled roof.
In order that the lower edge of any tile might
overlap the upper edge of that which came next
below it, its two sides were made to converge
downwards. This is illustrated in Birch by the
annexed flange-tile. See also the next woodeut
representing a tiled roof, from a part of which
the joint-tiles are removed in order to show. the
overlapping and the convergence-of the sides,
It was evidently necessary to cover the lines, of
junction between the rows of flat tiles, and this


764 TEGULA
TELA
was done by the use of semicylindrical tiles called
imbrices (kaAvirripes, Dionys. vi. 92; Poll. x.
º
Flange tile found in London.
(Birch.)
157). The first woodcut on preceding page shows
the section of three imbrices found at Pompeii, and
indicates their position relatively to the flat tiles.
This is also shown in the cut below. The roof,
by the exact adaptation of the broad tegulae and
`-->
sº
sº T-
Ss. sº <> fly.”
Ş
~~ S ſº
2
_2^ ſº
22
Tegulae.
the narrow imbrices throughout its whole extent,
became like one solid and compact framework
(Xen. Mem. iii. 1, § 7; confringit tegulas im-
bricesque, Plaut. Most. i. 2, 28 ; Plin. H. N.
xxxv. § 159). The rows of joint-tiles divided
the roof into an equal number of channels, down
which, the water descended into the gutter
(canalis) to be discharged through openings made
in the lions' heads, the position and appearance
of which are shown in the woodcuts. An orna-
mental arrangement of tiles called pavonaceum
is mentioned by Pliny (xxxvi. § 159): probably
the tiles were then semicircular and overlapped
like the feathers in the tail of a peacock. The
rows of flat tiles terminated in a variously orna-
mented front, which rose immediately above the
cornice, and of which four specimens are shown
in the first woodcut. The first and fourth
patterns are drawn from tiles found at Pompeii,
and the two intermediate from tiles preserved
in the British Museum and brought thither from
Athens. The lions' heads upon the third and
fourth are perforated. [ANTEFIxA.] The fron-
tons, which were ranged along the cornice at
the termination of the rows of joint-tiles, were
either painted or moulded in various forms.
The first woodcut shows three example of such
frontons, which belong to the Elgin Collection in
the British Museum. They are drawn on a much
larger scale than the other objects in the same
woodcut. The invention of these ornaments is
ascribed to Butades of Corinth (Plin. H. W. xxxv.
§ 153).
For greater splendour, especially where tiles
were to be used in temple-roofs [TEMPLUM),
marble slabs cut like tiles were used (marmoreae
tegulae, Liv. xlii. 3.; Wal. Max. i. 2, 20): the
invention was ascribed to Byzes of Naxos in the
7th cent. B.C. (Pausan. v. 10, 2). We hear also
of bronze and bronze-gilt tiles (Plin. H. N.
xxxiii. § 57). For the construction of roofs, see
DOMUs, Vol. I. pp. 668, 685. (Birch, Ancient
Pottery, pp. 469–481 ; Blümmer, Technologie, ii.
29 ft. ; Marquardt, Privatleben, pp. 636 ft.)
[J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TEICHOPOEI (reixotrotoſ). Among the
various persons to whom was entrusted the
management of public works at Athens (éri-
otátai Ömuogíav čpywy), were those whose busi-
ness it was to build and keep in repair the public
walls. It is needless to observe how important
to the city of Athens were her walls and forti-
fications, more especially the long walls, which
connected the upper city with the Peiraeus, and
which gave it the advantages of an island.
These were maintained at considerable expense.
The reixotrotol appear to have been elected by
xelpotovia, one from each tribe, and, like other
similar officers, for a year. They were con-
sidered to hold a magisterial office (àpxã), and
in that capacity had a jºyeuovía Śukaotºmpſov.
Aeschines calls them émigréral rot, we') to Tov
Töv špowv. Funds were put at their disposal,
for which they had their treasurer (tautas),
dependent on the treasurer of the revenue
(Aeschin. c. Ctes. $ 27). They were liable to
render an account (sê0vval) of their management
of these funds, and also of their general conduct,
like other magistrates. The office of reixotroubs
has been invested with peculiar interest in
modern times, on account of its having been
held by Demosthenes, and its having given
occasion to the famous prosecution of Ctesiphon,
who proposed that Demosthenes should receive
the honour of a crown before he had rendered
his account according to law. As to the nature
of the office, and the laws thereto relating, we
may probably rely upon the account given by
Aeschines. (Aeschin. c. Ctes. §§ 14, 17, 24; cf.
documents (doubtful) ap. Dem. de Cor. p. 243,
§ 55, p. 266, § 118; Boeckh, P. E. pp. 170,
203 = Sthh.” i. 211, 257.) [C. R. K.] [W. W.]
TELA (iatós), a loom. The elementary prin-
ciple of weaving being merely the crossing of
threads over and under, it is probable that it
first took the form of simple plaiting (Lucret. v.
1349; cf. the term éptraeśis roo orthuovos, Plat.
Polit. p. 282 E); but we have no record of a
time when the real loom in some form or other
was unknown to the Greeks and Romans. Its
construction in many points is clear, but there
are also several questions which cannot be
answered with certainty, and about which we
must be content with conjectures. Even now
the dispute whether writers of the Augustan age
are speaking of the upright or the horizontal
loom cannot be said to be ended.
From plaiting comes naturally, the idea of
stretching fixed threads and working a cross
thread alternately over and under: for every-

TELA
TELA 765
thing woven consists of two parts, the fixed
thread or warp (stamen, or ràuov), and the woof
or weft (subtemen, later trama,” kpoká). Instead
of kpokh we sometimes find equqº used (Plat.
Legg. v. p. 734 E), and in this passage, as well
as in Plat. Polit. p. 283 E, we find noticed one
of the most important differences between the
warp and the weft; viz. that the threads of the
former are strong and firm in consequence of
being more twisted in spinning, while those of
the latter are comparatively soft and yielding.
This is in fact the difference which in modern
silk manufacture distinguishes organzine from
tram, and in cotton manufacture twist from weſt.
Another name for the weft or tram was fločávm
(Batr. 181; Eustath. ad Îl. xxiii. 762; Od.
v. 121).
It may facilitate reference to arrange the
parts of the loom under different heads, noting
the terms discussed in each :—I. Words con-
nected with the arrangement of the stamen
(orràuov, warp); viz. the framework, jugum,
*nsubuli, scapi, kexéovres; ordini, Štágouai, ſcalpos:
pondera &yvöðes, Aetal : II. Those connected with
the licia or patrol (“shedding” by leashes or
heddles); viz. arundo, liciatorium, perhaps in-
silia (kaváv, perhaps &vrtov = “heddle-leaf”):
III. With the radius (keptcís, shuttle); viz. trāvm,
panus (bobbin or spool), subtemen, trama (kporch,
weft, woof or tram): IV. With the spatha,
and the later pecten (ard.6m and krets = reed,
lay, batten): W. The question of upright and
horizontal looms: VI. Style and pattern.
I. The threads of the warp were called
stamina, orthuoves, because they were, at any
rate originally, fixed at certain intervals in a
row, woright, i.e. perpendicularly from the top
to the bottom of the loom (Warr. L. L. v. 113).
For the same reason the very first operation
in weaving was to set up the loom, iorrow
gthoraoréal (Hom. Od. ii. 94; Hes. Op. 779);
and the web or cloth, before it was cut down or
“ descended ” from the loom (katé8a &q’ iará,
Theoc. xv. 35), was called “vestis pendens" or
“pendula tela " (Ov. Met. iv. 395; Ep. i. 10),
because it hung down from the transverse beam,
which was probably the jugum, our “yarn-
beam.” This transverse beam with the two
upright side-posts (iarotrööes or iceXéovres,
Theoc. xvii. 34) formed the whole framework
(iorros or tela) of the primitive loom. Blümmer
indeed denies that jugum had this meaning, on
the ground that Ovid (Met. vi. 55) uses it in
speaking of what he believes to be the horizontal
loom. But (1) from analogy of the other senses
* This word is, we venture to think, wrongly ex-
plained by Marquardt and Blümmer, who, though they
admit the later meaning = subtemen, assign as its proper
meaning “the opening of the warp when parted to let
the weft through.” If that were the case, and it were
nothing but a void, it is difficult to see how it could ever
mean a woven piece. In truth both ºrptov (strictly “the
woven thing”) and trama mean the crossing of threads
after the subtemen is shot through ; hence trama came
to mean also the subtemen itself (Serv. ad Aen. iii. 483;
Isid. Or. xix. 29; Non. p. 149, 22), but in Plin. H. W.
xi. 3 81, it is clearly the web of crossed threads, and this
meaning will suit Sen. Ep. 90, 24, and Pers. vi. 73,
where the bare crossed threads, with the nap worn away,
are signified. That itptov also means web seems clear
from Plat. Phaed. p. 268 A.; Tim. Lez. Plat. ; Theocr.
xviii. 337; Anth. Pal. ix. 350.
of the word [see JUGUM), the only natural view
is, that in the loom it means the bar connecting
the uprights (Ahrens well compares the jugum
under which the vanquished passed): (2) this
explains the jugum of the lyre, which we may
suppose to have been named from a resemblance
to the loom, the strings stretched from the
jugum being compared to the threads of the
warp : (3) even if Blümner's theory were right
as to the horizontal loom—(for arguments
against it, see under V.)—the jugum might
still be the cross-bar joining the side-pieces, on
which the warp-threads (here called collectively
“tela") are bound: and (4) the name of tela
jugalis (Cat. R. R. 10, 14) is then easily ex-
plained as being the primitive loom, in which
the warp was fastened directly to the jugum,
with no second cross-bar or “ yarn-beam ” under-
neath, as in the woodcut below. The doubtful
words to be noticed in the structure of the loom
are insubuli and scapi. The former is explained
by Blümmer as = cavóves: the words of Isidore,
however (Or. xix. 29), “insubuli quia infra supra
sunt,” seem rather to indicate that the yarn-
beam and cloth-beam were together known by
this name. In the earliest and simplest frame,
as will be shown, where the web was not longer
than the loom itself, the top-bar acted as the
yarn-beam, and there was no cloth-beam at all,
but (as in the Chiusi vase, and in the Icelandic
loom represented in fig. 1) it was a useful
addition to have a second upper bar as yarn-beam,
which might take the form of a roller with a
reserve of warp, and again, instead of the kalpas
and weights at the bottom of the loom, to have
a beam on which the cloth could be rolled as it
was made. Scapi, according to Blümner, also
= kaváves, as in the gloss “scapi, kaváves yep-
Suakot: ” Rich and Monro (ad Lucret. v. 1361)
translate it “yarn-beam:” the use of scapus in
Plin. H. N. xiii. § 77 for the roll of a book would
rather suggest the cloth-beam as its part in the
loom ; but on the whole, if we reason from the
ordinary sense of scapus, we may best suppose
the scapi of the loom to be the side-posts =
ke?Aéovres, for which a Latin name is wanted:
the epithet “sonans" may refer to the rattling
of the loom generally.
The fastening of the warp to the top-bar or
jugum was called specially budgeogal, or muoví-
Georéal, and in Latin ordini, eacordiri (Plaut.
Pseud. i. 4, 6; Bacch. ii. 3, 116; cf. Cic. de Or.
ii. 33, 145): the handing of the threads for this.
process, when two persons were setting up the
loom, is trpoqopeſoróat, which involved some
running backwards and forwards, which is the
meaning of the word in Aristoph. Av. 4 (Schol.
ad loc.; Hesych. s. v. : the rendering in L. and S.
is at variance with these authorities). The
process is well illustrated by Nonnus (Dion.
vi. 150):—
kai troori bottaxéotaru traMivöpopuos &xpov &n' &Kpod,
trporomayi troinae 8táguara, bápsos &pxiv,
torró, 8’ &pſpis ÉAwarorev.
This moving backwards and forwards (irröv.
étroſzeoréat, Od. x. 222) belonged to the old
fashion of standing to weave, before the fashion
of sitting and beginning the web at the bottom
of the loom was introduced from Egypt. Nonnus
describes it in Epic manner, though the loom at
which the worker sat no doubt prevailed in his
766 TELA
TELA
time. In setting the warp for lighter fabrics
the threads were stretched fewer and further
apart, and the web was then àpatégºrnuos or
gavčarmuos, as opposed to the thicker and
coarser armuávtov, troAffortnuos or Trvicváortmuos.
But the warmth required in winter was secured
by driving the softer weft threads closer, gºrmuávi
3’ ev traúpp troAA#v kpóka pumpào aoréal (Hes. Op.
538). -
} may be supposed that the threads of the
warp would easily fall out of place and become
entangled unless they were secured at both
ends: this in more modern looms is effected by
the “yarn-roll” or “yarn-beam ” at one end,
and the “cloth-roll” at the other. In the older
Greek and Roman looms the warp was fastened
to the jugum at the top, and the lower end of
each warp-thread was passed through a loop
(kaipos), and also had a weight attached to it to
make it hang straight. This lower row of loops
(kalpol, Katpalpa) must (as Blümmer rightly
shows, Techn. i. 126) be distinguished from the
Autrol or licia with which they are sometimes
confused. This is clear from the explanation in
Etym. Mag. and Eustath. ad Od. vii. 107, trap&
Töv piſtov [i.e. parallel to, but below, the uttoil
§rêp toº uh ovyxeſoréal Tovs orthuovas. Hence
it is probable that the Homeric adjective kat-
pooréav is a mere synonym for Öqaq'uévov. The
weights attached to the end of each warp-thread
were called áyvö6es or Aetal (Poll. vii. 36), in
Latin merely pondera (Sen. Ep. 90, 20): they
were either simple stones with a hole bored
through them, or made of pottery: a great
number of these have been found: Blümmer
refers to Ritschl, Ueber antike Gewichtsteine,
Bonn, 1866; see also the account of those found
at Hissarlik (Schliemann, Troja, p. 163); it is
possible that many of the terra-cotta “whorls’
which he thinks intended for spindles may have
been weights for weaving (ib. p. 41). In the
Scandinavian ode translated by Gray as The
Fatal Sisters, the weights are warriors’ skulls.
Perhaps the expression there, “the weights that
play below,” may explain the Atôov ćpxmoºriipa
of Nonn. Dion. xxiv. 254.
Whilst the improvements in machinery have
to a great extent superseded the use of the
upright loom in all other parts of Europe, it
remains almost in its primitive state in Iceland.
The following woodcut is reduced from an en-
graving of the Icelandic loom in Olaf Olafsen's
Economic Tour in that island, published in
Danish at Copenhagen, A.D. 1780, which will
probably illustrate the earlier Greek and Roman
loom better than any of the few representations on
ancient vases which have been discovered. (For
the best of these, Penelope's loom, on a vase from
Clusium, see Baumeister, Denkm. fig. 2332.)
We observe underneath the jugum a roller
which is turned by a handle, and on which the
web is wound as the work advances. The threads
of the warp are divided into thirty or forty
parcels, to each of which a stone is suspended
for the purpose of keeping the warp in a per-
pendicular position and allowing the necessary
play to the strokes of the spatha, which is
drawn at the side of the loom ; they correspond
to the kaipos or kapºua described above. These
knotted bundles of threads to which the stones
were attached often remained after the web was
finished, in the form of a fringe. [FIMBRIA.]
In the centre of the web we see the attachment
of the threads of the warp by means of leashes
E.
r
Fig. 1. Icelandic loom.
to three rods (kaváves, liciatoria). This im-
portant and intricate part of the loom needs
some explanation.
II. In the most primitive method of weaving
it is probable that the passage for the weft was
opened merely by a transverse rod (arundo, kavčºv)
passed through the warp, separating the threads
so that they were alternately on either side of
the arundo. This seems to be shown in Circe's
loom (fig. 4), for we can hardly think Ahrens
(Philog. xxxv, p. 391) right in taking it to be
Circe's magic wand. Such a method of course
only admits of plain weaving without a pattern,
and moreover the shifting of the arundo would
be slow and tedious: in order that the weft
might be taken backwards and forwards across
the warp passing over or under as might be
required, it would be necessary laboriously to
raise or depress each thread separately, as in
plaiting, unless the improved plan, which was
already in use in the Homeric age, of “decus-
sating,” or as it is now called “shedding,”
the warp by leashes (utrol, licia) had been in-
vented. By a leash, or as weavers term it
“a heddle,” we are to understand a thread
having at one end a loop, through which a
thread of the warp was passed, the other end
being fastened to a straight rod (kaváv, arundo ;
later liciatorium). Thus, supposing that only
plain weaving without a pattern is required, so
that the weft is merely to pass over and under
alternately, and we number the warp-threads
1, 2, 3, 4, &c., all the leashes holding the threads
of uneven numbers 1, 3, &c. are tied to one rod
or liciatorium, while all those holding the threads
2, 4, &c. are tied to another, and by simply
moving one rod forward and the other back a
free passage is opened for the weft to shoot
through. But here, though there might be a
coloured stripe by changing at regular intervals
the colour of the thread in the weft, or other
variations by colouring different threads of the

TELA
TELA 767
warp (see below), there could be no elaborate
colour pattern and no pattern at all of the
texture. This was produced, just as it is now,
by a contrivance for passing over at requisite
places a number of warp-threads together, so
that the weft might pass under one and over
two or under one and over three, and so on.
Since it is obvious that it must not be the same
single threads that are raised (or, in the upright
loom, brought forward) and the same two or
more that are depressed (otherwise there would
be no weaving at all), it is necessary that there
should be an additional set of leashes or “hed-
dles” for every increase of variation, so as to
vary the threads which are raised or depressed.
When there was one additional set, the weaving
was called bilia, 8tuitos, of which the Icelandic
loom in the woodcut above gives an example:
with two additional sets it was trilia, and then
could pass under one and over three: for great
complexity of pattern a great many sets of
leashes were used (see further below). The
details of this part of the subject can be studied
in modern weaving. The principle of varying
the pattern was really exactly the same as in
the loom of to-day : the only difference lies in
the mechanical contrivances which make the
work vastly more rapid. In the earliest times
not only the shuttle, but the liciatoria, kavóves,
or leash-rods (“heddle-leaves”), were worked
by the hand. This is signified by Homer:
. émi 8' & pvvro Štos 'O6%araevs
&yx, p.6A’ &s &re ris re yuvaukös éijóðvoto
orijóeós éarru kavāv, 8vr' et pºéAa xepori Taviſororm
travčov ššéAkovara trapëk pºrov, &yx66, 8' taxe.
orrij9eos.-(Il. xxiii. 760, imitated by Nonn. Dion.
vi. 152, 631.)
Here, as rightly explained by Blümmer and
Marquardt, Odysseus is near to Ajax, as the
acavov or leash-rod is to the breast of the weaver,
when she brings it forward with one hand
(&yx60, taxel ath9eos), in order with the other
hand to draw the weft through the “shed,” or,
as it is expressed, “behind the leashes,” i.e.
behind the warp held in the leashes (trapëk
paſtov). Heyne and others, who make the cavčºv
the shuttle, not only give the word a wrong
meaning, but miss the point, since at the upright
loom part of the warp must always be between
the shuttle and the weaver, and it is only the
kavčev which would be moved nearer the body.
It is possible, perhaps probable, that the Greeks
and Romans of later times used treadles for
moving the liciatoria, but we have no direct ||
evidence of it, nor any word to express it: as,
however, they worked many machines with the
feet, it is unlikely that they omitted to do so in
weaving. Some indeed explain INSILIA in Lucret.
v. 1352 as treadles, but we believe it to be more
correctly understood as-liciatorium (see Munro
ad loc.). The Icelandic loom, like the Homeric,
has no treadle, and hence we see two rods at the
side which can give some help to the single
weaver by fixing the leash-rod, as required,
while he works the shuttle; but this is clearly
a slower process than using the feet to release
the hands. The &vrtov (Aristoph. Thesm. 822)
Blümner explains as a special name of one of
the kaváves (cf. Poll. vii. 36).
III. We have described the comparatively
coarse, strong and much-twisted threads designed
for the warp arranged in parallel lines, and the
leashes ready to “shed ” them: we have now to
speak of the shuttle which conveyed the weft or
woof across. This implement was called kepkls
in Greek and radius in Latin (Hom. 0d. v. 62;
Plat. Polit. p. 281 E, Cratyl. p. 388 C; Ov. Met.
iv. 275, compared with Hom. Il. xxii. 448): it
is imagined of gold in Homer (l.c.), but was
usually of wood (Plat. Cratyl. p. 389; Ov. Met.
vi. 132): the end pointed (Soph. Ant. 976; Ov.
Met. vi. 56); the humming sound of its passage
is expressed by Aristoph. Ran. 1315. The kepkls
or radius was strictly, like our shuttle, the
receptacle for the “bobbin’” (Thym armvíov, panus,
panuvellium) on which the weft was wound
(Hom. Il. xxiii. 762; Eur. Hec. 470; Anth. Pal.
vi. 288; Warr. L. L. v. 114; Isid. Or. xix. 29).
The annexed woodcut shows the form in which
S-Wºº-Z
ſº-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-º-
Fig. 2. The shuttle.
it is still used in some retired parts of our
island for common domestic purposes, and which
may be regarded as a form of great antiquity.
An oblong cavity is seen in its upper surface,
which holds the bobbin. A small stick, like a
wire, extends through the length of this cavity,
and enters its two extremities so as to turn
freely. The small stick passes through a hollow
cane, which our manufacturers call a quill, and
which is surrounded by the woof. This is
drawn through a round hole in the front of the
shuttle, and, whenever the shuttle is thrown,
the bobbin revolves and delivers the woof
through this hole. The ancient “shuttles " in
the Mayence Museum (Blümmer, p. 146) are
probably, though not certainly, rightly so
named. They are pen-shaped and would have
to be turned round for the return passage, only
one end being pointed. The process of winding
the yarn so as to make it into a bobbin or pen
was called Tmutgeoréat (Theoc. xviii. 32), or
&vairmv£geo-0at (Aristot. H. A. v. 19). The
reverse process by which it was delivered
through the hole in front of the shuttle (see
the last woodcut) was called ékirmvićeoróat.
Hence the phrase ékirmuteºrai rajra means “he
shall disgorge these things” (Aristoph. Ran.
586; Schol. in loc.).
IV. Supposing the warp to have been thus
adjusted, and the pen or the shuttle to have
been carried through it, it was then decussated
or “shedded ” by drawing forwards the proper
rod, so as to carry one set of the threads of the
warp across the rest, after which the weft was
shot back again (the shuttle being thrown by
the hand, as was the case even down to 1738),
and by the continual repetition of this process
the warp and woof were interlaced; and in
“fancy * weaving, with several sets of leashes,
the pattern was produced. It was necessary
further to close up the weft threads. It has
been said above that, after the weft had been
conveyed by the shuttle through the warp, it
was driven originally in Rome and Greece
upwards, as is represented in the first woodcut,
but afterwards, according to the prevalent


768 TELA
TELA
fashion in Egypt, downwards, as in the second
(Isid. Orig. xix. 22; Herod., ii. 35). Two dif-
ferent instruments were used in this part of the
process. The simplest and most ancient was in
the form of a large wooden sword (spatha,
oring.0m, dim. Gºrd.6lov, Plato, Lysis, p. 208; Aesch.
Choeph. 226). From the verb ortra6áw, to beat
with the spatha, cloth rendered close and com-
pact by this process was called ortraðmrós (Athen.
xii. p. 525 d): when the weft is not driven close,
as in light, transparent fabrics, it is called
Aerrorráðuros (Soph. Fr. 400): the close tex-
ture troAva traffils (Anth. Pal. vi. 39). This
instrument is still used in Iceland exactly as it
was in ancient times, and a figure of it, copied
from Olafsen, is given in the first woodcut.
The spatha was, however, superseded by the
comb (pecten, krets), the teeth of which were
inserted between the threads of the warp, and
thus made by a forcible impulse to drive the
threads of the woof close together. (Ovid,
Fast. iii. 820, Met. vi. 58; Juv. ix. 26; Werg.
Aen. vii. 14; Nonn. Dion. xxiv. 253; Poll. vii.
35.) As to its form, we are told only that it
was an implement with teeth. Blümner doubts
if the example from an Egyptian tomb figured
by Rich is a pecten, but we think that the
correctness of Rich in this point is established
by the very similar pecten of which we give an
illustration. It is the comb now used in parts
of Asia Minor in the loom shown below (fig. 6),
which we believe to resemble closely the later
form of the Greek and Roman loom. As a late
introduction, instead of the ortrá6m, it is mentioned
only in late Greek writers: it originated in
Egypt, whence it is called Wiliacus in Mart. xiv.
150 (cf. Verg. Cir. 179).” Among us the office
of the comb is executed with greater ease and
effect by the reed, lay, or batten. -
Fig. 3. Weaving comb used in Asia Minor.
(Benndorff.)
The lyre [LYRA], the favourite musical in-
strument of the Greeks, was only known to the
Romans as a foreign invention. Hence they
appear to have described its parts by a com-
parison with the loom, with which they were
familiar. The terms jugum and stamina (Ov.
Met. xi. 169) were transferred by an obvious
resemblance from the latter to the former
object; and, although they adopted into their
own language the Greek word plectrum (Ovid,
Met. xi. 167–170), they used the Latin PECTEN
to denote the same thing, not because the instru-
ment used in striking the lyre was at all like a
comb in shape and appearance, but because it
* Blümner wrongly takes the pecten in Martial to
mean “shuttle; ” the distinction is merely between
weaving and embroidery, and the pecten, as belonging
to the loom, is used to express Weaving. We are inclined
also to agree with Conington in giving pecten its usual
and correct meaning in the two passages of Virgil where
Bltimner and Marquardt believe that it was used for
radius (Aen. vii. 14, Georg. i. 294). Such confusion of
terms is surely a greater difficulty than understanding
“argutus” and “percurrit” of the comb.
was held in the right hand and inserted between
the strings of the lyre as the comb was between
the stamina of the loom (Verg. Aen. vi. 647;
Pers. vi. 2).
V. The two kinds of upright looms and the
supposed horizontal loom. —At some time or
other a more convenient form of loom was
introduced into Europe, in which the web was
worked in a flat horizontal frame instead of
hanging vertically in front of the weaver. The
parts of this loom are the same in nature and
object as those described above, except that, as
the warp frame lies flat, the leashes or heddles
must be worked vertically up and down instead
of backwards and forwards; and if the Romans
used such a loom, the licia and liciatorium de-
pended from a cross-beam raised above the flat
tela. But when this change came, and even
whether it belongs to anything earlier than
mediaeval times, is a matter of doubt. The view
of Blümner and Marquardt is that in the
Augustan age the horizontal loom had already
superseded in ordinary use the upright loom.
We are led to conclude, though with diffidence
in opposing such authorities, that the evidence
is not only too slight to warrant such an asser-
tion, but that it points the other way: we go
far beyond Rich in this view, and hold, with
Ahrens, that the horizontal loom does not belong
to ancient Greece and Rome at all, and was
probably introduced into Europe by the Arabs.
First, as to the passages which speak definitely
of a change in looms: Artemidorus speaks of
two kinds of looms, the ioros ūpólos, at which
the weaver is said repurarely, and the érepos
iatós, at which she sits (Oneirocr. iii. 36).
Similarly, standing to weave is called “old-
fashioned” by Festus, pp. 277, 8; 288, 33;
Serv. ad Aen. vii. 14; Hesych. s. v. čtroixópevot;
Isid. Orig. xix. 22. But sitting does not imply
the horizontal loom : it merely distinguishes
the “Egyptian’” fashion of beginning the cloth
| at the bottom of the loom, as will be seen
below. Nor can any argument be drawn from
the implements used. Blümner (as was said
before) believes jugum to be only the beam for
hanging licia above the horizontal loom, and
therefore assumes that all looms, in which a
jugum is mentioned, are horizontal : but we
cannot accept his view about the meaning of
jugum as proved or even likely: if it were,
Ovid’s “tela jugo vincta est” (see above) must
refer to binding the licia on to this beam : but
to use tela for licia would be strange, when we
compare “addere licia telae.” Then again it is
said that the mention of pecten implies the
horizontal loom because Hesychius says, s. v.
orraðmtöv, to 3p3ov iſpos ordón kekpovuévoy
où ſcrevi: but this refers to the tunica recta, or
regilla (see below), woven from the top down-
wards (the weft being driven upwards) in the
fashion of the time when the spatha only was
used; weaving from the bottom upwards, from
which it is distinguished, belonged equally to
the upright loom, and in the Epithalamium
Laurentii et Mariae (Poet. Lat. Min. iii. 295,
Bahrens) the tela is suspensa, but still the pecten
is used.
We may remark also that not only does no
Greek or Latin writer mention any difference of
weaving beyond this upwards and downwards
weaving and the positions of sitting and stand-

TELA
TELA 769
ing, but of the few representations of weaving
which are given in ancient art, none show
anything but the upright loom; and lastly, the
following passage from Theophylact, archbishop
of Bulgaria A.D. 1070, shows that he knew
nothing but the two kinds of upright looms:
&AAot à é paorw Śri év IIaxatorrſvſ. šqaivoval tows
iotous oix às trap' juſy, Švrov čva, uév táv
Airwu kal roi, orthuovos, kāra, 5* 5%alvoplévov
too travíov kal oiros &vaBaívovtos, &AN& Toivav-
Tíov kāra, uév eigivoi atrol &vo 8& 5%aivetal to
iſ pagua (ad Joann. xviii. p. 825).
The changes in ancient Greek and Roman
looms from the earliest to the latest period of
literature we believe to have been as follows.
The earliest loom (the Homeric loom and the
early Roman loom, the
tela jugalis of Cato) re-
senbled the Icelandic
loom (fig. 1) except that
it was a simpler frame-
work without the yarn-
beam, and so far like
the representation of
Circe's loom taken from
the Vatican Aeneid (fig.
4). But this represen-
tation is an anachronism
- in making the web begin
at the bottom. The author of this ancient pic-
ture (whom it is of course absurd to make an au-
thority as to the Homeric loom) has in this point
adhered to the fashion of his own day: but in
the simpler frame he has probably come near to
the primitive pattern. Homer's loom, however,
had leashes, which are not given here, besides
the simple cavdºv. The essential distinction
between the early Greek and Roman looms and
the later was that pointed out by Herodotus (ii.
35), that the web began at the top, and there-
fore the weaver always thrust the weft upwards
(śva rhv kpokhv 30000 l) in striking it close
with the orträ0m. The tunica recta or regilla,
enjoined with the conservatism of religion for
the marriage garment, was woven at this ancient
loom (“sursum versum,” “in altitudinem,”
Isid. Orig. xix. 22; Fest. p. 277, 8: the words
ſ -
#% sºl
ſ 㺠Nº.
TITIZZZT
Fig. 5. Loom, from an Egyptian painting.
= the &va &6000 t of Herodotus): it was woven
also in one piece of the size of the loom frame,
WOL. II.
as there was no rolling up of the cloth-beam or
unrolling of the yarn-beam. At such a loom
also, as was said above, the weaver stood, and
possibly, in the lack of well-arranged leashes and
heddles, had to walk round the loom for the
adjustment of the warp threads.
At a later time, probably quite at the end of
the Republic, the Egyptian fashion (Herod. l.c.),
of beginning the web at the bottom and so
weaving in a sitting posture, was introduced.
The cut (fig. 5) of an Egyptian weaver from a
wall-painting. (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians,
vol. ii. 170) illustrates this kind of loom. We
think that Wilkinson is right in considering the
painting, which Rich (s. v. subtemen) gives as
an instance of Egyptian horizontal weaving,
to be not weaving at all, but the plaiting
of mats. An even better illustration of the
Egyptian loom as adopted by the later
Romans and Greeks is afforded by a sketch of
the modern Lycian weaving (fig. 6), which we
have taken from Benndorff (Reise). The
weaver is using the comb described on page 768 a.
Fº
|
Tº #
o º [.
º º | º º
*
Fig. 6. Weaver in modern Lycia. (Benndorff.)
We have little doubt that this faithfully repro-
duces in its form the Roman loom which is
characterised as the later kind, though the
arrangements of leashes, &c., may often have
been more elaborate: this pattern may well
have been introduced into Asia Minor at som
date later than the time of Herodotus, and have
lingered there since. With this Egyptian form
came in the other improvements described in
I. and IV., the substitution of the pecten for the
Spatha, and the discontinuance of the weights
(&yvö6es, Aétat, pondera). It is needless to say
that the changes were not made all at once all
over the Roman Empire: the older form no
doubt lingered in many places, particularly in
the more remote countries. Hence the stone
weights found in Germany and elsewhere may
well belong to a date when at Rome itself the
later form of loom prevailed and weights were
no longer of any use, Rejecting, as we feer
compelled to do, the idea of a horizontal loom,
- 3 D



770 TELA
TELA
we believe that no further change in the loom
took place except the development of dexterity
in its manipulation.
VI. After enumerating those parts of the loom
which were necessary to produce even the
plainest piece of cloth, it remains to describe
the methods of producing its varieties, and
more especially of adding to its value by making
it either warmer and softer, or more rich and
ornamental. If the object was to produce a
checked pattern (scutulis dividere, Plin. H. N.
viii. § 196; Juv. ii. 97), or to weave what we
should call a Scotch plaid (and it is worthy of
notice that Pliny attributes this pattern to a
Celtic people), the threads of the warp were
arranged alternately black and white, or of
different colours in a certain series according to
the pattern which was to be exhibited. On the
other hand, a striped pattern (5a58wrós, Diod.
Sic. v. 30; virgata sagula, Verg. Aen. viii. 660)
was produced by using a warp of one colour
only, but changing at regular intervals the
colour of the weft. Of this kind of cloth the
Roman trabea (Werg. Aen. vii. 188) was an
example. [TOGA.] Checked and striped goods
were no doubt, in the first instance, produced
by combining the natural varieties of wool,
white, black, brown, &c. [PALLIUM). The weft
also was the medium through which almost
every other diversity of appearance and quality
was effected. The warp as mentioned above
was generally more twisted, and consequently
stronger and firmer than the weft: and with a
view to the same object different kinds of wool
were spun for the warp and for the weft. The
consequence was, that after the piece was woven,
the fuller drew out its map by carding, so as to
make it like a soft blanket (Plato, Polit. p. 302)
[FULLO]; and, as stated above, when the inten-
tion was to guard against the cold, the warp
was diminished and the weft or nap (kpóē,
kpókvs) made more abundant in proportion
(Hesiod, Op. 537; Proclus ad loc.). In this
manner they made the soft x\aſya or LAENA
[PALLIUM). On the other hand a weft of finely
twisted thread (#Tptov) produced a thin kind of
cloth, which resembled our buntine (“lacernae
nimia subteminum tenuitate perflabiles,” Amm.
Marcell. xiv. 6). Where any kind of cloth was
enriched by the admixture of different materials,
the richer and more beautiful substance always
formed part of the weft. Thus the vestis sub-
serica, or tramoserica, had the weft of silk
[SERICUM). In other cases it was of gold (Werg.
Acm. iii. 483; Servius in loc.)—the invention of
Attalus, according to Plin. H. N. viii. § 196, and
thence called vestes Attalicae, but it was pro-
bably older in the East and got its name because
Attalus prized it; of wool dyed with Tyrian
purple (Ovid, Met. vi. 578; Tyrio subtegmine,
Tibull. iv. 1, 122; picto subtegmine, Wal. Flacc.
vi. 228); or of beavers'-wool (vestis fibrina, Isid.
Orig. xix. 22). Hence the epithets powikó-
kpokos, “having a purple weft” (Pind. Ol. vi. 39),
ăv6okpókos, “producing a flowery weft” (Eurip.
Hec. 470), Kºº. “made from bobbins
or pens of gold ºf * w? 4. rip. Orest. 841),
efºrmvos, “made " ' bigood bbins” (Eurip.
Iph. in Taur. 146. ºtöl tro. AAoûora, “varie-
gating with the s , , ” (Eurip. Iph. in Taur.
223), &c.
But besides the v #. if materials consti-
tuting the weft, an endless diversity was effected
by the manner of inserting them into the warp.
The terms bilia, and 6tuitos, the origin of which
has been explained, probably denoted what we
call dimity or twilled cloth, and the Germans
Zwillich, where by missing over a certain
number of warp-threads a ridged pattern is
produced. The poets apply trilia, which in Ger-
man has become Drillich, to a kind of armour,
perhaps chain-mail, no doubt resembling the
pattern of cloth which was denoted by the same
term (Verg. Aen. iii. 467, v. 259, vii. 639, xii.
375; Val. Flaccus, iii. 199) [LORICA, p. 81].
All kinds of damask were produced by a very
complicated apparatus of the same kind (pluri-
mis liciis), and were therefore called Polymita
(Plin. H. N. viii. § 196; Mart. xiv. 150), for
which multicia (Juv. ii. 66) is probably, as
Blümmer thinks, an equivalent (cf. Gloss. Philow.
S. v.).
The sprigs or other ornaments produced in the
texture at regular intervals were called flowers
(āvöm, Philostr. Imag. ii. 28; 6póva, Hom. Il.
xxii. 440) or feathers (plumae). Another term,
adopted with reference to the same machinery,
was €4purov, denoting velvet. In the Middle
Ages it became (guitov, and thus produced the
German Sammet, our Samite.
As far as we can form a judgment from the
language and descriptions of ancient authors,
the productions of the loom appear to have
fallen in ancient times very little, if at all,
below the beauty and variety of the damasks,
shawls, and tapestry of the present age. In
addition to the notices of particular works of
this class, contained in the passages and articles
which have been already referred to, the follow-
ing authors may be consulted for accounts of
some of the finest specimens of weaving :
Euripid. Ion, 190–202, 1141–1165; Aristot.
Mir. Auscult. 96, = p. 838; Athen. xii. p. 541 ;
Verg. Aen. v. 250–257, Cir. 21–35 ; Ovid, Met.
vi. 61–128; Stat. Theb. vi. 64, 540–547; Auson.
Epig. 26; Lamprid. Heliog. 28; Claudian, in
Stilich. ii. 330–365.
Although weaving was amongst the Greeks
and Romans a distinct trade carried on by a
separate class of persons (āq divral, teactores and
teactrices, linteones; cf. even in the Homeric age
the yuv}, xepvirts, Il. xii. 433), who more par-
ticularly supplied the inhabitants of the towns
with the productions of their skill (Cato, R. R.
135; Plat. Phaed. p. 87 B, Rep. ii. p. 370 D;
Pausan. vii. 21), yet every considerable domestic
establishment, especially in the country, con-
tained a loom (Cato, R. R. 10, 14), together
with the whole apparatus necessary for the
working of wool (lanificium, Taxa.orſa, Taxa-
quoupyta). (Hesiod, Op. 779; Verg. Georg. i.
285, 294.) [CALATHUS.] If in the more luxu-
rious age the most ornamental work was pur-
chased, the slave household (familia rustica) at
least was thus clothed, and the commoner
stragula were made (Dig. 33, 7, 12, 5; Paul.
Sent. 3, 6, 37). In Greece as at Rome in earlier
times the matron and her daughters, assisted by
female slaves, wove garments for husband, sons
and brothers (Plat. Legg. vii. p. 805 E.; Aesch.
Cho. 231; Eur. Ion, 14.17): so of the Roman
matron weaving in the atrium, Liv. i. 57; Ascon.
in Milon. p. 43, and even in later times, Arnob.
. ii. 67; C. I. L. vi. 1527, 11602.
TELAMONES
TELOS 771
When the farm or the palace was sufficiently
Targe to admit of it, a portion of it called the
iotav (histones, Varro, R. R. i. 2), teactrina or
£637trinum, was devoted to this purpose (Cic.
Verr. iv. 26, 58, 59; Isid. Or. xiv. 8; cf. Hor.
Od. ii. 18, 6). The work was there principally
carried on by female slaves (quasillariae, at Épiðot,
Theoc. xv. 80; Hom. Od. vii. 235, xxi. 350;
C. J. L. vi. 6639-6646) under the superinten-
dence of the mistress of the house, who herself
also together with her daughters took part in
the labour, both by instructing beginners and
by finishing the more tasteful and ornamental
parts (Vitruv. vi. 7, p. 164; Symmachus, Epist.
vi. 40). But although weaving was employed
in providing the ordinary articles of clothing
among the Greeks and Romans from the earliest
times, yet as an inventive and decorative art,
'subservient to luxury and refinement, it was
almost entirely Oriental. Persia, Babylonia,
Egypt, Phoenicia, Phrygia, and Lydia, are all
celebrated for the wonderful skill and magni-
ficence displayed in the manufacture of scarfs,
shawls, carpets, and tapestry. [CHLAMYS; PAL-
LIUM ; TAPES.]
For the weaving of sacred robes in Greek
temples, see ARRHEPHORIA, HERAEA, PANA-
THENAEA ; and cf. Pausan. iii. 16, 2. (On the
construction of the loom, see also Blümner,
Technologie, i. pp. 120–157; Marquardt, Pri-
vatleben, 519–527; Ahrens, in Philolog. xxxv.
385 fl.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TELAMO'NES. [CARYATIDEs.] º
TELETAE (rexeral). [MYSTERIA.]
TELO'NES (rexévns). Most of the taxes
and duties at Athens were farmed by private
persons, who took on themselves the task of
collecting, and made payments in respect thereof
to the state. They were called by the general
Thame of Texaval, while the farmers of any
particular tax were named after it éAApuevta raft,
eikoatával, trevrmkoorróval, or, as the farmers
and collectors were often the same persons,
eicootoxóvot, revrmkoor road you, &c. The tax
or duty was let to the highest bidder. Several
persons (like a societas of Roman publicani)
often joined in the speculation (Plut. Alcib. 5);
the principal or chairman of the company, in
whose name the bidding took place, and who
was responsible to the state, was called åpx&vms
(Andoc. de Myst. § 133). Of course securities were {
required from the farmer or the company for the
payment of the dues (Dem. c. Timoc. p. 745,
§ 144; Andoc. l. c.). The office was frequently
undertaken by resident aliens, citizens disliking
it on account of the vexatious proceedings to
which it led. The farmer had power to search
for and seize contraband or uncustomed goods
(Demosth. Pantaen. p. 958, § 6); he watched the
harbours, markets, and other places to prevent
smuggling; brought a páo is [PHASIS] or other
legal process against persons whom he sus-
pected of defrauding the revenue, or even
arrested them and took them before a magistrate.
To enable him to do all this, he was exempted
from military service ([Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1353,
§ 27). The taxes or duties were thus let out
(TéAm ékötöðval) by the ten travantal acting
under the authority of the senate [PoDETAE].
The payments (karaBoAal réAous, Dem. c. Timoc.
p. 731, § 98), regulated by the vöuoi rexovikof
(ib. p. 732), were made at stated Prytaneiai in
the senate-house ([Dem.] c. Neaer. I. c.). There
was usually one payment made in advance
(ºrpokara Sox#); the succeeding one or ones were
probably called ºrpooricaragańuara. (This, at
any rate, is the account of Suidas; but it seems
inconsistent with Demosthenes’ use of irpookara-
£8Afipata in p. 731. Boeckh, edit. 3, accepts
Suidas’ account and supposes Demosthenes to be
speaking inexactly.) On any failure in payment
the farmer became &riuos (c. Neaer. l. c.) if he
was a citizen, and might be imprisoned (Dem. c.
Timoc. pp. 745, 746). If the debt were not paid
by the end of the ninth Prytaneia (probably the
ninth of the year, the last but one, not the ninth
from incurring the debt) it was doubled, and, if
it were not then paid, the debtor's property was
forfeited to the state (Andoc. de Myst. § 73;
Dem. c. Timoc. p. 730). (See the speech of Demo-
Sthenes against Timocrates, and Boeckh's Staats-
haushaltung, edit. 3, p. 406 ft.) [F. T. R.]
TELOS (réAos), a tax. In enumerating
here the taxes of Athens (about which city we
know most) we may take the opportunity to
mention all the chief sources of Athenian
revenue. They may be divided into three
groups, taxes paid at Athens, taxes paid abroad
or by foreigners for the benefit of Athens, and
income derived not from taxes but from the
corporate property of the state.
A. The taxes imposed by the Athenians and
collected at home were either ordinary or ex-
traordinary. The former constituted a regular
source of income; the latter were only raised
upon emergency.
(1) The ordinary taxes were generally farmed
out; see TELONES. They included (i.) the customs
and harbour dues; see PENTECOSTE. (ii.) Duty
paid on all sales in the market (étrovía). The
amount is unknown (though Boeckh in the 3rd
edit. of his Staatshaushaltung thinks it was 1 per
cent.). Xen. de Vect. 4, 49, probably alludes to
the étravía; and the 3-yopäs TéAos of Aristoph.
Ach. 896 may be identical with it. (iii.) The
3uatrúAlov (Hesych.) or gate-money is probably
different from the above. (iv.) A rpió80Aov
was paid by freedmen (Harpocr. s. v. uetoſktov).
(v.) The same amount was probably paid by
slaveowners for each slave (Xen. de Vect. 4, 25).
This, Xenophon says, was a very productive tax
before the Spartans fortified Dekeleia and en-
couraged the Athenian slaves to run away.
(vi.) The tropvikov réAos, of unknown amount.
It was farmed separately (Aeschin. c. Tim. § 134).
(viii) The law-court fees (trpvraveta, trapdoºraqis,
trapakaragońſh, q.v.) were a lucrative item,
especially under the Athenian Empire, when the
allies brought suits to be decided at Athens
(Thuc. vi. 91). (viii.) Aepuarików. The value
of the skin, horns, &c., of the victims slain at
certain public sacrifices (cf. the usage at Sparta,
Herod. vi. 56, 57). (ix.) Metoſktov. The poll-tax
of the resident aliens [METOECI]: 12 drachmae
annually, probably paid by men only. Freedmen
paid this tax in addition to the rpió80Aov (Har-
pocr. s. v. Aueroíkuov). (x.) The resident aliens
also paid a special entrançº-fee for the sale of
their goods in thºaº à. Eubul. p. 1309,
§ 34. In this." #: ." exer, the words
£evikä Texeiv a... sºmºr" ºiñderstood of the
peroticuov). “”. * ...,'
(2) The extraordina ' at Athens were
(i.) the eia popā or .#y-tax [EsphORA].
** 3 D 2






T72 TELOS
TEMPLUM
This fell also on uétoucou (Dem. Androt. pp.
609, 612). (ii.) The compulsory services called
Aetrovpytat (LEITOURGIA), an institution also
found existing elsewhere (Herod. v. 83). Some
of these at least were shared by uéroikoi (Dem.
Lept. p. 462, § 18). (iii.) Voluntary contri-
butions on extraordinary occasions (érubéoets)
[EPIDOSIS]: see Lysias, xxx. 26.
B. Of taxes paid by foreigners for the benefit
of Athens. (i.) The tribute, pópos [PHOROS], of
the allied states formed in the flourishing period
of the Republic a regular and most important
source of revenue. In B.C. 413 it was changed
to a 5 per cent. duty on all commodities
exported or imported by the subject states
[EICOSTE]. (ii.) A temporary duty of 10 per
cent. (Sekar) on merchandise passing from or
into the Euxine was established in B.C. 409.
(Xen. Hell. xi. 22; cf. iv. 8, 27, 31 ; Dem.
Lept. p. 475, § 60). The charge on other articles
may have really helped the Athenian revenue;
but the charge on corn must have raised the
price of corn at Athens. (iii.) Plunder taken
in war: sale of prisoners for slaves.
C. Other sources of revenue were derived by
the Athenians from (i.) certain lands of which the
state held the tithes. (This however is doubtful;
see DECUMAE, Vol. I. p. 604.) (ii.) Rents from
public lands (Aristoph. Vesp. 658): from pas-
tures, forests, mines, saltworks, rivers; also, the
sum paid by the lessee of the theatre. The mines
(uéroxXa) must have here constituted the largest
item. The silver mines of Laurion, which also
yielded other substances, afforded a considerable
sum to the state, being rented by persons who
worked for their own profit, paying to the
state first a sum of money for the privilege of
working, and secondly 1–24th of the net pro-
duce. The collection of the latter charge was
itself probably farmed-out. The labour of
mining was performed by slaves. Some par-
ticulars about the mining system may be found
in Demosthenes’ speech against Pantaenetus. The
mines at Laurion were exhausted in the time of
Strabo (ix. p. 399); the scoriae or waste-pro-
ducts (akapſa, Čkó0Xàs) were then being re-
worked, and they can now be again worked at a
profit. The valuable gold mines of Skapte Hyle
in Thrace (Herod. vi. 46) became Athenian
property by the conquests of Cimon, (iii.) Fines
and confiscations: see TIMEMA, DEMIOPRATA,
and EPIBOLE.
These various sources of revenue, of which
Aristoph. Vesp. 655–660 gives a rough enumera-
tion (omitting the Leitourgiai), produced in B.C.
423, according to Aristophanes, an annual income
of 2000 talents. Xen. Anab. vii. 1, 27, says that
the Athenians began the Peloponnesian War with
1000 talents coming in annually. Boeckh's
calculations (in the 3rd edit. of the Staatshaus-
haltung, vol. i. p. 510) bring him nearest to
Aristophanes’ estimate. But during the Pelo-
ponnesian War the income fell enormously, and
it is not easy again to arrive at anything like a
fixed sum. (See, however, Dem. Philipp. iv.
p. 141, § 37.) The orator Lycurgus, “almost
the only statesman of ancient times who really
understood finance ’’ (Boeckh), is said to have
raised the total revenue for a time to 1200 talents
(Plutarch, Vit. Dec. Orat. vii. § 25).
A land-tax, or charge on the produce of land,
seems to have been not uncommon in Herodotus’
time (vi. 46), but we do not hear of it at Athens.
unless it be under the tyranny of the Peisistra-
tidai, who took 5 per cent. (Thuc. vi. 54):
the charge seems to have ended with their
expulsion. [F. T. R.]
TEMENOS. [VECTIGALIA TEMPLORUM.]
TEMPLUM. It will be well to preface the
important part of this article, which relates to
temple buildings, by a few remarks about the
strict meaning of the word templum, and the
distinction originally existing between the words
aedes, templum, sacellum, delubrum, and fanum.
That this distinction was confused by lax
usage, especially in poetry, and that it in time
disappeared altogether, must of course be
admitted; but that it existed not merely in a
very early period of Latin is clear from the fact
that Augustus marks it when he calls the
Temple of Apollo on the Palatine and that of
Mars Ultor templa, and others aedes (Monum.
Ancyr. 19: see below).
The word templum is from the same root as
the Greek réuevos, i.e. some space cut off and
separated. Its augural signification was beyond:
a doubt its genuine Roman use. The templunt
in augury had a twofold meaning: 1. The space
of sky which the augur marked off with his
lituus by imaginary lines, the cardo from north
to south and the decumanus from east to
west, thus dividing the space observed into
four regions (Serv. ad Aen. i. 92; Varro, L. L.
vii.7). From this augural templum caeli comes
the familiar “caelestia templa " of Lucretius
(i. 120, &c.), which, as Munro remarks, “conveys
a solemn and stately notion.” 2. The space of
earth to be included for observations, which was
a rectangular space called locus effatus, or more
fully locus effatus conceptis verbis, i.e. a space
bounded by points which he announced aloud,
naming (conceptis verbis) trees or other stationary
objects as the limits for observation in each,
direction. This space also was divided into four
regions by lines (cardo and decumanus, as above),
and the observer (usually a magistrate, who qua
observer was the auspex as distinguished from
the augur) sat at the point (decussis) where
these imaginary lines intersected (Varro, L. L.
vii. 8; Liv. i. 18; Cic. de Div. i. 17, 31). It
will be seen that in both these senses of the
augural templum the idea of cutting off (réuva)
is preserved, and also that the shape of the
templum was rectangular. Further, in the
place where the observer was to sit (except
where there was, as at Rome, a permanently
established auguraculum : see Vol. I. p. 251 b),
the observer pitched a tent [TABERNACULUMT,
also quadrangular in shape, with a single
opening, commanding the spaces of earth and
sky which formed the templa. There has been
some difference of opinion as to the aspect of this
tabernaculum. Regell’s opinion seems to be
correct, that for observing lightning by the
templa in caelo the tabernaculum looked to the
south, but for observing birds by the templa in
terra it faced the east, whence, as in Liv. i. 18, the
south is on the right hand, the north on the left
(see Regell in Jahrb. f. Philol. u. Paedagog. cxxiii-
607 ff., and Mau’s note in Marquardt, Staats-
verw. iii.” 403). The tabernaculum was called
templum minus, and thus we have a templum of
real as well as of imaginary lines: so Festus
(v. 157), “templum est locus ita effatus (by
TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM 773
âmaginary lines) aut ita saeptus (by real
'enclosure) ut [ex] una parte pateat angulosque
adfixos habeat ad terram ;” and Servius (ad
Aen. iv. 200), “templum dicunt non solum quod
potest claudi (by imaginary lines) verum etiam
quod pahis aut hastis aut aliqua tali re (as in
a permanent auguraculum) et linteis aut loris
(the linen or leathern tent) aut simili re saeptum
est quod effatum est (i.e. the imaginary lines are
made real: see also Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i.”
105). [For the method of taking auspices, see
AUSPICIA; and for the connexion between the
-shape of the pomerium and the augural templum,
see POMERIUM, pp. 443, 444.]
This use of templum for augury was, we
cannot doubt, the original religious sense of
itemplum, and accordingly, in the extended
meanings which the word subsequently takes of
consecrated spaces, and later (perhaps not till
inear the end of the Republic) of buildings, it is
still confined to such spaces or buildings as have
been “inaugurated * by the augurs, and more-
over the shape is still rectangular. Such
inaugurated and consecrated places were (1)
those for the assembly of the senate, curiae
(Hostilia Pompeia, Julia) or actual temples of
the gods, since the senate could only transact
business “in loco per augurem constituto.”
(Gell. xiv. 7); (2) the Comitia Curiata and
Centuriata (Liv. v. 52; Val. Max. iv. 5); (3)
the Rostra (Cic. in Watin. x. 24; Liv. viii. 14);
(4) a temple in the ordinary sense, i.e. a house
built for a god and inaugurated as well as con-
:secrated. For the building of a temple, or
indeed for any permanent inaugurated templum,
.it was necessary first that the ground should
not only be effatus (i.e. have pronounced limits),
but also be liberatus; that is to say, any prior
claims upon the ground not merely of private
ownership, but of fana or sacella which might
once have been upon it, had to be abrogated
{EXAUGURATIOJ, and the ground and building
assigned by the augurs to that deity to whose
service it was to be dedicated, and next the
temple itself was consecrated by the pontifices
(cf. Serv. ad Aen. i. 446; Liv. i. 55).
Templum, however, in this sense of a god's
house, was probably a comparatively modern
requivalent for aedes or aedes sacra. Jordan (in
JIermes, xiv. pp. 567 ff.) presses this somewhat
ºfar, giving aedes as the proper term for a Roman
•or Italian temple, and templum for one in the
colonies; and explaining the passage above men-
tioned from the Mon. Ancyr. on the theory that
Augustus called the temples at Rome, which
were built on publicum solum, aedes, while those
to Apollo and Mars, built on his privatum solum,
he called templa. In this same passage, how-
ever, he speaks of “duo et octoginta templa
deum,” and it seems to us a truer view that the
ause of templum for aedes was coming in before
the end of the Republic, and that Augustus in
speaking by name of pre-existing temples uses
the term which originally described them, but in
those which he has just built uses the term now
in vogue. Cicero certainly uses the word
templum as “temple * frequently (e.g. de Div. i.
2, 4); and the figurative use in Lucretius (iv.
264; v. 103) of the mouth as “templum
3inguae" and the breast as “templum mentis”
implies that templum was then the term in
common parlance for a building enshrining some
deity. It must be noticed that the round shape
which we see in the Aedes Vestae and some
others did not properly belong to a templum,
which should follow the rectangular augural
temple; and with this agrees the fact alluded
to above, that this round aedes was consecrated
by the pontifices, but not inaugurated by the
augurs, and hence not a possible meeting-place
for the senate (Serv. ad Aen. vii. 153; Gell.
xiv. 7). It is a significant fact that the shrine of
the Dea Diva in the Arval grove, which like that
of Vesta belongs to the most primitive Roman
religion, was also a round building, and it might
reasonably be inferred that the round shape was
the earlier form for a god's house, just as the
circular hut built round a central pole is the
early architecture for a human habitation, and
that the rectangular temple came later in with
the augural templum.
The word delubrum is derived from the same
root as lavabrum (or labrum), pollubrum, &c., and
thus meant originally a place of purification (for
we must certainly reject the derivation from
delibrare, “to strip the bark and make a wooden
image *): that such a rite of purification belonged
to the old unroofed loca Sacra, where there might
be merely an enclosure with an altar or shrine,
there can be no doubt; and from this aspect of
purification (which in later temples appears in
the étroppavrápua or labra) such a sacred space
might be called deluºrum, i.e. the dedicated plot
of ground within which were rites of purifica-
tion, and so in the Argean procession “ad aedem
dei Fidii in delubro ubi aeditimus habitare solet”
the delubrum is clearly the sacred precinct, as
distinguished from the aedes, but in time
delubrum, like sacellum, was used both for the
sacred enclosed spot and the shrine upon it; cf.
“regiis temporibus delubra parva facta” (Varro
ap. Non. 494), where the delubra are contrasted
with the later and more stately aedes or
templum. We are here speaking only of strict
definition. In poets no distinction between
aedes, templum, and delubrum is observed : even
Cicero's usage is open to doubt, though it may
be remarked that the passages cited by Mar-
quardt as showing a promiscuous use of the
words (N. D. ii. 43, 83, and various passages in
the Verrine orations) are speaking of Sicilian,
not of Roman temples. In later prose, though
not in Livy, all distinction vanishes (cf. Plin.
H. N. xxxv. § 144; xxxvi. § 26).
Though fanum is found in a general sense for
any locus sacer consecrated by the pontifices, but
not inaugurated [FANUM), and so often means
sacred buildings, aedes or sacella, as well as
sacred areas such as luci, yet it is also true, as
Jordan points out, that the strict use of fanum
did not include aedes or actual houses of the
gods at Rome, but only “loca sacra cum aris
[or later also “cum aediculis”] sine tecto; ” and
that when it is used of temples it belongs only
to temples of non-Roman deities: this explains
the origin of fanaticus, which was first applied
to such “fanatic * priests as those of Isis. (See
further on this subject Marquardt, Staatsver-
waltung, iii.” 151 ff.; and especially Jordan in
Hermes, xiv. 567 ff.) [G. E. M.]
TEMPLE ARCHITECTURE.
Greek Temples.—Among the Greeks, as among
most Pagan races, the temple was not a building
774 TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM
in which a congregation met and worshipped,
but was rather regarded as the house and
treasury of the god.” In the most primitive
times temples (in the later sense of the word)
seem to have been very rare, their place being
taken by an altar in the open air, or by a sacred
stone (8attvNos) which was both the symbol
of some divine presence and the place of sacri-
fice. See Prof. Robertson Smith, Religion of the
Semites, lect. v. The kingly heroes of Homer,
such as Odysseus, themselves played the part of
a priest, and offered sacrifice to Zeus Herkeios
on the altar in the fore-court of their palaces.
Such an open-air altar was discovered by Dr.
Dörpfeld in the courtyard of the palace at Tiryns;
and this domestic altar survived at the entrance
of Greek houses long after actual temples had
been built [see DOMUs]. Other primitive forms
of temples were natural caves in the rock, or
hollow trees, the former being usually associated
with the cults of Chthonian deities. The word
puéyapov, which is sometimes applied to temples
of Chthonian deities, is supposed to be derived
from a Phoenician word meaning a cavern or
cleft in the rock.
The next stage appears to have been the con-
struction of a small cell-like building, consisting
of a mere cella or a micós without any columns or
subdivision into more than one chamber. The
most remarkable examples which still exist of
this early form of temple are to be seen in the
Island of Euboea, especially one near Karystos,
on an elevated site on Mount Ocha, overlooking
the sea. This is a rectangular stone building,
about 40 feet by 24 feet (externally) in plan.
In one of the long sides is a small central
doorway, formed of three large blocks of
stone, between two slit-like windows. The roof
consists of large thin slabs, each projecting
beyond the course below, till they meet at the
ridge. Light and air are given by a hypaethral
opening in the stone roof–a long narrow slit,
19 feet long by 18 inches wide. The height of
the walls internally is 7 feet. The worship
of Hera was the special cult in this part of
Euboea. -
The words used by the Greeks to denote tem-
ples are chiefly these : vaés, or in Attic veðs,
equivalent to the Latin aedes, the “house ’’ of
the god; iepov frequently has a more extended
meaning, including not only the vabs but also
the sacred enclosure around it, reprevos (Thuc. iv.
90) or iepès TreptgoNos. In other cases iepov and
vabs are used as equivalent terms, as, e.g. by
Pausanias (viii. 45, § 3), where he records the
building of the Temple of Athene Alea at
Tegaea: 'A6mvås Tās ‘AAéas to fepov to &pxalov
étrouhoev "AAeos Xpóvá 3& Šortepov Karaokevä-
oravro of Teyeatal tº Osó vaov uéyav. A
peculiar phrase is used by Homer (Il. ix. 404)
to denote the Temple of Apollo at Delphi: he
* One result of the Greek temple being regarded merely
as a house for the god, was that in many cases the temple
was usually kept shut up. Thus in Athens the Thes-
mophorion, the Lenaion, and the Eleusinion were only
opened on one day of festival in the year ([Dem.] in
Neaer. p. 1371, § 76); and the Temple of Eurynoma at
Phigaleia was always closed (Paus. viii. 41, § 4). In
more than one thiasos inscription the priestess is men-
tioned as āvoiyovara to tepov čv rats kağmkova'ats hué-
pats, implying that on ordinary days the shrine was
closed. (See Martha, Les Sacerdoces Athéniems, p. 88.)
calls it the Adivos of 56s, “stone threshold,” as-
if using a part for the whole building. Other
words—such as piéyapov, &övtov, &vákropov,
amkós—seem to have been taken from terms
originally used for parts of domestic buildings,
meaning “the hall,” “the private chambers,”
“the royal house,” “the cell or inner chamber.”
The words uéyapov and amicos ava turbs were
especially applied to the abnormal Hall of the
Mysteries at Eleusis, which was also called the
TeXeo Tiptov, in reference to the initiations
which there took place. Strictly speaking, it
was not a temple at all. The real Temple of
Demeter, which stood near the Hall of Initiation,
was a very much smaller building.
Returning to the development of the Greek
temple, the next stage after the simple a micós,.
such as that on Mount Ocha, was probably a
building with a prostyle portico, constructed
mainly of unburnt brick with wooden columns,
closely resembling the hall or uéyapov of a pre-
Homeric palace, such as that which Dr. Dörpfeld
excavated within the Acropolis of Tiryns. The
accompanying figures (1 and 2) show the probable-
######, ##||######|ſ.
| * #º ##| || ||||P.
º ||||}|{{unº. ;''f'' . .'; tı “ . . . * * * * t
º
|||s.
Fig. 1. Restoration of the front of the principal Halî
(wéyapov) of the prehistoric l’alace at Tiryns.
fa
31 0
MEITAPON
@ @
§
º ºf SAAINox;
º OY AOX º r
S.
|
IIPOAOMOX
i
# AIeOT2A G
ſºMETAPOIO -
O PEN COURT
Fig. 2. Plan of the Hall at Tiryns.






























TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM 775
appearance of this hall when perfect. Both in
plan and in its façade it is clearly the prototype
of the later stone temples of the Greeks. The
walls were of unburnt brick, covered with hard
fine stucco decorated with painting; the lowest
courses of the wall were of stone, to a height of
about two feet above the ground, in order to
prevent injury to the unbaked clay of the bricks
from rising damp. A sort of survival of this
structural stone plinth existed even in the
latest temples of the Greeks, which were wholly
built of marble: the lowest course immediately
above the pavement is usually very much deeper
than the rest of the masonry, as if marking
a change of material even when none exists.
The columns both of the portico and of the
inner chamber were of wood, each resting on a
carefully levelled block of stone.
This use of crude brick for the walls and
wood for the columns appears to have survived
in many cases till very late, more especially in
the private houses of the Greeks. Dr. Dörpfeld
has pointed out that even the Heraion at Olympia
was originally built in this primitive fashion, but
that stone columns were introduced one by one
as the wood pillars decayed. Thus we see
columns of many different dates among the
existing remains. Pausanias (v. 16) mentions
one ancient wooden column as still existing in
situ in the Heraion at the time of his visit. Of
the walls nothing remains but the stone plinth,
carefully levelled to receive the first course of
crude bricks, so the original wall probably was
never rebuilt in stone. The entablature was
apparently of wood, like the columns, as no re-
mains of stone cornice or architrave were found.
Vitruvius (ii. 3) describes the careful manner
in which crude bricks (lateres) were made by
mixing gravel, pounded pottery, and chopped
straw with clay which had been long exposed
to the weather. He records that a decree of
the city of Utica ordained that none of these
bricks should be used till they had been in-
spected by a magistrate to see if they were
thoroughly dried, and had been kept the re-
quired time, which was five years, after they
had been moulded. [LATER.]
In 1888 an interesting discovery was made by
Dr. Halbherr at Gortyn in Crete. Excavations
on the site of the Pythion, or Temple of the
Pythian Apollo, revealed some remains of an
early temple built of large blocks of stone with-
out any cement. The building, which from the
inscriptions cut on the outside of its walls is
apparently a work of the 7th or 6th century B.C.,
consisted simply of one rectangular chamber, a
mere cella, without columns or pronaos; though
in later times a pronaos was added in front of
the entrance. A very interesting point about
this primitive temple was the fact that it had
been lined internally with plates of bronze, like
the great “beehive tomb" at Mycenae, and other
Greek structures of prehistoric date. The bronze
pins which fixed these plates still remain on the
internal face of the great blocks of which the
walls were built. (See Halbherr in Monument;
antichi, Part I., 1889; published by the Acad.
dei Lincei.)
The last stage of the development of the Greek
temple was a building with walls and columns
wholly of stone or marble, such as those of
which many examples still remain.
Vitruvius (iii. 2) classifies temples according
to the arrangement of their columns in the
following manner –I. Nabs év trapaoréal, in
antis, with two columns between the antae of
the projecting side walls (see fig. 3). [ANTAE.T
Fig. 3. Plan of the Temple in antis. Temple of The-
mis at Rhamnus in Attica, with a marble throne on
each side of the door.
II. IIpóo rvAos, prostylos, with four columns
in front. III. 'Auſpurpáo rvXos, amphiprostylos,
with four columns at each end (see figure 4).
sº wis
|
Fig. 4. Plan and façade of the Ionic, amphiprostyle
Temple of Nike Apteros, on the Acropolis of Athens.
IV. IIepſirrepos, peripteros, with , columns
along both sides and ends (see figure 5);
V. Kfirrepos, dipteros, with a double range of
| columns all round (see figure 6). VI. Yevö0-



776 TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM
8tºrrepos, pseudo-dipteros, with one range of
columns only, but placed at the same distance
from the cella wall as the outer range of
:
i
i.
6.
-2
*
-
}.
i
\
-
:
-
y
Ž
*
º
Fig. 5. Plan of the large hexastyle peripteral Temple
at Paestum; showing the pronaos and posticum at
the ends of the cella, the internal rows of columns
and the stairs leading to the gallery over the aisles.
© a-gº-º-º-º-º
o a e O
sºlºss
Ç) |{º}o sº (? &
e i < * : o e
a Q || || * ° ſº o a
º gº | | * *
%3 & O o 63 &
3 gº |
. . . . ; : :
| Q º Ö O # Ø (º
2 of cº-º's o o
2 nº erº e e
© à e Q
Ç z, cza o o
O || Q @
* © (2)
|o @ © C, 62 62 & ©
3 O © Q @ 3 C, @ 62 (3)|
62) (3 63 (33 (3 & Cº
Fig. 6. Plan of the Temple of Apollo Didymaeus, near
Miletus, a decastyle, dipteral temple of the Ionic
order, with pronaos and prodomus, or inner vestibule,
and, at the other end of the cella, an opisthodomus,
the dipteral temple (see fig. 7). VII. Wevö0-
treptirrepos, pseudo-peripteral, is another variety
which Vitruvius does not give in his list (iii. 2),
-
Fig. 7. The great octastyle, pseudo-dipteral Temple
in the agora of Selinus in Southern Sicily, with
a small inner Sanctuary (adytum) at the end of the
cella.
though he mentions it later on (iv. 8, § 6). This
has no complete columns along the sides, but
half or “engaged ” columns built into the side
walls of the cella. The great Temple of Zeus at
Agrigentum is an example of this, dating c. 500
B.C. or earlier. This plan was more commonly
used by the Greeks for tombs, such as the lion
tomb at Cnidus, than for temples. Among the
Romans it was very frequently used, as, for
example, in the Temples of Concord, Vespasian,
i
•o
3 à
: ;
& Fº
O tº
Fig. 8. Plan of the so-called Temple of Fortuna
Virilis in the Forum Boarium at Rome. The black
shows the part built of tufa : the hatching shows
the harder travertine used at points where special
strength was needed..







TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM 777
Faustina, and the so-called Temple of Fortuna
Virilis in Rome. The main object of this plan
was to give greater width to the cella (see
fig. 8).
The last class named by Vitruvius is the
IIypaethros, which appears to be an arbitrary
class of his own. He describes the hypaethral
temple as having ten columns at each end, and
being dipteral along the flanks. Inside the cella
are two tiers of columns, one above the other,
supporting the roof, in the middle of which is an
opening to the sky. As an example he gives the
octastyle Temple of Olympian Zeus in Athens.
The real fact is that the hypaethral temple does
not form a separate category, as any of Vitru-
vius’ last three classes might be hypaethral, the
two tiers of columns being common in Greek
peripteral temples, as, e.g., in the Parthenon,
and in the great temple at Paestum, where some
of the upper range of internal columns still
exist.
It should be observed that Vitruvius’ remarks
about Greek temples must be accepted with
great caution. He evidently knew very little
about them, except perhaps some of the largest
Ionic temples in Asia Minor. His ignorance on
the subject is shown in many ways, and especi-
ally by his statement that the Doric style was
unsuited and little used for Greek temples (see
Vitruv. iv. 3, §§ 1, 2). In studying Vitru-
vius' very interesting work, it should always
be remembered that he was rather a practical
architect than a learned antiquary, and that he
had little or no personal knowledge of Greek
buildings. .
Vitruvius also gives different names to temples
according to the number of columns on their
fronts, namely:—
Terpáo rvXos, tetrastyle, with four columns.
: "EčáorruMos, hexastyle, , , six 5 §
*Okráo rvXos, octastyle, , eight ,
AekáortvNos, decastyle, ,, ten 5 y
A peripteral temple could not be less than
nexastyle, nor a dipteral temple less than octa-
style.
The sacred Hall at Eleusis, which was quite
abnormal in plan, had a portico with twelve
columns in front. It is very rare to find a
Greek temple with an uneven number of columns
at its ends. The second temple in point of
size at Paestum has nine columns at each end,
together with a central row of columns down
the middle of the cella. The most probable ex-
planation of this unusual arrangement is that
the temple was dedicated to two deities, and
therefore was divided longitudinally by a row
of pillars. The great pseudo-peripteral Temple
of Zeus at Agrigentum has seven engaged
columns at each end. These are almost the
only examples of Greek temples with an uneven
number of columns at the ends. The number
of the columns on the flanks varies very much,
but is usually more than double that of the
fronts. Thus, for example, the following temples
—which are all Doric, hexastyle, peripteral—
have on their flanks—Temple at Aegina and
Temple of Nemesis at Rhamnus, 12 columns;
Temple of Theseus in Athens, the so-called
Temple of Hera at Agrigentum, and the Temple
of Zeus at Olympia, 13 columns; great temple
at Paestum, 14 columns; temples at Corinth
and Bassae, 15 columns; Heraion at Olympia,
16 columns.
Of octastyle temples, the Parthenon, and the
great Temple of Zeus at Selinus, have on their
flanks, 17 columns; the Corinthian Temple of
Olympian Zeus in Athens, 20 columns; the
Ionic decastyle Temple of Apollo at Didyme had
21 columns.
The only other Greek decastyle temple was
the Heraion at Samos: the number of columns
on its sides has not yet been certainly discovered.
Vitruvius (iii. 3) gives the following list of
names for the various classes of temple inter-
columniations or -spans, measured from column
to column in the clear. It should, however, be
remembered that this list refers only to late
Greek or Roman temples, not to buildings of the
best Greek period, about which Vitruvius seems
to have known nothing. The figures in this
list give the intercolumniations in terms of the
diameters of the shafts at the lowest part.
IIvkvárrvXos O 13 O Pycnostyle.
Xào rvAos O 2 O Systyle.
EiſorrvXos © 24 O Eustyle.
Audio rvXos O 3 O Diastyle.
’ApatóatvNos O { §§ } O Araeostyle.
The larger Greek temples were divided into
different parts. The inner space within the
front portico was called the trpávaos; that at
the rear was the posticum (see fig. 5); the
principal chamber, which usually contained the
statue of the deity, was the cella or ormicós : it
was frequently divided into a “nave ’’ and
“aisles” by two ranges of internal columns. In
some cases, as in the Parthenon and the temple
at Corinth, a chamber at the back was walled
off from the rest of the cella : this was the
ôm to 6650Mos; it was used as a treasure chamber.
A similar chamber in the Temple of Apollo at
Delphi formed an inner sanctuary, to &6vrov :
in it was placed the gold statue of Apollo, the
mystic Omphalos, and other sacred objects which
only the priests were allowed to approach.
One or more staircases were frequently in-
troduced into the cella. In the Temple of Zeus
at Olympia the stairs (āvoãos orkoxia) led to the
§trepôov, or gallery over the aisles, whence a
good view was obtained of the colossal gold and
ivory statue by Pheidias (see Paus. v. 10). In
the so-called Temple of Concord at Agrigentum,
the two stone staircases which led to the roof
are still in perfect preservation. Similar stair-
cases in the two other temples at Agrigentum
still exist, though they are not so complete (see
also fig. 5). In many cases, as in the Parthenon,
these stairs appear to have been made of wood.
In the Temple of Concord (so called) at Agri-
gentum the doorways at a high level still exist,
which gave access to the space between the
wooden roof and the ceilings of the pronaos and
posticum. In some temples a vestibule, prodomus,
existed behind the pronaos (see fig. 6).
Stylobates and Steps:—The base or stylobate of
a Greek temple consisted of two or more steps,
the height of which was not in proportion to a
man's stature, but was fixed by the height of
the building. The usual number of steps ifi
Doric temples was three, but a few temples,
such as the so-called Theseum in Athens and the
778 TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM
Heraion at Olympia, only had two. . In the
larger temples, such as the Parthenon, the
height of the “riser” of the steps is too great
for practical purposes of approach, and so smaller
intermediate steps were introduced at certain
places to give convenient access to the raised
peristyle.
The cella floor is usually raised two or three
steps above the peristyle. At Paestum the floor
of the cella of the great temple is raised to the
very unusual height of 4 ft. 9 in. above the top
step of the stylobate. In many cases the central
portion of the cella floor is slightly sunk below
the level of the “aisles: ” this was probably
intended to receive any rain-water which
descended through the open hypaethrum, or, in
some éâses, to form a shallow tank for water in
order to correct the natural dryness of the air
in temples which contained a chryselephantine
statue, the ivory of which was thought to suffer
from the want of some moisture in the atmo-
sphere (Paus. v. 11). In the Temple of Zeus
at Olympia the reverse was the case, the sur-
rounding country being damp and marshy, and
so the shallow sinking in front of Pheidias’ statue
was kept full of oil, which was also used as a
lubricant for the ivory when it was cleaned by
the official patópuvraí. This receptacle was made
of black marble with a kerb or rim of white
Parian.
The paving of temples was usually formed of
large slabs of stone or marble: those in the
Parthenon are squares of white marble 1 foot
thick and about 4 feet square. In some cases
the internal floor was made of a fine hard
cement, as, e.g. in the temple at Aegina, where
the pronaos and the central portion of the cella
are paved with cement coloured red. So also the
Heraion at Olympia had in the cella a paving
of red cement.
The pronaos of the Temple of Zeus at Olympia,
built 469–457 B.C., was paved with a curious
early kind of mosaic, formed, not of squared
tesserae, but of natural pebbles of different
colours selected from the bed of the river
Alpheus. These are set in a fine white cement
on a thick bed of concrete. The design consists
of Tritons and sea-monsters within a conven-
tional border. This is almost the only example
of mosaic of the Greek period that has been
found, though mosaics of the Roman period in
Greece are far from rare.
In many cases an open gutter, cut out of long
blocks of stone or marble, was placed round the
lowest step of the stylobate to carry off the rain-
water which fell from the eaves of the roof.
The water from the roof was discharged through
lions’ heads placed at intervals along the
cymatium or top member of the cornice, after
the fashion of a mediaeval gurgoyle. Vitruvius
(iii. 5, § 15) recommends that only those lions’
heads should be pierced which came over the
centre of the peristyle columns, to diminish the
amount of falling water that the rain could blow
towards the cella wall, each column acting as
a shelter. The other (unpierced) heads were
merely for ornament. The rain - water from
the gutters was carried in pipes or open
channels to tanks which were built or cut in
the rock at various places near the temple:
several exist in the Acropolis of Athens close
by the Parthenon.
The great Ionic temples of Asia Minor were
in some cases raised on a lofty stylobate, con-
sisting of many steps extending all round the
building. The Temple of Artemis at Ephesus,
dating from the time of Alexander the Great,
was constructed with no less than fourteen steps.
leading up to its peristyle: this great height was,
however, exceptional. The decastyle Temple
of Apollo at Didyme had only three steps,
and the erection of temples on lofty stylobates.
was rather a Roman than a Greek custom.
Roofs.-Greek temples were roofed with simply
framed “principals'' and strong rafters, covered
with tiles of baked clay, or, in the more magni-
ficent buildings, with slabs of white marble
jointed and fitted with the closest accuracy,
so that not a drop of water could penetrate-
According to Pausanias (v. 10), marble roof-
tiles were invented by Euergos of Naxos. The
magnificent group of buildings on the Acropolis
of Athens were all roofed in this costly manner.
Even the stone Temple of Apollo at Bassae was
roofed with marble tiles, a fact which Pausanias
specially records (viii. 41) as one of the chief
glories of the building. In no part of a Greek
temple was more elaborate care lavished than
in the formation of these marble tiles (ow??ives,
tegulae); each was “rebated” at top and bottom
to give the closest possible fit, and each side
joint was covered by an overlapping “joint-
tile ” (kaxvirthp, imbrew), the edges of which
were ground down to an absolute accuracy of
surface. At the eaves the end of each joint-tile
was covered by a kaxvirthp &v6eporós, antefiora,
an ornament which usually was sculptured with
a lotus or acanthus relief. In the temple at
Bassae each joint-tile was worked out of the
same block of marble as the adjacent roof-tile,
involving an immense amount of labour and
waste of marble.
Ceilings.—The peristyle, and in some cases
the pronaos and posticum, had ceilings under the
wooden roof formed of great slabs of stone or
marble decorated with a series of deeply-sunk
panels or coffers (lacunaria), all worked in the
solid, and ornamented with delicate enriched
mouldings round the edge of each offset. With
regard to the wider span of the cella, it is un-
certain to what extent inner ceilings were con-
structed. Probably in some cases wooden ceil-
ings with square lacunaria were used; in other
cases the rafters of the roof and the underside of
the marble tiles were left visible, as is shown
by the fact that marble tiles have been dis-
covered with traces of painted ornament on
their lower surface. The whole visible wood-
work, whether rafters or internal ceiling, was
decorated with gold and colour, like the rest of
the building. Vitruvius (iv. 2, 2) speaks of
roof-panels painted blue by the wax encaustic
process. ^
Screens.—Various parts of a Greek temple
were usually shut off by elaborate bronze screens
or grills which were frequently gilt. Thus, for
example, in the Parthenon, tall bronze screens
closed the intercolumniations of the pronaos
and posticum. Another screen surrounded the
chryselephantine statue of Athene, and the
“aisles” of the cella were screened off in the
same way from the central space in front of the
statue. In some cases these metal screens rested
on a marble plinth, but more commonly they
TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM 779,
were fixed by melted lead into the paving of the
temple. - -
Doorways.-Even in cases where there was a
polished marble door architrave, as in the
Parthenon and the Propylaea in Athens, it
appears to have been usual to fix an inner jamb-
lining of wood. This wooden architrave and the
valves of the doors were both covered with
richly-worked reliefs in gold and ivory, at least
in the richer temples. Descriptions of this
costly decoration are given in the treasure lists
of the Parthenon (see C. I. A. ii. 708). The
heavy gold plating and ivory reliefs on the
doors of the Temple of Athene at Syracuse were
stripped off by Verres, as Cicero states in his
impeachment. This gold plating made the doors
very heavy, and so they were hung, not on
hinges, but on massive bronze pivots, which
revolved in sinkings in the lintel and sill of the
opening. Each valve, in the case of a large
doorway, usually ran on a bronze wheel, the
marks of which are plainly visible in the Par-
thenon and in many other temples, on the marble
threshold and pavement.
Temple Treasuries (thesauri, 9moravpot).-In
some temples, as e.g. the Parthenon and the
early temple at Corinth, a special chamber, the
opisthodomus, was cut off from the rest of the
cella as a store-place for the rich treasures in
gold and silver which belonged to the temple
or had been deposited there as if in a bank.
In the Parthenon the opisthodomus appears to
have been fitted up with shelves and cupboards.
Inventories of the Parthenon treasures cut on
marble which still exist mention various objects
as being on the first, second, or third shelf, if
that is the true meaning of the arrangement
according to fivplot. Other portions of the Par-
thenon treasure were kept in the pronaos and in
the cella, Škarðutrečov or IIapóevöv proper
(see Newton and Hicks, Attic Inscriptions in the
Brit. Mus., Part I.). In other cases, when there
was no separate treasure-room, part of the
pronaos or posticum was screened off from the
central passage and used as a store-place.
In later times some of the most venerated
temples, such as those at Delphi" and Olympia,
grew so rich in cups, tripods, statuettes, and
other votive offerings made of gold and silver,
that there was not sufficient room to hold them
in the temple itself, and so a number of sepa-
rate little treasure-houses were built within the
sacred precincts. These were often named after
various Greek states whose offerings were kept
within them. At Olympia a long row of these
thesauri have been discovered : in design they
were like small temples, the cella having either
a prostyle portico or a portico in antis.
Materials and Construction. — The earlier
temples were chiefly built of stone, even in
districts where marble was plentiful. Very
coarse local stones were frequently used, but
whether the stone was fine or coarse it was
invariably coated with a thin skin of very fine
hard cement, usually made of lime and powdered
marble or white stone, mixed with white of egg,
milk, or some natural size, such as the sap of
trees. This beautiful substance, which was
* For an account of the Temple of Apollo and the
treasures of Delphi, see Middleton, Journ. Hell. Studies,
vol. ix., 1889, p. 282 seq.
almost as hard, white, and durable as marble
itself, is similar to the caementum marmorewm,
the making of which is described at length by
Vitruvius (vii. 3, §§ 6–8). The use of this.
marble cement not only protected soft stone-
from the weather and made the temple look as-
handsome as if it had been built of real marble,.
but it also had the advantage of forming a good,
slightly absorbent surface for painted decoration,.
which seems always to have been applied to
Greek buildings. For this reason, even wheri,
the temple was built of solid marble, it was not
uncommon to coat it with a thin skin or priming:
of marble dust cement for the use of the painter-
In some of the early stone temples, especially
in Sicily and at Olympia, terracotta mouldings.
and enrichments of a very elaborate kind were:
used to decorate the building. In some cases.
the whole of the entablature was simply built
in squared blocks of stone, and then wholly
covered with a casing of moulded terracotta,.
very carefully jointed and fixed with bronze pins.
These terracotta casings were painted with.
elaborate and delicate patterns in blue and red,
brown and white ochres. [TERRACOTTAS.] In
other cases the mouldings of the entablature
and the like were roughly cut in the coarse-
stone, and then the fine finished mouldings and
enrichments were worked in the marble-dust.
cement which coated the whole stone-work.
By degrees marble came into use for building
temples; at first in a very sparing way, being:
used only for the sculptured reliefs, and not.
always for the whole of those. In one of the
temples at Selinus no marble is used in the
building except a few small bits employed for
the nude parts of the female figures in the me–
topes. All the rest of the sculpture is of the
local limestone. At Bassae the use of marble.
is more extended; the whole of the sculpture:
and the roof-tiles are of marble. At Aegina,
the sculpture and only the lower courses of
tiles were of marble. A further extension of its.
use was in the last Temple of Apollo at Delphi, in
which the columns of the front were of marble,
all the rest of the building (except the sculpture)
being of local stone. The Alcmaeonidae of
Athens were the contractors for this temple ;.
and though their contract was only for stone,
yet they were liberal enough to supply these:
marble columns for the front of the temple (see:
Herod. v. 62). Lastly the whole temple from
the floor to the roof was built of marble, and in.
the 4th century B.C. the great temples of Asia
Minor were built of marble, even in cases where
no marble quarries were at hand. Coloured
marbles, though largely used by the Romans,
were but little employed in Greek temples.*
In Athens the dark grey Eleusinian marble
was used in some cases for steps, pavements, or
plinths; and in the Erechtheum the main ex-
termal frieze was made of this dark marble,
ornamented with figures carved in white marble
in half-relief, and attached to the ground with
bronze pins. With this exception nothing but
* The earliest recorded instance of the use of coloured.
marble in a Greek or semi-Greek building was at Hali-
carnassus, where the palace and tomb of King Maussolus.
who died in 353 B.c., were decorated with linings of
Proconnesian marble (see Pliny, H. W. xxxvi. 9 47-
MAUSOLEUM). -
W80 TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM
white marble was used in the Athenian temples
after the Persian war, at least above the ground-
line. The native limestone (trópos) was com-
monly used for foundations. Many different
lcinds of decorative materials were used: rosettes
and other ornaments of gilt bronze were fre-
quently attached to the eyes of the volutes of
Ionic capitals, and in the centres of the panels of
the lacunaria of the ceilings. Bits of coloured
glass or enamels of brilliant tint were inlaid in
the interstices of the plait-band ornaments of
Jonic capitals and bases. The Erechtheum
<specially was enriched with bronze and enamel
ornaments of many kinds. Rings of gold orna-
ment decorated the bases of the Ionic columns
of the Artemision at Ephesus, and we read of
the joints in a temple wall at Cyzicus being
marked with lines of gold inlay (see Pliny, H. N.
xxxvi. § 98).
In the marble masonry of the finest Greek
temples extraordinary care was taken to fit each
block closely to the next. Each block was first
cut and rubbed to as true a surface as possible,
and then, after it was set in its place, it was
moved backwards and forwards till by slow
grinding it was fitted with absolute accuracy to
the block below it. The drums of the columns
were ground true in the same way by being
revolved on a central pin fixed in a wooden
socket, which was let into the centre of the bed
of the drum. Small projecting blocks of marble
{&Ta) were left by the masons, first to give a
hold to the loops of rope while the drum was
being raised to its place, and secondly these
projections formed a sort of handle by which the
great drum of marble could be made to revolve.
Of course, with such perfect fitting as this, no
cement or mortar of any kind was used, and
with time and pressure the adjacent blocks seem
in many cases to have, as it were, grown to-
gether, so that when a portion of the wall is
thrown down a fracture will often run diagonally
through two blocks of marble rather than
separate the two at the joint. In the absence
of cement great labour and much metal were
expended in fastening each block with bronze or
iron clamps and dowels, all carefully fixed with
melted lead. Every block in the Parthenon, for
example, is not only clamped to the adjacent
blocks in the same course, but is fixed by upright
dowels to the courses above and below, a re-
finement of precaution, which to modern builders
would seem quite needless; there being no side
thrust, and the blocks being of such great size
and weight as to be in no danger of any move-
ment, except perhaps during an earthquake.
Optical refinements.-Nothing in the way of
human workmanship can be more wonderful
#han the perfection and minute accuracy with
which every part of a Greek temple of the best
period was executed. The very elaborate system
of curved lines and inclined aces, which the
Jhighly sensitive eye of the Greek thought
necessary to the beauty of a building, shows,
more clearly than anything else, how far
superior to ours were the aesthetic perceptions
and the delicately trained eyesight of the ancient
Greek. The general principle of the optical
corrections used by the Greeks is explained by
TVitruvius, though he appears not to have been
acquainted with all their refinements. He writes
(vi. 2, § 1): “Acuminis est proprium providere
ad naturam loci aut usum aut speciem detrac-
tionibus vel adjectionibus temperaturas efficere,
uti, cum de symmetria sit detractum aut ad-
jectum, id videatur recte esse formatum, in
aspectuque nihil desideretur.”
A careful study of existing Greek temples, and
especially of the Parthenon, has shown that the
following classes of optical corrections were
used.*
I. Entasis (adjectio) of columns (Vitruv. iii. 3,
§ 13): the lines of the shafts, instead of diminish-
ing regularly from bottom to top, are slightly
convex, giving a very delicate swelling to the
central part of the shaft. A column formed
with straight lines appears to get thinner than
it ought towards the middle, owing to the effect
of the light behind it, which appears, as it
were, to eat into or encroach upon the column,
especially midway between the top and bottom.
This entasis is the only one of the many optical
refinements of the Greeks which is used in
modern buildings.
II. The columns at the angles of peripteral
temples were made slightly thicker than the
rest, and the intercolumniations at the angles
were reduced. The object of this was to pre-
vent the angle columns from appearing thinner
than the others on account of their being seen
against a brighter background than those which
showed against the cella walls—a dark object
always appears smaller against a bright ground,
such as a sunny sky, than if seen with a dark
ground behind it.
III. The main horizontal lines of the temple
were formed slightly convex, in order to prevent
an appearance of weakness and sinking in the
middle. Thus the steps and floor of the stylo-
bate, and the horizontal lines of the entablature,
have a very slight and delicate curve, the rise
varying, e.g. in the Parthenon, from #5 to 1:5 of
the length.
IV. An inward slope of all vertical lines and
planes to give an appearance of stability. The
columns were not set upright, but all sloped
inwards towards the building. The cella walls
were built “battering; ” that is, thicker at the
bottom than at the top. Even the principal flat
surfaces of the capitals and entablature were
made so as to slope inwards.
V. In some cases when the point of sight is
near, and the moulding high up, as with the
capital of an anta, the chief planes of the
moulding slope forwards instead of inwards, to
correct the excessive foreshortening which other-
wise would prevent the vertical flat surfaces
from being seen from below.
A very interesting inscription has been dis-
covered at Lebadea in Boeotia, giving the
specification for the partial rebuilding of a
temple there to Zeus. It gives many curious
details about the construction of the building,
and contains the following clause about the
optical corrections which were to be used: tº
6. AAa 60a u% év tá ovyypaqfi Yeypérrat
kara rov karottikov vöuov kai vaorotkov čatw,
—“as concerns other matters not written in the
specification, let them be done according to the
* For further information on this subject, the student
is referred to the very valuable work on Athenian
Architecture by F. C. Penrose, 2nd edit., 1888, publishe
by the Dilettanti Society. -
TEMPLUM
TEMPLUMI 781
*-
optical rules for the construction of temples”
(see Choisy, Études Epigraphiques sur l'Archi-
tecture Grecque, p. 173 seq.).
Fig. 9 shows in a very exaggerated form the
most important optical corrections in the Par-
thenon, as discovered by Mr. F. C. Penrose.
t t 1.
t e
k---These rºo axes woi-9 west–sº
ATA HEIGHT OF 5855 FEET t
| g ! º
; s • c: ! I
} ; to: * dº
? wº- !
; : ; 2: #5
; : ; :- I Kº
; : j ~! º:
; : g : tº g
i-? : Žl tº:
# * : s Iº. §: 2:
tº Tº º g Ol i = -
, - . t zł * - wº
< , t - * O.
# 8: ; p t | 2
; Sq: ; i of); *:
dº g ><!
g s ; 12
! ! : <! i x
! I ; ... -->
i THVS guave RISES 1 º 600
| n
t w
- I -T
Faſº CJäys §§§STN is;
t
t
!
ſº
w
t
I
*
l
|
\
t
t
l
!
\
t
H
H
LL
OPTICAL CORRECTIONS
|N THE PARTHENON
Fig. 9. Diagram showing the various optical
corrections used in the Parthenon.
Each block of marble is worked accurately so as
to form its proper proportion of these delicate
curves, which, e.g. in the entablature, amounts
only to a rise of 2 inches in 100 feet of length.
The general system of design in a Greek
temple is very different from that of such a
building as a Gothic cathedral. In the latter
the module or unit of scale has some relation to
the height of the human figure, and great size
is gained by multiplying parts, not by merely
magnifying the scale. In a Greek temple the
module or unit is the diameter of the external
columns,” and a large peripteral temple may be
exactly like a small one with all its parts
magnified. Thus in the largest temples the
doorway, magnified in proportion to the size of
the columns, has no relation to the human
height; and in details, such as the entablature,
a large cornice will have no more members than
a small one, but merely each member increased
in size. Beautiful and unrivalled in execution
as Greek architecture is, this want of adapt-
ability, which comes from the use of a single
external order only, is a very real practical
defect.
Methods of Decoration in Greek Temples.
Sculpture.-In Doric temples the usual parts
which were decorated with sculpture were the
pediments or triangular gables at the ends: these
usually contained groups of figures in relief or in
the round. The metopes, or panels between the
triglyphs over the architrave, were filled with
* Vitruvius (iv. 3, § 4) makes the modulus a half-
diameter of the column for convenience of calculation,
but the real unit is the whole diameter of the shaft at
the bottom, as he has it at iii. 3, § 7.
reliefs: in some cases, as in the Parthenon, every
external metope contained a relief; in other
cases only, those on one or both ends. The
celebrated Parthenon frieze (@woſpópos) was set
within the peristyle at the top of the cella wall.
At Bassae the frieze was inside the cella, over
the “engaged ” columns which projected from
the side walls of the cella, and there were also
sculptured metopes inside the peristyle. In
Ionic and Corinthian temples, which had no
triglyphs and metopes, a continuous sculptured
frieze was usually carried along the main en-
tablature. The Artemision at Ephesus was not
only decorated with pedimental sculpture and
an external frieze, but a number of its columns.
had their lower drums sculptured with life-sized
figures in relief—the columnae caelatae of Pliny,
B. N. xxxvi. § 95. In addition to this some of
the columns were set on square sculptured?
plinths. Even the older temple to which:
Croesus was a liberal benefactor had columns.
decorated with reliefs in the same way.
Some Greek temples, such as that at Bassae.
and the Heraion at Olympia, were constructed
with a series of recesses separated by engaged,
columns along the side walls of the interior of
the cella. These were designed to hold single
statues of the deities. The celebrated Hermes
of Praxiteles stood in one of the shrine-like re-
cesses of the Heraion at Olympia. The more
celebrated temples, especially those which stood
on the site of some great agonistic contest—
such as Delphi, Corinth, and Olympia—were
crowded with votive statues, both inside the
cella and in the portico and peristyle. At
Olympia and Delphi, before the Roman spolia-
tion, the statues in and around the temples
must have been numbered by the thousand. A
very large proportion of these were of bronze,
in many cases thickly plated with gold. Even
in Pliny’s time the sacred periboli at Olympia.
and Delphi still contained fully 3,000 statues
each (H. N. xxxiv. § 36): and at the time of
Pausanias’ visit to Delphi they must have been
more numerous still (see his long account of
them x. 8-15, 18, 19, and 24). He names nearly
150 statues at Delphi as being worthy of special'
notice.
The principles of composition which were
applied to the sculpture on Greek temples were-
mainly these:—In the pediments the interest of
the motive usually converged towards the centre.
In a continuous frieze the interest was more-
distributed; in the Parthenon frieze it culminates
in the central group over the main entrance. In-
the metopes combats were favourite subjects,
giving strongly-marked diagonal lines of com--
position, which formed a pleasant contrast to
the vertical lines of the triglyphs. When a
continuous frieze was sculptured with battle-
scenes, as is the case at Bassae, the composition
formed a series of zigzag lines which gave a
continuous flow of action. In all cases great-
care was taken by the Greek sculptor to make
his work harmonise with its architectural sur-
rounding, very unlike modern sculpture on
buildings, which usually has no more relation
to its position than if it were a mantel-piece
Ornament.
Painting.—Rich painted decoration in brilliant
colours seems to have been used to ornament all’
the Greek temples. Even the sculpture was:

782 TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM
painted, either wholly or simply set off by a
coloured background, and enriched with borders
and other patterns on the drapery. Accessories,
such as weapons, trappings of horses and the
like, were usually of gilt bronze. The mould-
lings of the entablatures, capitals, and other
parts were all picked out in red, blue, and gold,
with very minute and elaborate patterns painted
on the larger members, in the coffers or panels
of the lacunaria, and on the cross-beams of
marble which supported the great ceiling slabs
, over the peristyle. Certain enriched mouldings,
such as the “bead and reel,” appear to have
been nearly always gilt, and in almost all the
patterns of the richest temples thin bands of
gold were used to separate and harmonise the
brilliant tints of colour.
The interior of the temple walls was often
covered with large paintings of figure subjects:
in the Parthenon, for example, the pronaos con-
tained a painting of the rock Aornus and the
fissure which drew into it birds flying over it.
In the cella were portraits of Themistocles and
Heliodorus (see Paus. i. 2, 37): and Pliny
(H. N. xxxv. § 101) records that in the portico
of the Parthenon was a painting by Protogenes
of Caunus, representing the sacred triremes
Paralus and Ammonias. Similar pictures de-
corated the internal walls of most Greek
temples.
Votive shields of gilt bronze were frequently
attached to the architraves of Greek temples, as
was the case with the Parthenon, the Temple of
Zeus at Olympia, and that of Apollo at Delphi
(Paus. v. 10, 2, and x. 19, 3). Part of the
Parthenon architrave was decorated with hang-
ing wreaths or festoons of flowers worked in
bronze. The positions of these and of the shields
are still marked by the stumps of the bronze
pins which fixed them to the marble. In some
cases sets of votive armour and weapons were
hung to the cella walls, both inside and out, as
well as ex-votos of many other kinds.
Orientation.—Greek temples are usually placed
with their asces east and west : the front is com-
monly towards the east. There are, however,
exceptions to this rule: the Temple of Apollo
at Bassae stands north and south, but has on its
east flank the unusual feature of a side door,
placed near the statue of the god—possibly to
allow the rays of the rising sun to strike the
statue of Apollo, who was there worshipped as
the deliverer from a fearful pestilence which had
devastated the neighbouring city of Phigaleia,
about the middle of the 5th century B.C.
Greek temples of the historic and autonomous
period were built in two styles, Doric and Ionic.
The Corinthian style belongs to a later period.
Doric Temples.—In the mainland of Greece,
in Magna Graecia, and in Sicily, the Doric style
was the first to be developed. Almost all the
existing Greek temples in these countries are
Doric. The chief archaisms or points of differ-
ence between the early and the fully-developed
Doric temples are these :—In the older examples
the columns are proportionally shorter and
thicker, the architrave is heavier, the inter-
columniation is closer, the diminution of the
shafts of the columns is proportionally greater;
the abacus of the capital is shallow and wide-
spreading, the echinus of the capital is formed
with a more bulging curve. Entasis and other
optical refinements are used in a limited and im-
perfect way. The shafts of the columns are as
far as possible monolithic; marble is used very
sparingly or not at all.
The largest number of early Doric temples
which still exist are in Sicily; at Syracuse,
Agrigentum, Selinus, and Segesta. Another
example of very early date is the temple at
Corinth. Of the later, fully-developed Doric,
the chief examples are in Athens, and at Bassae
in Arcadia.
The temple in Aegina occupies an intermediate
position in point of date. With regard to the
oldest existing temples it is impossible to fix any
exact date; there is, however, little doubt but
that the two earliest temples at Selinus, and one
in Syracuse, of which very little more than two
columns now exist, are not later than the end
of the 7th century B.C. The latest Greek Doric
temple of which any remains still exist is pro-
bably that of Athene Alea at Tegaea, which was
designed by Scopas in the early part of the 4th
century B.C. (see Paus. viii. 45).
The main characteristics of the Doric style
are these—columns without bases, with shallow
flutings not separated by a fillet. The capital
consists of a square abacus resting on a slightly
curved cushion-like member, which is called the
éx{vos (echinus), from its resemblance to the
shell-fish popularly called a sea-urchin. The
architrave which rests on the abaci of the
columns is plain, without any sinkings or
fasciae, such as are used in the Ionic style.
Above the architrave comes the frieze, which is
divided into triglyphs (rplyxiºpol), and metopes
(uerò, Örds). As Vitruvius quite correctly
points out (iv. 2), the Doric order is a survival
in stone of a primitive method of construction
in wood. -
The grooved triglyphs were copies of the ends
of the tie-beams of the roof principals. The
holes in the upper course of the wall in which
the tie-beams rested were called (átraſ), and
hence the intermediate spaces were the pºet’
6traſ, metopes. In the early wooden buildings the
metopes were frequently left open to admit light
and air (see Eur. Iphig. 113); and in domestic
buildings they probably served as an exit for
the smoke from the central hearth (Fearía) in
the middle of the uéyapov or hall. In later
times the metopes were closed and decorated
with painting or sculpture.
Above the Doric frieze was the cornice, the
third and last part of the entablature: this was
very simple, consisting mainly of a deep over-
hanging block with a plain flat surface called
the corona, and on its Soffit or under-side a
series of mutules, covered with three rows of
three circular projections, guttae. The mutules
were survivals in stone of the ends of the small
rafters, which showed above the ends of the
tie-beams. The top member of the cornice,
cymatium, was originally the upturned edge of
the eaves’ tiles, and was pierced at intervals to
allow the rain-water to escape (see fig. 10).
The description already given of the plans and
general arrangement of Greek temples applies to
those of the Doric style, except that no Doric
decastyle temple appears to have been built,
though the dodecastyle portico of the Hall of
the Mysteries at Eleusis had columns of the
Doric order. This, however, was not, as is men-
TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM 783
tioned above, a temple, but rather a great hall
or puéyapov.
: º a
. . . . . .
ºgili
| #12
Fig. 10. Drawing to show the construction of the
entablature of a Doric temple of the 5th century
B.C., and the manner in which it supported the
timbers of the roof. One of the pierced lions’ heads
for rain-water is shown on the top-member (cyma-
tium) of the cornice.
The method in which Greek temples were
lighted is a rather difficult problem: windows
were not used till Roman times, and it appears
fairly certain that some form of opening in the
roof (êtraſov, hypaethrum) was the usual way in
which light was admitted into the cella.” Prof.
Cockerell found at Bassae one of the marble
roof-tiles which had formed the border to some
such opening. A raised rim or kerb was worked
on the tile so as to prevent water dripping from
the roof into the interior. The existing circular
hypaethrum in the dome of the Pantheon in Rome
shows the great aesthetic beauuty of such a
method of lighting; the inconvenience from rain
falling on to the marble paving is comparatively
slight.
After a long-established custom of sacrificing
on altars in the open air, there was probably a
survival of sentiment in favour of having some
part of a temple sub divo. Both religious and
poetical motions have almost always closely as-
sociated the notion of the visible sky with the
abode of God. Support is given to the hypae-
thral theory of lighting by a curious passage of
Justin, xxiv. 8, who relates that when Delphi
was attacked by the Gauls the Pythia and the
priests cried out that they saw Apollo descend-
ing through the roof opening of the temple—
“eum se vidisse desilientem in templum per
aperta culminis fastigia.” An ingenious theory
was invented by Mr. James Fergusson, that the
hypaethrum or öratov was not over the central
space of the cella, but that there was one on
each side over the aisle galleries; the light being
admitted sideways, through windows like those
of a mediaeval clerestory (see Fergusson, The
* The windows in the Erechtheum were an addition
of the time of Constantine, or even later.
Parthenon, 1883). There is, however, little real
evidence to support this theory, and the expla-
nation would not apply to those numerous
temples which had no “aisles” or internal
columns to support a gallery.
The general appearance of the façade of a
Doric temple is shown in the annexed figure
(No. 11) of the temple at Aegina, as restored by
* º º
|º
* | , º ſº. #
- -
º ºil;
#. º:
.# i. d | º
||| ſ |:
§ {{#:
|
| TI-
İlmºſºmº B
Fig. 11. The façade of the Doric, hexastyle, peripteral
temple in Aegina, restored from the existing
remains by the late Prof. Cockerell.
Cockerell from the existing remains. The pedi-
ment has fallen, and the sculpture is now at
Munich, but most of the columns are very per-
fect. The date of this temple is probably about
the middle or latter part of the 6th century B.C.
It should be observed that some temples of
the Doric style had internal columns of a dif-
ferent order. The columns in the opisthodomus
of the Parthenon were probably Ionic. At Bassae
the internal columns of the cella were Ionic,
and at Tegea it is probable that the columns of
the pronaos and posticum were Ionic, while those
inside the cella were Corinthian (see Paus. viii.
45, § 3 seq.). The Propylaea of the Athenian
Acropolis has a similar combination of the Doric
with the Ionic style. -
In the earlier temples all the columns seem to
have been Doric, as we see in the great temple
at Paestum, where the internal columns still
exist.
The so-called Temple of Demeter—or, more
correctly, the Xmicos uvoºrticós—at Eleusis, was
a completely different building from ordinary
Greek temples, as it was a great hall of meeting
for those initiated into the mysteries of Demeter,
Kore, and other Chthonian deities. It has
recently been excavated and plans of the suc-
cessive structures made with great care and
skill by Dr. Dörpfeld (see Fouilles d’Eleusis,
Athens, 1889: cf. also Paus. i. 38).
The latest building was a large square hall
containing six rows of seven columns each. On
three sides, there were two doorways, six in all.
The fourth side, which was built against the
scarped face of the hill, had no entrance on
the ground-floor. It appears probable that
the building was in two stories.* On the
ground-floor eight tiers of step-like seats were
* The upper story was probably used for the produc-
tion of those striking scenic effects, imitations of thunder
and lightning and the like, which were employed by the
priests to fill the minds of the neophytes with awe and
wonder. Traces of some curious machinery are still
visible in the inner propylaeum of the temenus.







784. TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM
placed against all four walls; the lines of
seats being broken only by the doorways. In
front was the great Doric dodecastyle portico
built by Philo in the 4th century B.C. The plan
of the whole building is Oriental rather than
Greek in character. It closely resembles the
“Hall of the Hundred Columns '' in the palace
of Darius and Xerxes at Persepolis. Dr. Dörp-
feld discovered remains of two earlier and smaller
buildings of similar plan on the same site.
The sacred temenus was approached through
an inner and an outer propylaeum ; the larger,
outer one, of Roman date, is a close copy of the
propylaeum of the Athenian Acropolis. In front
of the outer gateway was a small amphiprostyle
temple of Artemis, some remains of which still
exist. (See Bull. Cor. Hell. i. 1885.)
The following are the principal Doric temples
of which remains still exist, arranged as nearly
as possible in chronological order:—
Syracuse, Island of Ortygia, Temple of Artemis, hexa-
style, very archaic, scanty remains. 7th century
B.C., or even earlier.
Selinus (Sicily), three temples on the Acropolis, all
hexastyle, with 19, 14, and 13 columns respectively
on the flanks, of local limestone, very early in style.
7th cent.
Syracuse, Ortygia, Temple of Athene, hexastyle, now
built into the cathedral. Late 7th cent. -
Selinus, great Temple of Zeus in the Agora (see fig. 7),
octastyle, with 17 columns on the flanks: never
finished. 7th cent.
Corinth, hexastyle, with 15 columns on the flanks;
only 7 columns now remain. Late 7th cent.
Segesta, Sicily, hexastyle, the peristyle perfect, but the
cella wholly gone, probably unfinished. 6th cent.
Agrigentum, Sicily, the great Temple of Zeus, heptastyle,
with 14 columns on the flanks, pseudo-peripteral,
slight remains. 6th cent.
Aegina, hexastyle, with 12 columns on the flanks; very
perfect (see fig. 11). 6th cent.
Paestum, Lucania, the so-called Temple of Poseidon (see
fig. 5), hexastyle, with 14 columns on the flanks,
very perfect, 6th cent.
Delphi, Temple of the Pythian Apollo, hexastyle,
peripteral; designed by Spintharus of Corinth Soon
after the burning of the previous temple (the fourth
on that site) in the year 548 B.C. Second half of
the 6th cent. -
Agrigentum, Sicily, three hexastyle temples, two of
them very perfect. Late 6th or early 5th cent.
Selinus, the middle temple on the Agora. c. 500 B.C.
Assos, Asia Minor, hexastyle, with Sculpture on the
architrave, very rude in style, Scanty remains.
C. 480 B.C.
Athens, so-called Temple of Theseus, hexastyle, with 13
columns on the flanks, very perfect. c. 465 B.C.
Olympia, Temple of Zeus, built by Libon of Elis, hexa-
style, with 13 columns on the flanks; little remains
standing. 469–457 B.C.
Olympia, the Heraion, a mixture of many dates, mostly
destroyed, hexastyle, with 16 columns on the
flanks.
Athens, the Parthenon, octastyle, with 17 columns on
the flanks, still fairly perfect, built by Ictinus.
450–438 B.C.
Selinus, hexastyle temple in the Agora.
5th cent.
Sumium, Attica, hexastyle, a few columns only remain.
Middle of 5th cent.
Bassae, Temple of Apollo Epicurius, hexastyle, with 15
columns on the flanks, built by Ictinus, still fairly
perfect. c. 440 B.C. -
Rhamnus, Attica, Temple of Nemesis, hexastyle,
peripteral; and Temple of Themis, cella with
portico in antis, and walls of polygonal masonry, a
Middle of
late survival of this early method of building (see
fig. 3). Middle of the 5th century.
Eleusis, the Hall of the Mysteries, with a dodecastyle
portico, which is a later addition. c. 440–220 B.C.
Tegea, Temple of Athene Alea, built by Scopas, hexa-
style, with 13 columns on the flanks; date soon
after 393 B.C.
Paestum, enneastyle temple, and a small hexastyle
temple, probably built by native Lucanian architects,
in the 4th cent. B.c.
Ionic Temples.—The main points in which the
Ionic order differs from the Doric are these :—
The columns have bases, and the capitals are
decorated with volutes and a moulded abacus,
instead of the simple echinus and plain abacus
of the Doric style. The whole entablature is
more elaborate, the architrave being divided
into receding planes or bands (fasciae), and the
members of the cornice more numerous and
elaborate. The small cubical projections called
dentils, which are set closely along the fully-
developed Ionic cornice, are one of the chief
characteristics of the style, though not always
present in Athenian examples. Besides these
important differences of design, the whole
character of an Ionic temple is more light and
graceful than that of a Doric building. Thus
Vitruvius fancifully compares the Doric order to:
the proportions of a man, and the Ionic to those
of a woman (Vitruv. iv. 1, §§ 6, 7). The
columns are more slender, and so in proportion
taller; the diminution and entasis are less. The
intercolumniation, or distance from column to
column, is wider, giving a lighter effect to the
whole building. The flutes on the columns are:
separated by flat strips or “fillets,” and the
members of the mouldings are much more largely
enriched with carving.
No very early example of an Ionic temple is
now in existence; but some very primitive Ionic
capitals, which have recently been found deeply
buried on the Athenian Acropolis, show that
even in Attica the Ionic style, though in an
undeveloped form, was used before the Persian
invasion. The earliest Ionic temple in Greece
proper, which existed till modern times, was
a very graceful little building on the Ilissus,
close by Athens, but this was destroyed about a
century ago. Luckily it is well illustrated in
Stuart and Revett's valuable work on Athens.
It was a tetrastyle, amphiprostyle building, and
from some of its details, especially the absence
of dentils in the cornice, seemed a sort of link
between the Doric and Ionic styles. It was
probably built soon after the Persian invasion,
about 475 B.C. The somewhat similar little.
Temple of Nike Apteros on the Acropolis, which
has been carefully rebuilt and is now in a very
perfect state, belongs to a rather later date,
probably about the middle of the 5th century
B.C. It is a mere shrine for a single statue, the
cella being little over 12 feet square; and it
possesses the remarkable peculiarity of having
no front wall to the cella, but only two square
pilasters to carry the architrave (see fig. 4).
The open end of the cella was closed by a bronze
screen fitted in between the pilasters and the
antae.
Large and magnificent as are the great Ionic
temples of Asia Minor, none of them can
approach the beauty of the Athenian. Erech-
theum, either in delicate richness of detail or
TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM 785
in minute perfection of workmanship. The
Erechtheum, which stands to the north of the
parthenon, was rebuilt towards the end of the
5th century on the site of a very primitive
temple of Athene Polias, which was burnt by
the Persians in 480 B.C. It is a very complicated
building, containing a group of many different
shrines, and is quite unlike any other Greek
temple. The main cella, which had a hexastyle
portico towards the east, was subdivided by cross
walls, and floors in several different chambers at
various levels. Owing to this cella having been
gutted to make it into a Christian church, the
original plan is now a matter of some doubt. All
that is certainly known is that some part, pro-
łably the eastern portion of the cella, was the
shrine of Athene Polias, and contained a very
sacred ancient £6avov or wooden statue of the
goddess. This statue is referred to in the official
title of the temple as given in an existing in-
scription of the year 409 B.C., when the building
was still in progress; the title is 6 ve&s à ép.
TróAet év 6 to &pxalov &ya Apia. Another part
of the temple was called the 'Epex9eſov, or shrine
of Erechtheus, the mythical ruler of Athens,
whose presence was symbolised by a living Snake
which was kept in the building (Herod. viii. 41,
and Plut. Themis, 10). A third portion of the
cella was the Kekpótretov or shrine of Cecrops.
The building or its temenus also contained the
spring of salt water and the olive-tree which
were supposed to have been produced by Posei-
don and Athene during their contest for the
sovereignty of Attica (see Pausanias, i. 26, § 5
seq.). On the north of the cella is a very
#beautiful tetrastyle portico, at a much lower
level than the eastern portico: in a vault under
the portico floor are traces of the salt spring and
the marks made by Poseidon’s trident—ormuelov
Tús Tpiatvms—which were shown to Pausanias.
On the opposite or south side of the main cella
is the well-known Caryatid portico, supported by
six graceful female figures, one of which is now
in the British Museum. The entrance was by a
side door in this little porch, leading down by a
small flight of steps to the lower level at the
west end. In the west wall a doorway gave
access to a long sacred enclosure called the
TIavöpóoretov in honour of Pandrosos, the one
faithful daughter of Cecrops. In this court
Trobably stood the sacred olive and an altar to
Zeus Herkeios (see Dion. Hal., quoting Philo-
chorus, de Deinarcho, 3). The three windows,
which till recently existed in the west wall of
the cella over the door, were insertions of a late
date, probably of the time of Constantine, when
the temple was made into a church. The apse,
which was then built at the other end, un-
fortunately caused the destruction of the east
portico, and in fact the whole building was
gutted to make it into a single chamber.
The Erechtheum is richer in detail than any
other Ionic temple, and is also quite alone in the
minute delicacy of the execution of all its
ornaments and mouldings. The capitals were
decorated with a band of lotus pattern below
the necking : the volutes were enriched with
ornaments of gilt bronze, and delicate plaited
mouldings, both on the capitals and bases, were
inlaid with bits of jewel-like enamel. All the
mouldings and reliefs were decorated with gold
and colour. The whole work was extraordinarily
WOL. II.
elaborate and costly, and so took many years to
execute. It appears not to have been com-
pletely finished till after the close of the Pelo-
pomnesian war. A very interesting inscription,
with a report of its exact state in 409 B.C., is
now in the British Museum (see Newton and
Hicks, Greek Inscriptions in British Museum,
i. p. 84).
The following is a list of the chief Ionic
temples of which some remains still exist:—
In Greece proper:—
Athens: the temple of Nike Apteros and the Erech-
theum on the Acropolis.
Olympia: the circular Philippeion, with 18 Ionic
columns outside, and, inside the cella, engaged
columns of the Corinthian order: similar in plan
to the Roman Temple of Westa shown in fig. 13.
In Asia Minor:—
Sardis: temple of Cybele, octastyle, with columns
60 feet high, of which only three remain, date
about 500 B.C.
Xanthus in Lycia : Heroon of unknown dedication, a
small tetrastyle, peripteral building on a lofty
polium. Its sculpture is now in the British
Museum. The date is doubtful, but it is pro-
bably not earlier than c. 400 B.C.
The Troad: Temple of Apollo Smintheus, octastyle,
pseudo-dipteral, with very close (pycnostyle) in-
tercolumniation. Most of the existing building
seems to date from a period probably about 400 to
350 B.C.
Samos: Temple of Hera, decastyle, dipteral (see
Paus. vii. 4, and Vitruv. vii. Praef. 12). The
existing temple is of the 4th cent. B.C. An
earlier temple on the same site was built in the
7th cent. B.C. by Rhoecus of Samos; Herodotus
mentions it as the largest temple he had seen (See
iii. 60, ii. 148, and i. 70). The existing remains
were first excavated by the Dilettanti Society in
1812. (See Antiq. of Ionia, i. p. 64; and Bull.
Cor. Hell. iv. p. 383.)
Magnesia ad Maeandrum: Temple of Artemis Leuco-
phryne, hexastyle, pseudo-dipteral, built by
Hermogenes about 350 B.C. (See Vitruv. vii.
Praef. 12.)
Teos: Temple of Dionysus, hexastyle, also built by
Hermogenes about 350 B.C. (See Vitruv. vii.
Praef. 12; and iv. 3, 1.) At iii. 3, 8 Vitruvius
mentions this temple as an example of ewstyle
intercolumniation. He goes on to say that its
architect Hermogenes was the first to invent the
pseudo-dipteral plan for a hexastyle temple by
omitting the second (inner) range of columns,
and so giving a wider ambulatory round the cella.
for shelter from rain for a crowd of people. (See
Antiq. of Ionia, Part iv. 1881.)
Priene: Temple of Athene Polias, hexastyle, very
similar to the temple at Teos; it was built in the
second half of the 4th cent. B.C. and was dedicated
by Alexander the Great, as is recorded in the
following inscription, which was discovered during
the excavations of the Dilettanti Society:—
Baart)\ets 'AAéčavôpos &vé6mke row valov 'A6mvaim
IIoAtaðu.
Branchidae near Miletus: Temple of Apollo Didy-
maeus; decastyle, dipteral (see fig. 6). This and
the temple at Samos were the only two Greek
decastyle temples. That of Apollo Didymaeus
seems never to have been completed. Vitruvius
(vii. Praef. 16) mentions it as one of the four
greatest temples of the Greeks, and that its
architects were Paeonius of Ephesus and Daphnis
of Miletus, about 350 B.C. Pausanias (vii. 5) Says
that, though unfinished, it is one of the wonders
of Ionia. According to Strabo, p. 634, it was
left roofless on account of its excessive Span.
(See Gaz. des Beauz Arts, xiii. p. 497, and xiv.
1876.
) 3 E
786 TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM

Ephesus: Temple of Artemis (Artemision), octastyle,
dipteral, built during the reign of Alexander the
Great, 356-323 B.C.
In many respects this last was the most magni-
ficent and celebrated of all Greek temples; the
last temple built on the site ranked as one of
the seven wonders of the world. It should,
however, be remembered that the great size of
the Artemision was a very important factor in its
celebrity. In point of beauty of workmanship
and minute refinement of detail it was far
surpassed by the earlier Greek temples, such as
the Parthenon and the Erechtheum. Between
the 7th century B.C. and the time of Alexander
the Great three successive temples were built
on the same site. 1. The original temple built
by Theodorus of Samos, the partner of Rhoecus,
who was architect of the Heraion in Samos,
probably about the year 630 B.C. 2. The temple
which was begun by Chersiphron and finished
by his son Metagenes about the end of the 6th
century B.C. This temple was burnt by an in-
cendiary, named Herostratus, the night when
Alexander the Great was born, in 356 B.C.
3. The last temple built during the reign of
Alexander was designed by his favourite archi-
tect Dinocrates. (See Pliny, H. W. xxxvi. § 98;
and Vitruv. x. 2, §§ 11, 12; vii. Praef. 12; and
ii. Praef. 1–4). It should be observed that much
confusion exists in the statements of Vitruvius,
Pliny, and other authors as to the architects of
the temple, owing to their not distinguishing
clearly between the three successive buildings.
Considerable remains of the last temple, and
pavements and foundations of the two earlier
buildings, were discovered in the years 1870–6
by Mr. Wood; but unfortunately no satisfactory
account or plan of his discoveries has been
published. Mr. Wood discovered after long
search that the Artemision, surrounded by its
extensive temenus, stood, not within the city-of-
Ephesus, but nearly a mile outside the Coressian
gate. It had eight columns on the fronts, and
probably twenty on the flanks: the stylobate,
which consisted of no less than fourteen steps,
measured at the lowest step about 418 by 240
feet. The columns were 56 feet high, and about
6 feet in diameter above the base. As has been
already mentioned, some of the columns and their
pedestals were enriched with sculpture, as were
also the antae, of very varying degrees of excel-
lence, some being well designed and graceful in
motive, while other reliefs are extremely coarse
and clumsy. None of the sculpture is remarkable
for any high degree of finish or delicacy. The
main entrance from the pronaos led, not directly
into the cella, but into a large vestibule, part of
which was probably shut off for use as a
treasury. The temple was enormously rich in
statues and votive offerings of all kinds in gold
and silver; its doors were most magnificently
decorated with plating of gold and ivory. A
fragment of one of the bases of the main order,
now in the British Museum, has remains of an
ornament of pure gold fixed with lead between
the double tori. The inside of the cella was
decorated with a large mural painting of Alex-
ander Ceraunophorus by Apelles and many other
pictures, and contained a large number of fine
statues by Scopas, Timotheus, Leochares, and
other sculptors of the Asia Minor School. The
temenus was very large, enclosed by a massive
wall, and planted with groves of trees. It
formed one of the most sacred sanctuaries of
Asia Minor, and was the resort of great numbers
of men who were flying from punishment for
some misdeed. By degrees the bounds of the
asylum or sanctuary were enlarged, until they
not only extended up to the walls of
Ephesus, but even included part of the city,
which thus became the resort of evil-doers, and
was a great source of trouble to the citizens.
Augustus therefore restricted the limit of the
space which had the privileges of asylum.
The British Museum also possesses some very
interesting fragments which belonged to the
second temple, begun about the middle of the
6th century, to which the Lydian king Croesus
was a liberal benefactor. These fragments show
that the earlier temple had some of its columns
decorated with life-sized reliefs after the same
fashion as the last building. Some of these were
given by Croesus, whose name and dedication
were inscribed on the upper torus of one of the
bases, some fragments of which are now in the
British Museum. One remarkable peculiarity
of this 6th-century building was that the large
cymatium, which formed the top member of
the main cornice, was decorated with figures in
relief, which can have been hardly visible owing
to their small scale and great height from the
ground. See A. S. Murray, Journ. of Hell.
Studies, vol. x. p. 1 seq.
Graeco-Roman Temples.
There are also two very magnificent Ionic
temples in Asia Minor which date from the
Roman period: these are at Aphrodisias in
Caria, and at Aizani in Phrygia; both are
octastyle, pseudo-dipteral buildings, with fifteen
columns on the flanks. The elaborate, but some-
what coarse and extravagant, sculptured orna-
ments show that the date of these two very similar
temples is probably not earlier than the 1st or
2nd century A.D. Each was surrounded with
an extensive peribolus wall, within which a
smaller space is enclosed by an open porticus or
cloister; in the centre of this the temple itself
stands. The temple at Aizani is remarkable for
having a fine vaulted crypt under the cella.
floor, twenty-eight feet wide and fourteen feet
high, probably used as a treasure chamber. (See
Le Bas, Voyage Arch. dans la Grèce, &c. ed.
Reinach, 1888; Texier and Pullan, Asia Minor,
1865; and the various treatises published during
the last hundred years on The Antiquities of
Ionia by the Dilettanti Society, vols. i. to iv.
See also Newton, Travels in the Levant, 1865,
and History of Discoveries at Halicarnassus, &c.,
1862.)
The Corinthian Order was the latest develop-
ment of Greek architecture, and did not come.
into use till a period of decadence had set in. It
is an elaborated form of Ionic, with capitals.
enriched by two tiers of acanthus leaves instead
of the Ionic volutes. Vitruvius (iv. 1, 9) relates
a pretty and fanciful story about the origin of
the Corinthian capital, which was supposed to
have been invented by Callimachus; cf. Paus. i.
26 ad fin. The oldest existing example of the
Corinthian order is the choragic monument of
Lysicrates, in Athens, of 334 B.C., and even this
is Corinthian of an incompletely developed type-
TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM 787
With the Romans the Corinthian order was a
very favourite style for temples, but no
purely, Greek Corinthian temple is known to
exist, though many dating from Roman times are
to be found in various parts of the Hellenic world.
The most famous example is the great Temple
of Olympian Zeus at Athens, which was de-
signed by a Roman architect named Cossutius
for Antiochus Epiphanes about 170 B.C. (see
Vitruv. iii. 2, 8, vii. Praef. 15; and Paus. i. 19).
The existing remains have been described by
F. C. Penrose in the second edition of his
Athenian Architecture, 1888. The earlier
temple was begun about the year 530 B.C. by
the Peisistratid tyrants of Athens: it was de-
signed on a very large scale with columns about
7 feet in diameter, but was never completed. Mr.
Penrose, during his excavations in 1887, found
some of the stone drums of this older temple
used as foundations for the marble Corinthian
columns of Cossutius’ building. He also found
traces of a smaller and still older temple than
that of Peisistratus. The existing temple,
though commenced by Antiochus, was not com-
pleted till the reign of Hadrian, who was a very
liberal benefactor to Athens. The excavations
of 1887 showed that it was octastyle, not de-
castyle, as had previously been thought, thus
showing the correctness of Vitruvius’ statement
on this point (see Vitruv. iii. 2, 8). It was
dipteral, with twenty columns on the flanks,
and three rows at each end in front of the pronaos
and posticum. Part of the cella behind the
statue of Zeus was divided by a cross wall, so as
to form an opisthodomus. In spite of the cella
being (proportionally) very narrow, there were
ranges of internal columns, forming two narrow
aisles with galleries over them. The size of the
temple, measured on the top step of the stylobate,
was 354 feet by 135 feet. The magnificent
Corinthian columns, of which fourteen are still
standing, are 6 ft. 6 in. in diameter, and 60
feet high : the style of the capitals and the
beauty of the workmanship make it probable
that these columns date from the time of
Cossutius, c. 170 B.C., rather than from the
reign of Hadrian. The gold and ivory statue
within the cella was a copy of that by Pheidias
at Olympia (Paus. ii. 27, 1). The columns from
this temple which Sulla (c. 86 B.C.) removed to
Rome to use in the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter,
were, as Mr. Penrose has suggested, probably
monolithic shafts of coloured marble from the
interior of the cella (see Plin. H. N. xxxvi. §45).
Circular Greek Temples.
A form of Greek temple not included in the
above classification is the Tholus, a round build-
ing, often surrounded by columns forming a cir-
cular peristyle. The Prytaneum, which existed
in every important Greek city, seems to have
been usually a building of this, kind. It con-
tained an ever-burning sacred fire in honour of
Hestia (Fearía) or Vesta; so also the Roman
temples of Vesta were built on this circular
plan.* [PRYTANEUM.] Remains of the famous
Tholus at Epidaurus have recently been dis-
covered. It was a large handsome building of
* This circular form of temple was probably derived
from a primitive hut made of wattled osiers; see Ovid,
Fast. vi. 261 sq., and Festus, S. v. Penw8.
Parian marble, within the sacred temenus of
Asclepios, to whom it was dedicated. It was
designed by Polycleitus the younger in the 4th
century B.C., and contained mural paintings by
Pausias (see Paus. ii. 27 ; THOLUs).
Another circular temple or Heroon was the
Philippeion at Olympia, remains of which were
discovered a few years ago by the German exca-
vators. It was surrounded by a circular peri-
style of 18 Ionic columns : the interior of the
cella was decorated with engaged columns of the
Corinthian order. In design it closely resembled
the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum, after
its rebuilding by Severus (see Paus. v. 20).
For an account of the management, ritual,
and property of temples, see SACERDOs, THE-
SAURUS, and WECTIGALIA TEMPLORUM.
Roman Temples.
Little originality was shown by the Romans in
the designs of their temples, as in other artistic
matters. Though skilful builders and good
practical engineers, they had very little talent
for art, or even good taste in matters of design;
and thus it happened that the special Roman
modifications made in designs which they bor-
rowed from others were very usually far from
being improvements from the aesthetic point of
view. In early times Roman temples were copied
from those of the Etruscans; in later times,
after the conquest of Greece, the temples of the
Romans were imitations of Greek temples, more
or less modified to suit their different practical
Ineeds.
In its primitive form the Etruscan temple
appears to have been a wooden structure, with
trunks of trees for columns, widely spaced,
and carrying a timber architrave. Terracotta
mouldings, friezes, and other enrichments were
very largely used, all decorated with rather
coarse painting in different-coloured ochres, and
the brilliant red minium. Terracotta was also
used by the Etruscans for sculpture on a large
scale, both for the principal statue of the deity
within the cella, and also for groups or reliefs
in and over the pediment of the façade. Varro
(quoted by Pliny, H. N. xxxv. § 154), speaking
of the Temple of Ceres by the Circus Maximus,
remarks that before the introduction of Greek
art into Rome, “all things connected with
temples were Etruscan.” The Etruscans were
also remarkable for their technical skill as
bronze workers. Much of the oldest Roman
sculpture in bronze shows a strong Etruscan
influence; and many important statues, such as
“the Orator” and the Chimaera in the Museum
in Florence, and the Capitoline Wolf in Rome,
are evidently the work of Etruscan artists.
The Roman Tuscan style was a survival of
the ancient Etruscan forms. Vitruvius’ dis-
sertation on Tuscan temples appears to be based
on the one important example of a temple built
in the primitive Etruscan way, which survived
till the time of the Empire (see Vitruv. iv. 7).
This was the great Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus,
which stood on the south-western peak of the
Capitoline hill, one of the earliest of the Roman
temples, which, though frequently burnt and
rebuilt, was always restored in the old Etruscan
style for religious reasons—hieratic rules being
always very conservative. Like the gºmple
E *d
788 TEMPLUM
of most Etruscan cities, the Temple of Jupiter
Capitolinus was jointly dedicated to a triad of
deities — Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva; Tinia,
Thalna, and Menrva. Thus the cella was
divided into three parts, each with its own
doorway opening under the prostyle portico.
The columns were very widely spaced (araeo-
style), and so, even when the main building had
been reconstructed in marble, the architrave
was still necessarily made of wood, as the length
of bearing from column to column was too great
for a stone or marble lintel to span.
the burning of the temple in 83 B.C., the apex
Fig. 12. Part of a relief showing the
TEMPLUM
of the pediment was surmounted by a large
quadriga of terracotta, the work of an early
Etruscan sculptor, which was said to have been
brought from Veii by Tarquinius Superbus, who
built the first temple (Liv. i. 53).
Fig. 12 shows part of a relief from the
triumphal arch of M. Aurelius,” representing
the Emperor offering sacrifice after a victory
in front of the temple, which had been rebuilt
during the reign of Vespasian. This relief shows
clearly the doors of the three cellae, the widely-
Before spaced columns of the portico, and the sculpture
in the pediment and above it, which was pro-
e of the triple Tuscan Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, with the
doors of the three cellae and the sculpture in and on the pediment.
bably a reproduction in marble of the original
terracotta groups.
Vitruvius, in his fourth book, has written a
good deal on the designs of Roman temples; and
he gives elaborate directions for the setting out
of their plans and for the proportions of their
columns, and other details in the various orders.
It should, however, be remembered that he is
merely expressing his own views of what is most
desirable in a building, and that his rules are
mostly quite arbitrary, and were by no means
universally followed in Roman buildings. Most
existing temples show that Vitruvius' theories
were little known or regarded by other archi-
tects, and they are therefore of less importance
to the modern student of archaeology than has
usually been supposed.
Differences between Greek and Roman Temples.
The later Roman temples, which were built
under the influence of Greek art, were designed
in three styles or orders, namely, Roman-Doric,
Ionic, and Corinthian. Roman temples of all
these styles were built with certain modifica-
* Now in the Capitoline Museum.

TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM 789
tions which were introduced by the Roman or
Graeco-Roman architects.
The cella of a Roman temple was usually
wider in proportion than that of a Greek temple,
and was without “aisles” or inner ranges of
free columns, though “engaged ” or even com-
plete columns were very commonly set along
the internal walls of the cella. Owing to the
increased width of the cella, there was fre-
quently no peristyle along the flanks of the
Roman temples, but only “engaged ” columns on
the outside of the cella. Roman temples were
very often set, not on a mere stylobate of steps,
but on a lofty base or podium, with plinth and
cornice of its own. The proportion between the
front and the sides of the Roman temples was
far more variable than it was among the Greeks.
In some Roman temples windows were intro-
duced, as, e.g., in the Temple of Concord in the
Forum Romanum. The slope of the roof, and
consequently that of the pediments, were much
steeper in a Roman than in a Greek temple. Mo-
nolithic columns of coloured marble or granite
were commonly used, and in matters of construc-
tion and decoration generally the differences
were very great. Especially under the later
Roman Empire there was a great tendency to
overload the buildings with ornament. In some
cases every member of a cornice was completely
covered with carved enrichments, leaving no
plain surfaces as a relief to the eye, and to
enhance the value of the ornament. A certain
amount of vulgarity and gaudiness of effect is
characteristic of the temple architecture of the
Romans, very much in the same way as with their
domestic buildings. In point of beauty of work-
manship, Roman temples vary very much. Some
of the finest, which were probably built by archi-
tects who were Greeks either by blood or by edu-
cation, are almost as delicate in detail and highly
finished as a Greek temple of the 5th century
B.C.; especially those which were built in the
reign of Augustus, as, e.g., the temples of Con-
cord and of Castor in the Roman Forum. In
the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D., or even earlier,
the workmanship is very coarse, and the sculp-
tured ornament very weak and clumsy in design.
The coarse taste of the Romans led them to care
little for the pure beauty of white marble, even
though decorated with painting, and so it was with
them a common custom to line the whole interiors
of the temples with thin slabs or veneers (crustae)
of richly-coloured marbles, which, from the time
of Augustus onwards, were imported in immense
quantities from Asia Minor, Greece, Northern
Africa, and other countries. Even white marble
was but little used before the reign of Augustus,
but the discovery of the magnificent quarries at
Luna (modern Carrara) soon made white marble
to be very common among the building materials
of Rome, especially as a casing to stone or con-
crete walls.
Treasures in Roman Temples. –As was the
case with Greek temples, vast stores of treasure
were frequently preserved in the temples of the
Romans. A very fine collection of silver plate,
in the form of richly-decorated cups, vases,
paterae, and statuettes, was discovered in 1830
below the remains of the Temple of Mercury of
Canetum in Bernay, Département de l'Eure.
This find, consisting of about 80 pieces of plate
of various dates from the 3rd century B.C. to
the 2nd century A.D., is now preserved in
the Bibliothèque Nationale of Paris (see Cha-
bouillet, Cat. des Camées, etc. de la Bibl. Imp.,
Paris, 1858, p. 418). It was also not uncommon
for wealthy Romans to deposit their own plate
or money for safe keeping in the treasury of
Some temple. These Roman treasuries were
usually formed under the temple floor in some
part of the lofty podium on which most Roman
temples were built. Remains of these strong
rooms are to be seen in several of the temples
in the Forum Romanum ; they are cellar-like
cavities in the immense mass of concrete which
forms the bulk of the podium. This is the case
in the temples of Castor, Divus Julius, Concord,
Vespasian, and Saturn. The entrance to the
treasury of the Temple of Castor is shown on
fig, 14 (cf. Juv. Sat. xiv. 260).
In early times the methods of construction
used in Roman temples were very similar to
those of the Greeks. The walls were built of
large squared blocks (opus quadratum) of the
local stone, whatever that happened to be,
always coated with a fine hard cement. In
Rome itself the earliest temples were built of
the soft brown tufa, of which the Roman hills
chiefly consist,--a stone which decays rapidly
under exposure to the weather, but lasted per-
fectly well as long as it was covered with
cement. Towards the close of the Republic
harder and more durable stones were used;
namely, the volcanic lapis Albanus (modern
peperino) and the lapis Tiburtinus (mod. traver-
tino), a hard limestone which exists in large
beds near Tibur (Tivoli). Under the Empire
concrete was very largely used for foundations,
and for the inner core of walls; it was made of
lime, pozzolama (pulvis Puteolanus), and broken
fragments of stone.
Only a very few of the most magnificent
Roman temples were built of solid blocks of
marble, as, e.g., the Temple of Apollo on the
Palatine hill, built by Augustus, of which no
remains are now visible. This splendid building,
which was crowded with sculpture by distin-
guished Greek sculptors and other spoils from
Hellenic cities, was most sumptuously decorated
with paintings, doors plated with gold and
ivory, and the most costly furniture of every
description, such as tripods, tables, cups, and
even large statues of gold and silver—a perfect
museum of Greek art of every period from the
6th century B.C. downwards. Many othars of
the chief temples of Rome contained very large
collections of Greek works of art of all kinds,
from colossal bronze statues down to caskets of
engraved gems, as, e.g., the Temple of Concord
and the Temple of Peace. In fact, the whole of
Greece was ransacked to enrich the capital of
the Roman conquerors, and it is probable that
no Greek city ever possessed so magnificent a
collection of Hellenic works of art as did the
city of Rome during the reign of Nero, before
the great fire destroyed so large a part of the
city and its stores of foreign spoils. From one
place alone, Delphi, Nero is recorded to have
carried away 400 bronze statues, and this was
merely one incident in the great system of
spoliation which had been carried on almost
incessantly, ever since the sack of Corinth by
Mummius, in 146 B.C.
On the whole, Roman temples were loftier
790 TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM
than those of the Greeks, lighter in their gene- of the whole when complete. We repeat here
ral proportions, and had their columns more the cut already given under CANCELLI.
widely spaced. The closest (most pycnostyle)
intercolumniation that Vitruvius
mentions has wider spans than
any of the chief Doric temples of
the Greeks (see Vitruv. iii. 3, 2).
Roman Orders: I. Doric (Wi-
truv. iv. 3).--This differs from
the Greek Doric in many respects.
The columns have bases, and the
capitals have a moulding above
the square abacus, and a torus
necking some distance below the
annulets under the echinus. The
shafts were often left unfluted,
and the angle triglyphs were
placed over the axis of the angle
columns, not brought up to the
extreme corner of the frieze as
in Greek Doric. The mouldings
and all the details were different
from the Greek prototype.
1O 3.
t r
O 40
Another circular temple, dedicated to one of
2O 3O 40 FEET,
l 4— —l
II. Ionic (Vitruv. iii. 5).-This
order differs less from the Greek
Ionic than is the case with the
last-mentioned style. The variations in the
capitals, bases, and entablature are not impor-
tant, and the principal differences between Greek
and Roman Ionic temples fall chiefly under the
general heads mentioned above—viz. modifica-
tions of plan and arrangement. -
III. Corinthian (Vitruv. iv. 1). —As is stated
above, this order was more used by the Romans
than by the Greeks, in spite of the fact that
the great Temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens
was built in the Corinthian style. Owing to its
richness of detail, most of the more magnificent
temples of the Romans were built in the Corin-
thian style. The so-called Composite order is
not really a separate order, but merely a varia-
tion of the Corinthian, the chief difference being
in the capitals, which have a rather awkward
combination of the Ionic volute with the Corin-
The earliest existing
example of this style is the triumphal arch of
thian acanthus leaves.
Titus on the Summa Sacra Via in Rome. Under
the later Empire Composite capitals were very
largely used.
The chief temples in Rome of which remains
still exist are these :-
The Temple of Pesta, at the south of the
Forum Romanum, was one of the most primitive
of all the Roman temples; in it was preserved
the sacred fire, guarded by the six Vestal Vir-
gins, whose large and magnificent house has,
within the last few years, been exposed to view,
close by the remains of the temple. This most
sacred of all Roman shrines was not a templum
in the strict meaning of the word, but rather
an aedes sacra, as it was not consecrated by the
augurs, the presence of the sacred fire being
sufficient to give it a character of the highest
sanctity. It was frequently burnt and rebuilt,
the last restoration being that of the Emperor
Severus, who rebuilt it as a circular marble
Corinthian temple, with 18 columns, on a high
podium. The tufa foundations, of which con-
siderable remains still exist, are of much earlier
date. Of the marble part nothing remains but
fallen fragments of columns and entablature,
which are, however, sufficient to give the design
Fig. 13. The Temple (aedes) of Westa, as rebuilt by Severus, restored
from existing remains by Comm. Lanciani.
the most primitive cults of ancient Rome, was
the Temple of the Dea Dia in the sacred grove of
the Collegium of the Fratres Arvales, a short
distance outside the Porta Portuensis. [For the
Arval brothers, see ARVALES.]
The Pantheon, built by M. W. Agrippa in the
Campus Martius, is the most stately and magni-
ficent of all Roman circular temples. It was,
most probably, originally designed as part of
the Thermae of Agrippa, near to which it stands;
but it seems to have been consecrated as a
temple to a number of deities as soon as it was
completed. It is covered by a magnificent dome
142 feet in diameter, with a circular hypaethral
opening at the top. The walls, which are
20 feet thick, are of concrete faced with trian-
gular bricks, and partly covered with a lining
of marble slabs both inside and outside. The
dome, which is also of concrete, was covered
with tiles of gilt bronze. Magnificent mono-
lithic columns of coloured marbles from Phrygia
and Numidia are used to decorate the series of
altar-recesses round the interior. In front is
a stately octastyle portico of the Corinthian
order, with monolithic unfluted columns of
grey and red granite from Egypt. An inscrip-
tion on the frieze records its building by Agrippa
in 27 B.C. Within the pediment was a large
group in bronze of the battle of the gods and
the giants. The great doorway still contains its
original double doors of massive bronze, divided
into moulded panels, with enriched bosses on
the framing; the whole was once thickly gilt.
With the exception of the Temple of Divus
Romulus, the son of Maxentius, in the Forum
Romanum, the Pantheon is the only Roman
building which still retains its original bronze
doors in situ. Those of the Curia are now
placed in the main entrance of the Lateran
Basilica, having been moved there in the 16th
century.
The principal temples which, in part at
least, still exist in the Forum Romanum are
these :— -
The Temple of Castor, at the south angle of
the Forum, was a very fine octastyle, peripteral

TEMPLUM
building of Corinthian style, elevated on a lofty
podium. Three of its columns of white Pentelic
marble are still standing, together with a portion
of the rich entablature. The existing temple
was built in the reign of Augustus on the site
ºf an olderstone temple dedicated to the Dioscuri
in commemoration of their appearance in Rome
after the battle of Lake Regillus (see fig. 14).
TEMPLUM 7.91
windows to light the cella, which contained a
very fine collection of Greek sculpture. Except
the great concrete podium, little now remains of
this once magnificent temple.
The Temple of Vespasian, which stands close
by that of Concord, was a prostyle, hexastyle
building of the Corinthian order. Its rear wall,
like that of the Temple of Concord, is set against
the front of the “Tabularium.” This tem-
ple was built by Titus and Domitian in
honour of their father: three of its columns
are still standing, made of Luna marble.
The Temple of Saturn stands in front of
the last-named building. The present tem-
ple, which occupies the site of one of the
oldest of the Roman temples, dates only
from a rebuilding in the reign of Diocletian
after a fire. It is a prostyle, hexastyle
building, of the Ionic order, with columns
of granite. It was very carelessly and
clumsily rebuilt; some of the columns are
set upside down, and the details of mould-
ings and enrichments are of the coarsest
style. In early times part of this temple
was used as the public treasury of Rome–
the Aerarium Saturni (see Servius ad Aen.
ii. 116, and Macrob. Saturn. i. 8).
The Temple of Faustina stands at the
eastern angle of the Forum. It is a hexa-
style, prostyle, Corinthian building, with
large monolithic columns of Carystian mar-
ble (modern cºpollino). The temple was
built by Antoninus Pius in honour of his
wife Diva Faustina, and after his death the
temple was jointly consecrated to him also
by the Roman senate. With the exception
of the back wall of the cella, the building
is still very perfect.
Two small bronze shrines, aediculae,
stood on the verge of the Forum. One of
these was the Shrine of Concord, near the
large marble temple dedicated to that deity
Fig. 14. Plan of the Temple of Castor and Pollux in
the Forum Romanum. The right-hand half shows
the upper temple, the other half shows the construc-
tion of the podium, consisting of a great mass of
concrete surrounded by walls of opus quadratum.
A. Pedestal of one of the two statues.
B. B. B. Spurs of foundation wall to carry the marble
(Liv. ix. 46). The other was the bronze
Shrine of Janus, on the north-east side of
the Forum, the doors of which were only
closed during the rare times when the
Romans were at peace with all the world.
This curious little building is very clearly
shown on a First Brass of Nero, struck to
columns. -- -
c. Entrance to a small treasure-chamber in the commemorate the closing of its doors. It
podium. is simply a small cella, covered with bronze
D. Existing fragment of mosaic pavement.
The Temple of Dirus Julius stands close by
that of Castor; it was built by Augustus in
honour of his adoptive father. Nothing now
remains but the massive concrete podium, and a
few scattered fragments of marble. Vitruvius
(iii. 3, 2) mentions this temple as an example of
close or pycnostyle intercolumniation.
The Temple of Concord, which was rebuilt by
Augustus on an enlarged scale, is abnormal in
plan, owing to its position close against the wall
of the so-called Tabularium of the Capitol. It
had a large oblong cella, decorated with rows of
internal columns set on a lofty plinth or podium
all round the interior, and a lofty hexastyle
portico facing on to the Forum, and approached
by a long flight of marble steps. The details of
the entablature and the internal decorations of
the cella are very rich and delicate in execution.
On each sile of the portico were two large
plates, and decorated with an elaborate
frieze of the same metal; the whole was
probably gilt. -
Though not what we should call temples, yet,
in the Roman sense, the Curia or Senate-house
and the Rostra were templa, as having been
consecrated by the augurs. The present re-
mains of the Curia, on the north-east of the
Forum, are not older than the time of Diocletian.
It is a very simple building of concrete faced
with brick; the whole of its marble decorations
have been torn away.
The existing Rostra, a platform for public
speeches, on the north-west side of the Forum,
dates from the time of Julius Caesar, 44 B.C.
The front of the platform, which is 80 feet
long, was faced with white marble, and decorated
with the bronze beaks of ships taken at Antium.
[Rostra.]
Temples in the Imperial Ford-The five Fora
in Rome, which were built under the Empire to


792
TEMPLUM
TEMPLUM
relieve the press of business in the old Forum
Romanum, each contained an important temple
in a central position within the circuit of its
walls. The first of these was built by Julius
Caesar, near the north angle of the old Forum.
Within it was a temple dedicated to Venus
Genitrix, whose statue was the work of the
Greek sculptor Arcesilaos (Suet. Jul. 26, and
Plut. Caes. 60). No remains of this temple are
now visible, the site being covered by modern
houses.
The second Forum, that of Augustus, contains
the Temple of Mars Ultor, dedicated to com-
memorate the vengeance taken on the murderers
of J. Caesar. It is a prostyle, tetrastyle,
Corinthian temple: a considerable part of
it still exists, close by the Arco de’ Pantani.
The adjoining piece of circuit-wall of the Forum
is one of the most imposing of all the ancient
remains in Rome; it is built of massive opus
quadratum of peperino.
The next Forum, built by Vespasian near the
east angle of the old Forum, contained a very
magnificent Temple of Peace, richly decorated
with Greek spoils in the form of statues in bronze
and marble by the most celebrated sculptors.
In this temple were also placed the spoils of the
Temple at Jerusalem, sacked by Titus in 70 A.D.,
including the candlesticks, the table of offering
and the trumpets, all of gold, which are repre-
sented in one of the reliefs inside the Triumphal
Arch of Titus on the Summa Sacra Via. No
remains of this temple are now known.
The fourth Forum, built by Nerva, contained
a fine tetrastyle, prostyle, Corinthian temple
dedicated to Minerva. Part of it remained till
the year 1606, when it was finally destroyed for
the sake of its fine marble columns, which were
taken by Pope Paul W. to use in decorating the
Basilica of Sº. Maria Maggiore.
The latest Forum, architecturally the most
magnificent of them all, was built by Trajan
about the year 114 A.D. Its temple stood on
the north-east side of the Forum, facing the
great triumphal Column of Trajan, which is still
one of the most conspicuous and best-preserved
monuments of ancient Rome.
The Campus Martius, which was the most
magnificent portion of ancient Rome, contained
a large number of fine temples, mostly crowded
with works of art. One group of three temples,
set closely side by side, bordered on the small
Forum Olitorium. Scanty remains of the three
still exist in the church of S. Niccolò in Carcere:
they are shown on one of the fragments of the
marble plan of Rome, made in the time of
Severus, which is now preserved in the Capito-
line Museum. Another very magnificent group
of temples adjoined the Porticus Octaviae.
The Capitoline Hill—Two of the chief temples
of Rome stood on the Capitoline hill; the one
on the Tarpeian peak was dedicated to Jupiter
Capitolinus. It has been described above.
The opposite peak, the Ara, was crowned by
the great Temple of Juno Moneta (“the Ad-
viser”): it was the site of the early Roman
mint, whence moneta came to mean “money.”
The stately Franciscan church of Sº, Maria in
Ara Coeli now occupies its site.
A number of smaller temples occupied the
depression between the two peaks of the Capi-
toline hill which was known as the Asylum.
**
One of these, the Temple of Jupiter Feretrius,
dated from pre-historic times, and was popularly
said to have been founded by Romulus (Liv.
i. 10).
A small, very perfect, circular temple of un-
known dedication stands in the Forum Boarium
on the Tiber bank, close by the mouth of one-
of the great drains, cloacae. In design and size.
it closely resembles the Temple of Vesta, shown,
in fig. 13,
The largest of the temples in Rome was the
double Temple of Roma Aeterna and Venus Felix,
built by Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, and said
to have been designed by Hadrian. Remains of
its immense concrete podium are visible on the
north side of the Sacra Via, extending down.
towards the Colosseum. It was a decastyle,
dipteral temple of the Corinthian order, with
two apsidal-ended cellae set end to end, and
enclosed by the same double peristyle of
enormous monolithic columns of porphyry and
granite. The concrete walls of the two cellae.
were faced with blocks of marble and decorated:
with internal niches and columns of various
richly-coloured foreign marbles. Inside the
cellae were colossal statues of Venus and Roma,.
together with many imported statues and other
works of art. Throughout the Middle Ages the
ruins of this magnificent temple were used as
quarries to supply marble and porphyry. The
greater part of the sumptuous marble decora-
tions and statues were burnt into lime on the
spot in kilns formed of broken pieces of the
great granite and porphyry columns. This is
the reason why so very little now remains of
this enormous building.
The Temple of Quirinus, on the Quirinal hill,
which existed as early as the time of Vitruvius.
(reign of Augustus), was also dipteral. It
was of the Doric order, with octastyle fronts.
(Vitruv. iii. 2, 7). No remains of it are now
visible.
The two last-named buildings were the only
dipteral temples in Rome itself.
For further details on the temples of Rome,
see Middleton, Ancient Rome in 1888 (Edin–
burgh, 1888).
Provincial Temples. – A large number of
important Roman temples still exist in various,
provinces of the Empire. The Temple of Roma
and Divus Augustus at Ancyra in Galatia—a
Corinthian hexastyle, peripteral building—is of
special interest from the walls both of the cella
and pronaos being cut with the celebrated
inscription of the Res gestae of Augustus, which
was copied from the sepulchral inscriptions on
two bronze pillars in front of the Mausoleum of
Augustus in Rome. The text is given, both in,
Greek and Latin (see Mommsen, Mon. Ancyr.
1883). (For this and for other Roman temples,
in Asia Minor, see Texier and Pullan, Asia:
Minor, 1865, and Perrot et Guillaume, Ea:plor.
Arch. de Galatie, 1872; others are illustrated
by Le Bas, Voy. Arch. en Grèce, &c., ed. Reinach,
1888.) d
Northern Africa is also rich in remains of
Roman temples of Imperial date. A very
remarkable group of temples exists at Suffetula
(modern Sbeitta, in Algeria), in the province of
Carthage. . A handsome temenus or porticus,
surrounded by a colonnade, about 200 feet
square, encloses three temples built side by side.
TENSAE
TERMINALIA 793.
of similar size and design, except that the
central one has Composite capitals, while the
others are Corinthian. Each is a tetrastyle,
prostyle building, with engaged columns outside
the cella walls. A fine triple archway, in-
scribed with the names of Hadrian and Antoninus
Pius, is set at the entrance into the tementus.
This system of grouping several temples to-
gether was a common Roman custom, intended
to give great magnificence of effect.
One of the best-preserved of Roman temples is
the so-called maison carrée at Nîmes (Nemausus).
This is a richly decorated Colinthian building,
with a hexastyle, prostyle portico and engaged
columns outside the cella walls. Its detail is
remarkably delicate and well designed, as is the
case with other Roman buildings in Southern
France; probably on account of some survival
of early influence from the Greek colonists of
Massilia (Marseilles) and its neighbourhood.
I?omano-British Temples.—In Britain remains
of a good many Roman temples have been dis-
covered, but none are in a good state of preser-
vation. Though similar in plan and general
design to the temples in Italy, they differ in
being usually built of rubble stone-work, made
of local materials, instead of the concrete faced
with marble which is so common in Rome.
Mosaic floors occur frequently, with tesserae
made of burnt clay and different-coloured lime-
stones, instead of the rich marbles which were
used in the mosaics of Italy and Africa. In all
cases the walls seem to have been coated with
stucco, though very frequently but little of the
stucco still remains, owing to its being made
of the inferior Oolitic limes, and without the
pozzolana which gives such enduring strength
to the cements and stuccoes of Italy. It was, no
doubt, owing to the want of pozzolama that the
Romans in Britain made comparatively so little
use of concrete for building walls and vaults.
At Lydney, in Gloucestershire, a very interest-
ing temple was discovered in 1805, dedicated to
a Romano-British deity called Nodens, who
appears to have been akin to the classical
Aesculapius. A very extensive enclosure sur-
rounds the temple, and on one side of it are
remains of a large house, designed on the usual
Romano-British plan, with its rooms grouped
round the four sides of an open porticus, very |
like a mediaeval cloister (see Archaeologia, v.
p. 208; and Bathurst, Itoman Antiquities of
Lydney, 1810).
The remains of the Roman city of Silchester
are specially interesting for the completeness, in
plan at least, of the whole group of sacred and
secular buildings around the public Forum (see
Archaeologia, vol. 1., p. 263). In most cases,
however, Roman cities in Britain have continued
to be inhabited ever since the Roman period,
and the building of later houses has usually
obliterated the remains of the ancient struc-
tures. [J. H. M.]
TENSAE. [THENSAE.]
TEPID'ARIUM. . [BALNEAF.]
TE’REBRA (rpätravov, Tpvráviov, réperpov),
any instrument for boring wood, stone, or metal.
Pliny gives Daedalus as the traditional inventor
(H. N. vii. § 198; cf. SERRA). We find a
distinction between terebra antiqua, which pro-
duced dust (Scobis), and terebra gallica, which
produced ramenta or shavings (Plin. H. W. xvii.
§ 116; Colum. iv. 29, 15 and 16). The
definition is not very clear: some have imagined
that the antiqua was a simple gimlet, and the
gallica a centre-bit, of which implement an
ancient specimen is preserved in the Zürich
Museum (see Blümmer, Techn. ii. fig. 43, i): the
iron part, which alone remains, is like that of
a modern centre-bit. A centre-bit, however,
would not be a convenient tool for boring a tree
in order to graft; and moreover the fact that
both Pliny and Columella give as a further
distinction of the gallica that it does not, like
the other kind, generate heat in boring, suggests
that the antiqua was a drill-borer, in principle
like that described in the Odyssey (see below),
and the gallica a gimlet with a large spiral. It
may be added that we should expect the simple
pointed drill, worked as Homer describes it, to
be an earlier contrivance than a borer with a
spiral, which implies more advanced art both in
the inventor and the maker. Blümner suggests.
that the Tpätravov and répérpov correspond
respectively to the terebra antiqua and terebra,
gallica; but the definition in Etym. Mag. makes
the réperpov merely a smaller Tpińravov.
We find on monuments one kind of terebra
exactly like our gimlet : another kind in common
use (and probably the older “invention of Dae-
dalus’’) was the “bow-drill,” a borer twirled
round by means of a bow, the string of which
was twisted round the handle of the drill. This
contrivance lasted till modern times, but has
now, we believe, been universally superseded by
the “brace ’’ or bent handle. In the cut on
page 243 both parts of the bow-drill are shown
separately; the compasses (circini) lie between
them. The shipwright's borer mentioned in
Od. ix. 384, Eur. Cycl. 460, was similar in
principle, but on a larger scale. In these
passages it is described by the general term
Tpútravov : it had also a specific name àpts
(Anth. Pal. vi. 103; Poll. viii. 113). The
wooden holder for the iron part of the terebra
was called vagina (Plin. H. N. xvi. § 230).
More references and several figures from an-
cient representations of boring implements
will be found in Blümner, Technologie, iii.
p. 223–226. [G. E. M.]
TERENTINI LUDI. [LUDI.]
TERMINA'LIA, a festival in honour of the
god Terminus, who presided over boundaries.
(Dionys. ii. 74; Plut. Num. 16, Qu. R. 15).
His statue was merely a stone or post stuck in
the ground to distinguish between properties.
The boundary-stone at its first setting up was
consecrated with peculiar ceremonies. A trench
being dug, a victim was sacrificed : the blood
was poured into the trench while the ministrants
were veiled (which speaks for the antiquity of
the rite and its Roman character; cf. SACRIFI-
CIUM, p. 586 a): the body of the victim, along
with corn, fruits, incense, honey and wine, was
cast into the trench and the whole consumed by
blazing pine-brands: the boundary-stone was
set upon the bed of ashes (Sic. Flacc. p. 141, 8).
On the festival the owners of adjacent property
crowned the statue with garlands and raised a
rude altar, on which they offered up some corn,
honeycombs, and wine, and sacrificed a lamb
(Hor. Epod. ii. 59) or a sucking-pig. They
concluded with singing the praises of the god
(Ovid, Fast. ii. 639, &c.). The public festival in
ºf 94 TERRACOTTAS
TERRACOTTAS
honour of this god (perhaps, as Huschke thinks,
in earlier times marking the conclusion of the
Roman year) was celebrated at the sixth mile-
stone on the road towards Laurentum (Id. 682),
doubtless because this was originally the extent
of the Roman territory in that direction (Mar-
quardt, Staatsverw. iii. 202).
The festival of the Terminalia was celebrated
a. d. vii. Kal. Mart., or the 23rd of February on
the day before the Regifugium. When Cicero
in a letter to Atticus (vi. 1) says, “Accepi tuas
litteras a. d. v. Terminalia” (i.e. Feb. 19), he
uses this mode of defining a date, according to
Mommsen, because being then in Cilicia he had
no official notice of the intercalation which was
due that year. But Huschke thinks that this
was then the regular mode of expressing that
date in ordinary (not intercalated) years. He
-cites an Inscr. from Capua, 14th Feb. A.U.C. 659,
“Pagus Herculaneus scivit a. d. x. Terminalia’’
(Orelli, 3793). As to the method of intercalation,
and the connexion of the date Feb. 23rd with
the conclusion of the old Roman year, see
CALENDARIUM, Vol. I. pp. 341 b, 342; and
compare Mommsen, Chronologie, p. 38; Huschke,
Das rôm. Jahr, p. 149. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
TERRACOTTAS. Finding the term kepa-
wikh Téxvm too comprehensive, since it included
the whole of the potter's art, the Greeks had
recourse to certain special names or phrases
for works of art modelled or moulded in terra-
cotta: they called the maker of statuettes a
acopotAda Tºms or kopotad.60s; irvoirA&60s was
one who modelled figures to be fired in a kiln;
a relief made from a mould was an éktvirov or
€ktúrapia ; and, in general, terracottas were
&yd Apata ärtſis yús. The Romans, while using
..such special words as antefia:a and ect/pa for
reliefs, designated statues and statuettes of
terracotta as signa fictilia, and the makers of
them fictores or plastae. They had no extensive
art of pottery and vase-painting as had the
Greeks; and for that reason the term ars
fictilis adequately described all their productions
in terracotta.
In Greece the oldest application of terracotta
as an art independent of the vase-maker was
for the roofs and cornices of temples. For this
purpose marble is said to have been first intro-
duced by Euergos of Naxos, whom Pausanias
(v. 10, 3) confounds with his son Byzes. This
happened as early as the seventh century B.C.,
during the reign of Alyattes in Lydia. But that
the invention had not at once found acceptance
is certain from fragments of cornices found at
‘Olympia and in Sicily, which show that terra-
cotta had continued to be employed in archi-
tecture long after this date. A very careful
inquiry on this subject, with plates displaying
the original patterns and colours of the archaic
terracotta cornices, will be found in a memoir
by Dörpfeld and others (Die Verwendung von
Terrakotten). The designs of these cornices
were made from moulds (rùrol), and one mould
of a lion's head, for example, would be sufficient
for a whole cornice. The uniformity of effect
was compensated by brightness of colouring.
According to tradition, it was a Corinthian,
Butades, who first made terracotta masks for
the fronts of the roof-tiles; that is, for the
cornices of temples. His date has not been
ascertained; his personality has been rendered
slightly legendary; but the tradition embodies
a fact otherwise known, viz. the important
position of Corinth in early times as a centre
of work in terracotta, having a powerful in-
fluence in Greece on the one hand and in
Etruria on the other. Meantime as regards the
continued use of terracotta in architecture down
to Roman times, we may cite the examples of
cornices found in the ruins of Pompeii (H. von
Rohden, Die Terracotten von Pompei, 1880) and
the numerous panels with reliefs obtained from
the neighbourhood of Rome, of which a specimen
will be seen under ANTEFIXA representing the
making of the Argo. Or, to take an earlier
example from Greece itself: when Pausanias
(i. 3, 1) speaks of &yāApata ärtſis ºyſis on the
roof of the Stoa Basileios at Athens, he probably
refers to such decorations of the cornice as those
just mentioned. The Stoa in question stood in
the Ceramicos, at Athens, and the agalmata re-
presented Theseus throwing Sciron into the
sea and Hemera carrying off Cephalos. Two
subjects, unless repeated in the manner just
described, could not be regarded as sufficient
decoration for a Stoa. Further, it may be
inferred that the two groups were in relief,
from the fact that the violent action of the
figures would not suit sculpture in the round in
a material so weak as terracotta. Hemera
carrying off Cephalos occurs in a fine archaic
relief in the British Museum found at Camiros
in Rhodes, and evidently made to be attached as
an ornament to some background. For similar
reliefs found in Athens, and treated in the same
severe but delicate style, see Schöne, Griechische
Reliefs, pl. 30–35. They may have been made
to be attached to the walls of tombs, or for the
internal decoration of houses, and would come
within the term ‘rūtrot. The Ceramicos at Athens
was so named, according to Pliny (H. N. xxxv.
§ 155), from its being there that Chalcosthemes
had his workshop and made rude figures (crudat
opera) of clay. When marble finally replaced
terracotta for architectural purposes, the designs
and processes of colouring which had been
evolved in the decoration of the clay were trans-
ferred without change to the new material.
In Etruria and among the early Romans the
application of terracotta to architecture appears
to have been more extensive than in Greece.
Pliny says (H. N. xxxv. § 157), “elaboratam
hanc artem Italiae et maxume Etruriae :” and
these words follow upon a statement quoted
from Varro that all the artistic decorations of
temples were of Etruscan workmanship, previous
to the time when Damophilos and Gorgasos
adorned with sculpture in terracotta and with
paintings the temple of Ceres in Rome. Of
terracotta was the statue of Jupiter in his
temple on the Capitol which Tarquinius Priscus
(or perhaps Superbus) commissioned the artist
Turrianus to make (Pliny, loc. cit.). On high
festivals the face of this statue was painted
with minium. On the highest point of the
front pediment of this temple stood a terra-
cotta quadriga ('car& KopvQP}v étriotăoral, says
Plutarch, Publicol. 13, but Pliny, loc. cit., is
less explicit: “fictiles in fastigio templi ejus
quadrigas”). This quadriga had been removed
forcibly by Tarquin from Veii, where it had
been held sacred and inviolable from a circum-
stance attending the making of it, as related
TERRACOTTAS
TERRACOTTAS 795.
by Plutarch in the passage just cited. When
put into the kiln to be baked, the quadriga,
instead of shrinking in size as usual from the
drying-up of the moisture in the clay, expanded
so much that the roof and sides of the kiln
had to be removed to get it out. As regards
this technical effect, it may be remarked that
the Assyrian tablets with cuneiform inscriptions
frequently have a number of small, holes
punctured in the clay to allow the escape of
Tmoisture during the process of baking. In a
work of art, however, especially a large group
modelled in the round, the only safeguard against
its being destroyed by the shrinking of the clay
in the kiln lay in its being hollow and thin,
so that whatever moisture was in the clay
could readily escape. How difficult a task it
was to obtain success under such circumstances
may be seen in the large sarcophagus from
Caere (Cervetri) now in the Etruscan saloon in
the British Museum (engraved, Dennis, Etruria,
2nd edit. i. p. 227, and Encyclopaedia Britannica,
9th edit., s. v. Etruria, vol. viii. pl. 8). In this
case the clay seems to have been largely mixed
with pounded brick, and to have acquired there-
by great tenacity. But notwithstanding this
precaution, and the fact that the two figures
reclining on the lid of the sarcophagus are hollow
even to the toes, it will be seen in several places
that the shrinkage has seriously damaged the
artistic effect. The date of the sarcophagus in
question can hardly be later than B.C. 550, and
it may thus perhaps fairly be taken as an
illustration of the style of art presented by
those statues in terracotta, which Pliny says
(H. W. xxxv. § 157) the early Romans were
not ashamed to worship: such for example as
the Hercules he mentions, the quadriga and
the Jupiter already referred to. Probably also
the pediments of the Temple of Jupiter Capito-
linus, as of other temples, were occupied with
statues of terracotta (Vitruvius, iii. 3, 5,
“ ornantgue signis fictilibus aut aereis inauratis
earum fastigia Tuscanico more.” Cicero, de
Divinat. i. 10, 16, “Cum Summanus in fastigio
Jovis O. M. qui tum crat fictilis a caelo ictus
esset,” &c.). What appears to be the front
of this Temple of Jupiter, with the quadriga on
its apex, and with Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, and
other deities in the pediment, is represented on a
bas-relief of the time of Marcus Aurelius (en-
graved, Mon. dell' Inst. Arch. v. pl. 36). Cato
complained (Livy, xxxiv. 4, 4) that these old-
fashioned terracotta decorations of temples were
despised in his time. The high antiquity of this
branch of art may be seen from the fact stated
by Pliny (H. W. xxxv. § 159), that among the
trade guilds instituted by Numa was one of
workers in clay.
While surpassing the Greeks in the produc-
tion of large groups in terracotta, the Etruscans
failed in their statuettes. We may take as ex-
amples two, now in the British Museum, that
were found in the Polledrara tomb near Vulci,
with objects reaching back to at least B.C. 600,
if not half a century earlier. These terracottas
Kone of which is engraved in Micali, Monumenti
Inediti, pl. 4, fig. 5), though rude in design, are
of a fine clay, and present a combination of
colour and gilding from which it could be
supposed that in the phrase above quoted from
Vitruvius—“signis fictilibus aut aereis inaura-
tis”—this last word may have applied to the
terracottas (fictilibus) as well as to the bronzes
(aereis). Terracotta figures combined with vases
are of pretty frequent occurrence in the black
ware of Chiusi (Clusium), and, like this ware
itself, they appear to be imitated from designs
in bronze or other metal. It is reasonable to
conclude so from the fact that the details on
the surface of them are marked by hatched
lines, as in metal working. The modelling is
always rude, and a considerable antiquity may
be claimed for these terracottas; no less than
for a small but more freely-modelled vase, in
the form of a lion, from Veii, and inscribed in
Etruscan characters, Felthur IIathisnas, now in
the British Museum (Fabretti, C. I. I. No. 2561).
Etruscan urns of terracotta are for the most
part of a late date, and deal with popular Greek
myths and legends, or parting scenes, according
to designs evidently invented by Greek artists.
The numerous portraits in this material are also
as a rule late. But though very deficient in
execution, they are mostly marked by great
force in the conception, and the broad forms by
which it is conveyed. It has been supposed
that the Etruscans had obtained this art, or at
least a strong impetus to the practice of it, from
the artists (fictores) Eucheir, Eugrammos, and
Diopos, who, to escape the tyranny of Cypselos
in Corinth, accompanied Demaratus, the father
of Tarquin, to Etruria (Brunn, Griech. Künstler,
i. p. 529). It is known that Corinth was one of
the earliest seats of the fictile art in Greece,
and, considering the inexhaustible quantities of
fine clay lying close at hand still, it is not
strange that this art had flourished there.
Etruria, however, surpassed her instructress, at
least in the magnitude of her works. It was at
Corinth that the idea of a pediment for a temple,
doubtless filled with figures in terracotta, was
invented (Pindar, Olymp. xiii. 21); and it was
Butades of Corinth who, as has already been
said, was believed to have been the first to
introduce into the architectural decoration of
temples those antefixal ornaments which have
been found at Olympia and in Etruria.
By far the most numerous class of Greek
terracottas consists of statuettes, and the great
majority of them represent more or less youthful
female figures, whence arose the name of kopo-
TAá00s or koporadorms, applied to the makers
of them. A female figure draped to the ground
naturally presented a broad base on which it
could stand securely, as compared with an un-
draped figure with easily-broken ankles to sup-
port it. It was not strange, therefore, that the
latter—and the same applies to male figures—
should have been generally avoided, unless where
a convenient attitude, such as sitting on a rock,
could be found. Again, whether it was from the
unsuitability of the material to the prevalent
conceptions of gods and heroes that figures of
these latter were not reproduced as terracotta
statuettes, the fact remains that deities and
heroes are of extremely rare occurrence. Yet it
is clear that figures of deities were used for
domestic worship, as in the case of a small clay
figure of Hephaestos mentioned by the Scholiast
of Aristophanes (Aves, 436) as seated at the
hearth in the character of Ephoros of the fire.
Among other deities Aphrodite, Artemis, Eros,
and Hermes may be said to have been fairly
796 TERRACOTTAS
TERRACOTTAS
identified. Scenes from daily occupations are
frequent; so also are dolls and playthings, more
or less comic, such as the graves round Corinth
still yield in numbers. A fair proportion of the
statuettes represent what seems to be an ideal
of a beautiful young woman, much as in the
China ware of our own time.
Except the earliest examples, which are rudely
modelled with the hand, these statuettes are
made from clay moulds, many specimens of
which still exist (see the collection in the Terra-
cotta Room of the British Museum). More cor-
rectly, only the front of the figure is made from
the mould, the back of it being as a rule merely
a plain piece of clay formed by the hand [see
ECTYPUs]. Or when the design is carried round
the back, as in forming the head for example, it
appears to have been usually executed by the
hand. Even in the beautiful group of Astraga-
ligusae in the British Museum (Gaz. Arch. 1876,
p. 97), the back of which, contrary to what is
customary in terracottas, is not without con-
siderable attractions, the modelling seems to
have been completed in this manner. It was
necessary that there should be no undercutting
in the mould which would obstruct the removing
of the figure from it ; for the ancients do not
appear to have known the modern process of
making piece-moulds. Or if any injury were
done in the removing, it would be necessary to
restore it afterwards with the hand, just as it
was necessary to carry out afterwards in this
way whatever part of the design could not be
expressed in the mould. The scope thus allowed
for variety in the finishing of the figures enabled
the coroplastes to give a different appearance to
figures from the same mould, in which also he
was greatly aided by freedom in the use of bright
colours (Töv Šē kopotradówy totov to Tô x0x0-
Bapſ, B&Irrew, Pollux, Onom. vii. 163). For
example, there are two groups from the same
mould, the one found in the Crimea and now in
St. Petersburg (Compte-rendu, 1873, pl. 1, fig. 2),
the other found at Naucratis and now in the
British Museum (Naucratis, Pt. ii. pl. 16, fig. 18),
which yet express differently this or that
feature of the mould, and show also what
changes could be effected by colour. To produce
a mould, the first step was to model the desired
figure in clay or in wax; if the former material,
a core of wood was used, which was called kävagos
(Pollux, Omom. vii. 164, and x. 189); if in wax, the
model was next covered with clay and subjected
to fire, upon which the wax melted away, leaving
its impression on the clay covering, which then
became a mould. This clay covering is called
juixtyöos in Pollux (Onom. x. 190), and from his
description it would appear that the clay was
pierced. with a number of small holes for the
escape of the vapours rising from the melting
wax, whence the juixtyö0s was compared to a
shield pierced by many darts. In most cases
the colours are simply painted on the terracotta
and easily destroyed, yet instances are not un-
common in which the whole figure is covered
with a glaze which gives it the appearance of an
enamelled surface. In the best period of this
glazed ware the colour is a uniform white.
Somewhat later we find white, brown, and
green, as in the unique vase from Tanagra, in
the British Museum, in the form of a goose, on
which rides Eros. Apparently this is a revival
of a process which may be seen in certain archaic
vases from Camiros, either made or influenced by
Phoenician processes. In late Greek and Roman
times there is the green glazed ware, consisting
chiefly of vases with designs in relief. Among
the terracottas found at Pompeii may be men-
tioned a group painted in bright and varied
colours which have been converted by fire into
a glaze. This is the interesting group repre-
senting Pero giving her breast to her famished
father Cimon, and commonly known as the
Pietà Romana. This group is further interesting
for comparison with the existing ancient paint-
ings of the same subject (Rhoden, Terracotten
von Pompeii, pl. 47: cf. pp. 58, 59).
There is no class of antiquities with so little
of general interest in the subjects they represent
as these terracotta statuettes, unless perhaps the
Athenian lecythi, which are known to have been
made expressly for tombs; and from this com-
parison, together with the fact of their being
mostly found in tombs, it is a reasonable con-
jecture that they were in many cases made for
funeral purposes. Others, doubtless, like the
figure of Hephaestos already mentioned, were
destined for domestic use. There is still a be-
lief that the female figures among them often
represent Demeter or Persephone, though the
symbols by which these deities are commonly
recognised are more or less wanting. But
undoubtedly there are many statuettes which,
though not to be positively identified as belong-
ing to the lower world, yet clearly convey an
impression of their having been destined for
sepulchral ends. Such, for example, are the
figure of a youth holding a cock at his side, or
female figures holding an egg or a pomegranate.
So also the masks with which the tombs of
Camiros have enriched the British Museum.
For there is little doubt but that the original
purpose in making masks of this kind was to
cover with them the faces of the dead. Nor-
would this exclude the giving of others of less
than life-size as tributes to the dead. Grotesque-
figures do not seem appropriate for tombs; yet
there they are in
not inconsiderable
numbers.
It has been found
strange that so
prolific a profes-
sion as that of the
coroplastes should
not have frequent-
ly reproduced the
celebrated statues
of the Greek mas-
ters. Among the
known instances
may be cited the
terracotta here fi-
gured as a copy
probably from the
Hermes Criopho-
ros, by the sculptor
Calamis; or again,
there is the very
fine statuette of a
Diadumenus (Hel-
lem. Journal, vi. p.
243, pl. 61), which reproduces the canon of
Polycletus as modified afterwards by Lysippus.
Terracotta from Gela. (British
Museum.)

TERRACOTTAS
TERRACOTTAS 797
An attempt has also been made to prove that
the not very , uncommon group of one female
figure carrying another on her back is a
copy from a group of Demeter carrying Per-
sephone, by Praxiteles, known generally as the
Catagusa. But in the first place there are
doubts as to the meaning of karávovora in
this instance, a German archaeologist having
interpreted it as “spinning” (Loeschke, Arch.
Zeitung, 1880, p. 102). While there is no good
reason for this interpretation, the fact remains
that there is no authority for assuming Praxi-
teles to have represented Demeter and Perse-
phone in this atti-
tude, even if he
did represent the
one carrying or
conducting the
other. It is the
attitude of play,
as in the accom-
panying group of
Eros on the shoul-
ders of a maiden,
and answers to the
game in daily life
called the Hippas.
These groups are
published, and the
theory of a Praxi-
telean origin of
the m strongly
advocated, by M.
Rayet, in his Mon-
wments de l’Art
Terracotta from Centorbi in Sicily. Antique.
(British Museum.) Judged accord-
ing to artistic
qualities, the oldest Greek statuettes are well
represented in the British Museum by a series
found in tombs at
Camiros, in which,
while the head is
modelled with some
skill and care, the
body is only a rudi-
mentary trunk. Co-
lour is sparingly em-
ployed. Equally rude
is a smaller series from
Tegea, in Arcadia, but
they are more ambi-
tious in regard to the
body, and less so in
regard to the head.
No colour is applied
to them. The terra-
cotta is coarse, and of
a dark red colour. A 3
slight advance, but
not enough to consti-
tute a new period, will
be seen in others from
Camiros, where there
is an attempt to indi-
cate the limbs in due
proportion to the head,
where colours are more
freely used and the
quality of the clay
Bellerophon and the Chimaera.
not detached from the mass of the body. It may
be regarded as the beginning of a new period,
when the drapery comes to be indicated by
modelling in the clay, and some action or attri-
bute is conveyed: for example, a female figure
holding a dove, as in specimens from Camiros;
a female figure, perhaps a priestess, holding a
pig for sacrifice, as in specimens from Sardinia;
or grotesque figures from Camiros. Occasionally
strong contrasts of colours—red and blue—are
employed, generally as a mere coating, but
sometimes to pick out details of dress not indi-
cated in the modelling. This period did not
close till it had attained what may be considered
the ideal and best stage of archaic terracottas,
as represented by numerous female figures, tall,
severe in attitude and aspect, with drapery falling
in simple but stately lines, the left hand holding
the skirt and the right raised to the breast. Of
this stage are the masks already spoken of from
Camiros, vases modelled in the form of Sirens,
or to imitate the head of Heracles, of Achelöos,
apes and other animals: so also the archaic
reliefs, emblemata, in the British Museum, re-
presenting (1) Bellerophon mounted on Pegasus
slaying the Chimaera, from Melos; (2) Per-
seus, also mounted on Pegasus, which ap-
parently has just sprung from the decapitated
body of Medusa, from Melos; (3) group de-
scribed as Sappho and Alcaeus, from Melos
(Welcker, Alte Denkmäler, ii. pl. 12, fig. 20).
Of the same style and period are the groups of
Peleus carrying off Thetis, and Eos carrying off
Cephalos, from Camiros. Usually the Melos
clay is of a pale colour, better seen in the
statuettes than in the reliefs of this period. The
Camiros clay is always a faint red, with in-
numerable fine points in it sparkling like mica.
The age of Pheidias, or nearly so, is represented
by a few terracottas from Athens. For example,
(From the terracotta in the British Museum.)
finer. These are mostly female figures seated, three figures, possibly of Leda holding a swan.,
with their hands on their knees, and their arms
The one is a massive, noble figure, standing


798 TERRACOTTAS
TERRACOTTAS
nearly nude; in the other two Leda has one
foot raised on a rock, and throws up an end of
Perseus and Medusa. (From a terracotta in the
British Museum.)
her drapery, as if she were about to spring on the
rock: but here, though the two figures are at
first sight the same, the action of the arms is in
fact reversed, and an extensive yet subtle variety
introduced. The one figure is glazed over in a
white colour; the other is merely painted white.
These three Ledas are in the British Museum,
as are also several other female figures of this
period from Athens, with white glazed surfaces,
and a relief in which one Maenad plays on a
tympanon while another dances, the scene being
before a temple, indicated by an altar and a
column.
From the next period of art, as known from
the sculptures of the Mausoleum, there are
such terracottas as the female figure found by
Sir C. T. Newton at Cnidos, closely correspond-
ing in action and drapery with the statue
of Artemisia from the Mausoleum, the frag-
mentary figures from the ruins of that building,
and some few examples from other localities, as
Athens and Corinth. A slight advance towards
florid treatment of drapery and other details
may be seen in the terracottas found near
Larnaca, in Cyprus, consisting frequently of
female figures with high richly-ornamented
crowns (see the collection in the British
Museum; and Heuzey, Terres cuites du Louvre,
pl. 15). The climax of this stage is reached in
the ordinary type of the terracottas which have
been found in such great numbers in the tombs
at Tanagra, in Boeotia, since 1873, when this
cemetery was first discovered. Some of the
tombs are of an archaic character, but the
majority are of the age here in question (the 3rd
cent. B.C.), and contained statuettes of terra-
cotta, the most beautiful of which were found
enclosed in coarse clay vases. They represent
usually subjects from daily occupation, or
youthful ideal figures, interesting from their
costume, and especially for the hat they some-
times wear, suggesting the reference to Sophocles,
Oed. Col. 314, kparl 6” #Atoorephs icvvi trpóorotra
Oecoraxts viv &utréxei. The attraction exercised
by these figures from Tanagra maybe judged from
the numbers of them that have been engraved
and published in almost every form, from the
costly volume of coloured designs issued by the
• German Archäologisches Institut, under the
editorship of Prof. Kekulé (Stuttgart, 1878),
to the slight outlines of the Gazette des beaua,
Arts (xi. 1875, pp. 297 and 551, and xii. 1875,
p. 56), and other publications enumerated in
Rayet’s Monuments de l’Art Antique. Next in
rank to Tanagra for the number of interesting
terracottas which it has yielded' is Myrina, in
Asia Minor, where the French carried on ex-
tensive excavations in 1880–82. The results.
appear in the work of MM. Pottier and Reinach,
La Nécropole de Myrina, 1887 (see also Froehner,
Terres cuites d'Asie Mineure, 1881), with nume-
rous plates, and containing, among other interest-
ing matter, a detailed account of the processes.
employed in producing the statuettes : e.g. the
quality of the clay, with its differences of colour,
due partly to differences of firing and partly to:
materials employed in the preparation; the
moulds, of which a large number were obtained,
many of them bearing the names of the artists
who made them ; and the various methods of
colouring the statuettes. In these respects the
Myrina terracottas do not differ from those of
Tanagra. But in an artistic sense they are
readily distinguishable by a degree of coarseness
and voluptuousness which is wanting at Tanagra,
by a greater love of nude forms, and by a strong
desire for groups in which accuracy is sacrificed
to picturesque effect. At present it is difficult
to say from what source the coroplastae, whether
at Myrina or at Tanagra, derived their inspira-
tion. In some instances we find types of figures
or of attitudes that may very well have been
derived from the painted Greek vases of the
latest period—towards the end of the 4th
cent. B.C. But a more accurate comparison
may be found in some of the mural paintings
that have survived in Rome and Pompeii, which,
if not actually executed in the Hellenistic period,
are always believed
to be derived from
originals of that age.
We may assume that
the coroplastae by
the nature of their
profession appealed
only to a particular
class of sentiments,
which required for
their gratification
nothing more than
some easily recog-
nised type of beauty,
or some grotesque
figure drawn from
daily life. Possibly,
therefore, much that
we do not now un-
derstand in the work
of the coroplastae
would be accounted
for if we had any
records of the pub-
lic demands which
they worked to sup-
ply. So far at least
we may agree that
these demands had
been mostly of a
local character,
from the fact that the figures of Tanagra, of
Myrina, of Cyrene, of Sicily, are distinguishable
Terracotta statue found at
Pompeii.


TERUNCIUS
TESSERA 799,
as no other class of Greek antiquities, except the
Athenian lecythi. The terracottas from the
Cyrenaica are mostly of a late period, and only
rarely possessed of beauty or interest. Late also
are those from Centuripa (Centorbi), in Sicily,
elongated in figure, sometimes coarsely modelled
(Kekulé, Terracotten von Sicilien). Of coarse
clay and with a preference for pink and white
colouring, is the still later and numerous class
from Canosa, in Italy, intended mostly to be
attached to large ornamental vases. Of life-size
terracottas only a small number exist, and these
are generally of a late period, such as the statue
of an actor from Pompeii figured above.
[A. S. M.]
TERU’NCIUS. [As, Vol. I. p. 203.]
TE'SSERA, dim. TESSE’RULA and TES-
SELLA (kö80s), a square or cube ; a die; a
token.
The use of small cubes of marble, earthen-
ware, glass, precious stones, and mother-of-pearl
for making tessellated pavements (pavimentº,
tessellata, Suet. Jul. 46) is noticed under PM-
BLEMA, in Vol. I. ; cf. PICTURA, p. 397.
The dice used in games of chance [ALEA] had
the same form, and were commonly made of ivory,
bone, or some close-grained wood, especially
privet (ligustra tesseris utilissima, Plin. H. N. xvi.
§ 77). They were numbered on all the six sides
like the dice still in use. (Ovid, Trist. ii. 473 ff.);
and in this respect as well as in their form
they differed from the tali, which are often dis-
tinguished from tesserae by classical writers
(Gellius, xviii. 13, § 2; Cic. de Sen. 16, § 58).
[TALUs.] Whilst four tali were used in playing,
only three tesserae were anciently employed.
Hence arose the proverb, h ºrps éé, rpets
icö8ot, i.e. “either three sizes or three aces,”
meaning, all or none (Plat. Legg. xii. 968 E;
Schol. in loc. p. 946 a, ed. Turic.; Pherecrates,
fr. 123 M. = Zenob. Cent. iv. 23); for icó80s was
used to denote the ace, as in the throw 660 kū8w
kal Tétrapa, i.e. 1, 1, 4 = 6 (Eupolis, fr. 358 M.;
Aristoph. Ran. 1400; Schol. in loc.). Three
sizes is mentioned as the highest throw in the
Agamemnon of Aeschylus (33). As early as
the time of Eustathius (in Od. i. 107) we find
that the modern practice of using two dice
instead of three had been established.
The ancients sometimes played with dice TAeto-
robox{vög, when the object was simply to throw
the highest numbers. For other games with
dice, see DUODECIM SCRIPTA, LATRUNCULI,
TALUs; for the boards on which they were
played, ALVEUS, TABULA LUSORIA ; cf. Becq de
Fouquières, Jew des Anciens, ed. 2, pp. 302–324.
Objects of the same materials as dice, and
either formed like them or of an oblong shape,
were used as tokens for different purposes. The
tessera hospitalis was the token of mutual
hospitality, and is spoken of under HOSPITIUM,
p. 981 b. This token was probably in many
cases of earthenware, having the head of Jupiter
Hospitalis stamped upon it (Plaut. Poen. v. 1,
25; 2, 87–99). Tesserae frumentariae and
numariae were tokens given at certain times by
the Roman magistrates to the poor, in exchange
for which they received a fixed amount of corn
or money (Suet. Aug. 40, 42; Nero, 11). [FRU-
MENTARIAE LEGES.] Similar tokens were used
on various occasions, as they arose in the course
of events. For example, when the Romans sent
to give the Carthaginians their choice of peace
or war, they sent two tesserae, one marked with
a spear, the other with a CADUCEUS, requesting:
them to take either the one or the other (Gellius,
x. 27).
Various tesserae are preserved in museums,
the British Museum being particularly rich in.
such specimens: the materials are ivory, bone,
porcelain, and stone, One class of these are:
theatrical, i.e. were used as tickets of admission,
and answer to the oriuéoxa of the Greeks;
another class are agonistic, thought to have.
been issued on the occasion of public games or
contests. Others, again, are believed to have
been distributed as sortes convivales or as
sparsiones. The Sortes convivales were a kind of
lottery drawn by guests at a banquet, through
which they were entitled to prizes varying in
amount (Lamprid. Iſeliog. 22). In the spar-
siones the tickets were scrambled for, instead of
being drawn (Dio Cass. lxi. 18; Martial, viii.
78, 7). There are other miscellaneous tesserae,.
not included under the above headings. The
most interesting class of tesserae are the
gladiatorial, of which the British Museum con-.
tains about a dozen probably genuine, and other
doubtful examples. These are usually carved,
out of a piece of ivory or bone, of a long shape,
and inscribed on the four long sides (cf. TALUs).
On the first line is the gladiator’s name in the
nominative case, on the second his trainer’s in
the genitive; the third gives the letters sp.
followed by the date of the month and day; the
fourth the consuls, marking the year. At one
end is a hole by which it was suspended. The
abbreviation SP stands for SPECTATUS, as is
proved by the letters SPECTAT. on a tessera
found at Arles. These tesserae were given by
the munerarius, or exhibitor of the games, to a
gladiator when spectatus or approved by passing:
successfully through a certain number of con-
tests (cf. Hor. Epist. i. 2, 2). In one or two ex-
ceptional instances the word is SPECTAviT, ex-.
plained to mean either (1) that the gladiator,
fighting no longer (emeritus), became “a spec-
tator * of the games, or (2) that he became an
“inspector” of other gladiators. For special
discussions of this subject, see Ritschl in Abh.
Bayer. Akad. 1866, pt. ii. p. 223; Hübner,
in Monatsbericht Berl. Akad. 1867, p. 747;
Mommsen, in Hermes, xxi. 266; A. Elter, in
Rhein. Mus. 1886, p. 517; P. J. Meier, ib. 1887,
p. 122; Guide to the Second Vase Room, British
Museum.
From the application of this term to tokens
of various kinds, it was transferred to the word."
used as a token among soldiers. This was the
tessera militaris, the oriv6mua of the Greeks.
Before joining battle it was given out and passed
through the ranks as a method by which the
soldiers might be able to distinguish friends from
foes. Thus at the battle of Cunaxa the word
was “Zeus the Saviour and Victory,” and on
a subsequent engagement by the same troops
“Zeus the Saviour, Heracles the Leader ’’ (Xen.
Anab. i. 8, § 16; vi. 3, § 25). The soldiers of
Xenophon used a verbal sign for the same purpose.
when they were encamped by night (vii. 3, § 34).
Aeneas Tacticus (c. 24) gives various directions.
necessary to be observed respecting the word.
On the tessera or watchword in the Roman camp,.
see CASTRA, p. 377 b. [J. Y.] [W. W.]
800 TESSERACONTERES *
TESTAMENTUM
TESSERACONTE’RES. The invention of
war-ships larger than the trireme, viz. quadri-
reme and quinquereme, belongs to the epoch
which follows that of the Peloponnesian War.
In the first half of the 4th cent. B.C. the
Athenians possessed a few quadriremes; but the
quinquereme, which was destined to be the line-
of-battle ship of the succeeding century, had not
yet become common. At the siege of Tyre
(Curt. ii. 4) Alexander had only one quinquereme
as his admiral's ship. Later on we find the
Carthaginian fleet consisting mainly of vessels
of five banks of oars; and from one of these
which fell into their hands, and was used as a
model, the Romans constructed those fleets which
were engaged at Mylae and Ecnomus and the
Aegates Insulae. According to Pliny (vii. § 56),
it was Alexander who conceived the idea of con-
structing still larger vessels, and gave orders for
building ships of seven or even ten banks. It
remained, however, for his successors to carry
out these plans, of whom Demetrius Poliorcetes
was the most energetic and successful in matters
of naval construction. Demetrius himself
superintended the building of vessels of fifteen
and sixteen banks (Plut. Dem. 43), and this
passion for huge ships seems to have continued
among the Macedonians (cf. Liv. xxxiii. 16,
“Regiam unam inhabilis prope magnitudinis
quam sedecim versus remorum agebant ’).
Ptolemy Philadelphus had fourteen ships of
eleven, two of twelve, four of thirteen, one of
twenty, and two of thirty banks of oars. To
surpass these latter, Ptolemy Philopater con-
structed the Great Eastern of ancient days, the
famous Tesseraconteres, a triumph of naval
architecture in point of construction, but useless
for practical purposes, and in reality only the
splendid toy of a despotic king. Her dimensions,
as given in Athen. v. p. 203, are as follows:—
Length, 420 ft. ; breadth (within parodi),
57 ft.; height, forward 72 ft., aft 79 ft. She
had four rudders, each 45 ft. long, and her upper
tier of oars (9pavirukal) were 57 ft., weighted
with lead inboard. She was Stirpalpos and
6trpvpavos ; had seven beaks, of which one was
longer than the rest; also beaks projecting from
the catheads (karð rês étrottòas). She had
twelve àtroſópata, each 900 ft. long; that is,
sufficient to gird her from stem to stern. Her
proportions were graceful, and her ornamen-
tation elaborate. Figures of animals, 18 ft. in
Hength, adorned both stem and stern, and every
available surface was covered with painting, the
whole of the rowing space from the keel upwards
being decorated with ivy wreaths and thyrsi.
The rowing complement was over 4,000; the
marines numbered 2,850; there were 400
seamen (?) for the service of the ship; and below
decks a vast multitude of people.
Such, in brief, are the details preserved concern-
ing this remarkable vessel, which however, pro-
bably after her trial trip, was left for show in the
dock specially constructed for her by a Phoenician
engineer.
As regards dimensions, she was about the
same as H.M.S. Warrior (420 ft. x 58 ft.),
an ironclad of a type now becoming obsolete.
It is not possible to be certain as regards the
meaning of Öſtrpalpos and 6ttrpvuvos, but Graser’s
view seems plausible, that she was, in con-
struction, anticipatory of the class of twin
vessels (such as the Castalia and Calais-Douvres),
which have been tried of late with varying
success. It would seem however, from the
mention of the seven beaks, that the double
prow was prolonged into one, at all events above
the water-line, and, in all probability, the double
stern likewise, so that the Acrostolia and
Aphlasta would be as in other vessels. The four
rudder paddles would thus probably have been
carried two on each side, as often seen in
Egyptian vessels, though Graser seems to sup-
pose one on each side of the two sterns. The
disposition of the rowers in the Tesseraconteres
has been a matter of much controversy. It is
interesting to find that Graser in his detailed
description of the Tesseraconteres has adopted
for her as for all the larger rates above quinque-
reme a reduced scale, allowing only 7 instead
of 8 square ſt. per man for rowing space, and the
vertical distance of the banks from 2 ft. to 1 foot.
Probably this is also nearer the true measure-
ment in the smaller rates from quinquereme
downwards.
Allowing 20 ft. for draught, the Tesseraconteres
gave a height of 44 ft. on either side for the in-
sertion of 40 banks of oars. The curvature of
the vessel fore and aft, and the consequent con-
traction of the rowing space, would necessarily
diminish the number of men in each tier from
the highest to the lowest. Graser, by an in-
genious calculation, brings the total number of
oarsmen to 4054 (Athen. : ÖAfyº TAetovs róv
Terparxixtov). For the disposition of these
(allowing 7 ft. interscalmium) there was for the
topmost bank on each side a longitudinal space
of 367 ft., in which were seated on either side
the 53 thranites (the topmost men of 53 com-
plexus, diagonal lines, of oarsmen), and for the
lowest, or thalamite bank, a longitudinal space
of 345 ft. Of the 53 complexus, 40 were
complete, giving a sum of 1600 on each side.
In the remaining 13, incomplete complexus,
427 men found their places on either side
(3200 + 854 = 4054). The principle of the
(Öyworts must have been similar to that of the
trireme [see NAVIS], benches (ºvyā) being fitted
between the vessel’s side and the 6taqpdyuata,
though in the case of the Tesseraconteres these
were probably divided by decks at certain in-
tervals. The upper tiers of oars, when fastened
to the orka Aubs or thowl pin, were almost at
equilibrium between the outboard and inboard
portions, so that the movement of the whole
would not be difficult. The oar-ports of the
thalamites must have been dangerously close to
the water. Graser places them at 2+ ft. above
the water-line less than those of the trireme,
which were not under 3 ft. And perhaps this
is the reason of the terms in which Plutarch
speaks of her (Dem.43): āAA& 6éav učvmv čketvm
trapéoxe, kai pukpov 80'ov blaſpépovo a rāv uovípov
oikočoumudrav pavival trpos érôetëw, où xpetav,
ériorſpañós kal 6vorépya's ékivā0m. [E. W.]
TESTA. [FICTILE.
TESTAMENTUM is defined by Ulpian as
being “mentis nostrae justa contestatio in
id sollemniter facta ut post mortem nostram
valeat.” (Cf. Modestinus in Dig. 28, 1, 1 :
“Testamentum est voluntatis nostrae justa
sententia de eo, quod quis post mortem suam
fieri velit.”) In this passage the word justa
means jure facta, “as required by law.” The
TESTAMENTUM
TESTAMENTUM 801
word contestatio is here equivalent to testatio,
which is the act of making a solemn declaration
before witnesses, and so of making a will or testa-
ment (cf. Voigt, Zwölf Tºf. 1, § 19). Gellius
(vi. 12) properly finds fault with Servius Sul-
picius for saying that testamentum is com-
pounded “a mentis contestatione.” He who
* a testamentum was testator (Suet. Ner.
17),
In order to be able to make a valid Roman
will, the testator must have the testamentifactio
(Cic. ad Fam. vii. 21), which term expresses the
legal capacity to make a valid will; the word
has also other significations. [HERES..] The
right of making a will was the privilege only
of Roman citizens who were patresfamilias,
except that filiifamilias were allowed to make
a will respecting their castrense or quasi-
castrense peculium. [PATRIA POTESTAs.] The
following persons consequently had not testa-
mentary capacity : those who were in the
potestas or manus of another, or in mancipii
causa [MANCIPII CAUSA], as descendants subject
to power, though with the above-mentioned dis-
pensation in favour of filiifamilias, wives in
manu, persons in the semi-servile state of manci-
pium and slaves, except that servi publici were
allowed to dispose of half their peculium (Ulp.
xx. 16); Latini Juniani died like slaves in re-
spect of property, and so could not make a will ;
peregrini and peregrini dediticii were devoid of
testamentary capacity; an impubes could not
dispose of his property by will, even with the
sanction (auctoritas) of his tutor (for an account
of the substitutio pupillaris, see HEREs). When
a male became pubes—that is, was fourteen
years of age—he became capable of making a
will, and a female obtained the power, subject
to the limitations explained below, on the com-
pletion of her twelfth year: muti, surdi, furiosi,
and prodigi, “quibus lege bonis interdictum
est,” had not the testamentifactio. The reasons
why these several classes had not the testamenti-
factio were: the mutus, because he could not
utter the words of nuncupatio; the surdus, be-
cause he could not hear the words of the familiae
emptor; the furiosus, because he had not intel-
lectual capacity to declare his will (testari)
about his property; and the prodigus, because
he had no commercium (Ulp. Fragm. xx. 3).
Justinian removed the testamentary incapacity
of surdi and muti, which had previously been a
subject of imperial dispensation (Cod. 6, 22, 10:
cf. Inst. ii. 12, 3). The penalty of testamentary
incapacity was imposed on certain classes of per-
sons by statute (Gell. xv. 13; Dig. 28, 1, 18, § 1,
26; Theoph. ad Inst. ii. 10, 6). [INTESTABILIS.]
Women had originally no testamentifactio, as
their right of disposing of property was restricted
in order to serve the interest of their agnates,
and they had been incapable of making a will in
early times on account of their inability to take
part in the proceedings of the Comitia, where
wills had to be made (cf. Gell. v. 19, “quoniam
et cum feminis nulla comitionum communio
est”). When they did acquire the power, they
could only exercise it by means of certain juristic
contrivances, to which we find references in the
writings of Cicero and of Gaius. Of course a
daughter in the power of her father, whether
she was married or unmarried, and a wife in
manu, could never make a will, since they could
WOL. II.
not hold property. The rules therefore as to
a woman’s power of making a will could only
apply to unmarried women after the death of
their father or after emancipation from his
power, and to married women who were not in
the power of a father or a husband (Karlowa,
Die Formen der röm. Ehe, 96, &c.). In order to
qualify a woman who had independent property
to make a will, it was necessary, that she should
cease to be a member of her familia by under-
going a capitis deminutio, a change which re-
quired the concurrence of her agnatic tutor.
The capitis deminutio was effected by a coemptio
fiduciae causa, the coemptionator or purchaser of
the woman acquiring manus over her, though
only as a matter of form, and being bound by
a fiducia to remancipate her to some one of her
choice. The person to whom she was reman-
cipated became her fiduciary tutor, and gave
his formal sanction (auctoritas) to her will,
which was required in order to give it legal
validity. It will be seen from the above that
a woman was incapable of making a will unless
she obtained the consent of her agnatic tutor,
who, as being her intestate heir, would be in-
terested in preventing her from disposing of her
property. The agnatic tutela of women was
abolished by the Lex Claudia (Gaius, i. 157,
171; Ulp. xi. 8); but the auctoritas of a tutor
was still required, as a matter of form, to en-
able a woman to make a will, except in certain
privileged cases (Gaius, ii. 112 ; Ulp. xx. 15).
On the recommendation of Hadrian, the senate
made the ceremony of coemptio unnecessary for
the purpose of giving legal validity to a woman’s
will (Gaius, i. 115 a). Between the time of
Gaius and the publication of the Theodosian
Code, the perpetua tutela of women became
obsolete, and with it the last formal difference
between their wills and those of men.
In accordance with the above explanation,
Cicero observes (Top. 4, 18): “If a woman has
made a will, and has never undergone a capitis
deminutio, it does not appear that the Bonorum
Possessio can be granted in pursuance of such
will according to the Praetor's edict; for, if it
could, the edict must give Bonorum Possessio in
respect of the wills of servi, exules, and pueri.”
The Bonorum Possessio or praetorian title to
the inheritance was not given by the Praetor
to persons who were incapable of taking the
hereditas; accordingly Cicero means that, if a
woman made a will without having sustained
a capitis deminutio, the will could have no effect
at all in giving a praetorian title to the in-
heritance, any more than the wills of other
persons who had not the testamentifactio. The
case of Silius (Cic. ad Fam. vii. 21) may be
a case of a woman’s making a will without
coemptio, for it appears that a woman (Tur-
pilia) had disposed of property by will, and
Servius Sulpicius was of opinion that this was
not a valid will, because the will-maker had not
the testamentifactio. The following references
may be consulted as to this matter:-Cic. pro
Caecin. 6, 17; pro Flacc. 35, 86; pro Muren. 12,
27; ad Att. vii. 8;—Liv. xxxix., 19; Gaius, i.
150. Libertae could hot make a will without
the auctoritas of their patronus, for they were
in the tutela legitima of their patronus: the
patron was always allowed to refuse his sanc-
tion to such a will. Libertae who hº a certain
F
802 TESTAMENTUM
TESTAMENTUM
number of children could, however, make a
will without the auctoritas of their patronus.
[PATRONUS.] The Vestal Virgins had no tutor,
and yet they could make a testament. The
Twelve Tables released them from all tutela
“in honorem sacerdotii' (Cic. de Rep. iii. 10,
17; Gaius, i. 145).
In order to constitute a valid will, it was
necessary that a heres should be instituted,
which might be done in such terms as the
following:—“Titius heres esto, Titium heredem
esse jubeo.” (Ulp. 24, § 15, “Ante heredis
institutionem legari non potest, quoniam vis et
potestas testamenti ab heredis institutione in-
cipit.”) All persons who had the commercium
could be heredes; slaves also could be made
heredes, a testator's own slave, if the institution
was coupled with his manumission; the slave
of another, if there was testamentifactio be-
tween the testator and his master, the slave
in this case acquiring the inheritance for his
master by command of the latter.
K But there were many classes of persons
who could not be heredes: such were peregrini
and peregrini dediticii, as having no com-
mercium, and Latini Juniani, by the provision
of the Lex Junia. Whether according to pri-
mitive law women could be made heredes is
uncertain, but from an early time they were
on the same footing as men in this respect,
until by the Lex Voconia (B.C. 69) they were
made incapable of being heredes to a person in
the first class of the census (Cic. in Verr. i. 42,
107; Gell. vii. 13). There was a rule that in-
certae personae could not be instituted; hence
it was originally impossible to institute post-
humous persons, though in course of time
forms of instituting and exheredating postumi.
sui were established. [HERES..] Though un-
ascertained persons could not, generally speak-
ing, be instituted, their institution came to be
allowed if they were instituted sub certa demon-
stratione: e.g. “ex cognatis meis, qui nunc sunt,
si quis filiam mean uxorem duxerit.” Jus-
tinian made their institution valid in all cases,
provided that they became determinate subse-
quent to the making of the will. Originally
juristic persons could not be instituted, since
they could not themselves perform the legal
act of entering on an inheritance (cf. Ulp. 22, 5:
“Nec municipium nec municipes heredes institui
possunt, quoniam incertum corpus est, et neque
cernere universineque pro heredegerere possunt,
ut heredes fiant”); but this rule was never
applicable to the aerarium or to the fiscus, and
in the case of other juristic persons exceptions
were gradually made to it: thus municipalities
were made capable by senatusconsulta of in-
heriting the property of their own freedmen
(Ulp. 22, 5); exceptions were also made by
statute in favour of certain gods and goddesses,
viz. Jupiter Tarpeius, Apollo Didymaeus, Mars
in Gallia, Minerva Iliensis, Hercules Gaditanus,
Diana #. Mater Deorum, Siphylensis quae
Smyrnae colitur, Caelestis Salinensis in Carthage
(Ulp. l.c. § 6). According to the law of Jus-
tinian, churches, piae causae, and communes
were capable of being instituted ; other juristic
persons only if specially privileged in this respect.
Besides capacity on the part of the testator
and the person instituted heres, there must be
a proper observance of the forms required by
law for the validity of a will. Thus we come
to consider the rudimentary forms of a Roman
will and their subsequent modifications. The
earliest will or testament was made calatis
comitiis; that is, in the Comitia Curiata, which
were summoned (calata) twice a year for this
purpose (Gaius, ii. 101; Ulp. 20, 2; Inst. ii. 10,
1, cum Theoph. ; Gell. xv. 27). The testamentum
calatis comitiis was probably an adoption by a
person who had no children of an intestate swus
heres rather than a will in the strict sense (cf.
Schulin, Das griechische Testament verglichen
mit dem römischen ; and as to the use of adoption
for the purpose of disposing of an inheritance in
Hindoo Law, see Maine's Ancient Law, p. 193).
The adoption was, we may suppose, of a peculiar
kind, the person who was the object of it not
being regarded as the testator's son till after
the death of the latter, and then only in case
there had been no revocation of the disposition.
The proceeding would be of a legislative cha-
racter in its form, somewhat similar to that of
arrogation; for the opinion of some writers,
that the populus only bore witness to the
transaction in its Comitia and did not sanction
it, does not seem to rest on good ground. No
doubt, however, the consent of the populus was
from an early time little more than a formality
(Gans, Erbrecht, ii. 27; Ihering, Geist d. r. R. i.
145; Schulin, l.c.; Sohm, Institutionen, § 99).
A will was also valid in early times which was
made in procinctu ; that is, one declared by a
man before his comrades when in the field
before the enemy; for an army in movement and
under arms is procinctus (Festus, s. v. Procincta;
Gaius, l.c.). A third mode of making wills was
introduced, which first existed alongside and
then superseded the older forms. It was effected
per aes et libram; that is, by mancipium, whence
the name of testamentum per aes et libram, or
mancipative will.
The origin of this mode of testamentary dis-
position may have been to enable plebeians to
make a will, they being excluded from the
Comitia Curiata, but the patricians must have
soon found it convenient to use the same form.
The power of making provision respecting the
disposition of property after death is expressly
recognised by the law of the Twelve Tables in
the words “uti legassit super pecunia tutelare
rei suae ita jus esto,” the word legare being here
equivalent to legem dicere—that is, to declare
the law which was to govern the devolution of
property (Muirhead, Roman Law, p. 167, n. 1).
Thus, according to the law of the Twelve Tables,
if a man had neither made his will at calata
comitia nor in procinctu, and was in imminent
danger of death, he would mancipate (mancipio
dabat) his familia—that is, his patrimonium or
family property—to a friend, and request him
to carry out his wishes after his death. The
familiae emptor—that is, the person to whom
the familia was conveyed by mancipation—is
said by Gaius to have been in the place of heres
(loco heredis), the testator having instructed him
as to what he wished to be given to each
legatee after his death. We cannot gather from
Gaius that the familiae emptor ever acquired
a beneficial interest in the property mancipated
to him, as Sir H. Maine (Ancient Law, ch. vi.)
states, but only loco heredis for the purpose of
paying legacies, and possibly for the purpose of
TESTAMENTUMI
TESTAMIENTUM 803
paying in the first place the debts of the de-
ceased, though this is not stated. It is not
aprobable that the familiae emptor became
personally liable for the testator's debts. His
function seems in fact to have been somewhat
analogous to that of an executor in English
law, especially if only the movable property
could be the subject of such a disposition in
early times, as may possibly have been the case.
That the familiae emptor was regarded as a
mere mandatory for carrying out the wishes
of the testator, and had no right to derive any
benefit from the estate, is shown by the formal
words used in the mancipation to him, “fami-
liam pecuniamque tuam endo mandatela tua
custodelaque mea " (Gaius, ii. 104). We may
infer from the fact of the familiae emptor being
loco heredis, that he could be legally compelled
to carry out the testator's wishes, and was not
simply bound in good faith to do so. According
to Sir H. Maine (Ancient Law, l.c.), the effect
of the mancipation was to vest the inheritance
immediately and irrevocably in the familiae
emptor, a mancipation being an actus legitimus
not admitting of condicio or dies. But this view
of the transaction appears to be defective in that
it takes no account of the power of making a
qualified mancipation, recognised by the Twelve
Tables in the words, “Cum nexum faciet man-
cipiumque, utilingua nuncupassit, ita jus esto.”
(Festus, s. v. Nuncupata). . Accordingly the
familiae emptor would be subject to the terms
imposed on him by the nuncupation which
was a part of the mancipation, and by these
the mancipant would reserve possession of his
property during his lifetime, together with a
right of revoking his disposition at pleasure.
The familiae emptor would, in fact,become merely
formal owner of the property. It will be seen
from the above that the mancipative will in its
rudimentary form was not a unilateral pro-
ceeding, like the later will, but a transaction
Žnter vivos, not intended to operate as a universal
succession to a heres, but made for the purpose
of distributing property to legatees by way of
singular succession.
In course of time a great change took place
in the character of the mancipative will, in that
the familiae emptor ceased to fulfil any real
function, and was no longer regarded as even the
formal owner of the inheritance. The testator
by his will, expressed either in writing or by
word of mouth at the time of the mancipation,
instituted a heres as his universal successor, who
was personally liable to creditors, and who took
the inheritance subject to any legacies with
which the testator had charged it. Hence-
forward a testamentum may be defined as a
last will by which a heres is instituted (Dig.
29, 7, 20: “Julianus ait, tabulas testamenti
non intellegi, quibus heres scriptus non est, ut
magis codicilli quam testamentum existimandae
sint”). The will might be oral or written, but
the ordinary practice was to make a written
will, so that the dispositions of the testator
might not be known till after his death. The
mode of proceeding was this (Gaius, ii. 104).
The testator, after having written his will
(tabulae testamenti), called together five wit-
messes, who were Roman citizens, and a libri-
pens, as in the case of other mancipationes, and
inancipated his property (familia pecunianue)
[FAMILIA] to some person in compliance with
legal forms (dicis causa). This person, the
familiae emptor, uses these words, which have
been already referred to as showing his original
function: “Familia pecuniaque tua endo man-
datelam tuam custodelamgue mean, quo tu jure
testamentum facere possis secundum legem pub-
licam, hoc aere (et ut quidam adjiciunt aenea
libra) esto mihi empta.” The emptor then struck
the scales with a piece of money which he gave
to the testator as the price of his purchase;
after which, the testator, taking the will in his
hand, said: “Haec ita ut in his tabulis cerisque
scripta sunt ita do ita lego ita testor itaque
vos Quirites testimonium mihi perhibetote.”
This was called the nuncupatio or publishing
of the will ; in other words, the testator’s
general confirmation of all that he had written
in his will, which derived its legal effect from
the clause in the Twelve Tables quoted above.
As the familiae emptio was supposed to be a
real transaction between the emptor and testator,
the testimony of their several families was ex-
cluded, and consequently a person who was in
the power of the familiae emptor, or in the
power of the testator, could not be a witness.
lf a man who was in the power of another was
the familiae emptor, it followed that his father
could not be a witness, nor his brother, if the
brother was in the power of the father. A
filiusfamilias who after his missio disposed of his
castrense peculium by testament, could not have
his father as witness nor any one who was in
the power of his father. The same rules applied
to the libripens, for he was a witness. A person
who was in the power of the heres or of a legatee,
or in whose power the heres or legatee was, or
who was in the power of the same person as the
heres or a legatee, and also the heres or a legatee,
could all be witnesses, since neither the heres
nor the legatees were parties to the mancipa-
tion. But Gaius observes that it would be
improper for the heres, and the man who is in
the power of the heres or in whose power the ,
heres is to witness the will. According to the
law of Justinian, a person in the familia of the
heres could not be witness to the will (Inst. ii.
10, 10).
The Edict established a less formal kind of
will, since it acknowledged the validity of a
written will when there had been no mancipatio,
provided there were seven witnesses and seven
seals, and the testator had the testamentifactio
at the time of making the will and at the time
of his death (Gaius, ii. 147). The terms of the
Edict are given by Cicero (in Verr. i. 1, 45).
The Edict only gave the Bonorum Possessio or
Praetorian title to the inheritance, which was
not effective (sine re) against the civil title
ab intestato of an agnate, until it was made so
(cum re) by a rescript of Marcus Aurelius
(Gaius, ii. 120). This so-called Praetorian testa-
ment existed in the Republican period.2 Thus a
man had his choice between two forms of
making his will; the Civil form by mancipatio,
and the Praetorian with seven seals and seven
witnesses, and without mancipatio (Savigny,
Beytrag zur Geschichte der röm. Testam, Zeit-
schrift, vol. i. p. 78).
The Praetorian testament prepared the way
for the abolition of mancipatio, the essential
character of a will made according to the Jus
3 F 2
804 TESTAMENTUM
TESTAMENTUM
Civile, and in the legislation of Justinian the
form of making a testament was simplified.
It required seven male witnesses of competent
age and legal capacity, and the act must be
done in the presence of all, at the same place
and at the same time; that is, it must be con-
tinuous. The testator might declare his last
will orally (sine scriptis) before seven witnesses,
and this was a good will. If it was a written
will, the testator acknowledged it before the
witnesses as his last will, and put his name to
it, and the witnesses then subscribed their names
and affixed their seals. [Cf. Inst. ii. 10, 3:
“Sed quum paullatim tam ex usu hominum,
quam ex constitutionum emendationibus coepit
in unam consonantiam jus civile et praetorium
jungi, constitutum est, ut uno eodemque tem-
pore (quod jus civile quodammodo exigebat)
septem testibus adhibitis et subscriptione tes-
tium (quod ex constitutionibus inventum est),
et (ex edicto praetoris) signacula testamentis
imponerentur ; ut hoc jus tripertitum esse
videatur, ut testes quidem et eorum praesentia
uno contextu testamenti celebrandi gratia a jure
civili descendant, subscriptiones autem testatoris
et testium ex sacrarum constitutionum observa-
tione adhibeantur, signacula autem et numerus
testium ex edicto praetoris.”] The testator
might write his will or have it written by
another person, but such other person could
derive no advantage under the will. [SENATUS-
CONSULTUM LIBONIANUM.]
It is natural that there should be much
difference of opinion respecting the nature of
the earliest forms of Roman testament, since
the evidence which has come down to us on
this subject is extremely scanty. Rein (Das
röm. Privatrecht, p. 373, note) has referred to
the modern writers who have discussed this
subject (for an account of the views of recent
writers, see Schulin, l.c.): he has adopted the
opinion of Niebuhr, according to which, “as the
property of an extinct house escheated to the
guria, that of an extinct curia to the publicum
of the citizens at large, the consent of the
whole populus was requisite ; and this is the
origin of the rule that testaments were to be
made in the presence of the pontiff and the
curiae" (Hist. of Rome, vol. ii. p. 338). But
there is no evidence of the assertion contained
in the first part of this passage; and if this
rule as to escheat is admitted to be a fact, the
rule that testaments must be confirmed by the
pontiff and curiae is no necessary conclusion.
Niebuhr further observes that “ the plebeian
houses were not so connected; but the whole
order had a public coffer in the temple of Ceres;
and when the army, being assembled in centuries,
either on the field of Mars or before a battle,
passed the last will of a soldier into a law, it
thereby resigned the claims of the whole body
to the property.” This assertion also is not
supported by evidence, and is therefore a mere
conjecture against the probability of which there
are sufficient reasons.
If we are right in following the opinion of
those who think that the testamentum calatis
comitiis was carried into effect by means of the
adoption of a heres, the consent of the pontiff
and curiae was required in order to give it effect,
just as in the case of other adoptions or arro-
gations. [ARROGATIO.] But it is said that
the power of disposition in the case of a testa-
mentum in procinctu could not depend on the
consent of the whole populus, in each particular
instance; for the nature of the circumstances.
excluded such consent. A Roman had therefore.
full power of disposition in procinctu, and from
this it is inferred as a probable conclusion that
the will made at the Calata Comitia was not a
legislative act, but simply one declared before
the populus. This argument does not, however,
seem to have much force, since it is highly
probable that the testamentum in procinctu was
instituted at a time when the consent of the
Comitia to wills had become merely formal.
The adoption in the Comitia, or the simple
designation of a person as adopted, would come
to be regarded as the institution of a heres, and
so the conception of a heres ex testamento.
would be established. Hence the institution of
a heres in a mancipative will may perhaps have
been derived from the idea of the designation of
a heres in the Comitia, as universal successor.
Some writers assert that the testamentum in
procinctu could only be made after the auspices
were taken, which gave the testament the re-
ligious sanction; that when the auspices.
ceased to be taken in the field, this kind of
testament ceased to be made ; and that the
military testaments mentioned about the latter
part of the Republic (as by Caesar, Bell. Gali.
i. 39; Wel. Pat. ii. 5, &c.) were not the same
kind of testaments, but purely military testa-
ments made without any form, which in the
Imperial period became in common use and of
which Julius Caesar probably introduced the
practice (Dig. 29, 1, de Testamento Militis).
Cicero, however, speaks of the will In procinctu,
(de Or. i. 53) as then in use, and he describes it
as made “sine libra et tabulis; ” that is, with-
out the forms which were used after the intro–
duction of the testamentum per aes et libram.
Thus the testamentum in procinctu always,
retained its characteristic of being exempted
from legal forms, but as to the capacity of the
testator it was always subject to the same rules.
of law as other wills, so far as we know.
The form of the mancipative will seems at
first sight to favour the opinion that the testa-
mentum calatis comitiis was simply declared in
the presence of the populus, for it is generally
admitted, and the extant passages are con-
sistent with the opinion, that the testamentary
form per aes et libram existed while the two ori-
ginal forms were still in use. Now, in the testa-
mentum per aes et libram there is no pretence
for saying that any consent was required,
except that of the buyer and seller; for though
the five witnesses to the testament (cives
Romani puberes) may have been representatives:
of the five classes of Servius Tullius, the classes
were represented as witnesses only, not as per-
sons who gave their consent to the act. It seems
improbable, it is said, that there could have
existed at the same time a form of testamentum
to which the consent of the testator was sufficient,
and another form in which it was not. But the
only possible answer to this argument is that
the consent of the sovereign people had become
a form, and therefore it was indifferent, so far
as concerns this consent, whether the will was
made at the Comitia where it would be fully
witnessed, or per aes et libram where it would
TESTAMENTUM
TESTAMENTUM 80.5
be witnessed by the five representatives. In
the time of the classical jurists the testamentum
per aes et libram was the ordinary form of
testament, according to Jus Civile; it is pro-
bable that the testamentum calatis comitiis
and in procinctu had long previously become
obsolete.
As already observed, there seems to have
been no rule of law that a testament must be
written. The mancipatio required no writing,
nor did the institution of a heres. Thus it is
said (Dig. 28, 1, 21) that the heres might either
be made by oral declaration (nuncupatio) or by
writing. Written wills, however, were the
common form among the Romans at least in
the later republican and in the imperial periods.
"They were written on tablets of wood or wax,
whence the word cera is often used as equivalent
to tabella; and the expressions prima, Secunda
cera are equivalent to prima, Secunda pagina.
The will might be written either by the testator
or by any other person with his consent, and some-
Itimes it was made with the advice of a lawyer.
It was written in the Latin language, until A.D.
439, when it was enacted that wills might be in
Greek (Cod. 6, 23, 21). By the old law a legacy
could not be written in the Greek language, though
a fideicommissum could be so given. It does not
appear that there was originally any signature
By the witnesses. The will was sealed, but this
amight be done by the testator in secret, for it
was not necessary that the witnesses should
Jºnow the contents of the will ; they were wit-
Thesses to the formal act of mancipatio, and to
the testator’s declaration that the tabulae which
Jhe held in his hand contained his last will. It
tmust, however, have been in some way so marked
as to be recognised, and the practice of the wit-
messes (testes) sealing and signing the will be-
game common. (As to the will of Claudius, see
Suetonius, Claudius, 44.) It was necessary for
the witnesses both to seal (signare)—that is, to
amake a mark with a ring (anulus) or something
else on the wax—and to add their names (ad-
scribere). The five witnesses signed their names
with their own hand, and their adscription also
declared whose will it was that they sealed
(Dig. 28, 1, 30). The seals and adscriptions
were both on the outside. A senatusconsultum,
which applied to wills among other instruments,
enacted that they should be witnessed and signed
:as follows: they were to be tied with a triple
thread (lin'tm) on the upper part of the margin,
which was to be perforated at the middle part,
and the wax was to be put over the thread and
sealed. Tabulae which were produced in any
other way had no validity. (Compare Paulus,
S. R. v. 25, 6, where impositae seems to be the
true reading, with Suet. Ner. 17.) A man
might make several copies of his will, which
was often done (ut vulgo fieri solet, Dig. 31, 1,
47; a case put to Proculus) for the sake of
caution. Both Augustus and Tiberius made
two copies of their wills (Suet. Aug. 101 ;
Tiber. 76). When sealed, it was deposited with
some friend, or in a temple, or with the Westal
'Virgins; and after the testator's death it was
opened (resignare) in due form. The witnesses
or the major part were present; and after they
had acknowledged their seals, the thread (linum)
was broken and the will was opened and read,
and a copy was made; the original was then
sealed with the public seal and placed in the
archium, whence a fresh copy might be got, if
the first copy should ever be lost (Paulus, iv. 6).
This practice, described by Paulus, may have
been of considerable antiquity. The will of
Augustus, which had been deposited with the
Vestal Virgins, was brought into the senate after
his death (Tac. Ann. i. 8): none of the witnesses
were admitted except those of senatorial rank ;
the rest of the witnesses acknowledged their
signatures outside of the Curia (Suet. Tib. 23).
A passage in a Novel of Theodosius II. (A.D.
439, de Testamentis) states the old practice as
to the signature of the witnesses. “In ancient
times a testator showed (offerebat) his written
testament to the witnesses, and asked them to
bear testimony that the will had so been shown
to them (oblatarum tabularum perhibere testi-
monium),” which are almost the words of Gaius.
The Novel goes on to state that the ignorant
presumption of posterity had changed the
cautious rule of the ancient law, and the wit-
nesses were required to know the contents of
the will ; the consequence of which was that
many persons preferred dying intestate to letting
the contents of their wills be known. The
Novel enacted what we may presume to have
been the old usage, that the testator might pro-
duce his will sealed, or tied up, or only closed,
and offer it to seven witnesses, Roman citizens
and puberes, for their sealing and adscription,
provided at the same time he declared the
instrument to be his will and signed it in their
presence, and then the witnesses affixed their
seals and signatures at the same time also. A
will was opened in the presence of the witnesses
to it, so that they might acknowledge their
seals, and, having been read, copies of it were
allowed to be taken; it was then sealed up
and deposited in the public archives (Paul. iv.
6, 1). Valentinian III. enacted that if a testa-
mentum was holographum, witnesses were not
necessary.
A fragment of a Roman will, belonging to
the time of Trajan, was published by Puggé in
the Rheinisches Museum, vol. i. p. 249, &c.; and
it is explained by Rudorff (Das Testament des
Dasumius, Zeitschrift, &c. vol. xii. p. 301).
The penalties against fraud in the case of
wills and other instruments were fixed by the
Lex Cornelia. [FALSUM.]
The institution of a heres was essential to a
will. A will was either wholly or partly in-
valid in which sui heredes were neither insti-
tuted nor exheredated, but simply passed over
in silence; the praetor made a similar rule in
the case of emancipati. The rules on this sub-
ject are stated in HEREs (Roman) and BONoRUM
POSSESSIO.
A testament which was invalid from the first
was injustum or non jure factum, when the
proper forms had not been observed ; a void
will is sometimes said to be mullum or nullius
momenti, as in the case of a filiusfamilias who
is praeteritus. A testamentum justum might
become either ruptum or irritum or destitutum
in consequence of subsequent events (Dig. 28,
3, 1).
A testament became ruptum if the testator
made a subsequent testament in due form as
required by law: and it made no matter
whether or not there turned out to be a heres
806 TESTAMENTUM
TESTAMENTUM
under the second will : the only question was
whether there could have been one. If then the
heres named in the second will refused the
hereditas, or died either in the lifetime of the
testator or after his death, and before the cretio,
or failed to comply with the conditions of the
will, or lost the hereditas under the Lex Julia
et Papia Poppaea—in all these cases the pater-
familias died intestate.
The testator must have a capacity to make a
will, and continue to have the capacity until his
death; but this principle does not apply to
mental sanity, for the will was valid if the
testator became insane. But the will became
irritum if the testator sustained a capitis de-
minutio after the date of the will; or if it
failed of effect because there was no heres, it
was destitutum. If a will failed to take effect
for want of a heres, the deceased died intestate;
the intestate heir might, however, be bound to
carry out the provisions of the will, if requested
to do so by fideicommissum. (As to the use of
substitutio for the purpose of preventing intes-
tacy, see HEREs.) If a will took effect, the
whole property of the deceased passed to the
heirs instituted in the will, whether or not this
was the intention of the deceased. The rule
“nemo partim testatus et partim intestatus
decedere potest " may be explained by the fact
of the will having developed out of adoption.
If a man who had made a will was taken
prisoner by the enemy, his will was good jure
postliminii if he returned home; if he died in
captivity, it was made as valid by the Lex
Cornelia as if he had not been a captive.
Though a will might be injustum and irritum
by the Jus Civile, it was not always without effect;
for the Bonorum Possessio secundum tabulas
might be had by the scriptus heres, if the will
was witnessed by seven witnesses, and if the
testator had the testamentifactio, at the time of
making the will and at the time of his death,
though not at some intervening period. The
distinction between the case of a will which
was invalid Jure Civili for want of due forms,
and one which was invalid for want of legal
capacity to dispose of property by will, was
well recognised in the time of Cicero (Top. 11).
A will also became ruptum by agnatio; that is,
if a suus heres was born after the making of
the will who was not either instituted heres or
exheredated, as the law required. A quasi
agnatio also arose by adoption, or by the in
manum conventio, or by succession to the place
of a suus heres, as in the instance of a grandson
becoming a suus heres in consequence of the
death or the emancipation of a son: a will also
became ruptum by the manumission of a son,
that is, where the son after a first Yand second
mancipation returned into the power of his
father. [EMANCIPATIo; HEREs...]
A testament was called inofficiosum which
was made in legal form, “sed non ex officio
pietatis.” For instance, if a man had exhere-
dated his own children, or passed over his
parents, or brothers or sisters, the will was in
form a good will; but if there was no sufficient
reason for this exheredation or praeterition, the
persons aggrieved might have an inofficiosi
querela. The ground of the complaint was the
allegation that the testator was “non Sanae
mentis,” so as to have capacity to make a will.
It was not alleged that he was furiosus or
demens, for these were technical words which
implied complete legal incapacity. Perhaps this.
fiction of insanity was derived from Greek law,
pavía of the testator having been the alleged
ground under early Attic law for actions brought
by relations to set aside wills in which they
were disinherited (Schulin, 16; Sohm, Inst.
§ 100, n. 6). No person could maintain a
querela inofficios; except brothers and sisters.of
the same father, and brothers and sisters could
only maintain their claim against Scripti heredes
who were turpes personae. The complaint also
could only be maintained in cases where the
complaining parties had no other right or means.
of redress. Originally the querela could be
brought if less than one-fourth of the share
of the claimant ab intestato was left to him,
whether as heir or legatee was immaterial, by
the law of Justinian. If any portion, however
small, was left by the will to the complaining
party, he could not maintain a querela inofficiosi,
and he was only entitled to so much as would
make up his proper share (portio legitima).
If the judex declared the testamentum to be
inofficiosum, it was rescinded, and the querelant
succeeded ab intestato; but if there were several
heredes, the testament would only be rescinded
as to him or them against whose institution the
judex had pronounced. The querela was tried
by the centumviral court, as long as the court
existed. [CENTUMVIRI.] (Plin. Ep. v. 1; Inst.
ii. 18; Dig. 5, de Inofficioso Testamento.) .
Justinian made various changes in the rules.
restricting testamentary freedom in favour of
near relations. 1st. He provided that if any-
thing was left to such relation he was not to be
entitled to the querela, but only to the actio ad
supplendam legitimam. 2nd. By 18 Nov. he
increased the amount of the portio legitima.
3rd. By 115 Nov. he amalgamated the law
respecting formal exheredation of sui heredes
with that respecting inofficiositas. He obliged
ascendants and descendants respectively to in-
stitute one another heredes, if there was a
right of succession in the event of intestacy,
and only allowed exheredation on certain grounds.
expressed in the statute. A testator had to
declare a statutable ground of exheredation in
his will. If a relation entitled under this law
was instituted, but not so much as his portio
legitima was left to him, he had the actio ad
supplendam legitimam. If not instituted, he
had the querela inofficiosi testamenti, unless he
had been exheredated for due cause. The effect
of the querela was not to set aside the will
altogether, but to let in the querelant to the
extent of his intestate share.
The querela inofficiosi is explained by Savigny
with his usual perspicuity (System, &c. vol. ii.
p. 127). When a testator passed over in his
will any of his nearest kinsfolks, who in the
case of intestacy would be his heredes, this gave
rise to the opinion that the person thus passed
over had merited this mark of the testator's
disapprobation. If this opinion was unfounded,
the testator had done an unmerited injury to
the person, and his remedy was by getting the
will set aside, as made under the influence of
passion. If the will was set aside, the testator
was thereby declared to have died intestate, and
the complainant obtained the hereditas which
TESTAMENTUM
TESTUDO 807
was the immediate object of the querela, or his
share of it. But the ultimate object of the
querela was the public re-establishment of the
injured honour of the complainant, who in this
action appeared in a hostile position with respect
to the testator who had brought his character
into question. Consequently this action had for
its ultimate object vindicta, and the peculiarity
of the action consisted in the difference between
this ultimate object of the action and the imme-
diate object of it (property), which was merely
a means to the ultimate object. [WINDICTA.]
There is no evidence to show when the querela
inofficiosi was introduced as a mode of setting
aside a will. The phrase testamentum in-
officiosum occurs in Cicero, and in Quintilian
nst. Or. x. 2).
Codicilli were an informal will : they may be
defined to be a testamentary disposition of such
a kind which does not allow any direct universal
succession, and, consequently, neither the direct
appointment nor exheredation of a heres, even
though the codicilli are confirmed by a testa-
ment; but he who was appointed heres by a
testament might be requested by codicilli to
give the hereditas to another altogether or in
part, even though the codicilli were not con-
firmed by a testament. A legacy could not be
given by codicilli, unless the codicilli were con-
firmed by a will ; and this must be the case to
which Pliny refers (Ep. ii. 16). Acilianus had
made Pliny “heres ex parte,” but he had also
made codicilli in his own handwriting, which, as
Pliny alleges, were void (pro non scriptis habendi)
because they were not confirmed by the will.
Now, as already observed, it appears from Gaius
(ii. 273) that a person who was appointed heres
by a will might be required by codicilli to give
the whole hereditas or a part to another, even
though the codicilli were not confirmed by a will.
But Pliny is speaking of codicilli which were
void for want of a testamentary confirmation;
and this, as we learn from Gaius, is the case of
a legacy given by codicilli which have not been
confirmed by a will. This confirmation might
be either prospective or retrospective (“si in
testamento caverit testator, ut quidquid in codi-
cillis scripserit, id ratum sit,” Gaius, ii. 270;
“quos novissimos fecero,” Dig. 29, 7, 8). This
passage of Pliny as to the confirmation of codi-
cilli by a testament has sometimes been mis-
understood. It is stated (Dig. 29, 7, 8), “Con-
ficiuntur codicilli quatuor modis ; aut enim in
futurum confirmantur aut in praeteritum, aut
per fideicommissum testamento facto aut sine
testamento.” These four modes are referred to
in Gaius: the first two are contained in the
words above quoted, “Si in testamento,” &c.:
the third is the case of the heres institutus
being required to give the hereditas to another
person by codicilli non confirmati; and the
fourth is the case of a fideicommissum given by
codicilli of a person who made no other testa-
mentary disposition. It was a rule of law that
codicilli, when duly made, were to be con-
sidered (except in a few cases) as incorporated
in the will at the time when the will was made,
a principle which led to various legal conclu-
sions, which the Roman jurists deduced with
their usual precision (Dig. 27, 7, 2).
Originally there was probably no particular
form required for codicilli; but there must
have been evidence of their containing the
testator's intention. Subsequently witnesses
were required, and five witnesses were sufficient
for codicilli made in writing, if the witnesses
subscribed their names to the codicilli (Cod. 6,
36). But a man could, without writing and in
the presence of five witnesses, impose a fidei-
commissum on his heres. A testament which
was defective as such, might be effectual as
codicilli. The power to make codicilli was the
same as the power to make a testament. (Dig.
29, 7, de Jure Codicillorum ; Inst. ii. 25.)
The articles on HEREs, BoxORUM POSSESSIO,
LEGATUM, FIDEICOMMISSUM, &c., should be read
with this article. (Gaius, ii. 101–108; Ulp.
Frag. xx. ; Inst. ii. 10, &c.; Dig. 28, 1; Cod. 6,
23; Wangerow, Pandekten, &c., ii. § 427, &c.;
Holder, Erbrecht; Köppen, System Erbrechts;
Schirmer, Handbuch des rôm. Erbrecht ; Dern-
burg, Beitr. zur Gesch. der röm. Test. ; Vering,
I'dutisches Erbrecht ; Gans, Das Erbrecht.)
[G. L.] [E. A. W.]
TESTIS, a witness. 1. GREEK. [MAR-
TYRIA.] 2. ROMAN. [Jus.JURANDUM.]
TESTU'DO (xexøvn), a tortoise, was the
name given to several other objects. $
1. To the Lyra, because it was sometimes
made of a tortoise-shell. [LYRA.]
2. To an arched or vaulted roof (Verg. Aen.
i. 505; Cic. Brut. 22, 87). Thus, for instance,
in a Roman house, when the Cavum Aedium
was roofed all over and had no opening or com-
pluvium in the centre, the Cavum Aedium was
called Testudo (Warr. L. L. v. 161, ed. Müller).
[DOMUs, Vol. I. pp. 670, 685.]
3. In military affairs testudo (xe?A&vm) is
used as a generic term for all kinds of movable
roofs used to protect men or engines. The first
mention of a xe?A&vm is in Xèn. Hell. iii. 1, 7.
There were different kinds of such shed-like
constructions, all of which were made of wood
and mounted on wheels.
(a) xeX&vm reptopópos (testudo arietaria,
Vitruv. x. 19 (13), 7) was a shed-like protection
for the battering-ram; see ARIES.
(b) xeX&vm Stopukrpts (Apollod. 138, Wescher)
or Öpukrpts (Anonym. ap. Wescher, p. 214), used
for protecting soldiers when they were under-
mining a wall. Its front was quite perpen-
dicular, so that it could be run up close to the
wall; and the line of the roof formed by the
two side s ,
which sides
the m selves
sloped down
to the ground,
extended back-
wards as in
the accom-
panying cut
(taken from
Marquard t,
Staatsverwalt.
ii.” 529; cf.
in some mea--
sure Wescher,
Poliorcétique
des Grecs, fig.
lvii.). This is
the way Vitruv. x. 21 (15), 1, and Athen de
Mech. 19 Wescher, are to be reconciled; for the
figure given by Müller in Baumeister (fig. 577,
xexøvn 8topvkrpts.
ºf

808 TESTUDo
TETRARCHA
vol. i. p. 540) does not agree with Vitruvius,
l. c.
(c) xexdºwn xwarpis (Diod. ii. 27; “testudo
quae ad congestionem fossarum paratur,” Vitruv.
x. 20 (14), who elaborately describes it after
Philo the Athenian, giving numerous measure-
ments) was used when the ground in front of
the walls of a besieged town had to be altered
in any way to further the siege, e.g. ditches to
be filled, acclivities levelled, &c. Its distinctive
feature was that it had on the front next the
enemy, a sloping roof, as in the subjoined cut.
xexøvn xworrpts.
The size of this testudo, as that of other
testudines, of course varied. That described by
Philo appears to have been about 39 by 35 feet
(Droysen, Griech. Kriegsalt. p. 227). All the
testudines were as a general rule covered with
a double layer of fresh hides, which were stuffed
with sea-weed or chaff steeped in vinegar, or
other non-inflammable substances (Vitruv. l. c.).
These coverings were called centones, and sacks
of this nature were also used for extinguishing
fires (Dig. 33, 7, 12) and for receiving the blows
of missiles discharged from engines (Caes. Bell.
Civ. ii. 9).
(d) xeX&vm épeth (Athen. de Mech. 38
Wescher), probably like (b), except that its roof
appears to have been arched, not pointed. It
seems to have been specially adapted to withstand
great weights when hurled down on the be-
siegers (Apollod. p. 138 fin. Wesch.). -
For further details on these testudines, see
Vitruvius, l.c.; Apollodorus, pp. 140 ft., 154 ft.,
Wescher; and Droysen, Griech. Kriegsalt. pp.
287 ff.
4. The name of Testudo was also applied to
the covering made by a close body of soldiers:
the soldiers of the outside rank placing their
long semi-cylindrical shaped shields (clipei,
&otríðes) in front, and the others placing their
flat shields (scuta, 6vpsoi) over their heads to
secure themselves against the darts of the enemy.
The shields fitted so closely together as to present
one unbroken surface without any insterstices
between them, and were also so firm that men
could walk upon them, and even horses and
chariots be driven over them (Dio Cass. xlix. 30).
A testudo was formed (testudinem facere) either
in battle toward off the arrows and other missiles
of the enemy (cf. Liv. x. 29, 6, 12; and phalange
facta in Caes. Bell. Gall. i. 24), or, which was
more frequently the case, to form a protection
to à. soldiers when they advanced to the walls
or gates of a town for the purpose of attacking
them (Dio Cass. l.c.; Liv. x. 43; xxxi. 39, 14;
xxxiv. 39, 6;-Caes. B. G. ii. 6; Sall. Jug.
94; Tac. Ann. xiii. 39; Hist. iii. 27, 31. See
cut annexed, taken from the Antonine Column).
*\º - wº
QNººSºlº
Sº§ Bº §ºs
º §§§
— \\\\\\\\º W -
Nº
V
2:- Szº
.” \
{ 22 - ) / 2. ſ
º **~ -->
sº lº) \ \ \ \ Q
sº- -A—As =PA---
--- sºy & Y" sº J2
Testudo of shields.
Sometimes the shields were disposed in such a
way as to make the testudo slope. The soldiers
in the first line stood upright, those in the
second stooped a little, and each line successively
was a little lower than the preceding down to
the last, where the soldiers rested on one knee.
Such a disposition of the shields was called
Fastigata testudo, on account of their sloping
like the roof of a building, kepauwró karappūrq,
trapatahatov (Polyb. xxviii. 12). The advantages
of this plan were obvious : the stones and missiles
thrown upon the shields rolled off them like
water from a roof; besides which, other soldiers
frequently advanced upon them to attack the
enemy upon the walls. The Romans were accus-
tomed to form this kind of testudo, as an
exercise, in the games of the Circus (Liv. xliv. 9;
Polyb. xxviii. 12). [W. S.] [L. C. P.]
TETRADRACHMON. [DRACHMA.]
TETRARCHA or TETRARCHES (reſpáp-
xms). This word was originally used, according
to its etymological meaning, to signify the
governor of the fourth part of a country (rerpap-
xia or retpaşapyta). We have an example in
the ancient division of Thessaly into four te-
trarchies, which was revived by Philip (Harpo-
crat. s. v. Terpapxia: Strabo, ix. p. 430; De-
mosth. Phil. iii. p. 117, § 26; Eurip. Alcest.
1154; Thirlwall's Greece, vi. pp. 13, 14; Gilbert,
Staatsalt. ii. 13). [TAGUS.] Each of the
three Gallic tribes which settled in Galatia was
divided into four tetrarchies, each ruled by a
tetrarch. [PAGUS.] (Strabo, xii. pp. 566, 567;
Plin. H. N. v. § 42.) This arrangement sub-
sisted till the later times of the Roman republic
(Appian, Mithrid. 46; Syr. 50 ; Bell. Civ. iv. 88),
but at last the twelve tetrarchs of Gallograecia
were reduced to one, namely Deiotarus (Liv. Epit.
xciv.; Cic. pro Deiot. 15; Hirtius, de Bell. Alez.
67). Some of the tribes of Syria were ruled by
tetrarchs, and several of the princes of the
house of Herod ruled in Palestine with this title





TETRASTYLOS
THARGELIA 809
(Plin. H. N. v. § 16, 19;-Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 13,
§ 1, xvii. 8, § 1, xi. 4, § 18, xvii. 11, § 1, xi. 2,
§ 2; Vit. 11; Marquardt, Staatsverw. i. 401).
In the later period of the Republic and under
the Empire, the Romans seem to have used the
title (as also those of ethnarch and phylarch) to
designate those tributary princes who were not
of sufficient importance to be called kings.
(Compare Lucan, vii. 227; Sallust, Catil. 20;
Cic. pro Mil. 28, 76, in Vatin. 12, 29; Hor. Sut.
i. 3, 12; Well. Paterc. ii. 51; Tac. Ann. xv.
25.) [P. S.]
TETRASTYLOS. [TEMPLUM.]
TETRO'BOLUS. [DRACHMA.]
TETTARACONTA, HOIGoiterrapákovra),
the Forty (Isocr. Antid. § 237; Dem. c. Pantaen.
p. 976 $ 33), one of the minor magistracies at
Athens, were also called Sucao ral karð 6%uous,
“district judges” (Id. c. Timocr. p. 735, § 112);
but except in these passages they seem only to
be mentioned by the grammarians. Their
number was originally thirty, but was increased
to forty after the expulsion of the Thirty Tyrants,
in consequence, it is said, of the hatred of the
Athenians for the number thirty (Harpocrat.,
quoting Aristotle; Suid. [in the same words];
Pollux, viii. 100). They were chosen by lot,
apparently in equal numbers from each tribe:
Demosthenes (Timocr. l. c.) speaks slightingly
of them as unimportant persons in whom no
qualification of property or ability was required.
They went on circuits through the demes (urban
as well as rural, Lips. Att. Proc. p. 91), and
decided of their own competence trivial causes
where the matter in dispute was not above the
value of ten drachmas; beyond that amount
they carried the cause before the Stavrºmtat, and
themselves acted as eioſa'yaºye's : that is, they
received the accusation, drew up the indictment,
and attended to all that was understood in Attic
law by the jºyeuovía Sukao ruptov (Poll. l. c.).
Isocrates somewhat vaguely describes those who
were brought before them as roës ºr' év roſs
iðtous trpáyugaw &öukoúvras ſcal rows wh ducatws
eyka Nobvras. The extent of their jurisdiction
in cases of aircía and r& repl rôv 8taſav (Dem.
Pantaen. l.c.) has been a matter of some dispute;
but Schömann, Teuffel (ap. Pauly, s. v. reorolapá-
acovira), and Lipsius are unquestionably right in
limiting their power of decision to “slanders
and assaults of minor importance” (nichtpeinliche
Jnjurienklagen). In aggravated or murderous
assaults, including rape [BIAION DIKE], their
office must have been that of eioraywyers. We
cannot suppose their criminal jurisdiction to
have been more extensive than their civil ; it is
not in keeping with Athenian institutions that
men who could only decide up to the amount of
ten drachmas should have tried offences which
were in many cases capital. It has been sug-
gested that in these serious cases (e.g. the
aggravated assault which forms the subject of
the speech against Conon) they acted as a jury
under the fryepaovia of the Thesmothetae; but,
as we have said elsewhere, their number was
much too small for an Athenian jury (cf. Class.
Rev. i. 15), and it is not likely that they ever
acted as Sucaorral in the ordinary sense. For
the Athenian practice of employing small courts
only in trifling cases, a Sucao Töv TAñ60s in
others, cf. Aristot. Pol. iv. 13 (16) = p. 1300 b,
23 and 32. s
Like other magistrates, they had their oravíðes
or white boards on which legal notices were
posted (Isocr. l. c.), and were responsible (öreſſ-
6vvoi) for their conduct in office. When Demo-
sthenes (Timocr. l. c.) speaks of them as having
to account for public monies, this must refer
to the court fees (rpvraveſa) deposited by the
suitors. Whether they exercised their juris-
diction jointly as a board, or in certain divisions,
is not expressly stated; but it is almost certain
that they sat by tribes, i.e. in boards of four,
and that the tribal judges rather obscurely
alluded to by Lysias (c. Pancl. § 2) and Isaeus
(ap. Harpocrat. s. v. Öri) are to be identified
with the Forty. Their connexion with the
tribes suggests that they may have been
established by Cleisthenes, though on this point
also we have no precise information. We need
not, however, understand that before his legis-
lation no cases were tried in the demes, and that
the parties were compelled to go into the city
for every little legal dispute (Schömann, p.474).
The grammarians seem sometimes to have
confused the district judges with other officers:
with demarchs (Schol. ad Aristoph. Nub. 37, cf.
Schömann, p. 474 m. ; Att. Proc. p. 53 Lipsius);
and under their older name of rpudkov'ra with
the thirty assistants of the Lexiarchi (Phot. s. v.
Tpudkov'ra: ECCLESIA, p. 698 b). The statement
of the scholiast Ulpian (on Dem. c. Mid. p. 542,
$86) as to the number of the Diaetetae has been
proved by inscriptions to be impossible as regards
that body [DIAETETAE, Vol. I., p. 621 aj;
whereas the figures given, with the slight cor-
rection of Heraldus (forav Šē reorgap&covra,
régorapes ka0° àrào rmv puxhv), are exactly applic-
able to the karū, Shuows Sukaotai (Lips. Att. Proc.
p. 91 n.). (Cf. Pollux, viii. 40; Harpocrat. s. v.
karð 6%uous 6theaaths: Lea. Seguer. pp. 306,
15, 310, 21 ; Schömann, Ant. Jur. Publ. p. 267,
10, Antiq. i. 473 f., E. T.; and esp. Att. Process,
pp. 88–93, Lipsius). [W. S.] [W. W.]
THALLO'PHORI (9aWAoqópol). [PANA-
THENAEA, p. 327 a.]
Hºs. (9aWüoria), a festival celebrated
in honour of Dionysus and Demeter (Menand.
Rhet. quoted by Meursius), or according to
others of Demeter alone, as it is described by
Theocritus in his seventh idyll, and by the
grammarians who wrote the arguments to the
same. It was held in autumn, after the harvest,
to thank the gods for the benefits they had,
conferred upon men (Spanheim ad Callimach.
Hymn. in Cer. 20 and 137; Wüstemann ad
Theocrit. Idyll. vii. 3). [L. S.]
THARGE'LIA (6apyj\ta), a festival cele-
brated at Athens on the 6th and 7th of
Thargelion (= about May 24, 25) in honour of
Apollo and Artemis (Etym. M.; Suidas, s. v.
©apyńAla), as their birthdays (cf. DELIA), or
according to the Scholiast on Aristophanes
(Equit. 729) in honour of Helios and the Horae ;
the latter statement, however, is in substance
the same as the former. The Apollo who was
honoured by this festival was the Delian Apollo,
Apollo Patrous (Athen. x. p. 424).
The Thargelia and the Delphinia were the
chief festivals of Apollo at Athens. The word
6apy fixta means generally the fruits of the earth
as derived from the sun’s heat, or else the first
fruits of the crop (Etym. M. 443). Now it was
an old custom to send an offering of corn each
810 THARGELIA
THARGELIA
year to the Delian Apollo; and when Apollo
was adopted by the Athenians into the circle of
their divinities, the offering still continued.
This was doubtless the nucleus of the festival.
The first act was the sacrifice of a sheep on
the 6th to Demeter Chloe (Schol. on Soph. Oed.
Col. 1600), who appears to have had a temple
on the Acropolis (Schol. on Aristoph. Lys. 835).
It is an error to suppose that this is the XAóeia,
and that the latter festival was held on the 6th
of Thargelion (= about May 24th); for the
corn was not green in Thargelion; nor can that
month be called repl to Éap, which is the time
specified by Cornutus for the Chloea (repl ro tap
Aftwmtpu XAómv 960wori, Nat. Deor. 28), for Diony-
sius (i. 63) mentions the 23rd of Thargelion as
occurring towards the end of summer. Then
followed still on the sixth a great purificatory
sacrifice (Plut. Symp. viii. 1, 2 = 717 Reiske;
Diog. Laërt. ii. 44; Harpocrat. s. v. pappakós).
The manner in which this purification was
effected is very extraordinary and certainly a
remnant of very ancient rites, for two persons
were put to death on that day, and the one died
on behalf of the men and the other on behalf of
the women of Athens. The name by which
these victims were designated was 0.58akxot
(Hellad. ap. Phot. 534) or more usually pappuiākot
(in Ionic, as always in Hipponax, papuākot: cf.
Bergk, Lyr. Graec. ii. p. 462): according to
some accounts both of them were men, but
according to others the one who died on behalf of
the women was a woman and the other a man
(Hesych. s. v. Papuakot). On the day when the
sacrifice was to be performed the victims were
led to the different temples of Apollo in the city,
—to those of Apollo Patrous, Delphinius, and
Pythius (cf. Mommsen, Heort. p. 421), and
afterwards out of the city to a place near the
sea, with the accompaniment of a peculiar
melody, called kpačíms vôpos, played on the flute
(Hesych. s. v.). [Schömann (Griech. Alterthümer,
ii. 456), however, says the kpaëſms vówos does
not apply to this: cf. Plut. de Musica, 1133.]
The neck of the one who died for the men was
surrounded with a garland of black figs, that of
the other with a garland of white ones; and
while they were proceeding to the place of their
destiny, they were beaten with rods of fig-wood,
and figs and other things were thrown at them.
Cheese, figs, and cake were put into their hands
that they might eat them. They were at last
burnt on a funeral pile made of wild fig-wood,
and their ashes were thrown into the sea and
scattered to the winds (Tzetzes, Chil. v. 726).
Some writers maintain that they were thrown
into the sea alive, as at Leucas (cf. Strabo, x.
452), but the matter is very uncertain. We are
not informed whether this expiatory and puri-
fying sacrifice was offered regularly every year,
but from the name of the victims (pappakol) as
well as from the whole account of Tzetzes, which
is founded on good authorities, it appears highly
probable that an actual sacrifice only took place
in case of a heavy calamity having befallen the
city (vooroúams ris tróNews), such as the plague,
a famine, &c.; and that in ordinary times (cf.
Müller, Dorians, i. 329) the solemnity was
merely formal. Schömann (op. cit. ii. 254,456)
is of opinion that the victims were condemned
criminals: but while there is no evidence for the
statement, there is an a priori improbability
that a sin offering would be made of those whose
lives were forfeit in any case. Tzetzes (l.c.)
says the victim was Tov travtov &pop párepov (a
very Greek idea), and Schol. on Aristoph. Ran.
733 says they were rows patſaovs kal trapá ràs
qāorea’s étrigouxevouévows, i.e. deformed. At
Massilia a somewhat similar solemnity was almost
certainly formal. One of the poorer classes
voluntarily gave himself up to be supported for
a year; after which time he was clad in sacred
garments, led through the city with execrations.
heaped on him, and thus bearing as was supposed
all the ills of the state was cast out beyond the
boundaries (Petron. ap. Serv. on Verg. Aen. iii.
57). What persons were chosen as victims on
such occasions is not mentioned, and we only
learn from Suidas (s. v. Papuakol) that they
were kept at the public expense (ömuogíg
Tpe påuevo).
On the second day of the Thargelia, the 7th,
there was offered a thank-offering to the Sun-
god; and, as at the Pyanepsia, the children bore
about branches of olive, bound with wool, called
eipegióval, which they finally hung up before the
doors (Schol. Aristoph. Eq. 729 ; Plut. 1054).
Porphyrius (Abstin. ii. 7) gives a long list of
matural and artificial products which were
offered on this day to Helios and the Horae.
beginning with the moist earth (iXús), from
which all things spring (cf. Hermann, Gottesd.
Alt. § 60, 8). The second day of the Thargelia
was also solemnised with a procession, and an
agon which consisted of a cyclic chorus performed
by men and boys at the expense of a choragus
(Lysias, de Muner. accept. § 1 ; Antiphon. de
Choreut. §§ 11, 12, 13; C. J. G. 213). At the
Thargelia each choragus had two tribes allotted
to him, out of which he was to supply a chorus.
(Antiph. l.c.; Schol. on Dem. Lept. 465, § 27).
The prize of the victor was a tripod, which he
was required to dedicate in the Temple of
Apollo which had been built by Peisistratus
(Suidas, s. v. II69iov). At the assembly of the
Thargelia crowns were proclaimed (Law ap.
Dem. Mid. 517, § 10). The Archon Eponymus.
and his étriplexmiral had the management of the
festival (Poll. viii. 89). On this day it was
customary for persons who were adopted into a
family to be solemnly registered and received
into the gens and the phratria of the adoptive
parents. This solemnity was the same as that
of registering one’s own children at the Apaturia
(Isaeus, de Apollod. hered. c. 15). [ADOPTIO:
(Greek).]
Respecting the origin of the Thargelia, theme
are two accounts. According to lstrus (ap.
Phot. Lew. p. 467; Etym. M., and Harpocrat.
s. v. Papuakos) the papaakol derived their name
from a man páppiakos, who, having stolen the
sacred phials of Apollo and being discovered
by the men of Achilles, was stoned to death,
and this event was commemorated by the awful
sacrifice at the Thargelia. Helladius (l.c.), on
the other hand, states that at first these ex-
piatory sacrifices were offered for the purpose
of purifying the city of contagious diseases, as
the Athenians after the death of the Cretan
Androgeus were visited by the plague: and there
certainly was some connexion between the Del-
phinia and the Theseus-legend (Mommsen, op.
cit. 421, note; Preller, Griech. Myth. i. 209).
But probably this expiatory sacrifice was
THEATRUM
THEATRUM 81 A
appointed by Epimenides; for we know (Diog.
Laërt. i. 110) that at his suggestion two youths,
Cratinus and Ctesibius, were put to death and a
plague was stayed. (See Meursius, Graecia
Aeriata, s. v. OapyńAla: Bode, Gesch. der lyrisch.
Dichtkunst der Hellen. i. p. 173, &c., where an
account is also given of the kpaôins vôpos :
K. F. Hermann, Handb.der Gottesd. Alterth. § 60,
m. 4; Preller, Griechische Mythologie, i. 209;
455–6; A. Mommsen, Heortologic der Athene'.
50, 53,414–425.) [L. S.] [L. C. P.]
THEATRUM. As the Greek drama Sprang:
from the choral dances round the altar of
Dionysus, so the architectural form of the Greek
theatre was developed from the circular dancing-
place, the épxharpa. At first there was no
chorus distinct from the general body of wor-
shippers, all of whom were free to join in the
*rm
Schömann, Griechische Alterthümer, ii. 254, dance. As soon as a regular Chorus was insti-
** p Acro Poºl; – STS-
** * _j^. ºn *~ * *
se”. tº
*::f 24 v-, ºx - º
- / º ſpp wº .* 7; N.'s S-/4
*..., % º º § ~4%
g" ***.
º ‘W,
* & %
... • *
º º ŽZ/.
% º
ww.
%
% º
{}
%\% Žº
*A* - 2.
\ \a %%
&
©ºz.
%
º
%
* %
%W 7/7ZZºZº. º
£4%. º
:
frºm
%
|FL
% wº
%
* * *
º
* * -
* *s
* ~ *
* *
--
I
º
º55
t
&
T
zº
A3
tº t e º ſº º 'º º 'º
%
# *
N ? N \ à ^n
-‘’s sº ) N . à k
- .e." ** ~!
\ p
º
- // º
;
§
Priºr 0.
!..."---...s.º.1.1.1.4
p
2.
3. *Ya Ros
Fig. 1. Dionysiac Theatre.
tuted, it became necessary to reserve a circular
space of ground for it. A ring of stones sufficed
to mark off this circle. The altar of Dionysus
was placed at its centre. The spectators stood
around it, and watched the dance. So long as
the dramatic element was limited to a dialogue
between the Chorus and one actor, that person
could stand on a raised place in the middle of the
Chorus, and address himself to various points of
the circle in turn. But when Aeschylus added
a second actor, it became necessary that the
actors should play towards some one side. It
was no longer possible that the spectators should
form a complete circle. They were now ar-
ranged in a semicircle, or something like it.
But the whole circle of the dancing-place was
still, as of old, kept clear for the Chorus. The
actors stood facing the spectators, not within
the circle of the dancing-place, but on the
further side of it. Behind them was the, tent






























‘812
THEATRUM
THEATRUM
or booth (orkmwh) in which they dressed. It was
an easy improvement to conceal this tent from
the spectators by a wooden screen, which could
represent the front of a house, or such other
background as suited the play. This screen was
the trpookhviov—that which masked the armvil.
In the matured theatre the term was retained,
though its primitive sense may have been for-
gotten. The “proscenium ” was the background
visible to the audience, whether this was a tem-
porary wooden structure, or, as in later times, a
permanent wall. Then a knvh came to demote
that part of the theatre which belonged to the
actors, as distinguished from 0pxhortpa, the
place of the Chorus. Thus the koupids, a lyric
dialogue between Chorus and actor, is defined by
Aristotle as 6påvos kolvös xopod kai &rb orcmvās
(Poet. 12): and he uses the phrase étrl orcmvils
where we should say, “on the stage” (ib. 24).
The oldest theatre of which we have any
knowledge is the Dionysiac theatre at Athens.
it has generally been supposed that a permanent
stone theatre existed in the Aſhvatov, or precinct
of Dionysus, from the early years of the 5th
cent. B.C. This belief rested on a passage in
Suidas (s. v. IIpattvas). He states that “in the
70th Olympiad " (500–496 B.C.) Pratinas was
exhibiting tragedy, in competition with Choe-
Irilus and Aeschylus, when “the wooden benches
(tºpia) on which the spectators were standing
happened to fall; and, in consequence of this (ék
Toºrov), a theatre was built.” But the history
of the Dionysiac theatre has been placed in a
mew light by the recent researches of the Ger-
man Archaeological Institute at Athens. The
excavations, begun in 1886, have yielded the
following results, according to Dr. W. Dörpfeld:
—(1) In the 5th cent. B.C., and down to about
330 B.C., the precinct contained me permanent
building for scenic purposes. There were in it
two temples of Dionysus (Fig. 1, D, E), both to
the south of the present theatre.
these (D), which was the more northerly, dated
from a time before Peisistratus. Close to it, on
the N.E., was a circular épxhorrpa, about 78 feet
in diameter, of which traces have been found
under the buildings erected by Lycurgus. This
Öpxhoºrpa was then the only permanent provision
for drama. All scenery, therefore, was tempo-
rary; and the spectators sat on wooden benches.
It is observed that Andocides, in the speech on
the Mysteries (399 B.C.), speaks of the conspira-
tors whom he observed within the precinct of
i)ionysus as āro roo gåetov karaśaivoviras eis
Tiju äpxhoºrpav, not eis to 9éarpov (§ 38): and
‘the latter word, when used by Aristophanes,
'always means “the spectators.” (2) The first
permanent building for drama in the A#vatov
was that completed by Lycurgus, about 330 B.C.
It consisted of a stone wall with two small
wings, like towers, projecting from it on right
and left (A, A); the length of the wall between
them was about 65 ft. 7 in. The temporary
decorations (of wood, with linen hangings) were
erected in front of this wall, and supported by
the wings. Behind the wall was an oblong
‘room, extending somewhat beyond the wings,
and serving for the use of the actors. A portico
(C,C), opening on the precinct of Dionysus, ran
along the south side of it. The new orchestra
was to the north of this building. Dr. Dörpfeld
supposes that it formed, like the older one, a
The older of .
complete circle, and that there was no raised
stage; the actors stood on the same level with
the Chorus. Rows of stone seats for the spec-
tators were now constructed. After the time of
Lycurgus no change, except of detail, took place
in the auditorium. (3) At some later date,
which cannot be fixed, a permanent stone
proscenium (B), adorned with columns, and
about 10 or 12 ft. high, was built in front of
the wall with projecting wings which Lycurgus
had erected. As the wings no longer served a
practical purpose (in supporting the temporary
scenery), they were annexed to the new pro-
scenium, a part being cut off the front of each,
so as to bring them more nearly into line with
it. (4) An architrave-inscription found in the
theatre shows that it was modified and em-
bellished in the reign of “Claudius,” by whom
Nero seems to be meant. It was probably at
this time that the orchestra received its present
pavement of Pentelic and Hymettos marble; the
significance of the diamond-shaped figure traced
in the centre is uncertain. To this period also
is referred the erection of a raised stage, Sup-
ported in front by a sculptured wall. (5) The
latest recorded changes in the Dionysiac theatre
are associated with the name of a certain
Phaedrus, and took place probably in the 3rd
cent. (C. I. A. iii. 239). To these belong the
existing front wall of the stage, adorned with
sculpture of an earlier period; also the balus-
trade which now separates the auditorium from
the orchestra, and the partial covering of the
orchestra-canal with marble flags.
It is maintained by Dr. Dörpfeld that, not
only in the Dionysiac theatre, but in all theatres
of the Greek type, the actors stood on the same
level with the Chorus; a stage raised above the
•orchestra was a Roman invention; and where
such a stage occurs in a theatre of Greek origin,
it is a later addition, made under Roman in-
fluence. The Roman raised stage, he thinks,
was developed, when a Chorus was no longer
used, by depressing the level of the circular
orchestra in that part of it—the part furthest
from the actors—where the Chorus formerly
stood. This startling theory is based chiefly on
the nature of the proscenium as it appears in
the remains of some Greek theatres. The theatre
of Epidaurus (Fig. 2), built about the middle
of the 4th century B.C., is the best-preserved
example of the Greek type; excavations have
lately been made in it by the Greek Archaeo-
logical Society (1883).
The orchestra forms a complete circle, defined
by a ring of flat stones. Beyond this circle, on
the side furthest from the audience, are remains
of a wall, about 12 ft. high, adorned with Ionic
half-columns, and flanked by slightly projecting
wings; there was one door in it, at the middle
point. This wall must have been either the
background of the scene, or the front of a raised
stage. It is argued that it must have been the
background, because (a) 12 ft. would be too
great a height for a stage; (b) the width of the
stage—about 8 ft.—would have been too small;
(c) there is no trace of steps leading from the
top of the wall to the orchestra. A similar wall
occurs in the theatre at Oropus, and is iden-
tified as the trpookhviov by an inscription which
it bears. The theatre in the Peiraeus affords
another example. -
THEATRUM
THEATRUM 813.
On the other hand, several considerations tell
in favour of the received view, that Greek actors,
at every period, had a raised stage.
statement of the architect Vitruvius, who wrote
about 20 A.D., is decisive, so far as the Roman
period is concerned. He states that the Greek
theatre had a raised stage, about 10 or 12 ft.
high, but narrower than the Roman ; the
Greeks, he says, called it Aoyeſov. Vitruvius
uses the word proscaenium to describe this stage;
and the same use of the term occurs in other
writers, both Roman and Greek (cf. A. Müller,
Gr. Bühnenalterthümer, p. 54, n. 2). Dr. Dörp-
feld is therefore reduced to assuming that Vitru.
vius has made a mistake, -confusing the back-
ground of the scene in a Greek theatre with the
front of a raised stage. But it is absurd to sup-
pose that Vitruvius should have made such a
blunder about the Greek theatres of his own day;
and that, having accurately described a raised
go 30 40
i L i
stage which did not exist, he should also have
invented a name for it, Aoyeſov. (2) The theatre:
(1) The
at Megalopolis in Arcadia has just been exca-
wated by members of the British School at
Athens (see an account by Mr. W. Loring in the
Report of the School for 1890). The date of
the theatre may be placed in the second half
of the 4th century B.C. Here there is a raised
stage, of which the height was originally about
6 ft., and the width about 18 ft. A flight of
steps, extending from end to end of it, led down
to the orchestra. That it was a stage, and not
a background, is proved (a) by these steps, (b)
by the fact that access was given to it by three.
doors in the wall behind it. There is no reason,
to doubt that this stage is of the same date as
the auditorium. A later Roman stage has been
found in front of it. By this example, then, the
existence of a raised stage in a Greek theatre
of the 4th century B.C. is placed beyond doubt.
STEPs
50 YARDS
Fig. 2. Theatre at Epidaurus.
(3) With regard to the 5th century B.C., it
was not to be expected that any remains of a
raised stage should be found ; temporary wooden
structures would leave no trace. The Greek
plays do not supply any literary evidence which
can be deemed conclusive. There are some pas-
sages which indicate that the place where the
actors stood was accessible to the Chorus (e.g.
Soph. Oed. Col. 836 ft.);-as would be the case,
if we supposed a stage with steps leading up
to it, as at Megalopolis. Among the passages
which seem to imply a raised stage, we may
notice Ar. Vesp. 1514, where Philocleon says,
&rap katabaréov Y' éir' airrots. This may,
indeed, be rendered, “I must enter the lists
against them; ” but it also implies some
change of position, more marked than such as
would consist in moving merely from one spot
in the orchestra to another, and would be most
naturally explained by a descent into the or-
chestra from the stage. Some vases of Lower
Italy, referable to the period 300–100 B.C.,.
depict scenes from the Old Attic Comedy acted
on a raised Aoyeſov (cf. Baumeister, Denkm.
pp. 1750 ft.). Plato (Symp. p. 194 A) speaks of
the tragic poet Agathon as āva 6aívovros étrº
ôkpí8avra wetā Tāv Štrokpitóv. This probably
refers, not to a performance in the theatre,
but to the trpoćyov (TRAGOEDIA: cf. A. Müller,
p. 365, n. 3). Still, it shows that the idea of
placing actors on a raised platform was familiar
to Athenians of the 5th century B.C. Even in
the days before Thespis, when one member of
the Chorus held a dialogue with the rest, he
was mounted, we are told, on a kind of table
(éAeós: Pollux, iv. 123). A recent writer
suggests that the source of this story may have
been a Comedy in which the beginnings of
Tragedy were burlesqued (Hiller, Rhein. Museum,
xxxix. p. 329). If this were so, it would only
show that some sort of raised stage was con-
ceived as necessary for even the most primitive

$14 THEATRUM
THEATRUM
form of drama. Lastly, there is a strong a
priori objection to the theory that actors and
Chorus stood on the same level.
were usually drawn up in ranks facing the
actors. With his cothurnus and mask, a tragic
actor would still not overtop the Chorus by
more than a head. Hence, a view of the actors
would have almost been wholly denied to spec-
tators whose seats were in the middle part of the
lowest row. But those were the seats assigned
to the most distinguished persons. This argu-
ment cannot be met by saying, as Dr. Dörpfeld
does, that the Chorus was “usually ” divided
into huixópia (leaving the actors visible between
the two groups). Such an arrangement was not
usual, but very exceptional. It may be allowed
that, when the stage came to be as high as 12 ft.,
permanent means of communication between
stage and orchestra cannot have existed, though
temporary wooden steps might be employed at
need. But before stages of that height came
into use, such communication had ceased to be
The Chorus
requisite, since the Chorus had no longer an
active part in drama.
Vitruvius gives the ground-plan of a Greek
theatre as follows. Describe a circle for the
orchestra, and in it inscribe three squares. One
side of one of these squares will represent the
front line of the stage (A B). A parallel tangent
to the circle will be the back wall of the stage
(C D). The stage (pulpitum, Aoyetov) must be
not less than 10, or more than 12 feet high.
Next, parallel with A B, draw a diameter of the
circle, E F. It will-be seen in the diagram that
at E and F the semicircle is so continued as to
make a horse-shoe, ending at G H. The curves
which thus continue it are segments of circles
described from E. and F as respective centres,
} with E F as radius. This is known as “ the
construction from three centres,” viz., E, F, and
the centre of the orchestra. The auditorium is
shut in by lines which bisect the right angles
at I and K. The space between G H and C D is a
raised stage.
Fig. 3. Greek Theatre of Vitruvius.
The 4th century B.C. was the period at which
stone theatres became usual in Greece. We may
now proceed to consider their characteristics
more in detail. - -
The 3pxhoºrpa—It has been seen that, even
in the matured theatre, the “dancing-place "was
still a complete circle, as in the old days of the
cyclic choruses. Its central point was sometimes
marked, either by a small pit (as at the
Peiraeus), or by a stone (as at Epidaurus).
Such marks probably indicate the spot on which
the altar of Dionysus was to be placed. The
word 6ouéAm, “a place of sacrifice,” means in
classical poetry either “a shrine,” or, more
specifically, “an altar.” Lexicographers and
scholiasts often mention a 6vuéºn in connexion
with the theatre; but they do not agree as to
what it was, nor do they furnish any certain
clue. The most probable conclusion is that the
99péAn was the altar of Dionysus, in the centre
of the orchestra. Another view is that the name
buwéAn was transferred from the altar to a
platform in the orchestra on which the altar was
placed, and that this platform was the station
of the Chorus, -connected by steps with the
lower level of the orchestra (kovſo Tpa) and with
the higher level of the stage (Aoyeſov). It
is true that the use of 69puéAm to denote a
kind of stage was current in later times, when
thymelici, “music-hall artists,” were distin-
guished from actors proper (Isidore, Orig. xviii.
47). But this use arose under Roman influences,
and cannot be assumed for the Greece of the
5th or 4th century B.C. A channel, to carry off
rain-water, often surrounded the orchestra, being
bridged by stones at the points from which the
stairways led up to the seats.
The Auditorium.—In default of a special term
like cavea, this is sometimes called 9éarpov :
though that word, when it does not mean the
whole building, more often denotes the spectators
(as we speak of “the house”). In the older
Greek theatres the public-entered by the side-
passages (trópoãot) between the proscenium and
the orchestra, the same which the Chorus used.
Sometimes, indeed, we find an alternative mode
of access, viz. by a path traversing high ground,
and leading directly to one of the upper tiers:

THEATRUM
THEATRUM 815
this was the case at Athens, but it was excep-
tional. A crowd entering by the trapobot would
find the pressure greatest at the mouths of the
semicircular passage between the orchestra and
the lowest row of seats, before the spectators
had distributed themselves to the several parts of
the house. This fact helps to explain a pecu-
liarity of construction. The lowest row of seats
is not, as a rule, completely concentric with the
orchestra, but is usually so contrived as to leave
a wider space at the points just mentioned. . A
further advantage of this arrangement was that
fit afforded a better view to those who sat at each
end of the semicircle.
Flights of steps ascending from the orchestra
to the highest tier of seats divided the audi-
ſtorium into wedge-like segments. The Greek
word for such a segment was kepkts, which
properly meant “radius; ” the Latin term was
cuneus. A further division into upper and lower
zones was effected by passages called Staſºuata,
“girdles” (praecinctiones), which ran completely
round the semicircle. At Epidaurus there is
only one Suágoua, which is not half-way be-
tween the lowest and highest tier, but nearer
to the latter ; and, while the lower zone (be-
tween the 6td (wpua and the orchestra) is divided
into only twelve kepktöes, the upper contains
twenty-two. At Athens only one 6téopia can
now be traced, but there may have been another:
the number of kepkiöes is thirteen. The word
6td. Copa can denote, not only the passage itself,
Łut the zone which it marks off: thus “the
eleventh row in the upper zone" is expressed by
To ºv6ékarov Too Sevrépov 6taſöuatos Báðpov
(C. I. G. 4283). §§vi) is also used in that sense.
Above the highest tier, another open passage ran
Found the house. The term irpia properly
denoted the wooden benches on which, in the
earlier times, the spectators sat (cf. Ar. Ach.
24 f. : &arriouvrat ... trepi trpátov ŠtſNov). When
stone seats were introduced,—which at Athens
does not appear to have occurred before the time
of Lycurgus (c. 330 B.C.), such seats were
founded, where it was possible, on the natural
rock of the slope. At Athens, as at Megalopolis,
artificial substructions were requinºd in several
parts, and this must almost everywhere have
been the case, more or less. The material used
for the seats varied much. Sometimes it is marble,
as at Iassus in Caria and Perga in Pamphylia ;
at Athens and in the Peiraeus, it is (for the
ordinary seats) a white limestone, finely wrought ;
while the smaller provincial theatres were often
content with coarser stone and workmanship.
The tiers of seats were called 8360a or āvagabuot.
At Athens the space allotted to one person was
indicated merely by a line engraved on the stone
(as at Sparta by a groove): it is described as
göpa, rátros, x&pa, xoptov, or simply 6éa (6éav
&yopd(eiv, kataAgubduelv).
The privilege of irpoeëpta in the theatre was
given chiefly to four classes of persons: (1) certain
priests and priestesses, among whom the priest of
Dionysus was foremost ; (2) certain magistrates:
(3) foreigners who were honoured in an official
character, as Tpéggets or 9eapot : (4) citizens or
foreigners who were honoured in their personal
capacity, as benefactors of the state. For such
persons special seats were provided, like arm-
chairs, called 6póvot or ka0éðpal. At Athens
these chairs, made of Pentelic marble, occupy
the whole of the lowest row, while others are
placed in different parts of the house, though in no
case higher up than the twenty-fourth row ; those
assigned to priests or officials bear their titles;
thus the central chair of the semicircle is in-
scribed, 1 EPEQX AIONYXOY EAEYG) E-
PEQ2. According to one recent view, the
chairs in the lowest row date from the time of
Lycurgus ; it has more generally been supposed
that all these chairs are of the Roman age, as
all the present inscriptions certainly are. At
Epidaurus several rows of seats with backs and
arms were assigned to those who enjoyed
Tpoeëpia. Elaborate ornament was often
applied to such chairs, the feet being shaped
like lion's claws, the front or back carved with
mythical subjects in relief, etc.
The acoustic properties of a Greek theatre
would be naturally good, since the actors had a
high wall behind them and a rising slope in front.
Vitruvius, indeed, says that artificial aid was
sought from “brazen vessels,” “which the Greeks
call hyeta,” so placed in the auditorium as to re-
verberate the voices of the actors. He even speaks
of these “resonators” as being nicely adapted to
the required musical pitch (ii. 1, 9). The theatre
at Aizani in Cilicia has a series of niches above
the 6tá(oua: and similar niches exist elsewhere.
According to one view, these niches held the
#xeſa, while another connects them merely with
the substructions of seats. The statement of
Vitruvius leaves no doubt that hyeſia were used,
at least sometimes, in the theatres of his own
day: but it remains uncertain whether such a
device was employed by the Greeks of an earlier
time.
The outer wall enclosing the auditorium
ordinarily followed the curve of the semicircle,
unless the nature of the ground caused some
‘deviation. At Athens the auditorium was partly
bounded on the N. by the steep rock of the
Acropolis, while the rest of its boundary was
formed by strong walls of conglomerate. Where
the external appearance of these walls became
important, viz. in the S. and S.W. portions, they
were cased with finely-wrought Jimestone. The
general outline at Athens was that of a large
segment of a circle, described from a centre
considerably N. of the point which served as
centre of the orchestra : for a small distance at
the S.W. corner the curve passed into a straight
line. Examples also occur in which the walls
enclosing the auditorium were rectangular, as
at Cnidus, and in the smaller theatre at Pompeii.
The walls flanking the seats at each end of the
semicircle were either carried in a single sloping
line from the topmost tier to the orchestra, or
built in a series of steps corresponding with the
tiers. In the best Greek period such walls were
not exactly parallel with the line of the pro-
scenium, but started inwards a little, towards
the centre of the orchestra. This was the case at
Athens and at Epidaurus.
Scenic Decoration.—The testimonies on this
subject are of two classes. (1) Notices in writers
chiefly belonging to the Roman age, especially
lexicographers and scholiasts. Among these the
most important is the grammarian Julius Pollux
(flor. 170 A.D.), in his Onomasticon, book iv.,
sections 128–132 (repi Štrokpuráv aſkevils). As
has lately been shown by Rohde (De Iulii
Pollucis in apparatu Scaenico enarrando fontibus,
816
THEATRUM
THEATRUM
Leipsic, 1870), the source principally used by
Pollux was a work by Juba, a writer of the
later Alexandrian age, entitled Oeatpukh ioTopia,
in at least seventeen books ; while Juba, in his
turn, had sources going back to Aristophanes of
Byzantium (200 B.C.), but not further. The
besetting fault of Pollux, in abridging from this
ample material, seems to have been an omission
to distinguish between the normal and the occa-
sional resources of the stage. (2) The second
kind of evidence is that derived from the Greek
dramatic texts themselves. This source, scanty
as it is, is the principal one on which we have
to rely in regard to the practice of the 5th and
4th centuries B.C. Not long ago it was the
custom to treat the notices in Pollux and the
other late authorities as if they could be applied
without reserve to the great age of Athenian
Tragedy and Comedy. A more critical study has
shown the need of greater caution in this respect.
It is not difficult to suppose that, when dramatic
poetry had culminated, the art of seemic decora-
tion may still have been very rude, while it is
probable that much of the apparatus described
by late writers had its origin under the Diadochi
or the Empire. The history of our own stage
could show a similar course, from the triumphs
of poetry to those of mechanism.
In the extant plays of Aeschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, and Aristophanes, the action most
often takes place in front of a house, with
a “practicable ’ door; sometimes in front of a
temple, a cottage, a tent, a cave, or a rock.
Painted linen hangings, erected on a wooden
frame, would have sufficed for such a background.
Aristotle, in sketching the growth of Tragedy,
says that Aeschylus added the second actor, and
made the dialogue predominate over the choral
part, while Sophocles introduced the third actor
and the use of scene-painting (orkmwo-ypaqia).
Now, this last fact must have stood out clearly
in Athenian tradition, which Aristotle had every
means of knowing, when he thus coupled it with
the other novelty as an invention distinctive of
Sophocles. It is usually assumed, even by recent
writers, that Aristotle is here irreconcilable with
Vitruvius, who ascribes the introduction of
scene-painting to Aeschylus. Such an assump-
tion is not, we think, necessary. The words of
Vitruvius (vii. praef. 11) are: “primum Agath-
archus Athenis, Aeschylo docente tragoédiam,
scaenam fecit et de ea commentarium reliquit : ”
and he then goes on to say how the stimulus
given by Agatharchus led Democritus and
Anaxagoras to develop principles of perspective.
The phrase, “while Aeschylus was exhibiting
tragedy,” merely describes Aeschylus as con-
temporary with the innovation. Sophocles first
exhibited in 468 B.C., twelve years before the
death of Aeschylus. Aristotle and Vitruvius
are reconciled if we suppose that Sophocles
introduced a knvoypaqta in the early days of his
career ; a fact which will also help us to under-
stand why that improvement was peculiarly
associated with his name. Even before Agath-
archus had made a beginning of artistic O'Knvo-
ºpaqſa, some ruder kind of drawing may have
been used. Thus in the Persae of Aeschylus
(472 B.C.) the palace was probably indicated.
In the ſon of Euripides (circ. 421 B.C.), where
the scene is laid at Delphi, the Chorus of
Athenian maidens point with admiration to the
sculptures which adorn the front of the temple.
We may suppose that some representation of
these, though not perhaps a very elaborate one,
appeared on the proscenium.
With regard to “massive ’ decoration, as
distinguished from a painted background, the
objects required by the texts are simple, such
as altars, statues of gods or heroes, rocks, and
seats. But the texts further prove that certain
mechanical appliances were available at need.
(1) The ékkökxmpa was a small movable stage
on wheels, which could be rolled forward
through the door in the proscenium. There
was room on it for three or four persons, and
it was low enough to allow of an actor stepping
off it with ease. The most frequent use of
the ékkūkxmua was when the corpse of a
person slain within the house was to be
shown to the audience,—sometimes with the
murderer standing beside it. The moment at
which the ékkökxmpia was pushed forward is.
often, though not always, marked in the text by
a reference to the opening of the door. Ex-
amples are :—in Aesch. Ag., Clytaemnestra is
thus shown standing by the corpses of Agamem-
non and Cassandra ; in Cho., Orestes with the
corpses of Aegisthus and Clytaemnestra: in Soph.
1.7., Orestes and Pylades with the corpse of Cly-
taemnestra; in Ant., the corpse of Eurydice: in
Eur. Iſere. Furens, Heracles with the corpses of
his wife and children ; in Hippol., the corpse of
Phaedra. But this was not the only case in
which the appliance was used : it could also be
employed for any tableau in the interior of a
house. Thus in Aesch. Eum. the Pythia speaks.
the prologue in front of the temple, and then the
ékicökAmua is used to show Orestes at the
on phalos within. Similarly in Soph. Ai., when
Tecmessa opens the tent, this machine serves to
display Ajax prostrate amid the slaughtered
cattle. As appears from some passages, the
ēkkök Amua could be pushed far enough forward
to admit of an actor entering, or making his
exit, at the door behind it. It should be noted
that the use of the ékköncamua is not merely an
inference from later writers and from hints in
Tragedy, but is proved by the two parodies in
Aristophanes, where Euripides and Agathon are
wheeled out, and are then once more withdrawn
from view (Ach. 408 ft., ákkukAñ0mt’. . . Škkv-
KAñoropat : Thesm. 265, ČakvicAmodºro). The
exact nature of the éé%arpa is uncertain, but it
was evidently akin to the éickūkānua, differing
from it, possibly, only in the mode of propulsion.
(2) Machinery for showing persons, in the air
was required by the appearances of the gods,
and in some other cases, as when Medea is seen
above the palace in the chariot given to her by
the Sun (Eur, Med. 1319), or when Trygaeus.
soars aloft on his beetle (Aristoph. Paw, 80).
Two different contrivances seem to have been
used : both were, of course, concealed by the
proscenium. One was an apparatus worked by
a wheel (Tpoxbs) and ropes (aiapaſ), and called
aid.pnga, -which was used when the person was
to be seen gradually rising into the air, or
descending from above. As Trygaeus rises into
the air, he begs the operator to be careful :
6 p.mxavoiroté, trpáo exe Töv votiv ć's égé (Aristoph.
Paar, 174). So in fragment 3 of the Daedalus
the machinist is thus directed,—ó amxavotroiás,
6Tóte BoüAel roy Tpoxov | éAáv &vekös, Aéye,
THEATRUM
THEATRUM 817
xa?pe, p 6 yºyo six to v. The other device was
a sort of platform, projecting from the wings at
the back of the proscenium, close to its upper
edge. This was the so-called 9eoAoyeſov, used
when the apparition of a god or hero was to be
sudden, as it is in Soph. Phil., and in Eur. I. T.,
Helen., Suppl. The ºpepºd.0pa in which Socrates
is suspended (Aristoph. Nub. 218) is a burlesque
of the tragic appliances. (3) Akin to the
6eoAoyeſov must have been the contrivance used
when a person is to appear on the roof of a
palace (as the watcher in Aesch. Ag. : Antigone
and the paedagogus in Eur. Phoen., etc.). A
wooden platform, high up behind the proscenium,
would have sufficed: according to Pollux, it was
called a Storreyſa.
These seem to be the only forms of decoration
or mechanism which can certainly be inferred
from the texts of the tragedians and of Aristo-
phanes. They are all compatible with a tempo-
rary wooden structure, and with a comparatively
simple phase of scenic art. When, in the course
of the 4th century B.C., permanent stone theatres
became usual in Greek lands, the general
character of scenic decoration was perhaps not
at first affected thereby. Behind the proscenium
there was now a permanent wall, forming the
front of the building assigned to the actors.
But the proscenium itself probably continued,
for a time, to be temporary, a wooden structure,
with painted hangings. In the Dionysiac theatre,
as Lycurgus left it, two small tower-like wings
#Project from each end of the permanent back
wall. These, it is conjectured, were designed to
facilitate the erection of the wooden proscenium.
It may have been at this period that trepſaktot
were first introduced. These were triangular
wooden prisms, revolving on a pivot (whence
the name), with scenery painted on each of their
three faces. One Treptaicros was placed at the
left wing, and another at the right. They took
the place of modern side-scenes, and also served
to indicate changes of scene, according to a
regular conventional method. The treptakros on
the spectator's right hand represented the
locality in which the action was taking place.
The trepſaktos on his left hand represented a
region outside of that locality. If, for instance,
the scene of the play was laid at Delphi, the
right-hand treptakºros would illustrate that
place, while the other might represent the road
leading to Athens. The same rule governed
entrances and exits : a Delphian would come on
from the right, a stranger from the left. If the
scene was to be changed from one spot near
Delphi to another in the same vicinity, the left-
hand treptakros would be turned so as to present
a new face, but the right-hand one would be
left unaltered. If the scene was shifted from
Delphi to Athens, both Treptaicrot would be
turned. The first case was technically a change
of Tóros: the second, of x&pa.
There are only two Greek plays in which it is
necessary to assume a change of scene. In the
Eumenides the action is transferred from Delphi
to Athens: in the Ajaw, from the front of the
hero's tent to a lonely place on the sea-shore. It
is probable that, in the first of these examples,
the change was merely symbolised, by substitut-
ing the 8péras of Athena for a statue of Apollo;
while the building painted on the background
was identified, first with the Delphian temple,
WOL. II.
and then with the Erechtheum. In the second
example, if the background was a landscape,
nothing was required but to remove the hangings
which represented the tent. The use of trepiaktot
in the 5th century B.C. cannot be proved from
the dramatic literature. On the other hand,
they would have been found peculiarly convenient
when the old wooden proscenia, with painted
hangings, were replaced by stone proscenia
adorned with sculpture. At Epidaurus there is
such a proscenium, with Ionic half-columns,
which is probably of a later date than the rest
of the building; and the small wings which
slightly project from it at each end may have
served, according to a probable conjecture, for
the reception of treptaictou. In the Dionysiac
theatre a permanent proscenium was similarly
introduced, after the time of Lycurgus. The
projecting towers of his scene-building (noticed
above) then became wings of the new structure,
like those at Epidaurus. There is no evidence
that, in addition to revolving scenery, the Greek
theatre had scenes which could be shifted on
grooves; though the Roman stage, as Servius
tells us, had both (Scaena versilis—Scaena ductilis:
on Georg. iii. 24).
Entrances for the actors.-Pollux speaks of
three doors in the proscenium, the central one
being called 68pa Bao'ſ Aetos, because the chief
persons of the play used it. Vitruvius confirms
this statement. Ruins of the Hellenistic or
Roman age show sometimes three doors, some-
times five. In the latter case, the two extreme
doors may have opened, not on the stage, but
on spaces at either side of it (trapaakiivia),
used by actors waiting for their turns, or by
officials. In the theatre at Megalopolis (4th cent.
B.C.) there were three entrances to the stage.
Only one entrance is traceable in the remains
"at Epidaurus, Zea, and Oropus respectively. It
is on a level with the orchestra; hence those
who disbelieve in a raised stage regard it as the
entrance for the actors. But it may have
passed beneath a raised stage, serving to give
the employes of the theatre a direct access
to the orchestra. How many doors there may
have been in the painted hangings of the old
wooden proscenia, we cannot tell. The 5th
century texts show that, besides the door or
doors in the proscenium, there were also en-
trances for the actors from the sides, right and
left.
Pollux says that when ghosts appeared on the
scene they came up either by &variéopara (our
“trap-doors”), or by the Xaptºvuot kAtuakes.
It has generally been supposed that these
k^{uakes led from the orchestra to the stage.
This is the case at Megalopolis, where the steps
extend along the whole front of the Aoyelov.
Another theory is that they connected the
stage with a passage beneath it, invisible to the
spectators.
No curtain was used in the Greek theatre.
When a play opened with a group in position
(such as the suppliants in the Oed. Tyr.), the
actors must have simply walked on to the scene,
and assumed that position. When one play
followed another, and the background had to be
changed, that change took place before the eyes
of the spectators. In such matters we cannot
judge the feelings of Athenians, assembled at the
Dionysia, by the requirements of mº play-
G.
818 THEATRUM
THEATRUM
goers. At Athens dramatic idealism went hand
in hand with scenic simplicity.
The Administration of the Theatre-—A Greek
theatre was the property of the state, and the
performances in it were acts of public worship,
under state control. At Athens, in the 5th and
4th centuries B.C., drama accompanied two
Dionysiac festivals, the Lenaea, in January,
and the Great Dionysia, in March. (We are not
here concerned with the Rural Dionysia, in
December, at which, during this period, no
mew pieces seem to have been acted.) At each
festival, both Tragedy and Comedy were pro-
duced; but the Lenaea was peculiarly associated
with Comedy, and the Great Dionysia with
Tragedy. There was a period, indeed, of some
fifty years, dating from the first institution of
the Great Dionysia (circ. 478 B.C.), during which
Comedy alone appears to have been produced at
the Lenaea. The cost of the performances at
each festival was defrayed from three sources.
(1) The theatre was let by the state to a lessee,
who received the money paid for admission, and
in return undertook certain charges. One of
these, as appears from an extant document
(C. I. A. ii. 573), was the maintenance of the
building in good repair. Hence the classical
name for the lessee, &pxuréicrov (Dem. de Cor.
§ 28): later writers call him 6earpºvms (Theo-
phrastus), or 6eatportóAms (Pollux). He was
also bound to provide a certain number of free
seats (as for the persons entitled to Tpoeëpía):
but for these he was probably reimbursed by
the Treasury. The provision of scenery, and of
costume for the actors (excepting the choreutae),
appears also to have devolved upon the lessee.
He was certainly charged with the custody of
the scenery and of all the theatrical dresses and
properties. He also paid the cashiers, the
persons who showed spectators to their places,
and all other employés of the theatre. (2) The
second source of contribution was the choregia.
For each festival the Archon Eponymus appointed
as many choregi as there were competing poets;
at the Great Dionysia the number was usually
three for Tragedy and three for Comedy. The
choregi were chosen from men nominated by the
ten Attic tribes in rotation. The duty of the
choregus was to furnish one chorus of fifteen
persons for Tragedy, or of twenty-four for
Comedy. He provided a suitable place for their
training (xopmyelov), and maintained them till
the festival was over. If the poet did not train
them himself, the choregus had to find a
xopo6töáokaños. He had also to supply the
flute-player (aiºmºrºs) who preceded the Chorus
on entering or quitting the orchestra, and played
the occasional music. He purchased the costumes,
masks, etc., for the Chorus. But his task was
not finished when the Chorus was trained and
equipped. He had also to supply any mute
persons (kwººd, trpóa'atra) that might be required
for the piece. (3) The third contributor was
the state. When a poet had applied to the
Archon for a Chorus, and his application had
been granted, the Archon next assigned to him
three actors, who were paid by the state. It
did not rest with the poet to decide which of
these three should be trporaryovuorths, etc.: ,he
received them from the state already classified
according to merit, as actors of first, second, and
third parts. This classification rested ultimately
on special &yóves in which actors were directly
tried against each other, and which were distinct
from the performances at the festivals. If a
poet ever required a fourth actor (probably a
very rare case), he could only go to the choregus,
who might make an “extra grant ’’ (trapaxopſi-
ºympia). The state also paid the marshals
(5a5600xol) who kept order in the theatre, and
who were stationed in the orchestra. Lastly,
a certain honorarium (distinct from the festival-
prizes) was paid by the Treasury to each of the
competing poets, according to the order in which
they were placed by the judges.
The character of the dramatic contests as
solemnities conducted by the state was strongly
marked in the forms of procedure. A few days
before the Great Dionysia, the ceremony called
the Tpodyov (“prelude ’’) was held in the old
Odeion near the Enneacrunos. The competing
poets, with their respective choregi, were then
formally presented to the public ; the actors
and choruses were also present, in festal, but
not in scenic, attire; and the titles of the plays
to be produced at the approaching festival were
officially announced. When the first day of the
Great Dionysia arrived, the dramatic contests
were preceded by the transaction of some public
business in the theatre. It was then that crowns
of honour were awarded for public services, and
that the orphans of Athenians slain in war were
presented to the citizens. In due course a public
herald summoned the first on the list of com-
peting poets. He entered the orchestra, attended
by his choregus and chorus, and poured a libation
at the thymele to Dionysus. His procession them
withdrew ; the orchestra was once more empty
(until the Chorus should make its dramatic
entrance); and the play began. One prize for
Tragedy and one for Comedy were awarded by
ten judges, taken by lot from a large number of
persons whom the senate (with the choregi) had
chosen from the tribes. At the close of the con-
tests, five judges (taken from the ten by a second
ballot) announced the awards. The successful
poets were then crowned, before the audience,
by the archon. Shortly after the festival, a
public meeting, for business connected with it,
was held in the theatre. Any complaints of
misconduct which might have arisen were then
heard; and officials who had distinguished them-
selves received public commendation.
The Audience.—According to a recent estimate,
the Dionysiac theatre was once capable of seating
about 27,500 persons. It must be remembered
that all the upper tiers have been destroyed, and
that the ancient capacity was enormously greater
than it would appear from the seats which still
exist. Plato was using round numbers when he
spoke of “more than 30,000 Greeks” as present
in the Dionysiac theatre at the tragic contests
(Symp. 175 E), but it is quite conceivable
that the number was sometimes nearer to 30,000
than to 20,000. The vast theatre at Megalopolis
could hold, according to one modern computation,
no fewer than 44,000 persons. Such numbers
become intelligible when we consider that the
Greek drama was essentially a popular festival,
in which the entire civic body was invited to
take part. Even young boys were present, both at
Comedy and at Tragedy. Women were certainly
present at Tragedy; and a fragment of Alexis
shows that, in the 4th cent. B.C., they were
THEATRUM
THEATRUM
819
admitted to the performances of Comedy also.
This, however, was the “Middle * Comedy—
very different, in some respects, from the “Old”
Comedy of Aristophanes. It would be a natural
inference from the seclusion in which Athenian
women lived that they were not admitted to the
Old Comedy. But against this a priori argu-
ment may be set another, — viz. that, at the
Dionysia, Tragedy and Comedy were merely dif-
ferent sides of one &ydºv : those who could parti-
cipate in one were entitled to share in the other.
A line drawn on grounds of decorum would dis-
sever elements which, in the Dionysiac idea, were
inseparable. There is no conclusive literary evi-
dence. But one passage in Aristophanes (Paa:
964 ft.) cannot be naturally explained except on
the supposition that women were present. An-
other passage in the same play (Paa, 50 ft.)
speaks, it is true, of males only ; but that is,
obviously, because the speaker, a slave, is de-
scribing his beatrótms to actual, or future, Sea-
trótal. At Athens the puéroucou were admitted
to the theatre. (Their exclusion from the
Lenaea is not proved by Aristoph. Ach. 507 f,
even if v. 508 be sound.) Foreigners were also
admitted, whether officials or private persons.
In the earliest days of Athenian drama, ad-
mission was doubtless free of charge; payment
may have been introduced after the expulsion
of the Peisistratidae, when the city began to find
the cost too heavy. In the 5th and 4th cen-
turies B.C. the price of admission for one day was
two obols, or not quite 4d. Pericles introduced
the system by which the state paid two obols
to each citizen for each day of the Dionysiac
festivals, in order that he might attend the
theatre. This 9eapukov was partly defrayed
from the tribute of the allies, and probably
began about 454 B.C. It was distributed by
the demarchs in the several demes; and, though
it was first devised in the interests of the poor,
the only condition of obtaining it seems to have
been inscription on the Amétapxukov ypapºplateſov
of the deme. The number of persons receiving
the 9eoplköv in 431 B.C. has been computed at
18,000. In its later and wider form (as extended
to non-dramatic festivals) the 6eapukov became
an abuse: in its original form it was substan-
tially a state-grant in aid of education. All
seats were of the same class, except those re-
served for persons who had the right of irpoeSpía,
and who paid nothing. (Cf. Dem. de Cor. § 28.)
The places of payment were probably in the
trópobot leading to the orchestra. Specimens of
ordinary Greek theatre - tickets are extant.
These are small leaden coins, bearing on one
side some emblem of the theatre, such as a
Dionysus with a tripod, or an actor’s mask; and
on the obverse, the name of an Attic tribe, or a
numeral. Many examples have been published
by Benndorf (Zeitschr. f. d. Österr. Gymn. xxvi.).
Another kind of theatre-ticket also occurs.
This is a small round mark of bone or ivory,
bearing on one side some artistic device (such as
the head of a deity), and on the other a number
(never higher than 15), in both Greek and
Roman figures. These were tickets, of the
Imperial age, for persons who had trpoeëpia.
The numbers probably indicate divisions of the
house. How far such division was carried is
uncertain. It is a probable conjecture that at
Athens a certain portion of the house (perhaps
a whole segment, kepics) was allotted to each
of the Attic pujaí. This is confirmed by the
occurrence of tribal names on the leaden tickets
noticed above; also by the fact that the choregia
was organised on a basis of tribes; and, lastly,
by the analogy of Roman colonies in which cer-
tain cunei of the theatre were assigned to certain
curiae. The members of the senate sat together
in a definite part of the Dionysiac theatre (ro
BovXevruków, Aristoph. Av. 794). For youths
between the ages of 18 and 21, a space was simi-
larly reserved (rb éq.mguków).
The performances began in the morning, and
lasted till evening ; but it is attested by the
comic poet Pherecrates—who gained his first
prize in 438 B.C.—that the spectators had usu-
ally taken the morning meal (&ptorov) before
they came (Athen. x. 464 e). In the next century,
however, we hear of performances beginning at
daybreak (Aeschin. in Ctes. § 76). The older’
Athenian custom was for all the spectators
to wear wreaths (as at a sacrifice); but this
had perhaps gone out before 350 B.C. As the
whole day was spent in the theatre, the visitors
brought light refreshments (Tpayhuara) with
them. Choregi sometimes courted popularity
by a distribution of cakes and wine: and Aristo-
phanes has pilloried those rival poets who em-
ployed slaves to throw nuts about the house.
An Athenian audience was closely attentive,
detecting the slightest fault of speech,-and
highly demonstrative. Loud clapping of hands,
and shouts of applause, expressed their delight ;
disapproval found vent in stamping with the
feet, hissing, and hooting (kāāſeuv). Never,
probably, has the ordeal for an actor been more
severe than it was at Athens. Persons of note
who entered the house were recognised with
frank favour, or the reverse. Indeed, the whole
demeanour of Athenians at the Dionysia ap-
pears to have been marked by a certain sense of
domestic ease, as if all the holiday-makers were
members of one family.
From the latter part of the 4th century B.C.
onwards, it became usual to produce drama,
not merely at the Dionysia, but on any oc-
casion of special rejoicing; a result partly due
to the personal taste of Alexander the Great
for theatrical shows of every kind. Hence the
theatres gradually lost that sacred character
which had been theirs so long as they were set
apart for the worship of Dionysus. A further
consequence was that they began to be used
for various entertainments which had nothing
to do with drama, such as the exhibitions of
conjurers or acrobats, and, in the Roman age.
gladiatorial shows, or combats with wild beasts.
Even in the 5th century B.C., indeed, cock-
fighting had been held on one day of the year
in the Dionysiac theatre, — a custom which
legend connected with an omen seen by Themi-
stocles in the Persian wars: but this — unlike
the later innovations—was consistent with the
religio loci, since the cult of Asclepius had points
of contact with that of Dionysus. Thus the
Trpodyov of the Dionysia (noticed above) was
held on the day, and near the place, of the sacri-
fice to Asclepius.
Mention has been made of the meetings for
public business held in the Dionysiac theatre
just before and after the Great Dionysia. . In
the latter part of the 5th seau; ** of
Gł
820 THEATRUM
THEATRUMI
the citizens convening the ecclesia in the theatre
at Munychia, and in the Dionysiac theatre itself,
when, under the Four Hundred, the Pnyx was
not available (Thuc. viii. 93 f.). By 250 B.C. it
had become usual to hold ordinary meetings of
the ecclesia in the Dionysiac theatre; though
the elections of magistrates (&pxaſpeotal) con-
tinued to be held on the Pnyx.
century B.C. the theatre had been the regular
place for the bestowal of public honours, such as
crowns. In later times a theatre was often also
the scene of an exemplary punishment. One of
the earliest instances is the execution of Hippo
in the theatre at Messana, of which place he had
been tyrant (circ. 338 B.C.; Plut. Timol. 34).
Sepulchral inscriptions, of the Roman age—
sometimes commemorating Christians — have
been found both in the Dionysiac theatre and
in the Odeum of Herodes Atticus; whence it
fias been conjectured that, in late times, burials
occasionally took place within those precincts.
From the 5th
As statues of Themistocles and Miltiades stood
in the Dionysiac theatre, so, at every period of
Greek antiquity, such places were adorned with
monuments of statesmen and soldiers, no less
than of poets, musicians, and actors. This was
in accord with the true idea of the Greek theatre,
which was not merely the home of an art, but
also a centre of civic reunion.
THE ROMAN THEATRE.
Rome possessed no theatre of stone till 55 B.C.
Just a century earlier such an edifice had been
in progress, when P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica
procured a decree of the senate for its destruc-
tion (Liv. Epit. 48). The spirit of the Roman
veto on permanent theatres was one which re-
fused to regard the drama except as a passing
frivolity. Wooden theatres were erected, and
pulled down when the occasion was over. But
before the middle of the 1st century B.C. these
temporary structures had already begun to show
a high elaboration. The building put up by the
aedile M. Aemilius Scaurus in 58 B.C. contained
Fig. 4. Roman Theatre of Vitruvius.
80,000 seats; the proscenium was adorned with
pillars of marble and statues of bronze ; and the
whole work seems to have possessed every ele-
ment of grandeur except permanence. The old
interdict had already lost its meaning ; and
three years later Pompeius was allowed to erect,
near the Campus Martius, the first theatre of
stone. The model is said to have been the
theatre of Mitylene, and the number of seats
40,000. The theatre of Marcellus, built by
Augustus, and named after his nephew, was also
of stone, and could hold. 20,500 persons. A
third such building, with a capacity of 11,510,
was completed in 13 B.C. by L. Cornelius Balbus.
These are the trina theatra of Suetoniuš (Aug.
45). Meanwhile many provincial towns in Italy
and elsewhere had long possessed stone theatres,
built or altered under Roman influence.
The Roman type of theatre is simply the
Greek type modified in certain particulars. The
ground-plan is thus described by Vitruvius. In a
circle of the same diameter which the orchestra
is to have, inscribe three equilateral triangles.
Take one side of any triangle, and let this be
the back wall of the stage, Scaenae frons (A B).
A diameter of the circle, drawn parallel with
A B, will represent the line dividing the stage
from the orchestra (C D). The seats for the
spectators are arranged round the orchestra in
semicircles concentric with it. The five points
above the line C D, where the angles touch the
circumference, are the points from which five
flights of steps lead up to the seats, dividing
them into six cunei. Above the first Zone, or
semicircular passage (praecinctio), the seats are
divided into twelve cunei by eleven stairways.
Just above the points C and D, access is given to
the orchestra by two vaulted passages which
pass under the upper rows of seats (E,F). The
platform of the stage is prolonged right and left,
so that its total length (G. H) is equal to twice
the diameter of the orchestra. In the back wall
of the stage there are to be three doors, the
positions of which are marked by the points
i, K, L. Thus the distinctive features, of the
Roman theatre are these two : — (1) The

THEATRUM
THEATRUM 821
them.
orchestra is not, as in the Greek theatre, a
circle (or the greater part of it), but only a semi-
circle. The diameter of the orchestra is now
the front line of a raised stage. Consequently
the auditorium, also, forms only a half-circle.
The primary cause of this change was that the
old Dionysiac chorus had disappeared; the
orchestra, therefore, had no longer a dramatic
use. (2) In the Greek theatre the auditorium
and the scene-buildings were not architecturally
linked. The trópobot were open passages between
In the Roman theatre the side-walls of
the scene-building were carried forward till
they met the side-walls of the auditorium. By
this organic union of the two main parts the
whole theatre was made a single compact
building.
These two main differences explain the other
points in which the Roman theatre varied from
its Greek original. Thus: (i.) Having closed
the openings afforded by the ºrdpobot, the Romans
needed some other access to their semicircular
orchestra. Here the arch served them. By
cutting off a few seats in the lower rows at the
angles right and left of the stage, they obtained
height enough for vaulted passages, which ran
under the auditorium into the orchestra. (ii.)
The solid unity of the Roman theatres lent itself
to the Roman taste for decoration of a monu-
mental character. The permanent Greek pro-
scenia, though usually adorned with columns,
had been simple. But the richest embellish-
ments of architecture and sculpture were lavished
on the Roman proscenia, in which two or more
stories were usually distinguished by carefully
harmonised rhodes of treatment. (iii.) A similar
magnificence was shown in the external façades.
Greek theatres had usually been erected on
natural slopes. A Roman theatre was more
often built on level ground. The auditorium
rested on massive substructions, of which the
walls were connected by arches. . From the open
spaces thus afforded, numerous wide staircases
ascended, beneath the auditorium, to the several
rows of seats. Corridors, opening on these
staircases, ran along the inner side of the semi-
circular wall which enclosed the auditorium.
The exterior of this wall was adorned with
columns, having arcades between them, and
rising in three or more successive stories,
divided by architrave and cornice. Thus, while
the architectural significance of a Greek theatre
depended wholly on the interior, a Roman
theatre had also the external aspect of a stately
public building.
With regard to the internal arrangements of
the Roman theatre, the following points claim
notice. (1) The raised stage (pulpitum, Aoyetov)
is in some instances on a level with the lowest
row of seats behind the orchestra, as at Aizani
in Cilicia and Aspendus in Pamphylia. Some-
times, again, the stage is rather higher, but
the (originally) lowest row of seats has been
abolished, leaving the stage still level with
those seats which are actually lowest: this is
the case at Pergamum and Assus. In a third
class of examples, the stage is higher than the
lowest row of seats, as it is at Orange. The
Roman stage in the Dionysiac theatre at Athens
is of this class. (2) Awnings were spread over
the theatre to protect the spectators from sun or
rain. These were usually called vela: the term
velaria occurs only in Juv. iv. 122. Pliny, who
describes them as carbasina vela (made of linen),
says that they were introduced by Q. Catulus,
in 78 B.C. (xix. 23). They were supported by
masts (mali), fixed to the outer walls of the
theatre by massive rings or sockets, which can
still be seen at Orange or Pompeii. Between
the masts were cross-beams (trabes), for greater
convenience in unfurling the vela. Such awnings
were of various colours, as yellow, red, dark-
blue (Lucr; iv. 75 ft., where see Munro). (3)
Until the play began, the stage was concealed by
a curtain; which was then lowered. The place ,
into which it sank, just inside of the front line
of the stage, can be seen in the larger theatre at
Pompeii. At the end of the piece the curtain
was drawn up. Hence, where we say, “the
curtain rises,” the Romans said, aulaeum mit-
titur or subducitur : “the curtain is up,” au-
laeum premitur : “the curtain falls,” aulaeum
tollitur. The word siparium (from the rt. of
oriqapos, top-sail, supparum) meant a folding
screen. Apuleius (150 A.D.) describes a kind of
ballet as beginning “when the curtain had been
lowered, and the screens folded up * (siparis –
complicitis, Met. 10, p. 232; cp. ib. 1, p. 7). If
these screens were within the curtain, the
reason for using them along with it may have
been to heighten the effect of a tableau by dis-
closing it gradually. In the later parts of the
piece, they may have served to conceal scene-
shifting. Another use is also possible. Theatres
of the Macedonian and Roman period sometimes
had two stages, the higher being used by the
regular actors, the lower by mimes or dancers;
and the latter may have been concealed by the
siparium, as the other by the aulaeum. The
word siparium is regularly associated with
comedy or mimes. (Seneca, de trang. An. c. 11,
§ 8; Juv. Sat. 8, 186.) (4) Allocation of seats.
The orchestra was reserved for senators. As a
special mark of distinction, foreigners (usually
ambassadors) were occasionally admitted.to it
(see Tac. Ann. xiii. 54). The rest of the audi-
torium was called cavea. The Lex Roscia, pro-
posed by the tribune L. Roscius Otho in 67 B.C.,
provided that the fourteen rows of seats in the
cavea nearest to the orchestra should be
reserved for the equites—excluding any who
should have become bankrupt (Cic. Phil. ii.
§ 44). Owing to the large number of equites
who had been ruined by the civil wars, Augustus
decreed that the privilege given by the Lex
Roscia should be enjoyed by any eques who had
at any time possessed, or whose father had pos-
sessed, the amount of the equester census, viz.
400,000 sesterces (Suet. Aug. 40). This is pro-
bably the Lex Julia Theatralis meant by Pliny
(xxxiii. § 8). Augustus farther assigned special
portions of the cavea to (1) women; (2) prae-
teatati, i.e. boys who had not yet assumed the
toga virilis, and their paedagogi; (3) soldiers ;
(4) married men belonging to the plebs. This
was a premium on marriage, like others pro-
vided in the Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea. In
some provincial theatres the town-councillors
(decuriones) had seats of honour (bisellia) on the
rows next the orchestra. Corresponding to the
“royal box” in a modern theatre was the tri-
bunal, immediately over the stage on the spec-
tator's left. This was occupied by the emperor,
or by the president of the performance. A cor-
822 THEATRUM
THEATRUM
responding tribunal on the left side was assigned
to the Westals, among whom the empress sat.
Thus, from the Augustan age onwards, the con-
trast between a Greek and Roman theatre was
extended to the arrangements for the audience.
Instead of the simple Greek distinction between
those who had or had not trpoeëpta, the Roman
auditorium exhibited an elaborate classification
by sex, age, profession, and rank.
Odeum.
The term gSetov, denoting a species of theatre
appropriated to musical performances, occurs
first in a fragment of the comic poet Cratinus
(circ. 450 B.C.), with reference to the Odeum of
Pericles (9pºrtal, fr. 1); but it may have
been in use from a much earlier time. The
oldest recorded example is the XKūs at Sparta,
which is said to have been round, and to have
been named from the resemblance of its top to a
sunshade (orkiès or orkud.6etov: Etym. Magn.). It
was said to have been built by the architect
Theodorus of Samos (circ. 600 B.C.). On its
walls the Spartans hung up the cithara of the
famous musician, Timotheus of Rhodes (circ.
400 B.C.), not as an honour, but as a stigma,
because he had marred the ancient simplicity of
the instrument by increasing the number of its
strings. In the latter part of the 2nd cen-
tury A.D. the Xkiès was still used as a place for
public assemblies (Paus. iii. 12, 10). No traces
of it remain. The circular brick building of
which ruins still exist near the Eurotas seems to
have been originally an Odeum, modified perhaps,
with a view to other than musical performances,
in the Roman age of Sparta. (See Leake; Morea,
vol. ii. p. 553; Curtius, Pelop. ii. 222.)
Athens possessed three (36eia. (1) The oldest
of these stood near the fountain Enneacrunus by
the Ilissus. Its origin is uncertain, but has
been conjecturally referred to Peisistratus, or
even to Solon. The most probable inference
from the notices concerning it is that it was a
semicircular building, arranged on the general
plan of a Greek theatre, but with a roof. It
was in this Odeum that the trpodyov was held
before the Great Dionysia, as described above.
This, too, is the Odeum to which Aristophanes
refers as being used for a law-court (Vesp. 1109);
the scholiast on that passage identifies the place
with the scene of the trpodyov. The same
building must be understood when we read of
the Odeum as a rendezvous or a lodging for
troops (Xen. Hellen. ii. 4, §§ 9, 24), and as a
place for the distribution of corn (Dem. c.
Phorm. § 37 : [Dem.] in Neaer. § 52). It ap-
pears to have been restored, or built anew, by
Lycurgus (circ. 330 B.C.); for the words of
Hypereides (fr. 32, Škočáumore 68 to 9éarpov,
To ºbefov) cannot well refer to the Periclean
building, then little more than a century old.
(2) The Odeum of Pericles stood a little S.E.
of the Acropolis, and N.E. of the Dionysiac
theatre: modern houses cover its probable site.
Plutarch preserves a tradition that the shape of
the building was intended to recall the tent of
Xerxes (Per. 13). The fact that the top rose to
a peak—like that of the Spartan Xkids, as we
may suppose—apparently prompted the joke of
Cratinus, when he described Pericles, “the Zeus
with peaked head" (oxivokéqaxos), as rqjösſov
ëri rod kpavtov čxov (Opárr. 1). These notices
at least prove that the form was round, and
such as to suggest a tent. In the conception of
Pericles, the new Odeum, like the new temple of
Athena, was associated with the Great Pan-
athenaea. As the final act of the festival was
celebrated in the Parthenon, so the Odeum was
the place for the performances with which the
festival began,—contests of flute-players, singers,
and rhapsodes. The Odeum of Pericles was
completed about 444 B.C. It was burnt down
in 86 B.C. by Aristion, the tyrant of Athens,
when he fled before Sulla to the Acropolis. The
restoration of the building by Ariobarzanes II.
(Philopator), king of Cappadocia, about 60 B.C.,
is the last recorded incident in its history. It
is remarkable that Pausanias speaks as if, at
the time of his visit (circ. 155 A.D.), the old
Odeum by the Ilissus was the principal building
of its kind in Athens (i. 14, § 1). He refers to
the Odeum of Pericles merely as “a structure”
(karaoketºaorua) “said to have been built in
imitation of the tent of Xerxes,” and does not
even name its founder (i. 20, § 4).
(3) The third Odeum at Athens was built by
the eminent rhetorician Herodes Atticus, in
memory of his second wife, Appia Annia Regilla,
who died before 161 A.D. It had not been
commenced when Pausanias described Athens;
but he mentions it in speaking of the Odeum at
Patrae, which was, he says, second only to that
of Herodes (vii. 20, §6). The Odeum of Herodes
stood on the south slope of the Acropolis, W. of
the Dionysiac theatre. Considerable remains
still exist. It was not a round building, but a
theatre of the ordinary Roman type, with a roof
superadded. Hence Philostratus describes it as
to èr ‘PrºyſXAm 0 € at pov (Wit. Soph. ii. 1, 5, cf.
8), and Suidas (s. v. ‘Hptºms) as 9éarpov Štrapé-
quov,-the Latin theatrum tectum. It was dis-
tinguished by the great splendour of the internal
decoration. The ceiling was of cedar, with
probably an open space for light in the middle.
The seats in the cavea were cased with marble,
and divided into an upper and lower zone by a
Sid Capua. The floor of the orchestra was inlaid
with marble mosaic-work. The proscenium,
which had three doors, was decorated with
columnar arcades, in four successive storeys, and
with statuary. A similar mode of decoration,
though less elaborate, was applied to the external
façade. Behind the proscenium spacious accom-
modation was provided for the performers.
Philostratus mentions a smaller theatre in the
Cerameicus at Athens, called, after its founder,
the 'A'ypiriteſov, which seems to have been used
for rhetorical declamations rather than for music
or drama (Vit. Soph. ii. 5, 3 and 8, 2).
The building of Pericles and that of Herodes
Atticus illustrate the twofold relation of the
ancient Odeum to the ancient theatre. (1) The
circular Odeum, such as that of Pericles, was
the place for music or recitation, as the Greek
theatre for drama or chorus. . From an artistic
point of view, it was the supplement of the
Greek theatre. (2) The semicircular Odeum,
such as that of Herodes, was merely a roofed
Roman theatre; and, as such, it was used not
only for music, but for other entertainments
also, such as mimes, or even regular drama. In
the Roman period the first type continued to
exist along with the second. Trajan built 3.
THEATRUM
THENSAE 823
round Odeum at Rome (Paus. v. 12, 4, 6éarpov
uéya Kvicxotepés), called qiāelov by Dio Cassius
(lxix. 4). In many instances where an Odeum
is mentioned, the type to which it belonged
remains uncertain.
In conclusion, it may be useful to enumerate
some of the more important Greek and Roman
theatres of which remains exist. The following
list is mainly based on that given by Dr. A.
Kawerau in Baumeister’s Denkmäler, pp. 1746
ft. A fuller enumeration, with references to the
topographical and archaeological literature in
each case, will be found in Dr. A. Müller's Lehr-
buch der griechischen Bühnenalterthümer, pp. 4–15
C1886).
I. GREECE PROPER.—Attica. 1. The Diony-
siac theatre at Athens. Excavated in 1886 by
the German Archaeological Institute. 2. Theatre
at Zea in the Peiraeus. Excavated in 1880 and
1885 by the Greek Archaeological Society. The
orchestra was surrounded by a canal, like that
in the Dionysiac theatre. 3. Theatre at Oropus.
Excavated in 1886 by the Greek Archaeological
Society. The proscenium, with one door, re-
mains. 4. Theatre at Thoricus. Excavated in
1886 by the American School. Remarkable for
the irregular curve of the orchestra, which
recedes more than anywhere else from the form
of a semicircle, and approaches that of a semi-
sellipse.—Epeirus. Theatre at Dramyssus. The
cavea well preserved. It had two 5uagópata.
2. Theatre at Elatria (now Rhiniassa). A great
part of the cavea remains.—Sicyonia. Theatre
at Sicyon. Excavations begun in 1887 by the
American School.—Argolis. 1. Theatre at Epi-
daurus. Excavated in 1883 by the Greek
Archaeological Society. The best-preserved and
finest example of a Greek theatre of the classical
age. It was built about 350 B.C. by the younger
Polycleitus (Paus. ii. 27, 5). 2. Theatre at
Argos. The central part of the cavea was hewn
from the rock; sixty-seven rows of seats remain,
separated by two 6taçáuara. The two ends of
the cavea were formed by substructions of rude
masonry.—Arcadia. 1. Theatre at Mantineia.
Notable as an exception to the rule that Greek
theatres were built on natural slopes. Here the
cavea rested on an artificial mound supported by
polygonal walls. 2. Theatre at Megalopolis.
The largest known to Pausanias (ii. 27, 5).
"The site was a natural slope, but recourse was
had also to an artificial embankment at each
horn of the auditorium. Excavations begun
Jere in 1889 by members of the British School
at Athens have disclosed the stage and the
lowest portion of the seats.
II. IsLANDS OF THE AEGEAN SEA.—The older
theatre at Delos is that in which the segment
of a circle formed by the curve of the cavea
most largely exceeds a semicircle. The Cretan
theatres at Gortyna, Hierapytna, and Lyctus are
among those which have the niches intended, as
some have supposed, for hyeſa (see above).
III. ASIA MINOR.—Among the theatres of
the later Greek or Hellenistic age, those at the
following places show a peculiarity in the curve
of the cavea like that noted above at Delos:—
Side (Pamphylia), Myra (Lycia), Telmissus (do.),
Hassus (Caria), Aizani (Cilicia). The last-named
theatre affords another example of the niches
amentioned above. Other interesting theatres of
the same period are those of Pergamum (exca-
vated in 1885 by the German Expedition) and
Assus (excavated in 1883, for the American
Archaeol. Institute, by Mr. J. P. Clarke). The
Roman theatre at Aspendus (Pamphylia) is the
best-preserved ancient theatre in existence. The
proscenium has five doors.
IV. ITALY.—1. The two theatres at Pompeii.
The larger shows a peculiarity in the four lowest
rows of seats, which are separated from those
above, and appear to have been the places of
honour. The stage is also of interest. The
smaller theatre was roofed. 2. Theatre at
Falerii. One of the best preserved. It was
finished in 43 B.C.
W. SICILY. — Theatres at Syracuse, Acrae,
Catana, Tauromenion, Tyndaris, and Segesta.
The general characteristic of the Sicilian theatres
is that they were founded in Greek times and
afterwards modified, or reconstructed, under
Roman influences.
VI. FRANCE.-The Roman theatre at Orange
(Arausio) is well preserved. The reconstruction
of it by A. Caristie (Monuments antiques &
Orange, Paris, 1856) conveys a probably just
idea of its original beauty. In one respect it
forms an exception to the ordinary Roman rule ;
for use was made of a natural slope to support
the cavea.
Literature.—Wieseler, Theatergebäude (Göt-
tingen, 1851), and art. “Griechisches Theater”
in Ersch and Gruber, vol. lxxxiii. (1867), pp.
159—256, where will be found a full account of
the authorities on the subject up to that date.
Among recent publications it must suffice to
mention the following:—Dr. Albert Müller,
Lehrbuch der griechischen Bühnenalthämer (Frei-
burg, 1886), pp. 432. A work of practically ex-
haustive research. Gustav Oehmichen, Griech-
ischer Theaterbau (Berlin, 1886). Baumeister's
Denkmäler, art. “Theatergebäude" by Dr. A.
Kawerau, and “Theaterworstellungen” by Dr.
Bernhard Arnold (1887). A. E. Haigh, The
Attic Theatre (1889). For the Greek theatre of
the 5th century B.C.: Wilamowitz-Möllendorf,
“Die Bühne des Aeschylos " in Hermes, xxi.
pp. 579 f.; Sommerbrodt, De Aeschuli re Scaenica
(Berlin, 1876); J. Höpken, De Theatro Attico
saeculi a. Chr. quinti (Berlin, 1884). For the
Roman theatre, J. Marquardt, Röm. Staatsalter-
thiimer, vol. iii. (2nd ed., 1885). [R. C. J.]
THENSAE or TENSAE (for the ortho-
graphy and etymology of the word are alike
doubtful: thensae, C. I. L. iii. 2; Henzen, 5407;
tensae, C. I. L. x. 6012; Fest. p. 364) were
highly ornamented sacred vehicles, which, in
the solemn pomp of the Circensian games
[CIRCUS, Vol. I. p. 437 a ; LUDI RoMANI], con-
veyed the statues of certain deities with all
their decorations (eruviae) to the pulvinaria,
and after the sports were over bore them back
to their shrines. (Cic. in Verr. ii. 1, 59, and
note of Pseudo-Ascon. iii. 27, v. 72; Serv. ad
Verg. Aen. i. 21 ; Festus, s. v.; Dio Cass. xlvii.
40; Tertull. de Spect. 7.) The thensae were
kept in a special building, called aedes thensarum,
on the Capitol (see Mommsen, in Ann, dell’Inst.
1858, p. 203). Their form seems to have been
that of the CURRUs (as shown in the cut in Vol. I.
p. 581), but they were elaborately ornamented.
Castellani has restored what he considers to be
824 THENSAE
THEOPHANIA
a thensa from remains of bronze reliefs (see Bau-
meister, Denkm. fig. 2325); it has however, as
restored, four wheels, while the coin representa-
tions seem to show two-wheeled chariots drawn
by four horses. It is by no means improbable
that thensae varied as to shape, number of
wheels and horses, the essential point in their
definition being that they were wheeled vehicles
for carrying images of certain deities in the
pompa circensis, as distinguished from the fer-
cula in which they were borne on men's shoulders.
We know that they were drawn by horses (Plut.
Coriolan. 25, who calls them 6%goas), and escorted
(deducere) by the chief senators in robes of state,
who, along with pueri patrimi [PATRIMI], laid
hold of the bridles and traces, or perhaps assisted
to drag the carriage (for ducere is used as well
as deducere, Liv. v. 41), by means of thongs
attached for the purpose (and hence the pro-
posed derivation from tendo). So sacred was
this duty considered, that Augustus, when
labouring under sickness, deemed it necessary
to accompany the thensae in a litter. If one
of the horses knocked up or the driver took the
reins in his left hand, it was necessary to re-
commence the procession; and for one of the
attendant boys to let go the thong or to stumble
was profanation. (Liv. v. 41; Plut. l.c.; Ascon.
l. c.; Arnob. adv. Gent. iv. 31; compared with
the oration de Harusp. Resp. 11, 23; Tertull.
de Cor. Mil. 13, and de Spectac. 7; Suet. Aug. 43.)
The only gods distinctly named as carried in
thensae are Jupiter and Minerva (Suet. Vespas.
5; Dio Cass. xlvii. 40, 1.8, lxvi. 1); but we can
hardly doubt that Juno at any rate had the same
honour; and, indeed, all three Capitoline deities
have thensae on the coins of the Gens Rubria
(Eckhel, v. 299; Marquardt, Staatsverw. 509,
note 3): to this number Mars is usually added
on the authority of Dio Cassius (lxxviii. 8), but,
in the passage referred to, he merely states that,
at the Circensian games celebrated A.D. 216, the
statue of Mars, which was in the procession
(tropºreſov), fell down; and it is very remark-
able that Dionysius (vii. 72), in his minute
description of the Pompa Circensis, takes no
notice whatever of the thensae, but represents
the statues of the twelve gods as carried on
men’s shoulders, i.e. on fercula. That a con-
siderable number of deities, however, received
this honour seems probable from the expression
of Cicero, in his solemn appeal at the close of
the last Werrine oration, “omnesque dii, qui
vehiculis tensarum solemnes coetus ludorum
initis; ” though we cannot determine who these
gods were. Among the impious flatteries heaped
on Caesar, it was decreed that his ivory statue
should accompany the images of the gods to the
circus in a complete chariot (Épua Śāov, that is,
a thensa, in opposition to a mere ferculum), and
that this chariot should stand in the Capitol
immediately opposite to that of Jupiter. (Dio
Cass. Xliii. 15, 21, 45, xliv. 6; Suet. Jul. 76 :
this is the “acerba pompa” in Cic. ad Att. xiii.
44.) Under the Empire the statues of deceased
emperors and members of the imperial house
were borne in the procession, but of these the
statues of princes seem to have been carried on
fercula, those of princesses not in thensae, but
in carpenta, sometimes drawn by elephants
(Suet. Claud. 11, Cal. 15, Tit. 2; Tac. Ann. ii.
83).
3)
Similar homage was paid upon high festivals
to the images of their gods by other ancient
nations. Thus, in the curious ceremonies per-
formed at Papremis connected with the worship
of the Egyptian deity, whom Herodotus (ii. 63).
imagined to be identical with Ares, the statue,
enshrined in a chapel made of gilded wood, was.
dragged in a four-wheeled car by a body of
priests. So also, in the account given by
Athenaeus (v. p. 199 f.), after Callixenes of
Rhodes, of the gorgeous pageant at Alexandria,
during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, we
read of a car of Bacchus of prodigious size, most
costly materials, and most elaborate workman-
ship, which was dragged by 180 men.
(Scheffer, de Re vehiculari, c. 24; Ginzrot, Die
Wägen und Fahrwerke der Griechen und Römer,
c. 55; but the latter author, both here and else-
where, allows his imagination to carry him
farther than his authorities warrant; Friedländer
in Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 509 ft.)
[W. R.]
THEODOSIA’NUS CODEX.
THEODOSIANUS.
THEOPHA'NIA (9eopávia, Herod. i. 54;
Poll. i. 34), a festival celebrated at Delphi. A-
Mommsen, with tolerable certainty, identifies
the festival on the 7th of the Delphic month
Bysios (= approximately February), mentioned
(without name) by Plutarch, Qu. Gr. 9, as the
birthday of Apollo, and also the sole day in
ancient times for consulting the oracle (pro-
bably the aiota juépa of Eur. Ion, 421). [See:
ORACULUM, p. 282 a.] The word itself signifies.
the manifestation of the deity = Triq àvela Too
6eoû. (Mommsen notes that the calendar of the
Greek Church still has r& #y. ©eopáveia: in
the Western Church Theophania was applied to
Christmas Day as late as the 4th century.)
The deity manifested at Delphi is clearly Apollo,
and the time of the year agrees with its being a
festival for the opening of spring, symbolised by
the return or the new birth of the god of light-
Further it is to be noticed that Plutarch (de ei
ap. Delph. 9) assigns the three winter months in
the Delphic year to Dionysus, and the remaining
nine to Apollo: hence it appears that the 7th of
Bysios marks the beginning of the Apollinean
year and the end of the Bacchic.
The ceremonies of the day are nowhere pre-
cisely stated, but can be pieced out as follows:—
1. A procession with laurel boughs: this was
the custom at the time when oracles were given
at Delphi, and belonged at other places besides.
to the day marked as Apollo's birthday (cf.
Schol. ad Hes. Op. 777, 'A6mvaiot Tairrmy Tipºol
Saq.vmſpopotºvtes). Similarly at Rome the return
of Mars (for whose connexion with Apollo see
Roscher, Apollon u. Mars) was honoured by fresh
laurel boughs (Ov. Fast. iii. 13). 2. The prayers.
and offerings belonging to the oracular day, for
which see ORACULUM, p. 282 b. 3. A feast with
(a) offerings of the cake called p30ts; the day
was, according to Plutarch, called troAtºboov,
which, though he gives another interpretation,
is clearly from p60ts: (b) libations of wine.
Herodotus (i. 51) speaks of a huge silver bowk
at Delphi, containing 600 amphorae, which
étrikipvarai Örö Aexpóy 9eopaviouri. Other
myths, especially those relating to the flight
or exile of Apollo, his purification and return,
may possibly find their representation in this
[G. E. M.]
[CODEX.
THEORI
THEORICON 825.
festival : on these myths we can only refer here
to the discussion in A. Mommsen and Roscher.
(A. Mommsen, Delphica, pp. 280–297; Roscher,
Leaſikon, p. 426.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
THEO'RI (9eapoſ). There can be little doubt
that the origin of this word is not 9ebs and āpa,
as most of the ancient Lexicographers thought,
but is the same as that of 6edoplat (Curtius, Gr.
Etym. 253; L. and S.). Hence it should follow
that the original official signification of the word
(apart from its simple meaning, oi 6eópevot)
was a magistrate, literally “overseer,” like
épopos. We find this title 6ewpol or 6eapol
given, without any religious meaning, to the
chief magistrates of certain states; at Mantinea
(Thuc. v. 47); at Tegea (Xen. Hell. vi. 5, 7;
see Gilbert, Staatsalterth. ii. 328).
Hence the word acquired the sense with which
we are most familiar, sacred ambassadors or
delegates (as though “overseers ” of the sacred
business), i.e. persons sent on special missions
(9eapfat) to perform some religious duty for the
state, to consult an oracle, or to represent the
state at some religious festival in another land,
where among other ceremonies sacrifice would
be offered on behalf of their state. Photius,
though doubtless wrong in his etymology, ex-
presses the meaning rightly by roës ºró, 9eſa
qvādtroviras # to 6etov ppovtſovras: Pollux
(ii. 55), misled by the double meaning, gives
two different roots to the word. These sacred
6ewpol were not permanent officials, but were
specially appointed from among the citizens for
each occasion. The title apparently belongs to
delegates of this kind from any Greek state: e.g.
the 6eopol of foreign states made offerings for
their own states at the Eleusinia on 17th Boe-
dromion (A. Mommsen, Heort. 250; ELEUSINIA,
Vol. I. p. 718; cf. Soph. O. T. 114), and similarly
of the Great Panhellenic games: so, when we
find trpóBovXot kal 6eapol sent by different Greek
states yearly to the ELEUTHERIA at Plataea, the
former have to do with the political affairs of
the confederacy, the latter with the religious
part of the festival (Gilbert, Staatsalterth. i. 91).
But we are specially concerned with the
theori at Athens. Here also there were no
standing officials so called, but the name was
given to those citizens who were appointed from
time to time to conduct religious embassies to
various places; of which the most important
were those that were sent to the Olympian,
Pythian, Nemean, and Isthmian games, those
that went for any purpose to consult the oracle
at Delphi, and those that led the solemn pro-
cession to Delos for the Apollinean spring festival,
in which Pisistratus, from political motives, con-
trived that Athens should take a leading part
(see E. Curtius, Hist. of Greece, i. 36 E. T.;
DELIA). The expense of any such embassy was
defrayed partly by the state, partly by a wealthy
citizen, to whom the management was entrusted,
called åpx10éopos. This was a sort of Astrovpyta,
and frequently a very costly one. In the case
of the Delphic theoria for consulting the oracle,
the travelling money provided by the state was
not large, and the personal expense probably also
moderate, but a considerable sum was provided
for the Delian theoriae, more than a talent for
each of the yearly (lesser) festivals, and (in Ol.
101. 3) nearly 1% talent for the greater quad-
rennial festival (see Fränkel’s note o' Boeckh,
Staatshaush. i. 272): but the magnificence
depended mainly on the liberality of the archi-
theoros, to whom it became a point of honour to
discharge his office handsomely, to wear a golden
crown, to drive into the city with a fine chariot,
retinue, &c. Nicias is reported to have incurred
unusual expenses in his embassy to Delos; and
Alcibiades astonished all the spectators at
Olympia by his display (Grote, Hist. vi. 389,
vii. 72; Thuc. vi. 16).
As to the offices of the Pythaistae (IIv0atorral)
and Deliastae, which require some notice here,
there is a difference of tradition; but it seems
tolerably certain that Harpocration and Hesy-
chius (s. v. AmAlaotal) are wrong in making the
Deliastae = 0eapot, and there is still less warrant
for concluding, as most modern authorities have
done, that both the Pythaistae and Deliastae:
had this meaning. What evidence we have leads.
rather to the conclusion that they were not sent
with the missions at all, but were two priestly
families, whose duty it was to regulate by
observance of celestial omens the time for:
starting sacred embassies to Delphi and Delos
respectively. For the 6ewpta to Delphi, which
made the yearly offering from Athens some time.
about June (A. Mommsen, Heort. 315), the
Pythaistae through a period of three months
(April–June) watched at the altar of Zeus’Aarpa—
traſos, looking northwards to Harma, a district
in Mount Parnes near Phyle. Theoretically,
no doubt, if no lightning appeared, the offering
could not be sent at its normal time in June;
but as modern observations (A. Mommsen, Delph.
p. 315) show that there is always a great deal
of lightning in that district during those
months, it is probable that there was rarely, if
ever, an impediment. . The omens having been
duly observed, when the embassy to Delphi was
started the Pythaistae offered sacrifice in the
Pythium at Oenoë : the Deliastae (regarding
whose method of observing omens we have no.
definite particulars) sacrificed for the Delian
embassy in the Delium at Marathon (Strabo, ix-
p. 404; Athen. vi. p. 234 e ; Schol. ad Soph.
Oed. Col. 1047; Hesych. s. v. čarpárret 8t’
&pparos: A. Mommsen, Delphica, p. 314;
Curtius, Hist. of Greece, ii. p. 8; Töpffer, in
Hermes, xxx. pp. 321 ff.). [For the sacréd ships.
employed, see THEORIS.] [C. R. K.] _[G. E. M.]
THEO'RIA (9ewpía). [THEORI.]
THEO'RICON (ro 9eoplkóv: T& 6ewpticó, sc.
xpfuara). Under this name were comprised the:
funds expended by the Athenian state on festivals,
sacrifices, and public entertainments.
There were, according to Xen. de Rep. Ath-
iii. 8, more festivals at Athens than in all the
rest of Greece. Some festivals of course were:
confined to the members of a particular tribe,
deme, or house (DEMUs; PHYLOBASILEIS), and
these were provided for out of the private funds
of the community which celebrated them. But
there were also many public festivals, open to
the whole body of the people. At the most
important of these, as the DIONYSIA, PANA-
THANAEA, or THARGELIA, there were not only
sacrifices, but processions, theatrical exhibitions,
gymnastic contests, and games, celebrated with
great splendour and at great expense. A
portion of this expense was defrayed by the
individuals upon whom the burden of a Aet-
toup'yta fell for the year, but a considerable part
326 THEORICON
THEORIS
was met by the public treasury (To Smuáortov, rö
lcouvév). Thus Demosthenes (p. 50) complains
that a Dionysiac or Panathenaic festival cost
more than any military expedition. The re-
ligious embassies, too [THEORI], to Delos or
Delphi, or to the Olympic and other great games,
drew largely on the public exchequer, though a
part of the cost fell on the wealthy citizen who
conducted the embassy (the 3px10éopos : see
Plut. Nic. 3; Thuc. vi.16).
But, besides these expenses, the festivals
brought with them largess to the people. The
Attic drama was at first performed in a wooden
theatre, entrance to which was free. But the
crowding to get in was inconvenient and
dangerous, and after an accident to the timbers
about B.C. 500 it was resolved to charge an
entrance-fee of two obols, Stagexía ([Dem.] de
Synt. p. 169, § 10). This fee was paid to the lessee
of the theatre (9earpºvms, 9eatpotröAms, &pxt-
Téktov), who, beside paying a sum to the state
{or the contract, undertook to keep the theatre
in repair. The payment continued to be exacted
after the theatre was built of stone. Pericles
(Plut. Per. 9), to relieve the poorer citizens,
passed a law entitling them to receive the price
of admission from the state—perhaps because
plays were part of a religious ceremony from
which it would be impious to exclude citizens.
But a direct grant to the lessee, or a reduction
of his contract, would have been a measure
!ess liable to abuse. The system ended for a
time with the distresses of Athens at the
end of the 5th century, but was renewed by
Agyrrhius.
The donation was presently extended to
sentertainments other than theatrical, e.g. the
Panathenaea (Dem. Leoch. p. 1091, § 37), the sum
of two oboli a day being given to each citizen
who attended. To multiply two oboli thus by
the number of days seems the best way of
explaining passages in which the amount of the
Theoricon is put higher; as at one drachma by
Philochorus in Harpocration, and perhaps by
Lucian, Dem. Encom. § 36; or at four obols, by
Demosthenes (Proem. p. 1459): but there is no
direct proof to be had. The money was paid
by demes (Dem. Leoch. l.c.). Popular leaders
Apromoted such a use of public money; the
appetite of the populace for largess kept growing;
and in the time of Demosthenes the well-to-do
eitizens also seem to share in the distribution
*([Dem.] Phil. iv. p. 141, § 38. But the passage
is not quite clear, and the speech in which it
occurs, the Fourth Philippic, is not genuine).
Boeckh (Staatshaushaltung, ed. 3, vol. i. p. 284)
calculates that the sum thus spent annually was
25–30 talents or more. *
This mode of expenditure naturally starved
other state-services. Surplus revenue should,
by the old law ([Dem.] c. Neaer. p. 1346, § 4),
have been carried to the military fund, and
Jsocr. de Pace, § 82, may mean that surplus
q6pos was the original theoric fund; but now
everything that could be spared from other
branches of expenditure was diverted to the
Theoricon: oi vápot rô otpatioruco. roſs oticot
wévovori Stavéuovo. 6eapuká (Dem. Olynth. iii.
p. 31, § 11); and the supplies needed for war
were left to depend on extraordinary contribu-
tions or property-tax (eio popá). In B.C. 350
Apollodorus carried a decree empowering the
people to determine whether the surplus revenue
might be applied to military purposes, but he
was fined for this under a ypaq” trapaváuov
and the decree annulled (c. Neaer. pp. 1346–8).
Eubulus then tried to perpetuate the existing
system by a law making it a capital offence
to propose to divert the theoric fund. By
this law Demosthenes was embarrassed in his
attempts to find money for operations against
Philip (see his Olynthiac speeches, 1 and 3), and
he has to approach the question of the theoric
fund very gradually (p. 14). The law of
Eubulus was at last repealed in 338.
Money appropriated to the theoric fund was
probably at first disbursed by the Hellenotamiae.
After the Peloponnesian War, however, it was
controlled by a manager or board of managers
(oi étri tº 6ewpticó, Dem. de Cor. p. 264, § 113;
# étrl tº 6ewpucó &pxh, Aeschin. 57), who were
perhaps elected, one from each tribe, at the
period of the Great Dionysia. (But it is uncertain
whether there was more than one official ; see
Boeckh, vol. i. p. 225, and his editor's notes.)
The board drew to itself the control of all
surplus funds and of many other branches of
the administration, as the management of civil
expenditure, the office of Apodectae, the building
of docks, arsenals, and streets. This encroach-
ment was due to the anxiety of the people that
no part of the revenue should be diverted from
the theoric fund.
(Harpocr. and Suidas, s. v. 6eapukov and E58ov-
Aos: Libanius, Argument to Demosth. Ol. 1;
Ulpian on Demosth. Ol. 1; Boeckh, Staatshaus-
haltung der Athener, ed. 3.) [F. T. R.]
THEO'RIS (6ea pts), a trireme kept for
sacred embassies [see THEORI]. Of these ships
it seems that there were at Athens in early
historic times three,_the Delian (Amata), the
Salaminian (XaAapuvia), and the Paralus (IIdpa-
Aos). The first was so called because it was
used (probably exclusively) for Delian theoriae :
the second because it was manned originally by
natives of Salamis (oraxautviol); and the third
because it was manned by sailors from the
Paralia (trapaxoi or trapax?ral). Boeckh indeed
says that there were only two, and makes Delia
another name for the Salaminia; but we should
rather follow Schömann (Antiq. of Greece,
p. 441, E. T.) in separating these ships: the
language of Plato (Phaed. p. 58) and of Plutarch
(Thes. 3) seems to us quite impossible to recon-
cile with the view that the ancient ship used
for the Delian embassy was the Salaminia.
Each writer (and Plato with especial distinct-
ness) speaks of the ship as though it had con-
nexion with the Delian theoria only. It is clear
from their account that the Delia was a very
old ship, traditionally dating from Theseus, and
constantly renewed with fresh timbers, so that,
according to Plutarch, its case was used to illus-
trate things which are the same and yet not the
same: the state of the Victory at Portsmouth
affords a modern parallel of a ship thus con-
stantly patched because it is a relic. This does
not agree with our knowledge of the Salaminia,
which was a fast-sailing ship used for various
state purposes, and even in naval battles. When
the embassy to Delos was started, either at the
greater (quadrennial) or the lesser (annual)
festival, the Delian ship was crowned with laurel
by the priest, and so sent forth : the period of its
THEOXENLA
THEOXENIA 827
absence gave a respite to criminals (Plat. l.c.;
DELIA).
The other two ships were built and manned
for speed, and were used not only to convey
theori over the sea part of their journey, but
also to carry state despatches, to fetch state
criminals who were summoned home, and to
bring tribute; they served, moreover, as war-
ships (Thuc. iii. 33, vi. 53, 61, viii. 74; Aristoph.
Av. 147, 1204; Aesch. in Ctes. § 162; Phot.
S. v. trāpañol, trapaxos). Boeckh accuses Photius
of erroneously regarding these two ships as one,
but the words of Photius (s. v. trāpañol) in
speaking of the Paralus are Aéºyeral 5& # airth
ſcal XaAapuvia. §o repov 8& &AAat öö0 trpoo’eye-
wovro airraſs: the last word shows that ji airrh
must mean “of similar character’”; under the
word ºrdpaxos he plainly distinguishes the two.
The crew of the Paralus (and beyond a doubt of
the Salaminia also) were always held in readi-
ness, receiving four obols a day throughout the
year. To this payment we may refer the office
of treasurer (tapitas räs IIapáAov, Dem. Meid.
p. 570, § 173), and we may fairly assume that
each of the sacred ships had a treasurer; at sea
they were commanded by vaúapxoi (Boeckh,
8taatshaus. i. p. 307; Schömann, l.c.). Fränkel
in his note (299) shows that Boeckh is mistaken
in supposing that for these ships there were
also trierarchs. The expenses of the sacred
ships were borne by the state, and the rapitas
in their case provided at the cost of the state
all that for other ships was provided by the
trierarch.
In later times we find also the names of
Ammonis, Antigonis, and Demetrias; and still
later the Ptolemais (Plin. H. W. xxxv. § 101 ;
appendix to Phot. p. 676, ed. Porson; Harpocr.
S. v. 'Aupuwvís). Of these the first, built in the
time of Alexander, received its name because it
was specially intended to convey theoriae to
Zeus Ammon : it seems to have taken the place
of the Salaminia. (Schömann thinks it an addi-
tional ship, but see Boeckh, p. 307, and Frän-
kel’s note.) The subsequent addition of the
Antigonis and Demetrias thus raised the number
to four, as stated by Photius; for the Demetrias
no doubt replaced the ancient Delia, which
lasted only till the time of Demetrius (Plut.
J. C.). The names of these later ships and of
the Ptolemais suggest a closer connexion with
political and less with religious business.
[G. E. M.]
THEOXE'NIA (9eokévia; often simply
£évua; sometimes 6.e06atoria) were sacred feasts
provided for gods or heroes, at which the deities
were usually regarded as the guests; but some-
times as the hosts, inviting certain mortals to
partake. From these Greek feasts the Roman
lectisternia were borrowed [LECTISTERNIUM).
We must guard against the idea that the Delphic
Theoxenia was the original feast of this kind.
Not to speak of other nations where similar
observances are found, we have early indications
of them among the Greeks. Such was the
banquet in Homer (Il. i. 425), at which the
gods (6eol 666eka, Schol.) were entertained; and
hence kouh éoprº traoru rois 6eois, which is the
Explanation of 6eočévia in Hesychius, may be
taken to mean that it included the twelve
Olympian deities; a meaning, however, which
must be greatly extended. There can be no
doubt moreover that the cult of special gods or
heroes was from a very early time preserved in
certain families or tribes, who thereupon set
apart a table on certain occasions, such as birth-
days (cf. Eur. Ion, 805) or times of success and
victory, in their honour (see Herod. vi. 127;
Pind. Ol. iii.; Plat. Lys. p. 205 D). This
family observance is attested not only by men-
tion in Greek writers, but also by inscribed
votive tablets (see Deneken, de Theozeniis,
p. 14): the history of the Potitii may be com-
pared with it (Liv. i. 71 ; Diod. iv. 21;
SACRA, p. 578 a). The entertainment is com-
monly spoken of merely as £évia, which word
may be used of public as well as private
theoxenia (compare Eur. Hel. 1666; C. I. G.
p. 1074; Schol. ad Nem. vii. 68, ad Ol. iii. 1).
From the gentile or family cult probably
arose the more public or national theoxenia,
among which should be specially noted the
Delphic Theoxenia, which gave the name to
the Delphic month Theoxenios (March–April).
This was probably, as A. Mommsen remarks,
an ancient festival, existing before the time
when Apollo reigned at Delphi; and Zeus was
originally the chief of the divine guests, for
which reason this month was sacred to Zeus
(Delphica, p. 87). In historical times Apollo
and Latona were specially honoured at this
Delphic feast. In this, as in other similar
ceremonies, the gods seem to have been supposed
to feast ; not all at one table, but at several
tables, singly or in pairs: a couch (orptºpºv'm =
pulvinar) spread with cushions was placed by
each table. It does not appear to have been
necessary in Greek custom to place the statue
of the deity on his or her couch, as was done in
the Roman lectisternium, though that this was
sometimes (perhaps, as Deneken says, frequently)
done, appears from Val. Max. ii. 2, 1. The god
or goddess was imagined to be present on the
allotted couch, and in vase-pictures this spiritual
presence is indicated by some representation of
the deity, as in the picture of a orpáuvm for the
Dioscuri, shown on page 16 of this volume.
Athenaeus (ix. p. 372 a) mentions a curious
custom that the Delphians offered leeks (ymóvX-
Atôes) to Latona at this festival, and that the
offerer of the largest leek received a portion of
the feast from the table of Latona. (For various
explanations of this custom, see Delphica,
p. 301: Deneken regards it as a sort of prize
for agriculture.) The favour of Apollo to
Pindar was shown by a special invitation to his
table, the inspired priest crying IIſvöapos fro
étrl Seirvov too 6eoû,-an honour which was
continued for his descendants, and, as it appears,
not on this festival only. The Delphian priests
were ea officio guests with the gods on this day,
as representing the mortal participants [com-
pare PARASITI].
But it would be an error to suppose that
Apollo was the deity most commonly so hon-
oured. Not to mention a similar entertainment
of Zeus Soter and of Pluto at Athens (Athen.
vi. p. 239; Kohler in Herm. vi. 7; Deneken,
p. 4), and of Bacchus and Aesculapius (see
below), it must be observed that the favourite
divine guests in Greece were deified heroes, pro-
bably because they had more frequently tradi-
tional ties of hospitality with certain families,
as well as because they formed a link between
828 THERMAE
| THESEIA
gods and men. Hence it is that we often find
Heracles feasted by mortals, and that by far the
commonest divine guests were the Dioscuri :
indeed some writers appear (erroneously, as it
seems to us) to make the cult of the Dioscuri
the origin of Theoxenia. This entertainment of
the Dioscuri was widespread, particularly of
course in Doric states, Sparta, Agrigentum, &c.
(Eur. Hel. 1666; Pind. Ol. iii.; Bacchyl. ap.
Athen. vi. p. 400; C. J. G. ii. 2338, 2374); but
also at Athens in the Prytaneum (Athen. iv.
137 e). For the representation in works of art,
see the vase-painting alluded to above, and also
a relief at Paris from Larissa (cf. Newton, Trans.
of Royal Soc. of Lit., ser. 2, vol. ix. p. 436 ft. ;
Fröhner, Vases Grecques de Cameiros). The
latter, by its figure of Victory, shows that one
motive for the entertainment was the idea that
the Twins gave aid in battle, as at Regillus; and
this is borne out by a passage in Polyaenus
(Strat. vi. 1), where Jason of Pherae professes to
entertain (£eviſei) the Dioscuri, on the ground
that they had given him victory (cf. Diod. viii.
32). For notice of votive tablets commemorating
these theoxemia, see Deneken, pp. 15-24. Next
to the Dioscuri, perhaps Bacchus was more often
the entertained or entertainer at mortal feasts
than any other divine being (cf. Paus. i. 2, 5;
vi. 26, 1 ; Athen. xi. p. 465 a). At Andros in
this festival there was a miraculous contribu-
tion of wine flowing from the temple (Paus. vi.
26, 3). The special name 6.e06atoria was given
to these entertainments of Bacchus (Hesych.);
see also the relief in Baumeister, Denkm.
fig. 1849. For the tradition of Sophocles enter-
taining Aesculapius, see Plut. Num. iv. 16;
Etym. Mag. s. v. Aeëtov: cf. Paus. X. 32, 8.
(On this subject, see A. Mommsen, Delphica,
pp. 94, 299–308; Baumeister, Denkm. p. 1764,
and especially a dissertation by Deneken, de
Theogeniis, Berlin, 1881.) [G. E. M.]
THERMAE. [BALNEAE.
THERMOPO'LIUM. [CALIDA; CAUPONA.]
THESAURUS (9moravpós), a storehouse,
treasury. The name is commonly used both in
a correct and an incorrect significance, when
applied to surviving buildings; but as the in-
correct meaning is at least as old as Pausanias,
it is also included here. There are (1) the
treasuries of various Greek cities dedicated at
Olympia and Delphi, (2) the so-called treasuries
at Orchomenus, Mycenae, and elsewhere.
(1) At Olympia the whole row of treasuries
described by Pausanias has been unearthed. In
architectural form they are like small temples
of the Doric order, and so are actually called
vaol. by Polemo (ap. Athen. xi. 489–90). They
consist of an oblong chamber with a small pro-
domus, usually in antis; the treasury of the
Geloans has a portico in front, and also internal
columns. They were erected at various periods
to contain the costly offerings made by those
who dedicated them; but later seem to have
been used to contain other treasures and works
of art requiring protection by a building (Paus.
vi. 19). The treasuries of various cities at
Delphi were probably of similar form, and
served a similar purpose (Paus. x. 11).
(2) For the circular sepulchral buildings,
falsely called “Treasuries,” such as the “Trea-
sury” of Atreus at Mycenae, see SEPULCRUM,
p. 644 a.
(Bötticher, Olympia, 2nd edit., Berlin, 1886,
pp. 207 sqq.; Richter, de Thesauris Olympiae
efforsis, Berlin, 1885; Baumeister, Denkmäler
des classischen. Alterthums, art. “Olympia,”
pp. 1104 B sqq.; Schliemann, Earploration of
the Boeotian Orchomenus : Journal of Hellenic
Studies, 1881, pp. 122 sqq.; Schliemann,
Mycenae, pp. 227 ff.; Thiersch, Die Tholos der
Atreus zu Mykenae, in Mittheilungen des deutschen.
Instituts zu Athen, 1879, pp. 177 sqq.) [E. A. G.]
THESEIA (9mgeia). The festival in honour
of Theseus dates from Cimon, who, in obedience
to an oracle from Delphi (for the historical and
political significance, see Grote, Hist. v. 413 ff),
brought the bones of Theseus from Scyros and
buried them in the spot upon which the Theseum
was built. From this act date the annual
éritépua, or funeral rites in honour of national
heroes and of all who died in battle for Athens,
including in war-time a funeral oration over the
dead [cf. FUNUs, Vol. I. p. 887 b). It is true
that we hear of éiritáqua earlier than this in
memory of those slain at Marathon and Plataea
(Diod. xi. 33; Dionys. v. 17); but these, like
many other funeral rites and games in various
times and places, were celebrated on the spots
where the battles were fought. The Epitaphia
at Athens, with the sacrifices, feasts, and ora-
tions belonging to them, should not be placed
earlier than 469 B.C., and we may assume Cimon
or one of his contemporaries to be 6 row Aóryov
Tpogéeſs (Thuc. ii. 35: Curtius here is to be
followed rather than Grote). The ceremonies of
the étruréqua were conducted by the Polemarch
(Poll. vi. 91; ARCHON, Vol. I. p. 168), but the
oration was made by some man specially chosen
for the occasion (Thuc. i. 34). --
The whole Theseus-festival comprised on
different days of the month Pyanepsion several
distinct ceremonies, which have been elsewhere
particularly described, partly representing the
story of Theseus, partly the funeral rites which
had become connected with his festival. The
word 6 moreſa may be used generally of the whole
(Aristoph. Plut. 621), but it is usual to find
the separate ceremonies mentioned under their
own name, and where we find 6 moreſa alone it
commonly refers to the offering and banquet on
8th Pyanepsion and the games of the following
day: the phrase 6 moreſa kal émird pia, which is
often found in inscriptions (see Heortol. p. 282),
means that day of the Theseus-festival on which
the étrutdºpia took place.
The Calendar of the whole festival may be
thus described (following the arrangement of
A. Mommsen):— *
Pyanepsion WI., the kugepyhoria or steersman's
festival, to commemorate the return of Theseus,
celebrated at Phalerum, where there were
shrines (āpiśa) of Nausithous and Phaeax, the
icv8epvárms and irpopets of the expedition (Plut.
Thes. 17). (In those years when there was
occasion of a public funeral for citizens slain in
battle, their bones “lay in state’’ on Pyanepsion
W. and VI.) w
Pyanepsion VII., the day of PYANEPSIA: 'the
#!ºmoris róv Šarptov having begun with the
evening of the 6th (= the beginning of P. VII),
the feasting on this food belonged to the whole
of the day. In the morning of this day took
place the OscHoPHORIA: in the afternoon the
étrarápa (and in time of war the oration over
THESMOPHORIA
THESMOPHORIA 829
the dead. The sacrifice for the slaim Amazons
seems to have been on this day, trpo rāv 670 elov,
Plut. Thes. 27). [For details see OSCHOPHORIA ;
PYANEPSIA.]
Pyanepsion VIII. On the evening of the 7th
(= the beginning of P. VIII.) took place the
offering and banquet in honour of Theseus,
and a torch-race for the émiráqua: in the day,
gymnastic contests (cf. Gell. xv. 20, 3).
Pyanepsion IX. Equestrian exercises, pro-
cessions, and contests. To these last two days
belonged especially the name Bhoeta. (For
a fuller discussion, see A. Mommsen, Heortologie,
pp. 269–287; and, for the history of the vase-
illustration, Harrison, Mythology and Monuments,
pp. xcviii.-cxlviii.) [G. E. M.]
THESMOPHO'RIA (Oeorpoq’épta). The
Eleusinia and the Thesmophoria were the two
great festivals held in Attica in honour of
Demeter. The Athenian Thesmophoria, which
is the best known festival of the name, was
solemnised exclusively by women at the time of
seed-sowing in October in honour of Demeter
Thesmophoros. The many points of interest
attaching to the festival, over and above the
fact that Aristophanes has written an amusing
comedy on the subject, will perhaps justify a
somewhat lengthened discussion on its nature
and significance.
1. Demeter Thesmophoros.-The idea in 6equot,
6éutares (cf. Hesych. s. v.), and words derived
therefrom, is ordinances as the expression of the
will of a divinity, enactments or injunctions
invested with the halo of religion, 6eoplby rov
a 0 up 6 kpa vºrov čk 9e3v 600évra Téaetov, as
Aeschylus says (Eum. 391); and as such the
term is sometimes applied even to written laws,
e.g. Draco's (Plut. Sol. 19 ; cf. Grote, iii. 76)
and Solon's own (Solon, Frag. 36 [25], 16, which
shows that Aelian, W. H. viii. 10 fin., is in
error). We have been taught by Sir H. Maine
(Ancient Law, p. 4 ft.) that the very earliest
notion of law was the 6éutates of Homer, strictly
individual (cf. Phot. 87, 16) judgments or
“dooms,” supposed to be imparted by Oéuis to
the king, who was a judge, not a lawgiver.
The 9eorpºol we are now referring to are some-
what more universal than these. The 6sopot,
says Preller (Demeter wmd Persephone, 350),
were ordinances given by each god inside his own
sphere, so 6eoplbs Aëpao retas (Plut. de Fato,
4 = ii. 570). They were the law of the early
patriarchal ages; and a patriarchal system of
rule was the first which emerged when mankind,
arrived at the agricultural stage, came to follow
a settled mode of life and live in communities.
Now, Demeter was the divinity who presided
over agriculture and all the settled laws and
customs, the civilisation in fact, which it
involved (Isocr. Panegyr. 28); the Athenians
boasted that corn and laws, trupovs ſcal véuous,
were first introduced into their land (Aristot.
in Diog. Laert. v. 17): Demeter it was who
taught men to sow the earth and reap the
fruits: Demeter it was who was reported to
have founded marriage, itself a kind of hus-
bandry (ér' àpárq, traíðoy yumatov, as ran the
Athenian formula of marriage: Lucian, Tim. 17:
cf. Aesch. Theb. 753; Soph. O. T. 1498; Eur.
Phoen. 18; Plat. Menex. 238; the 6eol trpompēortot
to whom sacrifice was offered before marriage,
Plut. adv. Colot. 22 = ii. 1119: and the meta-
phor is retained even in English, cf. Shakespeare's
Ant, and Cleop. ii. 2, 233), to have thus raised
men above the life of savages, to have been the
founder of the family, and thus to have rendered
the foundation of cities possible, “et leges
sanctas docuit et cara jugavit Corpora conubiis
et magnas condidit urbes,” as the Roman poet
Calvus sang (ap. Serv. ad Aen. iv. 58). As
such Demeter is 6eoploq6pos (Diod. v. 5), 6eopata
(Paus. viii. 15, 1), 6eogá6eris (Cornut. W. D. 28),
legiſera (Verg. Aen. iv. 58). The priestess of
Demeter imparts the trétpuos 6eoplbs to the
bridegroom and bride in the nuptial chamber
(Plut. Praecep. Cong. init. = ii. 138; cf. also
Ael. W. H. xii. 47); a woman guilty of illicit
connexion was said &0éoua's avy yewouévn (Schol.
to Aristid. p. 22), opposed to yduos éirl traigly
évêeguos (Heliod. i. 25); the consummation of
marriage is certainly meant by 9eguès in the
Odyssey (xxiii. 296), where Ulysses and Penelope
after all their troubles àortráquot Aércrpoto traxaioſ,
6eopov ſcovro (no matter what Ameis says);
the matrons swore by the goddesses of Eleusis
to remain faithful to their marriage vow
(Alciphr. iii. 69); the young girls prayed to
Demeter for a husband (ib. ii. 2, 6). At the
Thesmophoria many references were made to
the fruitfulness of marriage; and the invocation
(Aristoph. Thesm. 296–300) of yū kovporpāq,0s
and Calligeneia (see below, § 3 h) has a similar
reference.
The fundamental principles, then, of an
agricultural and therefore settled life, and of
the constitution of the family, are the 6eopol
Aſium'rpos. Little different are the “laws of
Triptolemus,” who was reputed one of the most
ancient lawgivers (Porphyr. de Abstin. iv. 22,
p. 387), which are veritable 6so plot, viz. to honour
one’s parents, to delight the gods with an offering
of the crops, and not to ill-treat the domestic
animals (Paus. i. 37, 6). Another 6eoplbs of
Demeter, hu wil ka94pms kāAéorms oil u}) payms
(Diogenian. v. 17: said to be from the Tripto-
lemus of Sophocles, but not given by Dindorf and
placed by Nauck, Frag. Trag. p. 868, among the
Adespota), recalls the scriptural (2 Thess. iii. 10)
“if any would not work, neither should he eat,”
and that earliest and justest of 6eapot (Gen. iii.
19), “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat
bread.” Similar laws of Buzyges have been before
alluded to under AROTOI HIEROI. Finally, to
give some indirect evidence that Demeter was
the goddess of laws and civil society, it was in
her temple that the Amphictyonic assembly at
Thermopylae was held (Herod. vii. 200), and
meetings of the Achaean League were held
under her auspices at Aegium (Paus. vii. 24, 3);
a pig was sacrificed to Demeter at Athens by
the reptotſapxot before the assembly opened
(Schol. on Aristoph. Ach. 44), and Demeter was
one of the goddesses by whom oaths were taken
(Demosth. Timarch. p. 747, § 151; Calipp.
p. 1238, § 9), for she was patroness of the
assembly of the people.
The expression of reverence which the Greeks
felt towards Demeter for all these blessings is
well set forth by Diodorus (v. 5) in a passage
which deserves quotation: oëk &#1ovöé trapaxltretv
Tās 9eoû raúrms Thy intepbox.hu Tàs eis rows
&v6pérous eiepyeglas. xaſp?s yúp rās eñpéaews
Toi, a ſtov táv re karépyaaſav airroß robs
&vôpétrovs $6töaše, kal véuous eionyhoraro ka?'
830 THESMOPHORIA
THESMOPHORIA
offs 5ucatorpayetv sióforómorav. 5; }v airíav paalu
aërëv 0 e o uo pópov Čirovopaoréâval rotºrww 5&
rów eſpnuárov oſſic &v ris étépav step-yearſaw
effpot usigova kal yèp to Çfiv ſcal to kaxós (āv
trépiéxoval. -
2. The origin of Thesmophoric worship.—The
worship of Demeter was said to have been intro-
duced into Attica by the Gephyraeans (cf. Herod.
v. 57, 61; Preller, Demeter und 1’ersephone,
pp. 391-5). These stated themselves that they
came from Eretria originally, but Herodotus
thinks that they were Phoenicians. They lived at
Tamagra in Boeotia, which had been formerly
called Tépupa (Etym. M.). When the rest of the
Cadmeans were driven out by the Argives and
went to the Encheleis, the Gephyraeans remained
in Boeotia at first ; but later, being expelled
by the other inhabitants of that country, they
turned to Athens. The Athenians made them
citizens on special terms, étrl ºntois: which
were probably to maintain in repair the bridges
over the river Cephisus (Lyd. de Mens. viii.
p. 45; Etym. M. s. v. Tequpeſs), for that art was
considered recondite in early times (cf. Fr.
Lenormant, Voie Sacrée Eleusinienne, p. 247);
ith iniumctions to k aloof from the
and with injunctions to keep aloof from the and was conducted partly at Halimus on the
other citizens in many respects. They had
temples and rites special to themselves (though
these cannot have long remained secret : cf.
Schol. on Aristoph. Ach. 708), and among these
the temple and rites of Demeter Achaea
(Herod. l.c.).
This Demeter Achaea, the mater dolorosa of
the ancients, was so called from her mourning
(&xos), not from the fixos of cymbals used in
search for Cora (for amongst other reasons the
A in ’Axató is short), and corresponds to the
Ceres deserta mentioned by Virgil (Aen. ii. 714:
cf. Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. 69; Lobeck, Aglaoph.
1225, note x). Welcker (Griech. Götterl. i. 359)
thinks the original derivation is from yata with
a prosthetic a, and that it refers to Demeter's
character as Earth-goddess; and he compares
such forms as 8a0uxáios, eúxálos, rpixáč. But
the derivation is probably onomatopoeic, and
similar to that of the obsolete Hebrew nºis, “to
'cry ah! ah!” whence comes bººk, “owls,”
wlulae, in Isaiah xiii. 21. We are, of course, not
necessarily to derive the Greek from the Hebrew.
Indeed, none of the attempted Semitic derivations
have much to support them (cf. Mommsen,
Reort. 29, note); but it may be mentioned that
Hitzig and Fr. Lenormant identify the Gephy-
raeans with the Geshurites of Josh. xiii. 13,
1 Sam. xxvii. 8. “R” and n are constantly inter-
changed in Semitic, 6 and p in Greek,” says
Lenormant (La légende de Cadmus in Annales de
Philosophie chrétienne, xv. (1867), 79), though
they draw opposite conclusions, Hitzig main-
taining that the Geshurites were Aryans, Lenor-
mant that the Gephyraeans were Semitic.
Again, the worship of Demeter Thesmophoros
is connected with Cadmus of Thebes, both of
them “orderers.” The temple of the goddess
had formerly been the house of Cadmus (Paus.
ix. 16, 5). Cadmus and indeed the whole
grouping of the city-divinities of Thebes bespeak
a Cabirian origin. In Aristoph. Thesm. 300,
among the divinities specially connected with
Demeter we find Hermes and the Charites. Now,
Káðuos Aéystal & ‘Eppis, as Etym. Gud (s. v.)
|
|
says ; he is the attendant on the Great Goddesses,
like the Cadmilus of Samothrace: and if the
Charites (cf. also C. J. A. 5) take the place of
Harmonia, that is only parallel to the Lemnian
nymphs taking the place of Harmonia in the
Cabiric worship of Corinth (Schol. on Pind.
Ol. xiii. 74). Now, Cadmus is a character
partly Pelasgic, partly Phoenician (cf. Maury,
iii. 234–253; Lenormant, op. cit.). Further,
Herodotus (ii. 59, 122, 123, 155), followed by
Diodorus (i. 13), expresses himself quite
decidedly to the effect that Demeter-worship
originally came into Greece from the Isis-
worship of the Egyptians: and he is of the same
opinion about the rites of the Thesmophoria,
(ii. 171). He relates that the daughters of
Danaus taught these mysteries to the Pelasgian
women; that on the Doric conquest of Pelopon-
nesus these rites vanished except among the
Arcadians who were not dispossessed by the
warrior Dorians. So we find Thesmophoric
worship traced back through Thebes to the
Cabiri of Samothrace, and then further to the
East, Phoenicia or Egypt; but into these dark
regions we cannot now follow it.
3. The Athenian Festival lasted for five days,
coast of Attica, partly in the city. We shall
first see who took part in the festival, then
describe its various parts, and finally discuss its
date.
(a) The participants in the Thesmophoria.-It
was to Demeter, chiefly as the goddess presiding
over marriage, that the Thesmophoria was cele-
brated. It was a festival embracing many mys-
tic and secret rites (Aristoph. Thesm. 472; Eccl.
443), in which women alone could take part ;
but it was open to all free women of respectable
character. Accordingly it was, as Maury says (ii.
223), the national and popular Demeter-festival,
in contrast to the Eleusinia, which was the mysti-
cal and aristocratic one. From the very nature
of the feast to the goddess presiding over mar-
riage, neither slaves (Aristoph. Thesm. 294) nor
courtesans were allowed to attend; and Lucian
(Dial. Meretr. 2, 1) is to be explained by sup-
posing that Myrtium watched the procession,
not that she took part in the ceremonies. But
it is not so certain that unmarried girls took no
part, as is assumed by Preller (Dem. u. Pers.
343; Fritzsche, p. 580 of his ed. of the Thesm.;
Schömann, Gr. Alt. ii. 483). For it is expli-
citly stated that trap66wou did take part in the
Thesmophoria at Athens (cf. Schol. on Theocr. iv.
25; Lucian, l.c.; Plaut. Aul. Prol. 36). At
Catana Demeter was worshipped “per mulieres
et virgines” (Cic. Verr. iv. 45, 99); and at
Algonus (Strabo, i. 60) trap64 wou also appear to
have taken part. Nor is there any reason why
they should not, when we remember that young
girls, trap6évol r' ér’ &guryes, took part in the
Bacchic revels (Eur. Bacch. 694), and that the
ancients in large measure held that to the pure
all things were pure (cf. &AA’ v rá páoret to
owºpove?v čveariv ćs rà irdvr’ &eſ, ib. 315).
Fritzsche explains away the passage from Lucian
by referring it to a kavmſpópos who took part in
the procession, but not in the mysteries: but
the Stenia was not the least coarse part of the
festival. We should rather assume that all free
adult women could take part in the ceremonies;
and if Aristophanes (Thesm. 330) calls them
THESMOPHORIA
THESMOPHORIA 83B
eūyevets yuvaikes, he only means that they were
full citizens, as does Plut. Sol. 8 when he calls
them tºs trpcºtas yuvaikas.
(b) The preliminaries.—During the first nine
nights of Pyanepsion the women who were to
take prominent part in the festival were re-
quired to observe the strictest chastity (Ov.
Met, x. 438); and all sorts of strange customs
are related as to the particular kinds of herbs
the women used to eat or to lie on so as to allay
sexual desire (Schol. on Theocr. iv. 25, kvěſa ;
Schol. on Nicand. Theriaca, 70, kóvvga; Plin.
H. N. xxiv. § 59, agnon; Hesych. s. v. Kvéopov;
Etym. M. s. v. akópoãov). The prohibition to
eat the pomegranate (Clem. Alex. Protr. c. 12=
p. 16 ed. Pott.) belongs generally to Demeter-
worship; and we have found it already at
Eleusis. [ELEUSINIA.]
Prior to the beginning of the festival proper,
each deme chose two of its richest and most
important women, who were required to per-
form the necessary sacrifices, and also to pre-
pare a feast for their fellow-demes-women
(Isaeus, Ciron. hered. § 19); the expense was
borne by the husbands, and was of the nature
of a Aetrovpyta (Id. Pyrrh.. hered. § 80). Ac-
cordingly the wives of the richest only were
chosen as presidents; and Aristophanes (Thesm.
834) proposes an alteration in this custom,
urging that this post of high honour be be-
stowed on women who have borne sons who
have signally benefited the state.
(c) The Stenia.-This is to be considered as
the beginning of the festival proper. The
women appear to have gone down during the
night of the 10th in small bands to Halimus
(cf. A. Mommsen, Heortologie, 296); probably
the women of each deme went together under
the leadership of their presidents. As they
went they exchanged with one another those
kinds of jokes and abuse (Phot. 538; Hesych.
s. v. o'rmviðoral) which characterised so many
Greek festivals, especially those in honour of
Demeter. The abuse and jokes appear to have
been very coarse (Cleomed. Cycl. theor. ii. p. 91,
ed. 1605; cf. Apollod. i. 5, 3, Diod. v. 4, of the
festival of Demeter at Syracuse). The deri-
vation of the name othula is uncertain. Schö-
mann (l. c.) supposes it from the halting-
places of the companies, where the abuse no
doubt was peculiarly rife; Preller (op. cit. 339,
note 19) from an actual place of that name
on the road to Halimus, and he compares the
ºyequptopol at the bridge over the Cephisus in
the Eleusinia. The place Xrſivta is hypothe-
tical, but the resemblance to the yequptopol is
unmistakable.
(d) The Mysteries at Halimus.-Halimus was
a village near Phalerum and Colias, on the west
coast of Attica. There was a temple there to
Demeter Thesmophoros (Paus. i. 31, 1), and
also one at Colias (Hesych. s. v. Koxidis). Ar-
mobius (adv. Gentes, v. 28) refers to the mys-
teries at Halimus in these words: “Alimontia
mysteria quibus in Liberi honorem patris phallos
subrigit Graecia et simulacris fascinorum terri-
toria cuncta florescunt" — a passage written
about A.D. 295, when all the mysteries of Greece
had become confused. In order to properly
understand, as far as we can, the mysteries of
Halimus, we must turn to other sources.
St. Clement of Alexandria (Protrept. 11 = p. 14,
21, ed. Pott.) says: “Do you wish me to tell of
Pherrephatta’s flower-gathering and her basket
and of her rape, how the earth split in sunder
and the swine of Eubulus were swallowed up.
with the disappearing deities—the reason where-
fore at the Thesmophoria they ‘encrypt’ swine
and cast them therein (ueyapí(ovres xoſpovs
éußdºxoval)? This story the women celebrate
in their feasts under varied forms, Thesmo-
phoria, Scirophoria, Arretophoria, all in one
shape or another giving a dramatic representa-
tion of the Rape of Pherrephatta.” [We have
coined a word to express ueyapſ.govres, which
means “to put into crypts (uéyapa),” as with us.
“pit” can mean “to put into pits,” &c. It
appears to have been a ritualistic word, as it is
found in Fpiphanius, and in connexion too with
the Thesmophoria : ai Meyapſ.govorat kal 0ear-
popopidºſovo at yúvalices, quoted by Lobeck (Ag-
laoph. 832), whose conjecture, we'vápots (āvras,
though brilliant and widely adopted, is un-
necessary.]
Even this passage was very obscure till E.
Rohde (Rhein. Mus. xxv. 548 f.) published a
valuable scholion on Lucian (Dial. Meretr. ii. 1).
from a Vatican codex. The scholion is very
long, but it is of such capital importance that
we must reproduce it at length. “The 6eo-
poqopia (accented paroxytone) is a festival of
the Greeks containing certain mystic rites, and
these rites are also called Scirophoria (a kipo-
©ópia). It is solemnised on the basis of the
somewhat mystical story, that when Cora, as
she was gathering flowers, was carried off by
Pluto, there at that very place a certain swine-
herd named Eubuleus was herding his swine,
and that they were swallowed up in the chasm
(along with the deities). It is in honour of this
Eubuleus that swine are cast into the chasms
(xãopiata) of Demeter and Cora. When the
bodies of the swine which have been cast into
the crypts (uéyapa) are decayed, certain women
who are called ávrXmtpfat, after purifying them-
selves for three days, descend and bring them
up. They go down into the sacred caverns.
(śāvta), bring up the remains, and place them
on the altar; and they believe that the man
who takes of this offering and mixes it with his
seed-corn will have a good crop. Moreover, they
say that there are serpents also below, all about
in the chasms (xão"para), and that these serpents,
eat the greater part of what is cast in : where-
fore too a rattling is made when the women
draw up (ävtåågiv) the bodies and when they
put back again those well-known figures (tà
TAdopara ékelva), so that the serpents, which
they believe to be the guardians of the sacred
caverns (ābārov), may retire before them. This
ceremony is called ‘the carrying of things which
must not be spoken of” (äppmroqāpia), and is.
performed as equally efficacious for the produc-
tiveness of the fruits of the ground and for the
generation of human kind. Moreover, too, they
bring there sacred emblems which must not be
spoken of (Šppmra ispá) made of dough in the
image of serpents and the male organs of gene-
ration (āvāpāv axmudrov).” [This is the inter-
pretation given by Rohde, p. 552, comparing the
pºol at Syracuse (Athen. xiv. 647 a): but
even so there is no need to emend àvöpów into
aioxpóv. It would seem as if we should read
&AAww, but the passage from Arnobius quoted.
832 THESMOPHORIA
THESMOPHORIA
above makes for Rohde's interpretation: cf.
Clement, op. cit. 21 = p. 29 Pott.] “And they
take boughs of pine (kávov), for that tree is
prolific; and into the crypts, as these sacred
caverns are called (és rà uéyapa offtos kaxoſ-
geva Śāvra), these offerings (ékelva, i.e. both
the sacred emblems and the pine-branches) and
the swine, as we have already mentioned, are
cast, these latter as being so prolific, in order
thereby to symbolise the generation of fruit and
of human kind—and all as a thank-offering
(xaptorrmpta) to Demeter, for she gave us her
corn and civilised (#uepov ćirotmorev) the race of
men. The account of the feast given above is
the mythical ; the one before us is the rational-
istic (6 8& Tpokeſpevos quorukós). The name
6eapoqopta (paroxytone) arises from the epithet
6eapopópos applied to Demeter, because she laid
down the law or rather her divine injunction
(váuov #rot 6eoplóv), whereby man is bound to
provide for himself and to get by his own labour
his daily sustenance (rhv Tpoqºv tropigeordaí Te
Kal karspyáçeadal).” Rohde supposes that the
Scholiast, finding in his text an allusion to the
6eguoqāpia (proparoxytone), looked up in some
book of ritual and copied down what he found
ander 6sopopopta (paroxytone). Now, this latter
was the name of the day of the mysteries at
Halimus, according to the right reading in Pho-
tius, 87, 21 (compare with Schol. on Aristoph.
Thesm. 80), wrongly altered by Porson to 6eopto-
“pópta: cf. Fritzsche, p. 578.
Accordingly, in the description by the Scho-
liast on Lucian, we have an account of that part
of the Thesmophoria which consisted of certain
'mysteries solemnised by the women at Halimus,
— mysteries both striking in themselves and
instructive in more points than one.
First of all, let us call to mind other
similar sacrifices offered elsewhere to Demeter
and Persephone. We read that there was a
hole (866pos) sacred to Demeter Erinnys at
Onceum, near Thelpusa in Arcadia, into which
live pigs were cast (Paus. viii. 25, 4; cf. Lyco-
phr. Alea. 1225, Aw8atoriv aikuo'0évtas 'Oykaſov
Bóðpov). The people of Potniae in Boeotia (Paus.
ix. 8, 1) used to throw into “crypts as they are
called ” (és rô pléyapa kaxočueva) young pigs,
and they relate that these pigs emerged again
[“at Dodona,” says Pausanias. We do not see
how év Aw8&vn can stand, and hesitatingly
with Lobeck (Aglaoph. 829, 830) read &vaôo-
6%ival: for a verb is certainly required, and
what connexion are the Potnians likely to have
nad every year with distant Dodona PJ at the
same season of the ensuing year. At the foun-
tain of Cyane, near Syracuse, a live bull was
precipitated, in honour of Cora, into a hole
where it was supposed that she had disappeared
(Diod. v. 4). Into a gulf near Argos, at certain
periods, torches were thrown in honour of Cora
(Paus. ii. 22, 3).
Next, as regards these crypts, or uéyapa, as
they were technically called, Eustathius (on Od.
i. 1387, 17) says, ióticós P. & y & p a karáyeva
oichuara raïv 9eaïv #yovv Ahumrpos ka? IIepore-
qāvms, with the addition of Ael. Dionysius, eis 8
r& uvarikā, iepā karat{0evrai : cf. Hesych. S. v.
&váicropov. Especial interest attaches to them,
as Sir Charles Newton opened one at Halicar-
nassus. It had been originally circular in form,
and amongst its contents were discovered “cer-
tain small figures of pigs in marble, and at the
very bottom the bones of swine and of some
other "animals.” Taken in connexion with the
scholion to Lucian and the passage from St.
Clement, it may reasonably be inferred that Sir
C. Newton discovered an actual crypt used in
the mystic ceremonies of the Thesmophoria.
The Scholiast tells both of the live pigs driven
down into the crypts and of the images (TAdo-
para), probably of pigs, which were placed in
the crypts after the flesh of the real swine was
removed; and both these were actually dis-
covered at Halicarnassus. (See Newton, Hali-
carnassus, 383 ff., 391, 422; cf. Plate lviii.)
But the most interesting point of all is the
reason given by the Scholiast for the sacrifice.
They believed that the flesh of the swine so
offered to Demeter would, if mixed with the
seed-corn, magically add to its fertility. We
seem to be very far from civilised Periclean
Athens here. We are away back in savage
times and their magic rites. In savage and
even bestial forms Demeter appears elsewhere
in Greek religion, e.g. Demeter Erinnys (Paus.
viii. 25, 4), Demeter Melaina (ib. 42, 1–4); but
that would be too wide a subject to enter on
now. It is more relevant to show by com-
parison that the custom of mixing blood with
the seed-corn is a savage custom ; and that has
been done by Mr. Andrew Lang in an article
“Demeter and the Pig’” (Nineteenth Century,
xxi. 563, April 1887: cf. Myth, Ritual, and
Religion, ii. 260–276), in which he adduces
the examples of the Pawnees of America, who
used to mix the blood of a human victim with
the seed-corn, and of the Khonds in the hill-
region of Goomsar, who sacrificed both a pig
and a man for the same purpose; * and further
Mr. Lang shows how, in the two discoveries of
Sir C. Newton at Halicarnassus, “the whole
character of Greek religion, its humane and
rational, and its wild and magical aspects, are
thus combined in the lovely Cnidian statue of
Demeter (cf. Newton, op. cit. p. 399; cf. Plate
lvi.), and in the fragments of bones of sacrificed
swine and images of pigs which lay in her sub-
terranean cell.”
But though these savage rites came soon,
under the wondrous alchemy of the Greek
imagination, to be transmuted into parts of a
poetical drama; still their savage character
remained to the end, intertwined with the
beautiful legend of Demeter and her lost
daughter. . For the mysteries at Halimus were
a more or less complete dramatic representation
of a portion of that story, as is expressly stated by
St. Clement, probably the portion which described
the rape of Proserpina (Rohde, p. 557). He
seems to preserve even the very order of the
representations. We think that here, too, the
mysterious ceremony called 6tayua took place
(Hesych. s. v.), it being a pursuit after the
ravished Proserpina; but this is rendered un-
certain by the article in Suidas under XaAkt-
* Mr. Frazer (The Golden Bough, ii. 48) relates that
“in Hessen and Meiningen the flesh of pigs is eaten on
Ash-Wednesday or Candlemas, and the bones are kept
till sowing time, when they are put into the field sºn
or mixed with the seed in the bag:” but cf. p. 29, “This
is thought to be an infallible specific against earth-fleas
and moles, and to cause the flax to grow well and tall."
THESMOPHORIA
THESMOPHORIA 833
àikov 8twylla, viz. toſs Osguoqopſois A0%vnaſ
tº vénigov čv troAéue Yvyatköv et:auévoy diox-
87val robs troAsutovs kal ovvé8m pvyetv eis
XaAkſöz. We confess to have no proper notion
what this means: Welcker (Griech. Götterlehre,
ii. 498) supposes that on one occasion of battle
the prayer of the women assembled for the
Thesmophoria effected the flight of the enemy
to Chalcis. For the calathus sacred in the rites
of Proserpina, see Claudian, Rapt. Proserp. 139,
and Spanheim ad Callim. p. 652; it was worn
also as a head-dress in the rites of Demeter
(Saglio in Dict, des Antiq. i. 813). As to the
functions of the āvrAmrpſal, Rohde (p. 554)
thinks that they were performed after the
festival, as otherwise the flesh of the swine
would not have had time to putrefy; but from
the complexity and detail observed as regards
the drawing up of the flesh, and the subsequent
consecration of it on the altars and the mixing
it with the seed-corn, we are led rather to sup-
pose that these are the ceremonies performed by
the assembled women, and that the casting of
the swine into the crypt took place some days
before the actual mysteries were celebrated.
Mr. Frazer (op. cit. p. 45) holds that the rotted
remains of the pigs were not taken up till the
next annual festival; and refers to this feature
in the ceremony at Potniae to which allusion
has been made (Paus. ix. 8, 1). This is possible:
lout it is not likely that, in a scholion which is
so explicit, such an important point would have
been omitted.
Lastly, it is to be noticed that the pig was
the animal especially sacrificed to Demeter.
Why it was so different explanations are given.
(1) The mythologists said that when Trip-
tolemus first sowed his crop a pig destroyed
his work (Avuavrikás, Schol. on Aristoph. Ran.
338); therefore did he seize it, place the fruits
on its head, and sacrifice it to the goddess (Serv.
on Verg. Georg. ii. 380; Aen. iii. 118). Or,
again, they tell that the pig effaced the track
of Proserpina as she was being carried away
(Ov. Fast. iv. 405). (2) The Symbolists find
in the pig an emblem of fecundity (6.3 to
Troxvrárov, Schol. on Lucian). Hence is to be
explained the many votive offerings to Demeter
of pigs with children on their backs. They are
offered to the goddess by parents if haply she
will grant them children (Gerhard, Akademische
Abhandl. ii. 340, note 36). The female womb
was called xoſpos (Aristoph. Ach. 780 f.; Schol.
&n Vesp. 1353); cf. porcus in Varro, R. R. ii.
4, 10. ... (3) But, besides, the pig was a common
and effective purificatory offering (Aesch. Eum.
283), especially at Eleusis; accordingly, both in
statues (e.g. that of Demeter Eleusinia in the
Louvre: Fr. Lenormant in Dict, des Antiq. .i
fig. 1321) and coins (Cohen, Med. Cons, pl. xli.
7, 8, Vibia gens) Demeter appears with a puri-
ficatory torch and a pig. Each of the initiates
at Eleusis sacrificed a pig on the 17th of Boe-
dromion, the day of the Great Eleusinia, which
was called 663 (Hesych. s. v.), and so apparently
9n the same day did each family at Athens
(C. I. G. 523, 7). There is a good picture of
a family offering a pig to Demeter and Perse-
phone in Baumeister's Denkmäler, p. 416, fig.
457 = D. and S. i. fig. 1310. (4) Mr. Frazer
(op. cit. ii. 44 f.) considers that the pig used in
the rites of Demeter was nothing else but the
WOL. II.
goddess herself in animal form (cf. p. 27) : for
in European folk-lore, as he argues at length
(pp. 26 ft.), the pig is the common embodiment
of the corn-spirit; the goddess is sacrificed to
herself on the ground that she is her own
enemy, as was the case with Dionysus. At the
Thesmophoria swine's flesh appears to have been
eaten (Schol. on Aristoph. Ran. 338), and Mr.
Frazer considers that “the meal must have
been a solemn sacrament or communion of
worshippers partaking of the body of the god.”
We cannot help thinking that the Scholion is
too vague and unreliable to base on it such a
large conclusion.
(e) The Anodos (āvobos), sometimes called
ká6060s (Phot. 87; Schol. on Thesm. 585)—
On this day, the 12th, the women returned to
Athens in procession; and, says the Schol. on
Theocr. iv. 25, they carried on their heads the
sacred books of the ordinances of Demeter, and,
as it were praying, went off to Eleusis (kal &oravel
Attavečova al ātrāpyovro eis 'EAevorºva). The
Schol. on Thesm. 585 says that the name &vobos
came from the women going up to the Thesmo-
phorion, for it lay on a height. We are to ex-
plain the strange allusion of the Scholiast on
Theocritus to Eleusis, by supposing that the
Eleusinion was the goal of the procession
(Mommsen, op. cit. p. 300), and that either
the Eleusinion was originally called the Thes-
mophorion, or, more probably, the Thesmo-
phorion was part of the Eleusinion (cf. Milch-
höfer in Baumeister's Denkmäler, i. 198–9).
The carrying of the books of the laws on their
heads was an old custom with the women
(Aristoph. Eccl. 222, 3). It was for a long
time supposed that Demeter with a volume of
laws was represented on one of the metopes of
the Parthenon; but this view is given up by
Michaelis (Parthenom, p. 134, metope xx.).
However, there is no doubt that in a vase-
painting (Tischbein, IV. xxxvi., reproduced by
Fr. Lenormant in Dict, des Antiq. i. fig. 1296)
Demeter Thesmophoros does appear holding an
open roll of laws.
) The Scira (×icipa),—Returned to Athens,
still on the 12th (Mommsen, op. cit. 299), the
women met for the secret conclave called Xicipa,
at which Aristophanes represents them as
passing resolutions (Eccl. 18); at any rate
there was a president (Thesm. 834). We can-
not tell what the nature of the deliberations
were ; but that the Scira belonged to the
Thesmophoria seems certain. Besides the two
passages just quoted, we find in the Scholiast
to the latter that the Scira were rà yivögeva
isp& év rà éoprſ, raûrn (sc. Thesmophoria)
Ahuntpi kal Kópm.
Such is the opinion maintained by Mommsen
as to the position in the Thesmophoria of the
part called Scira; and in deference to his
authority we have placed it here, but with
much hesitation. That Mommsen (287–289)
has proved that the Scira belonged to the
Thesmophoria, and not to the Oschophoria as
is held by K. F. Hermann (Gottesd. Alt. § 56, 7),
is certain : but it is not at all clear that the
Scira was not part of the ceremony at Halimus.
In the first place, we should wish to refer back
(§ 3 d) to the passage of St. Clement (Protr. 11),
where he speaks of 9eguoq6pta (query -ía),
okipopópta äppmropépia, where the * pro-
H
834 THESMOPHORIA
THESMOPHORIA
bably, and the third certainly, refer to the
mysteries at Halimus, and therefore we may
presume that the second does too. Again, the
scholion on Lucian says that the 6eapoqopia is
also called orcupoqopia. [Of course, there is no
allusion to the Scirophoria held on the 12th of
Scirophorion, about the end of June; it is a
mere mistake of St. Clement and the Scholiast,
Scirophoria for Scira.] Further the scholion on
Thesm. 854 continues, oi 8& 3rt étrio Kupa 66eral
rfi 'A0mvá : for the corrupt &mío kvpa Fritzsche
(op. cit. p. 323) conjectures étrº Xicipw rā’A6mvá,
as in Steph. Byz. s. v. Xkſpos, though the usual
form is indeed Xicipači 'A6mvº (Paus. i. 36, 4; i.
1, 4). For Athena Sciras, see Preller, Griech.
Myth. i. 167 ff. The temple of Athena Sciras at
Phalerum was quite close to Halimus (Paus. i.
36,4); and it was natural that, as the primitive
Demeter-worship of Halimus came 'gradually
into connexion with the worship of Athena till
it was finally adopted into the Athenian state-
religion, it should get especially blended with
just that side of Athena-worship which ex-
pressed gratitude for the gifts of the Earth (cf.
Welcker, Gr. Götterl. ii. 283), and with just
that temple of Athena, namely the temple of
Athena Sciras at Phalerum, where her worship
existed long before it was introduced into the
city (Mommsen, 54). In a similar manner the
Demeter-worship of the Gephyraeans became
blended with the worship of Athena and Poseidon
(Paus. i. 37, 2; Preller, de Via Sacra, p. 18),
and Demeter-worship in Cyprus became blended
with the presiding national divinity, Aphrodite
(Engel, Kypros, ii. p. 654 –Paus. ii. 34, 11 ;
vii. 21, 4), as indeed it had a certain connexion
with the worship of Aphrodite Colias and of
Genetyllis (Lobeck, 630), even in Attica (Preller,
Dem. u. Perseph. 344; cf. Gr. Myth. i. 299).
) The Fast (vno reta) took place on the
13th. “At the Thesmophoria,” says Cornutus
(Nat. Deor. 28), “the women fast in honour of
Demeter; either it is that they honour her by
a peculiar kind of sacrifice, in that they abstain
for one day from the gifts which she has given
unto them, or it is in heedful commemoration of
the need that in days gone by fell upon men at
the hands of this goddess.” Seated on the
ground and in the deepest gloom, the women
fasted, and they did not even offer any sacrifice
(Plut. de Isid. et Osirid. 69; cf. Aristoph. Av.
1517). Originally they appear to have uttered
wild mourning and lamentations, koupol kal
6pāvol (Iamblich. Wit. Pythag. c. 27, p. 262,
ed. Kiessl.). These lamentations point to intro-
duction from the East (cf. Herod. vi. 58), and
partook of that piercing (orkAmpov) and Oriental,
unmeasured and intemperate expression of grief
which Solon and Epimenides (Plut. Sol. 12, 21)
tried to put down; and in this sense perhaps
the solemn words of the Homeric Hymn to
Demeter, 479, are to be understood : [äpyta 8 J
ofºros égri trapečfuev otºre trugéoróat otºr’ &xéetv,
péya yap ri 6eów &xos ioxdvet airbhu.
Most scholars after Plutarch (de Isid. l. c.;
Demosth. 30) place this fast in connexion with
the fast of nine days which the initiates at
Eleusis observed, in imitation, as is supposed,
of the fast of Demeter in her grief for the
loss of her daughter—and rightly too in part,
though we must remember that Persephone did
not play any very prominent part in Thesmo-
phoric worship generally, and that the lamenta-
tions and fasting point also in part to the fact
that probably the worship of Demeter as a
6ebs x0ávios had got in some degree mingled
with that of the goddess in her other aspects;
and it is to an earth-goddess that Iamblichus
refers the koupol kal 6pivot before alluded to.
The statement made by Lenormant (Dict, des
Antiq. i. p. 1059, note 1182) that the reference
was to the miserable state of humanity prior to
the possession of the gifts of Demeter is in some
measure borne out by the evidence adduced,
viz. Cornut. l.c., Aristid. Eleusin. 417 Dindorf.
He also tells us that Cornutus (c. 28) refers
to the absence of fire in the Hephaestia at Lem-
nos as a parallel to the fast of the Thesmophoria,
a point alluded to also by Welcker (op. cit. ii.
502, note 19), but we have been unable to find
the reference.
In Rome fasts in honour of Ceres were solem-
nised under Greek influence, e.g. the jejunivn
Cereris appointed by order of the Sibylline books
in 191 B.C. (Liv. xxxvi. 37, 4) to be held every
five years (cf. Cic. Balb. 24, 55; Festus, s. v.
Graeca sacra, p. 154 M.); also a jejunium Cereris
appears in the Calendar of Amiternum for Oct.
4th, a date which nearly coincides with the
Thesmophoria (cf. C. I. L. i. pp. 325, 403).
(h) The Calligeneia (KaxAiyéveta),—This was
the name given to the last day of the festival,
the 14th, the day of rejoicing and holiday after
the severe discipline of the prévious ceremonies.
According to the Schol. on Aristoph. Thesm.
298, Kaxxtyéveia was a Satuww trept thv Amuff-
Tpav: cf. Hesych. s. v., who says she is an
ākóAov60s. An important passage of Photius
quoted by Kock (Frag. Com. Att. i. p. 481 =
Frag. Aristoph. 335) tells us that Apollodorus
said that Calligeneia was the Earth, others a
daughter of Zeus and Demeter, while Aristo-
phanes the comedian represented her as the
nurse of Demeter. But the real fact probably
is that kaxxtyéveta is an epithet of the goddess
herself as the mother of a fair child, just as
Persephone is the fair child herself (kańAttraus
6ed, Eur. Orest. 964).
But, be that as it may, it is agreed that Calli-
geneia spoke the Prologue of the Second Thesmo-
phoriazusae of Aristophanes (Kock, l.c.). The
First Thesmophoriazusae (the play which we
possess intact) had its scene laid on the day of
the vnorreſa : the Second Thesmophoriazusae
probably on the Calligeneia (Fritzsche, p. 585).
In Athen. i. 29 we read that Demetrius of
Troezen called the Second Thesmophoriazusae
Oeapopopuda agai (cf. Kock, l.c.), i.e. the women
who have celebrated, not who are celebrating,
the Thesmophoria. But all the Grammarians call
our play the trpáral or Tpotépal Oeguoqopudgova at
(Fritzsche, l.c.); while it may be maintained
that Demetrius considered that the really es-
sential parts of the Thesmophoria were the
mysteries and the fasting, and wished to convey
that when they were done the Thesmophoria
was virtually over. During the Calligeneia
there was much loose jollification, plenty of
festivity (cf. Hesych. s. v. trpuravetov), sacrifices
(Alciphr. iii. 39), and we hear of dances ºvigºs
and 5xxagua peculiar to this occasion (Poll. iv.
100 : yet cf. Rohde, op. cit. p. 555, note), as
well as cakes of obscene shapes (krévas), like the
pºxxos at the Sicilian festival (cf. Lobeck, op.cit.
THESMOPHORLA.
THESMOPHORIA 835
200); , unless the kºréves actually point to a
rite of the nature of phallic worship, as Theo-
doretus (quoted by Lobeck) thinks.
(i) The Zemia (Knuta)-The concluding act
of the whole festival at the end of the 14th
was called Çmuía, a sacrifice offered intëp rôv
'ylvouévav (Hesych. s. v.), a kind of sin-offering,
probably in atonement for any offences com-
mitted during the festival. As such, and as
being the last act (éritexéwaa, Harpocr. 122) of
the festival, it reminds us of the tramuoxáal in
the Eleusinia [ELEUSINIA].
(j) The date of the Festival.—The Thesmo-
phoria were held in the middle of Pyanepsion
(= latter half of October and first half of No-
vember); as to this every one is agreed, but
there is some difficulty as to the actual days.
Photius says (87, 21), Oeapopoptov juépal 3'-
bekárm beguoqopia, Évöekárm ká6080s (generally
called čvoôos: see above, e), Šalčekárm vna reta,
Tptorkatēekárm kańAiyéveia: Hesychius (s. v.
&vobos) refers that part of the festival to the
11th ; and the Schol. on Aristoph. Thesm. 80
(érel rpírm 'ori Oeopoqoptov ji piéorm) says that
the day of the vng rela (which is the day
certainly alluded to) was the third day counting
the Thesmophoria at Halimus, the middle day if
you regard only the Athenian part of the festival
(6ekárm év ‘AApoſſivri, Georuopépua (query —ſa)
&yerat āorré rpírmy uèv &mö 6ékárms 18' elval,
Aéonv Sé whovvapt0aowuévns ris Šekárms); and
the days are, 10th Mysteries at Halimus, 11th
&vobos, 12th vno reta (on which day the scene of
the Thesmophoriazusae of Aristophanes is laid),
13th kaxAiyéveta. The Schol. goes on to state
that no one can maintain the far-fetched and
artificial interpretation (āAA’ of 8& pvypeteorðat
tus búvatat) that rpirm means Tptoricaióekaraía,
as Šktaía ékaraßóAos orexãva means ékkatēeka-
Tata. Nearly all scholars are in agreement
with the scholiast: e.g. Schömann (ii. 483),
Maury (ii. 227), Schäfer (Demosthenes und seine
Zeit, iii. 359). [Of course, the statement in
Plut. Demosth. 30, that the vno reta was on the
16th, is quite in error.]
But there is much to recommend “ the far-
fetched and artificial * interpretation, and it is
well supported by A. Mommsen (op. cit. 293 ff.).
He holds that rpírm = Tpírm ém. Séka. Not to
mention the fact that rptoricaióelcárm would be
troublesome to get into verse and very cumbrous,
we know that the days of the month are often
given without the decade to which they be-
longed being specified (Aristoph. Nub. 1128;
Demosth. Fals. Leg. 359, §§ 58, 59). If this
is so in the present case, the city festival will
be on the 12th, 13th, and 14th, and the 13th
will be the middle day of the city festival.
Further, this will allow that the nine nights of
strict chastity which were enjoined on the
women (see above, b) should all be in Pyanepsion,
the Stenia not beginning till the 10th. Again,
the 13th of months generally was considered an
unlucky day (cf. Hes. Op. 780); no decree is
ever found to have been passed on it; while the
fourth day of each decade was a lucky day for
begetting children (ib. 794). Finally the Thesea,
which we know in Roman times were lengthened,
will not overlap the Thesmophoria if we allow
that the latter did not in any sense begin till
the 10th. We confess to thinking Mommsen's
view the more satisfactory; but must add that
Preller (Griech. Myth. i. 640, note 1), with that
view before him, deliberately rejects it, though
he gives no reasons for so doing.
As regards 9eguoqoptov ji uéon in Aristo-
phanes (cf. Athen. vii. 307 f, jueſs vmorretav
ūyoptev 0eguoqoptov thv uéony), the day of the
vmoteta appears to have been the middle day
of the strict Athenian festival. For the whole
Thesmophoria, as it existed in Attica in Aristo-
phanes' time, was a blending of the original
Mysteries at Halimus, where Demeter-worship
was first introduced into Attica, and an Athenian
festival. The first two days (the Stenia and
the Mysteries) belonged to the former, the last
three days to the latter.
We subjoin a table of the dates of the several
parts of the festival, according to the ordinary
reckoning and to Mommsen.
Ordinary
reckoning. Mommsen.
Stenla . . . . 9 Pyanepsion (=Oct. 22) 10
Mysteries at Halimus 10 33 2, 23 11
Anodos and Scira . 11 9p , 24 12
Nesteia. is ſº . 12 3? $y 25 13
Calligeneia and Zemia 13 99 , 26 14
4. Thesmophoric worship outside Attica.--
(a) Greece. The house of Cadmus in Thebes
became the temple of Demeter Thesmophoros
(Paus. ix. 16, 5), and Xenophon (Hell. v. 2, 29)
tells us that the Theban women év tá Kabuetg
6eoplopopudićsiv (cf. Plut. Pelop. 5). At Drymaea
in Phocis the Thesmophoria was a yearly festival
(Paus. x. 33, 12), Megara had a temple to
Demeter Thesmophoros (ib. i. 42, 6), and at
Argos the daughters of Danaus were said to
have taught the Pelasgian women the rites of
the goddess (Herod. ii. 171). The temples of
Demeter at Aegina (Herod. vi. 91) and Troezen
(Paus. ii. 32, 7) had ceremonies connected with
them analogous to those of Demeter in Attica:
for we hear of a A10080xta at Troezen (ib. § 2),
which probably resembled the 828Amrūs of the
Eleusinia; and at Aegina of the ribald abuse
(Herod. vi. 83), which was characteristic of the
"equptorubs in the Eleusinia and of the Stenia in
the Attic Thesmophoria. At Troezen, Epidaurus,
and Aegina, Demeter and Cora appear under the
names of Damia and Auxesia (Herod. v. 82).
At Agila in Laconia there was a temple of
Demeter to which women only were admitted
(Paus. iv. 17, 1), which perhaps points to
Thesmophoric worship, and Hesychius (s. v.
Tpiñuepov) speaks of Thesmophoria at Sparta
(cf. possibly C. I. G. 1435, of a priestess who
served raïv Oeaïv). About seven miles from
Pellene in Achaea was a temple of Demeter
Mysia (Mysius was a man who had entertained
Demeter in her sorrow), in which a festival was
held lasting for seven days. On the third day
not only the men, but all male animals were
excluded from the temple, and the women per-
formed mystic rites during the night (6pāoriv čv
rfi vukri Štróa'a véuos éarly airaſs). The next
day the men came back; and a contest of
abuse ensued (Paus. vii. 27, 9, 10). In Arcadia,
Herodotus says (ii. 171), the old original worship
of Demeter Thesmophoros survived, as it remained
unassailed by the Dorian invaders. No doubt
Demeter-worship in Arcadia presented very
striking peculiarities and forms, such as are to
be gathered from the stories told * of
3 H
836 THESMOPHORIA
THOLUS
Demeter Erinnys at Thelpusa (viii. 25, 4–5) and
of Demeter Melaina at Phigalia (ib. 42, 1–4);
but these have little affinity with the law-
establishing goddess, and even the worship in
the great temples of Demeter at Acacesion and
Megalopolis show not so much Pelasgian survival
as Eleusinian influence; for we know that a
considerable missionary propaganda of the Great
Goddesses spread itself abroad from Eleusis
about the time of Epaminondas (cf. Paus. viii.
37, 1–7; 31, 1–7; Lobeck, Aglaoph. 1251;
Preller, Dem. u. Perseph. 148 ft.). However,
about half a mile from Megalopolis there was a
temple of Demeter in the Marsh (év čael, Paus.
viii. 36, 6), where women alone had the right
to enter, which points to Thesmophoric wor-
ship, and about four miles above Pheneus in
Arcadia was a temple of Demeter Thesmia
(ib. 15, 4).
(b) The Islands and the Colonies.—With regard
to the Thesmophoria at Eretria, Plutarch
(Quaest. Graec. 31 = ii. 298) asks why the
women cook their meat in the sun and not on
the fire, and why they do not invoke Calligeneia
(kal KaNAtyévelav oi kaxobol); and gives the
unsatisfactory answer that it was because the
captive Trojan women on the return from Troy
were sacrificing the Thesmophoria there, when
suddenly a favourable wind sprang up and they
had to leave the ceremonies uncompleted. Crete
was a very old seat of Demeter-worship
[ORPHICA] (cf. Hom. Hymn. to Demet. 123;
Hes. Theog. 971), having among its months two
called Eleusinios and Thesmophorios. From
Crete it passed to Paros, where it was in the
highest degree important (Herod. vi. 134–5):
we read that there Timo was irroğkopov táv
x8ovſwv 6eóv, guarding to Épicos 6eguoq6pov
Ahumrpos, and was accused of having shown to
Miltiades sacred emblems which should not have
been disclosed to any one of the male sex. The
archives of Paros were kept in the temple of
Demeter (C. I. G. 2557, 22). Cabarnus, who
in the legend was said to have pointed out to
Demeter where Persephone had been carried off,
was the reputed ancestor of the Parian Demeter-
priesthood (C. I. G. 2384). Perhaps this Parian
Demeter-worship was originally a family one ;
and when later it became a public worship, the
family retained the chief priesthood of it, like
some of the priesthoods at Eleusis. From Paros
it passed to Thasos (Paus. x. 28, 3), if the
worship referred to here is Thesmophoric. At
Delos there was certainly a Thesmophoria
(Athen. iii. 109), where a cake called &xatvm
was used (Lobeck, op. cit. 1063); and in Cyprus
there was a Thesmophoria lasting for nine days
(cf. Engel, . Kypros, ii. 653–4). We hear of
Thesmophoric worship in Asia Minor at Ephesus
(Herod. vi. 16), Miletus (Steph. Byz. MtAmros),
Laodicea (C. I. G.4000, a curious inscription,
where see Boeckh's notes), Smyrna (ib. 3194,
3211), Priene (ib. 2907); in Macedonia (Polyb.
xv. 29, 8); in Thrace at Abdera (Diog. L. ix.43);
and even so far away as Panticapaeum (C. I. G.
2106–2108). Demeter-worship came into Sicily
from Greece, and at Syracuse there was a
Thesmophoria in spring (also called Demetria,
Diod. v. 4), at which pivXAol cakes of sesame and
honey in the shape of éphéaig Yvvaiketa were
eaten (Athen. xiv. 617); and a Coreia in summer,
which was a very splendid feast: in it appeared
the traditional airžpoxoyſa (Diod. l. c.). At
Catana there was a worship of Demeter by
women only,–her statue was never even heard
of by men till Verres stole it (Cic. Verr. iv. 45,
99); and at Agrigentum there was a Thesmo-
phoria (Polyaen. v. 1). In Naples and the
adjoining country the worship of Demeter was
widespread (C. I. G. 5799, and perhaps 5838
with Boeckh's note). The rites of Ceres were
the only foreign mysteries tolerated by the
Romans (Cic. de Leg. ii. 9, 21); but they
readily accepted her rites, making the Greek
priestesses of Demeter (who almost all came
from Naples or Velia) Roman citizens (cf. Cic.
Balb. 24, 55). At Cumae to be priestess of
Demeter Thesmophoros was the highest honour
to which matrons could aspire (Plut. Virt. Mul.
26 = ii. 262); and an inscription of a priestess
of the same goddess has been found at Pompeii
(C. I. G. 5865).
The chief work on the worship of Demeter
Thesmophoros is Preller, Demeter und Persephone,
335–365; also his Griechische Mythologie, i.”
639-641. As regards the Athenian festival, see
A. Mommsen, Heortologie der Athener, 287-302;
and Fritzsche's edition of the TheSmophoriazusae.
For further, compare Welcker, Griechische Göt-
terlehre, ii. 495–540; Maury, Histoire des Re-
ligions de la Grèce antique, ii. 222–229; Schö-
mann, Griechische Alterthümer, ii. 482–6; K. F.
Hermann, Gottesd. Alterthümer, § 56, 12–27;
Mr. J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, ii. 44 ft.,
and Encyclopaedia Britannica (ed. 9), s. v. Thes-
mophoria; and, above all, Lenormant’s article
on CEREs in Daremberg and Saglio's Dict, des
Antiquités, i. 1021–1078. [L. C. P.]
THESMO'THETAE. [ARCHON.]
THETES (9;ires). In earlier times this
name denoted any freemen who worked for hire
(oí Éveica ºrpoq’ſs SovXečovres, Photius, s. v. ;
ëAev6epôv čvoua Stă revtav Čir àpyvpiq àovXevöv-
Tov, Pollux, iii. 32). Homer (Od. iv. 644) speaks
of 97tes re 5uáés re, the latter properly signi-
fying those who became slaves by captivity.
That Thetes were not adscripti glebae, like the
Penestae or Helots, appears from 0d. xi. 489, and
still more plainly from Od. xviii. 357 ff., where
“free contract ’’ and “sufficient wages” are
expressly mentioned. (Compare Schömann, Ant.
Jur. Publ. p. 70; Antiq. i. 41 E. T.; SERVUS,
p. 656 b).
The persons best known by the name of 67 res
are the members of the fourth or lowest class
at Athens, according to the political division of
Solon. They are spoken of under CENSUS (Greek)
in Vol. I. The cleruchies (kAmpovyta) of the
time of the Peloponnesian war were mostly
recruited from them. As Thetes they did not
serve in the Athenian army as hoplites, only as
Wixot; but on becoming cleruchs they passed
into the class of Çevyºral, and therefore of hop-
lites. The Athenian armies during the war
were thus reinforced by at least 10,000 men
(Gilbert, Staatsalterth. i. 421).
[C. R. K.] [W. W.]
THOLUS (96Aos), a round building, probably
the most primitive form of hut, and so pre-
served traditionally in a house or city. In the
Homeric house it stood in a corner of the atºm,
and a rope stretched round it from a column
was high enough to hang the unfaithful servants
from (Od. xxii. 466). It is stated to have
THRONUS
THRONUS. 837
served as a storehouse (Schol. ibid.); and if so,
its resemblance to the 6moravpos and also to
beehive tombs, like those at Mycenae, is to be
noticed. For an account of the Tholus at
Athens, see PRYTANEUM. The Tholus at Epi-
daurus, which was built by Polycleitus, was of
remarkable beauty in its execution; its ground-
plan and portions of its architecture have been
recovered. It was round, and had an external
colonnade of the Doric order, and Corinthian
internal columns. It contained pictures by
Pausias, but there is no record of the purpose
for which it was used. The name tholus is
used later for any circular building. (Tsountás,
in 'E p mu ep?s 'Apy a to Aoy tº #, 1885, pp. 30
sqq.; IIpak ri k & ris 'Apxai o Aoy i k is ‘ET al-
pigs, 1883, IIuv. T.) [E. A. G.]
THRONUS. The use of the throne as a
symbol of kingly power or authority in general
is so ancient, that any inquiry into its origin
would lead far beyond the earliest records of
Greece and Italy. Even on the pre-historic
remains found at Mycenae and other sites in
Greece and on the islands of the Aegean, seated
figures are represented in a way which leaves
no doubt that they are receiving homage. Un-
fortunately these thrones are so poorly repre-
sented, that no idea of those then used can be
gained from them.
In Homer the 6póvos is distinguished from
all other forms of seat [SELLAT, and was used
by kings and princes. It was not, however,
wholly confined to them, for any guest whom
the prince wished to honour was given a throne.
Telemachus, for instance, shows his respect for
Athene when she arrives disguised as Mentes in
this way (Od. i. 130). It was doubtless on this
account that we find the seats of all the guests
in magnificent palaces, such as that of Alcinous
or the hospitable house of Odysseus, are called
6póvot (Od. xvi. 408). As might be expected
from this, the seats of the gods are always
6póvot, except in one passage (17. viii. 436),
where all except Zeus sit on KAuguot, he taking
a 6póvos : but this is quite naturally meant to
show his supremacy. The idea, in fact, is the
same as that in the mind of the artist of the
Parthenon frieze. On the west side, in the
assembly of the gods he has given Zeus alone
a throne with back and arms, whereas the
seats of the other gods are mere stools (cf.
British Museum Guide to Elgin Marbles, p. 66,
No. 29).
The epithets in Homer do not give much
information about the shape or appearance of
the thrones he mentions. It was high (iſºmaos,
Od. viii. 422), and always had a footstool
(9pmvus, Od. i. 131; xix. 57). It was covered
with rugs and carpets (Od. i. 130; xx. 150) of
the richest kind. From the epithets oriyaxóels,
qaeuvés, and £eatós, we may conclude that it
was made of wood, turned and highly polished.
The wood, however, was often overlaid with
gold plating (xpúaetos, Il. viii. 442), in the
style that the gold-leaf ornaments from Mycenae
have made so familiar (cf. Schuchhardt, Schlie-
mann’s Ausgrabungen, 267 foli.). There is no
mention of a throne having arms; but from the
account of the death of Antinous, Helbig infers
that they were used (Od. xxii. 8–20). The
earliest monuments showing thrones are the
rude terra-cotta statuettes representing god-
desses which are found with pottery of the
Dipylon and other Geometric styles (cf. Jahrbuch
des d. Arch. Inst., Boehlau, 1888). These, how-
ever, show little more than that the back was
straight and ornamented, and that footstools
were generally used. One may, however, trace
in the magnificent throne which later ages
provided for temple idols, a traditional survival
of the gorgeousness of Heroic times. Two of
these are the throne of Apollo at Amyclae, the
work of Bathycles of Magnesia (Paus. iii. 18,
19), and the throne of Zeus at Olympia, designed
and executed by Pheidias (Paus. v. 11). The
former, however, was not a throne in the
ordinary sense, being a structure built round
the old wooden idol (£6avov), which of course
could not be put in a sitting attitude. The
latter, however, was in all respects, except its
colossal size, a throne; the additional pillars
inserted between the legs to support the
enormous weight of the statue being the only
difference. Pausanias (loc. cit.) gives a full
description of its structure and decoration. It
was made of ivory and gold, ornamented with
gems and ebony, sculptured, inlaid, and painted.
The back was high and surmounted by sculp-
tured groups of the Graces and Seasons, which
rose about the head of the god. Between the
legs were eight crossbars, and below was a
footstool, the whole covered with a multitude
of figures and
groups represent-
ing mythological
heroes and tales.
º ; § #
This throne is well #: lº Mºš
shown on the coins §º:
* º tº #º:
of Elis of the time #AW Wºº-ºº-ºººº
of Hadrian, a small
sketch of the fa-
mous statue on
their reverse (cf.
Journ. of Hellenic
Studies, vol. x. 98).
It agrees well with
Pausanias, showing the high back, the Sphinx
supporting the arm, the cross-bars between
the legs and the footstool. It fails to show
the two groups standing on the back, and of
course gives no idea of the decoration. Mag-
nificent as this throne was, there is nothing
beyond its size and artistic merit which might
not have been found on the seats of early
Greek kings. Even the more or less common-
place forms on the monuments—the grave reliefs
in particular—show much variety of design and
complicated decoration.
The best known of the grave reliefs of the
type in which the dead man appears enthroned
and receiving the homage of his descendants is
the Harpy tomb from Lycia, at the British
Museum. It shows us no less than five thrones,
the most typical of which are those on the slab,
where two seated ladies receive offerings from
three women. The lady to the left is on a throne
with legs of turned work strengthened by cross-
bars. The arm which is visible is also of turned
wood, and, as in the case of the Olympia throne,
is supported by a Sphinx. The lady to the
right sits on a throne with very solid square
legs, which end above in an early form of the
Ionic volute (cf. Puchstein, Das Ionische Capitell),
and are decorated in the middle with a palmette
Coin of Elis, showing Zeus
enthroned.








838 THRONUS
THRONUS
ornament. The arm ends in a ram's head, and
the top of the back is bent over and carved into
the shape of a goose's head. Both thrones are
thickly cushioned, and both have a footstool.
On the other sides of the tomb we see other
varieties, one seat having no back, another no
arms, while the third has an arm supported by
the figure of a Triton, and front legs carved
ºis
( sº
S- §::) \\
{#Tºš
|AºE
*-
º WSº
Sºg
-º-º-º- ºr a *-ºs º- º
Thrones, from the Harpy Tomb. (Murray.)
like the fore-legs of a lion. This imitation of a
lion's legs and paws is very common, but only
in the case of the fore-legs. A series of grave-
reliefs however, from Sparta and the neighbour-
hood (cf. Mittheilungen des Ath. Inst. 1877),
shows all four legs carved in this way, the back
legs being shaped as hind paws. Studniczka has
pointed out that this curious feature is only seen
elsewhere on vases of the Cyrenaic class, and
that it is the pattern in which almost all
Egyptian thrones are carved. This leads him
to derive the fashion from Egypt (Cyrene,
p. 9), and the remarkable coincidence of several
other shapes makes the hypothesis a probable
Olle.
Egypt, however, was not the only country
from which the Greeks borrowed their models
of thrones, for the connexion with Assyria and the
East is even stronger. This is especially to be
seen in the use of certain primitive forms of the
Ionic capital and the very peculiar variety of
the palmette ornament, in which two elliptical
cuts are made on each side of the leg, leaving a
narrow bar which is used in the decoration as
the stalk of a double palmette. Both these are
shown by the second throne described above,
and both are very common in vase-paintings, of
all periods except the very latest. The natural
inference is that the work of Oriental-cabinet-
makers, travelling through Greece proper, was
the source from which the Greek carpenter
derived his patterns and ornament. Not that
he copied slavishly; for the bewildering variety
of thrones on vase-paintings makes any simple
description impossible, and shows that much
invention was bestowed on their manufacture.
Some of the fantasy, it is true, must be the
artist's; for he gives himself free hand in the
matter, and omits backs, arms, and footstool as
it may happen to suit his design.
Much more reliable are the copies in stone of
actual seats, in which statues were frequently
carved; as, for instance, those from the sacred
way of Branchidae, now in the British Museum.
Such thrones were used by men of authority,
such as priests, judges at the games, and teachers
in schools (cf. Bullettino dell’Instituto, 1890, i.
p. 1, “Parodia d’una scena discuola "). It was
with thrones such as these that the Greek of
classical times, to whom the insignia of royalty
were scarcely known, was acquainted. In later
times, especially under the Roman Empire, it
became the custom to dedicate honorary seats
or thrones in public places, generally the
theatre, to the use of distinguished people.
Such are the seats of benefactors, priests,
archons, generals, and other officials, which
still remain in the theatre of Dionysus at
Athens (cf. C. I. A. iii. 240 seq.; and Miss
Harrison, Mythology and Monuments of Ancient
Athens, pp. 273–277). Besides these ceremonial
seats, each head of a house had a chair in which
he sat and entertained guests, which was not
unlike the old 6póvos in shape and went by its
IlāIſle.
Such also was the case at Rome, where the
solium was only used by the paterfamilias, who sat
in it of a morning when giving audience to his
clients (Cic. de Leg. i. 3, 10: “Cum praesertim
non recusarem quominus more patris sedens in
solio consulentibus responderem ’). The solium
was in form practically the same as the Greek
6póvos, and, like it, was the seat of gods. The
seat of the teacher, however, was not called
solium but cathedra ; a word which is otherwise
used as a translation for 8tºppos, not 6pévos.
Solium is also the name for a peculiar kind of
bathing chair, in which the bather sat and had
hot water thrown over him. Such chairs are
to be seen in many museums (cf. Daremberg et
Saglio, Dict., art. Balneae, fig. 768). Some,
however, seem to have been rather of the nature
of a hip bath, and are frequently mentioned by
medical writers (Celsus, vii. 26, 5, “in solium...
aquae calidae resupinus demittendus est; ” cf.
Festus, p. 298 b, 22 M., “Alvei quoque, lavandi
gratia instituti, quo singuli descendunt solia
dicuntur.” - *
(Baumeister, Denkmäler, art. Sessel; Iwan
Müller, Handbuch, pp. 381, 385; Overbeck,
Plastik, i. 56, 74 foll.; Blümner, Kunstgewerbe
in Alterthum, i. p. 111, ii. p. 41; Buchholz, iii.
ii. 138; Hermann-Blümmer, Privatalterthiimer,
p. 158; Helbig, Das homerische Epos, pp. 108,
i18 foll, 378; Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 82.)
[W. C. F. A.]







THYRSUS
TIARA 839
THYRSUS (0%poros), a wand or sceptre
carried by Dionysos (Bacchus) and by Satyrs,
Maenads, and others engaged in Bacchic rites
(Eurip. Bacchae, 25, 80, 88, 733, 762, 1099 ;
Cyclops, 62, Bákyat re 0wporopópot; Athen. xiv.
p. 631 a ; Verg. Aen. vii. 390; Hor. Od. ii. 19,
8, &c.). It usually consists of a straight staff
surmounted by a pine-cone (Anth. Pal. vi. 165,
6&porov xAospöv kovopópov káuaka), or by a
bunch of vine-leaves and grapes or ivy-leaves
and berries (Ov. Met. xi. 27, 28; Propert. iii.
3, 35). A riband or fillet is found attached to
it, just below the pine-cone or the bunch of
On the monuments, the pine-cone
leaves.
Thyrsi, from a Greek vase. (Hamilton.)
appears most commonly to form the head of the
thyrsus. The pinecone-headed thyrsus is held
by Dionysos on an Attic terracotta of early
style figured in Baumeister, Denkm., art.
Dionysos, fig. 481, and is seen in the hands of
Dionysos and a Satyr on an amphora of good
style figured ib., art. Dionysos, fig. 491 = Mon.
Inst. vi. vii., Taf, 70. It may also be seen on
red-figured vases of the best period (e.g. in the
British Museum, vases labelled E. 164, E 179,
R 356, E 372, E 379) and on later vases
(British Museum, F91), on gems (A. H. Smith,
Brit. Mus. Cat. Engraved Gems, Nos. 957, 1023),
on Roman reliefs (Anc. Marbles in Brit. Mus. ii.
pl. xii.), and on coins (the thyrsus is an occasional
type and a not infrequent symbol on coins. It
has the pine-cone head). The thyrsus with the
ivy-bunch top is found on vases both of the
fine (British Museum, E 54, E 109, E 153) and
later periods (Brit. Mus. F. 377). Occasionally,
as on certain Roman terracotta reliefs in the
British Museum (Descript. of Anc. Terracottas
in Brit. Mus., No. xxi., pl. xiii.; ib. No. xxxvii.,
pl. xx.), the thyrsus has the pine-cone at each
end of the staff. An interesting coin of Amisus
in Pontus, struck under the influence of Mith-
ridates Eupator (the Great), shows a pinecone-
headed thyrsus with the staff formed of a pine-
branch : from the riband attached to this thyrsus
is suspended a bell on a cymbal, an unusual
addition (see Wroth, Catal. Pontus, &c. pl. iii.
the Phrygian cap.
No. 10; p. 18, No. 58: cp. the thyrsus, ib. pl.
iii. Nos. 7, 8, 9).
The pine-cone or leafy bunch of the thyrsus
was sometimes supposed to conceal a spear-head,
used as a weapon by Dionysos and his followers.
This is what is properly called the 6vporóAoyxos
(Callix. ap. Athen. v. p. 200; Diod. Sic. iii. 65,
iv. 4; Macrob. Sat. i. 19 ; Lucian, Bacch. 4;
Ov. Met. iii. 667). *.
It may be added that the pillars of the banquet-
chamber built for the great festival of Ptolemy
Philadelphus, described by Athenaeus, v. 196 sq.,
represented thyrsi and palm-trees alternately.
(For another example of a thyrsus, see woodcut
under VANNUs.) W—K W–H.]
TIARA. To the Greeks the ridpa or ridpas
was known only as the head-dress of the Persians.
Herodotus, whose information on this point,
unlike that of most classical writers, is at first
hand, says that it was of soft felt (vii. 61, rićpas
kaxeouévous tríAovs &mayéas: cf. iii. 12), and was
worn by the Persians not only when campaign-
ing, but at the more peaceful occupation of
sacrificing (i. 132: cf. Serv. ad Aen. vii. 247).
Later writers add that it was the distinctive
dress of the Magi (Paus. v. 27, 6; Strabo, xv.
p. 734). The only reference to the shape of the
Tudpa seems to be the comparison of some leather
helmets with a knot in the middle of them which
Xenophon makes (Anab. v. 4, 13, kpāvm orküriva.
kpá8vXov čxovra karū uéorov čºyyārata ºria-
poető7). . . .
One particular form, however, the upright
tudpa, is often mentioned as being the peculiar
badge of the Great King ; no one else being
allowed to wear it (Xen. Anab. ii. 5, 23). Ari-
stophanes, referring to it under the name kupša-
aríau áp6%iv (Av. 487), compares it to a cock’s
comb. This comparison enables us to identify
| it with the head-dress of Darius on the cele-
brated South Italian Wase-Painting in the
Naples Museum. It is evidently highly adorned
with jewels (cf. Val. Flacc. vi. 699), though we
cannot trace the diadem, which sometimes sur-
rounded it (cf. Xen. Cyrop, viii. 3, 13, eixe
(Köpos) 68 kal Suáðmua repl rà rućpg). The
tiara which Xerxes in his flight after Salamis
gave to the people of Abdera was bedecked with
gold (Herod. viii. 120, 50pmod{uevos ruñpm xpv-
orotráorrqº), and was doubtless the kingly form.
The ordinary tiara is that worn by the youth
who stands behind Darius in the vase-painting,
and is a felt cap of the kind familiar to us as
It is long and conical, and
the point falls forward over the brow of the
wearer, and, like the upright form, has lappets
at each side of the ear, which could be tied
under the chin, so that in late Greek it was
used of a hood. Sozomen (H. E. iii. 14, p. 111)
calls a covkoúAlov (= cucullus) worn by children,
a ridpa. The Scholiast on Plat. Rep. viii. 553
tells us that the proper name for the upright
tiápa is kfrapis (or kiöapis), though he adds that
Theophrastus says it is Cypriote, not Persian
(rivés à è kai kirapu Aéyoval to atrá- 6eóqpa-
orros 3& év tá trepi Baoixetas Kurpfav eival
Aéyel). Curtius gives a still fuller account of
it under the same name, saying that it is bound
round with a blue and white band (iii. 3, 19,
“cidarim Persae vocabant regium capitis insigne
quod caerulea fascia albo distincta circum-
ibat"). . . . . . . . -

840 TIARA
TIBIA
There has been some discussion as to whether
kupgaota is identical with the ridpa, or not, but
the passage quoted above from Aristophanes and
its use in Herodotus
(v. 49) seem to place
it beyond a doubt.
The only passage that
conflicts with this
view is the descrip-
tion in Herodotus
of the caps of the
Sacae, which were
upright, stiff, and
pointed (vii. 64, Xd-
kai. . . kupšaotas Šč
Öğü attiyuévas āpāās
eixos retrnyvías),
but the Sacae were
Scythians and not
Persians, and the
word might well be
used
the felt or sheepskin
caps worn by Tartars
(From a coin of Ti-
granes, king of Armenia,
B.C. 83–69.)
Tiara.
. and other Asiatic
Tiara. (From a coin of Ab- tribes down to this
garus, king of Edessa.) day.
Roman writers all use the word in a loose
way, and regard it as being especially a Phrygian
head-dress, both of men and women (Juv. vi.
516). Thus in Graeco-Roman art it was generally
given to Paris, Mithras, and other Asiatic
characters; while the kingly tiara falls to the
lot of Priam (Verg. Aen. vii. 246 and Serv.
ad loc.; Juv. x. 267). It is interesting to note
on a South Italian vase-painting (Baumeister,
Denkmäler, fig. 792) that Priam, weeping over
the dead body of Hector, wears an upright tiara
with the “cock’s comb.”
Later writers spoke of it as Parthian (Sidonius,
Carm. vii. 98; xxiii. 258), and the Church
writers used it for a bishop's mitre (cf. Hieron.
JEp. 64, n. 13; Eucher. Instr. 2, 10). It is
needless to say that it had no connexion with
the uſrpa known as Asiatic to classical writers.
[MITRA.] [W. C. F. A.]
TI'BIA. The word ai,xás, though it is com-
monly translated “flute,” denotes any kind of
wind instrument, with the exception of trumpets
and horns. As a rule, however, it is used in a
more restricted sense for the double oboe or
clarinet, which is familiar to us under the mis-
leading name of the “double flute.” This is
quite wrong, for the aixòs had a mouthpiece
(§etyos) in which a vibrating reed (y\órra)
was fitted, whereas in the flute the sound is
produced by blowing a stream of air across a
plain hole in the pipe of the instrument. The
true Greek representative of the modern flute
is the ordplºyé povokáAguos (fistula), as dis-
tinguished from the oripty; troxvicăAagos or
Pan's pipe. Both forms—the ordply; or flute,
and the oboe or aixòs proper—are, it would
seem, as old as Homer, who tells us that
Agamemnon, unable to sleep, heard afar off in
Troy aixòv orvpty)wy T’ voiráv (Il. x. 13).
The flute, however, was held in but low esteem,
and was thought a fit instrument for shepherds
and other country folk. The art of playing the
aúAós, or aixmruch, was on the other hand a
necessary part of education. In Boeotia it was the
national instrument, and as such the Athenians
in describing
affected to despise it in comparison with the lyre
(cf. Böttiger, Kl. Schriften, i. 14), though as a
matter of fact they used it as much as the other
Greeks. It is very frequently seen in works of
art, especially vase-paintings, and with the aid of
these and the many notices in literature we are
able to form an accurate idea of its structure. It
consisted of a pipe (Béuðvč, Poll. iv. 70), which
in the simplest form was made of reed (káAquos
80p6uktas, Theophr. H. P. iv. 11, 3), but might
be of bone, metal, or even ivory. To this was
attached by means of a socket of bone (öAgilov
or Öq6xulov) the mouthpiece (ſejºyos), in which
was fixed the vibrating reed (y\6tta). Theo-
phrastus (l.c.) says that the sound is best when
the mouthpiece and pipe are made from the
same length of reed. The instrument thus
formed does not seem to have been played alone,
but always in pairs. There are, it is true, a
few monuments, such as a Roman wall-painting
in the British Museum, in which the player has
only one pipe in his mouth, but then the other
is always to be seen in his other hand in a way
that shows he is only preparing to play. The
difficulty of playing two instruments at once
was obviated by a leather strap which covered
the mouth, ran under the ears, and was fastened
at the back of the head by a knot or buckle.
This curious piece of gear served to prevent a
loss of wind and to keep the two mouthpieces in
the proper position. It was called the popBeta,
orrowls or xelAothp (cf. Arist. Vesp. 582): in
Latin, the CAPISTRUM.
The notes were given by holes (rpvrhuata):
and as both pipes were played at once, there can
originally have been only four or at the most
five of these on each. However, it would seem,
from a remark of Proclus in his commentary
on Plutarch’s Alcibiades (c. 68, Kaorrow yūp
Tpútmua rôv aixòv Tpe’s pê6))ovs. šs paat
toūA&xtorov & pimoſiv), that two overtones at
least could be blown on each of these. The
compass was still further extended by the use
of additional holes with stops (trapatpurſuata),
an invention which was apparently in use by
the time of Pronomus, who played in the Dorian,
Lydian, and Phrygian keys on the same instru-
ment (Paus. ix. 12, 4). The simplest form of
stop shown on the Pompeian wall-paintings
consists of a peg, which could be withdrawn.
when the hole was needed. More complicated
is the device in which extra notes are given
by short cylinders attached to the pipe near
the end. This kind of instrument is frequently
seen in late representations of Euterpe, espe-
cially on Roman sarcophagi. Yet another
Tibia. (From a relief at Naples.)
invention was to cover the extra holes with
movable rings, which the player could slide



TIBIA
TIBIA 841
over or off them as he wished. Both the
small cylinders and the rings, with the hooks
by which they were pulled round, are well
shown by a relief in the Naples Museum
º: fig. 596). Such no
oubt, or something like, was the new-fangled
tibia, which Horace describes as “orichalco
vincta tubaeque aemula,” contrasting it with
the old-fashioned one, with its few notes,
“tenuis simplexque foramine pauco” (A. P.
202–3). The two pipes were tuned so that the
melody played on one could be accompanied an
octave lower on the other.
As the use of the clarinet and oboe became
more extended in Greece, various forms giving
notes of widely different keys were either intro-
duced from abroad or invented. Aristoxenus, in
a quotation given by Didymus (Athen. xiv.
p. 634 e), divides the kinds of instruments (yevm
aüAóv) used in his day into five classes: (1) The
maiden's (trap6eviou), (2) the boy’s (tratólicoſ),
(3) the lyre-player's (kiðaptorſipuoi), (4) the
perfect (réAetot) and (5) the more than perfect
(śtreptéAetol) instruments. Didymus tells us
that the “perfect” and “more than perfect”
varieties are the man’s (āvöpelot), which shows
that the classification is intended to proceed on
the same scale as the human voice they were
made to accompany, rising from the shrill
soprano to the deep bass. As this is the case,
the list evidently aims at being exhaustive; and
Gevaert, in his Histoire et Théorie de la Musique
dans l’Antiquite (vol. ii. § ii. pp. 271–307), has
catalogued the known varieties under these
heads as follows:—(1) trap6éviot—the yūy-ypas
of the Phoenicians, the pāriyā or cross-flute,
and the Phrygian funeral aixòs ; (2) trauðukot—
the aixòs éußarípios, the aixòs SaktvXukós, and
the Roman tibia chorica; (3) kiðaptorhplot—the
aôvavaos (Sc. cd'Aapios) and the aixòs wearákoros;
(4) Texeiot—the aixòs IIv6ukós, the aixòs éAvuos'
of the Phrygians, the ai)\bs Bów8vkos of the
Bacchic worship, the funeral pipe of the Greeks
and Romans; (5) StrepréAleot—the aixòs orirov-
Setakós. These varieties, it will be noticed,
include all sorts of wind-instruments, some of
which are fifes like the yf yºypas, flutes like the
qātiyê, or horns like the éAvuos. The last-
named deserves special mention, since it was
used in the worship of Cybele, and was also
known as the tibia Berecynthia to the Romans
Pair of Tibiae and Syrinx.
alone, but it apparently became the fashion to
use it as the left pipe in a pair, or perhaps, to
speak correctly, to convert the left pipe into a
Berecynthian by adding a curved horn mouth.
Such a pair is well shown above by a bas-relief
from Zoega, Bassiril. i. 14.
The invention of the aixòs, even if one refuse
to take Homer’s Trojans as evidence for the
Greeks of his time, must have been an exceed-
ingly early one, and was indeed by the Athenians
attributed to the goddess Athene. She, how-
ever, was disgusted with the distortion of her
face when playing, and threw it away. It was
picked up by the Satyr Marsyas, who met am
evil end when he contended on his new instru-
ment with Apollo on the lyre. His art, how-
ever, did not die with him, but was carried on
by Olympos, who brought it to Greece. The
myth points in Marsyas to Phrygia as the
original home of the instrument, which even
nowadays, in a somewhat debased form, is
played in both Arabia and Egypt. From what-
ever land it came, it certainly was firmly esta-
blished in Greece when History begins. It was
indispensable in religious rites not only to
accompany hymns and provide music for the
dance, but to hallow the libation at every sacri-
fice. It was equally popular in private life,
whether at dinner-time when a flute-girl played,
or in the leisure hour, or again in the time of
mourning when elegies were sung to its music.
Small wonder, then, that its playing became quite
a profession, which in Solon’s time was recognised
officially at the Pythian games. Sacadas at
Argos had at that time shown that the aúxmrhs
could express with quite as much effect as the
harper the story of Apollo's fight with Python,
and a contest for aixmral was thereupon founded
by the Amphictyons (Paus. x. 7, 3). The vase-
paintings of the best Attic period have many
representations of such contests. One of the
best is in the British Museum, and shows the
player mounted on a small platform competing
for the prize. [A cut of this is given in Vol. I.,
p. 358, under CAPISTRUM.] On another vase-
painting (Benndorf, Wiener Worlegeblitter, c. 4)
a master giving a lesson on the aixòs is depicted.
On the wall behind hangs the case in which the
instrument was carried. It is the orvéſivm or
aúA09%km, and is made of a spotted skin, perhaps
a lynx (cf. Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1869, p.
221); but, to judge from an Attic treasure
list, where one of ivory and gold (avgåvm
éAeqavrávn karáxpvoros, C. J. A. i. 170, 172,
173) is catalogued, was often of more splendid
materials. To its side is attached a little
box, the y?\wo orokopetov, in which a chan
of mouthpieces was kept. A similar lessºn
(where, however, the teacher is playing) is
shown in the cut from the Duris Vase under
LUDUs LITTERARIUS, p. 96: the flute-case is
seen hanging on the wall in the lower
portion.
At Rome the tibiae held even a more im-
portant place in ritual than in Greece, and
the tibicen who played it was for most cere-
monies quite indispensable. This is especially
true of funerals, for so great was the desire
to have a large number of tibicines to mourn
(cf. Hor. Od. iii. 19, 18; iv. 1, 22). It ended the dead that the tenth of the laws of the
in a curved horn mouth, and was of great power.
Twelve Tables restricted their number to ten
Originally and in its proper use it was played (Cic. de Leg. ii. 23, 59; Ovid, Fasti, vi. 654).

842 TIMEMA
TIMEMA
They were also called in to enliven feasts
(Quintil. Inst... i. 10, 20) as well as to take
part in the libation (Plut. Quaest. Conviv. 7,
8, 4, § 6).
Besides these uses, the tibiae were as neces-
sary to the drama at Rome as in Greece, both
to accompany the singers and to amuse the
audiences in the interludes (cf. Hor. A. P. 204–
6). From the Didascalia to Terence's comedies,
we learn that no less than four different varie-
ties were used in the theatre: (1) the tibiae
pares, in which both pipes were equal; (2) the
impares, in which they were unequal; (3) the
duae deatrae, in which the right was identical in
key and note with the left; and (4) the Ser-
ranae. Varro (R. R. i. 2, 15, 16) tells us that
the melody was played on the right instrument,
which he calls the incentiva, and the accompani-
ment on the left, or the succentiva; so that the
differences in size and character of the impares
and duae deatrae were intended to make fresh
harmonies.
(See an excellent article by K. von Jan, in
Baumeister, Denkm. s. v. Flöten ; Gevaert, His-
toire et Théorie de la Musique dans l’Antiquité,
Ghent, 1881, ii. pp. 270 ft. and 647 ff.; Her-
mann-Blümner, Privatalterthümer, p. 318; Iwan
Müller, Handbuch der Kultusalterthümer, pp. 59,
145; Id. Bühnenwesen, p. 262; Marquardt,
Privatleben, pp. 337, 345, 352 ; Blümner, Leben
&nd Sitten, ii. 148 f.) [W. C. F. A.]
TIME'MA (rium ua). The penalty imposed
in a court of criminal justice at Athens, and
also the damages awarded in a civil action,
received the name of ripamua, because they were
©stimated or assessed according to the injury
which the public or the individual might re-
spectively have sustained (Harpocr. s. v. &rſ-
untos &yöv kal ripamrós, etc.; Dem. de Coron.
trier. p. 1229, § 4. The orators rarely use the
word in this general sense). The penalty was
either fixed by the special finding of a court
(riumgiv troueto 6al, Isocr. c. Leoch. § 6, of the
dicasts; ripºmoris, [Dem.] c. Nicostr. p. 1252,
§ 18; Aeschin. c. Ctes, § 197 f.; or ripamua, Lys.
c. Epicr. § 16; Dem. de F. L. p. 434, § 290),
or merely declared by the court, having been
fixed before: either the law ordaining the
penalty for certain crimes, or the people ordering
by a decree how the defendant on being found
guilty should be punished, or in civil suits, e.g.
in an action for breach of contract, the parties
having attached a certain penalty to the violation
of the contract. In the first case the trial was
called āyāv ripum rés (Harpocr. l. c. : ép” &
tſumua &piouévov čk rôv vöuav oi ke?ral &AA&
Tobs burgotás #6et ruāorðat 3 ri xp}, traðeiv #
&Tortoa), in the second case &yöv &tſumºros
(Harpocr. s. v. : 3 rpégeotiv čk rôv váuov
épio uévov tumua, &s uměv beiv rows Sikaorrás
6tarpińgai. Cf. Schol. Dem. c. Mid. p. 543), a
distinction which applies to civil as well as to
criminal trials. Among the former class must
be reckoned also those trials in which the court
had to choose between two penalties fixed by
Law, as e.g. in the Ypaph 6%pov. Cf. Dinarch.
c. Demosth. § 60: oi véuot ... nepl rôv 8wpo-
Sokoëvrov 8to uávov rufiuata tremothkaariv,
6&varov... à Sekatraoüy roß & &px?is Afippiatos.
It is obvious that on a criminal charge two
inquiries have to be made : first, whether the
defendant is guilty; secondly, if he be found
guilty, what punishment ought to be inflicted
upon him. It may be advisable to leave the
punishment to the discretion of the dicasts, or it
may not. In some cases the Athenian lawgiver
thought the dicasts ought to have no discretion.
Thus, in cases of murder and high treason
sentence of death was imposed by the law
[PHONOS ; PRODOSIA], and in many other cases
the punishment was likewise fixed by the law,
the tendency being to limit in this way the dis-
cretionary power of the dicasts (Strab. vi. p. 260).
[EISANGELIA: see the trial of Cephisodotus in
359 B.C. in Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 676, § 167,
trévre raxávrous 3' émutóa are, tpels öé Mával
iyāqol buſivelykav ºrb whº 6avčrov rupińoral, cf. c.
Lept. p. 481, § 79; and the trial of Lycophron
in Hyperid. pro Lyc. col. 16, &ywviſouévº 6 ſcal
kivövvetlovri oi uávov repl 9avárov . . . &AA'
itrèp roń śoptor0%ival kal &toëavávra uměč év tí
tratpíðt rapival, cf. pro Euac. col. 31, Aeschin.
c. Ctes. § 252, Lyc. c. Leocr. sub fin.] Such
&yóves &tſumºrou were the ypaqal iepoovXtas,
thevöey'ypaqºs, BovXeūorea's, &5íka's eipx67vat &s
Houxáv, Ševías, Sopoćevias, wouxetas, étaiphorews,
trpoaywyelas, &pytas, Tpaduatos ék Trpovofas,
ãorrpateſas, etc. But where the exact nature
of the offence could not be foreseen by the
lawgiver, or it might so far vary in its character
and circumstances as to admit of many degrees
of culpability, it might be desirable or even
necessary to leave the punishment to the dis-
cretion of the dicasts. The law then directed
that the same court which passed sentence on
the culprit should impose the penalty which his
crime deserved; e.g. in a ypaqº) iſ speas, Arist.
Problem. 29, 16: étrº Tă ăBpet ... rºumoris rí xpi,
tra6eiv h &torioral, cf. Aeschin. c. Tim. § 15. To
this class belong the ypaqal trapavéuav, trapa-
trpeggetas, ſevöokAmreſas, KAoiris, etc.
In civil causes the sentence by which the
court awarded redress to the injured party
would vary according to the nature of his
complaint. Where he sought to recover an
estate in land, or a house, or a specific thing, as
a ring, a horse, a slave (i.e. in all 5theat trpós
riva), nothing further was required than to
determine to whom the estate, the house, or the
thing demanded, of right belonged. [HERES
(Greek); OIKIAS DIKE.] The same would be the
case in an action of debt, xpéovs 6them, where a
certain sum was demanded ; as, for instance,
where the plaintiff had lent a sum of money to
the defendant, and at the trial no question was
made as to the amount, but the dispute was,
whether it was a loan or a gift, or whether it
had been paid or not. So, in an action for
breach of contract, if by the terms of contract a
certain penalty had been attached to its violation,
it would be unnecessary to have an inquiry of
damages, they being already liquidated by the
act of the parties themselves (Dem. c. Dionys.
p. 1291, § 27; p. 1296, § 44, and Argum.). In
these and many other similar cases the trial was
&rium ros, e.g. of the 6tral kará rivos and those
âtograorſov and kakmyopias (Journ. of Philol. vi.
p. 25 f.). On the other hand, wherever the
damages were in their nature unliquidated, and
no provision had been made concerning them
either by the agreement of the parties or by
the law (e.g. in a 6them ārograq’ſov, robs &Aóvras
Se; SočAovs elval, Harpocr. s. v.), they were to
be assessed by the dicasts, e.g. in the 8tral
TIMEMA
TIMEM.A. 843
éritporºs (Dem. c. Aphob. i. p. 834, § 67),
aircías (Lys. c. Isocr. fr. 126 S.), ££aipéoews
([Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1327, § 19; p. 1328,
$ 21), ſevöopapruptºv (Dem. c. Stephan... i.
p. 1115, § 46; c. Aphob. iii. p. 849, § 16), Białov
(Lys, de caed. Eratosth. § 32, Solon’s law, Plut.
Sol. 23, being superseded), etc.
The following was the course of proceeding
in the rumrol &yöves. The accuser proposed in
the bill of indictment some penalty. The in-
dictment of Meletus ran : āśike? Xakpárms offs
aëv ji tróAts vouſ get 6eot's oi, vouſ.gov, repa Sê
Kalvå Öaipadvia eiomyočaevos &öuke? §§ ſcal rows
véovs 5taq,0eſpov - rtumua 6&varos (Diog. Laert.
ii. 40); cf. Dinarch. c. Prozen. fr. 85 M.: Aeſ-
vapxos Xavorpätov Kopfvévos IIpośévº 3 giveipu
BX&8ms, raxávrov 850. "E8Aapé ue IIpáčevos,
etc. Where the plaintiff’s demand arose out
of various matters, he would give in his bill of
plaint a detailed account, specifying the items,
etc., instead of including them in one gross
estimate ([Dem.] c. Aphob. iii. p. 853, § 30 f.):
this seems to have been considered the fairer
method, and may be compared to our bill of
particulars, which the plaintiff delivers to the
defendant. He was said ripá0.621 tº peſºyovrt
([Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1343, § 70; c. Aristog. i.
p. 792, § 74, p. 793, § 83), €rtypdqelv or émi-
'ypáqeoróat rſumua (Aristoph. Plut. 480; Aeschin.
c. Tim. § 16 lea, de F. L. § 14, etc.), and the
penalty proposed is called étrºypappa (Dem. c.
Nausim. et Xen. p. 985, § 2). When a charge
was brought, not by a private individual but by
a magistrate ex officio, the law required him in
like manner to write down the penalty which
he thought the case merited ([Dem.] c. Macart.
p. 1076, § 75 lea). After the defendant had
been found guilty, the prosecutor was called
upon to support the allegation in the indictment
and to address the dicasts. Here he said what-
ever occurred to him as likely to aggravate the
charge, or incense the dicasts against his op-
ponents. He was not bound, however, to abide
by the proposal made in the bill, but might, if
he pleased (in criminal charges probably only
with the consent of the court), withdraw his
own proposal in favour of the counter-pro-
position of the defendant (orvyxoſpelv rá righ-
Atari, [Dem.] c. Nicostr. p. 1252, § 18; p. 1254,
§ 26;-c. Neaer. p. 1347, § 6). This was often
done at the request of the defendant himself, or
of his friends ([Dem.] c. Theocr. p. 1343, § 70),
but such a withdrawal of the original proposal
was not binding upon the dicasts (Platner, Proc.
w. Klagen, i. p. 199). If the defendant thought
the punishment proposed on the other side too
severe, he made a counter-proposition, naming
the penalty which he considered would satisfy the
demands of justice (&vritupôorðat, Dem. c. Timocr.
p. 743, § 138; Hesych. s. v.; tıpaoréal éaurö,
[Dem.] c. Nicostr. p. 1252, § 18; ripáv Šavré,
{Dem.] c. Zenoth. p. 886, § 15, c. Aristog. i. p. 794,
§ 80—in private actions, Dem. c. Onet. ii. p. 878,
§ 10; i. p. 872, § 32). He was allowed to
address the court in mitigation of punishment;
to say what he could, in extenuation of his
offence, or to appeal to the mercy of the dicasts.
This was frequently done for him by his relations
and friends; and it was not unusual for a man,
who thought himself in peril of life or freedom,
to produce his wife and children in court,
to excite compassion (trapákxmoris, Hyper. c.
Demosth. col. 38; trapayory” rôv traibov kal yu-
vauköv kal qíAww, Hermogenes, Rhet. Gr. ed.
Walz, iv. p. 411; cf. Meier, de Bon. Damn.
p. 226, and Lys. c. Alcib. ed. Frohberger, Intro-
duction, $ 8 m.). After both parties had been
heard, the dicasts were called upon to give their
verdict (rupuav tº peſº)ovrt; Lys. C. Nicom.
§ 23, röv éoxárov ripav twi, c. Epicr. § 7,
6avárov ; Lys. fr. 44, rhv aircíav xpmudrav čari
Tupaioal, etc.). Here occurs a question about
which there has been much difference of opinion,
e.g. whether the dicasts, in giving their verdict,
were confined to a choice between the estimates
of the opposing parties, or whether they had a
discretion to award what punishment they
pleased. Schömann and Boeckh (Sthh.. i.” p. 441)
hold the latter opinion; Meier and Lipsius (Att.
Process, p. 943) decide for the former (see also
Wayte on Dem. c. Timocr. p. 743, § 138).
Aristotle (Pol. ii. 5, §§ 3, 8, 9, S.) tells us that
Hippodamus of Miletus (mpáros rôv pair troxt-
Tevouévov čvexeipno é ri trepi troAiretas eitreſv ràs
àptorms) proposed that the verdict should not
be given by ballot (Suá /mºpoqoptas), but that
each dicast should bring in a tablet with a special
statement of his opinion (év & Ypépetvei kara-
buká(ol āraās rºv Sticmv, ei 3’ &troxtol &m Aós,
kevöv čāv, ei 5& rô uèvro 5è uń, rotiro Stopfgeiv).
Upon which proposal Aristotle remarks that its
effect would be to make each dicast a Stavrºmths:
that it was an object with most lawgivers that
the dicasts should not confer with each other
(uji kowoxo~ye?a 6al trpos &AA#Aovs); and then he
comments on the confusion that would arise, if
each dicast were allowed to propose a penalty
different from that submitted to him by the
parties. From passages like Dem. c. Aristocr.
p. 676, § 167 (quoted above), and p. 688, § 205
(trapā rpets wºu & peſorav phºbovs, to uh 6aváre
Gmutóoral, revräicovira ö& réA&vra ééérpašav), it
is evident that the dicasts had to choose one or
other of the two propositions of the accuser and
defendant; and this course was, perhaps, the
only course that could be adopted with so large
a number of dicasts. At the same time it would
be absurd to suppose that the Athenian court
had no means of controlling the parties in the
exercise of that privilege which the law gave
them, or that it was the common practice for
the parties to submit widely different estimates
to the dicasts, and leave them no alternative but
the extreme of severity on the one side, and the
extreme of mercy on the other. Many passages
in the orators are opposed to such a view, and
especially the words of Demosthenes, c. Timocr.
p. 737, § 118. The course of proceeding seems
to have been as follows. The prosecutor usually
proposed the highest penalty which the law or
the nature of the case would admit of, and
it was not unusual for the speakers to make
allusions to the punishment before the first
verdict had been given. In the course of the
trial there might be various indications on the
part of the dicasts of a disposition to favour one
side or the other; they were very animated
listeners. They interrupted the speaker to
prevent his bringing in irrelevant matter
(Hyperid. pro Eual. c. 41; Dem. c. Boeot. ii.
p. 1022, § 47) or to ask for further information
(Dem. c. Spud, p. 1033, § 17; c. Stephan... i.
p. 1128, § 87: cf. Andoc. de Myst. § 70; Aeschin.
de F. L. S. 7, etc.), and expressed their pleasure
844 TIMEMA
TINTINNABULUM
or displeasure at what was said in a most
marked manner (60pw8eiv, Isocr. de Permut.
§ 272; Aeschin. c. Tim. § 83; Aristoph. Vesp.
622, 979; Isocr. Panath. § 264; Lys. c. Eratosth.
§ 73 f.; cf. Lyc. c. Leocr. § 52; Dem. c. Eubul.
i. p. 1299, § 1, etc.). All this enabled both
parties to feel the pulse of the court before the
time had arrived for the second verdict. If the
prosecutor saw that the dicasts were greatly
incensed against his opponent, and he himself
was not mercifully inclined, he would persist in
asking for the highest penalty. If he was him-
self disposed to be merciful, or thought that
the dicasts were, he would relax in his demand.
Similar views would prevent the defendant from
asking for too small a penalty.
As a general rule, only one penalty might
be imposed by the court, tra6eiv 3 &trorºo'at,
āppétepa Sê uh ééora (Dem. c. Lept. p. 504,
§ 155), though the law sometimes gave more
than one, e.g. death and confiscation of property
for påvos ékoúatos, &tipita and confiscation of
property (Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 640, § 62; c. Mid.
p. 551, § 113 lea: ; c. Neaer. p. 1363, § 52 lea: :
see also the decrees in C. I. A. iv. No. 27a,
l. 33; i. No. 31, 1. 20; ii. No. 17, l. 51, etc.).
Sometimes the law expressly empowered the
dicasts to impose an additional penalty (ºrpoortſ-
pumpia) besides the ordinary one. Here the
proposition emanated from the dicasts them-
selves, any one of whom might move that the
punishment allowed by the law should be
awarded. He was said trpoo ripaoréal, and the
whole of the dicasts, if (upon a division) they
adopted his proposals, were said trpoo ripav.
Timocrates’ law is said to deprive the courts o
the power of awarding Tà trpoo ripañuata rà éml
toſs &öuciuſzow ék Töv vöuov &ptopičva (Dem.
c. Timocr. p. 700, § 2; cf. Lys. c. Theomn, i.
§ 16). For which wrongful acts such additional
punishment might be awarded we do not know :
Demosthenes (l. c. p. 713, § 41, and p. 732,
§ 103) mentions imprisonment for state debtors
and persons guilty of theft, and &ripta was
probably awarded in a 6trºm bevöopapruplów
(Boeckh, Kl. Schriften, iv. p. 123). In some
passages trpoo ripav must be understood in the
same sense as Tupuav, e.g. in [Dem.] c. Aristog, i.
p. 790, § 67, &AA’ 3rt révre taxdvrov trpoo’ert-
uñorate ; cf. Dinarch. c. Aristog. § 12, Trévre
taxdvtwv rupińoral rotºrº (in the same speech
which Lipsius shows to be spurious, Leipz. Stud.
vi. pp. 319–331; ripamua, p. 796, § 87, is used
in the special sense of Tſumua xpmudraw, p. 797,
§ 92); Herodian, repl &piðuáv, in Stephanus,
App. p. 205, etc. In other instances the pre-
position trpos in the verb irpoo ripav is used with
reference to other matters, e.g. Dem. c. Mid.
p. 528, § 44; p. 571, § 176; c. Everg. et Mnes.
p. 1152, § 43.
In public suits a compromise between the
opposing parties was not permitted, the state
being directly or indirectly concerned in them;
but private suits were frequently settled by
arrangement between the parties, even after the
trial had begun, and with the assistance of
the dicasts (Isae. Dicaeog. §§ 17 f, 31; Dem.
c. Pantaen. p. 978, § 39 f.). With this exception
the course of proceeding in private actions with
respect to the assessment of damages was much
the same as described above. The liability of
the plaintiff to the étraflexia, which was calcu-
lated upon the sum demanded, operated as a
check upon exorbitant demands, in addition to
that which we have already noticed. (Att. Pro-
cess, ed. Lipsius, p. 208 ft.)
As to the amount of revenue derived by the
Athenians from public fines, see Boeckh, Sthh.. i.”
p. 439 f. As to rſumua in the sense of the
rateable value of property with reference to the
Athenian property tax, see EISPHORA.
[C. R. K.] [H. H.]
TIMOCRATIA. [OLIGARCHIA.]
TINTINNA'BULUM or AES (kówv), a
bell. Handbells were used among Greeks and
Romans for signals of various kinds: e.g. for
the opening of the market (Plut. Symp. iv. 4, 2;
Strab. xiv. p. 658), for the opening of the baths
(Mart. xiv. 163); to arouse or summon together
slaves (Lucian, de Merc. Cond. 24, 31; to this
use perhaps refers the “tinnitus aeris” in Sen.
de Ira, 3, 35); for purposes of sentry duty at
might, sometimes passed from post to post, as a
proof of wakefulness (Thuc. iv. 135; Aristoph.
Av. 841); [for the same purpose a staff, akvráxm,
or a lantern was sent round: cf. Aen. Tact. 22;
Droysen, Gr. Kriegsalterth. 264;] and similarly
for the use of night watchmen (Dio Cass. liv.
4); for the necks or harness of animals, as at
the present day (Eur. Rhes. 307; Aristoph.
Ran. 963).
From the passage in Suet. Aug. 91, there is
some indication of bells being attached to house-
doors; but, from the constant mention of
knocking, never ringing, for admission, we
cannot suppose that such bells were for the
same purpose as our door-bells: perhaps, as
Mau thinks, they were rung by the janitor to
announce to the slaves within that a visitor was
entering (Marquardt, Privatleben, 236; cf.
Becker-Göll, Gallus, ii. 236).
Besides the above practical uses, bells had a
religious significance which appears in different
forms, starting in all probability from the
general idea that they were a preventive against
evil influences. Hence we find them in con-
nexion with the worship of Rhea (Wieseler,
Denkm. ii. 813) and of Dionysus (Nonnus,
Dionys. xxx. 213), and thus represented in the
hands of a Bacchante (Wieseler, Denkm. ii. 539),
or attached to the thyrsus or tympana (as in a
relief in the Watican), or to a tree sacred to
Bacchus (see cut on p. 304): the bell round the
neck of the ass on which Silenus rides, as seen
on a sarcophagus in the British Museum, may
possibly have this significance, though it is also
possible that it belongs only to the general
custom, mentioned above, of hanging bells
round the necks of various animals. The same
idea caused them to be used as amulets: cf.
Chrysost. in Ep. ad Cor. xii. 7, Tà treptairta kal
rows kóöwvas rows tiis xelpos éémprºpévous...
6éov uměv čtepov tº trauði reputiééval # rhy
&mb roi, a ravpot puxarchv. Such, no doubt, was
the purpose of the bell on a necklace from the
Crimea, now in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg
(for this and other similar bell-amulets, see
Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1865, p. 174). A
votive hand, such as Chrysostom mentions, is
described by Bonnstetten (Rec. d'antiq. Suisses,
pl. xx. 2, 3). A similar prophylactic use Sug-
gested the bells attached to shields (Aesch. Theb.
385); and it is not impossible that the bells on
the tomb of Porsena may have been intended to
TINTINNABULUM
TOGA 845
avert evil (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. § 92; LABYRIN-
THUS, p. 2 a).
The forms of bells were various in proportion
to the multiplicity of their applications. . In
the Museum at Naples are some of the form
which we call “bell-shaped; ” others are more
like a Chinese gong. The bell, fig. 1 in the
following woodcut, is a simple disk of bell-metal;
it is represented in a painting as hanging from
the branch of a tree (Bartoli, Sep. Ant. 13; cf.
Bötticher, Baumcultus, 37). Two bells are
shown hanging to a tree on the left in the cut
under OsCILLA, on page 304. Figure 2 repre-
sents a bell of the same form, but with a circular
hole in the centre, and a clapper attached to it
by a chain. This is in the Museum at Naples,
as well as the bell, fig. 3, which in form is
exactly like those still commonly used in Italy
and attached to the necks of sheep, goats, and
oxen. Fig. 4 is represented on one of Sir W.
Hamilton's vases (i. 43) as carried by a man in
the garb of Pan, and probably for the purpose
of lustration (Theoc. ii. 36 ; Schol. in loc.).
Fig. 5 is a bell, or rather a collection of twelve
bells suspended in a frame, which is preserved
in the Antiquarium at Munich. This jingling
instrument, as well as that represented by fig. 6
st
º
Bells.
(from Bartoli, Luc. Sep. ii. 23), may have been
used at sacrifices, in Bacchanalian processions,
or for lustration. Fig. 7 is a fragment of
ancient sculpture, representing the manner in
which bells were attached to the collars of
chariot-horses (Ginzrot, Ueber Wägen, ii. pl. 57;
Compte Rendu, 1876, p. 115). The example in
the latter work is a bell of a more ornate kind
with a scalloped edge, somewhat resembling the
“bell” of a hyacinth (see Atlas of Compte Rendu,
1876, Taf II. 22). [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TIRO. [ExERGITUs, Vol. I. pp. 805, 806.]
TITHENIDIA (riðnvíðia), a festival cele-
brated at Sparta by the nurses who had the care
of the male children of the citizens. On this
occasion the nurses (ruréal) carried the little
boys out of the city to the temple of Artemis
surnamed Corythallia, which was situated on
the bank of the stream Tiasa. Here the nurses
sacrificed sucking-pigs on behalf of the children,
and then had a feast, probably of the meat of the
victims, with which they ate bread baked in an
oven (invíras &provs, Athen. iv. p. 139; cf. Plut.
Sympos. iii. 9, Quaest. Gr. vii. p. 211, Wyttenb.;
Hesych. s. v. kopuðaxAuorptat.) [L. S.]
TITIES or TITIENSES. [PATRICII.]
TI'TII SODA'LES, a sodalitas or college of
priests at Rome, who represented the second
tribe of the Romans, or the Tities; that is, the
Sabines, who, after their union with the Ramnes
or Latins, continued to perform their own
ancient Sabine sacra. To superintend and pre-
serve these, T. Tatius is said to have instituted
the Titii sodales (Tac. Ann. i. 54). The same
writer (Hist. ii. 95) gives another tradition, that
the priesthood was instituted by Romulus in
honour of king Tatius, who after his death was
worshipped as a god. It is true that Nipperdey
rejects this passage as an interpolation contra-
dicting the account in the Annals: but Mar-
quardt justly points out that the alternative
tradition is supported by Dionys. ii. 52, where
it is said that public sacrifices were yearly
offered at the tomb of Tatius; and it is not
improbable that the priesthood really had this
origin, and may rightly be compared (as in the
passage of Tacitus) with the later AUGUSTALEs,
instituted to preserve the cult of Augustus.
Whatever their origin, the use of Sabine rites is
attested by Varro (L. L. v. 85), who derives the
name Sodales Titii from Titiae aves, which were
observed by these priests in certain auguries; it
appears that these priests also preserved the
ancient Sabine auguries distinct from those of
the other tribes. This priesthood had fallen
somewhat into neglect at the end of the Republic
(cf., however, Lucan, Phars. i. 602), but was
restored by Augustus as a distinguished sodalitas,
in which the members seem to have been of
senatorial rank: among them we find the Em-
peror Augustus, Nero Caesar, the son of Ger-
manicus, and the Emperor Claudius (Mom. Ancyr.
Gr. 4, 6; C. I. L. iii. 381, 1741; vi. 913, 1343;
viii. 7050). The favour of Vespasian towards
them is testified by C. I. L. vi. 934. (Mar-
quardt, Staatsverwaltung, iii. 446; SACERDOs,
p. 573.) [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
TOCOS (rékos). [FENUs.]
TOGA (in Greek writers, th9evva). The
earliest costume of the Roman was a thick
woollen cloak worn over a loin-cloth or apron
[SUBLIGACULUM). This woollen cloak was
called the toga, and was the dress of women as
well as men and boys. It was laid aside indoors,
or when hard at work in the fields; but, as we
learn from the story of Cincinnatus, was the
only decent attire out-of-doors. He was plough-
ing in his field when the messengers of the
senate came to tell him that he had been made
dictator, and on seeing them promptly sent his
wife to fetch his toga from the house, that they
might be received with all propriety (Liv. iii.
26, 9). The truth of the story may be doubt-
ful, but it well expresses the Roman sentiment
on the subject. As time went on, however,
and the Romans became more civilised, their
garments changed. They adopted the shirt

846 TOGA
TOGA
[TUNICA] which the Greeks and Etruscans wore,
made their toga more bulky, and wore it in a
looser manner. The result was that it became
useless for active pursuits, such as those of
war, in which its place was taken by the more
handy SAGUM, and in those of peace, where it
was superseded by the LAENA, LACERNA,
PAENULA, and other forms of buttoned or
closed cloaks. The same process, as is often
the case with clothing, that removed it from
every-day life and commonplace uses, gave it
an increased importance as a ceremonial gar-
ment. As early as the third century B.C., and
probably even before, it, along with the CALCEUS,
was looked upon as the characteristic badge o
Roman citizenship. It was denied to foreigners
(Suet. Claud. 15), and even to banished Romans
(Plin. Ep. iv. 11, 3), and was worn by magis-
trates on all occasions as a badge of office. In
fact, for a magistrate to appear in a Greek cloak
[PALLIUM and sandals (see instances given in
the article SoLEA) was considered by all, except
unconventional folk, as highly improper, if not
criminal (cf. Cic. pro Rab. 9, 26). Augustus,
for instance, was so much incensed at seeing a
meeting of citizens without the toga, that,
quoting Virgil's proud lines, “Romanos rerum
dominos gentemque togatam,” he gave orders to
the aediles that in future no one was to appear
in the Forum or Circus without it (Suet. Aug.
40). When such was the feeling of the Em-
peror, it is little wonder that the toga remained
the Court dress of the Empire (Spart. Sever.
1, 7), though in any case the social usage of
Rome would have made it so. It was in it that
the clients paid their visit to their patron
[SALUTATIO), not forgetting to wear boots
(calceus) with it (Juv. i. 119 ; cf. Tertull. de
Pallio, “calceos... proprium togae tormentum : ”
and for the calceus, Mart. i. 103, 5, 6; Hor.
Sat. i. 3, 31–2). It was also worn by the spec-
tators in the circus at Rome (Suet. Aug. 40;
Dio Cass. lxxii. 21), and its irksomeness causes
Juvenal to sigh for the freedom of the country,
where only the dead man, who was buried in it,
is bound to wear it (Sat. iii. 172; cf. Mart. ix.
58, 8). Martial is equally enthusiastic in his
praises of the unconventionality of the provinces
(i. 49, 31; iv. 66, 1–3; x. 47, 5; xii. 18, 5, 17);
and Pliny the younger makes it one of the
attractions of his Tuscan villa that there is no
necessity of wearing the toga (Ep. v. 6, § 45;
cf. vii. 3, § 2). In spite, however, of these
protests, its use as an official garment lingered
on until the time of Theodosian (Cod. Theod.
xiv. 10, 1), when it was supplanted by the
PAENULA.
The best account of the shape and the
manner of wearing the toga is given by Isidore
(Orig. xix. 24, 3): “Toga dicta quod velamento
sui corpus tegat atque operiat, Est autem
pallium purum forma rotunda effusiore et quasi
inundante sinu et sub dextro veniens supra
sinistrum ponitur humerum.” The character-
istic feature is the roundness (cf. Quintil. xi. 3,
139: “Ipsam togam rotundam esse et apte
caesam velim"), being that which distinguished
it from the square Greek cloak or pallium and
the old Roman recinium. That it was in no
sense circular is shown by the fact that Dionysius
of Halicarnassus (iii. 61) calls it a repuščaauov
huikúkatov, and still more by the large series of
Roman portrait statues on which it appears.
These statues are in fact our main evidence for
its shape, and literary mentions can only be
used to illustrate their evidence, not to correct
it. The older scholars of this century were
singularly neglectful of these monuments, though
Fig. i. The Toga, after Weiss.
most diligent in collecting and comparing all
the numerous passages bearing on the use of
the toga. It was not indeed until the last
thirty or forty years that the subject was
studied from the sculptural point of view by
Weiss and Won Launitz, and more recently by
Fig. 2. The Toga, after Von Launitz.
A. Müller. Weiss, whom Marquardt follows,
regarded the difficulties of the case as solved
by a garment of elliptical shape, though with
pointed ends, to which a border was sometimes
attached (fig. 1). Von Launitz, on the other
hand, has shown that though the earlier statues
wear a toga of this
shape, the more usual
and characteristic form
shown by later statues
cannot be obtained from
it. After numerous ex-
periments, which he em-
bodied in a model dress
fitting a lay figure and
disseminated through
German schools, he hit
on a complex shape
which answers the pur-
pose. It is a crescent,
the back of which is an
elliptical curve, and has
a circular segment of
cloth F. R A, only about
a third of the arc across,
sewn on to its concave
side (fig. 2). Both
shapes were of great
size, being at least
three times the height *
Statue of Didius
of a man’s shoulder in *śān; (From the
length. Taking the Von #.
Launitz model as our º
guide, the method of wearing it is well seen in
the statue of Didius Julianus (fig. 3). About



TOGA
TOGA 847
a third of the toga (as is seen in fig. 4) is first
allowed to hang in front over the left shoulder
(in fig. 2, E is the point where it is placed on
the shoulder), so that its end lies between the
wearer's ankles (a-J in fig. 2). Then the rest
Fig. 4. Fig. 5.
Sketches to show how the Toga was put on.
of the garment is taken and, as Isidore (, c) tells
us, drawn across the back, under the right
shoulder, and across the chest in a slanting line,
being finally thrown over the left shoulder once
more. This done, the weight of the end which
is thrown over the left shoulder keeps the whole
in its place. Such a description, however,
with the exception of the point between the
ankles, applies quite as well to a pallium as
a toga. In the toga, however, the folds were
further complicated first by drawing this part
(which hangs down in front from the left
shoulder) upwards and allowing it to hang over
the fold (5), which runs slanting from under
the right arm to the left shoulder; and
secondly by the fact that this slanting fold,
instead of being merely the hem of the cloak
turned over, forms a sort of apron or sling
running from behind the right shoulder to the
left. This curious fold covers the greater part
of the left thigh completely, and falls down
as far as the knee. It is undoubtedly the part
known to the ancients as the sinus, and one of
the chief merits of Won Launitz's model is the
light it throws on a remark of Quintilian's
(FRA in fig. 2 is the sinus). This writer, in the
locus classicus on the subject (xiē137 ff.), says
that the ancients had no sinus on their toga, and
that even afterwards they were very narrow
(“Nam veteribus nulli sinus; perquam breves
post illos fuerunt”). The small piece added to
the concave side of the crescent being the sinus,
this well explains the fact that the earlier forms
can be reproduced by a cloak without it of
Weiss's pattern. Quintilian, in the passage
quoted, is giving his orator rules for the nice
management of the toga, and his remarks are of
great importance, as an account of the manner
of wearing it. He recommends the orator to
gird his shirt so that in front it may come a
iittle below the knees, but behind may touch his
calves. If he has the right of the latus clavus,
the shirt may be somewhat lower (“cui lati
clavi jus non erit, ita cingatur ut tunicae
prioribus oris infra genua paullum posterioriºus
ad medios poplites usque perveniant"). The
toga which goes over this ought to be round and
suitably cut, for otherwise it will in many ways
be out of proportion. The part of it in front is .
best when it reaches to the middle of the shins,
while the part behind should be higher in the
same degree as the girdle is. The sinus looks
best when it is a considerable height above the
hem of the toga, and ought never to be below
it. The part of the toga which is drawn under
the right shoulder slanting to the left, like a
cross-belt, should neither choke one nor be loose.
The part of the toga which is put on after it
should be lower, for it sits better thus and is
kept in place. (“Ipsam togam rotundam esse et
apte caesam velim. Aliter enim multis modis
fiet enormis. Pars eius prior mediis cruribus
optime terminatur, posterior eadem portione qua
cinctura. Sinus decentissimus, si aliquanto
supra imam togam fuerit nunquam certe sit
inferior. Ille qui sub humero dextro ad sinis-
trum oblique ducitur velut balteus nec strangu-
let, nec fluat. Pars togae quae postea imponitur
sit inferior nam ita et sedet melius et contine-
tur.”) He adds that the shoulder and neck
ought not to be covered, for this makes the
toga look less flowing and takes from its im-
pressiveness. As to the attitude, the left fore-
arm should be at a right angle, and should be
in such a position that the edges on the left fall
in equal folds side by side. -
Nearly all these peculiarities are borne out
by the statues, though of course the sculptor
has probably in most cases softened down what
was angular in the attitude. It needs no Roman
writer to tell that a mantle worn in such a
complicated way must have been a serious
anxiety to one with fashionable instincts. Ter-
tullian, however, alludes in a most amusing
way to the trouble the valet who had to arrange
the great man’s clothes (vestiplicus, Orelli,
2838) took to shape the folds aright the day
before and to fix them in their place by tongs,
and to the difficulties of wearing it (de Pallio, 5:
“Prius etiam ad simplicem captatelam eius
nullo taedio constat: adeo nec artifice opus
est qui pridie rugas ab exordio formet et inde
deducat in tilias totumque contracti umbonis
figmentum custodibus forcipibus assignet, dehinc
diluculo tunica prius cingulo correpta—recognito
rursus umbone et si quid exorbitavit reformato
partem quidem de laevo promittat, ambitum
vero eius ex quo sinus nascitur, iam deficientibus
tabulis retrahat a scapulis et exclusa dextera in
laevam adhuc congerat cum alio pari tabulato
in terga devoto atque ita hominem sarcina
vestiat”). The main point in all such arrange-
ments was to make the bandlike fold, which ran
across the breast, secure. It is called the umbo
in the above passage (cf. Persius, v. 33); but,
in the humorous description which Macrobius
gives of Hortensius's toilet, is spoken of as the
artifed, nodus. Hortensius used a mirror and
adjusted histoga so that this band held the folds
and creases in their place, and so that they
covered just the proper amount of his side and
thigh. Such an arrangement was at the best
not very reliable, and so we are told that Hor-
tensius sent a summons to a friend, who had
jostled him in a passage and disarranged his
dress. In fact, he thought the shifting of a
crease on his shoulder a deadly offence (Sat. iii.
13, 4).
Another mark of the Roman dandy was the
enormous size of his toga (lazitas), and many

848 TOGA
TOGA
are the sneers at the people, to use Cicero's
phrase, “velis amictos non togis” (in Cat. ii. 10,
20). The size was sometimes such that the
garment trailed behind like a tragic actor's; at
Jeast this is what Valerius Maximus tells us of
Tuditanus (vii. 8, 4; cf. Mart. vii. 35), and we
also hear of Caligula catching his foot in the end
of histoga that was between his legs and getting
a fall (Suet. Cal. 35, “ita proripuit se specta-
culis ut calcata lacinia togae praeceps per gradus
iret”). Such togae lawae were associated with
curled hair, and roundly abused as bad taste
(Tib. i. 6, 39: “tum procul absitis quisquis
colit arte capillos, et fluit effuso cui toga laxa
sinu; ” cf. Seneca, Contr. 2, 14), and Ovid
advises the lover to avoid them if he is to make
a good impression (Rem. Am. 679: “nec com-
pone comas quia sis venturus ad illam, nec toga
sit laxo conspicienda sinu ’’); though, if we
may trust Tibullus, this was a common lover's
fashion (ii. 3, 77: “nunc si clausa mea est si
copia rara videndi heu miserum, laxam quid
juvat esse togam ”). The locus classicus is
Horace, Epod. 4, 7, where he speaks of a freed
man who wears a toga some three yards wide
and thereby excites universal indignation
(“Widesne sacram metiente te viam cum bis
trium ulnarum toga, ut ora vertat huc et huc
euntium liberrima indignatio”). The older
commentators, and even Isidorus, inferred that
the length, not the breadth of the toga was
meant. Such a length, it is needless to say,
would be quite too small ; and when one reckons
in the sinus, which in such cases came down to
the skirts of the toga, the dimensions are as
possible as a satirist's can be expected to be.
Contrasted with these “sails '' of the gilded
youth was the modest mantle (toga arta ; cf. Hor.
JEp. i. 18, 30), which quiet people, like Augustus,
wore (Suet. Aug. 73: “togis neque restrictis neque
fusis [usus est]”).
In some cases, as
for instance that
of Cato Uticensis
(toga exigua, Hor.
Ep. i. 19, 13), this
was doubtless an
attempt to bring
back the old shape,
which as Quin-
tilian says had no
sinus. This is
the form which we
see on the Etrus-
can statue called
the Arringatore,
now at Florence;
for the Romans
held that they had
borrowed the toga
from the Etrus-
CàIl. Another
statue in Dresden,
though the man-
tle in which it
is clad is scarcely
round enough for
the toga, is gene-
- rally quoted in il-
lustration of Quintilian's further remark, that
the ancient orators must on account of the shape
have held their arm, in the same manner as the
Tig. 6. Statue of Etruscan
orator. (Florence.)
Greeks, wrapped in the toga. Somewhat the
same attitude, a compulsory one during the
pupil's tirocinium (Cic. pro Cael. 5, 11) and which
was the rule in Greece [PALLIUM), is shown by
another Dresden statue, where the hand seems
to have been freed in the course of the speech.
Fig. 7. Statue at
Dresden. (Becker.)
Fig. 8. Statue at
Dresden.
Another mode of wearing the toga was the
well-known cinctus Gabinus. The name is de-
rived, according to Mommsen, from the long
wars of the Romans against Gabii, and was at
first purely military, for in the oldest times the
toga was worn in war as well as in peace. Its
peculiarity was that a fold of the toga was drawn
round the body in such a way that it acted as a
girdle. (Serv. ad Aen. vii. 612: “Gabinus
cinctus est toga sic in tergum reiecta ut una
(ima?) eius lacinia a tergo revocata hominem
cingat:” cf. Isid. Or. xix. 24, 7, “Cinctus
Gabinus est cum ita imponitur toga ut togae
lacinia quae postsecus reicitur attrahatur ad
pectus.”) At the same time part of the toga
was drawn up over the head (cf. Serv. ad Aen.
v. 755), though this of course cannot have been
done in war. The cinctus Gabinus was retained
long after it had passed out of ordinary use in
the ritual of certain warlike sacrifices (cf. Liv.
v. 46, 2), as when the Temple of Janus was
opened (Verg. Aen. vii. 611). It was also used
at the AMBARVALIA and the founding of a city
(cf. Verg. Aen. v. 755, and Serv. ad loc.); and
it was with their heads thus covered that the
Decii devoted themselves as victims for their
country (Liv. viii. 9, 9, and 7, 3).
Festus tells us that the cinctus Gabinus is
referred to in the phrase classis procincta (Epit.
p. 225; cf. p. 56, 12), with which in procinctu,
the garb in which the testamentum was sworn,
is connected. However, for ordinary purposes
the toga was scarcely used by soldiers, since
even where distributions of them to the soldiers
are mentioned the number is a very limited one
(cf., Liv. xxix. 36, 2, where 1200 togae go to
i2,000 tunicae; and Id. xliv.16, 4, where 6,000
go to 30,000). So much so was this the case


TOGA
TOGA 849
that the toga became the typical garb of peace
as in Cicero's time (in Pis. 30, 73: “Cedant
arma togae concedat laurea laudi’’). Among
other survivals of the old uses of the toga was
the custom of wearing it without a tunica beneath
(Gell. vii. 12, 3, “viri autem Romani primo
quidem sine tunicis toga sola amicti fuerunt"),
which was observed by candidates for election
until almost the end of the Republic (Plut.
Quaest. Rom. 49, p. 276 C, 61& rí robs trapay-
7éAAovras &pxeiv č90s ºv čv iuaríg rooro troueiv
&xtraovas: cf. Id. Coriol. 14). Cato Uticensis,
like the famous family of Cathegi (cinctuti, Hor.
A. P. 50: cf. Lucan, ii. 543, vi. 794; Sil. Ital.
viii. 587), adopted this as one of his habits,
though the ordinary Roman, as we have men-
tioned above, considered it as scarcely decent.
Yet another custom was the survival of the
toga as a woman’s garment (cf. Serv. ad Aen. i.
282), in the case of the meretrices and unchaste
women who were condemned to wear it (Juv. ii.
68; Mart. ii. 39, x. 52; Cic. Phil. ii. 18, 44;
Hor. Sat. i. 2, 63). The toga of the Roman
citizen was white in colour (cf. Mart. viii. 28, 11);
but if he were candidate for an office, he sent it
to the fuller and then appeared in the toga
candida (cf. Polybius, x. 4, 8, th&evva Aapºrpá).
The dazzling brilliancy of the toga candida was
given by some special preparation of chalk, ac-
cording to Isidorus (Orig. xix. 24, 6), and this is
why Persius speaks of a cretata ambitio. This
custom was forbidden by a plebiscitum in 432 B.C.
(Liv. iv. 25, 13), but this never seems to have
been enforced. The citizen's toga, or toga pura,
being the mark of his franchise, was assumed by
the young Roman when he was declared to be
legally of age. It was on this account known
as the toga virilis, as opposed to the toga prae-
teacta of boys. The assumption of the toga
virilis took place on the feast of the Liberalia
(March 17: cf. Ovid, Fasti, iii. 771; Cic. ad Att.
vi. 1, 12), when the boy was between 14 and 16
years of age, though instances occur in which
boys a couple of years older or younger assumed
it (cf. Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 126 foll.).
The praeteata worn by free-born boys (Liv.
xxiv. 7, 2: “Liberi nostri praetextis purpura
togis utuntur”) was an ordinary toga with a
purple hem added. Its use was not confined
to boys; for it was worn by all the curule
magistrates (aediles, cf. Cic. post red. in Sen. 5,
12; and censors, cf. Zonar. vii. 19). It was
denied to the quaestors, plebeians, aediles, and
tribunes of the Plebs (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 81,
p. 283 B), though it was one of the privileges
of magistrates in the Municipia and Coloniae.
To wear it was a distinction; and ex-curule
magistrates, as well as dictators, were buried in
it (Liv. xxxiv. 7, 2). They seem to have been
also allowed to wear it during their lifetime,
but only at public ceremonies or festivals (cf.
Cic. Phil. ii. 43, 110, “cur non sumus prae-
textati”). Priests possessed the right of the
praeteata, though not in all colleges. The
Flamen Dialis (Liv. xxvii. 8, 8), the Pontifices,
and Tresviri Epulones (Id. xxxiii. 42), the Augurs
(Cic. pro Sest. 69, 144), and the Arval brothers,
are among those mentioned as wearing it. Under
the Empire it was common to bestow a praetexta
as a badge of rank (ornamentum). Thus Sejanus
was given it by the senate as part of the insignia
of praetor (Dio Cass. lviii. 11; cf. for the whole
VOL. II,
subject Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i.” 392; ii. 522).
Another kind of toga was the toga pulla, a mantle
of dark colour which was assumed by those in
mourning (sordidati), who were said mutare
vestem. It was of dark colour, whence its name;
and was put on not only in cases of bereavement,
but in cases of private danger, as for instance
when one was impeached (cf. Liv. vi. 20, 1, of
M. Manlius), and of public anxiety. In fact,
it was one of the ways of making a popular
demonstration, and Cicero was prouder of nothing
more than of the fact that the senate resolved
on a vestis mutatio when he went into exile
(post red, in Sen. 5, 12). In the case of magis-
trates who had the right to wear the praetexta,
a common toga pura, not a toga pulla, was worn.
Under the Republic the most magnificent
garment was the toga picta of Jupiter Capi-
tolinus (cf. Tertull. de Corona, 13), which the
triumphant general wore over the tunica palmata
(Liv. v. 41, 2: “quae augustissima vestis est
tensas ducentibus triumphantibusque"). The
Praetor Urbanus, however, was also allowed to
appear in it, when he rode in the chariot of the
Gods into the circus at the Ludi Apollinares
(cf. Liv. l. c.). The toga picta was a toga pur-
purea, or mantle of purple, covered with gold
embroidery, and was very possibly originally the
king's attire, though tradition ran that the king
only wore the praetexta. Under the Empire,
the republican customs were much altered, and
all magistrates who gave games wore the toga
purpurea; though indeed from a decree of
Augustus, that no one except magistrates and
senators should wear it, one may infer that its
use was by no means so restricted as might
otherwise be supposed (Dio Cass. xlix. 16). Even
under the Republic the Praetor Urbanus Asellio
offered a sacrifice in the triumphal costume, and
one of the honours conferred on Julius Caesar
was the right of always wearing it at sacrifice
(Appian, B. C. i. 54, ii. 106). Afterwards the
further right of wearing it always and wherever
he wished was given him (Dio Cass. xliv. 4,
6;—Cic. de Divin. i. 52, 119 ; ii. 16, 27); and
this privilege was retained by Augustus and his
successors, though as a rule they only used it
on special occasions.
In the second century A.D. the toga picta with
the tunica palmata had already become the
official dress of the consuls, and the best repre-
sentations of it are to be found in their portraits
on the diptycha of ivory which they presented
to their friends on election. In these, however,
the toga has taken quite a new and almost
irrecognisable form (cf. Baumeister, Denkm.
p. 1833, fig. 1923; and Marquardt, Privatleben,
ed. 2, p. 563, note 1).
Among the varieties of the toga the trabea
must be mentioned. It probably gets its name
from having stripes (trabes) of bright scarlet
with a purple hem (cf. Isid. Orig. xix. 24, 8:
“Trabea erat togae species ex purpura et
cocco”). It was a very ancient form of the
toga, and was worn by the Salii (Dionys. ii. 70)
and augurs. According to Servius, there were
three different kinds of trabea: one of purple
only, for the gods; another of purple and a little
white, for kings; and a third, that described
above for augurs (ad Aen. vii. 612; cf. ad
vii. 188). It does not seem to have been worn
by any Romans except the Salii * augurs,
3 I
850 TORCULAR
TORCULARIUM
though Dionysius says that the knights did
so, and cannot be identified on any of the
monuments.
(See especially an excellent article by A. Müller
in Baumeister, Denkm. s. v. Toga ; Marquardt,
Privatleben, Index toga and trabea ; Weiss, Kos-
tümkunde, p. 435 ft. ; Von Heyden, Die Tracht,
&c. p. 27 ff.; Iwan Müller, Handbuch, pp. 804,
876, 928; Mayor ad Juv. i. 119, iii. 172, x.
8 and 39, xi. 204; Friedländer, Sittengeschichte
Roms, i." p. 151, &c.; Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii.
p. 198 f.) [W. C. F. A.]
TOTRCULAR or TO'RCULUM, a press
for making wine or oil: in Greek, triedråp, true-
orrhpiov, or, generally, Amvös, which strictly
means the vat in which the fruit was trodden
or pressed.
The grapes which had been trodden by the
feet [see under VINUM) required further me-
chanical pressure to extract the remaining juice;
and the pulp (sampsa) of the olive, already
separated by the process described under TRA-
PETUM, had to be treated in a similar machine,
to extract the oil. The simplest and earliest
contrivance for this purpose was a heavy stone
placed over a basket containing the grapes or
the olive pulp, and pressed down by a lever, as
is shown by a relief in the Naples Museum.
This was improved by the press shown in the
cut below, representing one found at Stabiae,
which bears out the description left by Cato,
R. R. 18 (cf. Plin. H. N. xviii. § 317; Col. xii.
f
2TN
N 27
f
º
ſ
[]
[...]
|d
Plan of Torcular found at Stabiae. (Bltimner.)
52; Vitruv. vi. 6). Two posts (a, a), termed
arbores, were fixed in the floor of the pressing-
room (torcularium), so as to hold down the
tongue (lingula, b) of the press-beam (prelum, c)
[in some cases a single post, with a hole to
receive the lingula, answered the purpose, but
offered less resistance to the strain]: at a
distance=the length of the prelum, or beam, a
windlass (sucula, e) was fixed by two other
posts (stipites, dd), and, being turned by crow-
bars (vectes), drew down the beam by a rope
attached to it [for sucula, see MACHINA, pp.
108, 109]: the pressure fell upon the olive-pulp
or the grapes, placed in a basket (fiscina) or
between lathes (regulae): over the basket was
laid a flat board (orbis olearius): the boarding
or bed, upon which the fruit was placed, was
called area (f). To lift up the prelum, when it
was required, a pulley (troclea) was hung from a
beam above. The word prelum, though strictly
the press-beam, often stands for the whole
press (Hor. 0d. i. 20, 9; Plin. H. N. xvi.
§ 193, &c.). t
As a variation, not very clearly explained,
which Pliny dates 100 years before his own
time, the prelum was forced down by a screw
instead of a windlass: and later, again, this was
in great measure superseded by a screw-press,
like an ordinary cloth-press [see COCLEAJ, an
upright (malus) working as a male screw in an
upper cross beam, and being screwed down upon
what he calls a tympanum (probably a flat round
board with rims like a tambourine), beneath
which the fruit was placed (H. N. xviii., § 317).
One advantage of this was that it took much
less room than the long prelum.
A simpler press than the above appears in a
painting at Herculaneum (Baumeister, Denkm
fig. 2333), a framework of two uprights joined
by cross bars at the top and bottom. The
basket of fruit being placed on the lower bar,
rows of beams separated by wedges are ranged
between the basket and the upper bar, and
exercise pressure as the wedges are driven home.
(Blümmer, Technologie, i. 337–342; Rich, S. v. ;
Schneider ad Cat. R. R.) [G. E. M.]
TORCULARIUM, a shed or out-house where
the presses for oil or wine were worked (Cat.
12;-Col. xii. 52, §§ 3–10). The descriptions
left by Latin writers on agriculture are con-
firmed and illustrated by the remains of an
actual torcularium, discovered at Stabiae. The
central part (probably the forum) has a wide
open gangway for men or mules carrying in
the fruit : in it stands the TRAPETUM for sepa-
rating the pulp and the stone of the olive: on
either side of the central compartment we find
a paved chamber separated off by a low stone
rim or coping, so that they form two shallow
basins: it seems probable to us that these
chambers were the lacus of Tib. i. 1, 10, Ov.
Fast. iv. 888, Col. xii. 18, Plin. Ep. ix. 20,
though Rich and Blümner think differently: the
pavement of each chamber slopes in one direc-
tion to a point where leaden troughs conduct
the liquid into earthenware jars (labra) sunk in
the floor: in each chamber (or lacus) was placed
a press [ToRCULAR] for oil or wine; the sockets
for receiving the various parts (arbores, stipites)
described in the preceding article are seen in the
floor, and there is an under-chamber where bolts
(pedicini) held fast the arbores, &c. in their sockets.
The juice flowed from the presses along the
troughs of the lacus into the sunken jars above
described, from which the capulator ladled out
the wine or oil into smaller jars to be placed in
the store-room (cella vinaria, cella olearia). It
need not be supposed that there were always
two chambers and two presses; but it was a
natural arrangement, because the trapetum
worked faster than the torcular; so much so
that we are told also of an annexe, called tabu-
latum (Col. xii. 52), a sort of small store-room
with a number of small tanks (lacusculi) lined
with stone, in which the sampsa or olive pulp
was stored, if it could not go directly into the
press: the yield (coactura) of each day was
placed on a sort of wooden rack in a separate
lacusculus, so that the watery liquid (amurca)
might flow away through a pipe in the bottom
of the tank. *
When the torcularium was intended for wine,
the basin or lacus was as above described, but in
the centre compartment the vat for treading
the grapes [see WINUM took the place of the

TOREUTICE
TORMENTUM 851
trapetum : the juice trodden out flowed either
into jars or, like that afterwards pressed in the
torcular, by an arrangement of troughs into the
!acus, and thence into the labra. The words of
Isid. Orig. xv. 6, “forum est locus ubi uva cal-
catur,” will best agree with the view which we
take here, that the centre compartment was
called forum : not only is the name itself hard
to understand if we assign it to the side cham-
bers or basins, as Rich and Blümmer have done,
but these side chambers, which we take to be
the lacus, were already occupied by the torcular.
(Blümner, Technol. i. 343 ff.: Rich, s. v.;
Schneider, ad Script. R. R., tab. v. and vi.)
[G. E. M.]
TOREU'TICE (ropewriká). [CAELATURA.]
T OR MENT U M (840 avos), torture.
1. GREEK. In the articles APOTYMPANISMOS
and CRUX it has been argued that the Greeks
of pre-Macedonian times were far more humane
in their modes of inflicting death than has been
generally thought. The modes of capital punish-
ment are enumerated by Pollux (viii. 71: 6 6&
trapaaap64vov toos &vaipovuévous kaxe?ral 6%-
alos, 6muákoivos, 6 rpès rê špúryuar, kal r&
épyaxeſa airod ºf pos, 8póxos, Túpatravov, pd{p-
Makov, icóvetov): of these the only wantonly
cruel one, the ràutravov, has been shown to have
ibeen extremely rare. Vague allusions to burn-
ing, impalement, and crucifixion, as recognised
modes of execution, are still to be found in works
of authority, though no instances can be alleged;
the fact being that to the Greeks of the best
period such punishments were known only as
practised by barbarians or tyrants, and formed
no part of legal procedure. In this respect they
stood far above the Romans in their dealings
with all but the privileged classes, and above
the practice of most Christian nations until the
present century. Almost the only writer who,
to our knowledge, has drawn the just and clear
distinction between the excesses of irresponsible
persons, whether mobs or individuals, and the
mind of the people as expressed in its laws, is
Westermann (ap. Pauly, s. v. Supplicium), whose
words have been already quoted (Vol. I. p. 567a).
Some further illustrations of our previous argu-
ment may here be given. The earliest crucifixion
recorded to have taken place in Greece is that
of the leaders of an insurrection at Sicyon by a
Macedonian princess, Cratesicleia, the widow of
Alexander, son of Polysperchon, B.C. 314 (Diod.
.xix. 67). In the previous year Apollonides, an
officer of Cassander, had burnt the prytaneum
at Argos with 500 political opponents shut up
in it (Id. ib. 63). No such deeds as these dis-
figure the annals of free Greece; they follow
rapidly on the incursion of Macedonian bar-
barism. The treatment of servile insurrections
affords another contrast. We know how the
Romans struck terror on such occasions, not
merely into slaves, but into free provincials.
The Spartans were in mortal dread of their
Helots, and privately made away with those
whom they thought likely to prove dangerous
{CRYPTEIA]; Greek feeling prevented their
resorting to wholesale executions by cruel
methods. At Athens, also, we hear of insur-
rections among the mining slaves [SERVUs,
p. 659], but there are no records of atrocious
and unusual punishments. *
Judicial torture, employed to extract evidence,
was likewise confined at Athens and among the
Greeks generally within narrower limits, both
as regards the persons on whom it was inflicted
and the modes of infliction, than in those Euro-
pean countries which had adopted it from the
later Roman law. In particular, the Athenian
feeling against barbarity showed itself in very
early times (see under CRUx, Vol. I. p. 566 a, b).
By a decree in the archonship of Scamandrius,
of unknown but probably of early date, it was
ordained that no free Athenian could be put to
the torture (Andoc. de Myst. §43); and what is
more to the purpose, the restriction was fully
maintained in practice: Athenian citizens stood
in no fear of it (Lys. c. Agorat. § 27). Even in
the worst times of panic or exasperation, as in
the case of the mutilated Hermae, the power
to override the law by a special psephisma,
though often demanded, was never really acted
upon (see the narrative in Grote, ch. 58, and
especially the note at v. 175; other instances in
[Dem.] de Synt. p. 170, § 114, Plut. Phoc. 35).
The best authorities are agreed that we have no
example of the torture of an Athenian citizen
(Thalheim, Rechtsalterth. p. 29, n. 2; Lipsius,
Att. Process, p. 896, n. 372). Free aliens,
whether £évot or uéroucou, stood in general upon
the same footing ; the masters of emancipated
slaves (&meAéâ9epot) retained the right of giving
them up for torture, but Demosthenes expressly
says that it would be impious to do so (oiâ’ 30-lov
trapabooval, c. Aphob. iii. p. 856, $39, cf. c. Timoth.
p. 1200, § 55), though non-compliance with an
opponent's challenge might prejudice the jury
against one’s case. Some apparent exceptions
are discussed by Boeckh (P. E. p. 185 = Sthh.”
i.227 f.): the torture of a free man at Mytilene,
who held out when a slave confessed (Antiph.
de caed. Her. §§ 29, 49, cf. Mahaffy, p. 241), may
have been under Lesbian and not Attic law, or
the Athenians may have been less scrupulous
when their subject-allies were concerned: the
case in Lysias (c. Simon. § 33) is of a Plataean
youth, who, as such, was #. necessarily an
Athenian citizen, and who after all was not put
to the torture: the oratór only argues that he
might have been. Even under the Thirty it is
admitted by their bitterest enemy that there
was no torture of citizens, though the aliens
who were the chief victims of murder and con-
fiscation did not escape it (Lys. c. Agorat. §§ 54,
59, 61). But under regular governments free-
men, not being citizens, were sometimes tortured
at moments of panic, e.g. the barber who first
spread the news of the Sicilian disaster (Plut.
Nicias, 30); Antiphon, an Athenian who had
lost his rights (&topmºpto-0efs, apparently by a
Staſhquaris, Dem. de Cor. p. 271, § 133), and
who was accused of a plot to burn the dockyard
in Philip's interest. In this case Boeckh (l.c.)
thinks that the torture was in aggravation of
the punishment ; the words arpeg|A&aavres
&tekretvare, however, do not mean “put to
death by torture,” but “put to death after
torture:” arpegAów, akin to orpéqo, is always
used of torture employed to wring out, con-
fession, not of vindictive cruelty, for which the
word is aikićegºal. So of the female prisoner,
who was probably not a free woman, in Antiphon
(de Venef. § 20); the words ró yöp Smuokołvº
rpoxia 6ival trapeS60m do not imply, that she
was racked to death, as * hºrried
I
t
852 TORMENTUM
TORMENTUM
to a torturer as well as an executioner. These
remarks, it may be repeated, apply only to
the free ages of Greece: the record of later
times in Polybius and Diodorus is naturally
very different, and after two centuries of de-
generacy we need not be surprised at the
statement of Cicero (Part. Orat. 34, § 118, de
$nstitutis Atheniensivm, Rhodiorum . . . apud quos
liberi civesque torquentur).
It was in taking the evidence of slaves, whose
willing testimony was not accepted, that the
torture was most commonly employed: for the
rule which prevailed on this subject see MAR-
TYRIA, p. 128 b, 129 a ; SERVUS, p. 658 b. The
argument often recurs in the orators, that evi-
dence thus extorted was of more value than that
of freemen: this was partly, no doubt, owing
to the low standard of veracity among the Greeks,
but much of it is mere rhetorical artifice; it is
to persuade the jury that the other side refuse
to tender their slaves for examination, not from
humanity, but from the consciousness of a bad
case; and we always find it employed when
the demand to give them up has been refused
(Antiph. Tetral. i. 2, § 7, de Choreut. § 25; Isae.
Or. 8 [Ciron...], $12;-Dem. c. Aphob. iii. p. 848,
§ 13; c. Onet. i. p. 874, § 37;—Lycurg. c. Leocr.
§§ 29, 30). There is good reason to think, as
has been seen under SERVUS, that the contem-
poraries of Demosthenes were more humane in
this respect than those of Antiphon. Either
party might offer his own slave to be examined
by torture, or demand that of his adversary,
and the offer or demand was equally called
trpókåma is eis Bāo avov. This trpókAmoris was
usually in writing, and specified the particular
allegations to be substantiated, the “terms of
the torture” (ka8 6 ru èorrat # 8&oravos, Dem.
c. Steph. i. p. 1120, §61 ; cf. c. Pantaen. p. 978,
§ 40). We do not think that these words mean
“what kind of torture was to be inflicted :” it
appears both from the orators and the gram-
marians that only one mode of torture was in
general use in the Attic courts, the rack (rpoxós:
Tpox{ſelv : âvašišćeiv ćirl Tov rpáxov : cf.
ECULEUS). There seem to have been excep-
tions: a comic passage of course proves nothing
(Aristoph. Ran. 618.f.), but cf. Antiph. de Cho-
ºreut. § 23, Bagavígely rpétrº, Štrotºp 308Aouro :
Isocr. Trapez. § 15, uaori'yody Töv čkö06évra
ral orpe &Aoûv. The suitor who put an oppo-
nent's slave to the torture was liable for damages
for any loss of time or bodily hurt resulting from
it (Dem. c. Pantaen. l.c.; Aristoph. Ran. 624);
a proviso which must have gone some way to
check the excesses of cruelty. The state-torturer,
a slave, was called Shutos or ömuákowos (Poll.
l. c.; cf. Thalheim, Rechtsalterth. p. 124, n.8);
the parties might themselves agree to act as
Saoraviortat, or choose certain persons for this
purpose (Antiph. de Venef. § 10; Dem. c. Pantaen.
p. 978, §§ 40, 42); but we find an agreement
repudiated when private Bao'avioral had pre-
sented themselves, instead of Šmuákowo : the
former could not venture to carry out the tor-
ture on their own responsibility, and the plain-
tiff’s case broke down (Isocr. Trapez. § 15).
The torture was usually administered in private:
instances occur of its infliction in open court
(Aeschin. de F. L. § 126; [Dem.] c. Everg. et
Mnes. p. 1144, § 17), but these are exceptional
(Baſravićeiv oik tattv čvavtſov Šuáv, Dem. c.
Steph. i. p. 1106, § 16). The general practice
was to read at the trial the depositions of the
slaves, which were called 840 avoi (Hyperid, ap.
Harpocrat., Suid. s. v.; Dem. c. Nicostr. p. 1254,
§ 24), and to confirm them by the evidence of
those who had been present at the torture.
(Att. Process, pp. 889–897, Lipsius; Becker-
Göll, Charikles, p. 37 ff.; Mahaffy, Social Life in
Greece, ed. 3, pp. 240–243.)
2. RoMAN. During the time of the Republic,
freemen were never put to the torture, at least
by lawful authority; the cruelties inflicted on
two military tribunes by Pleminius at Locri
were the acts of a madman (Liv. xxix. 9). The
rule as to slaves’ evidence was the same at Rome
as in Greece; their voluntary statements were
not received except under special circumstances,
as when they gave information of conspiracies.
against the state; they were tortured to make
them confess what it was sought to prove.
Slaves, however, could not be tortured to prove
the guilt of their own master, except in the case.
of incestus, which was a crime against the gods,
or unless the senate made a special exception,
as was done in the Catilinarian conspiracy (Cic.
gro Mil. 22, § 59; pro Deiot. 1, § 3; Partit. Orat.
34, § 118). Under Augustus the law was so far
modified that, when the emperor suspected con-
spiracy against his government, he could demand.
the compulsory sale of slaves to the state or to:
himself, in order that they might be tortured ;
this did not pass without a protest (Dio Cass.
Jv. 5; Tac. Ann. ii. 30, iii. 67). The suspicious
tyrants who immediately followed Augustus.
extended the law of majestas to the torture of
free persons [MAJESTAS]; and we read of cases.
in which senators and equites were exposed to it
(Suet. Tib. 58, Cal. 27 ff.). Claudius began his
reign by abolishing the law of majestas, and is
said never to have punished any one under it
(Dio Cass. lx. 3); but his wives and freedmen.
abused his authority, and the practice was re-
vived (Id. ib. 15). It remained the general law
of imperial times that only freemen of low degree
(humiliores) could be tortured in prosecutions for
majestas: slaves might be compelled to bear
witness against their masters in cases of majestas.
(Cod. 9, 8, 6, 7) and adultery (Dig. 48, 18, 17;
Cod. 9, 9, §§ 3, 6,32). Ammianus takes, perhaps,
a malicious pleasure in recording the cruelties
inflicted upon free citizens by the Christian
emperors Constantius, Valentinian, and Valens
(Amm. Marc. xiv. 5, xv. 3, xvi. 8, xviii. 3, xix. 12,
xxi. 16, xxvi. 10, xxviii. 1, xxix. 1, 2).
As to the modes of torture, see ECULEU3, .
FIDICULA, and FLAGELLUM, in Vol. I. Cicero
mentions some atrocious cases: “ignes can-
dentesque laminae ceterique cruciatus admove-
bantur” (in Verr. v. 63, § 163; cf. pro Cluent.
63, § 177; 66, § 187); but in general we get
few details. The hooks (unci) with which the
bodies of criminals were dragged after execution
(Juv. x. 66, with Mayor's note) were likewise em-
ployed to lacerate the living (Amm. Marc. xiv. 5;
sulcatis lateribus, Id. xxvi. 10). The torturers,
(tortores, carnifices) were probably public slaves.
CARNIFEx; cf. Mommsen, Staatsr. i.” 313).
n the torture of slaves by their masters, see
Marquardt, Pricatl. 180; on the whole subject,
Dig. 48, 18, de Quaestionibus; Walter, Gesch.
des rômischen Rechts, ed. 1, p. 875 f.; Rein,
Criminalrecht, p. 542. [W. S.] [W. W.]
TORMENTUM
iTORMENTUM ) 853
TORMENTUM was a general name for
artillery among the ancients.
I. DESCRIPTIVE.—The two main classes of
tormenta are those which discharged their
missiles (1) horizontally (sô0örova), or practi-
cally so; (2) at an angle (traatvrova) with the
ground. But these are technical terms. The
ordinary names of the engines, both in authors
(Diod. xvi. 74) and in inscriptions (C. I. A.
ii. 250; 471, 46; 733 B), were 65uðexe?s and
AtôogóAoi. The former shot arrows, hence their
name āśw8exeſs, sc. kararáArai (not karatréâraw:
cf. C. I. G. 2360, 25), and were called catapultae
by the Romans: the latter discharged stones
(retpoSóAoi, AtôoëóAot), and were called in Latin
ballistae. The arrow discharged from catapults is
sometimes called catapulta (Plaut. Pers. i. 1, 28;
Nonius, p. 552); and the stone discharged from
ballistae called ballista (Plaut. Trin. iii. 2, 42).
The terms catapultae and ballistae were probably
obtained from the Sicilians; and they are used
by historians as the two chief classes of engines
(Tac. Ann. xii. 56; Gell. vii. 3). It must, how-
ever, be remembered that catapulta was also
used as a generic term embracing both classes
(Caes. Bell. Civ. ii. 9, 3; App. Bell. Mithr. 34;
Sidon. Apoll. Carm. 22, 123).
The structure of both the engines is in the
main principles the same : both, as the name
#ormentum points out, deriving their force from
torsion, not from the elasticity of a bent body
dike a bow. We shall first attempt to describe
a sū0ürovov or catapulta (in the narrow sense),
and afterwards set forth the points of difference
between it and a traxtyrovov. The two chief
ancient authorities who supply materials are
Heron's BeNotrotiká, and Philon’s fourth book
- #; Both writers fouTISFETāEOut
250 B.C. according to Rüstow and Köchly; about
100 B.C. according to Graux (Rev. de Philol.,
N. S. iii. 92).
1. Catapulta, also apparently called scorpio in
Caes. B. G. vii. 25, 2; Bell. Afr. 29, 4; Vitruv.
x. 10, 15; Sall. ap. Non. p. 553; cf. Heron,
§ 3. This engine consisted of three parts, which
we may call the Frame (TAw8tov, capitulum),
the Pipe (oripty;), and the Support (8&ots).
See Fig. 1.
(a) The Frame consisted of two strong hori-
zontal beams, a, b, into which four other vertical
beams were morticed, c, d (called trapa.orráral),
e., f (called piegoordral, medianae). The beams,
a, b, were called treptºrp.mra, paralleli, peritreti,
because into the top and bottom of those beams
in the centres of the two outside compartments,
g, were bored circular holes (rphuata, foramina),
into which were placed the strings (révot, funes)
which gave the force which projected the missile.
These strings seem to be called vincla in Tac.
Hist. iii. 23. The diameter of these holes was
# of the length of the arrow, and formed the
standard imeasurement according to which \all
the other parts of the engine were proportioned.
Into these holes were placed nuts, h (oróAmiſes),
sometimes wooden, sometimes of metal, which
were circular at the bottom so as to fit into the
holes, rectangular in the middle m, and again
circular at the top, of the same diameter as
the standard. The nuts were rectangular in
the middle partly to prevent them slipping
down through the holes, partly that when
required they could be turned round by a
wrench, and so the strings tightened ; hence
this rectangular part got the name of Tpi}{s,
from its friction against the frame. Across the
º º
% §§§
% §§§ A.
2% §§§ E
% § SSS Fº
zºº ſº º
y gºš|bgºſ ºj4
gº
Ø% \{SS
% §§§
§ §§§
|
Fig. 1. Catapulta or Scorpio,
(From Rüstow
and Köchly.)
middle of the top of the nut ran an iron bar, n
(érigulyás, cuneolus ferreus), round which the
strings of the engine were stretched. The
strings were generally prepared from the sinews
of animals, and hence these engines are called
veupérovo (C. I. A. 733 B), though sometimes
we hear of women's hair being used (App.
Pun. 93; Hero, §§ 26 f.; Philo, § 12).
The instrument (Fig. 2) used for stretching
the strings was called évrövtov, and consisted of
a large wooden frame with a windlass (Övíokos,
sucula) at each end, two beams d d as strength-
{Tl, ſhº ſlu-
* P-
º
- £y
*—
£2
-— []
d A. lf
H=HHH
Fig. 2. 'Ev'rövtov.
a/
º
%
4–
L
eners, and a centre compartment just the size of
the frame of the catapult. Into this centre com-
partment the frame, duly provided with its nuts,
was fixed and firmly wedged, k k k k. The end of
the string was fastened to one of the iron bars
of the nut at n (Fig. 1), drawn through the
other nut and fastened round one of ºwind-
lasses (suppose b). This string waſ then
stretched till it became 3 of its original diameter,
and fastened by a clamp (trepiorropºls) to the bar
opposite to the one to which it had been ori-
ginally fixed. Then it was loosed from the
windlass, drawn round the bar through the
opposite nut, and again strained by the wind-
lass c, fastened by another cramp, and so on
passing from windlass to windlass till the whole
available hollow portion of the nuts, was filled
with layers (66poi) of the string. The number
of layers was generally about 10. . When that
was completed, the end of the string was fas-
tened by a very strong clamp. Vitruvius says
&-






















. 854 TORMENTUM
TORMENTUM
that each string should be stretched till it gave
the same note (x. 18 (12), 2; cf. i. 1, 8. Com-
pare Hero, § 28; Philo, § 17).
Through these masses of string from the side
turned towards the enemy the thinner ends of
two long pieces A, A (Fig. 1) of non-elastic
wood, which formed the arms (&ykóves) of the
bow, were thrust, so that when the engine was
not being worked the thicker ends (irrépwa)
rested on the outer side of the pegoatáral
against an iron-plated knob (Örörrepvis). On
the other side of the frame, the arms rested
about at their centre or two-thirds of the way
from the point y, against a curve q (kotam, cur-
vatura) in the trapaorétat, which latter had a
bulge on the outer side, so that they should not
be wanting in strength. To the ends of the
arms y y was fixed a very strong string (Točºrus),
called apparently libramentum in Tac. Hist.
iii. 23, which was the string by which the
arrow was shot (Hero, § 30).
(b) Now we come to the Pipe, which projected
backwards from the centre compartment of the
frame. It consisted of two parts: (1) the pipe
proper (oripty; in the narrow sense, canaliculus)
and (2) what we may call the projector
(6tdºotpa). The pipe proper was a long narrow
trough-like construction of wood, open at the
end towards the enemy. At its other end
it had a windlass for stretching the string,
worked by hand-spikes (a.kvráAal). Running in
the pipe, which was dovetailed for about two-
thirds of its length, and fitting into this dove-
tail, was another smaller trough-like construction
called the projector (Suáarpa), into which the
arrow was placed. The trough in the case of
this 6160 tpa was concave, and not angular. At
Fig. 3. Plan and section of the “Pipe.”
the end of the Šušoºrpa was a hook (xeſp, epi-
towis), of which a horizontal and a vértical
section are given herewith (Fig. 3). It
moved on an axle (AA) working through a spe-
cially inserted frame, 96 (orràuara). The hook,
axle, and frame taken together appear to have
been called xexøvlov.
two horizontal prongs with vertical ends; and a
hindmost part (v) very much heavier than the
fore part; so much so that, in order to keep the
fore part down, the hinder part had to be prized
up and supported by a handle, p (oxagºrmpia,
manucla), which revolved, horizontally on a
vertical axis, T (called trepôvm). On the hinder
part of the projector was a ring, ğ, through
which one end of a strong cord (áràov, teara-
'yayis) was fastened, the other end being 'fixed
to a windlass. (Hero, $$ 5 f.; cf. Philo,
§§ 52 f.) - ‘. . . . .
Now, when the engine was to be used, th
projector was pushed forwards till the lº.
The hook consisted of
prized up by the handle (axaarmpta), could
catch the projecting string (roëºrus). Resting
against this string, and in the trough of the
projector, was placed the arrow. The projector
was then along with the string drawn back by
means of the karaya'yls and the windlasses as
far as was required, and the windlass made fast
so that the projector could not move. A. Müller
in Baumeister's Denkmäler, p. 547, and Droysen,
Gr. Kriegsalt. p. 196, suppose that the pipe had
a series of teeth, so that the projector could be
fixed at any given point, as we shall see was the
case in the yag Tpapérms (see below, § 3). This
is probable enough a priori, but we do not know
the evidence for their opinion, and there was
not the same necessity for the teeth in the
larger engines as there was in the hand-strung
7aatpaq’étms. When all was now ready for
the shot, the handle was pushed violently from
under the heavy side of the hook, which must,
have been very heavy indeed, for it appears.
that this side fell down by its own weight, and
so released the string, which shot forward the
arrow with great velocity. This appears to be
what Hero (§ 6) means by “they let the hook
loose by tearing away the handle * (&Téoxaſov
Thu Xeſpa atrapd{avtes thv oxaatmptav); other-
wise we should suppose that the use of the
handle was only to prevent accidental discharge
while the string was being drawn back, and
that, after it was loosed, as a general rule a
blow of a hammer on the hinder part of the
hook or something of the kind would have been
necessary to release the string.
(c) The Base of the catapult, which is de-
scribed by Rüstow and Köchly, and of which
they give their principal illustration (op. cit.
fig. 106), consisted of two supports. Such were
required only in the case of very heavy engines,
and were not much used, among other reasons.
because the limits of elevation within which
they could be discharged were very circum-
scribed; they were confined to that allowed by
the height of a pin which fixed the frame to the
foremost support, and this would not allow a
change of elevation of more than a few degrees.
The ordinary catapult and that principally de-
scribed by the ancients had only one support, as,
in the subjoined illustration, taken from Bau-
meister, of a catapult built according to the
ancient authorities by the Heidelberger Philo-
logen-Versammlung. The base consisted of 2.
beam, q (`pºográrºs, columella), supported on
four feet s, by four stays, r. In the top of
this beam was a long circular pivot, u, which
passed through two horizontal sides of a wooden
frame, t, whose vertical sides projected consider-
ably beyond its upper horizontal side. Through
the vertical sides above the horizontal sides and
parallel with them ran a round iron bar on.
which the pipe rested; and while the whole.
upper part of the engine could revolve hori-
zontally on the pivot w, it could be lowered and
elevated vertically by revolving on this bar. At
the end of the pipe was a stay, w (ävaravarmpia),
which could move up and down on the support.
w (ävrepetóts), which latter was attached by a
ring to the main beam, g. The limits of
change of elevation ºf such an engine must
have been at all events 8°. -
A: length of the arrow gave the technical
name to the size of the engine: so that cata-

TORMENTUM
TORMENTUM 855
pults were classed as three-span (Tptorſ0auos),
two-ell (birnxos) = four-span, five-span (Tevre-
giríðauos), three-ell (rpírmyos)=six span; that
is, 27 inch, 36, 45, 54. This gave the diameter
of the Tpjuata in the frame as about 3, 4, 5,
Fig. 4. Catapult.
(Baumeister.)
6 inches. Let us call this diameter x; then we
can fix the rest of the measurements of the
machine, e.g. height of the frame 5.5 x, depth
2 to 1.5 x, breadth,6-5 x, length of pipe 16 x, of
&yköves 7 x each, thickness of each of the
vetipa to 3 x; minimum breadth for working
13 x, height 18 x, depth 20 x. The weight of a
Tpio tribauos was about 85 lbs., and its arrow
about 3 lb., and it required two or three men to
work it; the weight of a rpūrmxos was about
53 cwt., its arrow over 4 lbs., and it required
five men to work it. The three-span catapult
of Agesistratus shot 3% stadia = 2210 feet
(Athen. de Mech. p. 8 Wescher), but that was
considered something very marvellous. At
1000 feet an arrow from a three-span catapult
would be driven 2 inches into a board (Rüstow
and Köchly, Kriegsschriftst. i. p. 330, note m):
so that, on the whole, we may take the ordinary
effective range at about 1200 feet, the actual
distance the arrow would reach being some-
what over this (ib. 328, note h). The price of
a two-ell catapult they estimate at about 480
drachmas, about £20, reckoning the drachma as
a franc. s
2. The Ballista (traXtvrovov): cf. generally
Hero, § 32; Philo, $6.—The principle of this
engine was precisely the same as that of the
catapult, the only essential differences being (1)
that the hinder part of the pipe rested on the
ground to which the pipe itself was inclined at
an angle of 45°; (2) that the wooden arms
(&ykwves) in the position of rest were not parallel
with the ground as in the case of the eijóðrova,
but inclined at an angle of 30°, hence the term
Traxſwrovov (“strung at an angle "). The frame
consisted of two smaller frames (évaróvia, hat-
róvia), A A and B B, each of which held one of
the sets of strings; these frames were bound
together by two strong beams (kavóves), a a
and b b : indeed the whole engine was much
larger and in all its parts stronger than the
catapults. It was used to discharge beams or
stones; accordingly it is the weight of the stone
which gives the diameter of the rpäuara in this
case. Along the pipe, C C, which had no con-
tinuous bottom, but had its sides (orkéAm), c d,
bound together by pegs (5uarhºuard), extending
longwise were narrow bars of wood (irrepòryta),
which formed the support for the 5twarpa to
run on. Chiefly, as it seems, on account of the
42 42
>EEET---— — =#| |*
4 FE- Ž1 - Fº
|| |||rºriſiſ \ -------
| C
| r \ l
\\ \\ | t - }} w - º
"ºlº |N| ||
| ſ
| | .
'Yº. B
<2*S | 2.
(% ------ A Eº:
& -ºš -
WN *\ b///
AN ſº | | N % ZD
f # #|| %
% Yi o J | \
% *I | F. ſ' ||/\\
// l |||}}\
/ l º
/ ; r \
eft € i -
.' AD
D
===T_L'ſ El T = TI -——- ===
fº/? º/? *
tº
C / E. %
Fig. 5. Ballista. (A. Müller, in Baumeister.)
ladder-like appearance the 6tarfiryuara presented,
the pipe in this engine was called kalpakts.
The string (ročºrus) extending from the ends of
the &ykóves was twisted like a rope, and had at
its centre a ring (not represented in the plate)
which was caught by the xeſp.
It would be tedious to give in detail all the
various measurements of the parts of a ballista:
suffice to say, that the diameter x of the ºrph-
para in dactyls (1 dactyl = about $ inch) was
estimated by the formula x = # & 100 w,
where w is the weight of the missile in minae
(1 mina = about 13 lb.); that the length of the
arms was 6 x each, of the ročºrts 12.6 x, of the
kAſuaš 16 x ; and that the space required for
thg engine was at least 20 x in depth, 13 x in
breadth, and 17 x in height. The size of the
engine varied according as the missile was 10,
15, 20,30,50, 60 minae: the latter (= 1 talent)
was the heaviest missile that was ordinarily
used : engines larger than this, as that of Deme-
trius (Diod. xx. 48) or of Archimedes (Athen.
Deipnos. 208 c), which threw three talents, were
quite exceptions and of little practical use. The
average range was probably about 400 yards
or a little more, but a large 60 minae ballista
appears to have been barely able to throw 220
yards (Droysen, op. cit. p. 204). The price of
a 10 minae ballista Rüstow and Köchly reckon
at 4000 drachmas = £160. That the ballistae
cannot have been much used in the field may be
proved from their weight; so that they always
appear in considerably less numbers than the

856 TORMENTUM
TORMENTUM
catapults. At New Carthage we read that
Scipio had 120 large catapults and 23 large
ballistae (Liv. xxvi. 47, 5)—numbers which pro-
bably in themselves are very much exaggerated:
at Jerusalem the Jews had 300 catapults and 40
ballistae (B.J. v. 9, 2). Examples of the work-
ing of ballistae are given in Bell. Hisp. 13, 8,
and Joseph. B. J. iii. 7, 23 ; it appears that
very considerable precision of aim could be ac-
quired by the scorpiones (Bell. Afr. 29, 4; Caes.
B. G. vii. 25, 2).
Philo (§§ 17 ff.) mentions a great many points
in which these tormenta were difficult to work
and liable to break down. The frame was often
broken in stretching the strings, itself no easy
task, taking considerably over an hour, and
requiring the évrövtov, which was not always at
hand : the bars round which the strings were
fastened used to cut the strings: the tension of
the strings used to get loosened and could only
be conveniently tightened by screwing the nuts
round horizontally with a wrench—a very tem-
porary help, as the elasticity of the strings soon
got exhausted thereby; and so on. Philo in-
vented a means of tightening the strings by a
frame which could be narrowed by means of
wedges; but it does not appear to have been
much used. Ctesibius (Phil. § 14) replaced the
strings by metal wires (XaAkévrovov); and also
we are told that as one of his improvements he
used compressed air (&epátovov), but there is no
clear account of the exact nature of this latter
device. The description of the so-called ballista
in Amm. Marc. xxiii. 4, 1, if it can be explained
at all and is not pure “bombastische Confusion,”
as Rüstow and Köchly (Kriegsschriftsteller, i.
414) call it, is certainly not of such a nature as
to lead to any essential alteration of the descrip-
tion given above from such capable writers as
Hero and Philo.
3. The yaarpaq’érms or “stomach-bow ’’ (cf.
Hero, §§ 3 ff.: Bito, p. 61 Wescher) derived
Fig. 6. Taorpadérms. (Rüstow and Köchly.)
its name because it had to be pressed against the
stomach and the ground or a wall, when it was
being strung. The accompanying cut gives an
idea of it. It was not strictly a tormentum,
as its force was got from the elasticity of a
bow : it was in fact a cross-bow, with a 51%arpa
virtually like that of the catapult. The novel
feature of it was that the sides of the orºpty;
had a series of teeth, into which two little
prongs (karakAeºdes) on each side fitted, so as
to hold the 5tworrpa at just the point required,
and to do so with as little loss of time as pos-
sible. It was probably the same as the arcu-
ballista of Vegetius (ii. 15, iv. 22). Droysen
(l.c.) says it was called a kāpirios. The so-called
BaAſarrpa mentioned by Procopius (Bell. Goth.
i. 21) was a bow, or most probably from the
description a species of yaorpaq’érms: and
similar in principle, but on a very large
scale and worked by windlasses, was the
ballista fulminalis of the treatise De rebus
bellicis, 8, 10, attached to the Notitia (cf. Mar-
quardt, op. cit. 524, note 2; and Rüstow and
Köchly, Kriegsschriftsteller, p. 410). The “four-
wheeled ballista” (ib.; cf. p. 418) is said to
have shot its arrows “not by strings but by
rigid bars ” (non funibus sed radis). This
“riddle,” as Rüstow and Köchly call it, still
awaits solution.
4. The onager (cf. Amm. Marc. xxiii. 4, 4, who
calls it scorpio).--This appears to have been a
Roman construction, and we only hear of it in
post-Constantinian times. It may be described
as a horizontal one-armed ballista, which shot
small stones. The name is said to have been
/
2 \
2 Xs
*52s
Fig. 7. Onager. (Marquardt.)
O
derived from the fact that the wild ass in its
flight dashed back stones with its hoofs on its
pursuers. The strings which supplied the force
were stretched horizontally, and the arm (&yk&v)
inserted vertically into them. When the engine
was used, this arm, by a string attached to a
point near the top, was pulled down by a wind-
lass till it was horizontal, and then secured by
a hook, the missiles being hung in a bag at the
extremity. Then the hook was struck away
with a hammer and the missiles discharged.
The arm struck against a bag full of some soft
substance attached to the front part of the
machine, reaching about 3 of the way up the
arm. This would have been a rather hard
instrument to aim with, if it were not that it
threw a number of stones. -
II. HISTORICAL. — Pliny (H. N. vii. § 56)
attributes the invention of catapults to the
Syrophoenicians; but there is no corroboration
of this statement. The passage in 2 Chronicles
xxvi. 14, 15, where it is said that Uzziah pre-
pared “slings to cast stones,” probably dates
from not earlier than the fourth century. In
the Hellenic world tormenta first appear in the
great preparations made by Dionysius against
Carthage in 399 B.C. (Diod. xiv. 42, 43), and in
the next year they were used in the siege of
Motye (ib. 50). It was from Sicily that they
came into Greece proper (Plut. Apophtheg. 219
=ii. 191). The first mention of them there is
in a list of articles contained in the Chalcothècé
in Athens (C.I.A. ii. 61, 37), of date between 356
and 348. In 340 we read that the Perinthians
borrowed artillery from the Byzantines (Diod.
xvi. 74), and the siege of Byzantium in the
same year by Philip of Macedon is the first

TORQUES
TOXOTAE 857
occasion we hear of the use of artillery in
Greece in any extensive form. Athenaeus, the
writer on artillery (p. 10, Wescher), notices the
reign of Dionysius in Sicily and the siege of
Byzantium as marking epochs in the use of
siege-engines, Polyeidus of Thessaly being one
of the most celebrated engineers (cf. Grote, xi.
262). On this occasion we hear only of kara-
tráàta, āśv8.exe?s (Diod. l.c.); the first mention
of Al6086xot appears to be at the siege of
Halicarnassus by Alexander in 334 (Arrian, i.
22, 2).
During the period of the Diadochi artillery
reached its highest perfection among the an-
cients. The engines are repeatedly mentioned
(Diod. xviii. 12, 51, 70, 71;-C. I. A. ii. 807 b,
129 f.; 808 d, 53 ff.:-Polyb. iv. 56, 3; v. 88,
7; 99, 7); and artillery practice (karataAT-
a peofa) became a regular part of the military
training of the ephebi (C. ſ. G. 2360, 25). The
Romans did not make any decided improvement
or invention in military engines till late in the
Empire. Caesar was quite inferior to the Massi-
liotes in artillery (Bell. Civ. ii. 2, 5), and after
the battle of Pharsalia had to get engines from
Greece and Asia to besiege Alexandria (Bell.
Alex. 1, 1). It was in siege-work, both attack
and defence, but particularly defence, that these
engines were employed (Liv. xxvi. 6, 4; xxvii.
15, 5;-Polyb. viii. 7, 6). They were altogether
too heavy and cumbersome to be used very ex-
tensively in the field; if they were used in the
field, it was only for the attack or defence of
some strong position (Caes. B. G. ii. 8, 4 ; viii.
14, 5; B. C. iii. 56, 1 ; B. Afr. 31, 6), or pro-
tecting some movement such as crossing a river
(cf. Arrian, i. 7, 8; iv. 4, 4). During the
Roman Empire each legion (Tac. Hist. iii. 23;
Dio Cass. lxv. 4), and perhaps each praetorian
cohort (Tac. Ann. xii. 56), had its own engines;
and in the time of Vegetius (l.c.) each century
of the legion had a carroballista, a large engine
drawn by mules and requiring eleven men to
work it, and each cohort an onager.
Into all the minutiae of the construction of
these engines it would be impossible here to
enter. For them readers must be referred to
Rüstow and Köchly, Geschichte des griechischen
Rriegswesens, 1852, pp. 378–405; to their edi-
tion of the Griechische Kriegsschrifsteller, 1853,
vol. i., containing Hero's and Philo's Bexotrotiká,
pp. 187–346, and Vitruvius, x. chaps. 15–18
(10–12), with a valuable translation and notes;
to Wescher's Poliorcétique des Grecs, 1867, for
Athenaeus and Bito (pp. 1–68); to A. Müller's
article on Festungskrieg und Belagerungswesen in
Baumeister's Denkmäler, i. 525 f.; and to Droy-
sen's Die griechischen Kriegsalterthümer, chap.
ix. pp. 187—204. [L. C. P.] ;
TORQUES or TORQUIS (arpetrás), an
ornament of gold, twisted spirally and bent into
a circular form, which was worn round the neck
by men of distinction among the Persians (Curt.
iii. 3; Themist. Orat. 24, p. 306 c), the Gauls
(Florus, i. 13, ii. 4), and other Asiatic and
northern nations (Isid. Orig. xix. 30). Torc in
Celtic and old Irish was probably borrowed from
the Latin word (Curtius, Gr. Etym.462). Virgil
(Aen. v. 558, 559) thus describes it as part of
the attire of the Trojan youths:
“It pectore summo
Flexilis obtorti per collum circulus auri.”
Ornaments of this kind have been frequently
found both in France and in many parts of Great
Britain and Ireland (Petrie, Trans. of R. Irish
Acad. vol. xviii.; Antiq. pp. 181–184), varying
in size and weight, but almost always of the
form exhibited in the annexed woodcut, which
represents a torquis found in Brecknockshire,
and now preserved in the British Museum. The
same Woodcut contains a section of this torquis
of the size of the original. It shows, as Mr. Petrie
observes concerning some found in the county
of Meath, “four equidistant radiations from a
common centre.” The torquis in the British
Museum is 43 feet in length. Its hooks cor-
respond well to the following description of the
fall of a Celtic warrior : “Torquis ab incisa
decidit unca gula” (Propert. iv. 10, 44). A
torquis which instead of being bent into a cir-
cular form was turned into a spiral, became a
bracelet, as is shown in the lowest figure of the
woodcut to ARMILLA. A torquis contrived to
answer this purpose is called torquis brachialis
(Vopisc. Aurel. 7). Such bracelets and torques
are often found together, having been worn by
the same people.
Torques.
The head in the preceding woodcut is that of
a Persian warrior in the mosaic of the battle
of Issus, mentioned in p. 397. It illustrates the
mode of wearing the torquis, which in this
instance terminates in two serpents’ heads instead
of hooks. It was by taking this collar from a
Gallic warrior that T. Manlius obtained the
cognomen of Torquatus (Cic. de Fin. ii. 22, 73,
de Off. iii. 31, 112; Gellius, ix. 13; Non. Marc.
pp. 227, 228, ed. Merceri).
Torques, whether in the form of collars or
bracelets, no doubt formed a considerable part of
the wealth of those who wore them. Hence they
were an important portion of the spoil, when any
Celtic or Oriental army was conquered, and they
were among the rewards of valour bestowed after
an engagement upon those who had most distin-
guished themselves (Juv. xvi. 60; Plin. H. N.
xxxiii. § 10; Sidon. Apollin. Carm. xxiii. 424).
The monuments erected to commemorate Roman
soldiers and to enumerate the honours which
they had obtained, often mention the number of
torques conferred upon them. (Maffei, Mus.
Veron. p. 218.) [PHALERA.] [J. Y.]
TORUS. [LECTUS.]
TO'XOTAE (rošára). [DEMOSII.]

858 TRABEA
TRAGOEDIA
TRA'BEA.. [ToGA.]
TRADITIO. [DOMINIUM.]
TRAGOE'DIA. The purpose of this article
is to sketch the progress of Greek Tragedy from
its origin to its maturity; and to give some
account of Roman Tragedy, which was derived
from the Greek.
The Dithyramb.-The Dorian worship of the
gods, and especially of Apollo, had been accom-
panied from an early time by choral lyrics, to
which an artistic development was given by
Alcman of Sparta (660 B.C.) and Stesichorus of
Himera (620 B.C.). It was reserved for a man
of Aeolian origin to perfect one particular
species of the poetry which Dorians had made
their own. Arion, of Methymna in Lesbos, lived
about 600 B.C. He gave a finished form to the
610iſpap50s, or choral hymn in honour of Dio-
nysus. The icăkxios xopós—i.e. the chorus
which stood, or danced, round the altar of
Dionysus—received from him a more complete
organisation, its number being fixed at fifty.
The earliest kökxiou xopol of this kind were
trained and produced by Arion at Corinth in
the reign of Periander. Pindar alludes to this
when he speaks of Corinth as the place where
“the graces of Dionysus”—the joyous song and
dance of his festival—were first shown forth;
orby Bomadºrg . . . 616vpdugº (Olymp. xiii. 19).
The epithet Bom Nárms which is there given to
the dithyramb probably refers to the fact that
an ox was the prize, rather than to a symbolical
identification of Dionysus with that animal.
In one of his lost poems Pindar had connected
the origin of the dithyramb with Naxos, and,
in another, with Thebes. This is quite con-
sistent with Corinth having been the first home
of the matured dithyramb. It is well known
that the dithyramb had existed before Arion’s
time. The earliest occurrence of the word is in
Archilochus (circ. 670 B.C.), fr. 79: ás Alaoviſoroſ'
&vaktos kaxov čápéal uéAos oiča à05papbov,
oivº avykepavva,6els ppévas—a testimony to
the impassioned character of the song. Hero-
dotus speaks of Arion as not merely the de-
veloper, but the inventor (i. 23); and Aristotle
made a similar statement, if we can trust the
citation in Photius (Töv Šē àpÉdºevov rās ºãis
'AptorotéAms’Apíová pmoliveival, Šs trpátos rov
kūkalov #yaye xopóv: Biblioth. Cod. 239). But
it was natural that the man who developed and
popularised the dithyramb should have come to
figure in tradition as its inventor. The ety-
mology of 616#papgos is unknown. Plato con-
jectures that its original theme was the birth
of Dionysus (Legg. p. 700 B). If this was so,
at any rate the scope must soon have been
enlarged, so as to include all the fortunes of
the god.
Earliest “ Tragic Choruses.”—At Sicyon, circ.
600 B.C., Tpayukol xopol were in use. This date
coincides with the period at which Arion per-
fected the dithyramb; and we find that these
xopol had originally been held in honour of
Dionysus. The Sicyonians had diverted them
from that purpose, and had applied them to the
cult of the Argive hero Adrastus, whose adven-
tures were celebrated by the choruses (Her.
v. 67, rà ird.6e a airoi, Tpayikoto's Xopoſal éyé-
palpov). Cleisthenes, the tyrant of Sicyon, re-.
claimed these xopol for Dionysus. Two points
in this account deserve attention. -
* *
vicissitudes, but not to any other god. Apollo
(1.) The epithet Tpaylicol is already given to
these choruses, although there was as yet no
actor distinct from the chorus. The orátupol
(=tºrvpot, “he-goats”) were woodland beings,
half man, half beast, who attended on Dionysus,
and who were conventionally represented with
pointed ears, budding horns, a snub nose, and a
tail. Some allusion to the satyrs was evidently
involved in rpayukós, as an epithet of the chorus,
and in Tpayq'6ta, as a name for their song. But
it is hardly doubtful that these terms also refer
directly to the association of an actual goat
with the Dionysiac worship. It was the goat
that suggested the conventional type of the
a drupol, not the latter that prompted the use of
the terms rpayikos and Tpaygöta. The choice
of the votive animal is sufficiently explained by
the lower side of the nature ascribed to the god,
the side which would be most prominent in a
rustic carnival. A goat was perhaps sacrificed
to Dionysus before the choral song began. But
this does not necessarily exclude another hypo-
thesis—viz. that a goat was sometimes the
prize. When, in early times, the country people
spoke of a “goat-chorus,” or a “goat-song,”
no doubt the literal and the allusive meanings
were blended; men thought partly of the goat
which was the sacrifice or the prize, partly of
the goat-like satyrs who formed the Chorus.
The word Tpaygöta is often applied to the
purely choral performance in honour of Diony-
sus, when as yet there was no “tragedy’’ in
the later sense. Thus Plato remarks that
Tpaygåta had existed in Attica before the days
of “Thespis and Phrynichus” (Minos, p. 321 A).
Similarly Athenaeus (630 c) and Diogenes
Laertius (iii. 56) speak of the primitive Tpaygöla
which was performed wholly by a chorus.
(2.) Further, it appears that as early as
600 B.C. Tpayucol xopol were not necessarily
restricted to the worship of Dionysus, but could
celebrate the fortunes of a hero such as Adrastus.
This illustrates the peculiar position of Dio-
nysus among the Hellenic deities. According
to legend, his entrance into Greece had been
opposed; he had endured various insults and
trials before his worship was finally established.
Dionysus alone was at once a god—superhuman
in might—and a hero who had striven like
Heracles. The “tragic chorus,” which sang the
dithyramb, commemorated his triſ0n-the vary-
ing fortunes which had preceded his final
triumph. Such a chorus might change its
theme to a hero who had experienced like
had long been honoured with choruses by the
Dorians. But there was no germ of drama in
the choral cult of Apollo, because there was no
reminiscence of suffering. i *
Transition from Lyric to Dramatic “Tragedy.”
—As the central idea of the Dionysiac worship
was a vivid sympathy with the fortunes of the
god, a certain dramatic element must have
entered into it from the first. The energy of
the dithyrambic style would itself prompt the
dancers to use animated gesture. It would also
be natural that their leader should enact the
part of Dionysus himself, or of a messenger from
him—reciting some adventure, to which the
satyr-chorus would then make a lyric response.
Greek tradition clearly associated some such
rudiments of drama with the primitive Tpayº-
TRAGOEDIA
TRAGOEDIA 859
6ta. Thus Diogenes Laertius says: “In early
tragedy the Chorus alone sustained the action
(5ueópapıdrug ev); afterwards Thespis introduced
one actor, in order to give rest to the Chorus”
(iii. 56). Aristotle, too, states that tragedy
was at first “extemporary” (airookeStaa’rikh).
and took its rise “from those who led off
the dithyramb” (ätrö rôv éčapxóvtov rov
316&papgov: Poet. 4). He refers to an effusion,
more or less unpremeditated, by the leader,
as distinguished from the hymn chanted by the
Chorus.
. Thespis, a native of Icaria in Attica, flourished
about 536 B.C., in the later years of Peisistratus.
He was a trainer and leader of dithyrambic
choruses, who made an improvement in the
mode of performance. Hitherto the leader,
who recited an adventure of Dionysus, had
addressed, the Chorus, and had been answered
by them. Thespis now set apart a person
specially for dialogue with the leader. As this
person had to reply to the leader, he was called
“the answerer,” 5trokpuriffs—which became the
regular term for an “actor.” This was another
step towards drama; but how far it went we
do not know, because we do not know what the
Öpduata of Thespis (as Suidas calls them) were
like. The alleged fragments of Thespis in
Plutarch, Clement of Alexandria, Pollux, and
other writers, are spurious, as Bentley has
shown (Phalaris, pp. 289 f, ed. Dyce). Every-
thing would depend on the manner in which the
part of the new jirokpurhs was adjusted to that
of the coryphaeus. If the latter was made
virtually a second actor, then Thespis might
fairly be regarded as the founder of drama
proper. If, on the other hand, the dialogue
remained comparatively unimportant, and the
whole performance continued to be essentially
lyric, then Thespis had merely modified the
tradition—though in a fruitful way. The latter
view seems the more probable. The ancients
themselves were divided : some regarded him as
the trpáros ºrpayukós: others, as merely im-
proving on Sicyonian tradition (Suidas). Bentley
maintained that Thespis composed only pieces
of a humorous character; Welcker, that he
produced serious tragedy also. Neither view
admits of proof. Horace (Ars Poet. 276) has
given currency to the notion that Thespis went
about the country with a strolling company,
and acted his plays on a waggon. The fiction
may have been suggested by the “jests from a
waggon’’ which were associated with the pro-
cessions to Eleusis (é; áuděms à8pſeuv). When
all the evidence has been sifted, Thespis remains
to us a famous name, and little more. That he
made an epoch in the gradual development is
beyond question. But, in the light of such im-
perfect knowledge as we possess, Aeschylus, not
Thespis, must be regarded as the true founder of
Tragedy.
. The Period between Thespis and Aeschylus.-
(1) Choerilus, an Athenian, is said to have
gained his first dramatic victory in 523 B.C., and
to have been active for some sixty years after-
wards. Pausanias (i. 14, § 2) refers to him as
Späua trothoauri 'AAérmv. Alope was a hapless
maiden whom her father Cercyon put to death;
and Pausanias quotes the play for some genealo-
gical details about Triptolemus. Here, then,
we have a tragedy, connected, by subject, with
was not far from Sicyon.
Eleusis, but not directly with Dionysus. Choe-
rilus is said by Suidas to have composed 160
plays. Only a few words are extant. The view
that he excelled in satyr-drama rests on a verse
of an unknown poet, jvíka uév Baorixei's ºv
Xoplads év oratiſpots, quoted by Marius Plotius
Sacerdos (circ. 300 A.D.), in the third book of
his Ars Grammatica, where he treats of metres.
The phrase év a arêpots, however, may have
referred to Dionysiac choruses generally, and
not to satyr-plays as distinguished from tra-
gedies. (2) Pratinas, a native of Phlius, is said
by Suidas to have contended against Choerilus
and Aeschylus “in the 70th Olympiad,” i.e. at
some time between 500 and 497 B.C. If the
first year of the Olympiad is meant, the date
would be the spring of 499 B.C. The tradition
that he was the first to write satyr-plays is
founded on the words of Suidas, irpáros &ypape
oratºpovs: but it can be traced further back, if
“Pratinae º be read for “Cratini” in a note on
the Ars Poetica (230) by Helenius Acron, the
commentator on Terence and Horace (circ. 190
A.D.). The satyr-plays of Pratinas were pre-
sumably intended to preserve the old type of
satyr-chorus, now threatened with extinction by
the new improvements. Such an effort would
have been natural for one whose native place
Among the scanty
fragments of Pratinas, which are almost wholly
lyric, the most considerable is a passage of
20 lines from a jirópxmua (Bergk, Poet. Lyr.
953 ff.: cf. Nauck, Frag. Trag. p. 562). Suidas
says that he wrote 60 plays, of which 32 were
satyric dramas; unless, with Boeckh, 32 should
be altered to 12 (A3' to 18). (3) Phrynichus,
an Athenian, is said to have gained the tragic
prize first in 511 B.C., and for the last time in
476 B.C. His tragedy on the Capture of Miletus
must have been produced soon after the date of
the event (494 B.C.) : it is uncertain whether
the title was MiXfirov &Aworis (Her. vi. 21), or
IIéporal. Eight other of his plays are known by
titles, but only a few verses remain (Nauck,
Frag. Trag. 557 ff.). According to Bentley’s
conjecture, the Phoenissae (on the same subject
as the Persae of Aeschylus) was the play pro-
duced in 476 B.C., when Themistocles was his
choregus. In the Thesmophoriazusae of Aristo-
phanes the tragic poet Agathon says of Phry-
nichus that the comeliness of his person was
matched by the beauty of his dramas (v. 166).
His lyrics, in particular, were admired for their
simple grace and sweetness. It seemed as if the
birds had taught him to warble (Ar. Av. 748 ft.).
These lyrics had probably more of an Ionian
than of a Dorian or an Aeolian stamp. He was
the most popular tragic poet of his time: the
audiences to whom Aeschylus made his earlier
appeals are described as having been “brought
up in the school of Phrynichus ” (trap& ºppvv{xº
Tpaq’évras, Ar. Ran. 910).
Aeschylus, a native of Eleusis in Attica, was
born in 525 B.C. About 499 B.C. he was already
exhibiting tragedy, but it was in 484 that he
first gained the prize. The great change which
he introduced consisted in adding a second actor,
and in making the dialogue more important
than the Chorus (Töv Adºyov trporaryovuorhy
trapeakewage, Arist. Poet. 4). It may be con-
jectured that this change had been made some
years before 484 B.C.; at any rate it was earlier
860 TRAGOEDIA
TRAGOEDIA
than the date of the Persae, 472 B.C. So long
as there was only a single actor, that actor
might, indeed, assume different parts in suc-
cession, but there could be no drama in the
proper sense of the word. If, for instance,
Phrynichus used only one actor in the “Capture
of Miletus,” that person might first appear as a
messenger, relating the calamity ; the Chorus
would express their grief; the actor might
then reappear as one of the victors or of the
vanquished, and give occasion for another choral
strain. But the presentment of an action as
passing before the eyes of the spectators became
possible only when a second actor was added.
Aeschylus also gave a new grandeur to the
scenic accessories of tragedy. He improved the
masks, and introduced new costumes, of which
we shall speak presently. The introduction of
scene-painting has also been ascribed to him;
but it is probable that his use of this aid did
not go beyond an elementary form. Aeschylus
is essentially the creator of the tragic drama as
it existed at Athens during the 5th century B.C.
In comparison with Phrynichus and his other
predecessors, Aeschylus stood out as “the first
of the Greeks” who had “built up” a lofty
diction for Tragedy, and who had made it a
splendid spectacle. (Ar. Ran. 1004 f.)
Sophocles was born in or about 495 B.C., and
first gained the tragic prize in 468 B.C., against
Aeschylus. He added a third actor. He also
raised the number of the tragic chorus from 12
to 15. Hitherto one of the ordinary choreutae
|had acted as leader. One of the three additional
men was now appointed coryphaeus; the other
two were destined to serve as leaders of juxápua
when the Chorus was required to act in two
divisions (as it does in a passage of the Ajaa,
866 ft.). Aristotle mentions scene-painting
(orkmvoypaqſa) as an improvement distinctive of
Sophocles. It cannot be doubted that, though
Aeschylus may have used some kind of scene-
painting at an earlier date, Sophocles was the
dramatist who first made a more thorough and
effective use of it, so that it continued to be
associated with his name. (Cf. THEATRUM.)
The external form of Attic tragedy was now
complete.
Occasions on which Tragedy was acted at
Athens.—We may next consider the conditions
under which tragedy was presented to the
Athenian public. Before the time of Peisistra-
tus, the rural Dionysia (rā Kar’ &ypots) afforded
the only occasion for the Bacchic choruses in
Attica. It is conjectured that Peisistratus was
the founder of the Dionysiac festival called the
Lenaea. This was held every January in the
Aftvalov (so named from Amvós, a wine-press),
the precinct sacred to Dionysus, on the S.E.
slope of the Acropolis. The Lenaea witnessed
the exhibitions of Thespis, Choerilus and Pratinas,
as well as the earlier plays of Phrynichus and of
. Aeschylus. A regular contest (&y&v) for the
tragic prize at the Lenaea seems to have existed
as early as the days of Thespis and Choerilus.
The institution of the Great, or City, Dionysia
(rù lear’ &orv) may probably be referred to the
time immediately after the Persian wars, circ.
478 B.C. The Great Dionysia then became the
chief occasion for Tragedy; and in the middle
part of the 5th century the Lenaea seems to
have been exclusively the festival of Comedy.
About 416 B.C., however, we again hear of
Tragedy at the Lenaea. Thenceforth, down at
least to the days of Demosthenes, tragic drama
accompanied both festivals; though it was more
especially associated with the Great Dionysia.
At the Anthesteria, the February festival, no
drama was exhibited.
Trilogy and Tetralogy.—The form in which
Aeschylus produced his tragedies, during, at
least, the later part of his career, was that of
the “trilogy,” or group of three. To these
was appended a satyr-drama (orárvpol, or garv-
pukov 8papa), so called because the Chorus
consisted of satyrs attendant on Dionysus. We
have seen that Pratinas was the reputed inventor
of the satyr-play, and that its object was to
preserve the memory of the “tragic” chorus
in its earliest phase. A mingling of seriousness
and mirth was characteristic of the Dionysiac
worship. Tragedy represented one side of this
mood, and Comedy the other. The satyr-drama
—true to its origin from the old Tpayikos xopós
—was nearer to Tragedy than to Comedy, but
contained elements of the latter also ; hence it
was aptly described as traigovora ºrpayºta (De-
metrius, de Elocut. § 169). The trilogy, or
group of three tragedies, and the satyr-drama,
together made up the “tetralogy.” It is not
known that Aeschylus himself, or any of the
Attic dramatists, used the word ºrpińoyfa or
retpaxo'yta. These terms cannot be traced back
beyond the Alexandrian age. But, whether the
Attic dramatists did or did not use these words,
it is certain that they composed in these forms.
The origin of the trilogy has been conjecturally
derived from a custom, in the days when there
was only one actor, that he should give three
successive recitations between the choral songs:
but this is doubtful. Nor is it certain, though
it is very probable, that Aeschylus was the
inventor of the trilogy. His Oresteia is the
only extant example. In that trilogy, the
three plays form successive chapters of one
story. A trilogy which has this kind of unity
has been called a “fable-trilogy.” On the other
hand the term “theme-trilogy” has been used
to describe three tragedies linked, not by story,
but by some abstract idea, such as that of
Hellenic victory over the barbarian. Thus,
according to Welcker, the Persae belonged to a
theme-trilogy in which the first play (Phineus)
related to the Argonauts, and the third (Glaucus)
to the victory of the Sicilian Greeks at Himera
(480 B.C.). The “fable-trilogy” was the type
characteristic of Aeschylus. It has been at-
tempted to show, from the recorded titles of his
plays, that his trilogies always had the unity
either of “fable” or of “theme.” But it is
more probable that, though he preferred fable-
trilogies, he sometimes also produced trilogies
in which the plays were wholly unconnected.
With regard to the practice of the poets
after Aeschylus, these points may be observed.
(1) In addition to the Aeschylean examples, ten
tetralogies can be traced, ranging in date from
467 to 405 B.C. Five of these belong to Euri-
pides; the other five, to minor tragic poets.
(2) Suidas says that Sophocles “began the
practice of play contending against play, and
not tetralogy against tetralogy.”... But it, is
known that Sophocles competed with Euripides
on at least two occasions when the latter pro-
TRAGOEDIA
TRAGOEDIA 861
duced tetralogies, viz. in 438 and in 431 B.C.
It cannot be doubted that in each of these cases
Sophocles, too, produced four plays. To have
competed with a single play against a tetralogy
would have argued sterility or arrogance.
Sophocles continued to use the tetralogical
form, but the tragedies in his trilogy were
usually unconnected, as those of Aeschylus had
usually been linked. The statement of Suidas
is probably founded on a statement of some
older writer who was noticing a result of the
Sophoclean practice: viz., that the judges of the
tragic prize, having to decide between trilogies
of unconnected plays, found it easier to pro-
nounce which one play was the best of all,
than to determine which trilogy was best as a
whole. Thus, though tetralogies were still pro-
duced, the contest for the prize would often be
one of “play against play.” (3) There is no
proof that Sophocles, or any poet of his time,
ever competed at the Dionysia with one tragedy
only. The year 340 B.C. is the earliest in
which it is proved that the tragic poets exhi-
bited less than three plays each; and in that
year they produced two each. This is proved
by a contemporary inscription. (4) The con-
clusion is that tetralogy continued to be the
rule in Tragedy down at least to 400 B.C., and
perhaps somewhat longer. It was only by a
tetralogy that the old Dionysiac chorus of fifty
persons was fully represented. The Aeschylean
chorus of 12, and the Sophoclean of 15, roughly
symbolised a quarter of that number. Any-
thing less than a tetralogy would have seemed
an incomplete tribute to the god. No argu-
ment can be drawn from the case of Comedy.
Comedies were always produced singly.
The Actors.-In the time of Thespis, poet and
actor were identical. In the earlier years of
Aeschylus and Sophocles it was still not unusual
for a poet to bear a part in the performance of
his own tragedies. Thus Sophocles is recorded
to have played the title-róle in his own Tha-
myris, and Nausicaa in his Plyntriae. But,
when the tragic drama had once been matured,
the art of the tragic actor became a distinct
profession. According to the degree of the
actor's skill—which was tested by special trials
—he was classed as a player of first, second, or
third parts. We must remember that, until
Aeschylus introduced the second actor, the
principal performer was not the single actor, but
the coryphaeus, since the choral element was
more important than the dialogue. It was
Aeschylus who, in Aristotle's phrase, first “made
the dialogue protagonist.” The protagonist
played the most important character of the piece,
which was often, but not necessarily, the charac-
ter from which the piece was named. He might
take more than one part, if the leading person
disappeared long before the end of the play:
thus in the Ajaw the protagonist would play
Ajax and Teucer; in the Antigone, the heroine,
Teiresias, and Eurydice. The deuteragonist usu-
ally played the person, or persons, most directly
concerned with the principal character;-as
Ismene and Haemon in the Antigone. The trit-
agonist took the smaller parts, as, for example,
the part of a king, when, like Creon in the
Antigone, he was not the chief person of the play
(Dem. de Fals. Leg. § 247). The Athenian actor
went through an elaborate preparation. In the
first place, great care was given to the artistic
training of the voice (TAégua povăs), with a view
to flexibility and strength. This was demanded
alike by the size of the theatres and by the
fineness of the Athenian ear. Deportment was
also carefully studied. In Attic Tragedy the
movements were usually slow and stately :
much, also, depended on statuesque effects. As
the masks excluded play of feature, it was all
the more necessary that the actor should have
command of expressive gesture, especially with
the hands. Now and then, though not often, he
was required to dance (cf. Eur. Phoen. 316);
hence his professional training was incomplete
without àpxmoºrukh.
Costume.—How the tragic actor was dressed
before the time of Aeschylus, we do not know ;
it is only a conjecture that the dress of the
Dionysiac priests may have been the model.
Aeschylus introduced a type of costume which
remained in use throughout the classical period.
Its chief elements were the following. (1) A
tunic, with stripes of bright colours, sometimes
richly embroidered with patterns of flowers or
animals. It was girt up high under the breast,
and fell in long folds to the feet. The sleeves
reached to the hands. Such a tunic was called
troucíAov (Pollux). Women sometimes wore a
purple robe, with a long train (orvpros trop-
qupoids). (2) Over the tunic, or robe, an upper
garment was worn;–sometimes the iudriov,
an oblong piece of cloth ; sometimes a mantle,
XAapids, which was cut in a circular form, and
fastened by a clasp on the right shoulder.
The chlamys was often very splendid. Some
other varieties of garment, with special names,
are mentioned; but their nature is often un-
certain. Padding was worn under the costume,
which was designed to exaggerate all the actor's
proportions. (3) A boot, which the Greeks.
called éuflárms, and the Romans cothurnus.
The sole was wooden, and the shape such as to
fit either foot. The object of this boot—like
that of the high girdle—was to increase the
actor's apparent stature; and the sole seems to
have varied in thickness from some two inches,
to as many as six, or even more. Indeed, for
an inexperienced actor, the difficulty of walking
on the épubdºrms seems to have resembled that of
walking on stilts. We hear of clumsy actors
falling; and the support afforded by a long
walking-stick was not disdained, where the
part admitted of it. (4) Masks. Thespis, ac-
cording to the tradition, first used pigments to
smear the actor's face, and afterwards adopted
linen masks of a simple kind. Masks suited to
female characters are said to have been used first
by Phrynichus. The improvement made by
Aeschylus seems to have been the application
of painting to the plain linen masks of the
earlier period. In the Alexandrian age, if not
earlier, the workmanship of tragic masks had
become highly elaborate. Pollux gives a list,
derived from that age, which includes six types
of old men, eight types of young men, and
eleven types of women. These various types
were distinguished by a regular system of con-
ventional traits, such as the colour of the hair,
and the mode of wearing it; the tint of the
face; the expression given by the eyebrows;
the shape of the forehead, and even the line of
the nose: thus a hooked nose (étrºypuros) was
862 TRAGOEDIA
TRAGOEDIA
considered appropriate to the &vatāhs. Each mask
was known by a technical name: for example,
the suffering heroine was the catákowos &xpá.
[PERSONA.] A mask which did not belong to any
regular type, but was made for some exceptional
part (such as the horned Actaeon), was called čv-
orkevov ºrpóorotrov. In the tragic mask a peculiar
device was used to raise the height of the fore-
head. This was a cone-shaped frame (öykos),
built up above the face, from which the hair of
the mask fell over the brows. The height of
the Öykos varied with the dignity of aspect
desired. (5) Special attributes. A king carried
a sceptre; Hermes, a herald's staff (kmpükelov);
the bacchant, a thyrsus, etc. Such an emblem
was usually borne in the left hand, in order
that the right might be free for gesture: ex-
tant works of art show this (cf. Baumeister,
Denkmäler, p. 1852; Ovid, Amor. iii. 1, 13).
Warriors had swords, spears, etc. But, except
by indications of this nature, the dress was not
adapted to the particular part which the actor
played. This will not appear strange if it is
recollected that Athenian drama was an act of
Dionysiac worship. The tragic costume was
festal first, and dramatic only in a secondary
sense, because, at the Dionysia, art was merely
the handmaid of religion. It is said that
Aeschylus took some hints from the splendid
dresses of the hierophant and the Ögö00xos at
the Eleusinian mysteries. (Athen. p. 21e, read-
ing (mA60 as %y with Fritzsche; A. Müller,
Bühnenalth. p. 229.) This would have been
quite in the Aeschylean spirit ; but the tradi-
tion can no longer be verified. In satyric drama
the costume of gods and heroes was the same as
in Tragedy, but the chiton was shorter, as
livelier movement was required. Silenus, an
important figure in Satyric drama, was dressed
either in “tights,” set with tufts of goat's hair,
or in a tunic and hose of goat’s skin.
In the 5th century B.C. we find great actors
specially associated by fame with the poets in
whose plays they excelled: as Cleander and
Mynniscus with Aeschylus; Cleidemides and
Tlepolemus with Sophocles; Cephisophon with
Euripides. At a somewhat later period, it be-
came usual for the three competitors in tragedy
to receive their protagonists from the archon
by lot. But that arrangement seems to have
ceased before 341 B.C., when a protagonist
played in one piece of a trilogy for each of the
three poets. Thus, by successive steps, the
connexion between poet and actor had become
less and less close.
The Chorus.—In the development of Attic
Tragedy the treatment of the Chorus passed
through several phases. Even after Aeschylus
had made the dialogue more important than the
lyric element, he continued to compose choral
odes of a length which seemed excessive—or at
least archaic—to the next generation. In the
Frogs, Euripides complains that his rival’s
Chorus used to inflict on the audience “four
strings of lyric verse, one after another, while
the actors were silent” (914, § 5& xopos #petàev
Öpuaôobs &v ueMºv čhečis rérrapas Évvexãs &v.
of 6’ earlyov). In the Supplices of Aeschylus
the Chorus follows up the parodos with eight
consecutive pairs of strophes and antistrophes;
in the first stasimon of the Agamemnon there
are six pairs. Such a practice was tolerated,
Euripides remarks, only because the audiences
of Aeschylus had been accustomed to it by
Phrynichus. The Aeschylean treatment of the
Chorus bears, in fact, some impress of the still
recent period when the Chorus, and not the
dialogue, had been “protagonist:” the Chorus
has lost its old primacy, but it still claims a
large share of attention. Here, as in other
respects, Sophocles represents a golden mean.
Nothing could be more perfect than his manage-
ment of the Chorus, given the two conditions
under which he worked—viz., a matured drama,
in which the dialogue necessarily holds the first
place; and secondly, the requirement that the
Chorus should continue to be an organic part of
such drama. His choral odes have always a
direct bearing on the action, by commenting on
what has passed, by preparing the mind for
what is to come, and, generally, by attuning
the thoughts of the spectator to successive
moods, in harmony with the progress of the
action. Then they are always of moderate
length, and often very short. Euripides marks
a third phase. The Chorus is now little more
than an external adjunct to the drama; the
choral songs have often nothing to do with the
action. This could hardly be avoided. The
Chorus presented difficulties to a poet who, like
Euripides, was beginning a transition. When
the gods and heroes were handled in the new
spirit, the old meaning of the Chorus was lost.
It is not a reproach to Euripides, it is rather a
proof of insight, that he modified the use of the
Chorus in accordance with his dramatic aim,
and in perhaps the best manner which that aim
permitted.
The Chorus was trained and equipped by the
choregus whom the Archon had assigned to the
poet [CHORUS: THEATRUM). The tragic chorus
of fifteen entered the orchestra three abreast :
this was the arrangement called karū aroſzows
(“in files’). The aixnths walked in front. The
leader of the Chorus (kopvQaſos) walked third in
the file nearest the spectators. The two leaders
of hemichoria were next to him—one in front of
him, as second man of the file, and the other
behind him, as fourth. On reaching the orche-
stra, the Chorus made an evolution to the right,
so as to change from three files, five deep, into
three ranks, facing the actors, with five men in
each rank. This was the disposition karū (vºyd.
The file of five men who, on entering, had been
nearest the spectators, now formed the front
rank: the coryphaeus was in the middle of it,
having on his right and left the half-chorus-
leaders, who were thence called trapaoréral.
In dialogue between the actors and the Chorus,
the coryphaeus spoke for the Chorus. It is also
possible, though not certain, that he alone
recited any anapaests which belonged to the
choral part. In the delivery of choral odes the
strophe was accompanied by a dance-movement
towards the right, and the antistrophe by a
corresponding movement towards the left;
while, during the singing of the epode, the
Chorus remained stationary. It would appear
that, at least in some cases, the functions of
singing and dancing were divided; one part of
the Chorus executed the dance, while another
sang. The dance proper to Tragedy (ii tpayukh
àpxmoris) was technically called éupéAeta, a name
denoting stately movement in time to music:
TRAGOEDIA
TRAGOEDIA 863
as the dance of Comedy was the képôač, and
that of satyric drama the orticuvis. The Ötróp-
xmpia—sometimes introduced in Tragedy, either
incidentally or in the place of a regular choral
stasimon—was a more lively dance, a kind of
ballet, in which the best dancers appeared,
adapting their movements to the sense of the
words sung by the other choreutae. Sophocles
often employs it to express sudden emotions of
delight or hope, especially for the purpose of
contrast, when a tragic catastrophe is at hand.
In a koppués, or lyric dialogue between actor and
Chorus, parts were sometimes assigned to single
choreutae. The verses with which the Chorus
close a tragedy were not attended by dancing,
but were recited to a musical accompaniment.
As a rule the Chorus consists of persons belong-
ing to the scene of the action. In such cases
the Chorus entered the orchestra, and left it at
the close of the play, by the entrance on the
spectator's right hand. But the entrance on
his left was used if the Chorus represented
strangers to the place, as in Aesch. Suppl. ;
Soph. Phil.; Eur. Suppl., Ion, Iph. in Aul. With
regard to the first song of the Chorus on enter-
ing the orchestra (trópobos), the extant plays
illustrate three different cases. (1.) The play
can begin with this trapobos : as Aesch. Suppl.
and Pers. (2.) The Chorus may enter to the
anaepaestic chant after the trpóXoyos : as in
Soph. Ant, and Aj. (3.) The Chorus may enter
silently, after the trpóAoyos, and then begin
the répoãos : as in Aesch. P. V., Soph. El, and
often. In some exceptional instances the drama
required that the Chorus should enter, not
in regular procession, but singly or in small
groups (otropéðmu); as in Aesch. Theb. and
Soph. O. C. The costume of the Chorus was,
like that of the actors, conventional—a chiton,
made shorter than the actor's, for convenience
in dancing—and a himation. If the Chorus
represented mourners, they could be attired in
dark-coloured garments (cf. Aesch. Cho. 19).
Where the Chorus represented sailors (as in
Soph. Aj. and Phil.) hats (TA01) may have been
worn ; in the Bacchae of Euripides, the Chorus
seem to have carried the ràutrava of Bacchants
(v. 58). But the general type of costume
remained the same, whatever was the special
character of the Chorus. Instead of the épubdºrms
of the tragic actor, they wore the half-boots
&alled kpmrióes, which were sometimes white.
In satyric drama the Chorus wore a close-
fitting dress (oroudriov) representing the naked
form, with a short apron (or girdle) of goat’s
skin. -
The Innovations of Euripides.—The unsparing
satire of Aristophanes, amusing and often in-
structive as it is, must not blind us to the nobler
side of the effort made by Euripides to maintain
the place of Tragedy as a living force in the
spiritual life of Athens. A change was coming
over the old mental attitude of Athenians to-
wards the popular religion and the consecrated
mythology. A large and increasing proportion
of the spectators in the theatre was now destitute
of the training, musical and poetical, which
earlier poets could take for granted. The spirit
of his age, and the bent of his own genius, led
Euripides to renounce much of the ideal grandeur
with which Tragedy had been invested by Aes-
chylus and Sophocles. He made a step from
typical towards individual portraiture, relying
on the delineation of human passion and human
suffering in traits with which the ordinary
spectator could sympathise. He was not afraid
of being homely, so long as he touched the
springs of natural feeling. y
At first sight it might seem that, in a drama-
tist, such a conception deserves nothing but
praise. The praise awarded to it must, however,
be tempered by regard for the conditions under
which the experiment was made. Euripides
was not the unfettered creator of a new drama.
He inherited and maintained the old framework
of Attic Tragedy... He had still only three
actors. He had still a Chorus in the orchestra.
His materials were still drawn exclusively from
the heroic myths. Such Tragedy could be great
only so long as it was ideal. Every step by which
its persons were brought nearer to everyday life
was a step which increased the danger of bur-
lesque. This fact is the element of justice in
the attacks made on Euripides by Aristophanes.
Euripides gave a signal proof of original genius,
not only in the boldness of his conception, but
also in the degree of success with which he
executed it. Nevertheless his effort was fore-
doomed to the measure of failure which attends
on artists who, in seeking an impossible con-
ciliation, achieve only a clever compromise.
Euripides stands between ideal and romantic
drama ; his Tragedy has lost the noblest beauty
of idealism, without attaining to the full charm
of romance. But, just for that reason, it was
through Euripides, rather than through Aes-
chylus or Sophocles, that the tradition of
Tragedy was derived in the later periods of
ancient literature.
We said above that the Aristophanic jests on
Euripides, however unfair, are often instructive.
This is particularly true of the satire in the
Frogs. It shows us the points in which Eu-
ripides seemed an innovator to those who were
familiar with the older school of Tragedy. One
such point was his use of the prologue to intro-
duce the persons of the drama and explain its
subject:—a clumsy and sometimes ludicrous
expedient, which is best excused by the plea
that the spectators, no longer familiar with the
old mythology, required something in the nature
of a modern play-bill. Another novelty ascribed
to Euripides is his practice of dressing his
suffering heroes in rags, a detraction from
their dignity which probably struck Athenians
all the more, because it was also a departure
from the conventional type of tragic costume
described above. With regard to the frequent
use of the deus ea machina which has some-
times been made a reproach to Euripides, it
is only fair to distinguish between two classes
of examples. In some instances his deus cæ
machina is really no better than a mechanical
expedient: this might be said of the Andromache
and of the Orestes. But in some other cases the
intervention is dramatically warranted by the
plot, as in the Hippolytus and in the Bacchae.
In respect to lyrics, Aristophanes represents
Euripides as having admitted the more florid
style which was becoming fashionable, , and
having thus destroyed the grave dignity of the
old choral song. The extant plays of Euripides
indicate that there was some ground for this
charge: jingling repetitions of single words
864 TRAGOEDIA
TRAGOEDIA
are especially frequent; no fewer than sixteen
instances occur in 150 lines of the Orestes.
But the most important innovation made by
Euripides in the lyric province was the in-
troduction of florid lyric solos (uovgåta), to
be sung by an actor on the stage. Perhaps
the cleverest stroke in the Frogs is the parody
of such a povgöta (1331 ff.), in the course
of which the hapless heroine describes herself
as Atvov uéorov &rpaktov | eieweletelevatoroovora
€001)/.
Å. 400 B.C. Greek Tragedy declined.
Numerous tragic poets appeared, indeed, who
won more or less applause from their contem-
poraries; but no one of them rivalled the great
masters. In the fourth century B.C. an ordinance
was made that some work of Aeschylus, Sopho-
cles, or Euripides should always be produced at
the Dionysia along with the new tragedies.
Lycurgus (circ, 330 B.C.) caused a standard text
of those three poets to be deposited in the
public archives, with a view to guarding against
further corruption by actors; and this text
afterwards passed into the possession of Ptolemy
Euergetes (247–222 B.C.). Down to about
300 B.C., Athens continued to be the chief seat
of Tragedy. Alexandria afterwards became so;
and under the Ptolemies tragic composition
had many votaries. Among these were the
seven poets who, in the reign of Philadelphus
(283–247 B.C.), were known as “the tragic
Pleiad.” It was in 217 A.D. that the edict of
Caracalla abolished theatrical performances at
Alexandria.
Aristotle defines Tragedy as the imitation of
an action which is serious, complete in itself,
and of a sufficient magnitude or compass. The
instrument of imitation is language, made de-
lightful to the hearers, either (a) by metre
alone, or (b) by metre combined with music.
Further, this language is not used in the way
of narrative merely, but is conjoined with
action on the part of the speakers. The ele-
ments of Tragedy are six in number:-uū60s,
the story; #6m, the moral qualities of the
persons; Aétis, the verbal form ; 5udvota, the
thoughts or sentiments; āyus, the presentation
to the eye (under which Aristotle includes not
merely scenic accessories of every kind, but also
gesture and dancing); uexotrotta, musical com-
position. In every tragedy there is 6éois, a
tying of a knot, and Aūgis, a solution. The
most effective kind of Aðaris is that which is
introduced by a reputréteia, a sudden reversal
of fortune for the persons of the drama; or by
an &vayváptorus, the discovery of a previously
concealed relationship between the persons. The
ăvayvépio is may or may not be accompanied
by a repuréteia. A uß00s is said to be retraey-
pºvos when it involves a reputré reta, an āva-
ºyváploris, or both. It is àrà00s when the Afforts
is managed without either. Again, a tragedy
is tra6mrukh when the chief person acts mainly
under the influence of triſ00s, a strong impulse
of the mind,--as Medea does. It is h9ix}, when
the chief person acts mainly in accord with a
deliberately formed purpose (rpoaipeois), as
Antigone does. As to the so-called “unities,”
the unity of action is the only one upon which
Aristotle insists. The action represented by
tragedy must be one; it must not be a series of
incoherent or loosely-linked episodes.
the unity of place he says nothing at all. As to
the unity of time, he says that Tragedy now
seeks, as far as possible, to confine the supposed
action within the compass of a single day, or
nearly so; but the earliest form of Tragedy, he
adds, did not even do this; in it, just as in
epic poetry, the time was indefinite. Viewed
as a composition, Tragedy consists of the
following parts; which are, in Aristotle’s
phrase, the uépm kará to roadv, as distin-
guished from the six elements named above,
which are the uépm kata to trouév. All that
part of a tragedy which precedes the first
choral song is called trpáAoyos. The part which
comes between two choral songs is an étei-
oróðtov (a term probably derived from the re-
appearance, émeto'o60s, of the single actor in
primitive Tragedy). The #050s is the part
after the last choral song. The trópoãos is the
first utterance of the whole Chorus. The orrā-
oupov is “a choral song without anapaests or
trochaics: ” i.e., not preceded by an anapaestic
march, like the trapobos, nor interrupted by
dialogue in trochaic tetrameters, such as that
which the Chorus in the Agamemnon (ad fin.)
holds with the actors. The term ordaipov
puéAos means literally, a song by the Chorus “at
its station * in the orchestra. A koppubs is a
6pivos cowbs xopod kal &tö orienvis, a lyric
lament, sustained partly by the Chorus and
partly by an actor.
Tragedy is described by Aristotle as āt exéov
kal (p68ov repatvovora rºv táv rototrov tra6mud-
ºrww kā6aporiv, “effecting, by means of pity and
terror, that purgation (of the soul) which
belongs to (is proper for) such feelings.” The
word kā6aporis involves a medical metaphor,
from the use of purgatives. Tragedy excites.
pity and terror by presenting to the mind things.
which are truly pitiable and terrible. Now,
pity and terror are feelings natural to men; but
they are often excited by unworthy causes.
When they are moved, as Tragedy moves them,
by a worthy cause, then the mind experiences
that sense of relief which comes from finding
an outlet for a natural energy. And thus the
impressions made by Tragedy leave behind them
in the spectator a temperate and harmonious
state of the soul. Similarly Aristotle speaks of
the enthusiastic worshippers of Dionysus as:
obtaining a ká6aparis, a healthful relief, by the
lyric utterance of their sacred frenzy :—örav
éopyid (wort thv jux?iv uéaegi, kaðioragévows,
ãortrep iorpetas tuxávras kal ka94porea's (Pol.
viii. 7).
Of the three great tragedians, Sophocles
seems to have been on the whole the favourite
of Aristotle, who refers to him in the Poetics
about twenty times, and in all cases, except
three, with praise. The Oedipus Tyrannus is:
cited in no less than ten places. Euripides is
defended against the critics who had complained
that his plays usually ended unhappily; this,
says Aristotle, is right in Tragedy, and the
proof is that Euripides, “although a faulty
composer in other respects, is found to be at
least the most tragic of poets” (ei kal r& &AAa.
ph eſſ oikovouel, àAA& rpayukórarós ye rôy
Troumråv paſveral: Poet. 13). By “most tragic’’
is here meant, “exciting pity most strongly,”
—“most pathetic.” But in Aristotle's other
About notices of Euripides censure decidedly predomi-
TRAGOEDIA
TRAGOEDIA 865
nates over praise. Aeschylus is named only
thrice in the Poetics: there are further three
citations of his plays without his name. Ari-
stotle seems to regard him as belonging to a
period when the proper type of Tragedy had
not yet been matured. In this connexion it
may be noticed that not only are the terms
“trilogy” and “tetralogy” absent from the
Poetics, but there is no indication in the treatise
that tragedies had ever been produced other-
wise than singly. In one place, indeed (c. 24),
there is a reference to “the number of tra-
gedies set for one hearing ” (i.e. performed in
one day); but nothing in the context forbids
aus to suppose as many poets as pieces. The
reason of this silence is simply, doubtless, that
the grouping of plays in representation was
foreign to the subject with which Aristotle was
immediately concerned,—viz. the analysis of
Tragedy considered as a form of poetical art.
Indeed, the scenic aspect of drama generally
receives comparatively little attention from
him. The production of scenic effects (ārepºyao'ía
Töv Šibéov) is the affair of the stage-manager.
The art of the actor, again, is but slightly
touched, since it lies outside of the poet's
domain.
The Didascaliae.—Aristotle compiled a work
called AuðaokaAtal, “Dramatic performances,”
being a list of the tragedies and comedies pro-
duced at Athens in each year. His materials
were contemporary records. In the 5th century
B.C. it had been customary for the archon, after
each festival at which dramas had been per-
formed, to draw up a list of the competing
poets, the choregi, the plays, and the prot-
agonists, with a notice of the order in which
the judges had placed the competitors. This
record was preserved in the public archives.
At some time between 450 and 400 B.C. it
became usual to engrave such a record on a
stone tablet, and to set it up in or near the
Dionysiac theatre. Further, the choregus whose
poet gained the prize received a tripod from the
state, and erected it, with an inscription, in the
same neighbourhood. Aristotle's compilation
has perished, but its nature is known from
citations of it which occur in the Greek Argu-
aments to some plays, in scholia, and in late
writers. There are altogether thirteen such
citations, five of which cite the Auðaorica.Atat
with Aristotle's name, and eight without it.
They are collected in the Berlin Aristotle (vol. v.
p. 1572). About 260 B.C. the Alexandrian poet
'Callimachus compiled another work of the same
kind, IIfvač kal &vaypaqº) rāv karū xpóvous &n'
àpxis yeuopiévov Štěaokaxtów, “A table and
record of dramatic performances from the
earliest times.” He made use of Aristotle’s
Atôaarkańſal (Schol. Ar. Nub. 552). Works of a
similar kind were written by Aristophanes of
Byzantium (circ. 200 B.C.), and by other scholars
of Alexandria and of Pergamum. Several of
these writings were extant as late at least as
150 A.D. This appears from Athenaeus, who
was able to consult the AuðaakaAtat of Calli-
machus and Aristophanes, as well as “the Per-
gamene records” (Athen. p. 336 c). Among
the authors of the last-named was Carystius of
Pergamum (circ. 110 B.C.), who wrote repl
AtôaakaAtóv. The period covered by the extant
fragments of Atôaakaaſai ranges from 472 B.C.
WOL. II.
(Arg. Aesch. Persae) to 388 B.C. (Arg. Ar.
Plut.). -
ROMAN TRAGEDY.
The first half of the 3rd century B.C. was the
period at which the influence of Greek literature
began to be directly felt by the Romans. Ta-
rentum was the greatest of the Greek colonies
in Southern Italy. After the fall of Tarentum
in 272 B.C., the intercourse between Romans
and Greeks became more familiar. In the First
Punic War (263–241 B.C.) Sicily was the prin-
cipal battle-ground; and in Sicily the Romans
had ample facilities for improving their acquaint-
ance with the Greek language. They had
also frequent opportunities of witnessing Greek
plays. Just after the close of the war the first
attempt at a Latin reproduction of Greek
tragedy was made by Livius Andronicus (240
B.C.). He was a Greek, probably of Tarentum,
and had received his freedom from his master,
M. Livius Salinator, whose sons he had educated.
He then settled at Rome, and devoted the rest
of his life to literary work. It may be con-
jectured that most of his plays were translated
from the Greek. All of them, so far as we
know, were on Greek subjects. Among the
titles are Aegisthus, Ecus Trojanus, Ajax,
Tereus, Hermione. His Latin style appears to
have been harsh and crude. “Ilivianae fabulae
non satis dignae quae iterum legantur" is
Cicero's concise verdict (Brutus, 18, 71).
Five years after the first essay of Livius An-
dronicus, a Latin dramatist of greater originality
came forward (235 B.C.). Cn. Naevius was pro-
bably a Campanian; and the racy vigour with
which he could use his native language entitles
him to be regarded as the earliest Roman poet.
Comedy was the form of drama in which Naevius
chiefly excelled; and he turned it to the purposes
of political strife, in a spirit similar to that
of Aristophanes. But he was also a writer of
tragedy. His Lycurgus was akin in theme to
the Bacchae of Euripides ; while the titles of his
Andromache, Ecus Trojanus, and Hector Pro-
ficiscens, show that, like Livius, he drew largely
on the Trojan cycle. At the same time he
occasionally composed tragedies founded on
Roman history, or, as they. were technically
called, fabulae praetextatae. The earliest prae-
textatae on record are his ; one of them was
called Romulus. In the scanty fragments of his
works we can recognise his ardour, his self-
confidence, his somewhat aggressive vigour, and
his gift for terse and nervous expression, of
which the familiar “laudari a laudato viro” is
a specimen.
The career of Naevius was drawing to a close
when Q. Ennius came to Rome (204 B.C.).
Ennius, a native of Rudiae in Calabria, was
serving as a centurion with the army in Sar-
dinia, when Cato arrived there as quaestor.
Ennius followed Cato to Rome; acquired the
Roman citizenship in 184 B.C.; and made his
permanent abode on the Aventine. Here we
have to do with his work only so far as it
concerned Tragedy. Although his Annals and
his Satires were more characteristic products
of his genius, he was also the most popular
tragic dramatist who had yet appeared; and
it was due to him, in the first instance, that
Roman Tragedy acquired the popularity which
3 K
866 TRAGOEDIA
TRAGOEDIA
it retained down to the days of Cicero. About
twenty-five of his tragedies are known by their
titles. Two of these were praetextatae, one
of which, called Sabinae, dealt with the inter-
vention of the Sabine women in the war
between Romulus and Tatius; while another,
the Ambracia, turned on the capture of the
town of Ambracia in the Aetolian war. The
other pieces were on Greek subjects, about one
half of them being connected with the Trojan
war. His Medea was translated from the play
of Euripides, and the opening lines, which are
extant, indicate that the version was a tolerably
close one. They have a certain rugged majesty
which agrees with Horace's description of the
style used by Ennius in Tragedy, -“In scaenam
missos magno cum pondere versus.”
M. Pacuvius, a nephew of Ennius by the
mother’s side, was a native of Brundusium.
He is thus the third instance (Livius and Ennius
being the two others) in which early Roman
drama is associated with South Italian birth.
Pacuvius was born about 219 B.C., and lived to
the age of ninety. Of his tragedies, one, called
Paulus, was a praetextata; twelve more are
known to have been on Greek subjects; and
among these one of the most celebrated, the
Antiope, was a translation from Euripides.
Some remarkable fragments of his Chryses—a
tragedy concerned, like his Dulorestes, with the
wanderings of Orestes in search of Pylades—
disclose the growth of a Roman interest in
physical philosophy, and also in ethical ques-
tions. About 400 lines of Pacuvius are extant,
but many of these are merely single verses,
preserved by grammarians as examples of strange
words or usages. Much as Pacuvius was
admired on other grounds, his Latinity was not
accounted pure by Cicero, who couples him
with the comic poet Caecilius in the censure,
“male locutos esse’’ (Brutus, 74,258). Pacuvius
was prone to coin new forms of words (such as
temeritudo, concorditas), and carried the invention
of compound adjectives to an extent which
sometimes became ludicrous, as in “Nerei re-
pandirostrum incurvicervicum pecus.”
L. Attius was born at Pisaurum, a Roman
colony in Umbria, in 170 B.C. The forms Attius
and Accius are equally well-attested; but in the
Imperial age the form with tt became pre-
dominant; and the Greeks always wrote “ATTuos
(Teuffel, Hist, Rom. Lit. § 119, 1). The aged
Pacuvius, having left Rome in ill-health, was
spending the evening of his days at Brundusium,
when Attius, then a young man, passed through
that place on his way to Asia. Attius was
entertained by Pacuvius, and read to him his
tragedy Atreis. The old man found it “sono-
rous and elevated, but somewhat harsh and
crude; ” and the younger poet, admitting the
defect, expressed his hope that the mellowing
influence of time would appear in his riper
work. The excellences which Pacuvius recog-
nised must have been present in the maturer
writings of Attius, whom Horace calls “altus,”
and Cicero, “gravis et ingeniosus poeta.” The
harshness of his earlier style was due, perhaps,
to a youthful excess of that “nervous and im-
petuous ” character, as Cicero calls it (de Orat.
iii. 58,217), which afterwards distinguished him,
and which Ovid expresses by the epithet ani-
mosus. Attius was far the most productive of
Sentinum.
the Roman tragic dramatists. The extant
notices and fragments indicate, according to one
estimate, about 37 pieces; according to another,
about 50. Two of these were praetextatae;—
the Brutus, on the downfall of the Tarquins;
and the Aeneadae, dealing with the legend of
the Decius who devoted himself at the battle of
There are indications that Attius
was a student of Sophocles, though Euripides
was probably his chief model. Thus the verse
in his Armorum iudicium (fr. 10), “virtuti sis
par, dispar fortunis patris,” is translated from
Soph. Ai. 550 f. Among his other celebrated
tragedies were the Atreus, Epigoni, Philocteta,
Antigona, Telephus. Cicero, in his youth, had
often listened to the reminiscences of Attius
(Brutus, 28, 107). The poet, who was sixty-
four at the date of the orator's birth (106
B.C.), must therefore have lived to an advanced
age.
The period from 240 to 100 B.C. is the first
period in the history of Roman poetry and ora-
tory. And the century from 200 to 100 B.C. marks
the flourishing age of Roman Tragedy, as culti-
vated by Ennius, Pacuvius, and Attius. But
Tragedy continued to be a favourite form of
composition in the later years of the Republic
and in the earlier part of the Imperial age. It
became, however, more and more a literary
exercise, less and less a form of poetry which
could appeal with living force to the mind of
the people. In the Augustan age C. Asinius
Pollio wrote tragedies which seem to have been
acted. Virgil's well-known praise of them, as
“sola Sophocleo digna cothurno,” must be
qualified by the criticism in the Dialogus de
Oratoribus (c. 21), where Tacitus observes that
the harshest traits of earlier Roman tragedy
were reproduced in the style of Pollio (“adeo
durus et siccus est”). In the same dialogue
high praise is given to the Medea of Ovid and
the Thyestes of Varius (c. 12). No fragment of
this Medea remains, except a few words quoted
by Quintilian (xii. 10, 75). Of the Thyestes
Quintilian says that “it is comparable to any
Greek Tragedy’’ (x. 1, 98); and in another
place he quotes it (iii. 8, 45). Two anapaestic
fragments are also extant (Ribbeck, Frag. Lat.
p. 195 f.). But for Ovid and for Varius, as
for other less famous poets, Tragedy was now a
mere ird pep yov, a field into which they might
make occasional excursions, not the province of
poetry in which they sought to establish their
permanent renown. In the middle of the 1st
century A.D. we have eight tragedies on Greek
subjects by L. Annaeus Seneca : Hercules Furens,
Thyestes, Phaedra, Oedipus, Troades (Hecuba),
Medea, Agamemnon, Hercules Oetaeus; also part
of an Oedipus Coloneus (362 lines), and of a
Phoenissae (302). A praetextata called Octavia,
which was formerly ascribed to Seneca, was
certainly of later origin. The parentage of the
other tragedies has also been disputed, but the
results of recent criticism confirm Seneca’s
authorship. The general characteristic of the
plays is rhetoric of the most pompous and arti-
ficial kind. A fertile and lively fancy is pre-
sent; the psychology, too, is often acute; but
there is no depth either of thought or of feeling.
As most of Seneca’s Greek models are extant, a
comparison is instructive. It serves to show
how completely, in this latest age of Roman
TRAGOEDIA
TRAPETUM 867
gether dependent on Greece.
original.
99).
Tragedy, the love of declamation had displaced
all regard for the soul and essence of tragic art.
The pieces of Seneca were primarily designed,
doubtless, for recitation; but it is not impossible
that, in Nero's age, they were also acted; and
certain scenic hints have been thought to point in
that direction (e.g. Phaedra, 392 f.). The last
Roman writer of Tragedy who claims mention
is Curiatius Maternus, whose activity extended
from the reign of Nero to that of Vespasian.
He wrote both tragedies (as Medea, Thyestes)
and praetentatae (as Domitius, Cato); and his
eminent reputation is attested by several pas-
sages in the Tacitean Dialogus (cc. 2, 3, 5, 11).
In looking back on the course of Roman
Tragedy as a whole, we see, in the first place,
that for inspiration and material it was alto-
Euripides was
more especially the master of the Roman dra-
matists, because, in his hands, Tragedy had
become less distinctively Hellenic, and therefore
more susceptible of imitation by those who
were strangers to the Hellenic spirit. In the
plays of Euripides, the Chorus was already
ceasing to be an organic part of drama; and
the Roman dramatists went only one step
farther when they banished the Chorus from
the orchestra, leaving to it merely an occasional
part in the dialogue. Lyrics of a simple cha-
..racter, with a musical accompaniment, served,
indeed, to accentuate the more impassioned
moments of a Roman tragedy; but, save for
these, the lyric element of the great Attic
drama had vanished. In dialogue the iambic
and trochaic metres were retained: yet even
here the Roman imitation marred the Greek
was now admitted in any place except the last.
The finer rhythms were thus destroyed. Quin-
tilian says, “Comedy is our weak point” (x. 1,
But, so far as the tragic fragments
warrant a judgment, Roman Tragedy was, in
style, much less successful than Roman Comedy.
Comedy had more in common with the Satura,
and the satura is the one species of composition
in which the Roman mind expressed itself with
a truly original force. [SATURA.] At the same
time it is clear that there were noble qualities
in the Roman Tragedy of the Republic. It was
marked by earnestness and by oratorical power;
the tones of the statesman and of the soldier
were heard in it ; it imbued the youth of Rome
with the “fas et antiqua castitudo * (as Attius
says),--with the lessons of ancestral fortitude
and prudence; it taught the men who were
conquering the world how they should work,
how they should suffer, and how they should
rule. So long as Roman Tragedy was doing
this, it was living, though its spirit was not
Athenian. But this moral and political signi-
ficance departed with the Republic ; and then
it was inevitable that Roman Tragedy should
descend to the place which it occupies under
the Empire. That noble form of drama which
the Attic genius had matured, and which is
first made known to us in the majestic poetry
of Aeschylus, disappears from the ancient world
in the rhetoric of Seneca. [R. C. J.]
TRANSENNA, lattice-work. The word is
used (1) for a lattice-work across a window
[DoMUs, Wol. I. p. 686 b, apparently 5 the
* fenestrae reticulatae’’ of Varro, R. R. iii. 7,
Any foot possible for an iambic verse
and this must be the meaning in Cic. de Or, i.
35, 162: (2) a lattice-work cage for trapping
birds [see references under AUCEPS). It is
possible that this was contrived by some sort
of spring, though the pattern which Rich gives
must be regarded only as a surmise: it is
equally” possible that the transenna may have
been more like an ordinary birdcage, and worked
by a decoy. The passage from Sallust (quoted
by Macrob. Sat. iii. 13, 8), where at a theatrical
entertainment an image of Victory is “demissum
in transenna,” suggests something of the kind
— a large wicker cage enclosing the image.
Servius (ad Aen. v. 488) reads the passage,
“demissum transenna,” and explains transenna
as a rope; but this would certainly not agree
with the use in Cicero. [G. E. M.]
TRANSTRA. [NAVIS.] - -
TRANSWECTIO. [EQUITEs.]
TRAPE"TUM, a machine for performing the
first process in oil-making, that of crushing the
olives (9xãv, &Aeºv, frangere, molere), so as to
separate the pulp from the stone. This was
done in early times merely by treading, and it
seems to us that the “canalis et solea “ of Col.
xii. 52, 6, which Blümmer dismisses as unin-
telligible, simply refers to treading olives by a
wooden shoe (cf. SCULPONEA), with a pipe or
trough to carry away the juice. To this suc-
ceeded the mola olearia and the trapetum. The
former is preferred by Columella, as being more
easily adjusted according to the size of the
berries, so as to avoid breaking the kernel
(Col. xii. 51): it appears to have been the same
in principle as the corn-mill [MOLA], formed of
two stones, capable of adjustment, as is de-
scribed in that article (see also Blümner, Technol.
i. 331). This appears in the relief from Arles
(fig. 1), where two genii are turning round the
crushing stone. The distinction from the corn-
Mola olearia, from a relief at Arles.
mill is that the stones are in inverse order ;
instead of the lower fixed stone being conical
and the upper revolving stone hollowed (see cut
under MoLA), the fixed lower stone is cup-
shaped, and the revolving stone is conical. The
upright cross-handled beam is both a pivot for
the revolving stone and a means of adjusting the
pressure by raising it or lowering it.
The form of the trapetum, properly so called,
can be ascertained from the remains found at
Pompeii and Stabiae. In the cut below, the
press found at Stabiae is shown in elevation
and section (from Blümmer, after Schneider).

3 K 2
868 TRAUMATOS
TRESWIRE
The berries were placed in a circular stone
basin (mortarium, 1), of which the sides were
called labra : in the centre of this basin stood a
Trapetum in elevation and section.
column (miliarium, 2) to support the poles or
levers (modioli, 6), on which the crushing stones
(orbes, 3) rested, and by which they were turned
round. These orbes were of stone, flat on the
inner side and convex on the outer, as if forming
two halves of a sphere: they were kept apart
by a rectangular box of wood plated with metal,
and called cupa (5), into which the modioli were
fixed, and which served also to support the
orbes. This cupa revolved round an iron pivot
(columella ferrea, 4) fixed on the top of the
miliarium or column, and rested on the column
itself. To prevent it from slipping off the
pivot, there was an iron pin (fistula ferrea, 7).
To keep the orbes in position as close to the
cupa as was required, a cap (armilla, 8) was
fastened by a nail to the poles on the outside or
convex surface of the stones: this cap not only
kept the stones steady, but also to some extent
regulated their distance from the labra and their
consequent pressure. Two men (for, as Blümner
remarks, we have no mention of horses or mules
for this labour) moved round the poles, so that
the stones bruised the fruit against the sides of
the mortar. It must be observed that these
poles are to be regarded not as axles, but as
levers: the columella or pivot was practically
the axle on which they worked. Moreover, as
the stones were not fastened to the poles, they
revolved to some extent on their own axis under
the pressure of the fruit, whence there was a
double motion and a more yielding pressure, the
object being as much as possible to avoid crush-
ing the kernels, which would give an unpleasant
taste to the oil.
We have no data for a description of another
machine for this purpose which Columella (xii.
52) calls a tudicula: he merely tells us that it
worked “like an upright tribula” (which would
seem to imply the principle of tearing or carding
the fruit), and that it easily got out of order.
(Blümmer, Technologie, i. 326–336; Rich, s. v.;
Schneider, in Script. R. R.) [G. E. M.]
TRAUMATOS EK PRONOIAS GRA-
PHE (Tpaduatos ék Tpovotas ypaſph). Our
principal information respecting this action is
derived from two speeches of Lysias, viz. rpès
3tuwwa and repl Tpaduatos ék Tpovoſas, though
they do not supply us with many particulars.
It appears that this action could not be brought
by any person who had been wounded and as-
saulted by another, but that it was necessary to
prove that there had been an intention (ºrpávota)
to murder the person who had been wounded
(Lys. c. Sim. § 41 f.). Cases of this kind were
laid before the archon basileus and brought
before the Areiopagus ([Lys.] c. Alcib. § 15 ;
Dem. c. Aristocr. p. 628, § 24; Poll. viii. 117):
if the accused was found guilty, he was exiled
from the state (Dem. c. Boeot. ii. p. 1018, § 32;
according to Philippi, d. Areopag w, d. Epheten,
p. 113 f., not for life) and his property con-
fiscated (Lys. c. Sim. § 38, repl ris traºrptóos
kai rās ovoſtas rās éuavtoo &rd.orms kivāvveto ; cf.
de vuln. ea; industria, § 18. Plat. Legg. ix. p.
877 B: banishment for life without confiscation
of property). This action seems to have been
notorious as an instrument of false accusation
(Aeschin. de F. L. § 93; c. Ctes. $ 212, etc.).
(Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 386 f.)
[C. R. K.] [H. H.]
TRE'S.VIRI were either ordinary magistrates
or officers, or else extraordinary commissioners,
who were frequently appointed at Rome to
execute any public office. [The form triumvir is
quite legitimate, and the gen. plur. is often used
as a predicate of a single individual: e.g. st
triumvirum sim: but it is doubtful whether
there is any good authority for the nom. plur.
triumviri, although it is often found in our texts:
MSS. seem always to give iiiviri..] The follow-
ing is a list of the most important of both classes,
arranged in alphabetical order.
1. TRESVIRI AGRO DIVIDUNDO.
CoLONIAE DEDUCENDAE.]
2. TrESVIRI CAPITALEs appear to have been
regularly appointed first in about B.C. 290 (Liv.
Epit. 11). If Mommsen is right in identifying
them with the tresviri nocturni (cf. Ussing on
Plaut. Amph. 155), there is a reference to the office
somewhat earlier in Liv. ix. 46, 3, where he says
of Cn. Flavius, curule aedile in B.C. 304, “quem
aliquanto ante desisse scriptum facere arguit
Macer Licinius tribunatu ante gesto triumvirati-
busque nocturno altero, altero coloniae deducen-
dae: ” but this reference is of doubtful authority,
not only because Livy ascribes the institution of
the office to a later date, but also because it
certainly was not a magistracy, as Licinius
regards it, until a much later date. At first the
tresviri were not chosen by the people, but
nominated, probably by the praetor urbanus,
who at a later time presided at their election.
Festus (s. v. Sacramentum) gives a quotation
from the law by which L. Papirius, a tribune
of the commons, enacted that they should be
elected : “quicunque praetor posthac factus erit
qui inter civis jus dicet, tres viros capitales
populum rogato.” This law must have been
after B.C. 242, for it assumes the existence of at
least two praetors, and this also disposes of the
conjecture of Niebuhr, that Festus meant L.
Papirius, praetor in B.C. 292 (Hist. Rom. iii. 407–
8): but it must have been before B.C. 124, when
they appear in the Bantine law and the law de
repetundis (C. I. L. i. 197, 198).
In criminal cases their main duty was to look
to the safer custody of the convicted, and to
execute capital punishment (Dig. 1, 2, 2, 30;
Liv. xxxii. 26). The usual form of execution
was, for the upper classes and for women,
strangling in prison (triumvirale supplicium,
Tac. Ann. v. 10), a fate which befell the fellow-
conspirators of Catiline (Sall. Cat. 55; cf. Val.
Max. v. 4, 57, “mulierem praetor . . . capitali
crimine damnatam triumviroin carcere necandam
tradidit”); slaves were crucified, also under
their supervision (Val. Max. viii. 4, 2). They
had also the duty of receiving charges (Plaut.
Aul. 413; Asin. 131) and of arresting offenders;
[TRESVIRI

TRESWIRI
TRIBON 869
and generally of looking after the police of
Rome, for which purpose they had a post in the
forum near the Columna Maenia (Cic. pro
Cluent. 13, 39). Their duty was to go the
round of the streets by night, and to seize and
punish disorderly characters (Plaut. Amph. ad
init.: cp. Val. Max. viii. 1, damn. 6, “P. Willius
triumvir nocturnus a P. Aquilio trib. pl. ac-
cusatus populi judicio concidit, quia vigilias
neglegentius circumierat”), and, as being
charged with the safety of the city, were re-
quired to be present at once in cases of fire (ib.
damn. 5). There is no trace of any independent
criminal jurisdiction; even a slave had to be
condemned by a regular court; but this does
not preclude the administration of such punish-
ment as was necessary to keep order. Hence
Arnold (Hist. of Rome, ii. 389) goes too far in
saying that they “tried by summary process all
offenders against the public peace, who might be
taken in the fact.” There are also indications
that in cases virtually criminal, in which private
citizens acted as prosecutors by the manus
injectio, the tresviri were appointed by the
praetor to act as judices (cp. Plaut. Pers. 61 ff.,
discussed by Götz in Rhein. Mus. xxx. 167),
and Mommsen thinks that the number of these
may have been determined with a view to
this function. They had further to exact and
to pay into the treasury the Sacramenta due
in civil suits, and to decide upon the obligation
to serve as judices (Cic. Brut. 31, 117). Here
as in other cases they appear as the assistants
of the praetors. Under the Empire their func-
tions were mainly discharged by the praefectus
vigilum.
3. TRESVIRI COLONIAE DEDUCENDAE were
persons appointed to superintend the formation
of a colony. They are spoken of under COLONIA,
Vol. I. p. 479. Since they had besides to super-
intend the distribution of the land to the colo-
nists, we find them also called Tresviri Coloniae
Deducendae Agroque Dividundo (Liv. viii. 16), and
sometimes simply Tresviri Agro Dando (Liv. iii.
1). The number three was the most usual one,
but we also find commissions of five, seven, ten,
fifteen, or twenty, as might be determined by
the law instituting the colony.
4. TRESVIRI EPULONEs. [EPULONES.]
5. TRESVIRI EQUITUM TURMAS RECOGNOS-
CENDI, or LEGENDIS EquTTUM DECURIIS, were
magistrates first appointed by Augustus to revise
the lists of the Equites, not at the census but
at the transvectio equitum, and to admit persons
into the order. This was formerly part of the
duties of the censors (Suet. Aug. 37; Tac. Ann.
iii. 30).
6. TRESVIRI MENSARII. [ARGENTARII.]
7. TRESVIRI MONETALEs. [MoMETA.]
8. TrESVIRI REFICIENDIs AEDIBUs, elected
in the Comitia Tributa in the time of the Second
Punic War, a commission for the purpose of
repairing and rebuilding certain temples (Liv.
xxv. 7). We do not know why this duty was
not left, as usual, to the censors.
9. TRESVIRI REIPUBLICAE CONSTITUENDAE.
Niebuhr (Hist. of Rome, vol. iii. p. 43) supposes
that magistrates under this title were appointed
as early as the time of the Licinian Rogations,
in order to restore peace to the state after the
commotions consequent upon those Rogations
(Lydus, de Mag. i. 35). Niebuhr also thinks
that these were the magistrates intended by
Varro, who mentions among the extraordinary
magistrates that had the right of summoning
the senate, Triumvirs for the regulation of the
Republic, along with the Decemvirs and Consular
Tribunes (Gell. xiv. 7). We have not, however,
any certain mention of officers or magistrates
under this name, till towards the close of the
Republic, when the supreme power was shared
between Lepidus, Antonius, and Caesar (Octavi-
anus), who administered the affairs of the state
under the title of Tresviri Reipublicae Consti-
tuendae. This office was conferred upon them
in B.C. 43 by a law of P. Titius the tribune for
five years (Liv. Epit. 120; Appian, B. C. iv. 2–
12; Dio Cass. xlvi. 54–56; Well. Pat. ii. 65;
Plut. Cic. 46); and on the expiration of the term,
in B.C. 38, was conferred upon them again, in
B.C. 37, for five years more (Appian, B. C. v. 95;
Dio Cass. xlviii. 54). The coalition between
Julius Caesar, Pompeius, and Crassus, in B.C. 60
(Vell. Pat. ii. 44; Liv. Epit. 103), is usually
called the first triumvirate, and that between
Octavianus, Antony, and Lepidus, the second ;
but it must be borne in mind that the former
never bore the title of tresviri, nor were invested
with any office under that name, whereas the
latter were recognised as regular magistrates
under the above-mentioned title.
10. TRESVIRI SACRIS CONQUIRENDIS DO-
NISQUE PERSIGNANDIS, extraordinary officers
elected in the Comitia Tributa in the time of
the Second Punic War, seem to have had to
take care that all property given or conse-
crated to the gods was applied to that purpose
(Liv. xxv. 7).
11. TRESVIRI SENATUS LEGENDI were officers
appointed whenever required by Augustus to
admit persons into the senate. This was
previously the duty of the censors (Suet. Aug.
37 [W. S.] [A. S. W.]
).
TRIA'RII. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. pp. 783–
5. .
TRIBON. The Tp(8wv was a variety of
indriov, belonging to the class of the XAaïval
Sutramºytöes [see PALLIUM, p. 321], and was the
national garb of Sparta, worn by every male over
twelve years of age. Its use spread to Athens,
having been introduced by such imitators of
Spartan life (Aakavišovres) as Cimon. It is
best known in history as the dress of Socrates
(Plato, Spnp. p. 219 B), adopted afterwards by
the Cynics, with whom it became a professional
costume. The chief merit of the rpí8wv was
that it was worn alone, without a shirt. The
references to the “shirtless” condition of the
Cynics are countless, from the sneer of Kerkidas
at Diogenes as being 6ttraostuaros (cf. Hor. Ep.
i. 17, 25, “quem duplici panno patientia velat”)
down to the time of Juvenal, who describes the
only difference between the Stoic and the Cynic
as being a shirt (“tunica distantia,” Sat. xiii.
122). The Cynic women followed the same
fashion, as did also the wife of Phocion, who on
occasion wore her husband's mantle. The rpºBov
was of a dark colour (patos) and of coarse but
thick material. The manner of wearing it
seems to have varied according to the length at
which the owner wished to have it. It was of
coarse woollen cloth, worn with a brooch, but
the pinning does not seem to have been invariable,
for on many of the statues of philosophers on
870 TRIBULUM
TRIBUNUS
which it appears there is no brooch or pin
shown, [PALLIUM.] [W. C. F. A.]
TRI'BULUM (ºrpffloxos, a word borrowed
from Latin), a corn-drag, consisting of a thick and
ponderous, wooden board, which was armed
underneath with pieces of iron or sharp flints,
either the driver or a heavy weight being placed
upon it, and drawn over the corn by a yoke of
oxen, for the purpose of separating the grain
and cutting the straw (Varro, R. R. i. 52; Plin.
H. W. xviii. § 298; Longus, iii. 30, 2). To-
gether with the tribulum another kind of drag,
called traha or trahea, was also used, which,
from the explanation of Servius, “ vehiculum sine
rotis,” we may suppose to have been like a
carriage-body taken off the wheels, or a sledge
without runners (Verg. Georg. i. 164; Serv. ad
loc.; Col. ii. 21). A third variety, the plostellum
Punicum (Warro, l. c.), seems to have been a
framework, like the above, placed upon rollers,
and used especially in Spain, where we may
suppose the Carthaginians to have introduced it.
The tribulum and traha are still used in Greece,
Asia Minor, Georgia, and Syria, and are de-
scribed by various travellers in those countries,
but more especially by Paul Lucas (Voyage, vol.
i. p. 182), Sir R. K. Porter (Travels, vol. i.
p. 158), Jackson (Journey from India, p. 249),
and C. Fellows (Journal, pp. 70, 333). (For
the process of threshing, see AGRICULTURA, Vol.
I. p. 64.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TRI'BULUS (rpſboxos), a caltrop, also
called murex (Val. Max. iii. 7, § 2; Curt. iv.
13, § 36). When a place was beset with troops,
the one party endeavoured to impede the cavalry
of the other party either by throwing before
them caltrops, which necessarily lay with one
of their four sharp points turned upwards, or by
burying the caltrops with one point at the
surface of the ground (Veget. de Re Mil. iii. 24;
Jul. Afric. 69; Polyaen. 139, 2). The taleae
(Caes. B. G. vii. 73) and the hami, stimuli or
stili (Bell. Afr. 31), were for the same purpose.
They were pieces of wood with curved iron
points, buried in the ground. The annexed
Tribulus.
woodcut is taken from a bronze caltrop figured
by Caylus (Recueil, iv. pl. 98).
- [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TRIBU’NAL (87ua), a raised platform, or,
to use the term adopted from the French,
tribune, on which the SELLA of the praetor or
presiding magistrate was placed, when he sat to
administer justice in any place which might be
selected (Liv. xxiii. 32). It is termed locus
superior in Cic. Verr. ii. 42, 102; iv. 40, 85.
It is described under BASILICA, Vol. I. pp. 288,
291 (cf. Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i.” 400).
There was a tribunal in the camp, which was
generally formed of turf, but sometimes, in a
stationary camp, of stone, from which the
general addressed the soldiers, and where the
consul and tribunes of the soldiers administered
justice. When the general addressed the army
from the tribunal, the standards were planted
in front of it, and the army placed round it in
order. [ADLocuTIo; CASTRA, Vol. I. p. 380.]
For an instance of a tribunal raised in honour of
a deceased imperator, see Tac. Ann. ii. 833 for
the theatrical tribunal, THEATRUM, p. 821 b.
4- [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
TRIBU'NUS. This word seems originally
to have indicated an officer connected with a
tribe (tribus), or who represented a tribe for
certain purposes; and this is indeed the character
of the officers who were designated by it in the
earliest times of Rome, and may be traced also
in the later officers of this name. We subjoin
an account of all the Roman officers known
under this name.
1. TRIBUNES OF THE THREE ANCIENT TRIBES.
At the time when all the Roman citizens were
contained in the three tribes of the Ramnes,
Tities, and Luceres, the three divisions of in-
fantry, which together made up the legion,
were commanded by three tribuni militum (ºptº-
apy:0s, Dionys. ii. 7; Dig. 1, 2, 2, 20; Serv. ad
Aen. v. 560). Niebuhr (Hist. of Rome, i. p. 331)
supposes that the tribunus celerum was the
tribune of the Ramnes, the oldest and noblest
among the three tribes, and in this opinion he
is followed by Göttling (Gesch. d. Röm. Staats-
verf. p. 166), though it is in direct contradiction
to Dionysius (ii. 13) and Pomponius (de Orig.
Jur. Dig. 1, 2, 2, 15), according to whom the
tribunus celerum was the commander of the
celeres, the king's body-guard.
But Mommsen (Hist. i. 78, note) has shown
that the term tribuni celerum is used in the
plural of the three commanders of the horsemen
(Dionys. ii. 64), as contrasted with the three
tribuni militum, and that the view of Pomponius,
which identifies the tribunus celerum with the
Celer mentioned by Valerius Antias (in Dionys.
ii. 13), the magister equitum under the Republic,
and the praefectus praetorio of the Empire, is
due simply to a misconception of the position
held by Brutus in the legend (cf. Dionys. iv. 71 ;
Liv. i. 59). The tribunes of the tribes naturally
ceased to exist, when the tribes were done away
with in the changes ascribed to Servius Tullius.
There is no ground whatever for believing that
a law was ever passed under the presidency of

| one of the tribunes (Mommsen, Röm. St. i. 189,
note 4); but from the account of Dionysius
they appear to have exercised certain priestly
functions on behalf of their respective tribes.
(Cf. Praen. Fast. for March 19, p. 315, [adstanti-
bus pon]tificibus et tribſunis] celerſum].)
2. TFIBUNES OF THE SERVIAN TRIBES. Under
the Servian constitution, each of the four city- .
tribes, and possibly each of the country pagi,
which afterwards developed, in a manner as to
which we have no definite information, into the
TRIBUNUS
Af TRIBUNUS 871
original 16 country-tribes, had its curator, or
ºpčxapxos, whose duty it was to keep the regis-
ter of the tribe, and of the estates belonging
to its members, and to collect when necessary
the war-tax (tributum), as well as the capitation
money (aes), levied upon non-citizens (aerarii).
These curatores tribuum were also called tribun?
aerari; ; but whether the body known in the
time of Cicero as tribuni aerarii were their
successors and representatives is a question
much disputed of recent years. Madvig (Opusc.
Acad. ii. pp. 242-263; cf. Verfassung u. Verwalt-
wng, i. 182—185) strongly marntains that they
were quite distinct, and that there is no trust-
worthy reference to the tribuni aerarii before the
law of Cotta in B.C. 70, except as an obsolete
office, the name of which was then revived.
Mommsen, on the other hand (Die Römischen
Tribus, pp. 52 sqq.; cf. Röm. St. iii. 189 ft.),
maintains that they were identical. Madvig's
view is that the original tribuni aerarii were not
officials of any kind, much less magistrates, but
private persons of substance, who were made
responsible for the pay of individual soldiers,
especially the equites. The
authorities are an extract from Cato, ap. Gell.
vi. 10, “pignoris capio ob aes militare, quod
aes a tribuno aerario miles accipere debebat,
vocabulum seorsum fit; ” and Varro, L. L. v.
181, “ab eo quoque, quibus attributa erat
pecunia ut militi reddant, tribuni aerarii dicti; ”
where the past tense debebat shows that the
practice had become obsolete in Cato's time, and
the expression attributa erat may be taken to
indicate that the quaestors assigned to the
several contributories the sums which they had
respectively to pay. Another argument for
Madvig's view is that the tribuni aerorii must
have been a numerous class to furnish a select
body of at least 300 judices, and that they are
represented as fairly numerous, even in unim-
portant country-places like Atina (Cic. pro
Planc. 8, 21), and as an ordo by the side of the
equites (cf. Calp. Ecl. vii. 29). In Cic. pro C.
Jºab. ad Quir. 9, 27, we have in a reference to
B.C. 100, “quid de tribunis aerariis ceterorumque
ordinum omnium hominibus qui tum arma pro
communi libertate ceperunt?” Madvig inter-
prets this to mean young men who afterwards
became tribuni aerarii when the ordo was re-
vived in B.C. 70, but this interpretation is very
forced. Although we nowhere have express
authority for identifying the curatores tribuum
with the tribuni aerarii of the earlier time, it
seems impossible to explain the use of the term
tribunws except by such an identification; and
the word curator occurs only later on, so that
it may well be a descriptive title. When in
B.C. 220 the tribes were divided into centuries,
the curatores centuriarum may have popularly
retained the name of tribuni aerarii, their number
now being 350. They seem to have been elected
annually, and were often re-elected.
3. TRIBUNI AERARII. When L. Cotta, the
praetor in B.C. 70, carried a law depriving the
senators of the exclusive right of serving on
juries, which had been restored to them by
Sulla, after the reforms of C. Gracchus, he in-
stituted three decuriae, one of senators, one of
knights, and one of tribuni aerarii. Of this last
body we know that they were recognised as an
ordo; that they were a fairly numerous body,
chief ancient
not restricted to Rome, but living also in the
municipia; and that they were closely connected
with the equites, and indeed appear to have
been sometimes loosely included under this name
(cp. Cic. pro Cluent. 43, 121 ; 47, 130). Julius
Caesar took away their judicial function (Suet.
Jul. 41); but Augustus (Id. Aug. 32) added
to the three decuriae a fourth, consisting of
ducenarii, i.e. men who had half the equestrian
census. From this last fact it seems highly
probable that the tribuni aerarii were also
required to possess a definite census, though the
amount of this is nowhere specified. Mommsen
supposes that they had the equestrian census,
but not the equus publicus (Röm. St. iii. 533);
but this is somewhat doubtful: and Mommsen
admits that where they are included among
the equites by Cicero, the “courtesy of the
advocate ” (ib. 193, note 2: cf. pro Font. 16, 36;
pro Flacc. 38,96) is partly at least responsible.
Still in pro Flacc. 2, 4, he clearly speaks of
two-thirds of the jury as belonging to the
equites (50 out of 75): and Livy (Ep. xcvii.)
even speaks of the reform of Cotta as giving
back the judicia to the equites: “judicia per
M. (sic) Aurelium Cottam praetorem ad equites
Romanos translata sunt.” From Liv. xxiv. 11,
8, it might appear that they had a census of
300,000 asses. Herzog (i. 533) thinks that
they were ex-officials, but this assumption is
needless, if we identify them with the curatores
of the centuries. (Cf. Madvig, Verf und Verw.
i. 182–185; Mommsen, Röm. St. l. c. ; Heitland
on Cic. pro C. Rabirio ad Quir., App. G.; Herzog,
Gesch. d. Rón. Verfassung, i. 533, 1023-5.)
4. TRIBUNI MILITUM CONSULARI POTESTATE.
From the earliest times the Roman infantry had
been commanded by tribuni, or “tribe-leaders.”
These were nominated by the king, as com-
mander-in-chief, for the duration of the cam-
paign, and were originally three in number.
|But when the old tribes were divided, each into
a prior and a posterior, the number of the tribunes
came to be six. At this time legio was the term
applied to the whole army. When, at some
time in the course of the fourth century, a
varying number of legions was raised each year,
the practice was still retained of having six
tribuni militum for each legion. For their duties
and the manner of their appointment, see EXER-
CITUS. But the term tribuni militum came also
to be used with a somewhat different application.
If the needs of the state required that more
than two armies should be sent out, instead of
two consuls a larger number of commanders was
appointed under the title of tribuni militum con-
sulari potestate. The first recorded instance of
such an appointment is in B.C. 445, when the
plebeians were pressing their claim to be held
eligible for the consulship, and the senate in order
to avoid a decision upon the point resolved that
consular tribunes should be elected. (Liv. iv.
6, 8: “per haec consilia eo deducta est res, ut
tribunos militum consulari potestate promiscue
expatribus ac plebe creari sinerent, de consulibus
creandis nihil mutaretur.”) But there is no
definite evidence that this was the date of the
first institution of such an office; and the
reference to a law permitting it (Liv. iv. 31, 11)
may refer to that by which the consulate was
substituted for the kingship, as well as to a
special law now passed. Another and perhaps
872 TRIBUNUS
TRIBUNUS
an earlier account (Liv. iv. 7, 2) represents
military necessity as the sole reason for the
change. Certainly the highest number of con-
sular tribunes was elected in a year (B.C. 405)
when the strain of a continuous siege first came
upon the state. The fasti show that the number
varied between three, four, and six, but there
were never five. Where eight are mentioned,
two seem to have acted as censors, not as consuls,
and probably were not strictly speaking tribunes
at all. The number five was evidently avoided,
as not admitting of an even division of the fasces
for the twelve months of the year.
It is pretty plain that the tribuni militum con-
sulari potestate were simply the ordinary six
tribunes, holding office with special powers
conferred upon them. If the number sometimes
fell below six, this was only because, if an
insufficient number were elected with the con-
sular authority, there was no constitutional
means of filling up the places with others simi-
larly privileged, and those subsequently elected
ranked only as ordinary tribunes.
When in B.C. 367 the Licinian law abolished
the office of consular tribune and threw open
the consulate to the plebeians, the immediate
result was to deprive the people of the right of
electing the tribuni militum, so that the right
had to be restored to them by a special law five
years afterwards (Liv. vii. 5; cf. U. Lorenz, Das
Consulartribunat, Vienna, 1855).
There is no reason to doubt (as has been done
by Becker, ii. 2, 137; Schwegler, iii. 112, and
others) that the consular tribunes possessed, as,
their title indicates, the full consular powers,
including judicial as well as military functions,
and the right of appointing a dictator (Liv.
iv. 31). They were elected auspicato in the
Comitia Centuriata (Liv. v. 52, 16), and enjoyed
all the insignia of the consuls; but they had no
right to triumph, nor did they become con-
sulares, so that they did not by virtue of their
office enter the higher ranks of the senate. This
was the main practical difference between the
consular tribunate and the consulship. The
office was definitely abolished by the Licinian
law me tribunorum militum comitia fierent con-
Sulumque utique alter ea plebe crearetur (Liv. vi.
35); and we never hear of it after this date,
except in an abortive suggestion of the tribunes
of the commons in B.C. 53 (Dio Cass. xl. 45).
Cf. Mommsen, Röm. St. ii. 173–184: the account
given by Becker, Röm. Alt. ii. 2, 136 ft., is in
some respects antiquated.
5. TRIBUNI PLEBIs. There can be little doubt
that the name of these officers of the commons
was derived from that of the tribunes of the
soldiers. By the side of the privileged citizens,
the patricii, there was a body, recognised as
belonging to the community, but at first
destitute of all political rights, the plebs. This
body, by the constitution ascribed to Servius
Tullius, acquired the right of serving in the
army and holding positions of command (tri-
bunatus), and at the same time of voting in the
assembly of the centuries. Their next step was
to constitute themselves into an assembly of
their own, the concilium plebis, presided over by
magistrates of their own, the tribun; and aediles
plebis. According to the generally received
tradition, this step was the result of a secession
of the plebs to the mons Sacer in the district of
Crustumeria in the year B.C. 494. Whatever
may be the historical value of the details, there
is no reasonable doubt that about this time the
plebs acquired the right of collective action
under leaders of their own choice. At first the
election was made comitiis curiatis (Dionys. vi.
89, ix. 41 : cf. Cic. pro Corn, ap. Ascom. p. 76):
this has been generally taken to mean that the
election was made by a purely patrician body :
and an attempt has been made to defend this
view by assuming that the plebeians, after
settling among themselves who their candidates
should be, nominated these and no others for
the patricians formally to elect, so that they
might secure their approval (cf. Bouché-Leclercq,
Institutions Romaines, p. 69, note). But it is
much simpler to suppose that the plebeians
alone assembled by curies for the election (so
Mommsen and Willems). The tradition further
asserts that the tribunes were in B.C. 494 recog-
mised as inviolable by a lea: sacrata (Liv. ii. 33).
Here, again, disputes have arisen. Lange, repre-
senting the school of Niebuhr, holds that this
was a formal compact, ratified by the fetiales,
between the patricians and the plebeians (cf.
Dionys. vi. 84,89; vii. 40). Mommsen, on the
other hand, contends that the lea: sacrata was
only a solemn oath, sworn to by the plebs, that
they would regard any wrong done to their
tribunes as an inexpiable offence, and would
avenge it accordingly. This view is supported
by the fact that the plebiscitum of Icilius in
B.C. 492 (Dionys. vii. 22), which assured to the
tribunes freedom of speech and the jus awailii,
would have been superfluous if the preceding
lea: sacrata had been a compact between the
orders. This view is also in harmony with the
definition of sacrosanctus given by Festus, S. v.
There is a further discussion as to the number
of the original tribunes. The tradition is that
they were at first two in number, afterwards
raised to five, and then again to ten. But while
the oldest authorities speak of B.C. 471 as the
date at which the number was raised to five,
others represent the two first elected as at once
co-opting three others. The increase from five
to ten (two from each class) is placed by Livy
and Dionysius in B.C. 457 (Liv. iii. 30; Dionys.
x. 30), though the former carelessly speaks of
ten tribunes in B.C. 480 (ii. 44, 6), and Dio.
Cassius (cf. Zonaras, vii. 15) gives a different
account. These statements are open to much
doubt, especially that as to the classes from
which the tribunes were taken: such a provision
would be quite unexampled, and there seems to
have been no reason for it. Probably it was
only an illegitimate inference from the number
of the tribunes. It seems most probable that
there were originally two tribunes and two
aediles of the plebs, answering to the two
consuls and two quaestors of the community.
It is certain that after the decemvirate there
were always ten tribunes (Liv. iii. 54, 11, &c.).
The tribuni plebis were maturally always
plebeians; the only case of a patrician holding
the office is when two were co-opted in B.C. 448
(Liv. iii. 65); and this seems doubtful (cf. Momm-
sen, Röm. St. ii. 265, 4). They were elected,
perhaps when chosen by the curies, and cer-
tainly when chosen by the tribes, under the
presidency of the outgoing tribunes. At first;
if the number of tribunes elected was not equal
TRIBUNUS
TRIBUNUS 873
to the vacancies, the one or more elected had
the power of co-optation; but in B.C. 448 this
was done away with by the law of Trebonius
(Liv. iii. 65), which enacted that the election
should be continued until the full number had
been chosen. There was no interregnum allowed,
as in the case of the consuls: the plebs was
never to be left without its tribunes (Liv. iii.
55; cf. 64, 9). The office was held only for a
year; and just as in the case of the consulship,
all the tribunes were colleagues, in the sense
that each separately could exercise the full
power of the office, but could be prevented
from acting by the interposition of any of the
others. -
The functions of the tribunes varied with the
legal position of the plebs, of which they were
the representatives. Originally the plebs was
only a voluntary combination of unenfranchised
citizens, and so had no political rights. During
this period, of which we have no trustworthy
accounts, the tribunes were non populi Sed plebis
magistratus: any powers conceded to them were
possessed simply as attaching to the organs of
popular force. Next the plebs was recognised
as an organised body within the community, and
the magistrates of the community were bound
by certain restrictions in their action towards
the representatives of the commons: that is to
say, the tribunes acquired the right of veto, and
all that followed from it. Finally, the plebs
was so far identified with the community, that
its action was regarded legally as the action of
the community. This is the stage reached in
the Hortensian law of B.C. 287. The tribunes
now become magistrates of the community,
with positive as well as negative powers, and
especially with the right to transact business
directly with the senate.
As the tribunes did not originate as magis-
trates of the community, they had none of the
insignia of magistracy, no lictors, fasces, or
purple border to their togas; nor had they the
curule chair. They had, however, the right of
sitting on the subsellium, which became a kind
of token of their office. As not being magistrates
they further had no right of consulting the gods
(auspicia impetrativa) on behalf of the Roman
people, though there may have been a kind of
quasi-private plebeian auspices, so that the
place where the plebs met was called a templum
(Liv. ii. 56, 10; iii. 17, 1;—Cic. pro Sest. 29,
62; 35, 75). But the plebeian magistrates
were all created inauspicato (Liv. vi. 41, 5), at
least after they were elected by the tribes, and
a plebiscitum was a lea, inauspicata. On the
other hand, they were not at liberty to neglect
omens sent by the gods (auspicia oblativa), and a
storm broke up a concilium plebis as much as the
Comitia: hence, too, the obnuntiatio held good in
the case of plebeian assemblies. But perhaps the
latter doctrine was put forward only for the
political convenience of the nobles, and never
really admitted by the commons (cf. Mommsen,
Röm. St. ii. 275).
The tribune's duties, again, never included
what was understood by the imperium ; he never
had either military command or civil juris-
diction; and his powers did not extend beyond
the first milestone from the city. If we dis-
tinguish the time before the Hortensian law
from that which followed it, we find that for
the former the tribunician power consisted
essentially in three functions.
1. They had the right to summon meetings of
the plebs, and to take votes on resolutions pro-
posed to them. Mommsen finds the basis of
their power to lie in the plebiscitum passed by
Icilius in 472, which was a general oath that
they would tolerate no interference with this
right on the part of the magistrates. Private
persons also interrupting a tribune while speak-
ing were liable to punishment (Val. Max. ix. 5,
2; Plin. Ep. i. 23, 2).
2. The right of intercessio, or “veto,” as it is
called (by a term which has little or no ancient
authority), was a right within due limits
assigned to every magistrate in relation to a
colleague or an inferior magistrate. But it
acquired an importance in practice with the
tribunes, which transcended anything to be
found elsewhere. It is very doubtful whether
it can have been acquired in its full extent all
at once, and the common opinion that it was
at first limited to the jus awarilii is not based on
any good authority. It seems more probable
that it was only the outcome of a series of
struggles, which our materials do not allow us
to trace in detail. But it acquired special im-
portance in the case of the tribunes, partly
because they were so destitute of more active
functions, and partly because circumstances
tended to call forth the exercise of the veto by
the tribunes, rather than by any other magis-
trates. Undoubtedly it was mainly employed
for auxilium, i.e. for the protection of any citizen
(patrician as well as plebeian : Liv. iii. 13, 9;
56, 5; viii. 33, 7 ; ix. 26, 16) against a magis-
trate’s sentence. To secure that this should be
always accessible, the tribunes were forbidden
to sleep out of the city during their time of
office (the Latin feast alone being an exception),
and required to leave their house-doors open
night and day. But we find one or two in-
stances where tribunes were exempted from this
law by the senate, and sent on special business
of importance to generals in the field (Liv. ix.
36, 14; xxix. 20). Their official duties were
always discharged in public, and at a later time
the regular place for them was the Porcia
Basilica. -
But the right of veto extended also to pro-
posals brought before the people in the Comitia,
as well as to those brought before the plebs.
In the latter case this was merely an application
of the right to stop a colleague's action: the
former seems more surprising, but it probably
arose from the need of hindering resolutions
which would have interfered with the rights of
the commons. We find it employed in a con-
sular election as early as B.C. 483 (Dionys. viii.
90), and in a prosecution by the quaestors in
B.C. 459 (Liv. iii. 24, 7). The right of vetoing
a resolution of the senate, or rather the action
of the magistrate needful for its passing, is
mentioned first in B.C. 445 (Liv. iv. 6, 6), but
not as any new thing. At this time the tribunes
had no right to enter the senate, but sat on
their subsellia before the doorways, and did not
interfere in the debate, but only during or after
the voting. The veto can hardly have been
exercised so long as the resolution of the senate
was in theory simply advice to the magistrates
as to their action. It is probable therefore that
874 TRIBUNUS
TRIBUNUS
it was not employed until the Senatus auctoritas
became constitutionally necessary, in order that
a resolution of the commons should be binding
on the whole community. If a tribune vetoed
the act of any magistrate beforehand, and it was
still done, it was not therefore invalidated, but
the magistrate was liable to punishment; but
if the act was vetoed afterwards, it became
legally of no effect. One tribune could impose
the veto, and all the others could not remove it;
but any one of the tribunes by his veto could
stop a colleague from carrying out any threatened
punishment for disregard of the veto.
The threat of punishment could naturally
only be directed against private persons when
discharging some public function (Cic. pro
Cluent. 27, 74; cf. Sall. Jug. 34). We find,
however, numerous instances in which the
tribunes summoned persons to appear before a
contio, and there answer questions (Cic. in Phil.
vi. ; ad Att. i. 14, 1; xiv. 20, 5 ; in Wet. 10, 24:
cf. Gell. xiii. 12, 6).
3. The right of intercessio would have been
meaningless without the support given to it by
the right of coercitio, or enforcing obedience,
and the latter was a necessary result of the
claim of the commons to self-defence. Every
action, which was regarded as threatening to
the commons or their representatives the tri-
bunes, was exposed to punishment by fine, by
seizure of goods, or even by death. The only
limits set to this power of the tribunes were
those resulting from the interposition of another
colleague or from an appeal to the people (pro-
vocatio). At first the appeal lay solely to the
commons; but as it was manifestly unfair that
a patrician should have to appeal to a body of
which he was not a member (cf. Mommsen,
Röm. Forsch. i. 209), the Twelve Tables provided
that in capital cases the tribunes should prose-
Cute a citizen before the centuries; and that it
should be only in cases of fine that the tribes
should hear the appeal. If we are right in
regarding, with Mommsen, the sacrosancta
potestas of the tribunes as based upon a revo-
lutionary movement of self-defence, it ought
properly to have ceased when the tribuneship,
after the fall of the decemvirs, was recognised as
a permanent part of the constitution by the
Valerio-Horatian law. As a matter of fact both
law and oath were employed (Liv. iii. 55) in the
re-establishment of the tribuneship ; and the two
conceptions of “legitimate ” and “sacrosanct”
power continued to exist side by side, so that
both Julius and Augustus were able to make
use of the latter for their own purposes.
The cessation of all strife between the orders,
to which the Hortensian law bore witness,
marked the stage at which the tribunes became
magistrates of the community. From this time
down to the end of the Republic their power was
practically always on the increase, except for a
very short period. In B.C. 81 Sulla greatly
reduced it by depriving them of all power of
proposing laws, and by enacting that any one
who had held the tribuneship should thereby be
disqualified from standing for any other office,
so excluding all men of energy and ambition
(Liv. Ep. lxxxix. ; Well. ii. 30 ; Appian, Bell.
Civ. i. 100, ii. 29). But in B.C. 70 Pompeius
restored to the tribunes all their old powers
and rights (Liv, Ep. 97, &c.). Their right of
addressing the centuries remained limited to the
cases where they appeared as prosecutors, but
their freedom of action in relation to the tribes
was unrestricted. Their right of veto was
restricted only in a few cases, as by the law of
Gaius Gracchus in B.C. 123 in relation to the con-
sular provinces, and in trials by the quaestiones
perpetuae (cf. Mommsen, Röm. St. i. 262);
practically it became a mere implement of
political warfare, as often used against as in the
interests of the popular party. It was a result
of their magisterial position that they now
frequently presided at the election of magis-
trates, especially in the case of extraordinary
appointments. Whether the consul or the tribune
presided was doubtless generally determined by
the law under which the appointment was made.
With regard to their legislative powers, after
the Hortensian law there was nothing to prevent
legislation upon any matter being brought
forward before the tribes by the tribunes, though
usage left some questions, especially that of
declaring war, to the centuries. Now, too, the
plebiscitum was described as lea, sive id plebi
scitum est, whence it came naturally to be often
called simply a lea, as we see from the fragments
of the lea: de repetundis and de agris dividundis.
As for their power of coercitio, this developed
into a general right to prosecute for offences
against the community, especially in the case of
offending magistrates upon the expiry of their
term of office (cf. Liv. ix. 26, 12; xli. 7, 10).
Most of the numerous instances of their action
which are recorded, have to do with consuls,
prosecuted for neglect of their duties in the
field, or for gross instances of misuse of their
powers. But there are cases of the prosecution
of private citizens for offences against the
state. When the law imposed upon the magis-
trates the duty of punishing by fine a definite
offence, it is generally the aediles, not the
tribunes, who take action. Sulla took away
from the tribunes their power of prosecuting,
and conferred it upon the quaestio majestatis:
and this continued to exist after the tribunes
had had their powers restored to them, so that
after this date their action occurs rarely and ex-
ceptionally. Finally, as magistrates, the tribunes
acquired the right not only of sitting and
speaking in the senate, but also of convening
and consulting it. But when and how this came
to be the practice, we cannot definitely determine.
The authorities are inconsistent and self-contra-
dictory. Dionysius (x. 31) represents Icilius as
attempting to summon the senate in B.C. 456,
but he nowhere indicates that the tribunes really
had this power. I.ivy represents a tribune as
present in the senate in B.C. 462 (iii. 9, 11), and
as speaking there in B.C. 420 (iv. 44, 7). But
the first trustworthy instance is in B.C. 216
(Liv. xxii. 61); and it is most reasonable to
suppose that the power of independent legislation
given by the Hortensian law was accompanied
by the right to consult the senate beforehand as
to proposed measures. It never, however, became
usual for a tribune to convene the senate instead
of the consuls or the praetor urbanus. Under
the Empire the right was retained (Tac. Ann. vi.
18), but rarely exercised. Besides these definite
powers, the tribunes often appear as joining in
the common action of the magistrates in times
of national danger, or meeting special emergencies
TRIBUS
TRIBUS 875
by their independent authority (cf. Cic. in Verr.
ii. 41, 100; de Off. iii. 20, 80; Tac. Hist. ii. 91;
Plin. Ep. ix. 13, 19).
Under the Empire the tribuneship became a
mere shadow of its former self, the emperor
exercising all its functions by virtue of his
tribunicia potestas. Pliny (Ep. i. 23) gives a
very interesting account of the manner in which
it was regarded in his own day. It appears on
the roll of magistracies in the early part of the
third century; but disappears after Alexander
Severus allowed candidates to proceed from the
quaestorship to the praetorship. The name is
only retained in the superscription of formal
addresses to the senate as late as A.D. 423.
Perhaps the title was still formally conferred on
a certain number of the senators. (Cf. Momm-
sen, Röm. Staatsrecht, ii. 261–318.) [A. S. W.]
TRIBUS (puxã), a political division of a
people. 1. GREEK. The word pux?) does not
occur in Homer, and the political idea which it
embodies is undoubtedly post-Homeric. The
40Aov of Homer is a race or breed, e.g. of gods,
men, animals, even insects (Il. xix. 30); more
rarely, it is a “tribe’” in the sense of nation or
people, and this tribe may be an aggregate of
septs or clans (karð ‘poxa, karð ‘ppitpas, Il. ii.
362). In this passage, and in the phrase
Aaptées rpixáikes (Od. xix. 177), we see the
germs of later institutions.
In the early historic period we find the tróAts
or state divided into puxaſ, with more or less
reference to a favourite or sacred number which
varied in different races. Thus the Ionian
number was four, the Dorian three ; the four
“old-Ionic ’’ tribes occur, with the same names,
in other Ionian states besides Athens; and
traces of the three Dorian tribes are found in
all the countries which they colonised. These
tribes were in the first instance genealogical
(yevukaſ), afterwards local (rotrukai): on this
distinction cf. DEMUs, p. 615 a. The three
Dorian tribes were called “TAAets, Avgavāral or
A vuáves, and IIápaq.vxot (Pind. Pyth. i. 120 ft. ;
Herod. v. 68; Steph. s. v.v.). As usual, the
names were said to have been derived from
eponymous heroes; the first from Hyllus, son of
Hercules, the others from Dymas and Pam-
phylus, leaders who fell in the invasion of the
Peloponnesus. In reality the name Pamphyli
points to the aggregation of a number of scattered
family elements under a single tribe. Traces of
a rpſtroxis in Doris are found in Thucyd. i. 107,
Diod. vi. 79, but there is no evidence to show
that each puxh occupied a separate tróAus: else-
where the Dorian Terpároxis is mentioned, as by
Strabo (ix. p. 427). The Hyllean tribe ranked
first in precedence; the Pamphylians, as a mixed
multitude, came last ; but at Sparta there
does not appear to have been much distinction,
for all the freemen there were by the constitu-
tion of Lycurgus on a footing of equality.
When Herodotus speaks of the Aegeidae as pux}
Aweydam év Xrd.prn (iv. 149), he is not to be
understood as speaking of a fourth tribe of equal
or similar dignity and rank to the other three.
He uses the term quà?) in the general sense
of yewos or pparpía (Stein in loc. See also
Pindar, Pyth. v. 101). To these three tribes others
were added in different places, either when the
Dorians were joined by other foreign allies,
or when some of the old inhabitants were
admitted to the rank of citizenship or equal
privileges. Eight tribes are mentioned in
Corinth (Suidas, s. v. II&vra öktó), four in
Tegea (Paus. viii. 53, § 6). In Elis there
were twelve tribes, afterwards reduced to eight
by a war with the Arcadians (Paus. v. 9, § 6),
from which they appear to have been geogra-
phical divisions (Wachsmuth, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 17).
Sometimes we find mention of only one of the
Doric tribes, as of the Hylleans in Cydonia
(Hesych. s. v. 'TAAeſs), the Dymanes in Halicar-
nassus; which probably arose from colonies
having been founded by the members of one
tribe only (Wachsmuth, vol. ii. pt. i. p. 15).
Traces of the three old Dorian tribes occur
with more or less distinctness at Megara, where
they continued up to Roman times (C. I. G.
1073; Lebas, ii. 48), though other tribes were
added (C. I. G. 1072); at Argos (C. I. G. 1123,
1128, 1132; Müller, Frag. Hist. Gr. iv. 497),
where there also existed a pux}, rôv “ſpva6twy
(C. I. G. 1130, 1131), obably consisting of
citizens of non-Dorian origin, since it occurred
also at the neighbouring Aegina and Epidaurus
(Müller, Aegin. p. 140); at Sicyon, where Clei-
sthenes changed the names of the three Dorian
tribes to ‘Tarat, 'Ove&ral, and Xoupe&tal, to
insult their members, and added a fourth tribe,
the 'ApxéAaot, his own ruling family [sixty
years after his death the Doric names were
restored, and a fourth tribe added, called Aiyua-
Aées after the son of the hero Adrastus (Herod.
v. 68)]; at Troezen (Steph. s. v. ‘TAAets).
Similar evidence in the case of Dorian colonies
is found at Cos, where the puxal were sub-
divided into pparpíai, and also into Tptakáðes
and revrmicogrèes (Bull. de Corr. Hell. v. No. 7,
p. 217; Cauer,” p. 159); at Thera (Mitth. deutsch.
arch. Inst. Ath. ii. 73); at Heraclea on the
Pontus (otorów aira's Tpuðv puxav, Aen. Polior-
cet. xi. 10); at Epidamnus, where the piñapxot
had at one time the control of the government
(Aristot. Pol. viii. (v.) 1 = p. 1301). In Sicily,
the three Dorian tribes occur at Syracuse (tria
genera, Cic. Verr. ii. 51, 127; Plut. Nic. xiv.;
Holm, Gesch. Sicil. i. 418), and at Acragas
(irpoeëpevoča as rās puxas rôv “TAAéov, C. J. G.
5494).
Traces of these tribal subdivisions are also
found in Thessaly (see Harpocrat. s. v. Terpop-
xta: retrópov pepôv čvrov ris Gettaxias
ãraorrow pºépos retpās ékaAeºro, ka94 pmauv
‘EAAávikos év roſs OstraXukofs àvoua Sé pnouv
elval rais retpāori Oettaxiàtiv, $616tw, IIexao-
ºytóriv, ‘Eartalóriv. kal 'AptorroréAms 5& év tá
kowfi Ostrañóv troAireſq Éirl 'AAeëa of IIöppov
5umpào.6aſ pmoiv eis rérrapas plotpas rºv Oet-
raxtav): among the Malians (Thuc. iii. 92,
Mm|Niñs of Šáutravres eigl uèv rpta aépm, IIapá-
Atol, ‘Iepiis, Tpax{viol), and the Aetolians (Thuc.
iii. 94, Érixeipeiv 5’ exéAevov trpárov učv 'Atro-
6%rois, étreira ö’’Optovedori, kal però rotºrovs
Eüpurãoiv, Štrep uéytotov uépos éortl rôv Airw-
Aóv). It is possible that some of these names
may denote geographical rather than purely
tribal subdivisions. It is a possible conjecture
that the four Bouxa) of Boeotia, mentioned in
Thuc. v. 38 as airep &may ro kūpos éxoval,
point to a survival of some old quadruple
division of Boeotia into tribes.
Of all the Dorian people the Spartans kept
themselves the longest unmixed with foreign
876 TRIBUS
TRIBUS
blood. So jealous were they to maintain their
exclusive privileges, that they had only admitted
two men into their body before the time of
Herodotus (Herod. ix. 33, 35). Aristotle, how-
ever, remarks (Pol. ii. 9) that there was a
tradition that the privilege of citizenship was
conferred €tri Tôv trporépov Bagińéav. After-
wards their numbers were occasionally recruited
by the admission of Laconians, Helots, and
foreigners; but this was done very sparingly,
until the time of Agis and Cleomenes, who
created large numbers of citizens. But we
cannot further pursue this subject (Schömann,
op. cit, p. 114).
The subdivision of tribes into pparpíai or
trárpal, yévm, Tputties, &c., appears to have
prevailed in various places (see Gilbert, Index,
s. v.v.). On the 38al at Sparta, of which very
little is known, see GEROUSIA, Vol. I. p. 914a.
After the time of Cleomenes the old system of
tribes was changed ; new ones were created
corresponding to the different quarters of the
town, and seem to have been five in number
(Schömann, Ant. Jur. Pub. p. 115; Müller,
Dor. iii. 5).
Of the colonies in Aeolis, at Ilium we hear of
‘puſſaf, pvadpxai, and pparpíai : names of tribes
occur, e.g. 'AAeëavöpts (C. I. G. 3615), 'Atraxts
(ib. 3616), IIav6oſs (ib. 3617); at Lampsacus we
hear of puxal and ékaroo ròes (Gilbert, Staats-
alt. ii. 160); at Methymna the citizens were
divided into puxal and xexAmarães (Id. ib.
p. 166).
The four Ionian tribes—Geleontes, Hopletes,
Aegicoreis, Argadeis — which are spoken of
below in reference to Attica, were found also in
Cyzicus, together with two others, Baºpets and
Ołvatres (C. I. G. 3663–4–5). In Samos a pux?)
Aioxptovím is mentioned by Herodotus (iii. 26),
which was probably a Carian race that mingled
with the Ionians. In Ephesus five tribes are
mentioned, of different races. At Miletus, in
the period of its dependence on Athens, the ten
Cleisthenean tribes (see below), under the same
names as at Athens, formed part of the con-
stitution (Lebas, Asie Min. 238 f.). At Smyrna
we do not seem to have any trace of tribes until
Roman times ('Aupuavís, C. J. G. 3264; ’Apre-
puatás, ib. 3266).
Coming next to the Islands of the Aegean, we
find that at Syros the citizens were divided into
quxal and pparpía (C. I. G. 2347 g); a similar
arrangement prevailed at Delos (Gilbert, ut sup.
p. 206). At Tenos we have the names of ten
local pvXaí, known by a collective name (as
‘Hpakaeida), or heroic (as “Takiv6ts: see C. I. G.
2338); each of these was subdivided into ppa-
Tpſal (C. I. G. 2330, 2333). Similar subdivisions
prevailed at Andros (Mitth. deutsch. Arch. Inst.
Ath. i. p. 237) and at Calymna (Anc. Greek
Inscr. in Brit. Mus. ii. 232 f.).
In Cyrene, according to Aristotle (Pol. vii.
(vi.) 4), an increase in the number of puxal and
qparpfat is the result of a more democratical
constitution.
In Magna Graecia the only surviving trace of
tribal divisions occurs in the case of Thurii,
founded B.C. 443 ([Plut.] Wit. Dec. Or. 835 D).
Here there were ten tribes: 'Apicás, 'Axats,
'HAeta, Bowría, 'Appuktvovis, Awpts, 'Ids, 'A6m-
vaís, EöBouds, and Nmoriaris (Diodor. xii. 11).
Mythic names of Attic tribes, ascribed to
the reign of Cecrops, are Cecropis (Kekports),
Autochthon (Airóx0av), Actaea (Aktata), and
Paralia (IIapaxia); and in that of Cranaus,
Cranais (Kpavats), Atthis (Aróts), Mesogaea
(Megóryata), and Diacris (Atakpts). After-
wards we find a new set of names: Dias
(Aids), Athenais ("A0mvats), Posidonias (IIoget-
Sovids), and Hephaestias ('Hºpatorids); evidently
derived from the deities who were worshipped
in the country. (Compare Pollux, viii. 109.)
Some of those secondly mentioned, if not all of
them, seem to have been geographical divisions;
and it is not improbable that, if not independent
communities, they were at least connected by a
very weak bond of union. But all these tribes
were superseded by four others, whose appear-
ance corresponded in time with the Ionic settle-
ment in Attica, and which seem (as before
observed) to have been adopted by other Ionic
colonies out of Greece. The names Geleontes
(TeAéovres), Hopletes ("OTAmtes), Argadeis ('Ap-
ºyáðeis), Aegicoreis (Aiyukopets), are said by
Herodotus (v. 66) to have been derived from the
sons of Ion, son of Xuthus (see Eurip. Ion, 1596,
&c.; Pollux, l. c.), after the common Greek
custom of inventing a genealogy to account for
a term. The question of the true significance
of these names has been much debated. The
etymology of the last three would seem to
suggest that the tribes were so called from the
occupations which their respective members
followed; the Hopletes being the armed men, or
warriors; the Argadeis, labourers or husband-
men; the Aegicoreis, goatherds or shepherds.
For the form and etymological meaning of the
first name, see article GELEONTES. Curtius
regards the tribes as “a fixed number of noble
clans, or groups of families, who were recog-
nised as of full blood.” Grote repudiates the
caste-theory (in common with most modern
writers), and gives up any attempt at either
explaining the names by etymology or ascer-
taining their connexion with the original popu-
lation of Attica. Schömann thinks “that each
Phyle was named according to the mode of life
and the employment pursued by the majority or
the most important part of its members.”
Thus, “if there was a part of Attica whose
inhabitants were principally devoted to the
rearing of cattle, especially of goats, the Phyle
living there was called the Phyle of the Aegi-
cores.” He explains Geleontes as “the illus-
trious,” i.e. the nobles, who lived in the capital
and its neighbourhood. Whatever be the truth
with respect to the origin of these tribes, one
thing is more certain, that before the time of
Theseus, whom historians agree in representing
as the great founder of the Attic commonwealth,
the various peoples who inhabited the country
continued to be disunited and split into factions.
In the division of the inhabitants of Attica,
traditionally ascribed to Theseus, the people were
divided into Eitrarptoal, Teopºdpol ('A'ypotko),
and Amutovpyoſ, of whom the first were nobles,
the second agriculturists or yeomen, the third
labourers and mechanics. At the same time, in
order to consolidate the national unity, he
enlarged the city of Athens, with which he
incorporated several smaller towns, made it the
seat of government, encouraged the nobles to
reside there, and surrendered a part of the royal
prerogative in their favour. The Tribes or Phylae
TRIBUS
TRIBUS 877
were divided, each into three pparpiai (a term
equivalent to fraternities, and analogous in its
political relation to the Roman Curiae), and
each pparpía into thirty yeun (equivalent, to
the Roman Gentes), the members of a yévos
being called "yevviral or öployáAaktes. Each
7évos was distinguished by a particular name of
a patronymic form, which was derived from
some hero or mythic ancestor. We learn from
Pollux (viii. 111) that these divisions, though
the names seem to import family connexion,
were in fact artificial; which shows that some
advance had now been made towards the
establishment of a closer political union. The
members of the pparpíai and yévn had their
respective religious rites and festivals, which
were preserved long after these communities
had lost their political importance, and perhaps
prevented them from being altogether dissolved.
(Compare Niebuhr, Hist. of Rome, vol. i. p. 311,
&c.)
The exact relation between the four Ionic
tribes and the three Theseian classes is still a
matter of dispute. It would appear from the
statements of ancient writers on the subject
that each of the four tribes was divided into Eu-
patridae, Geomori, and Demiurgi; some modern
scholars, e.g. Philippi and Curtius, hold on the
contrary that the tribes and phratries were
divisions of the Eupatrids alone, and that the
Geomori and Demiurgi were outside of the tribal
organisation. The reasons for rejecting this
view are given under EUPATRIDAE, in Vol. I.
After the age of Theseus, the monarchy
having been first limited and afterwards abo-
lished, the whole power of the state fell into the
hands of the EUPATRIDAE or nobles, who held all
civil offices, and had besides the management of
religious affairs and the interpretation of the
laws. Attica became agitated by feuds, and we
find the people, shortly before the legislation of
Solon, divided into three parties, IIeStaiot or
lowlanders, Audkptor or highlanders, and IIdpa-
Aoi or people of the sea-coast. The first two
remind us of the ancient names of tribes,
Mesogaea and Diacris; and the three parties
appear in some measure to represent the classes
established by Theseus: the first being the
nobles, whose property lay in the champaign
and most fertile part of the country; the
second, the smaller landowners and shepherds;
the third, the trading and mining class, who
had by this time risen in wealth and impor-
tance. To appease their discords, Solon was
applied to ; and thereupon framed his celebrated
constitution and code of laws. Here we have
only to notice, that he retained the four tribes
as he found them, but abolished the existing
distinctions of rank, or at all events greatly
diminished their importance, by introducing his
property qualification, or division of the people
into IIevrakooriouéðuvot, ‘Irtreſs, Zevyºral, and
©fires. The enactments of Solon continued to
be the law at Athens, though in great measure
suspended by the tyranny, until the democratic
reform effected by Cleisthenes. He abolished
the old tribes, and created ten new ones, accord-
ing to a geographical division of Attica, and
named them after ten of the ancient heroes:
Erechtheis, Aegeis, Pandionis, Leontis, Acamantis,
Oeneis, Secropis, Hippothoontis, Aeantis, Antiochis.
These tribes were divided each into ten Öſiuot,
the number of which was afterwards increased
by subdivision: but the arrangement was so
made, that the several 37 plot not contiguous or
near to one another were joined to make up a
tribe. [DEMUs.] The object of this arrange-
ment was that by the breaking of old associa-
tions a perfect and lasting revolution might be
effected, in the habits and feelings, as well as
the political organisation of the people. He
allowed the ancient pparpfat to exist, but they
were deprived of all political importance. All
foreigners admitted to the citizenship were
registered in a Phyle and Demus, but not in a
Phratria or Genos; whence Aristophanes (Ranae,
418; Aves, 765) says, as a taunting mode of de-
signating new citizens, that they have no phrators,
or only barbarous ones (quoted by Niebuhr,
vol. i. p. 312). But if made citizens by a com-
plimentary vote, they were allowed to choose
their Phratria as well [CIVITAs, pp. 443b,
444 al. The functions which had been discharged
by the old tribes were now mostly transferred
to the bigot. Among others, we may notice
that of the forty-eight vavkpaptai into which
the old tribes had been divided for the purpose
of taxation, but which now became useless, the
taxes being collected on a different system.
The reforms of Cleisthenes were destined to be
permanent. They continued to be in force
(with some few interruptions) until the down-
fall of Athenian independence. The ten tribes
were blended with the whole machinery of the
constitution. Of the Senate of five hundred,
fifty were chosen from each tribe. The allotment
of 6th aorai was according to tribes; and the
same system of election may be observed in most
of the principal offices of state, judicial and
magisterial, civil and military ; as that of the
6tautnrat, Aoyuo raí, traºxmrat, tautal, reixotrouot,
qºxapxot, otpatmºyoſ, &c. In B.C. 307, out of
compliment to Demetrius Poliorcetes, the Athe-
nians increased the number of tribes to twelve
by creating two new ones, named Antigonis and
Demetrias, which were afterwards styled Ptole-
mais and Attalis; and a thirteenth was subse-
quently added under Hadrian, bearing his own
name (Plut. Demetr. 10; Paus. i. 5, § 5; Pollux,
viii. 110).
The preceding account is only intended as a
brief sketch of the subject, since it is treated of
under several other articles, which should be
read in connexion with this. [CIVITAs (Greek);
DEMUs; PHYLARCHI; PHYLOBASILEIs, &c.]
[See Wachsmuth, vol. i. pt. i. pp. 224–240;
K. F. Hermann, Griech. Staatsalt., ed. 5 (1875),
p. 348 f.; Busolt, Griech. Geschichte, i. p. 390 f.,
with many references in notes; Thirlwall, Hist.
Greece, ch. xi.; Grote, Hist, Greece, part ii.
chs. 10, 31; Curtius, Hist. Greece, tr. by Ward,
Book ii. ch. 2; Gilbert, Griech. Staatsalt.
i. 109 f, ii. passim ; Duncker, Gesch. Griech.
v. 84 f.; Boeckh, Staatshaushalt. Athen., ed. 3
(1886), i. 578 f.; Schömann, Antiq. of Greece
(tr. by Hardy and Mann), Part II. ch. 4, Part
III. ch. 3; Fustel de Coulanges, La Cité
antique, ed. 10 (1883), p. 131 f.; Freeman,
Comparative Politics, Lect. 3; E. Abbott, Hist.
Greece, i. 9..] [A. H. C.] [W. W.]
2. ROMAN. The Patrician Tribes.—The deri-
vation of the word tribus is uncertain. In view
of the three earliest Roman tribes, there is a
temptation to connect it with tres, and this has
878 TRIBUS
TRIBUS
, usually been done, both by ancient and modern
writers.
Greek equivalents tpitti's or pv)\ft, while Varro
(L. L. v. 55) says, “ager Romanus primum
divisus in partes tres, a quo tribus appellatur; ”
cf. also Plut. Rom. 20. So, too, Pott (Etym.
Forsch. i. 217 and ii. 441) and after him Corssen
(i. 163) give the derivation as tri + bu ( = bhu
= ful: qu). On the other hand, there is no
trace of any connexion with tres in any of the
extant meanings of tribuo, while on the historical
side it seems very uncertain whether the division
into three tribes was essential to the primitive
Roman state. According to the traditional
account, the three ancient tribes—the Titienses
(or Tities), the Ramnes (or Ramnenses), and the
Luceres—were created by Romulus after the
death of Tatius : “populumque et suo et Tatii
nomine et Lucumonis qui Romuli socius in Sabino
proelio occiderat, in tribus tres... descripserat”
(Cic. de Rep. ii. 8, 14. See also Dionys. ii. 7,
Warr. l. c.; and cf. Liv. i. 13). But apart
from the worthlessness of such definite state-
ments with regard to the legendary period, it is
much more probable that the Roman state grew
up by a gradual synoikismos of originally inde-
pendent communities, the number three being
accidental and not essential. In this connexion
the generally accepted origin of the name Titi-
enses from Tatius the Sabine king cannot be
regarded as of slight importance; and if the
institution of the “sodales Titii” was, as Tacitus
says (Ann. i. 54), intended “retinendis Sabin-
orum sacris,” this would certainly seem to show
that the Titienses, a Sabine tribe, entered into
an already existing Latin community; while the
fact that they are usually put in the first place
and the Ramnes in the second (Warr. v. 55, 89,
91; Cic. de Rep. ii. 20, 36; Festus, p. 344)
makes it probable that they entered it as con-
querors (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, iii. p. 97). That
the Ramnes were of Latin race is practically
certain, whether the name is connected with
Roma or Romulus. The origin of the Luceres
is uncertain (Liv. i. 13), nor is it necessary here
to discuss the question of their Latin or Etruscan
origin, especially as the latter, though very
generally assumed, rests on no historical evi-
dence (Warr. v. 55; Plut. Rom. 20; Cic. de Rep.
ii. 8, 14; Fest. p. 119 ; Niebuhr, Röm. Gesch.
i. p. 329 f.; Schwegler, Röm. Gesch. i. p. 505,
&c.; Madvig, Verfass. und Verwalt. des röm.
Staates, i. p. 95, &c.). What seems certain is
that the synoikismos took place in pre-historic
times, and all theories on the subject rest on a
very doubtful foundation. Possibly the three
tribes coincided locally with the original city
which took part in the festival of the Septi-
montium ; and in this case we may perhaps
suppose the Titienses to have occupied the for-
tress in the Subura, the Ramnes the Palatine,
and the Luceres the three summits of the Esqui-
line (but see Liv. i. 33 for another hypothesis).
This is, however, at best a plausible conjecture
(Mommsen, Staatsr, iii. p. 99), though we have
Varro's statement (quoted above) that the three
tribes were a division of the land as well as
of the inhabitants. At some later period, but
before the circumvallation ascribed to Servius
Tullius, the neighbouring city on the Quirinal
seems to have been amalgamated with that of
the Septimontium ; while, to avoid increasing
Thus Dionysius (ii. 7) gives as its
the number or changing the names of the three
ancient tribes, these were now extended by a divi-
sion into maiores and minores gentes, the Hillmen
(Collini as opposed to Montani) being limited
to the latter, so that there were now primi and
Secundi (or priores and posteriores) Titienses,'
Ramnes, and Luceres (Festus, p. 344). For the
traditional account of this change under Tar-
quinius Priscus, see Liv. i. 36; Cic. de Rep.
ii. 20, 36; Dionys. iii. 71; where the direct
reference, however, is only to the patrician
centuriae equitum, to whom alone, in historical
times, the names of the three ancient tribes were
given. (See also Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 31,
and Rom. Hist, ch. 4; and for the best statement
of the contrary view, Wolquardsen in Rhein. Mus.
xxxiii. p. 538 ft.) If this view of a pre-historic
synoikismos is correct, then the term tribus had
no more connexion in its original application
with any threefold division, than it had when
used of the Servian tribes. It was, no doubt,
connected with the same root as tribuo, and may
possibly have affinity, as Curtius supposes, with
the Celtic treb (= vicus) (Grundz. d. gr. Etym.
p. 227). Its original meaning was probably
the territorium of a community, as e.g. the
tribus Sappinia (Liv. xxxi. 2 and xxxiii. 37) is
clearly a locality in Umbria. So in the Tabulae
Iguvinae we find “trifu Tadinate” and “trefiper
Ijuvina,” clearly co-ordinate with “tuta Tadi-
nate ’’ and “tutape Ijuvina,” the former being
the territorium, the latter the civic community
of Tadinum and Iguvium (Buecheler, Um-
brica, pp. 3, 8, and 95; Mommsen, Staatsr.
iii. p. 95). In Latin, however, owing to the
pre-historic synoikismos, tribus appears to have
the notion of part rather than whole,_an
idea which the Servian arrangement still fur-
ther strengthened. As survivals of the time
when the tribes were independent communi-
ties, may perhaps be regarded (1) such words
as tribunal and contribuere and attribuere = “to
join a district to a neighbouring community”
(Caes. B. G. 60, and Plin. H. N. iii. §§ 4, 37);
(2) the fact that ten curiae belonged to each
tribe, since this finds its analogy in other
municipal constitutions, where ten curiae seem
to be a usual number (C. I. L. viii. 1827, &c.);
(3) the original number of the senate was almost
certainly 100 (Liv. i. 8; Dionys. ii. 12; Plut.
Rom. 13; Fest. s. v. patres),--a fact which also
finds its analogy in the decuriones of Italian
towns, and the later number of 300 was pro-
bably made up by 100 from each of the three
tribes when they united; (4) the original num-
ber of Vestal Virgins (Fest. p. 344), of augurs
(Liv. x. 16; Cic. de Rep. ii. 19, 16), and of
pontifices was three, or one from each tribe,
while on the addition of the gentes minores they
were raised to six. Festus, p. 344: “sex Westae
Sacerdotes constitutae sunt ... quia civitas
Romana in sex est distributa partes, in primos
Secundosque Titienses, Ramnes, Luceres.”
That in the pre-Servian period the patrician
tribes were used as the basis for taxation and
the military levy, we know from Dionysius:
tàs karaypaſpès rêv orpartarov kal r&s
eiotrpáčeis rôv xpmudrov... oikért karū tas
Tpets puxās ràs yewikós, òs arpárepov, &AAd,
k.T.A. (iv. 14, and Warr. v. 181), although for
the former we have no details. For the army,
each tribe furnished 1000 foot-soldiers, com-
TRIBUS
TRIBUS 879
manded by a tribunus. (Warr. v. 89: “milites
quod trium milium primo legio fiebat, ac sin-
gulae tribus Titiensium, Ramnium, Lucerum,
milia militum mittebant; ” and v. 81, “tribuni
militum quod termi ex tribus tribubus Ramnium,
Lucerum, Titium olim ad exercitum mitte-
bantur: ” cf. Dionys. ii. 7.) The cavalry were
originally represented by three centuries, one
from each of the three tribes (Liv. i. 13), or
ten men from each of the thirty curies (Fest.
p. 55). When the city was enlarged by the
addition of the gentes minores, these three
centuries were increased to six, each apparently
containing 300 men (Liv. i. 36), but retaining
the old names, “posteriores modo Sub isdem
nominibus qui additi erant appellati sunt, quas
nunc quia geminatae sunt, sex vocant centurias.”
(See also Cic. de Rep. ii. 20, 36.) In later times,
in fact, as has been already mentioned, it is only
in connexion with these sea suffragia (equitum)
that the names Titienses, Ramnes, and Luceres
are retained, since for all other purposes they
were superseded by the Servian tribes.
The Servian Tribes.—As an integral part of
the so-called Servian reformation,--by which
the census was established, the Comitia Cen-
turiata organised upon it, and in consequence
the land-holding plebeians made to share the
military and financial burdens of citizenship,
there was a new division into tribes. The tribes
so created were four in number, and embraced
the city as enclosed by the Servian walls (Liv.
i. 43; Dionys. iv. 14). The well-known passage
in Dionysius (iv. 15) has led many authorities
to suppose that Servius, in addition to the four
urban tribes, created also twenty-six rustic
tribes. He says: Öve?Ae 6& kal rāv x&pav
ãraorav ćs uèv £48tós pmauv eis uotpas Šč
kal eticooruv, &s kal air&s kaxe? puñds, kal Täs
ãorikās trpoo riðels airtats Tétrapas, TpidKovra
qvXàs rās māoras €arl TvåAſov yewéorðaſ Aéyet
às 3& Oüevvævios iotópmkev eis uſav te Kal
rpudicovira, āore obv rais karū tróAw oãoals
ékirerAmpājorðat Tâs ºri kal eis huas inrapxočoras
ºrpiókovra kal Trévre puxgs &pſporépov uévrol
Károv roërwy &étotriotörepos oix àpigel rôv
popów row &piðuov. But though Fabius Pictor,
writing in Greek, may have called the rustic
divisions puxat, this by no means proves that
they were technically tribes; and Dionysius
himself, no doubt following Varro, prefers the
neutral term poſpat, which probably represents
regiones or pagi. We know for certain that
there were only twenty-one tribes as late as
367 A.U.C. (Liv. vi. 5), while at this early
period it is extremely improbable that the
territory outside the city was as yet distributed
among individual owners: it was probably
still held in common by the gentes, and, if
so, was not applicable for division into tribes.
For it is well established that only that land
fell under the tribes which was held eac iure
Quiritium by an individual owner; and there-
fore, while all ager publicus, on the one hand,
was excluded from them, on the other no less
the common gentile property, prior to its dis-
tribution among the individual gentiles, could
not have been included in the tribes. It seems
better therefore to suppose that only four tribes
were made, and that the division into rustic
districts was on some other principle. The
names of the four tribes were Sucusana (the
later form was Suburana, but the original form
is attested both by swo in inscriptions and by
Varro, v. 48), Palatina, Esquilina, and Collina.
That this is the fixed order of the tribes appears
from Varro (v. 56) and Festus (p. 368); while
Cicero also (de Leg. Agr. ii. 29, 79) gives
Suburana as the first (see also Plin. H. W.
xviii. § 3). Where a different order is given,
it is usually from some definite reason, as e.g.
in Varro, v. 46, in connexion with the order of
the procession to the Argean chapels; in Liv.
Epit. XX., with reference to the libertini; and
in C. I. L. vi. 10211, in reference to the fru-
mentationes. That these tribes, like the patri-
cian, were primarily a division of the land,
appears at once from the names, and Dionysius
(iv., 14) expressly calls them rotrucaſ (see also
Laelius Felix ap. Gell. xv. 27). They may
possibly have been engrafted on to the old
patrician divisions, Sucusana corresponding with
that of the Titienses, Palatina with that of the
Ramnes, Esquilina with that of the Luceres,
while Collina would embrace the Quirinal city. In
this way at least the order of the tribes would
be satisfactorily accounted for. The opinion
once generally held, that the four tribes em-
braced the territory outside Rome as well as
the city, was to a large extent founded on the
assumption that Ostia, the earliest citizen-
colony, belonged to Palatina (Grotefend, /mp.
Rom. trib. descript. p. 67, and Fest. p. 213).
This is now, however, given up by Mommsen
(Staatsr. iii. p. 163) and Kubitschek (Imp. Rom.
trib. discript. p. 26), since inscriptions show that
though a number of the inhabitants at Ostia,
possibly the Greek traders or their sons, belonged
to Palatina (see below), the colony itself was
assigned to Woturia (Wilm. 1720 and 1729, &c.).
Neither the Capitol nor the Aventine was in-
cluded in the Servian tribes, because they were
still public and not private property (Liv. vi. 20;
Dionys. x. 31 and 32); and both Livy (i. 43)
and Pliny (H. W. xviii. § 3) limit the four tribes
to the inhabited parts of the city.
Eatension of the Tribes.—At what date the
first rustic tribes were added to the four Servian
tribes, it is impossible to say with certainty, nor
how many were first created, since tradition is
practically silent upon both points. That there
were twenty-one tribes in 367 A.U.C. we know
(Liv. vi. 5), but that the increase from four to
twenty-one was made at one time is on the
whole improbable. All the best MSS. of Liv. ii.
21 contain under the year 259 A.U.C. the words
“Romae tribus una et triginta factae.” To
correct this from the Epitome to “una et
viginti” is certainly unsafe, since the epitomator
may easily have corrected the text from Liv. vi.
5; and there is much to be said for Mommsen's
hypothesis that the original reading, till
tampered with by an ignorant scribe, was the
mere annalistic statement, “Romae tribus
factae.” The passage again of Dionysius (vii.
64) with regard to the trial of Coriolanus in
263 A.U.C. is clearly corrupt. He says, utäs y&p
kal elkool tore puxāv oãorów, ais # /?qos &vedó0m,
Tàs &toxvoča as āorzev 6 Mápktos évvéa &ot’ ei
Süo trpoo`Abov airò puxaſ, 81& rhu idolºmºpiau
&reaſſeto èv, Šotrep 6 vöuos hètov. As the
number twenty-one is inconsistent with the
iorolºngta, one part of the statement must be
rejected. The latter, however, is almost too
880 TRIBUS
TRIBUS
definite to admit of mistake, and it seems better
therefore to assume that Dionysius (or a scribe)
carelessly substituted the more familiar number
twenty-one, certainly existing for a considerable
time previous to 367 A.U.C., for the earlier num-
ber twenty; while some similar, but inexplic-
able, confusion lurks under the numbers ávvéa.
and 660. But, apart from this confessedly
uncertain inference, the list of the earliest
seventeen rustic tribes also leads to the con-
clusion that there was a period when the tribes
were twenty in number. The names in alpha-
betical order, as we know them from texts or
inscriptions, are as follows:—Aemilia (Liv.
xxxviii. 36), Camilia (C. I. L. vi. 2890), Claudia
(Liv. ii. 16), Clustumina or Crustumina (Cic.
pro Balb. 25), Cornelia (Liv. xxxviii. 36), Fabia
(Suet. Aug. 40), Galeria (Liv. xxvii. 6), Horatia
(Wilm. 681), Lemonia (Cic. pro Planc. 16),
Menenia (Cic. ad Fam. xiii. 9), Papiria (Liv. viii.
37), Pollia (Liv. viii. 37), Pupinia (Cic. ad Fam.
viii. 8), Romulia (Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 29),
Sergia (Cic. in Wat. 15), Voltinia (Cic. pro
Planc. 16), Woturia or Veturia (Liv. xxvi. 22).
Of these seventeen names, sixteen were clearly
formed in the same way from the names of
patrician gentes, some of them known in his-
torical times, others probably extinct at an
early period. On the other hand, one only,
Clustumina (CLV. not CRV. generally in in-
scriptions: see also Festus, p. 55, where Crus-
tumina is found in the MSS., but placed between
Cluras and Clucidatum), is a place-name similar
to those of all the tribes (except Poblilia) created
after 367 A.U.C. The inference from this seems
irresistible that it was a later creation than the
other sixteen. That the earliest rustic tribes
bore some sort of relation to the Servian division
into PAGI, would seem probable in itself, and
receives some slight confirmation from Festus
(p. 115), who says, “Lemonia tribus a pago
Lemonio, qui est a porta Capena via Latina.”
But details are wanting, and it is at best an
hypothesis, though a probable one, that the
sixteen tribes were made when the common
gentile property in land was transformed into
individual ownership, the former gentile owner-
ship leaving traces in the names of the tribes,
which were taken from the more prominent
families. With relation to Claudia, the tradition
is still extant of the way in which land was as-
signed to the newly-admitted Claudian gens, and
of the subsequent development of the tribe :
x&pav tº airó arpoo’é0mkev čk ris àmuoaſtas rhy
wéračv pubſivms kal IIukevrías, &s éxol Staveſuat
AAñpovs &taal roſs treph airbv (this seems to
imply that it was gentile property) āq,’ &v kal
qvAff ris éyévero giv xpóva, KAavöta Kańovaévm
(Dionys. v. 40. See also Liv. ii. 16). Though
named after patrician gentes, these sixteen
tribes were as much local divisions as the earlier
and later ones. The position of Claudia is given
above by Dionysius, while Livy (l. c.) describes
the “vetus Claudia tribus ” as “ager trans
Anienem.” Of the Papiria tribus, Festus says,
“a Papirio appellata est vel a nomine agri qui
circa Tusculum est; ” while of Pupinia, which
adjoined it, he says (p. 233), “Pupinia tribus ab
agri nomine dicta qui Pupinus appellatur, inter
Tusculum urbemque situs.” Livy also (xxvi. 9)
shows that the eighth milestone on the Via
Praenestina lay in this tribe (cf. also Cic. de
Leg. Agr. ii. 35, 96). Romulia again is “ex eo
agro quem Romulus ceperat ex Weientibus ”
(Fest. p. 271). For the attempt to localise
Pollia, Fabia, Horatia, and Galeria, see Beloch,
Der ital. Bund, pp. 29, 30. That all these
earliest tribes were in the immediate neighbour-
hood of Rome, we should suppose from the
nature of the case, and it is also expressly stated
by Festus (p. 371, s. v. viatores). The 21st
tribe, Clustumina, was named after the extinct
town Crustumerium (Liv. i. 38; Fest. p. 55),
in the territory of which was the mons sacer to
which the plebs seceded in 260 A.U.C. (cf. the
expression of Varro, v. 81, “in secessione Crus-
tumerina”). As the result of the secession the
plebs were allowed to elect tribunes, at first
assembled according to their curies, but, after
the Lex Publilia of 283 A.U.C. (Liv. ii. 56;
Dionys, ix. 41), according to their tribes.
Mommsen with great probability supposes that
it was on this occasion, in order to make for
voting purposes an unequal number of tribes,
that the 21st was added, and that it was called,
in memory of the secession, Clustumina (Momm-
sen, Staatsr. iii. p. 153).
As more and more land became the private
property of Roman citizens, either by distri-
bution or by the foundation of colonies or by
the reception of peregrini into the citizen-body,
the number of tribes gradually increased, but
till the year 367 A.U.C. it still remained at
twenty-one. In 366, however, the civitas was
given to a number of people from Veii, Capena,
and Falerii, and land was distributed among the
new citizens (Liv. vi. 4). Accordingly, next
year four new tribes were created (Liv. vi. 5):
Stellatina (so called from a district near the
city of Capena, Fest. p. 343); Tromentina (“a
campo Tromento,” Fest. p. 367), probably near
Veii, since we find citizens of the restored Weii be-
longing to this tribe (Wilm. 2079; Orelli, 3448);
Sabatina (“a lacu Sabate,” Fest. p. 342); and
Arnensis, perhaps from a river Aro in Etruria.
In 372 A.U.C. quinqueviri were appointed to
divide the ager Pomptinus in the Volscian land
(Liv. vi. 21), and after an interval of some years
in 396 two new tribes were made, Pomptina and
Poblilia (Liv. vii. 15). That Poblilia (the name
of which was apparently not local : see Fest.
p. 233) was near the territory of the Hernici,
is probable from the fact that later Anagnia,
Ferentinum, and Aletrium were assigned to this
tribe (Kubitsch., Imp. Rom. trib. discrip. p. 22).
In 417 A.U.C. the inhabitants of Lanuvium, Aricia,
and Nomentum received the civitas (Liv. viii. 14),
and in 422 were arranged in the census; two
new tribes, Maecia and Scaptia (both named
after extinct towns, Fest. pp. 136 and 342), being
created (Liv. viii. 17). In 431 A.U.C. the
number was raised to thirty-one by the ad-
dition of Oufentina and Falerna (Liv. ix. 20), a
step no doubt rendered necessary by the distri-
bution of the ager Falernus and Privernas in
415 (Liv. viii. 11), the granting of the civitas
to the Privernates in 426, and the colony led
to Terracina (Liv. viii. 21), since according to
Festus (p. 194) the name Oufentina is derived
from a river “in agro Privernati.” In 454
A.U.C., perhaps in connexion with the triumph
over and punishment of the Aequi and Hernici
(Liv. ix. 43 and 45), were created (Liv. x.9)
Amiensis and Teretina (“a flumine Terede,”
TRIBUS
TRIBUS 881
Fest. p. 363); while in 513 the Sabine territories,
of which the inhabitants had been admitted into
the citizenship in 486 (Vell. Paterc. i. 14, 7)
and some other land, perhaps that of the Prae-
tuttiani, were made into two fresh tribes,
Quirina and Velina (Liv. Epit. xix.). This
number thirty-five was never exceeded (Liv. i.
43; Dionys. iv. 15; Cic. Phil. vi. 5, 12; Wilm.
679, 888, &c.); but whether the limit was fixed
when the last two tribes were made, or in 534,
the date of the reform of the Comitia Centuriata
(see below), is uncertain. It is possible, though
hardly likely, that the name Quirina was in-
tended to mark the completion of the “populus
Romanus Quiritium.” The derivation, however,
of Festus (p. 254), “a Curensibus Sabinis,”
seems more probable.
Italia tributim descripta.-Up to 513 A.U.C.
the tribes were more or less definitely bounded
districts, of which the positions are known,
imperfectly in the case of the oldest rustic
tribes, with greater certainty in the case of
those created since 367. While the former
class were all in the immediate neighbourhood
of Rome, the latter were situated in S. Etruria,
Latium, the territory of the Volsci and Hernici,
part of Campania, and the Sabine land. But
even during this period, probably the original
tribe (cf. the expression “vetus Claudia tribus,”
Liv. ii. 16) in few cases remained absolutely
unenlarged, for every assignation of land to
Roman citizens, however small, and the estab-
lishment of every colony, increased the amount
of land to be distributed among the tribes.
Only where the amount of land distributed was
large, was there any necessity for new tribes:
in other cases the land in question was no doubt
assigned to the nearest existing tribe. Of the
small distributions no annalistic record remains.
Of colonies, Tusculum, probably during this
period but after 431 A.U.C. (Liv. viii. 37), was
assigned to Papiria, Minturnae in 458 to Tere-
tina, Aricia to Horatia in 417 (Liv. viii. 14),
Sinuessa to Falerna (Liv. x. 21), Antium in 416
to Woturia. But after the number of the tribes
was closed, geographical compactness was lost.
All freshly assigned or colonised territory, and
all civitates sine suffragio admitted to the full
franchise, had now to be distributed among the
existing tribes; and the further from Rome
this process extended, the more disjointed and
broken up did the tribes become. To a certain
extent, no doubt, the principle was observed of
assigning new territory to the nearest tribes;
and this, as Kubitschek rightly observes, tended
by increasing the number of members, to de-
preciate the importance for voting purposes of
the later or outlying tribes. Thus we find
Capua, Atella, Acerrae, Suessula, belonging to
Falerna; Casinum, Atina, Venafrum, Allifae,
to Teretina; Velitrae, Circeii, and Signia, to
Pomptina ; Anagnia, Ferentinum, Aletrium, to
Poblilia; while the Picenian territory distri-
buted by a Lex Flaminia in 522 (Polyb. ii. 21)
seems all to have been assigned to Velina. On
the other hand, Formiae and Fundi, when taken
into the citizenship, were assigned to Aemilia;
Arpinum in Apulia and Fulginium in Umbria to
Cornelia (Liv. xxxviii. 36); Cliterna in the
Sabine land to Claudia (Grotef. p. 46); Falerii
to Horatia (Orelli, 1364), &c. This breaking
up and mutilation of the tribes was not com-
WOL. II.
pletely effected till after the Social war, when
the civitas was given to all the peregrinae
civitates south of the Po; and in consequence all
the land with very few exceptions, such as at
first the ager Campanus, falling into full
Quiritary ownership, had to be distributed
among the tribes. The manner in which the
new territory was distributed is stated differ-
ently by our two authorities, Appian and Welleius
Paterculus. The former (B. C. i. 49) says that
they did not enrol the new citizens into the
thirty-five tribes, iva Ah Töv &pxatav tračoves
ëvres év tats xelpotovías &minºparolev, &AA&
öekatetſovres &tépmvav ćrépas àv ais éxelporóvovy
êoxaroi. This probably refers to the Lex Julia
of 664, by which the civitas was given to the
Latini and the faithful allies (Cic. pro Balb. 8,
21), and, if the reading Šekaretovºres is correct,
it must mean that ten new tribes were created.
On the other hand, Welleius says (ii. 20), “cum
ita civitas Italiae data esset, ut in octo tribus
contribuerentur novi cives ; ” i.e. the new
citizens were confined to eight of the existing
tribes. This may, as Kubitschek supposes, refer
to the Plautio-Papirian plebiscitum of 665, by
which the revolted allies gained the franchise
(Cic. pro Arch. 4, 7). Kubitschek, reading 5éka
trévre for 6ekatečovres, thinks that he can show
by inscriptions that the faithful allies in accord-
ance with the Lex Julia were enrolled in fifteen,
i.e. in a minority, of the thirty-one rustic tribes,
while the revolted allies by the Plautio-Papirian
law were enrolled in half of the remaining
sixteen, viz. Aniensis, Clustumina, Fabia, Falerna,
Galeria, Pomptina, Sergia, and Voltinia. The
theory is undoubtedly ingenious, and both
Kubitschek and Beloch (Der italische Bund)
make out a very specious case. But the ob-
jections are twofold. (1) The evidence of in-
scriptions, besides being by the nature of the
case incomplete, breaks down, as Mommsen
shows (Hermes, xxii. p. 101 ff.), in several points,
since not only are revolted states found in
Horatia, Cornelia, and Oufentina, but the faith-
ful allies are found practically spread over all
the rustic tribes. (2) Whatever may have been
the original distribution into tribes, the re-
striction was certainly only temporary. Com-
plete equality for the new citizens became part
of the democratic programme; and apart from
the abortive attempt of Sulpicius, Cinna, ap-
parently twice (Liv. Epit. lxxx. and lxxxiv.),
gave them the equal franchise, while Sulla
almost certainly acquiesced in the arrangement
(Liv. Epit. lxxxvi). Though, however, the
inscriptions, on which Kubitschek and Beloch
rely, do not prove all that they suppose, they
do nevertheless show that an attempt at group-
ing neighbouring territories together was still
kept up after the Social war; and so we find
Aniensis prevalent among the Frentani, Clus-
tumina and Lemonia in Umbria, Fabia and
Pomptina in Lucania, Sergia among the Marsi
and Paeligni, Voltinia among the Samnites,
Papiria in Latium, Menemia in Campania,
Aemilia among the Aurunci, Galeria among the
Hirpini, and above all Pollia in the Cis-Padane
portion of Gallia Cisalpina, which now received
the franchise with the rest (cf. in Grotefend
Parma, Mutina, Forum Cornelii, Forum Fulvii,
Faventia, Pollentia, and many other towns).
But, notwithstanding those local sº the
L
882 TRIBUS
TRIBUS
general result of the distribution of Italy into
the tribes was such that the parts of any one
tribe could only be given by an enumeration of
the different civitates contained in it. Cf. Cic.
de pet. Consul. 8, 30: “Postea totam Italiam fac
ut in animo ac memoria tributim descriptam
habeas.”
The Tribe and its members.—The tribe, as has
been stated, was primarily a division of the land
held in Quiritarian ownership, but it was also
applied in a personal sense to the owners of the
land, and involved certain rights and privileges,
duties and responsibilities. Originally only
land - owning citizens (adsidui) were members
of the tribes, but within this limit both patri-
cians and plebeians belonged to them. For later
times the presence of patricians in the tribes is
abundantly attested; but for the earliest times
also the patrician gentile names of the sixteen
earliest rustic tribes are conclusive evidence of
the same thing, as well as the traditional origin
of the Claudian tribe. Membership of a tribe
then at first belonged to those citizens who
owned land in it, as well as to their agnate
descendants; and accordingly, while the tribe,
as a division of the land, was immutable, the
tribe as a category of persons might be changed,
since in theory transfer or loss of landed pro-
perty implied transfer or loss of tribe. But this
strict connexion between landed property and
membership of the same tribe must soon have
been modified, (1) by those cases in which a
citizen owned property in more than one tribe ;
(2) where civitates sine suffragio were admitted
to the full franchise, and their territory assigned
to some one tribe. In the first case, as personal
membership of more than one was impossible,
probably the censor de iure, but the citizen him-
self de facto, decided to which he should be-
long. In the second case the citizens of the
newly-enfranchised civitas would as a rule take
the tribe of the territory, even if their landed
property lay elsewhere (Liv. xxxviii. 36). As
time went on, too, the tendency became greater
for membership of a tribe to become hereditary,
and so practically unchanging; in so far, that is,
as no alteration was caused by the censor's in-
terference. Such interference would at once
take place whenever the qualification of landed
property was lost, a loss which was at first
followed by loss of tribe and transfer to the
aerarii (Liv. iv. 24, &c.); while, as the dis-
ciplinary power of the censorship was developed,
the censors acquired the power, by way of
punishment for various moral delinquencies,
of treating land-owning citizens as though they
were not adsidui, and placing them also among
the aerarii (cf. Liv. xxiv. 18, &c.). Conversely,
of course, if the disqualification of either kind
was removed, citizens would pass from the
aerarii into a tribe (ea aerariis erimere, Cic.
de Orat. ii. 66, 268). Till 442 A.U.C. only
adsidui had been members of the tribes, nor
was there any distinct difference of rank de iure
between the urban and rustic tribes, though
probably de facto from an early period the
former were considered as less honourable. But
when the tributum, which, as will be seen below,
was in close connexion with the tribes, was
made into a tax assessed on movable as well as
immovable property, the connexion between
landed property and tribe - membership was
weakened, a tendency which was perhaps re-
flected in the revolutionary measure of Appius
Claudius, the censor in 442, by which all citizens,
proletarii as well as adsidui, were enrolled in-
discriminately in the tribes (Liv. ix.46). What-
ever may have been the motive of this measure,
it was of no long duration, as in 449 Q. Fabius
Rullianus, while admitting landless citizens to
the tribes, limited them to the four urban tribes,
while the landed proprietors still retained ex-
clusive possession of the rustic tribes (Liv. ix.46;
cf. Plin. H. N. xviii. § 14, “rusticae tribus
laudatissimae eorum qui rura haberent ; ur-
banae vero in qua transferri ignominiae esset,
desidiae probro; ”Cic. de Leg. Agr. ii. 29, 79;
Dionys. xix. 18, rås &rtuous róv puxav). As a
consequence of this measure, all Roman citizens
were from this time ipso facto members of a tribe,
and, accordingly, as it was inadmissible for the
censors to deprive any one of his citizenship (Liv.
xlv. 15), their disciplinary power was limited to
degrading from the rustic to the urban tribes,
and this is all that is meant henceforth by the
phrases “tribu movere,” “aerarium facere.”
(For a possible instance of the converse process,
see Cic. pro Balb. 25, 27.) From this time, too,
the tribe was regularly added to the full
citizen’s name, being placed between the father's
name and the cognomen, e.g. Ser. Sulpicius
Q. F. Lemonia Rufus (Cic. Phil. ix. 7, 17; ad
Fam. viii. 8). A consequence of this distinction
in rank between the urban and rustic tribes
was of course the surrender of any attempt
hitherto made at maintaining equality of num-
ber among the members of the tribes. While
the urban tribes must have contained far more
than the rest, we have already seen a similar
tendency among the rustic tribes themselves;
and the tribes in the immediate neighbourhood
of Rome, such as Horatia, Lemonia, Menenia,
Romulia, &c., seem to have received few new
members, and to have remained the strongholds
of the nobility. Whether, as Mommsen thinks
is implied by Liv. xl. 51, the censors had the
power of enrolling certain categories of non-,
land-owning citizens in the rustic tribes, must
be left uncertain; but there was certainly one
class of men, the libertini, whose position in the
tribes differed from that of the other citizens.
At first, we may assume, they were admitted on
the same conditions as the rest, but probably in
the censorship of C. Flaminius (534 A.U.C.) they
were all, whether land-owners or not, limited to
the urban tribes (Liv. Ep. xx.). Before 586 we
find that this was relaxed in the case of those
who had a son five years old, or landed property
to the value of 30,000 sesterces (Liv. xlv. 15),
though it was apparently open to the censors to
disregard this rule; and we even find Ti. Grac-
chus, censor in 586, limiting all freedmen to one
tribe to be settled by lot (Liv. l.c.; Cic. de Or.
i. 9, 38). After the Social war, equality in the
tribes for the libertini was part of the popular
programme; but though it was carried by Sul-
picius (Liv. Ep. lxxvii.), and again by Cinna
(Liv. ib. lxxxiv.), Sulla restored the former state
of things; and neither Manilius in 687 (Cic.
pro Corn, in Ascon. p. 64), nor Clodius in 695
(Cic. pro Mil. 33, 89), were able to effect a
change, and the disability of libertini seems to
have continued under the Empire, since though
they were members of the urban tribes, so far
TRIBUS
TRIBUS 883
as the corn distribution was concerned, the fact
that the tribe does not, with few exceptions,
appear in the names of libertini, probably, as
Mommsen argues, proves some inferiority of
position. But, with the exception of the
Jibertini, we find that, after the Social war,
all citizens alike were admitted into the
rustic tribes. We have seen that even in
earlier times the personal tribe of the newly-
enfranchised cives sing suffragio followed that to
which the territory of their native city was
assigned (Liv. xxxviii. 36); and when after the
war Italy was practically made into a complexus
of fully-enfranchised municipia, each with its
own territory, and that territory assigned to a
tribe (cf. Cic. pro Mur. 20, 42), the inevitable
result followed that personal membership in a
tribe, irrespective of all other considerations,
was decided in the case of each individual, pro-
vided that he was ingenuus, by his domus or
origo in one of these municipalities. In fact,
from this time the Roman civitas had essentially
changed its character: Rome was no longer one
civitas among others, nor even the head of a
confederation of civitates ; it was rather the
“communis patria” of all Roman citizens, who
were also with few exceptions (Cic. Phil. iii. 6,
15) municipes of some local community, and it
was this local connexion which was marked by
the tribe. So closely indeed were membership
in a tribe and incorporation in a municipium
connected, that where, as in the most ancient
rustic tribes within the original ager Romanus,
Quiritary ownership of land was unconnected
with membership in a municipality, some re-
grouping of land was necessary, the land be-
longing formerly to these tribes being assigned
to the territory of neighbouring towns, and
forming part of the tribe to which those towns
belonged; while again in parts, where, as in
Picenum, the municipal system had not been
developed, probably the praefecturae, as a sub-
stitute, assumed municipal rank (Mommsen,
Staatsr. iii. p. 783). How entirely the tribe
was made dependent on the domus or origo is
shown by the fact that a Roman citizen, if
transferred to a colony—e.g. a legionary veteran
settled in a military colony—took the tribe of
his new domus (cf. a number of cases collected
by Grotefend, p. 15 ft., in which two tribes are
given in inscriptions, i.e. of the new and the
original domus). From the time when the old
distinction between the urban and rustic tribes
was thus abolished, another of a less definite
character gradually grew up, and was certainly
observed during the Empire. While the con-
mexion between a tribe and a municipal territory
only applied to the rustic tribes, the urban tribes
now contained citizens who, though free-born,
were on account of some personal grounds ex-
cluded from the former : e.g. (1) sons of libertini
are often found in Palatina or Collina; (2) in-
dividuals of Greek birth, personally admitted
to the franchise, frequently appear in Collina;
(3) illegitimate children are found in Collina,
Suburana, and Esquilina; (4) actors and sons of
actresses appear in Esquilina; while (5) at the
great trading ports, such as Ostia and Puteoli,
so many individuals are proved by inscriptions
to have belonged to Palatina, that it was formerly
supposed that these towns were assigned to that
tribe. This, however, was not the case, since
Ostia belonged to Woturia, and Puteoli probably
to Falerna, and it is a not improbable conjecture
of Mommsen that these members of Palatina
were Greek traders or their sons who had been
admitted to the franchise. The fact that these
urban tribules were never admitted to the
legions or praetorian cohorts, but only to the
cohortes urbanae, seems to place them half-way
between the rustic tribules and the libertini
(Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 443; C. I. L. vi.
2389–3884).
Tribes in the Provinces.—With regard to the
provinces, it has to be remembered that all
provincial land, except in cases where the
ius Italicum was specially conferred, was ager
publicus, and therefore necessarily stood outside
the tribes. But as soon as the practice began
of conferring the Roman franchise upon pro-
vincial towns, since, with the exceptions already
alluded to, there was no territorium on which
to attach the tribe, which nevertheless was in-
dispensable to Roman citizens, it was used, as
applied to provincials, in a purely personal sense,
though in strict analogy with the territorial
tribe in Italy. In other words, at the time when
a civitas was admitted to the full franchise, the
tribe to which its citizens were to belong was
specified; while probably, though perhaps not
quite so early, even in non-Roman towns, such
as Latin colonies, &c., the rule grew up that all
individuals within them, who acquired the fran-
chise, should be enrolled in some specified tribe.
Prior to the time of Augustus it is hardly pos-
sible to find any fixed rules, or any definite
grouping, and we find e.g. the colonies of Julius
Caesar in Gallia Narbonensis assigned to Papiria
(Narbo), Teretina (Arelate), Pupinia (Baeterrae),
and Aniensis (Forum Julii); but Augustus ap-
pears to have aimed at somewhat greater uni-
formity, and to have generally assigned Galeria
for the Spanish provinces, Voltinia for Gallia
Narbonensis (see Kubitschek, de Orig., &c., p.
204), Sergia for Dalmatia, Arnensis for Africa,
and Collina for the Oriental provinces. Later
emperors, though observing a certain method in
the matter, took a somewhat different course,
and, instead of assigning certain tribes to certain
provinces, seem to have made use of their own
tribe in grants made by them of the franchise
to provincials. Thus Claudius, whose family
by a re-grouping of the Claudia tribus seems to
have been transferred to Quirina, assigned his
Mauritanian colonies Caesarea, Oppidum Novum,
Rusuccurium, and Tipasa to that tribe (Grotef.
p. 161 ff.); while later in his reign he gave the
preference to the original tribe of his house, and
so Colonia Agrippinensis, Savaria, Virunum,
Celeia, and Juvavum, all belong to Claudia.
The Flavian house again belonged, as springing
from Reate, to Quirina, and accordingly we find
all Flavian colonies, in all parts of the Empire,
assigned to that tribe, while the prevalence of
Quirina in the Spanish provinces is due to the
fact that Vespasian gave the ius Latii to all
Spanish civitates (Plin. H. N. iii. § 30). Though
Trajan, as sprung from Italica, would na-
turally have belonged to Sergia, he assumed his
adoptive father's tribe—Papiria (Nerva came
from Narnia: see Kubitschek, p. 73), and we
find all his colonies in Germany, Moesia, Dacia,
and Africa assigned to that tribe (see Mommsen,
Ephem. Epigraph. iii. p. 230 ft.). 3 L 2
L
884 TRIBUS
TRIBUS
The Tribes as organised for administrative
and political ends.-The political activity of the
tribes was probably not anterior to the Publilian
law of 283 A.U.C. Their original aim was purely
administrative, and had reference (1) to the
census, (2) to the levy, (3) to the tributum and
military pay. As to (1), there is no doubt that
the tribes were primarily instituted by Servius
as a basis for the census, which formed the
essential part of his constitution. So Dionysius
(v. 75) describes Tiphaeus katē (pux&s róv 8tav
éveykeſv as to kpário Tov Tóv Štro Xepovtov
TvåAíov Kataotaffévrov voutpav, while Cicero
(de Legg. iii. 3, 7) says of the censors, “populi
partes in tribus discribunto ; exin pecunias,
aequitates, ordines partiunto * (see also the
account of the census of 548 A.U.C. in Liv. xxix.
37, and Cic. pro Flacc. 32, 80). (2) The locus
classicus for the relation of the tribes to the
military levy is Polyb. vi. 20, from which it
appears that the tribes were summoned one by
one in an order appointed by lot (see also Val.
Max. vi. 3, 4), four men being taken at every
summons from each tribe, one for each legion,
until the full number of four legions was made
up, so that in theory there were to be an equal
number of men in every legion from each tribe.
See also Dionys. iv. 14, 2; Liv. iv. 46, where the
levy was to be taken not from the whole people,
but only from ten tribes. One consequence of
all the tribes being represented equally in the
army was that the Comitia tributa could on
emergencies be held in camp (Liv. vii. 16).
That in later times the equal proportion of
troops from every tribe was given up, need
hardly be said, but probably during the whole
of the Republic the levy was in some way based
on the tribes, and even under the Empire, though
the recruiting now took place through all the
provinces, the fact that none but Roman citizens
were admitted to the legion still kept up a cer-
tain connexion between the levy and the tribes.
(See Tac. Hist. iii. 58, and Suet. Ner. 44.) Only
in cases of emergency were legions enrolled from
the urban population (Tac. Ann. i. 31; and for
the relation generally of the tribes to the army,
see Mommsen, Tribus, pp. 132–143, who, how-
ever, has now given up the attempt made there at
arithmetical symmetry). (3) The derivation of
Varro (v. 81), “tributum dictum a tribubus
quod ex pecunia quae populo imperata erat,
tributim a singulis exigebatur,” is confessedly
not correct (for the converse derivation, see
Liv. i. 43), and tributum most probably comes
from tribuere, and means that which is parti-
tioned among the citizens. Since, however, the
tributum was originally levied only upon land,
and all adsidui were in the tribes, the collection
of the tax was naturally and most conveniently
made tributim (Dionys. iv. 14). Apparently,
however, from such passages as Liv.i.41 and
Dionys. iv. 19, the tributum was first levied
on the property of the classes as shown by the
census (usually “1 pro mille,” Liv. xxix. 15);
but since the classes and their centuries only
came together in the Campus Martius and had
no local connexion, it was collected from the
various tribes by the tribuni aerară, who had
the tribal register showing to what class each
tribesman belonged. The primary object of the
tributum was to provide pay for the soldiers in
war. Up to the year 348 A.U.C. (Liv. iv. 59;
Dionys. iv. 19) the stipendium was not paid by
the state, but apparently by the tribes them-
selves, the tribuni aerarii being the means both
of collecting the money from their tribules and
paying it to the soldiers whom the tribe pro-
vided (Fest. p. 234). After 348 the stipendium
was paid by the aerarium, usually at the end of
the campaign, after the soldiers had returned
home, and it was paid tributim by means of the
tribuni aerarii (Warr. v. 184; Fest. p. 2; Plin.
H. W. xxxiv. § 1). When, however, campaigns
were prolonged beyond a single year, payment
was made in camp by the quaestor and con-
nexion with the tribes and tribuni aerarii ceased.
To carry out these objects a certain organisation
was necessary. The tribes were presided over
by officials, called at first tribuni aerarić from
the most important of their functions. Perhaps
originally there was one for each tribe. In
course of time, as the duty of paying the
soldiers was taken from them, and when the
reform of the Comitia Centuriata in 534 A.U.C.
essentially altered the constitution of the tribes,
the name probably disappeared from official
language, and that of “curatores tribuum ”
took its place, while in all probability the
number of these was ten for each tribe, five
(one for each class) among the seniores, and five
for the juniores. To this later period are pro-
bably to be referred the words of Dionysius
(iv. 14), jºyeuávas €q’ Ékáatms orvuſiopias. It is
true that we find eight curatores for the tribus
Sucusana iuniorum (C. I. L. vi. 199, 200;
Orelli, 1740, &c.); but these inscriptions date
from Vespasian’s time, and no doubt the con-
nexion of the tribes with the corn-distribution
(see below) and the addition of certain corpora
of freedmen (cf. corpus Julianum, Wilm. 1703)
altered in many respects the republican organi-
sation. These curatores tribuum were annually
elected (C. I. L. vi. 144); and if, as is probable,
they were the body of men who under the
old and nearly obsolete name of tribun; aerari;
were added as a third decuria of judices by
the Lex Aurelia of 684 A.U.C., there must have
been a certain property qualification for the
office, a survival possibly of the time when
they may have had to provide security for the
money which passed through their hands (see
Mommsen, Tribus, pp. 44 f. and 77 ff.; Staatsr-
iii. p. 189 ft.). As far as political activity is
concerned, the tribes have no importance prior
to 283 A.U.C. Up to that time, the tribuni.
plebis were elected by the plebs assembled
according to curies. Dionys. vi. 89, and Cic.
pro Cornel. in Ascon. p. 76, say in the Comitia
Curiata, i.e. by patricians as well as plebeians;
but Mommsen is probably right in discrediting
this statement (Staatsr. iii. p. 151). But the
Jocal associations which were so much stronger
in the tribes made a change desirable to the
plebeians; and accordingly the Lex Publilia
(Liv. ii. 56) enacted “ut plebeii magistratus
tributis comitiis fierent * (cf. also Dionys. ix. 41).
That the Comitia tributa, however, in their
later sense existed at this date, is extremely
improbable; and again we must follow Momm-
sen in interpreting these statements to mean
that the tribunes were now elected by the land-
owning plebeians assembled in their tribes (see
Zonaras after Dio Cassius, vii. 17, Četvai tº
TAftöel ka ka9 avrò avviéval kal &vew ékelvøy
TRIBUS
TRIBUS 885
(the patricians) BovXečeorðat kal xpmuattſeiv);
and we have already seen reason to believe that
it was on this occasion that the 21st tribe,
Clustumina, was created. How the concilium
plebis gradually assumed wider political ac-
tivity by the Valerio-Horatian law of 306
(Liv. iii. 55) and the Horatian law of 465, and
how eventually the Comitia tributa, i.e. the
whole populus, patricians and plebeians together,
assembled by tribes, became established as one
of the recognised organs of legislation, is de-
scribed in the article on CoMITIA TRIBUTA (see
also Mommsen, Röm. Forsch. i. p. 150 ft., and
Staatsr. iii. p. 321 ff.); and it is only necessary
to lay stress here on the particular features of
the assemblies by tribes which made them fitter
organs of government than the more cumbrous
Comitia Centuriata, viz. the local associations
among the members, which made previous in-
formal deliberation possible, and rendered the
members more accessible to the influence of
leading men. It was mainly perhaps the desire
to transfer this local influence into the Comitia
Centuriata which caused the reform of that
assembly in 534 A.U.C. (See ComiTIA CEN-
TURIATA, and Mommsen, Staatsr. iii. p. 271 ff.)
The tribes, as we have seen, had always been
the bases of the census, but hitherto the members
of each tribe had been equally distributed annong
all the centuriae, so that each century was in
theory composed of an equal number from each
tribe; and so, the tribules being scattered, local
associations had no means of finding expression.
What the reform did was briefly to combine the
tribal with the centurial arrangement (Liv. i.
13). Each tribe was divided into seniores and
iuniores, and each of these divisions again into
five centuries, corresponding with the five pro-
perty classes. Each century therefore consisted
entirely of members of the same tribe, and was
in fact, as Cicero says (pro Planc. 20, 49),
“unius tribus pars: ” and as the 70 centuries
of the first class, or possibly the 35 centuriae
iuniorum, drew lots for the privilege of voting
first, we get such descriptions as “praerogativa
Aniensis iuniorum ” (Liv. xxiv. 7), “praeroga-
tiva Veturia iuniorum ” (Liv. xxvii. 6, &c., and
cf. Liv.i.43; App. B. C. i. 59; Dionys. iv. 21, who
aescribes the change as of democratic tendency).
Relation of Tribules to one another.—The
tribes being originally local districts, the
majority of their members were neighbours
(Cic. pro Seat. Rosc. 16, 47), and were moreover
constantly brought together for the various
purposes for which the tribes were employed,
and from this cause the connexion between them
was naturally a somewhat close one. So in Ter.
Adelph. iii. 3, 85, a tribulis is “homo amicus
nobis, iam inde a puero.” Cicero (ad Fam. 13,
23) speaks of Caninius as “amicus et tribulis
tuus.” Sometimes this esprit de corps showed
1tself in a traditional jealousy of some other
tribe, as in the case of Papiria and Pollia
(Liv. vi. 37), but more usually in the active
support which contribules afforded one another
(1) in ordinary life, (2) in elections. As to (1)
we find a victim of Sejanus appealing for help
to his contribules, “si semper apparui vobis
bonus et utilis tribulis,” &c. (Wilm. 1699).
Qn the relation between tribules with regard to
elections and canvassing, Cicero throws much
light in the pro Plancio (16–18), while the fact
that Watinius failed to secure the vote of his
own tribe Sergia is mentioned as an exceptional
disgrace to him (in Vat. 15, 37; cf. also pro
Mur. 33, 69). So again candidates give
banquets tributim (Cic. de pet. Consul. 11, 44)
and spectacula (pro Mur. 34, 72); while Sue-
tonius says of Augustus, “Fabianis et Scaptien-
sibus tribulibus suis die comitiorum, ne quid a
quoquam candidato desiderarent, singulis milia
nummum a se dividebat ” (Aug. 40). These
passages show that, even after the Social war,
a certain bond between the members of a tribe
remained, and of course in earlier times it was
still stronger. When we remember that the
tribes were constantly coming together to elect
their own officers (Orelli, 3094), or judices for
the extraordinary courts according to the Lex
Plautia (Ascon. in Cornel. p. 79), or the centum-
viri (Fest. p. 54), or to celebrate supplicationes,
&c., decreed by the senate (Liv. vii. 28), it is
easy to understand how well adapted the
Comitia tributa might easily be made, by virtue
of all these local associations and sympathies in
the hands of skilful leaders, for carrying out a
democratic or anti-senatorial policy.
Ordo Tribwum. — That there was a certain
definite order of tribes, we know from several
passages; although what the order was, we are
very imperfectly informed, and are unable to
say on what it depended. It was properly
applied to decide the order of voting in the
Comitia tributa. In this order the four urban
tribes came first, arranged as follows: Suburana,
Palatina, Esquilina, Collina (Warr. v. 56; Fest.
p. 368). This, as we have seen, was originally
an order of rank; and that it was retained till
the time of Cicero, we may infer from de Leg.
Agr. ii. 29, 79, “a Suburana usque ad Arniensem
nomina vestra proponat.” Under the Empire,
this was to a certain extent changed, and Palatina
and Collina appear to rank above the rest, while
the order in connexion with the corn-dis-
tribution is Palatina, Suburana, Esquilina,
Collina (C. I. L. vi. 10211). Of the rustic
tribes we only know for certain that Romulia
came first (Cic. l. c.; Warr. l. c. ; C. I. L. vi.
10211), while Voltinia was probably second (it is
so in the inscription referred to), and Arniensis
was the last (Cic. l. c.).
The Tribes under the Empire.—Under the
Empire, or at least since 15 A.D., the adminis-
trative and political importance of the tribes
disappears (Tac. Ann. i. 15). From this time
in the provinces and in Italy, membership in
the tribe was merely the formal mark of Roman
citizenship. In the city itself the tribes still
had a purpose, but it was neither political nor
administrative. Even in republican times the
tribes had usually been made the vehicle by
which presents of money or corn were given to
the citizens either by the state or by individuals
(Ascon. in Mil. p. 36; Appian, B. C. ii. 143;
Cic. ad Att. i. 16, 13, &c.). This now became
their chief and indeed their only function. How
frequent and how extravagant the largesses and
congiaria given under the Empire were, is
sufficiently well known (see Marquardt, Staatsv.
ii. pp. 114 f.); but what is important to
remember here is that these presents were
limited to the citizens resident in the capital.
This is expressly stated in some cases (cf. App.
B. C. ii. 147), and is implied in a great many
886 TRIBUS
TRIBUS
more (Suet. Jul. 83, Tib. 20; Calig. 17; Tac.
Ann. ii. 42, &c.), while the phrase plebs urbana
used in this connexion is another proof, if proof
were needed (cf. Mon. Ancyr. 3, 16, “trecentis
et viginti milibus plebis urbanae sexagenos
denarios viritim dedi’”). These money presents,
as we know, were given tributiºn. So Appian
(iii. 23) says that the legacy of Julius Caesar
was given by Augustus to the curatores
tribuum, while a comparison between Tac. Ann.
i. 8 and Suet. Aug. 101, and Tac. Ann. xii. 31,
shows that money given viritim was given to the
tribes (cf. also Mart. viii. 15, 4). But while the
congiaria, however frequent, were of irregular
occurrence, there was another means of relieving
the wants of the urban population, which was
regular, and indeed of monthly occurrence, viz.
frumentationes or grants of corn, either gratis or
at rates lower than the market price, and it was
in connexion with these regular liberalitates
that the tribes gained a new meaning and a new
organisation [see FRUMENTATIO). That, like
the money-gifts, they were limited to the city,
is abundantly attested. Thus, in the Mon.
Ancyr. “plebs urbana ’’ is synonymous with
“plebs quae frumentum publicum accipiebat; ”
an inscription (C. I. L. vi. 943) speaks of
“plebs urbana quae frumentum publicum
accipit.” (See also App. ii. 120, &c.) Pro-
bably in theory they could be claimed by every
citizen resident at Rome (Sen. de Benef. 4, 28);
and the libertini, limited almost entirely, as we
have seen, to the urban tribes, were certainly
not excluded (Dionys. iv. 24). Probably, how-
ever, de facto, if not de iure (Mommsen thinks
from Dig. 32, 35, that it was also de iure),
members of the senatorial and equestrian orders
were not included in the list of recipients. This
seems to follow as well from the phrase “plebs
urbana,” as from the passages where the tribes
are distinguished from the more illustrious
classes (cf. Stat. Silv. iv. 1, 25; Dio Cass. lxi. 7,
&c.). There seems also to have been a maximum
number fixed from time to time (Trajan, e.g.,
raised it: Plin. Panegyr. 51, and cf. C. J. L. vi.
955), as a check upon the claims of those who
were not really entitled to receive the corn (cf.
Suet. Jul. 41; Dio Cass. lviii. 10; Suet. Aug.
40), and each recipient was furnished with a
ticket (tessera frumentaria). The recipients of
corn then being the members of the thirty-five
tribes resident in Rome, and the monthly dis-
tribution being in accordance with old custom
arranged tributim, the tribules not unnaturally
formed themselves into corporations analogous
to the collegia of which so much is heard under
the Empire (cf. Wilm. 679 and 888, “plebs
urbana xxxv tribuum,” and 1700, “plebs
urbana quae frumentum publicum accipit et
tribus [xxxvi); ” also Dig. 32, 35). While the
corn seems to have been given out at the
Porticus Minucia (Apul. de Mund. 35), there
were probably granaries for each tribe (cf.
Orelli, 3214, “horrearius plebis et tribus
Palatinae,” and Tac. Ann. xv. 18); and it is
possible that the corn for a whole tribe was
received from 1 the curator annonae at the
Porticus Minucia, and then taken to the tribal
granary for distribution among the tribules.
The tribes in this narrower sense differed from
the other collegia apparently only in their
origin and in the greater number of their
members. That there was no common chest
is due to the fact that the common store of corn
took its place, but we find the seniores and
iuniores, into which the tribes were still
divided, entitled “corpora” (Wilm. 1703–1736;
C. I. L. vi. 198, &c.), while they have the
officials usual in a collegium, scribae and
viatores (C. I. L. vi. 10215), apparitores (Wilm.
1705), accensi (Orelli, 3062), honorati and
immunes (Orelli, 3062, 3096): they had com-
mon burial-places (C. I. L. vi. 10214), and were
occasionally remembered in the testament of a rich
tribulis (Wilm. 1705). As this organisation was
confined to the plebs urbana, the four urban tribes
were naturally by far the most numerously
represented, and extant inscriptions relate
principally to them, and especially to Palatina
and Suburana. But all the tribes shared in the
organisation, as is shown generally by the
phrase “plebs urbana xxxv tribuum,” while in
particular Romulia and Voltinia (C. I. L. vi.
10211), Claudia (Orelli, 3062), Oufentina (Wilm.
1709), and Velina (Pers. v. 73) are specially
mentioned in this connexion. An inscription
unfortunately incomplete gives us some idea of
the proportion of members in the urban and
rustic tribes (C. I. L. vi. 10211). In Palatina
the number of tribules (whether of permanent
members, or, as is more probable, of members.
newly admitted within a certain period) is
4.191, in Suburana 4068, in Esquilina 1777, in
Collina 457, in Romulia 68, and in Woltinia 85.
In the course of time, though it was probably
not originally contemplated, it became possible
even for non - citizens to buy the tessera
frumentaria, and so a place in the tribe (cf. Juv.
vii. 171), and in this way “tesseram emere "
(Dig. 5, 1, 52) and “tribum emere " (Dig. 32,
1, 35) came to be convertible terms; and the
custom of thus buying a place in a tribe became
widely spread, and was frequently resorted to by
the rich as a convenient way of providing for
old servants and retainers (cf. Dig. 32, 35). So
far indeed was this carried that we find a boy of
18 years old having a place in the Esquilina
seniorum (Orelli, 3093). Whether membership
in a tribe was in these cases bought from
individual members, or, as is more probable, from
the tribe itself as a corporation, cannot be
decided with certainty. A theory put forward
by Mommsen in his early monograph on the
Roman tribes, though he has since given it up,
deserves to be mentioned as not improbable,
though perhaps not capable of proof. The corn
was at first given, he supposes, not gratis, but
at a moderate price, and practically all bona-
fide citizens resident in the city participated in
the privilege. Gradually, however, within this.
larger body, a certain number of the poorer
citizens received their corn free by means.
perhaps of tesserae mummariae (Suet. Aug. 41),
and it was this smaller number of persons who
became organised in close corporations which in
the course of time appropriated the names of the
tribes. On this theory the numbers mentioned
in the inscription above referred to would be
those of the free recipients, not of the tribesmen.
generally. Hirschfeld, on the other hand
(Philologus, xxix.), denies that either the con-
giaria or the frumentationes were given by
means of the tribes at all. -
Literature.—Mommsen, Die rêmischen Tribus,
TRIBUTUM
TRICLINIUM 887
&c., Altona, 1844; Staatsrecht, iii. pp. 95 ft.,
161 ff., 434 ft., and 779 f.;-Huschke, Die Ver-
fassung des Königs Servius Tullius; Grotefend,
Imperium Romanum tributim descriptum, 1863;
Kubitschek, de origine et propagatione Tribuum ;
Id. Imperium Romanum tributim discriptum,
1889;--Beloch, Der italische Bund; Hermes,
xxii. p. 100 ft. [E. G. H.]
TRIBU'TUM, as paid by Romans, took two
forms.
(1) A charge on special classes of the Roman
people. [AERARII; ARS HORDEARIUM.]
(2) An extraordinary source of revenue,
opposed to the ordinary vectigalia. A property-
tax, raised when needed, and chiefly to cover
the expenses of war (e.g. Liv. vi. 32). When
regular pay was given to the soldiers [STI-
PENDIUM), tributum must have been raised
practically every year. It was levied, not upon
land held in possessio [AGRARIAE LEGES], but
only on property (res mancipi) held by a full
title. If the tithes upon possessio were not
properly paid, tributum would be both heavier
and more frequent, since money must be found
somehow, and we accordingly find the plebeians
complaining at an early time, when they held
little or no ager publicus, as if tributum were a
burden chiefly upon them (Liv. iv. 60, v. 10).
The pressure of it on poor people was all the
more severe because debts incurred since the
last census were not deducted from the valua-
tion of a person's property, so that he had to
pay tributum upon property which was not his
own, but which he owed, and for which he had
consequently to pay interest as well. Still, the
tax might be repaid after successful wars (Liv.
xxxix. 7; Dionys. v. 47); hence perhaps the
complaints against generals who paid all the
booty into the treasury instead of using it for
repayment. The usual amount of the tax
(tributum simplex) was one for every thousand
of a man’s fortune (Liv. xxix. 15); in B.C. 215
it was doubled (tributum duplea, Liv. xxiii. 31);
and in B.C. 184 it was raised to three in a
thousand (Liv. xxxix. 44). It was raised, ac-
cording to the tribes instituted by Servius
Tullius, by the tribuni aerarii (Liv. i. 43; Dionys.
iv. 14, 15, and see Index), and was therefore not,
like other branches of the revenue, let out to
farm. It rested originally with the senate to
appoint (indicere) when the tax should be levied,
and to what amount. If, however, Livy (v. 12)
can be trusted, the people could, with the aid of
tribuni plebis, withhold payment. Later, the
censors are found fixing the amount (B.C. 184;
Liv. xxxix. 44). No citizen was legally exempt;
the attempt of the augurs and pontiffs to claim
exemption in B.C. 196 came to nothing (Liv.
xxxiii. 42). Occasionally, on emergency, the
tributum was not raised according to the census,
but got in as best it could be, and it was then
known as tributum temerarium (Festus, s. v.
Tributorum Collationem). Examples would be
the collection of B.C. 387 and that of 210 (Liv.
xxvi. 35) repaid in 204 (Liv. xxix. 16). After
the successful Third Macedonian War, tributum
ceased de facto to be levied on Roman citizens
(“unius imperatoris praeda finem attulit tri-
butorum,” Cic. de Off. ii. 22, 76; cf. Val. Max.
iv. 3, 8, and Plin. H. W. xxxiii. § 56), although
it might at any time have been re-imposed (Cic.
pro Flacco, 32, 80). This state of things lasted
till B.C. 43, when in the crisis of the civil wars
a similar tax was again levied (Plut. Aem. Paul.
38). There has been great discussion as to
whether this was a revival of tributum; but
probably Dr. Merivale (History of the Romans
under the Empire, c. 25) is right in saying that
it was only “extraordinary contributions” (cf.
Willems, Sénat, ii. 359; Marquardt, Staatsver-
waltung, ii. 172). It could at most only be a
tributum temerarium. Mommsen, however
(Staatsrecht, iii. 229), maintains that the ordi-
nary tributum was revived in B.C. 43. Whether
tributum was raised after this date, there is no
distinct proof, but it is unlikely, as the govern-
ment of the emperors did its best to keep the
Roman population free from taxes. The taxes.
imposed in Italy by Maximianus should rather
be classed with the provincial tribute than with
the old Roman tributum.
For the tribute of the provincials, see WECTI-
GALIA. [F. T. R.]
TRICLI'NIUM, properly a set of three
couches round a dining-table, but commonly
used also for the dining-room of a Roman house;
for its usual position, see DOMUS. It was of an
oblong shape, and according to Vitruvius (vi. 3,
§ 8) ought to be twice as long as it was broad.
The same author (§ 10) describes triclinia, evi-
dently intended to be used in summer, which
were open towards the north, and had on each
side a window looking into a garden. Many of
the houses at Pompeii appear to have had
summer dining-rooms opening to the viridarium.
The woodcut in Vol. I. p. 894 shows the arrange-
ment of the three couches (lecti, KAival), from
which the triclinium derived its name. These
remain in the “House of Sallust,” being built
of stone. Three very beautiful lecti tricliniares
in wood adorned with bronze have been more
recently discovered, and are now to be seen in
the Naples Museum (cf. Overbeck, Pompeii,
fig. 227). -
The articles LECTUS, TORUS, and PULVINAR
contain accounts of the furniture used to adapt
these couches for the accubatio, i.e. for the act
of reclining during the meal. When so pre-
pared for an entertainment, they were called
triclinia strata (Caes. B. C. iii. 92; cf. Athen.
ii. pp. 47, 48), and they were made to corre-
spond with one another in substance, in dimen-
sions, and in shape (Varro, L. L. ix. 47, ed.
Müller). As each guest leaned during a great
part of the entertainment upon his left elbow,
so as to leave the right arm at liberty, and as
two or more lay on the same couch, the head of
one man was near the breast of the man who
lay behind him, and he was therefore said to lie
in the bosom of the other (Plin. Epist. iv. 22).
But we must not suppose with Lewis and Short
that one actually rested on the other. Among
the Romans, the usual number of persons
occupying each couch was three, so that the
three couches of a triclinium afforded accommo-
dation for a party of nine. It was the rule of
Varro (Gellius, xiii. 11) that the number of
guests ought not to be less than that of the
Graces, nor to exceed that of the Muses. Some-
times, however, as many as four lay on each of
the couches (Hor. Sat. i. 4, 86). Among the
Greeks it was usual for only two persons to
recline on each couch. [CENA, Vol. I. p. 393.]
In such works of ancient art as represent a
888 TRICLINIUM
TRIERARCHIA
symposium, or drinking - party, we always
observe that the couches are elevated above the
level of the table. This circumstance throws
some light upon Plutarch’s mode of solving the
problem respecting the increase of room for the
guests as they proceeded with their meal
(Sympos, v. 6). Each man in order to feed him-
self lay flat upon his breast or nearly so, and
stretched out his hand towards the table (cf.
Plaut. Mil. 760); but afterwards, when his
hunger was satisfied, he turned upon his left
side, leaning on his elbow. To this Horace
alludes in describing a person sated with a par-
ticular dish, and turning in order to repose upon
his elbow (Sat. ii. 4, 39; cf. Carm. i. 27, 6).
We find the relative positions of two persons
who lay next to one another commonly ex-
pressed by the prepositions super or supra and
infra. A passage of Livy (xxxix. 43), in which
he relates the cruel conduct of the consul L.
Quintius Flamininus, shows that infra aliquem
cubare was the same as in sinu alicujus cubare, and
consequently that each person was considered
as below him to whose breast his own head
approached. On this principle we are enabled
to explain the denominations both of the
three couches, and of the three places on each
couch.
lectus medius
#
.
:
- on
ta 6 E
ă summus 7 3 imus ă
g mediuS | 8 medius || 3:
3 imus 9 1 summus #
Qi) -->
* C2
Q)
g-st
Supposing the annexed arrangement to re-
present the plan of a triclinium, it is evident
that, as each guest reclined on his left side, the
countenances of all when in this position were
directed, first, from No. 1 towards No. 3, then
from No. 4 towards No. 6, and lastly, from No. 7
towards No. 9; that the guest No. 1 lay, in the
sense explained, above No. 2, No. 3 below No. 2,
and so of the rest; and that, going in the same
direction, the couch to the right hand was above
the others, and the couch to the left hand below
the others. Accordingly the following fragment
of Sallust (ap. Serv. in Verg. Aen. i. 698) con-
tains the denominations of the couches as
shown on the plan; there were, however, only
seven guests present, so that two places were
vacant, and these were probably 3 and 6:
“Igitur discubuere: Sertorius (i.e. No. 5) in-
ferior in medio; super eum L. Fabius Hispani-
ensis senator ex proscriptis (No. 4): in summo
Antonius (No. 1); et infra scriba Sertorii Ver-
sius (No. 2): et alter scriba Maecenas (No. 8)
in imo, medius inter Tarquinium (No. 9) et
dominum Perpernam (No. 7).” On the same
principle, No. 1 was the highest place (Locus
summus) on the highest couch ; No. 3 was Locus
imus in lecto summo; No. 2, Locus medius in
lecto summo, and so on. It will be found that
in the following passage (Hor. Sat. ii. 8, 20–23)
the guests are enumerated in the order of their
accubation—an order exhibited in the annexed
diagram.
# 3 #
3 :E =
3 = }
ºr re- 3.
: P- º
Nomentanus Varius
Nasidienus Mensa. Wiscus
Porcius Fundanius

Fundanius, one of the guests, who was at the
top relatively to all the others, says:
“Summus ego, et prope me Viscus Thurinus, et infra,
Simemini, Varius, cum Servilio Balatrone
Vibidius, quos Maecenas adduxerat umbras.
Nomentanus erat super ipsum, Porcius infra.”
That Maecenas was in the place of honour
(No. 6) is evident from the fact that the dinner
was given in his honour: that Servilius (No. 4)
and Vibidius (No. 5) were next to each other is
not less plain from the aside in v. 33, 34. The
host himself, Nasidienus, occupies the place
No. 8, although No. 7 was the usual place for
the master of the feast, because Nomentanus
was put next to Maecenas, in order to point out
to him the special dainties (v. 25). Cf. Journ. of
Phil. vi. 219, and Palmer on Hor. l. c. No. 6
was the place of honour (Ötratikós, Plut. Quaest.
Conv. i. 3), not, as Lewis and Short still say,
after Plutarch, that if a consul were present he
might be able to attend to any business that
might occur, but simply as being next to the
host, a view which Plutarch also gives (cf.
Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii. 376–386).
The general superintendence of the dining-
room in a great house was entrusted to a slave
called tricliniarcha, who, through the instru-
mentality of other slaves of inferior rank, took
care that everything was kept and proceeded in
proper order. [J. Y.] [A. S. W.]
TRIDENS. [FUSCINA.]
TRIENS. [As.]
TRIERA'RCHLA (rpimpapxta). One of the
two extraordinary public services to which
wealthy Athenian citizens were liable (the
other was the trpoetorqopd): it was classed
among the liturgies (Aetrovpytal), but the re-
quirement of it was as circumstances necessi-
tated, and therefore it was not an ordinary or
periodically recurrent (érykūkaios) liturgy. The
object of it was to provide for the maintenance
(and in some degree for the original equipment)
of the ships of war belonging to the state. The
person on whom this duty fell was called a
Trierarch (rpuffpapxos); and it would appear
that in early times he was captain of the ship
which he maintained. ^.
The office of the trierarchy passed through
four distinct forms or stages; and though in
the remarks which follow it will be impossible
to treat of them separately in all respects, the
historical sequence will on the whole be pre-
served. The first stage was from the era of
Themistocles to the Sicilian Expedition: during
this period each ship was provided for by a
single trierarch ; the state was wealthy, and no
difficulties seem to have been felt in the satis-
factory discharge of the office. The second
stage was from the Sicilian Expedition to

TRIERARCHIA
TRIERARCHIA 889
B.C. 358; two trierarchs to a ship were now the
rule ; a diminution in the wealth both of the
state and of individuals was clearly the reason
of this ; the trierarchs found that practically
more was thrown on them (though we have no
reason to suppose an alteration in the nominal
duties). From B.C. 358 to B.C. 340, the system
of symmories was introduced into the trierarchy,
whereby the number of trierarchs to a single
ship was still further increased ; and lastly,
from B.C. 340 to the close of Athenian inde-
pendence, the double trierarchy again became
the rule, through a law carried by Demosthenes,
though with what modifications from the old
form we do not exactly know ; the symmories,
probably, were not altogether abolished.
I. The beginning of the trierarchy in the full
and proper sense of the word dates from that
large increase of the Athenian fleet which
Themistocles persuaded the Athenians to make
with the produce of the Laurian silver mines,
very shortly before the invasion of Xerxes
(Herod. vii. 144). Before that time the nau-
craries [NAUCRARIA] had furnished a ship
apiece to the commonwealth (i.e. 48 altogether
in Solon's time, 50 after the reform of Clei-
sthenes); the naucrarus, or head of the naucrary,
would no doubt have a certain responsibility
for the ship's maintenance, and would thus be
in a position partly analogous to that of the
trierarch afterwards; but the measure of
Themistocles, through its enlargement of the
fleet, gave an occasion for a large development
of the individual services of rich men, in which
services the Trierarchy proper consisted. So
great indeed was the public enthusiasm at that
era, that we find Cleinias, at the battle of
Artemisium, providing not only the entire
equipment of the ship, and the payment of the
sailors, but even the ship itself of which he was
the captain (Herod. viii. 17). But this was no.
part of the ordinary duty of a trierarch ; though
individual donations of triremes to the state are
mentioned afterwards (Dem. c. Meid. p. 566,
§ 161 ; c. Steph. p. 1127, § 85); and the passage
in the Meidias implies that such donations were
sometimes expected from the rich. (It has,
however, been doubted whether the donation of
a ship, even in these cases, may not mean the
donation of the equipment merely.) Generally
speaking, the state provided the ship itself; the
Council of Five Hundred (BovX%) had the
general duty of building ships (Dem. c. Androt.
p. 599, § 18); but Aeschines (c. Ctesiph. § 19)
speaks of the tribes being ordered to build
them.
In Herodotus (l. c.; also viii. 46, 93) the
name trierarch first occurs; in Thucydides (vi.
31) there is the first statement of their duties,
as far as these are indicated by what was done
in the Sicilian Expedition. Unfortunately, there
are in this passage two considerable ambiguities.
Thucydides says that the state furnished the
“empty vessel ” (vaſiv keväv): are we then to
understand that the state did not furnish sail,
ropes, and oars, but that these are included
among the apparatus (karaokeval) which the
trierarchs provided ? It must appear very
strange if this was so ; considering that in the
Rºnights of Aristophanes, written only nine years
before, it is spoken of as customary for the state
to give the sail (iortov, v. 918): and in the
speech of Demosthenes de Cor. Trierarch., deli-
vered fifty-four years afterwards, it is said to
be incumbent on the state to provide the
apparatus (ró, orkedºm) of a ship (p. 1229), i.e.
the “sailcloth, tow, and ropes '' (30601a ſcal
orvrtreſa Kal axolvía, Dem. c. Euerg. et Mnesib.
p. 1145, § 20). Can the state possibly have
omitted to provide these things in the most
splendidly-furnished expedition that ever issued
from the Piraeus 2 Or, if all these were left to
the trierarch, would Thucydides have thought
it worth while to intimate specially that the
trierarchs provided so small a matter as the
figure-heads (ormuela)? Hardly; and we must
therefore conclude that the “empty ship” in-
cludes the largest points of the equipment,
while the trierarchs introduced such ornaments
and improvements as were not of absolute
necessity. (In Thucyd. vi. 8 also, the trapaakevil
seems to be mentioned as something furnished
by the state.)
Again, while Thucydides tells us clearly that
the state paid the rowers, and that the trier-
archs gave additional pay merely to the rowers
on the upper bench (6paviral), who had the
hardest work; it is not quite clear whether the
state or the trierarchs paid the wages of the
àrmpeata (i.e. the servants and petty officers on
board). A difference of reading complicates the
question; but as Thucydides distinctly says that
the trierarchs gave additional pay (êtruq opäs) to
the Širmpeaſa, it seems implied that the state
was the principal paymaster; and it is natural
to suppose this to have been so (and it is con-
firmed by Thucyd. iii. 17). So far then the
work of the trierarch was simply that of ex-
tending, for the sake of greater efficiency, the
work done by the state; and this part of a
trierarch's work was more or less voluntary.
But to launch the ship from the harbour, to
maintain it in full efficiency and restore it
unimpaired, was a trierarch's absolute duty; an
obligation expressed in the inscriptions quoted
by Boeckh (See-Urkunden, p. 197) by the phrase,
6e? Thy valov čákupov kal évtext, trapabotival.
This obligation as a rule ceased when a trier-
arch had held his office for a year; after which
time, if his ship was still wanted for foreign
service, so that he could not bring it back to
the Piraeus, a successor would be sent out to
him; and such an arrival was eagerly expected
by the sailors, for a new trierarch brought fresh
donations (Dem. c. Polycl. p. 1211, § 15). A
trierarchy also was held to be terminated if the
general furnished no pay to the sailors, or if the
ship put into the Piraeus (it being then im-
possible to keep the sailors together); but the
practice was not always consistent on these
points (Dem. c. Polycl. pp. 1209, 1210, §§ 11–
13; Isocr. c. Callim. § 60). On the other hand,
a trierarch who through any accident was
obliged to serve more than his year could charge
the extra expense (êtrutpumpápxmua) on his suc-
cessor, and bring an action to recover it if
necessary (Dem. c. Polycl. 1. c.).
The maximum number of ships of war was
reached during the first form of the trierarchy,
and the trierarchs (each bound to maintain an
entire ship) numbered then 400, according to
the treatise on the Athenian Republic ascribed
to Xenophon (which probably was written in
the first part of the Peloponnesian war). The
890 TRIERARCHIA
TRIERARCHIA
Anabasis (vii. 1, 27) confirms this number; and
the calculation in Thucydides bears this out pretty
nearly (comparing ii. 24 with iii. 17). Strabo (ix.
p. 395) also says that there were originally 400
places for triremes in the Piraeus.
II. The second form of the trierarchy, in
which two persons, called Syntrierarchs (orvy-
Tpuhpapxol), shared the office, probably began
after the failure of the Sicilian Expedition; but
the first actual mention of it (Isocr. l. c.) is
directly after the battle of Aegospotami. The
syntrierarchy mentioned in Lysias, c. Diogeit.
§ 24, took place some time during the eight
years which began B.C. 409, but at what exact
date is uncertain. From this period onwards
we have frequent mention of the trierarchy in
the Attic orators; whose testimony, though
valuable, is always liable to deduction on per-
sonal grounds. Thus, when the speaker in
Isocrates (l.c.) boasts that he and his brother
paid the wages of the rowers in the ship of
which they were joint trierarchs, the statement,
though perfectly probable, has not the same
certainty as if given to us by an impartial his-
torian. Much more definitely can the statement
in Dem. c. Meid. p. 564, § 154, be challenged;
where it is alleged that in the times of the
syntrierarchy, “we, the trierarchs, had ourselves
to provide crews for our vessels” (rùs vais
étrampoëuet” airoſ). No doubt this sometimes
happened; but the whole course of the speech
against Polycles by the same orator (pp. 1208
sqq.) shows that, according to law, the state
provided and paid the crews; and the same is
implied in the passage of Isocrates just referred
to. A careful examination will also show that
in the second, as in the first, form of the trier-
archy, the state was supposed to pay the
itrºpeaſa (servants and petty officers). It is
true that Apollodorus (Dem. de Cor. Trierarch.
p. 1229, § 6) says that he paid money to these
himself; but whether as their full wages or as
extra pay is not stated: whereas of his rivals he
says, “They have not hired any àrmpsota, though
they claim to have had more than I; ” from
which the inference is plain that the state gave
the hire. In affirming, however, the legal
obligation of the state at this period (as in the
first period) to pay the wages of crew and ser-
vants, it must be remembered that this obliga-
tion was by no means always properly dis-
charged. (Cf. the orations of Demosthenes
against Polycles, de Coroná Trierarchiae, and
against Euergus and Mnesibulus—the last of
which was delivered at the beginning of the
third trierarchical period.)
The syntrierarchy, during the period in which
it prevailed, did not entirely supersede the older
and single form. Numerous instances of single
trierarchies occur between 411 and 358 B.C.;
and in two passages of Isaeus (Dicaeog. § 54;
Apollod. § 67) referring to this period, the single
and double trierarchy are mentioned as con-
temporaneous. Apollodorus was sole trierarch
(Dem. c. Polycl.) so late as B.C. 361. In the
case of a syntrierarchy, the two trierarchs com-
manded their vessel in turn, six months each
(Id. p. 1219), according as they agreed between
themselves. Sometimes, however, a trierarch,
or pair of syntrierarchs, would let out the
whole duties of the office to a contractor. This
(atabáoral r}v rpimpapxtav) was a manifest and
great abuse; the work was done inefficiently,
and (what was worse) the contractors at times
made use of their position, and reimbursed
themselves against losses, by privateering on
their own account, which led to reprisals on
the part of the injured against Athens herself
(SYLAE; Dem. de Cor. Trierarch. p. 1231, § 13).
Such misdoings seem to have been imperfectly
reported at Athens, and popular indignation
was but little aroused by them ; but when a
defeat of the Athenian navy took place on one
occasion, the trierarchs who had let their office
out in this way were tried for their lives, as
having deserted their post (Dem. ib. p. 1230).
The capital sentence, however, was not inflicted,
and it is even doubtful if they were punished at
all. (See also notices of the practice of letting
out the trierarchy in Dem. c. Meid. pp. 540,
564; the latter case falling under the system of
symmories.)
III. In B.C. 358, the third form of the trier-
archy began. The attempt of the Thebans upon
Euboea in that year occasioned a great need of
ships, which were at first supplied by voluntary
effort under the urgent persuasion of Timotheus
(Dem. de Chersones. p. 108, § 30); but as a con-
sequence of this, Periander (Dem. c. Euerg. et
Mnesib. p. 1145, § 20) introduced in the same
year a law, whereby the symmories, already in
use for the war-tax, were adapted under altered
form to the trierarchy. These trierarchical
symmories were the famous 1200, arranged in
twenty symmories of 60 persons each (for
further information as to whom, and as to their
exact connexion with the war-tax symmories,
see SYMMORIA). We find them already working
in the archonship of Agathocles, 357 B.C. (Dem.
c. Euerg. et Mnesib. p. 1152, § 44); though the
syntrierarchy (as appears from this very speech)
had not then been wholly disused, and may have
continued some time longer.
The intention of the law of Periander was
doubtless to increase the efficiency of the navy,
by increasing the amount of property applicable
to the purposes of the trierarchy (for it has
been said above that there were only 400 trier-
archs in the first form of the office, and doubt-
less there were not many more during the syn-
trierarchy). But the system was not properly
managed; and the rich men soon found means
to use it, not for the regulation of public bur-
dens, but as a means of escaping from them.
What was clearly necessary for its satisfactory
working was that, when any number of joint
trierarchs had the management of a ship, there
should be a due admixture of rich and poor
among them ; and that the poor should not be
too frequently and too largely called upon. But
both these evils happened; and Demosthenes in
his speech de Symmoriis (delivered, or perhaps
only written, B.C. 354) in vain tried to introduce
a better principle. He would have allowed, on
occasions, a body of twelve to join in the office;
but only under proper restrictions (de Symm.
pp. 182, 183, §§ 16–21). Hyperides (ap. Har-
pocrat. ovapopta) complained that five or six
wealthy men used to join in a trierarchy (the
inscriptions quoted by Boeckh in the See-
Urkunden mention three, five, six, and seven
joint trierarchs); and lastly a law was passed
allowing sixteen persons to join together for the
purpose (Dem. de Cor. pp. 260,261, §§ 102–105).
TRIERARCHIA
TRIERARCHIA 891
It has indeed been supposed, and is possible,
that this was the very law of Periander; yet
we can hardly think that the Athenians de-
liberately contemplated sixteen trierarchs to a
ship as an ordinary arrangement; and the
number sixteen does not specially fit in with
symmories of sixty persons each, and was pro-
bably introduced on some subsequent occasion.
Besides, the evidence is rather that the evil was
an increasing one. Demosthenes (de Cor. l.c.)
describes the final result in these terms: “I
saw your navy going to ruin, and the rich earn-
ing immunity from other liturgies on the score
of trifling expenditure in this, and persons of
moderate income losing their property, and the
city missing the opportunities of action,” &c.
The group of citizens who joined in maintain-
ing a single trireme was called ovvréAsia, and
the individual contributors ovvrexels. (Xuvréxeia
and ovuuopta are perfectly distinct terms, but
the members of a avvréAsia were always mem-
bers of the same ovuplopta. If the arrangement
proposed in Dem. de Symm. p. 183, § 20, had
been carried out, which it never was, a avy-
téxeia would have been a fraction of a ovuuopia,
and the words of Demosthenes imply that it
might then have been called a small ovuplopta.)
Though the law of Periander practically
diminished the burdens of the wealthy, reasons
have been given above for thinking that it did
not introduce that particular alleviation which
is indicated in Dem. c. Meid. p. 564, § 154;
namely, by taking away the duty of paying the
crews from the trierarchs and putting it on the
state. In all times the theory was probably the
same on this point, namely, state payment;
but in practice the state was often behindhand;
so that an orator, by pressing the practice on
one side, and the theory on the other, might
represent the matter pretty much as he chose.
IV. At last, in B.C. 340, Demosthenes was
appointed superintendent of the navy (êtriarré'rms
Too vavrukoi) and carried a trenchant reform,
which may be called the fourth form of the trier-
archy. What however this was, we do not exactly
know ; for the law which is given in Dem. de
Cor. p. 262, § 106 (under the heading card Aoyos),
is no longer regarded as genuine, and the refer-
ences to it in the orators are not quite easy to
reconcile with each other. We must, however,
conclude from Dem. de Cor. p. 261, § 104, that
it did to a certain extent restore the syntrier-
archy. Hyperides (ap. Harpocrat. orvuuopia)
describes it simply in this way: “When Demo-
sthenes saw this, he proposed laws that the 300
should be trierarchs, and the trierarchies have
become burdensome * (vánovs 6mice roës ºrpiako-
oríovs Tpumpapxeiv, kal Bapetal yeyóvao w ai
Tpimpapxial). Aeschines (c. Ctesiph. § 222) tells
us that the effect of the law was to reduce the
number of ships in the Athenian navy by 65
(apparently from 365 to 300): this, of course,
is the representation of an enemy. If 300
ships were needed for service, and two trier-
archs were appointed for each, there would be
600 altogether, which is not consistent with
what Hyperides says. But we must conclude
that as a general rule (in spite of Thucyd. ii. 24)
ships not actually employed in service had no
trierarchs; and we have no mention at this
period of Athenian history of any fleet number-
ing so many as 150 ships: thus the statement
of Hyperides may be practically true, or very
nearly so. Whatever the nature of the law, we
have reason to believe that its effect was suc-
cessful; not perhaps so much from the praises
which Demosthenes bestows on it, as from the
failure of his enemies (Aeschines, l.c.) and
Deinarchus (c. Dem. § 7) to say any real harm
of it. The words of Demosthenes (de Cor. p. 262)
are, however, worth referring to: he tells us
that during the whole war carried on after the
law was in force, no trierarch implored the aid
of the people (iketmptav č0mke), or took refuge
in the temple of Artemis at Munychia, or was
put into prison by the persons whose duty it
was to despatch the fleet (oi & roorońeſs), nor
was any trireme lost at sea, or lying idle in
the docks for want of stores and tackle, as
under the old system, when the service (rb
Aettoup'yeiv) fell to the poor. It should be
observed that Demosthenes (de Cor. p. 329,
§ 311) says that Aeschines was bribed by the
leaders of the symmories to nullify the law;
but these accusations of the orators against each
other must not be taken too seriously. •
W. General observations.—The inconveniences
to which a trierarch was liable in case of ineffi-
cient performance of his duties will be seen from
the last paragraph; but a reward also (i.e. a
crown) was sometimes given to the most effi-
cient, as appears from the speech on the Crown
of the Trierarchy. The trierarchs were Örew-
6vvoi (Dem. c. Polycl. p. 1222, § 52), or liable
to give an account of the public property en-
trusted to them, and the public money which
on occasions they had to disburse (Dem. de Cor.
Trier. p. 1231): though Aeschines, forgetful of
these facts, represents them as rendering account
of their own private funds (c. Ctesiph. § 9).
Triremes were assigned by lot to the different
trierarchs, as we learn from the epithet &vert-
kAñpayrol attached to some of the ships in the
Athenian navy list (see Boeckh, See- Urkunden).
The sacred triremes, the Paralus and the Salamis,
had special treasurers (Tamias) appointed to
them (Pollux, viii. 116); and on the authority
of Ulpian (ad Dem. c. Meid. p. 686) it has been
believed that the state acted as trierarch for
each of them ; but in the inscriptions quoted by
Boeckh no difference is made between the trier-
archs of the Paralus and of other vessels (See-
Urkunden, p. 169). Some special expenses might
no doubt be paid by the state in these cases.
The expenses of the trierarchy seem to have
varied from about 40 minae (Dem. c. Meid.
pp. 539, 540, §§ 77–80) to a talent (Dem. c.
Meid. p. 564, § 154). A syntrierarchy would
cost half this sum. Undoubtedly, therefore,
the assertion of Isaeus (de Dicaeog. hered. § 10)
that men had been trierarchs (or syntrierarchs)
whose property was not more than 80 minae,
was an exaggeration. Indeed, as a property of
three talents was the minimum which rendered
a citizen liable to the performance of a liturgy
(Dem. c. Aphob. 833, § 63; Isaeus, Pyrrh.. sub
fin.), it is absurd to suppose that the trierarchy,
the most burdensome of all, would be under-
taken for a less sum. (Indeed, Boeckh says, “I
am aware of no instance of liability arising from
a property of less value than 500 minae.”)
VI. On the exemptions from the Trierarchy.—
By an ancient law, in force B.C. 355, no person,
except the nine archons, could claim exemption
892 TRIERARCHIA
TRIPOS
from the trierarchy, who was of sufficient
wealth to perform it, not even the descendants
of Harmodius and Aristogeiton. [From Isaeus,
de Apoll. hered. § 67, it appears that in the time
of the single trierarchy no person could be com-
pelled to serve a second time within two years
after a former service (ööo èrm 6taxiwáv). The
trierarchy was a ground of exemption from the
other liturgies, any of which indeed gave an
exemption from all the rest during the year
next following that of its service: Dem. c.
Jeptin. pp. 459, 464, §§ 8, 24.]
Yet from other passages it appears that ex-
emptions from the duty of the trierarchy were
allowed in cases of which the above law takes
no cognisance. Demosthenes (de Symm. p. 182,
§ 14) tells us that a person was exempt if
&öðvatos, or incapable through sudden loss of
wealth; so also were “wards, heiresses, orphans,
cleruchi, and partnerships (kowavuká).” Of
course, an heiress could only claim exemption
while unmarried. Wards were free from all
liturgies, during their minority, and for a year
after their 60kipaata (Lysias, c. Diogeit. 908).
By kAmpoixos are meant colonists, who, while
absent by command of the state, could not per-
form a trierarchy. The meaning of partner-
ships (kowovikö) is doubtful, but probably it
means the property of joint tenants, as brothers
or coheirs, which had not yet been apportioned
to them (Pollux, viii. 184).
VII. On the legal proceedings connected with
the Trierarchy.—These were either between
individual trierarchs, or between trierarchs and
the state, and therefore in the form of a Dia-
dicasia. They generally arose from a trierarch
not delivering up his ship and her rigging in
proper order, either to his successor or to the
state. If he alleged that the loss or damage of
either happened from a storm, he was said
orkſ baobal katē xeipºva &toxoxéval. Vessels
or furniture on which a trial of this kind had
been held, were said to be 6taôeówkaguéva.
The presidency of the courts which tried
matters of this sort was vested in the strategi,
and sometimes in the superintendents of the
dockyard, in conjunction with the ātoo toxets.
The senate also appears to have had a judicial
power in these matters: e.g. we meet in various
inscriptions with the phrase ofbe róv Tpumpdp-
xwv, &v éöttàoorev # 8ovX) rºw rpińpm. Boeckh
conjectures that the trierarchs of whom this is
said had returned their ships in such a condi-
tion that the state might have called upon them
to put them in thorough repair, or to rebuild
them, at a cost for an ordinary trireme of 5,000
drachmae. Supposing that they were not re-
leased from this liability by any decree of a
court of justice, and that the rebuilding was
not completed, he conceives that it must have
been competent (in a clear and flagrant case)
for the senate to have inflicted upon them the
penalty of twice 5,000 drachmae, the technical
phrase for which was “doubling the trireme *
(See-Urkunden, p. 228).
The phrase &uoxó) morev rpińpm kavhy &ro-
360 euv, which occurs in inscriptions, does not
apply to an undertaking for giving a new
trireme, but merely for putting one in a com-
plete state of repair.
The phrase paſvely twoſov (Dem. c. Lacrit.
p. 941, § 51), to lay an information against a
vessel, is used not of a public ship, but of a
private vessel, engaged perhaps in smuggling or
privateering. [PHASIS.]
The articles LEITURGIA and SYMMORIA con-
tain numerous references to the subject of this
article.
(Cf. Boeckh's Staatshaushaltung d. Athener
and See- Urkunden; Hermann's Griech. Antiq.;
Gilbert's Griech. Staatsalt. ; and Kennedy's
translation of the orations of Demosthenes,
Appendix.) [R. W.] [J. R. M.]
TRIEROPOEI (rpimporowſ), a board at
Athens, reckoned among the directors of public
works (ériotărat rôv Šmuogíav čpyov, cf. EPI-
STATES), and having a treasurer (tautas) of
their own. Their principal duty was to pro-
vide for the building of a certain number (pro-
bably twenty, cf. Diod. xi. 43) of new triremes
every year. The name appears to occur only
in Dem. c. Androt, p. 598, § 17; but they are
clearly referred to in Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 30. In
the latter passage we are told that they were
neither an àpx?) kxmpath nor xeuporovnth, but
belonged to those offs ai puxal kal ai Tpitröes
kai of 67/10. ść Éavºrów aipoovrai tā āmuāoria
xpfiuara ötaxelpígely : but it is clear from De-
mosthenes that the senate was in some way
responsible for their conduct, a fact which is
nowhere stated of the tetxotrowol or other
similar bodies. Combining the two accounts,
it seems likely that they were appointed by the
senate, one for each tribe, either as a committee
of the Bouleutae themselves or as a subordinate
body, and that they either chose their own trea-
surer or had one chosen for them by the Senate,
whose responsibility for its delegated authority
was thus maintained. (Cf. Boeckh, P. E. p. 249
= Sthh.* i. 316; Seeurk. p. 59; K. F. Hermann,
Staatsalterth. §§ 126, 161.) [W. W.]
TRIGLYPHUS (rptyNv40s, or -ov) is the
name given to one of the alternating members
of the frieze of the Doric order, the other being
called METOPAE. The triglyph is divided by
two vertical cuts (canaliculi) into three bars
(umpoſ, femina); hence its name. It also has a
semi-canaliculus at each side. The canaliculi
have in early specimens a curved or ogier ter-
mination; later they are included by straight
lines. Properly there should be one triglyph
over each column, and one over each inter-
columnium in the Doric order; at the corners
this arrangement is slightly modified, so that
the triglyph may adjoin the corner of the build-
ing. The triglyph seems always to have been
painted blue. Triglyphs are supposed to have
originated from an imitation of the visible ends
of projecting beams in a wooden structure
(Vitruv. iv. 2, 4). [E. A. G.]
TRIPOS (rpítrous), a tripod, i.e. any utensil
or article of furniture supported on three feet.
More especially—
I. A tripod to receive the Aé8ms or caldron
for boiling meat, &c. [LEBES.] Such a tripod
was called épirupught ms. (Athen. ii. p. 37 f; cf.
Hom. I. xxiii. 702; Soph. Aj. 1405): the scene
from the story of Medea, painted on the vase
which is, shown in the cut under CHYTRA,
Vol. I. p. 426, illustrates this use. The bronze
caldron, however, and its stand were often made
in one piece, and then the whole boiling appa-
ratus was called ºrpítrovs (Hom. Il. xviii. 344 ;
0d. viii. 434), but also Aé8ms rpítovs (Aesch.
TRIPOS
TRITTYA 893
Fr. 1). Tripods were also used as stands for
mixing-bowls with rounded bottoms (Athen. iv.
p. 142; PSYCTER), and then were called ārupol
Tptrobes. For their use as prizes in games, cf.
LEBES (Blümmer, Privatalterth. 168; Id. in
Baumeister, Denkm. p. 462).
II. A bronze altar, not differing probably in
its original form from the tall tripod caldron
already described. In this form, but with addi-
tional ornament, we see it in the annexed wood-
cut, which represents a tripod found at Fréjus
J. L. LG
Delphic Tripod.
(Spon, Misc. Erud. Ant, p. 118). That this was
intended to be used in sacrifice may be inferred
from the bull’s head with a fillet tied round the
horns, which we see at the top of each leg.
All the most ancient representations of the
sacrificial tripod exhibit it of the same general
shape, together with three rings at the top to
serve as handles (oiſara, Hom. Il. xviii. 378).
Since it has this form on all the coins and other
ancient remains which have any reference to the
Delphic oracle, it has been with sufficient reason
concluded that the tripod from which the Pythian
priestess gave responses was of this kind. The
right-hand figure in the above woodcut is copied
from one published by K. O. Müller (Böttiger's
Amalthea, i. p. 119), founded upon numerous
ancient authorities, and designed to show the
appearance of the oracular tripod at Delphi.
Besides the parts already mentioned, viz. the
three legs, the three handles, and the vessel or
caldron (Aé8ms), it shows a flat, round plate,
called 3Xplos [CORTINA], on which the Pythia
seated herself in order to give responses, and on
which lay a laurel wreath at other times.
The celebrity of this tripod produced innu-
merable imitations of it (Diod. xvi. 26), called
“Delphic tripods” (Athen. v. p. 199). They
were made to be used in sacrifice, and still more
frequently to be presented to the treasury
both in that and in many other Greek temples
(Athen. vi. pp. 231 f-232 d ; Paus. iv. 32, § 1).
[DONARIA.] Tripods were chiefly dedicated to
Apollo (Paus. iii. 18, § 5); to the Muses, as
connected with Apollo (Hes. Op. 658), and to
Heracles. In this connexion we may note the
myth of the rape of the tripod by Heracles and
its recovery by Apollo (Paus. iii. 21, 7; x. 13, 4),
which often forms the subject of ancient works
of art (cf. Baumeister, Denkm. p. 463). The
woodcut in Vol. I. p. 158 shows the tripod as
an attribute of Apollo. In conformity with the
Tripod from Fréjus.
same ideas it was given as a prize to the con-
querors at the Pythian and other games, which
were celebrated in honour of Apollo (Herod. i.
144). At Athens the successful Choragus re-
ceived a bronze tripod as a prize. The choragic
monuments of Thrasyllus and Lysicrates, the
ornamental fragments of which are now in the
British Museum, were erected by them to pre-
serve and display the tripods awarded to them
on such occasions. For the tripod as the emblem
of the xvvir, see Vol. I. p. 601.
A tripod, scarcely less remarkable than that
from which the Pythia delivered oracles, and
consecrated to Apollo in the same temple at
Delphi, was that made from the spoils of the
Persian army after the battle of Plataea. It
consisted of a golden bowl, supported by a three-
headed bronze serpent (Herod. ix. 81; Thucyd.
i. 132; Schol. in loc.; Paus. x. 13, § 5). The
golden bowl having been removed, the bronze
serpent, about 15 feet high, was taken to Con-
stantinople, and is still to be seen in the Hippo-
drome. The first figure in the annexed wood-
cut is copied from Wheler's engraving of it
(Journey into Greece, p. 185).
Bronze serpent
from Delphi.
Tripod brazier, in the British
Museum.
The use of bronze tripods, whether for domestic
use or to serve as altars, evidently arose in a
great degree from their suitableness to be re-
moved from place to place. To accommodate
them as much as possible to this purpose, they
are sometimes made to fold together into a small
compass, by a contrivance which may be under-
stood from an inspection of the preceding wood-
cut. The right-hand figure above represents a
tripod brazier in the British Museum. A patera
or a plain metallic dish was laid on the top, when
there was occasion to offer incense, or a grating,
when a vessel to be heated or kept hot was placed
there. Many of these movable folding tripods.
may be seen in museums, proving how common
they were among the Romans.
III. For the three-legged table bearing this
name, see MENSA. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TRIPU'DIUM. [AUGUR, Vol. I. p. 250 b.]
TRIRE'MIS. [NAvis.]
TRITAGONISTES. [HISTRIO.]
TRI'TTYA (rpºrtúa). [SUOVETAURILIA.]


894 TRITTYS
TRIUMPHUS
TRITTYS (rpurrës). [TRIBUs.]
TRIUMPHUS is probably derived from
the shout triumphe (connected with 6ptapagos)
uttered by the soldiers and populace during the
procession (Varro, L. L. vi. 68, also occurring
in the chant of the Arval Brothers), but possibly
an early transliteration from 6ptapgos itself. (See
further Wordsworth, Fragments and Specimens
of Early Latin, p. 394.)
The triumph was no doubt originally simply
the return of the victorious army headed by its
general, his first act being naturally the offering
of sacrifice to the chief god of the city. A pro-
minent feature in such an entry would be the
display of captives and spoil. Here we have the
essence of a triumph. (Varro, l.c. : “Trium-
phare appellatum quod cum imperatore milites
redeuntes clamitant per urbem in Capitolium
eunti Io triumphe.” An early triumph of this
kind is described in Liv. iii. 29, 4.) It would
take place, as a matter of course, after every
successful campaign. After the ceremony had
been elaborated and its importance thereby in-
creased, there would naturally be a tendency,
coincident with the weakening of the executive,
to restrict it to exceptional successes, and gra-
dually a body of rules grew up by which the
granting of what had become a coveted favour
was conditioned and limited. Above all, the
consent of the senate became indispensable.
The triumph had two aspects, religious and
military. 1. Before a general left Rome for the
seat of war, his last act was to go to the Capitol,
and there (if a magistrate) procure the auspices,
without which the war could not properly be be-
gun, and in every case make vows for the success
of his arms (Liv. xlv. 39, &c.; Caes. B. C. i. 6;
Plin. Pan. 5). If the campaign was successful,
and a triumph was granted him, this took the
form of a progress to the Capitol, there to pay
his vows and offer sacrifice to Jupiter. This
religious character of the triumph was em-
phasised by the fact that the general appeared
in the procession in the character of the god.
His dress was the same, and it was the property
of the temple, and brought thence for the occa-
sion. (Hence it is spoken of as eaſuviae Jovis :
Suet. Aug. 94; cf. Juv. x. 38; Liv. x. 7, 10.
Gordian was the first who had the costume as
his own: Vita Gord. 4; cf. Vita Alear. Sev. 40.)
So, too, the golden crown (Tertull. de Coron. 13)
and the sceptre with its eagle belonged to the
god; the body of the general was, in early times
at least, painted red like that of the image in
the temple (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 111); and the
white chariot horses used by the emperors, and
earlier by Camillus, recalled the white steeds of
Jupiter and the Sun (Liv. v. 23, 5, and v. inf.).
As to the importance of this identification of the
priest (such as the triumphator was on this
occasion) with the deity, see SACERDOS. -
2. The triumph was also a military act, the
last performed by the general in his command,
and therefore it was essential that he should
during its performance be in full possession of
the military imperium; this being inherent in
the office of the chief magistrates (consul, praetor,
dictator). Although ordinarily in abeyance
within the city, such magistrates, if they ob-
tained a triumph during their term of office,
were already in possession of the essential quali-
fication, and were consequently enabled (with
the previous sanction of the senate) to exercise
their military imperium on that occasion within
the city. (For difficulties connected with the
loss of the auspicia in certain cases, see Momm-
sen, Staatsrecht, i. 124, note 5.) So long as
the command of the army was regularly taken
by one of the chief magistrates during his year
of office, the right to a triumph belonged to
this class exclusively (in an exceptional case
like that of Q. Publilius Philo, consul in B.C. 327,
where the command was prolonged beyond the
regular term, the right was not lost: Liv. viii.
26, 7); and hence, when during the Second
Punic War it became necessary to appoint com-
manders who were not at the same time holders
of one of the regular chief magistracies, the
triumph was in such cases refused (e.g. P. Scipio
in B.C. 206, Liv. xxviii. 38, 4; L. Manlius
Acidinus in B.C. 199, Liv. xxxii. 7, 4 ; Cn.
Cornelius Blasio in B.C. 196, Liv. xxxiii. 27;
and L. Lentulus in B.C. 200, Liv. xxxi. 20, 3,
“exemplum a majoribus non accepisse ut qui
neque dictator neque consul neque praetor res
gessisset triumpharet.” The rule is also stated
in Plut. Pomp. 14, Širárq, h orparmy® Advº
[6ptapgov] Stöworly 6 vöuos). Later, when it
became the practice (finally legalised by Sulla)
that the command of an army in a province
should only be taken after the expiration of the
year of office in Rome, it was found necessary
to relax the rule, for the practical reason that,
since none of the regular magistrates had the
chance of gaining a victory, no triumphs what-
ever could have been granted. Accordingly, for
the later period of the Republic, the triumphs
celebrated are ordinarily those of proconsuls and
propraetors. The fact that such had already held
one of the chief magistracies in the city no doubt
facilitated the modification of the old rule; but
even where this had not been so, as in the ex-
ceptional case of Pompey in B.C. 81 and 71, the
triumph was not refused. The imperium in the
case of proconsuls and propraetors being granted
(by prorogatio) strictly for the command in the
province only, in order to facilitate the triumph
Sulla legalised the practice of treating the im-
perium as subsisting until the general reached
the city (Cic. ad Fam. i. 9, 25; cf. Liv. xxxiv. 10;
Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i. 619, notes 1 and 2).
Such extension, however, only availed up to the
pomerium, and special legislation (privilegium)
was necessary to keep the imperium alive within
the city on the day of the triumph (voted by
the people ea auctoritate senatus, Liv. xxvi. 21,
cf. xlv. 35). Until this had been passed the
general remained without the walls, for if he
had entered the city the continuity of his im-
perium would have been lost, and he would
have become a privatus, and thereby excluded
from a triumph. (Hence Lucullus remained
without the city for three years: Cic. Acad. pr.
ii. 1, 3: cf. the case of Cicero in B.C. 50, ad Att.
vii. 10.)
After an important victory the general was
saluted by his troops as Imperator (a frequent
but not universal preliminary to a triumph :
Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 123); he assumed the
fasces laureati (Cic. pro Lig. 3, 7, ad Att. vii.
10), and forwarded to the senate litterae laureatae
(Liv. v. 28, 13; Plin. H. W. xv. § 40; Zon. vii. 21;
cf. Tac. Agr. 18), i.e. a despatch announcing the
victory. If the intelligence proved satisfactory,
TRIUMPHUS
TRIUMPHUS 895
the senate decreed a public thanksgiving [SUP-
PLICATIOl, which was so frequently the fore-
runner of a triumph, that Cato thinks it neces-
sary to remind Cicero that it was not invariably
so (Cic. ad Fam. xv. 5, 2). After the return of
the general with his army to the neighbourhood
of Rome, the next point was to obtain the con-
sent of the senate, but before this could be given
certain conditions must have been fulfilled.
1. The triumphator must be to the end of the
ceremony in possession of the highest magisterial
power—i.e. the imperium as belonging to the
consul, praetor, dictator, proconsul, and pro-
praetor; and this imperium must have been con-
ferred in regular constitutional course (the tri-
buni consulari imperio were therefore excluded
from a triumph ; it was otherwise with the
triumvirs, Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 126 c). This
point has been already discussed, but some of
its exceptions and consequences remain to be
mentioned. When a pro-magistrate was elected
consul during his command, his triumph took
place on the day on which he entered on his
magistracy (e.g. Marius in B.C. 104: Momm-
sen, Staatsr. i. 124, note 4). The imperium
outside Rome being unlimited, and therefore
only exercisable by one person in the same dis-
trict and at the same time, if there were two
commanders only one triumph could be granted,
and it was therefore given either to the one of
highest rank (e.g. a dictator before a consul, a
consul before a praetor: Liv. ii. 31; iv. 29, 4 ;
Ep. xix.), or, in the case of two consuls, to
the one to whose turn the imperium and aus-
picium came on the day of battle (e.g. the battle
of the Metaurus: Liv. xxviii. 9, 10). So a
triumph could not be claimed by a commander
who had won a victory in the district assigned
for the exercise of another's imperium (Liv. l. c.
The battle of the Metaurus was fought in the
provincia of M. Livius: cf. Liv. x. 37, xxxiv. 10).
Exceptions to these rules occur after the First
Punic War, and the lesser triumph (ovatio) was
generally granted if the greater honour was re-
fused. On the same principle one who com-
manded alienis auspiciis, i.e. as the representa-
tive of an absent general or the subordinate of
one who was present, was excluded from a
triumph (Dio Cass. xliii. 42). This rule was
broken by Caesar towards the end of his life in
the case of his legati (Dio Cass. l.c., Q. Fabius
Maximus and Q. Pedius: cf. Mommsen, Staats-
recht, i. 127, note 3). This example was fol-
lowed under the triumvirate (e.g. P. Ventidius,
legatus of Antony: Dio Cass. xlviii. 41, 5).
Lastly, in spite of the rule laid down by Cicero
(de Leg. Agr. ii. 12, 30), about the necessity of
a lea, curiata for the military imperium, there
is an instance towards the end of the Republic
of a triumph obtained by one who had never had
the imperium so conferred (Cic. ad Att. iv. 16,
12; C. I. L. i. p. 460, xxvii.).
2. The victory must have been won in a
legitimate contest against public foes (justis
hostilibusque bellis, Cic. pro Deiot. 5, 13), and not
in a civil war or insurrection of slaves (Wai.
Max. ii. 8, 7; Dio Cass. xliii. 42; Florus, ii.
10, 9; Lucan, i. 12; Gell. v. 6, 21; Plut. Caes.
56). Hence there was no triumph after the
capture of Capua in B.C. 211, or of Fregellae in
125, though the former had not the full citizen-
ship, and the latter was only a Latin colony.
(The reason given in Val. Max. l.c., that Capua
had belonged to Rome and that a triumph
was only granted pro aucto imperio, is wrong:
Mommsen, Staatsr. i. p. 129, note 3.) Caesar's
triumphs after Thapsus and Munda, and Octa-
vian's after Actium, do not violate this rule, for
in each case the victory was represented as
having been won over foreigners; while, on the
other hand, Caesar celebrated no triumph for
Pharsalia. The feeling appears as late as
Septimius Severus (Herodian, iii. 9, 1).
3. The victory must have been won in the
course of serious fighting (Gell. v. 6, 21);
and according to Valerius Maximus (ii. 8, 1),
a law enacted that a minimum loss of 5,000
men must have been inflicted on the enemy in a
single battle. (By a plebiscitum of B.C. 62 the
general had to affirm his returns on oath, and
penalties were fixed for falsification.) This
rule is obviously of recent date, and even later
there are many instances of triumphs granted
for general results (in the case of P. Cornelius
and M. Baebius, Liv. xl. 38, there had been no
war. Cf. viii. 26, 7; xxxvii. 46;-Cic. in Pis.
26, 62).
4. The war must have been brought to a
conclusion (debellatum), so that the army could
be withdrawn (deportatio exercitus), the presence
of the victorious soldiers being an essential part
of the ceremony (Liv. xxvi. 21; xxxi. 49).
Originally, therefore, the fact of handing over
an army at the seat of war to a successor ex-
cluded from a triumph. Later, when circum-
stances compelled the maintenance of permanent
armies at a great distance from Italy, the
condition as to deportatio was dispensed with,
provided that the war had been brought to a
conclusion (Liv. xxxix. 29, 4).
Decisive victories in a war of great extent or
duration could be rewarded by a triumph, i.e.
they were treated as the conclusion of separate
wars: e.g. in the Hannibalic war the battle of
the Metaurus and the capture of Tarentum. The
claims for triumphs after the conquest of Sicily
and Spain in the same war were only rejected on
other grounds (cf. Tac. Ann. i. 55; ii. 41).
Granting that a chief magistrate had an
absolute right to exercise his full imperium
within the city on the day of his triumph, the
existence of this body of rules implies the
recognition of some authority, other than the
general himself, which should decide on their
applicability. As a matter of fact we find that
from the earliest times the senate was so
recognised (Liv. ii. 47, 10; iii. 29, 4; 63, 9:
cf. Polyb. vi. 13; Sen. de Ben. v. 15) that its
decision was regularly treated as final (e.g. Liv.
x. 36, 19; Dionys. ix. 26), and only exceptionally
set aside by an appeal to the people (Liv. iii. 63,
8; vii. 17, 9;-Zon. viii. 20), or by violence
(cases of L. Postumius Megellus, Liv. x. 37; and
Appius Claudius, Cic. pro Cael. 14, 34; Suet.
Tib. 2). We know of no case in which the
senate was not first applied to. The point, no
doubt, at which that body made its authority
felt was the senatusconsultum, without which
there could be no grant of public money for
the expenses of the triumph (Polyb. vi. 15, 8;
Liv. xxxiii. 23, 8: cf. Dio Cass. lxxiv. 2). In
the case of pro-magistrates, whose imperium
rested on prorogatio, the consent of the senate
was followed by the privilegium allowing the
896 TRIUMPHUS
TRIUMPHUs
retention of the imperium within the city for
the triumph (see above). It is probably from a
confusion with this that it is sometimes said
that the consent of the Senate must be ratified
by the people: e.g. Suet. Fr. viii. ed. Roth. See
Willems, Le Sénat de la République Romaine,
vol. ii. p. 672, note 2. But the early mention
of the co-operation of the people in Liv. iv. 20,
of B.C. 437 (cf. Dionys. iii. 59), perhaps points
to the existence of a different state of things in
early times. The senate met for these de-
liberations outside the walls, usually in the
temple of Bellona (Liv. xxvi. 21, xxxvi. 39)
or Apollo (Liv. xxxix. 4), in order that the
general might have an opportunity of urging
his claims in person. After the erection of
the temple of Mars Ultor by Augustus in his
forum, at least the final sitting was held there
(Suet. Aug. 29).
When the day appointed had arrived, the
whole population poured forth from their
abodes in holiday attire ; some stationed them-
selves on the steps of public buildings, while
others mounted scaffoldings erected for the
purpose of commanding a view of the show.
The temples were all thrown open, garlands of
flowers decorated every shrine and image, and
incense smoked on every altar (Plut. Aem. Paul.
32; Ov. Trist. iv. 2, 4). Meanwhile the general,
who had passed the night in the Campus Martius
(Joseph. B. J. vii. 5, 4), addressed his soldiers
in a contio, and announced the rewards that
were to be distributed to the officers and men
(Liv. x. 30, 46; xxx. 45, 3; xxxiii. 23, &c.;
Plin. H. N. xxxvii. § 16; Dio Cass. xliii. 21).
The procession was then marshalled in the
Campus, where it was met by the senate and
magistrates (Josephus, l. c.). Generally the
following order was preserved, but naturally
there were variations under special circumstances
(a good instance of such is the triumph of
Aurelian, described in Vita Aurel. 33).
1. The magistrates and senate (Dio Cass. li.
21, 9).
2. Trumpeters (tubicines: Plut. Aem. Paul.
33; Appian, Pun. 66).
3. The tangible results of the victory, in-
cluding spoils of armour, objects materially or
artistically valuable, representations of conquered
countries, cities, rivers, &c., by means of pictures,
models, and allegorical figures (Liv. xxvi. 21, 7;
Cic. Phil. viii. 6, 18; Tac. Ann. ii. 41 ; Plin.
H. N. v. § 5. In one of the inner reliefs on the
Arch of Titus all the bearers of these are
represented wearing laurel wreaths), together
with boards on which were painted the names
of the vanquished nations and countries. With
these were displayed the golden crowns presented
to the general by the towns of the conquered
province (Liv. xxvi. 21, xxxiv. 52; Plut. Aem.
Paul. 34. In earlier times they were of laurel:
Gell. v. 6, 7).
4. The white oxen destined for sacrifice, with
gilded horns, decorated with vittae and serta,
attended by the priests with their implements,
and followed by the Camilli, bearing in their
hands paterae and other sacred vessels and
instruments (Plut. Aem. Paul. 33).
5. The principal captives in chains (e.g.
Perseus, Jugurtha, Wercingetorix, Zenobia. The
dead Cleopatra was represented by an image:
Dio Cass. li. 21, 8).
6. The lictors of the general in red tunics,
their fasces wreathed with laurel (Appian, Pun.
66. The fasces were probably without the
axes: so in the relief of the Arch of Titus. See,
however, Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 129; LICTOR,
p. 66 a).
7. Citharisiae or ludiones, dancing and singing
as if in exultation over the conquered enemy
(Appian, l.c.; cf. Dionys. vii. 72).
8. The general himself, in a chariot of circular
form (Zon. vii. 21), drawn by four horses.
Triumphal chariot: from a relief. (Montfaucon,
Ant. Ezp. iv. pl. cv.)
As to the use of white horses, v. Sup. After
Camillus (Liv. v. 23 ; Dio Cass. lii. 13; Plut.
Cam. 7), we hear of no general venturing to
introduce them till Caesar (Dio Cass. xliii. 14,
3), but his example appears to have been
regularly followed by the emperors (Suet. Nero,
25; Plin. Pan. 22. The Augustan poets mention.
it as an ordinary detail: Ovid, A. A. i. 214;
Propert. v. 1, 32). Both chariot and horses
were adorned with laurel (Suet. Aug. 94; Ov.
Ea: Pont. ii. 1, 58; Flor. i. 5, 6; Zon. vii. 8). In
the 3rd century, if the triumph was over the
Parthians (triumphus Persicus), the chariot was
drawn by four elephants (Vita Alex. Sev. 57, 4;
Gord. Tert. 27, 9; and cf. , the coin of Dio-
cletian and Maximian described in Cohen,
Médailles Impériales, vi. p. 479, 3). Pompey
had unsuccessfully attempted to gain per-
mission for this at his African triumph (Plut.
Pomp, 14: cf. Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, ii.
p. 586, note 7). Incense was burnt in front of
the chariot (Appian, Pun. 66). The dress of the
general (v. Sup, as to its general character).
consisted of a flowered tunic (tunica palmata)
and gold embroidered robe (toga picta), both of
purple (Plut. Aem. Paul. 34; Liv. x. 7, 9). In
his right hand he carried a laurel bough (Plut.
Aem. Paul. 32; Plin. H. N. xv. § 137), and in
his left an ivory sceptre crowned by an eagle.
(Dionys. iii. 61, v. 47; Wal. Max. iv. 4, 5; Juv.
x. 43). In early times his body seems to have
been painted red (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 111, and
v. Sup.). On his head was a wreath of laurel
(Plin. H. N. xv. § 137). Behind him stood a
public slave, holding over his head the heavy
golden crown of Jupiter, made in the form of an
oak-wreath (Juv. x. 39; Plin. H. W. xxxiii. § 11,
xxxviii. § 7; Zon. vii. 21; Tertull. de Cor. 13).
That this culmination of human and almost
divine honours might not provoke the evil

TRIUMPHUS
TRIUMPHUS 897
consequences of pride, invidia, and the evil eye,
an amulet (fascinus) was worn by him or was
attached to the chariot, together with a little
bell and a scourge (Plin. H. N. xxviii. § 39;
Zon. vii. 21 ; Macrob. Sat. i. 6, 9); and the
slave who rode beside him whispered in his ear,
“Respice post te, hominem te memento” (Ter-
tull. Apol. 33, confirmed by Arrian, Diss. Epict.
iii. 24, 85, and Plin. H. N. l. c.; cf. Juv. x. 41).
We can hardly suppose that the slave was
present in the case of an emperor. The monu-
ments almost invariably show a figure of Vic-
tory beside the emperor in the chariot, holding
a crown of laurel over his head. A state chair
(Sella) also appears to have belonged to the
triumphator, for such is mentioned in connexion
with the other triumphal distinctions (Liv. x. 7,
9; Dio Cass. xliv. 6; Suet. Jul. 76; Mommsen,
Staatsr. i. p. 423). His children who were
under age (of both sexes) rode with him in the
chariot or on the horses (Liv. xlv. 40, 8; Val.
Max. v. 7, 1 ; 10, 2;-Tac. Ann. ii. 41; Vita M.
Ant. Phil. 12, 10; Cic. pro Mur. 5, 11; Suet.
Tib. 6). His grown-up sons rode behind (Liv. xlv.
40, 4) after the apparitores (Appian, Pun. 66),
together with his legati and tribuni (Cic. in Pis.
25, 60; Appian, Mithr. 117). Then sometimes
came the Roman citizens whom he had rescued
from slavery by his victory, in the character of
freedmen (Liv. xxx. 45, 5; xxxiii. 23, 6; xxxiv.
52, 12). The rear was brought up by the whole
body of the infantry in marching order, their
spears adorned with laurel (Plin. H. N. xv.
§ 133), shouting ſo triumphe (Varro, L. L. v.
7; Hor. Od. iv. 2, 49; Tibull. ii. 6, 121), and
singing songs which contained the praises of the
general as well as the coarsest ribaldry at his
expense (Liv. iv. 20; 53, 11, &c.;-Suet. Jul.
49, 51 ; Mart. i. 5, 3 ; other references given in
Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii. p. 588, note 2. See
also Munro, Criticisms and Elucidations of
Catullus, p. 90).
The procession entered the city by the Porta
Triumphalis [Cic. in Pis. 23, 55. It seems to
have been between the Temple of Isis and the
Circus Flaminius (Joseph. B. J. vii. 5, 4), and
was apparently only opened on these occasions,
as there was a special resolution of the senate
in the case of the funeral of Augustus, Tac.
Ann. i. 8]. Here sacrifices were offered to
certain deities (Joseph. B. J. vii. 5, 4). It then
passed through the Circus Flaminius, and
through or at least near the theatres in the
same region, as affording places for the crowds
of spectators (Plut. Lucull. 37, Joseph. B. J. l.c.),
and probably entered the city proper by the
Porta Carmentalis, as we know that the Vela-
brum (apparently the Vicus Tuscus) and Forum
Boarium were traversed (Suet. Jul. 37; Cic.
Verr. i. 59, 154). The circuit of the Palatine
hill was then made by the Circus Maximus (Cic.
l. c.; Plut. Aem. Paul. 32), and the road between
the Palatine and the Caelian, at the end of which
the Via Sacra was reached, which conducted
the procession to the Forum (Hor. Od. iv. 2,35;
Epod. 7, 8). The route probably passed along
the south side of the Forum (Jordan, Capitol,
Forum, und Sacra Via, Berlin, 1881). From
...the end of the Via Sacra started the Clivus
Capitolimus, and as the general was about to
ascend this the principal captives were led aside
into the adjoining prison, and there put to death
WOL. II.
(Cic. Verr. v. 30, 77; Liv, xxvi. 13; Trebell
Poll. Trig. Tyr. 22. Originally such were
beheaded with the axe ; in later times they were
strangled ; cf. Liv. xxvi. 13, 15, with Trebell.
Poll. Trig. Tyr. 22, 8, and see Mommsen, Staatsr. i.
129). To spare the lives of such captives was
exceptional. The earliest case is that of Perseus,
spared by Aemilius Paulus (Plut. 37), whose
example was followed by Pompey (Appian,
Mithr. 117), Tiberius in his Pannonian triumph
of A.D. 12 (Ov. ea Pont. ii. 1, 45), and Aurelian
in the case of Zenobia (Trebell. Poll. Trig. Tyr.
30, 27). The sacrifice in the temple could not
begin , until the execution had taken place
(Joseph. B. J. vii. 5, 6).
The general then ascended to the Capitol
(Alexander Severus went on foot, Vita, 57, 4).
When the temple was reached, the laurel branch
and the wreaths of the fasces were deposited in
the lap of the god (Sen. Consol. ad Helv. 10;
Plin. H. W. xv. § 40; Plin. Pan. 8; Sil. Ital. xv.
118; Stat. Silv. iv. 1, 41; Pacatus, Paneg. in
Theod. 9, 5), and in later times a palm branch
(cf. Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii. p. 589, note 2).
Then the victims were sacrificed. The insignia
triumphi, i.e. the most notable spoils (e.g. the
recovered standards of Crassus, Dio Cass. liv. 83,
and no doubt those of Varus, Tac. Ann. ii. 41),
were afterwards placed in the temple of Mars
Ultor (Suet. Aug. 29). Finally, the general
with the senate was entertained at a public feast
in the temple (Liv. xlv. 39). It was the
practice to invite the consuls to this banquet,
and then to send a message requesting them not
to come, in order, doubtless, that the triumpha-
tor might be the most distinguished person in
the company (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 80; Wal. Max.
ii. 8, 6). A similar entertainment was pro-
vided for the soldiers, and for the citizens in the
temple of Hercules (Plut. Lucull. 37; Athen.
v. p. 221 f).
The whole of the proceedings, generally
speaking, were brought to a close in one day;
but when the quantity of plunder was very
great, and the troops very numerous, a longer
period was required for the exhibition. Thus
the Macedonian triumph of Flaminius continued
for three days in succession (Liv. xxxix. 52; cf.
Plut. Aem. Paul. 32).
The honours of the triumphator did not end
with the day. At public spectacles he appeared
with the laurel wreath (Plin. H. W. xv. § 126;
Val. Max. iii. 6, 5), and in exceptional cases in
the vestis triumphalis (e.g. L. Aemilius Paulus
and Pompey; Auctor, de Vir, ill. 56; Well. ii.
40). It was customary to provide him at the
public expense with the site for a house, such
mansions being called triumphales domus (Plin.
H. N. xxxvi. § 112). His name was inscribed in
the Fasti Triumphales (C. I. L. i. p. 453); he
was allowed to decorate the entrance to his
house with trophies (Plin. H. N. xxxv, § 7; Cic.
Phil. ii. 28; Liv. x. 7, 9); and a laurel-wreathed
statue standing erect in a triumphal car, dis-
played in the vestibulum, transmitted his fame
to posterity (Juv. viii. 3). Finally, after death,
his ashes might be deposited within the walls
of the city (Plut. Quaest. Rom. 79; Mommsen,
Staatsr. i. p. 426, note 1).
Triumphus in Monte Albano consisted in
a procession to the temple of Jupiter Latiaris
on the Alban Mount. It took place jure con-
3 M
898 TRIUMPHUS
TRIUMPHUS
sularis imperii (Liv. xxxiii. 23, 3), sine publica
auctoritate (Liv. xlii. 21, 7), but was only re-
sorted to in case of the refusal of a regular
triumph by the senate, and was regarded, as an
inferior distinction (Liv. xxxiii. 23). Although
it was recorded in the Fasti Triumphales, it was
not equivalent to a triumph in the city; for
when Marcellus in B.C. 211 was refused the
greater but allowed the lesser triumph (ovatio),
he still celebrated a triumph on the Alban
Mount on the day before the ovation (Liv. xxvi.
21, 6). The first instance was C. Papirius Maso
in B.C. 231 (Plin. H. N. xv. § 126; Wal. Max. iii.
6, 5), and his example was followed by many
others (Liv. xxvi. 21, 6; xxxiii. 23, 3; xlii. 21,
7; xlv. 38;-Plut. Marc. 22).
Triumphus Navalis.-The earliest on record
was celebrated by C. Duilius for his naval vic-
tory over the Carthaginians in B.C. 260 (Liv.
Ep. xvii.; Flor. i. 8, 10; Plin. H. N. xxxiv.
$20). Other instances are M. Aemilius Paulus
in B.C. 254 (Liv. xlii. 20, 1), C. Lutatius Catulus
in B.C. 241 (Val. Max. ii. 8, 2), Q. Fabius
Labeo in B.C. 189 (Liv. xxxvii. 60, 6), Cn. Octa-
vius in B.C. 167 (Liv. xlv. 42, 2); and see the
Fasti Triumphales for the years 497, 498, 513,
526. Of its special details nothing is known.
C. Duilius and M. Aemilius Paulus erected
columnae rostratae to commemorate their vic-
tories (Liv. xlii. 20, 1).
Triumphus Castrensis.-A procession of the
soldiers through the camp in honour of an
officer, inferior to the general, who had per-
formed a brilliant exploit (Liv. vii. 36).
Under the Empire, when the monarch became
the sole possessor of the imperium and all com-
manders were only legati acting under his aus-
pices, the condition stated above as to the
possession of the imperium was strictly applied,
and the precedent created by Caesar in favour
of his legati was only followed by Augustus at
the beginning of his reign (Dio Cass. liv. 12;
Suet. Aug. 38). Even in the case of the holders
of the secondary proconsulare imperium, the
triumph became rare, and then only if they
were members of the imperial family (Dio Cass.
liv. 24 gives B.C. 14 as the date of the change,
when Agrippa refused a triumph as he had done
in B.C. 19, Dio Cass. liv. 11). Triumphs were
celebrated by Tiberius (B.C. 7, Vell. ii. 97, Dio
Cass. lv. 6; and A.D. 12, Well. ii. 121, Suet. Tib.
20), Germanicus (A.D. 26, Tac. Ann. ii. 41), and
Titus (A.D. 71, associated with his father, Suet.
Tit. 6). Up to the time of Caligula the pro-
consuls of Africa held a kind of independent
position with an imperium of their own, and
they no doubt retained the rights and practices
of the republican magistrates with regard to the
triumph. Triumphs of such are recorded for
B.C. 21 and 19 (Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 127,
note 5; 132, 133, notes 1 and 2; Res Gestae D.
Aug. p. 21).
Under these circumstances the custom was
introduced of bestowing the ornamenta trium-
phalia, i.e. the right to appear on festivals in so
much of the triumphal dress as generals had
been allowed to retain under the Republic (viz.
the laurel wreath, v. Sup. Cf. Mommsen, Staatsr.
i. 422,423; Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii. 591. At
the triumph of Claudius in A.D. 44 M. Crassus
Frugi appeared in the tunica palmata, but this
was an exceptional honour; the others who
obtained the ornamenta on that occasion wore the
praetexta : Suet. Claud. 17; cf. Dio Cass. li. 20,
2), and, after the completion of the Forum of
Augustus in B.C. 2, to have a bronze statue
(statua laureata) erected there (Dio Cass. lv. 10.
Cf. Tac. Ann. iv. 23: perhaps to be distin-
guished from the statua triumphalis, Plin.
H. N. xxxiii. § 131; Tac. Ann. xv. 72,
Hist. i. 79, Agr. 40; Plin. Ep. ii. 7; Peine,
de Ornamentis Triumphalibus, c. iv.). Like
the triumph, they were decreed by the
senate sitting in the temple of Mars Ultor
(Dio Cass. lv. 10; Suet. Aug. 29). The senate
only is generally said to grant the honour (Tac.
Ann. ii. 52; Hist. iv. 4), and even to the em-
peror himself (Suet. Claud. 17); but in the
inscriptions of the time of Vespasian and later
the words auctore imperatore are generally added,
and perhaps this was the case earlier (Tac. Ann.
iii. 72, Agr. 40 ; Dio Cass. lx. 23, 2: cf. Momm-
sen, Staatsr. i. 450, note 3). Under Augustus
they appear to have been granted only if the
conditions for a regular triumph were in exist-
ence (but cf. Dio Cass. li. 20, 2), excepting of
course the independent imperium. According to
Suetonius (Tib. 9), Tiberius was the first to
receive them, and there were numerous other
instances in the reign of Augustus (Suet. Aug.
38). Afterwards, owing to the indiscriminate
bestowal of the honour by the Julian emperors
(Tiberius rewarded delators with it, Dio Cass.
lviii. 16: cf. Tac. Ann. xi. 20, 3, xii. 3, 2; Suet.
Claud. 24; Nero, 15 ;–Dio Cass. lx. 23, 2; 31,
7), it was no longer regarded as such (Tac. Ann.
xiii. 53). Vespasian seems to have restored its
position for a time (Marquardt, Staatsveru. ii.
592), but the abuses reappeared under Domitian
(Plin. Ep. ii. 7). The last instance known is of
the time of Hadrian (C. I. L. iii. 2830). Forty-
eight in all have been collected by Peine. In
the time of the Antonines and later, when the
full triumphal dress was regularly worn by
every consul on entry into office and other state
occasions (Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 399, and note 4),
the only military distinction that remained was
a statua inter triumphales, i.e. in the Forum of
Trajan or some other public place reserved for
such memorials (C. I. L. vi. 1377, 1540, &c.:
cf. Trebell. Poll. Trig. Tyr. 21. See generally
Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 449; Marquardt, Staats-
verw. ii. 592; Peine, de Ornamentis Triumphali-
bus, Berlin, 1885).
The last triumph recorded is that of Diocle-
tian in A.D. 302 (Eutrop. 9, 27. Marquardt,
Staatsverw. ii. 591, n. 7, considers the so-called
triumph of Belisarius after the recovery of
Africa to have been rather a processus consularis:
Procop. B. Vand. 2, 9). The total number of
triumphs upon record down to this period
amounts to about 350 (Orosius, vii. 9, reckons
320 from Romulus to Vespasian).
After the triumph had assumed its distinctive
form, it seems to have been taken as the type
of a festival procession in which any of the
chief magistrates took part, and hence the pro-
cession of the Praetor Urbanus in the Circus
Maximus before the games of Apollo was
modelled on it (Juv. x. 36 sqq., xi. 194, similis
triumpho)-a fact which Mommsen is inclined
to attribute to the original connexion between
the ludi and the triumph, both being parts of
the public rejoicings after a victory (Staatsr. i.
TRIUMWIRI
TROJAE LUDUS 899
p. 397). It is remarkable that the same idea
seems to have influenced the funeral procession
of Augustus. (It passed through the Porta
Triumphalis, an image of Victory accompanied
the bier, and boards inscribed with the names
of the peoples he had conquered were carried.
See Tac. Ann. i. 8, 4; Suet. Aug. 100.) Under
the Empire the triumphal costume became an
official imperial dress (as early as Pompey, Well.
. ii. 40). Caesar appears to have intended to use
it on every public occasion (Dio Cass. xliv. 4;
cf. Plut. Caes. 61), but Augustus and his suc-
cessors wore it only at festivals and spectacles.
(Domitian, however, more freely: Dio Cass.
lxvii. 4, 3; Mommsen, Staatsr. i. pp. 401, 423.)
Its use by the consuls when they entered upon
their office has been mentioned above.
[G. Mº. N. R.]
TRIUMVIRI. [TRESVIRI.] -
TROCHUS (rpoxás, kpticos), a hoop (Ar-
temid. i. 55;-Ov. Trist. iii. 12, 19; Art. Am.
iii. 338, &c.). The Greek and Roman boys used
to exercise themselves like ours by trundling a
hoop. It was a bronze ring, and had sometimes
bells attached to it (Mart. xi. 21, 2; xiv. 168,
169). It was propelled by means of a hook with
a wooden handle, called clavis (Propert. iv. 14)
and éAarhp. From the Greeks this custom
passed to the Romans, who consequently adopted
the Greek term (Hor. Carm. iii. 24, 57). The
hoop was used at the GYMNASIUM (Propert. l.c.;
Ovid, Trist. ii. 485); and therefore, on one of
the gems in the Stosch Collection at Berlin,
which is engraved in the subjoined woodcut, it
is accompanied by the vase of oil and the laurel
branch, the signs of effort and of victory. On
each side of this we have represented another
gem from the same collection. Both of these
exhibit naked youths trundling the hoop by
means of the hook or key. These show the size
of the hoop, which in the middle figure has also
three small rings or bells on its circumference.
Pierres
(Winckelmann, Desc. des
pp. 452–455.)
Gravees,
Hoops, from ancient gems. º
On the use of rpoxbs to denote the potter’s
wheel, see FICTILE. (Blümner, Privatalterth.
293; Marquardt, Privatleben, 836.)
[J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TROJAE LUDUS [more frequently known
as Troja, in the phrase Trojam ludere; in Greek
T}v Tpoſav irreñoral, Dio Cass. xlix. 43; in Suet.
Cal. 18, Trojae decursio; in Tac. Ann. xi. 11,
ludicrum Trojae], an equestrian sham-fight, per-
formed in the Circus Maximus by boys of high
rank (sons of senators, according to Dio Cass.
l. c.). It was supposed to represent an exercise
introduced by Aeneas and the Trojans after their
landing in Italy, and celebrated afterwards by
Ascanius at Alba (Verg. Aen. v. 597). The
earliest mention in historical times is the cele-
bration by Sulla in his dictatorship B.C. 81
(Plut. Cat. 3, where it is called traičikh kal ispi,
itriraorta hu kaxodori Tpotav): the two boyish
leaders on this occasion were Aemilius Scaurus,
stepson of Sulla, and Cato the younger. Simi-
larly Julius Caesar, when he returned in triumph
to Rome and dedicated the temple of Venus,
celebrated thv in traortav rºy Tpotav kaxovuévnv
Taíðav Tów eitratpíðav karū to 3pxalov (Dio
Cass. xliii. 23): from the last word it may be
inferred that it was a custom older than Sulla,
in fact of unknown antiquity, as we should
imagine from the traditions connected with it.
Augustus celebrated it certainly twice: first in
B.C. 27 (Dio Cass. xlix. 43; li. 22; liii. 1;
liv. 26), on which occasion Tiberius at the age
of 15 was “ductor turmae puerorum majorum ”
(Suet. Tib. 6); secondly at the dedication of
the temple of Marcellus, B.C. 12, when his
grandson Gaius took a chief part. He then
discontinued the celebration because Asinius
Pollio complained in the Senate that it was a
dangerous sport, in which his grandson Aeserninus
had broken his leg (Suet. Aug. 43). Caligula
celebrated it in the first year of his reign when
he dedicated the temple of Augustus, and again
at the funeral games of Drusilla: and of Nero's
boyhood we are told that he often “Trojam lusit”
up to the age of 11 (Suet. Ner. 7).
The method of celebration may be gathered
from Verg. Aen. v. 553–603. In this account
the Trojan boys are first marshalled in three
squadrons of twelve each, under Ascanius,
Priamus (son of Polites), and Atys. They come
forward ceremoniously, much as the gladiators
did, or as the performers in a modern bull-fight
do now, to salute the spectators before the
combat begins: then they break up their triple
formation, and, forming into two equal bands,
retire to opposite stations. Such we take to be
the meaning of “discurrere pares” and “di-
ductis solvere choris’: the agnen is the pro-
cessional line in the opening ceremony; the
chor; the two opposing squadrons. After, this,
they charged and retired with evolutions so com-
plicated that they seemed to Virgil (supposing
him to be an eye-witness of what he describes)
comparable to nothing but the Cretan Laby-
rinth or troops of dolphins at play. It is hard
to explain why Virgil introduces the difficulty
of three leaders and three companies. In all
historical accounts there were two: in the
earliest (in the time of Sulla) it is expressly
said that there could be only two leaders; and
when three candidates appeared, Scaurus, Cato,
and Sextus Pompeius, it was necessary that one
should retire (Plut. Cat. 3): similarly in Tae.
Ann. xi. 11 we find two leaders named, Britanni-
cus and Domitius. We can hardly doubt that
Virgil, under cover of the story of Aeneas, is
describing what he actually saw, and this must
have been the celebration in B.C. 27. In that
contest we know from Suet. Tib. 12 that Tiberius
was one leader, and from the same chapter it
may be inferred that Marcellus was another.
We may surmise that Virgil introduced this
elaborate account for the same reason which led
him to bring in the touching allusion to Mar-
cellus in Aen. vi. There may have been a third
leader in the preliminary display on that occa-
sion, to give distinction to Sextus Appuleius, the
son of Augustus's colleague in the consulship,
who, as appears from Tac. Ann. ii. * stºrwards
M 2.

900 TROPAEUM
TROPAEUM
married Marcella, daughter of Octavia. AS-
suming then that in the real celebration of
B.C. 27 there were three leaders for the pro-
cession, and that for the combat two lines were
formed according to custom under Tiberius and
Marcellus, we may suppose that Virgil makes
three corresponding leaders in his Troja, viz.
Julus and Atys out of compliment to Augustus,
and a Priamus as appropriate to the Trojan
{{Iſle. [G. E. M.]
TROPAEUM (Tpératov), a trophy, a sign
and memorial of victory, which was erected on
the field of battle where the enemy had turned
(Tpérw, Tpotri)) to flight, and, in case of a vic-
tory gained at sea, on the nearest land. The
expression for raising or erecting a trophy is
Tpotraſov orrāoral or orjoraoréat, to which may be
added a genitive with or without àtrö or kará.
The trophy was often left standing for a number
of years (see Thuc. iv. 67, v. 10; and the
passages of Pausanias cited below).
When the battle was not decisive, or each
party considered it had some claims to the
victory, both erected trophies (Thucyd. i. 54,
105; ii. 92). Trophies usually consisted of the
arms, shields, helmets, &c., of the enemy that
were defeated; and from the descriptions of
Virgil and other Roman poets, which have
reference to the Greek rather than to the
Roman custom, it appears that the spoils and
arms of the vanquished were placed on the lopped
trunk of a tree, which was fixed on an elevation
(Verg. Aen. xi. 5; Serv. ad loc.; Lucan, i. 135;
Stat. Theb. iii. 707; Juv. x. 133; Mayor ad
loc.). It was consecrated to some divinity with
an inscription (étríypapºua), recording the names
of the victors and of the defeated party (Eurip.
Phoen. 583; Schol. ad loc.; Paus. v. 27, § 7;
Verg. Aen. iii. 288; Ovid, Ar. Am. ii. 744;
}
;
;
º
º
§
C
:º
º
Trophy of Augustus. (Mus. Capitol. i. tav. v.)
Tac. Ann. ii. 22); whence trophies were re-
garded as inviolable, which even the enemy
were not permitted to remove (Dio Cass. xlii.
58). Sometimes, however, a people destroyed a
trophy, if they considered that the enemy had
erected it without sufficient cause, as the
Milesians did with a trophy of the Athenians
(Thucyd. viii. 24). That rankling and hostile
feelings might not be perpetuated by the con-
tinuance of a trophy, it seems to have been
originally part of Greek international law that
trophies should be made only of wood and not of
stone or metal, and that they should not be
repaired when decayed (Plut. Quaest. Rom.
c. 37, p. 273 c; Diod. xiii. 24). Hence we are
told that the Lacedaemonians accused the
Thebans before the Amphictyonic council, be-
cause the latter had erected a metal trophy
(Cic. de Invent. ii. 23, 69). It was not, however,
uncommon to erect such trophies. Plutarch
(Alcib. 29, p. 207 d) mentions one raised in the
time of Alcibiades, and Pausanias, (ii. 21, § 9;
iii. 14, § 7; v. 27, § 7) speaks of several which
he saw in Greece. (Wachsmuth, Hell. Alt.
vol. ii. pt. i. p. 424, 1st ed. ; Schömann, Ant.
Jur. Publ. Graec. p. 370; Droysen, Gr. Kriegs-
alterth. p. 94.)
The trophies erected to commemorate naval
victories were usually ornamented with the
beaks or acroteria of ships [ACROTERIUM ;
ROSTRA]; and were generally consecrated to
Poseidon or Neptune. Sometimes a whole ship .
was placed as a trophy (Thucyd. ii. 84, 92).
The Macedonian kings never erected trophies,
for the reason given by Pausanias (ix. 40, $4),
and hence the same writer observes that
Alexander raised no trophies after his victories
over Dareius and in India. The Romans too, in
early times, never erected any trophies on the
field of battle (Florus, iii. 2), but carried home
the spoils taken in battle, with which they
decorated the public buildings, and also the
private houses of individuals. [SPOLIA.] Sub-
sequently, however, the Romans adopted the
Greek practice of raising trophies on the field
of battle: the first trophies of this kind were
erected by Domitius Ahenobarbus and Fabius
Maximus in B.C. 121, after their conquest of the
Allobroges, when they built at the junction of
the Rhone and the Isara towers of white stone,
upon which trophies were placed adorned with
the spoils of the enemy (Florus, l.c.; Strabo, iv.
p. 185). Pompey also raised trophies on the
Pyrenees after his victories in Spain (Strabo, iii.
p. 156; Plin. H. N. iii. § 18; Dio Cass. xli. 24;
Sall. ap. Serv. in Verg. Aen. xi. 6); Julius
Caesar did the same near Zela, after his victory
over Pharnaces (Dio Cass. xlii. 48), and Drusus,
near the Elbe, to commemorate his victory over
the Germans (Dio Cass. li. 1; Florus, iv. 12).
Still, however, it was more common to erect.
some memorial of the victory at Rome than on
the field of battle. The trophies raised by
Coin of M. Furius Philus.
Marius to commemorate his victories over
Jugurtha and the Cimbri and Teutones, which
were cast down by Sulla and restored by Julius











TROSSULI
TUBA 901
º Imust have been in the city (Suet. Jul.
under the Empire, the erection of triumphal
arches was the most common way of commemo-
rating a victory, many of which remain to the
present day. [ARCUs.] We find trophies on
the Roman coins of several families. The
above coin of M. Furius Philus is an example;
on the reverse, Victory or Rome is represented
crowning a trophy. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
TRO'SSULI. [EQUITEs, Vol. I. p. 755.]
TBULLA. 1. A ladle for stirring and
skimming (= ropüvm), in which sense trua also is
Rused.
2. Trulla vinaria, a sort of ladle used like a
cyathus for taking wine from the crater (Varro,
J. L. v. 118; Cic. Verr. iv. 27, 62; Hor. Sat. ii.
3, 144). It probably differed from the cyathus
in having a shallower and flatter bowl at the
end of its long handle (manubrium). The
material was various, wooden or copper (Cat.
J. R. 13), silver (Cic. l.c.), or murrhina (Plin.
II. N. xxxvii. § 20). The passage in Mart. ix.
97 is altogether incompatible with the notion
(for which there is no authority) that the trulla
had holes like a strainer.
3. A mason's trowel for plastering walls,
whence trullisare (Pallad. R. R. i. 13; Isid.
Orig. xix. 18). This meaning also negatives the
idea of its being perforated. [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TRU'LLEUM. [PELvis.]
TRUTINA. [STATERA.]
TUBA (ord Ariyê), a bronze trumpet, dis-
tinguished from the cornu by being straight
while the latter was curved. Thus Ovid (Met.
i. 98):
** Non tuba directi non aeris cornua flexi.”
(Cf. Vegetius, iii. 5.) Forcellini in his Lexicon
(s. v. Tuba) is mistaken in supposing that Aulus
Gellius (v. 8) and Macrobius (Sat. vi. 8), who
copies him, intend to affirm that the tuba was
crooked. The words of the former do not mean
that both the lituus and the tuba were crooked,
but that both that kind of trumpet which was
called a lituus and also the staff of the augur
were crooked, and that it was doubtful which
of the two had lent its name to the other.
[LITUU.S.]
The ord Ntriy; or tuba was employed in war
for signals of every description (Thuc. v. 10,
vi. 69; Xen. Anab. iv. 4, 22; Tac. Hist. ii. 29;
Caesar, B. C. iii. 46; Liv. xxxix. 27). Droysen
remarks that the only passage in a Greek his-
• torian where képas appears to be used for a
Greek military signal is Xen. Anab. ii. 2, 4 ;
and that there képart is interpolated from
Cyrop. v. 3, 45. As regards Roman military
signals with tubae, cornua and bucina, see
ExERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 801.
The trumpet was used also at the games and
public festivals (Juv. vi. 249, x. 214; Verg.
Aen. v. 113; Ovid, Fast. i. 716), also at the
last rites to the dead (hinc tuba, candelae, Pers.
iii. 103; Verg. Aen. xi. 191; Ovid, Heroid. xii.
140), and Aulus Gellius. (xx. 2) tells us that
those who sounded the trumpet at funerals were
termed siticines, and used an instrument of a
peculiar form. The tones of the tuba are repre-
sented as of a harsh and fear-inspiring character
(fractos sonitus tubarum, Verg. Georg., iv. 72;
£erribilem Sonitum aere canoro, Aen. ix. 503),
In the later times of the Republic, and,
which Ennius (Serv. ad Verg. Aen. ix. 503;
Priscian, viii. 18, 103, ed. Krehl) endeavoured to
imitate in the line
“At tuba terribili sonitu taratantara dixit.”
The invention of the tuba is usually ascribed
by ancient writers to the Etruscans (Athenaeus,
iv. c. 82; Pollux, iv. 85, 87; Diodor. v. 40;
Serv. ad Verg. Aen. viii. 516; Clem. Alex.
Strom. i. p. 306), and the epithet Amarooax-
triykral (i.e. robber-trumpeters, Photius and
Hesych. S. v.; and Pollux, l.c.) would seem to
indicate that they were equally famous for
piracy and trumpeting. It is probable that the
a dxtriyê was of Lydian origin, and was made
known in Europe by the Tyrrhenian pirates.
It has been remarked that Homer never intro-
duces the ordàtriyê in his narrative but in
comparisons only . (Il. xviii. 219, xxi. 388;
Eustath. and Schol.), which leads us to infer
that although known in his time it had been
but recently introduced into Greece; and it is
certain that, notwithstanding its eminently
martial character, it was not until a late period
used in the armies of the leading states. By
the tragedians its Tuscan origin was fully re-
cognised: Athena in Aeschylus orders the deep-
toned piercing Tyrrhenian trumpet to sound
(Eumen. 567), Ulysses in Sophocles (Aj. 17)
declares that the accents of his beloved goddess
fell upon his ears like the tones of the brazen-
mouthed Tyrrhenian bell (kóðavos, i.e. the bell-
shaped aperture of the trumpet), and similar
epithets are applied by Euripides (Phoeniss. 1376,
Heraclid. 830), and other Greek (Auctor, Rhes.
988; Brunck, Anal. tom. ii. p. 142) and Roman
writers (Tyrrhenus clangor, Verg. Aen. viii. 526;
Stat. Theb. iii. 650; Tyrrhenae clangore tubae,
Silius, ii. 19). According to one account it was
first fabricated for the Tyrrhenians by Athena,
who in consequence was worshipped by the
Argives under the title of XàArvyč (Schol. ad
Hom. Il. xviii. 219; Pausan. ii. 21, § 3); while
at Rome the tubilustrium, or purification of
sacred trumpets, was performed on the last
day of the Quinquatrus. [QUINQUATRUS.]
In another legend the discovery is attributed
to a mythical king of the Tyrrhenians, Maleus,
Soldiers blowing Tubae and Cornua. (From Trajan's
Column.)
son of Hercules and Omphale (Lutat. ad Stat.
Theb. iv. 224, vi. 404; Hygin. Fab. 274; Schol.
ad Hom. l. c.); in a third to Pisaeus the
Tyrrhenian (Plin. H. W. vii. § 57; Photius,

902 TUBILUSTRUM
TUNICA
s, º, and Silius has preserved a tradition
(viii. 490), according to which the origin of
this instrument is traced to Vetulonii. (Müller,
Die Etrusher, iv. 1, 3, 4, 5.)
There appears to have been no essential differ-
ence in form between the Greek and Roman or
Tyrrhenian trumpets. Both were long, straight
bronze tubes gradually increasing in diameter,
and terminating in a bell-shaped aperture
(ków), and often having a horn mouth-piece.
They present precisely the same appearance on
monuments of very different dates, as may be
seen from the cuts annexed, the former of which
>axmyrris.
is from Trajan’s Column, and the latter from an
ancient fictile vase. (Hope, Costumes of the
Ancients, pl. 156.)
The scholiast on the Iliad (l.c.) reckons six
varieties of trumpets; but he speaks of metal
instruments generally: the first and fifth only
are true trumpets with a straight tube; the
first he calls the Grecian ºrd Arrºyº which Athena
discovered for the Tyrrhenians; the fifth, a Persian
trumpet, from its name kaaduvos, seems to have
been straight like a Greek ºrdariyº, but perhaps
slenderer; the sixth, termed by him kar’ efoxhy
the Tupamvikh ráAtrºyº, he describes as bent at
the extremity (kówa kekaaguévoy exouga);
but by this we must unquestionably understand
the sacred trumpet (i.eparukh ºrdariyº, Lydus, de
Mens. iv. 6), the lituus already noticed at the
beginning of this article. (Compare Lucan,
i. 431.) Of the others, the second and fourth
are not Greek and are of unknown form; the
third is a kāpyvč, which was a smaller Gallic
trumpet, somewhat bent like the lituus, and
ornamented with the head of some animal. (See
Cohen, Méd. Cons: xix. 3.) Reference may be
made for further details to Droysen, Gr. Kºegs-
alterth. 54; Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii. 552;
K. von Jan, in Baumeister, Denkmäler, 1657–
1662. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
TUBILU'STRUM [QUINQUATRus]
TUBUS, TUBULUS, TPIsrulla.
TUGURIUM, a peasant's hut of cottage
(Varro, R. R. iii. 1, 3: Cic. pro Sest. 43, 93).
It is probable that these dwellings in country
districts long retained the primitive material
for the walls of wooden planks, or sometimes
wattles, stuffed with turf. (For the same
material generally in ancient times, see Fest. Ep.
p. 12; cf. TABERNACULUM.) The roof was of
thatch (Vitruv. ii. 1, 5; Isid. Orig. xv. 8, 4;
cf. Ov. Fast. iii. 184); sometimes of bark (Plin.
H. W. xvi. § 35). As regards shape, in the
earliest times there is no doubt that the hut
was circular [for the origin of this shape, see
Domus, Vol. 1. p. 654], with a conical roof
covered with thatch, turf, or skins, and kept in
place by branches or logs slung over it, as is
seen in the pottery “hut-urns,” of which an
example is given. From this shape was derived
Hut Urn, from Alba. (British Museum.)
that of the Tholos at Athens and the Aedes
Vestae at Rome [PRYTANEUM, p. 514 al. How
long it was retained for the huts in Italian
rural districts it is impossible to say, but we
may assume that it was gradually superseded by
a rectangular form, though the rude material
for the walls and roofs was in the poorer
districts unchanged. (Cf. Werg. Ecl. i. 69;
Marquardt, Privatleben, 216.) [G. E. M.]
TULLIANUM. [CARGER.]
TUMULTUS, TUMULTUARII. [ExER-
citus, Vol. I. p. 805 b.]
TU'NICA. The x-rºw or tunica was a shirt
or shift, and served as the chief under-garment
of the Greeks and Romans, both men and women.
1. GREEK. In the earliest period, known to
us by the finds in pre-historic graves, its use
seems to have been unknown, a loin-cloth or
apron [SUBLIGACULUMJ being its predecessor.
In Homer, however, the linen xºrºv had
already become part of the regular costume of
men, though it was not yet worn by women,
who retained the réiraos as their sole garment
[PALLA]. That this Homeric Xºrºv was of
linen and not of wool is shown by many
passages and by the epithets used of it. The
locus classicus is 0d. xix. 232, where the shirt of
Odysseus is said to have shone like an onion
skin; to have glistened like the sunlight, and
yet to have been soft. Besides gºaXáels (cf. 0d.
x. 60), the epithets vºyd reos (Il. ii. 43), etºwn-
ros (17. Aviii. 596), and effºxworros (Hymn. Ap.
Pyth. 25) are applied to it, and all of these apply
to linen better than to wool. This xºrºv or
shirt was worn under a woollen cloak or mantle
[PALHIUMJ during the day, but was taken off on
going to bed (cf. 0d. i. 437, of Telemachus,
waxarby 3’ trºuve xerºva). It was worn


TUNICA
TUNICA 903
without a cloak indoors (cf. oioxtrov, Od. xiv.
488), and even outdoors when taking active
exercise, as in dancing (Il. xviii. 595). It was
also worn under the corslet (0&paş) in time of
war (cf. Il. iii. 357; vii. 251). This particular
form of tunic is called in Il. v. 111 (cf. Il.
xxi. 31) orpetros xtrów, and the epithet has
given much difficulty to all commentators since
Aristarchus. He explained it as meaning a coat
of scale-armour (cf. Apollon. Lea.). Another in-
terpretation, however, was given by Aristonicus,
who took orpetrºros to mean “well-spun * (cf.
Schol. ad Îl. xxi. 31), and this seems on the
whole the more probable meaning (cf. Studniczka,
Beiträge, p. 63). Of the shape and size of the
Xtröv there are but few decisive hints in Homer.
There is the mention of the trailing shirt of
Ionians (Il. xiii. 685, "Iadves éAkextraves: cf.
Hymn. Ap. Del. 147), but this is commonly
held to be a late insertion. All we can say is
that the warrior naturally wore a short xutdºv,
whatever that in ordinary use may have been
like. That he used a girdle when wearing it
under a coat of mail seems unquestionable, but
there is no evidence that it was girded in
ordinary life.
The Homeric Xtröv was made from the linen
cloth that came from the household loom, by
sewing up the side. It was accordingly an
évôvua (cf. 80, Il. xviii. 416; Sãoraro, Il. xxiii.
739; 50wev, Od. xv. 61; indutus), “put on,” not
wrapped round the body, like the trétraos of
women (cf. PALLIUM). It does not seem, like
the later forms, to have been fastened at the
shoulders with brooches or pins; at any rate
these are not mentioned. The Homeric Xtröv
appears to have been unornamented except for a
fringe (cf. reputóeis, Od. xix. 242), probably left
from the weaving, like that on modern towels.
[TELA, p. 766 a.]
In the period which followed the Epic age, the
long xitóv came into almost universal use as
the costume of men in time of peace, and at the
same time was adopted by women. The account
of how it became part of the costume of the
Athenian women is told by Herodotus in a pas-
sage (v. 88) explained in the article PALLA.
The change was brought about by the adoption
of a linen shift worn under the primitive trétraos.
The process seems to have gone even further,
and led to the wearing of two shifts, one over the
other, for an edict of Solon forbids the wearing
of more than three garments by women (Plut.
Sol. 21, 5). The fashion, even if it is not re-
ferred to in this edict, is at least as old as the
6th century, and can be traced on early red-
figure vases and statuettes. It is chiefly on
these vases that the vast variety of forms which
existed in classical times begin to appear. They
may be roughly classified as (1) those which are
rectangular and have no sleeves, except the half-
sleeves formed by gathering the material together
with a girdle at the waist; and (2) those
which have sleeves added, either of a different
piece of stuff or specially woven at the top.
Both have the sides sewn up. Taking the
first class, there are two main forms, –those in
which the top is left open, and the garment
fastened on the shoulders by brooches or pins.
This shape is shown in fig. 1, which represents
a rectangle of cloth, the old réirãos in fact,
with the ends sewn together and the top folded
over all round. This fold is not always present,
but is very common. It is usually, but erro-
neously, known
to archaeologists
as the 6ttr?\ots or
6ttrāotölov, but
it was really
called the ātrā-
Trvyua (cf. Böh-
lau, de re Ves-
tiaria, p. 17).
The garment was
fastened to the
shoulders by
brooches at a
and a', b and b'.
If sleeves were
wished for, they
could be formed
by the simple process of pinning up the top from
the shoulder downwards, as in fig. 2. In this
Fig. 2. Statuettes from Herculaneum. (Mus. Borbon.)
case, however, there would be no &mdarrvyua.
The second form of this class (1) is shown in
fig. 4. In it two
rectangles of cloth &
have been sewn to-W
gether on three sides,
in such a way that
a sack is formed
with a hole in the
bottom for the head
to go through, and
two holes at the
sides for the arms.
When girdled round
the waist, the seams
on each side of the
neck become sleeves.
This is seen on the
female figures in the
cut from the Harpy
Tomb, under THRO-
NUS. The second
class (xitëv xeipt-
ãarás), where the
sleeves were in a
separate piece, or at any rate formed by
cutting up the rectangular shape, were con-.
sidered less genuinely Greek than the former.
[MANICA.] Thus Herodotus tells as a charac-
teristic of the Persians that they wore sleeves
(vii. 61), and even in Roman times, when their
*
Fig. 3. Thalia.
(British Museum.)



904 TUNICA
TUNICA
use was universal, it was looked on as in origin
a barbaric fashion (Verg. Aen. ix. 616). In Art
such sleeves form part
of the typical Asiatic
costume on vase-paint-
ings and other monu-
ments. Yet even in
the monuments there
are figures like the
handmaid on the
grave-stone of Thrasi-
klea, under STELE,
with quite tight
sleeves. They also are
sometimes seen on old
men ; and, to judge
by the inscriptions, in which xelpiäorbs xutov-
to icos is mentioned, were in common use with
women. In later times a sleeved shirt formed
part of the traditional costume of the comic
actor [see cut under SOCCUs]. It is not easy
to give an account of the make of such a
garment; but one form of it which belongs to
the Hellenistic period, though probably much
older, has come down to us in the linen tunics
found, in the Fayoum. Most of these come
from Coptic graves, and many are in a state of
perfect preservation. They have been found in
such numbers that few large museums are with-
out specimens. The best English collection is
at South Kensington. The general shape of the
garment as it came from the loom is shown in
fig. 5; a kind of cross with very thick vertical
and very thin
trans verse
bar. This is
folded double
and the sides
sewn together.
The arms of
the cross then
form sleeves,
and form a
shirt, the head
being thrust
through a slit
in the centre left while weaving (fig. 6). This
form of xtrav is usually ornamented with two
embroidered bands [CLAVUs] falling from the
— shoulders before and
sº ºms sº º ºr º- behind, giving the ap-
|- ==== * * * **** * * *
Fig. 4
|-
—
—
Aºig.5
== ſ pearance of a surplice
| e : and stole seen in front.
| Fig. 6 : It is indeed the direct
i ; ancestor of the sur-
£1–1.
plice, and may be seen
in numberless Roman paintings at Pompeii and
elsewhere (cf. cuts under CLAVUS, Vol. I.
p. 455 a).
The methods of wearing these different forms
of the Xitav were very varied. It could be
worn long or short, girded or ungirded, alone
or in combination, with long or short &ró-
Truyua. To fix names to the different varieties
is a task which so far has baffled scholars
and archaeologists, even as far back as Roman
times. Thus, for instance, many attempts have
been made to discover definite differences be-
tween xutdºv, xitóviov, and xutovío icos, but
without success. That they were indefinite,
even in classical times, is shown by a glance at
the inscription recording the garments in the
treasury of Artemis at Brauron (C. I. G. i. 155;
C. I. A. ii. 754). In it xvrévuov is used ten,
Xıröv thirteen, and xutovía icos thirty times; .
but in each case defining epithets of colour,
material, pattern, shape, and size are added,
showing that the difference, if any, cannot have
lain in these obvious characteristics. The in-
scription disposes, if of nothing else, of the view
based on Ammonius (p. 148, Walcken. : xltav-
forkos uèv yöp 6 roß &vôpos xitóv, xitóvtov Šē
to ris Yvvaikos évôvua), that the xutovíokos
was the man's shirt, xitévuov the woman's shift.
The distinction, if there was any, must rather
be sought in the use of the diminutive, to pre-
vent a confusion of two shirts or shifts worn
one over the other; just as at Rome the tunica
interior was distinguished from the stola.
The epithets in the Brauron inscription, which
is the locus classicus on the subject, deserve a
detailed analysis. First as to colour, there were
shifts of white (Aevkós), purple (àAoup'yńs),
saffron [kpoicorós, common as a substantive in
Aristophanes, who also uses kpokaríðubv, in every
case meaning a xutów or xitéviov, and never a
indriov (PALLIUM), as Hermann (ed. Blümner,
p. 188) maintains]; sea-green (YAavketoos),
frog-green (Barpaxeuobs, cf. Batpaxts, a frog-
green garment, Arist. Eq. 1406), and yellow
(0áipuos). The material of which they were
made was hemp (a röttruos), fine flaxen linen
(äuäpyivos, cf. Aristoph. Lys. 150, xitovtotal
Toſs &uopyivots), and carded wool (ktevorós).
They were embroidered (troikixos, trepitroſkixos,
trapatroſkixos), and had patterns of stripes (Tvp-
'yoros) and spots (kardo ruictov). Some had
borders (repunymºrós, trapwºv čxel) of purple
(trapañoup'yés, TAarvaxovpyſis), the borders being
broad or narrow (äutvq is). The epithets re-
ferring to the shape and make of the xitów are
more difficult to explain; the commonest are
“double" (Surxotiv) and “single” (äTAoûv), and
probably signify that the former garment was
folded over at the top, forming an ātróttvywa,
the latter plain and without this bib-like fold.
This explanation would also apply to the difficult
word Surxots, and its diminutive 6ttraotoudv,
these simply being doubled shifts of the former
kind. If this is so, the huòutrāotövov may be
simply a shift of single thickness without the
upper fold, or else a doubled one with the ātó-
Trvyua coming down half its length (see second
cut under art. AEGIS). Of the remaining epi-
thets in the inscription, the most important are
those which mark off two shirts as “a man’s ”
(āvāpeſos) and “a boy’s ” (kaprès traičevos).
Turning to the monuments, we find on early
black-figured vases (1) that old men wear a long
ungirded xºrov under a xXaiva (see fig. of
Peleus under PALLIUM, p. 318 b). This form of
Xitav seems to have been known as the xutºv
àp600 réðios, which Pollux (vii. 49) says was
not girded. This fashion of dress becomes less
frequent in later monuments, a short xitów
reaching down to the knees taking its place.
This change is described by Thucydides (i. 6),
who says that it was due to a growing simplicity
of manners and the adoption of the Spartan
style of dress. This was chiefly seen in the
adoption of the Tpí8wv, a garment which, being
a mantle or plaid rather than a xitév, is to be
classed with the iudriov. [PALLIUM ; TRIBON.]
This long ungirded xºrdºv Šp600 réâtos remained

TUNICA.
TUNICA 905
the professional garb of flute-players and harpers
long after it had ceased to be fashionable in
ordinary use. The flute-player in the article
CAPISTRUM, and the well-known statue of Apollo
Citharoedus in the Vatican [see cut on p. 318],
both wear it. In early Greek vase-paintings,
charioteers also are nearly always represented in
this long xitév, leading the older archaeologists
in same cases to mistake them for women. An-
other form of Xırdºv, the short shirt of stout
stuff which artisans, labourers, and fishers wore,
the éðapits, has been described in an article by
itself [ExoMIS]. It gets its name from the fact
that it was worn with one shoulder bare. (2) The
women, on the other hand, in archaic art wear
the old Trétraos: but on early red-figure vases
and the female statues discovered in 1886 on the
Acropolis at Athens, they are shown wearing a
shift under their mantles. Later on in vase-
paintings and statuettes of the latter half of the
6th century, some are represented wearing two.
This was the custom in Hellenistic times, but is
seldom to be traced in the art of the 5th and
4th centuries. This is no doubt due to the
artistic elimination which during the best periods
of sculpture and painting led the artists to
idealise their drapery. When a more realistic
School grew up towards the end of the 4th
century, the double xurov is often seen on female
figures, especially on those of the Muses. (See
cut on p. 903.) This is the costume which
Praxinoa puts on in the famous xvth Idyl of
Theocritus, for the feast of Adonis at Alexan-
dria. She receives her visitor in négligé, wear-
ing only a xtraºv, but makes her outdoor toilet
by putting on another xirajv fastened at the
shoulders with a brooch (trepovaTpts, l. 21; cf.
l. 34), and completes it by wrapping a cloak
(&améxovov) round her.
It has since the time of Müller been cus-
tomary to divide the xtróves worn by Greek
women into two exhaustive divisions, Doric and
Ionic. He gave the name of Dorian chiton to
the xtröv oxtortós, which was worn by Spartan
girls. This, it has been shown in the article
PALLA, was the 3pxaím éorðhs which Herodotus
speaks of, identifying it with the Awpls é00ás
(v. 88). It was in fact a survival of the older
tréraos. The peculiarity of the Spartan woman
was that she wore it alone, being in fact uová-
arerXos (Eur. Hec. 933) without a xtrêv below.
This, as the side was open (orxia rös), was con-
sidered indecent in the rest of Greece, and many
are the sneers in the poets (Eur. Androm. 595).
The offence against modesty was made even
greater by not using a girdle (cf. Soph. Fr. 791,
scal Tāv veðprov, &s ér Šaroxos xºrdºv, 6vpalov
&pſpl Pumpbv Trrúaro’etat, ‘Eppuðvav, where &otoxos
means &@otos). It has been remarked in PALLA
that this garment was not called xitóv until
the 5th. century B.C., and it should be noted
that Herodotus in this passage is careful to call
it éa 6hs. It was , only because the Spartan
women wore it as a single garment that it got
the name Dorian. This, however, does not
imply that it was unknown in other parts of
Greece, where it was worn over an ordinary
Xırdºv, and could take several different forms.
The distinction between Dorian and Ionic should
in fact, if used, refer to material rather than
shape; for while the Dorian xtröv was of wool,
the Ionian was of linen. It was from early
times characteristic of the peoples of Asia Minor,
appearing for instance on archaic monuments,
like the statues from the avenue of the temple
of Branchidae, now in the British Museum, but
had already in the 6th century spread over
Greece proper. It was worn even in Sparta, and
appears on both men and women on most of the
early grave-reliefs found there, so that even on
this ground the distinction breaks down.
2. ROMAN. At Rome, as has been shown in
the article SUBLIGACULUM, the shirt or tunica
was not adopted until a comparatively late date.
This is all the stranger when one considers the
universality with which the Etruscans of the
5th and 6th centuries B.C. are depicted dressed
in it. However, in the last three centuries of the
Republic it was an indispensable garment, worn
under their cloaks by both men and women.
The man's tunica (tunica virilis) was prac-
tically identical with the last two forms of the
xitàv described above (figs. 5 and 6), being two
pieces of linen or woollen cloth sewn together
[cf. Varro, L. L. ix. 79, “Non si quis tunicam
in usu ita (inusitate) ita consuit ut altera
plagula sit angustis clavis, altera latis utraque
in suo genere caret analogia’’: cf. Suet. Aug. 94,
“Sumenti virilem togam lati clavi resuta ex
utraque parte ad pedes decidit”]. Sleeves—that
is to say, sleeves down to the wrist—were some-
times worn, but such tunicae manicatae (or
manuleatae) were considered effeminate (Gellius,
vi. (vii.) 12: “Tunicis uti virum prolixis utra
brachia et usque in primores manus ac prope in
digitos Romae atque in omni Latio indecorum
fuit. Eas tunicas Graeco vocabulo nostri chiro-
dotas appellaverunt, feminisque solis vestem longe
lated ue diffusam indecere exstrinaverunt: ” cf.
Cic. in Catil. ii. 10, 22; Suet. Jul. 45). Under
the Empire, however, such tunicae were the
ordinary wear of every one (cf. St. Augustine,
de doctr. Chr. iii. 2, 20, “Talares et manicatas
habere apud Romanos veteres flagitium erat
nunc autem honesto loco natis, cum tunicati sunt
non eas habere flagitium est *).
At Rome it was usual to wear two shirts,
one over the other, the under being called the
tunica interior or subucula. Both were in the
earliest times of wool, and indeed it was not
until under the Empire, in the 4th century A.D.,
that linen was commonly used for making tunicae.
The tunica was worn with a girdle fastened
round it at the loins, and its length could be
varied simply by pulling it through the girdle.
Quintilian says that it should just reach below
the knees in front and a little lower behind. If,
however it is a tunica with the latus clavus, it
is better to wear it without a girdle at all (xi. 3,
138–9, “Cui lati clavi jus non erit ita cingatur
ut tunicae prioribus oris infra genua pallum, pos-
terioribus ad medios poplites usque perveniant.
Nam infra mulierum est, supra centuriorum.
Ut purpurae recte descendant levis cura est.
Notatur interim negligentia. Latum habentium
clavus modus est ut sit paullum cinctis sum-
missior:” cf. Suet. Jul. 54). For active exercise,
when for instance one was travelling (Hor. Sat.
i. 5, 6), it was girded higher.
Indoors the girdle was thrown aside for the
sake of comfort (Hor. Sat. ii. 1, 73), but to appear
in public without it (discinctus), as Maecenas
often did (Sen. Ep. 114, 4), was considered
slovenly (cf. Hor. Epod. i. 34, discinctus nepos).
906 TUNICA
TURBO
It was equally untidy to let one’s shirt hang too
long, for this savoured of the shop-boy or the
woman rather than the gentleman (Plaut. Pseud.
1298, “Quis hic homo est cum tunicis longis
quasi cauponius P” 1303, “Sane genus hoc
muliebriosum est tunicis demissis; ” Cic. pro
Cluent. 40, 111; Hor. Sat. i. 2, 25; Propert. v.
2, 38, “Mundus demissis institor in tunicis”).
The tunica girt high and tight was the or-
dinary dress of a slave (Juv. iii. 93, “Horrenti
tunicam non reddere servo: ” cf. Hor. Sat. ii. 8,
70) and of free labourers (Hor. Ep. i. 7, 65).
If a cloak were worn by the slave, it would be
a Sagum or paenula, and Cato, the censor, con-
sidered an allowance of one tunica 3% feet long
and one sagum to each slave sufficient for two
years. This style of dress is well shown on the
figure from Trajan’s Column given as an illus-
tration to the article FUNDA. The tunica of
the legionary was practically the same as this,
as may be seen from representations of soldiers;
Roman legionary. (From Arch of Severus.)
the above figure, for instance, from the Arch of
Septimius Severus. The shirt worn by ordinary
citizens appears in the illustrations on p. 848.
The tunica mullebris, or shift of Roman women,
did not differ much from the Greek forms
described above. It was the custom, however,
to wear two shifts; the upper being called the
stola, the latter the tunica interior, subucula,
interula, or (in late Latin) camisia. The article
STOLA treats of the former, and so it is only the
subucula which remains to be spoken of. The
earliest form of this garment was the SUPPA-
RUM, the first-linen garment adopted at Rome.
It was worn with sleeves, if the stola were
without them, but otherwise, except at the
neck, is not visible in statues (cf. the statue of
Livia in the article PALLA), and is in most cases
not represented at all. Needless to say, litera-
ture is well-nigh silent about it. The regilla
or tunica recta in which the bride was clad on
the day of marriage is shown on several sarco-
phagus-reliefs. It did not differ in shape from
that in ordinary use, but, as is explained under
TELA (p. 769 a), was of a special texture.
(Boehlau, Quaestiones de re Westiaria Grae-
corum, Weimar, 1884; Studniczka, Beiträge zur
G. d. altgr. Tracht, Vienna, 1886; Helbig, Das
homerische Epos, 1887, pp. 115, 175, &c.; W.
Müller, Quaestiones Vestiariae, Göttingen, 1890;
Baumeister, Denkmäler, art. Chiton, Toga (Tu-
nica); Iwan Müller, Handbuch, Privataltertümer,
pp. 402, 413, 416, 422, 424, 431, 440, 804, 875,
927; Marquardt, Privatleben. See Index, s. v.
Tunica.) - [W. C. F. A.]
TURBO (orpóBixos, Béugiē), anything that
turns round with a whirring noise: hence (1) a
top (Cic. de Fato, 16, 42; Verg. Aen. vii. 378,
Tibull. i. 5, 3; Pers. iii. 51). In all these
passages the top is a “whipping-top,” except in
the passage of Cicero, where the argument (see
Gell. vii. 2) appears to imply a top which, set
going, is left to spin of itself, like a “humming-
top.” In Greek there seem to be distinct
words for the two kinds of tops (cf. Grasberger,
Erziehung, i. 77–80): Béußić is clearly a
whipping-top (Aristoph. Av. 1461; Cleobul. ap-
Diog. Laert. i. 82); and it is equally plain that
we must take orpó81Aos in Plat. Rep. iv.
p. 436 E and Plut. Lysand. 12 to be, like our
humming-tops, spun by a string, without the
lash to keep it going. We find in Homer (Il.
xiv. 413) the form orpáugos, which may be
either, as far as the sense of the passage guides
us, but would naturally be taken as = orpó81Aos.
| Kóvos is given by Photius and Hesychius as a
synonym of orpó81Aos: but our only description
of it refers to the religious use mentioned
below (3). The dictionaries give “top” as the
meaning of Édußos, citing Eur. Hel. 1362,
where, however, it is clearly not a top, and its
use is religious. We doubt if it was ever an
equivalent either of Béubić or orpóBixos.
(2) Turbo is also used (Cat. 64, 314) for the
whorl (orpávövXos) of a spindle, for which the
usual name is verticillus [FUSUS]. In the five
passages of Pliny, which the dictionaries quote
for this use of the word (as also in Ov. Met. i.
336), a more careful examination will show
that turbo is there used merely to express 2.
conical shape. t
(3) The precise form of the instrument used in
religious mysteries and witchcraft, and spoken
of as turbo, rhombus, kóvos and 66/180s, is a
more difficult puzzle. A comparison of the
authorities in Latin and Greek leads us to the
conclusion that all four are the same thing.
which was called kövos because of its shape and
fióugos because of the sound which it made. It
is described by Clement of Alexandria (Protrept.
ii. 17=p. 16) and Arnobius as being used in the
mysteries of Dionysus: it was attached by a
string and whirled in the air with a rushing noise,
as the Scholiast explains (kóvos' évadpiov of
éºrtal to a traprčov kal év Tais TeXetals éðovetro
iva poićfi), with which agrees the passage of
Euripides mentioned above, where the Édußot of
the Bacchanals are “whirled round in the air.”
Similarly in the magic use we find the rhombus
turned to the accompaniment of the incantation
(Prop. ii. 28, 35) by means of strings attached
to it (cf. “staminea,” Id. iii. 6, 26; “licia,”
Ov. Am. i. 8, 7). The uses of the turbo in Hor.
Epod. xvii. 7 and the rhombus in Mart. ix. 39

TURIBULUM
TUIRRIS 907
are clearly identical. Similarly the metal
ºugos in Theocr. Id. ii. 30 is whirled round
while the incantation is sung; but in this
instance the tury; is bound on it (cf. Xen. Mem.
iii. 11, 17). To this refers the mention in
Photius, ºugos by ºxovany of ºrded govres &s
tºuravov, a misunderstanding of which, and of
the Schol. ad. Apoll. Rhod. i. 1139, has led to
the strange idea that the ºugos was sometimes
a drum or a tambourine. We may take Photius
to mean that the sorcerers used both the
rhombus and the tympanum in their conjuring,
as in fact the witch in Theocritus does (ii. 36),
and as the Bacchanals did.
Mr. Andrew Lang has argued with great
ingenuity that the ºdubos or kºvos in the
mysteries resembled the Australian turndum,
which is whirled round by a string, making a
rushing noise, and is used in sacred rites
(Custom and Myth, pp. 29 f.). The shape,
however, in Greece we must imagine to have
been that of a cone or “peg-top,” not pointed
at both ends like the turndum or “bull-roarer.”
That in its first origin the ºdubos or kºvos was
a weather-charm seems to us very probable.
But we think it less likely that it had to do
with raising the wind, which indeed is seldom
prayed for, than with attracting the sun. It is
possible that a symbolical figure may in some
religious uses have been bound upon it, as the
ſuyº was in some magical practices, and it is
easily conceivable that the same method might
be employed to draw the heavenly bodies and
to draw human beings. There is, no doubt,
the simpler explanation that it was used in
the mysteries as a plaything merely to repre-
sent the childhood of Dionysus (cf. Lobeck,
Aglaophamus, p. 700); but then we lose all
clue to its magic use, and all connexion
with the similar customs which Mr. Lang has
adduced. [G. E. M.]
TURIBULUM (ºvulariptov), a censer. The
Greeks and Romans, when they sacrificed, com-
monly took a little frankincense out of the
AcERRA and let it fall upon the flaming altar.
[ARA.J. But also they used a censer, by means
of which they burnt the incense in greater pro-
fusion, and which was in fact a small movable
foculus (Aelian, W. H. vii. 51). It was not, as Rich
represents it, like the swinging censer of more
modern times, but in shape was like a candela-
brum, of a design Oriental in origin, with a
shallow brazier on the top: the material was
usually bronze, but sometimes silver (Thuc. vi.
46) and of costly workmanship (Herod, iv. 162;
Cic. Verr. iv. 21, 46). These turibula could be
carried in processions (Liv. ºxix. 14; cf. Val. Max.
iii. 3, 1). The turibula represented above are
in the British Museum. The turibulum was
lifted by cords or ribbons attached, as is seen
in fig. 1, which is of terracotta with the
ancient cord attached, found at Fayoum : fig. 2
represents an Etruscan bronze turibulum.
(Blümmer, Privataſterth, 168; Marquardt,
Staatsverw, iii. 167.) [J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
TURMA. [Exercitus, Vol. I, p. 784.]
TURRIS (trºpyos), a tower.
I. Stationary Towers—The origin of the
tower in fortification was doubtless, as Guhl
and Koner and others have remarked, a pro-
jection of the wall on either side of the gate,
to enable the garrison better to defend the
entrance [see under PortA, p. 467 b). From
this swelling, so to speak, of the town wall was
developed (e.g. at Phigalia) the round or square-
shaped or hexagonal tower, originally merely a
half-moon or three sides of a square, but after-
wards enclosed on all sides. The advantage of
such an addition at angles of the wall was
obvious, and it became also customary to have
many such towers rising at intervals, so as to
form rallying-points and shelters for the de-
fenders, if an escalade was attempted. Such
were the towers on the walls of circumvallation
at Plataea [cf. MURus, p. 186 al.
As a further development, they were erected
within cities, partly to form a last retreat in
case the city should be taken, and partly to
overawe the inhabitants. In almost all Greek
cities, which were usually built upon a hill,
rock, or some natural elevation, there was a kind
of tower, a castle, or a citadel, built upon the
highest part of the rock or hill, to which the
name of Acropolis was given, as at Corinth,
Argos, Messene, and many other places. The
Capitolium at Rome answered the same purpose
as the Acropolis in the Greek cities; and of the
same kind were the tower of Agathocles at Utica
(Appian, Pun. 14) and that of Antonia at Jeru-
salem (Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5, § 8; Act. Apostol.
xxi. 31).
Lastly, we find towers standing alone as
strongholds, such as the tower at Andros in-
stanced by Guhl and Koner (p. 68). We have
further examples of this in the tower of Hanni-
bal, on his estate between Acholla and Thapsus
| (Liv. xxxiii. 48); the turris regia of Jugurtha
(Sallust, Jug. 103); the tower of a private
citizen without the walls of Carthage, by the
help of which Scipio took the city (Appian, Pum.
117); and, in Spain, the tower in which Cn-
Scipio was burnt (Appian, Hisp. 16). Such
towers were common in the frontier provinces
of the Roman empire (Ammian. Marcell. xxviii.
2). See also Guhl and Koner, pp. 65 f : Droysen,
Kriegsalterth. p. 254 f.
II. Movable Towers.-These were among the


908 TURRIS
TURRIS
most important engines used in storming a forti-
fied place. They were of two kinds. Some were
made so that they could be taken to pieces and
carried to the scene of operations: these were
called folding towers (triſpyot irrvktol or étr+vy-
Hévot, turres plicatiles, or portable towers,
qopmrol trup'yot). The other sort were con-
structed on wheels, so as to be driven up to the
walls; and hence they were called turres ambu-
latoriae, subrotatae, or mobiles, Trúpyot irótpoxol
(Veget. iv. 17; Liv. xxi. 11; Onosand. Strat.
42). But the turres plicatiles were generally
made with wheels, so that they were also ambu-
Čatoriae.
The first invention or improvement of such
towers is ascribed by Athenaeus the mechanician
(quoted by Lipsius, Oper. vol. iii. p. 297) to the
Greeks of Sicily in the time of Dionysius I. (B.C.
405). Diodorus (xiv. 51) mentions towers on
wheels as used by Dionysius at the siege of Motya.
He had before (xiii. 54) mentioned towers as used
at the siege of Selinus (B.C. 409), but he does
not say that they were on wheels. According
to others, they were invented by the engineers
in the service of Philip and Alexander, the most
famous of whom were Polyidus, a Thessalian,
who assisted Philip at the siege of Byzantium,
and his pupils Chaereas and Diades (Vitruv. x.
19, s. 13). Heron (c. 13) ascribes their inven-
tion to Diades and Chaereas, Vitruvius (l.c.) to
Diades alone, and Athenaeus (l.c.) says that they
were improved in the time of Philip at the siege
of Byzantium. Vitruvius states that the towers
of Diades were carried about by the army in
separate pieces. Respecting the towers used by
Demetrius Poliorcetes at the siege of Rhodes, see
HELEPOLIS.
Appian mentions the turres plicatiles (B. C.
v. 36, 37), and states that at the siege of
Rhodes Cassius took such towers with him in
his ships, and had them set up on the spot (ib.
v. 72).
Besides the frequent allusions in ancient
writers to the movable towers (turres mobiles,
Liv. xxi. 11), we have particular descriptions of
them by Vitruvius (x. 19, s. 13) and Vegetius
(iv. 17).
They were generally made of beams and
planks, and covered, at least on the three sides
which were exposed to the besieged, with iron,
not only for protection, but also, according to
Josephus, to increase their weight and thus
make them steadier. They were also covered
with raw hides and quilts, moistened, and some-
times with alum, to protect them from fire.
The use of alum for this purpose appears to
have originated with Sulla at the siege of
Athens (Amm. Marc. and Claud. Quadrig. ap.
Lips. p. 300). Their height was such as to
overtop the walls, towers, and all other fortifi-
cations of the besieged place (Liv. xxi. 11).
contabulatae (Liv. xxiv.34). Towers of the three
sizes just mentioned consisted respectively of
10, 15, and 20 stories. The stories decreased in
height from the bottom to the top. Diades and
Chaereas, according to Heron, made the lowest
story 7 cubits and 12 digits, those about the
middle 5 cubits, and the upper 4 cubits and one-
third of a cubit.
The sides of the towers were pierced with
windows, of which there were several to each
story.
These rules were not strictly adhered to in
practice. Towers were made of 6 stories, and
even fewer (Diod. xiv. 51). Those of 10 stories
were very common (Hirt. Bell. Gall. viii. 41;
Sil. Ital. xiv. 300), but towers of 20 stories are
hardly, if ever, mentioned. Plutarch (Lucull.
10) speaks of one of 100 cubits high used by
Mithridates at the siege of Cyzicus.
The use of the stories was to receive the
engines of war [TORMENTA], and slingers and
archers were stationed in them and on the tops
of the towers (Liv. xxi. 11). In the lowest
story was a battering-ram [ARIES]; and in the
middle one or more bridges (pontes) made of
beams and planks, and protected at the sides by
hurdles; or drawbridges [SAMBUCAE]. Scaling-
ladders (scalae) were also carried in the towers,
and, when the missiles had cleared the walls,
these bridges and ladders enabled the besiegers
to rush upon them.
The towers were placed upon wheels (gene-
rally 6 or 8), that they might be brought up to
the walls. These wheels were placed for secu-
rity inside of the tower.
The tower was built so far from the besieged
place as to be out of the enemy's reach, and
then pushed up to the walls by men stationed
inside of and behind it (Caesar, B. G. ii. 30, 31;
Q. Curt. viii. 10). The attempt to draw them
forward by beasts of burthen was sometimes
made, but was easily defeated by shooting the
beasts (Procop. Bell. Goth. i. 21). They were
generally dragged up the AGGER (Hirtius, l.c.),
and it not unfrequently happened that a
tower stuck fast or fell over on account of the
softness of the agger (Liv. xxxii. 17; Q. Curt.
iv. 6, § 9). They were placed on the agger
before it was completed, to protect the soldiers
in working at it (Sall. Jugurth. 73; Caesar,
B. G. vii. 22). When the tower was brought up
to the walls without an agger, the ground was
levelled before it by means of the MUSCULUs.
These towers were accounted most formidable
engines of attack. They were opposed in the
following ways.
1. They were set on fire, either by sallies of
the besieged, or by missiles carrying burning
matter, or by letting men down from the walls
by ropes, close to the towers, while the
besiegers slept (Veget. iv. 18; Sil. Ital. xiv.
Witruvius (l. c.), following Diades, mentions |-305)
two sizes of towers. The smallest ought not,
—he says, to be less than 60 cubits high, 17 wide,
and one-fifth smaller at the top; and the
greater 120 cubits high and 23# wide. Heron
(c. 13), who also follows Diades, agrees with
Witruvius so far, but adds an intermediate size,
half-way, between the two, 90 cubits high.
Vegetius mentions towers of 30, 40, and 50 feet
square. They were divided into stories (tabu-
lata or tecta), and, hence they are called turres
2. By undermining the ground over which
the tower had to pass, so as to overset it (Veget.
iv. 20).
3. By pushing it off by main force by iron-
shod beams, asseres or trabes (Veget. l. c.).
4. By breaking or overturning it with stones
thrown from catapults, when it was at a
distance, or, when it came close to the wall, by
striking it with an iron-shod beam hung from a
mast on the wall, and thus resembling an Aries.
TUTELA
TUTOR 909
5. By increasing the height of the wall; first
with masonry, and afterwards with beams and
planks, and also by the erection of temporary
wooden towers on the walls (Caesar, B. G. vii.
22; Veget. iv. 19). This mode of defence was
answered by the besiegers in two ways. Either
the agger on which the tower stood was raised,
as by Caesar at the siege of Avaricum (B. G.
l. c.), or a smaller tower was constructed within
the upper part of the tower, and when com-
pleted was raised by screws and ropes (Veget.
l. c.). On these towers in general see Lipsius,
Poliorcet. in Oper. vol. iii. pp. 296–356.
III. Caesar (B. C. ii. 8–9) describes a peculiar
sort of tower, which was invented at the siege
of Massilia, and called turris latericia, or later-
culum. It partook somewhat of the character
both of a fixed and of a besieging tower. It
was built of masonry near the walls of the town
to afford the besiegers a retreat from the
sudden sallies of the enemy; the builders were
protected by a movable cover; and the tower
was pierced with windows for shooting out
missiles.
IV. Towers in every respect similar to the
turres ambulatoriae (excepting, of course, the
wheels) were constructed on ships, for the
attack of fortified places by sea (Caes. Bell. Civ.
iii. 40; Liv. xxiv. 34; Appian, Mith. 73, Bell.
Civ. v. 106; Amm. Marc. xxi. 12).
W. Small towers carrying a few armed men
were placed on the backs of elephants used in
battle (Liv. xxxvii. 40).
(Marquardt, Staatsverw. ii. 532 f.; Droysen,
Gr. Kriegsalterth. 313 ff.) [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
TUTE'LA.. [TUTOR.]
TUTELAE ACTIO. [TUTOR.]
TUTOR. There were two forms of guardian-
ship in Roman law, the tutela and the cura, which
must be carefully distinguished. The differ-
ence between them is explained in the article
CURATOR. According to the law of the Twelve
Tables, persons not under patria potestas, who
by reason of age or sex were incapable of acting
for themselves, were under the protection of a
tutor for their own interest and for the interest
of those who might be their heredes. In the
case of such persons a tutor supplied to some
extent the place of a paterfamilias. (Cf. Paul.
Frag. Vat. 304, “tutores quasi parentes proprii
pupillorum sunt.”) The protection of the tutela
was given to impuberes and to women. A
tutor derived his name “a tuendo ’’ from pro-
tecting another. (Inst. i. 13, 2; cf. Isid. Orig.
x. 264, “tutor: qui pupillum tuetur, hoc est
intuetur.”) The tutela or function of a tutor
is thus defined by Servius Sulpicius, as cited by
Paulus (Dig. 26, 1, 1): “Tutela est vis ac
potestas in capite libero ad, tuendum eum qui
propter aetatem sua sponte se defendere nequit,
jure civili data ac permissa: ” “sua sponte” is
probably an interpolation for “vel sexum,”
which latter words would not be applicable
when the tutela mulierum had become obsolete
(Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln, § 110, n. 6).
The tutela was a kind of potestas, according to
the old law; a power similar to the patria potes-
tas, but of a much more restricted character. The
power was to be used for the purpose of protec-
tion, and hence tutela implies duty (officium) as
well as right. The object of this right and duty
was in tutela (Gaius, i. 142; Cic. pro Rosc. Com.
6, 16); while, on the other hand, a person who
was his own master was said suae tutelae esse
(Dig. 32, 1, 50, 1 ; cf. Voigt, l.c., note 2). As
to the classification of the different kinds
(genera) of tutela, the jurists differed. Some
made five genera, as Quintus Mucius; others
three, as Servius Sulpicius; and others two, as
Labeo. The most convenient division is into
two genera,_the tutela of impuberes (pupilli,
pupillae), and the tutela of women. The pupil-
lus or the pupilla is the male or female who is
under tutela.
Every paterfamilias had power to appoint by
testament a tutor for his children who were in
his power: if they were males, only in case they
were impuberes; if they were females, also
while the perpetua tutela mulierum existed, in
case they were above the age of puberty (Gaius,
i. 144). Therefore, if a tutor was appointed for
a male, he was released from the tutela on
attaining puberty (fourteen years of age), but
the female still continued in tutela, unless she
was released from it by a special exemption,
as by the Jus Liberorum under the Lex Julia
et Papia Poppaea. A man could only appoint a
tutor for his grandchildren, when they would
not upon his death come into the power of their
father. A father could appoint a tutor for
postumi, provided they would have been in his
power, if they had been born in his lifetime. A
man could appoint a tutor for his wife in manu,
and for his daughter-in-law (nurus) who was in
the manus of his son. The usual form of ap-
pointing a tutor was this: “Lucium Titium
Liberis meis tutorem do.” A man could also
give his wife in manu the power of choosing a
tutor (tutoris optio); and the optio might be
either plena or angusta. She who had the plena
optio might either choose a tutor who was to act
for her in all her transactions, or might choose
a tutor from time to time to act in particular
transactions: she who had the angusta optio
was limited in her choice to the number of
times, which the testator had fixed (Gaius, i.
150, &c.).
The power to appoint a tutor by will was
either given or confirmed by the Twelve Tables.
The earliest instance recorded of a testamentary
tutor is that of Tarquinius Priscus being ap-
pointed by the will of Ancus (Liv. i. 34), which
may be taken to prove this much at least, that
the power of appointing a tutor by will was
considered by the Romans as one of their oldest
legal institutions. The nearest kinsmen were
usually appointed tutores; and if a testator
passed over such, it was a reflection on their
character (Cic, pro P. Seatio, 52), that is, we
must suppose, if the testator himself was a man.
in good repute. ... Persons named and appointed
tutores by a will are called by Gaius tutores
dativi; in the legislation of Justinian tutor .
dativus means a tutor appointed by a magis-
trate (Dig. 46, 6, 7; Cod. 5, 30, 5), a tutor
appointed by will being tutor testamentarius;
those who were chosen under the power given
by a will were tutores optivi (Gaius, i. 154).
If the testator appointed no tutor by his will,
the tutela was given by the Twelve Tables to
the nearest agnati of the impubes, and such
tutores were called legitimi. The nearest agnati
were also the heredes in case of the impubes
dying intestate and without issge, and the tutela
910 TUTOR
TUTOR
was therefore a right which they claimed as
well as a duty imposed on them. Perseus (ii.
12) alludes to the claim of the tutor as heres
to his pupillus. A brother who was pubes was
the legitimus tutor of a brother who was im-
pubes; and if there was no brother who was
pubes, the son who was impubes had his father's
brother (patruus) for his tutor. The same rule
applied to females also, till it was altered by a
Lex Claudia, which abolished the tutela legitima
of women. If there were several agnati in the
same degree, they were all tutores. If there
were no agnati, the tutela belonged to the gen-
tiles, so long as the Jus Gentilicium was in
force (Gaius, iii. 17, and i. 164). Perhaps the
agnatorum tutela legitima was created by the
Twelve Tables, the tutela having previously
devolved at once on the gens, if the impubes
belonged to one. The tutela in which a freed-
man was with respect to his patronus was also
legitima; not that it was expressly given by the
words (lea) of the Twelve Tables, but it flowed
from the lex as a consequence (per consequen-
tiam, Ulp. Frag. tit.11); for as the hereditates
of intestate liberti and libertae belonged to the
patronus, it was assumed that the tutela be-
longed to him also, since the Twelve Tables
allowed the same persons to be tutors in the
case of an ingenuus, to whom they gave the
hereditas in case there was no suus heres
(Gaius, i. 165).
If a free person had been mancipated to another
either by his parent or coemptionator, and such
other person manumitted the free person, he
became his tutor fiduciarius by analogy to the
case of freedman and patron. (Compare Gaius, i.
166, with Ulp. Frag. tit. 11, s. 5.) [EMANCI-
PATIO; FIDUCIA.]
If an impubes had neither a tutor testa-
mentarius nor legitimus, he had one given to
him in Rome, under the provisions of the Lex
Atilia, by the praetor urbanus and the major
part of the tribuni plebis (as to the date of this
law, cf. Liv. xxxix. 9); in the provinces in such
cases a tutor was appointed by the praesides
under the provisions of the Lex Julia et Titia,
B.C. 31. [LEx JULIA ET TITIA.] If a tutor
was appointed by testament either sub con-
dicione or ea; die certo, a tutor might be given
under these leges so long as the condition had
not taken effect or the day had not arrived: and
even when a tutor had been appointed absolutely
(pure), a tutor might be given under these leges
until the will should take effect by the heres
under it taking the inheritance; but the power
of such tutor ceased as soon as there was a tutor
under the testament, that is, as soon as the
testament took effect by the existence of a
heres under it. If a tutor was captured by the
enemy, a tutor was also given under these leges,
but such tutor ceased to be tutor as soon as
the original tutor returned from captivity, for
he recovered his tutela Jure Postliminii.
Even before the passing of the Lex Atilia
tutors were given by the praetor in other cases,
as for instance, when the legis actiones were in
use, the praetor appointed another tutor if there
was any action between a tutor and a woman or
ward, for the tutor could not give the necessary
authority (auctoritas) to the acts of those whose
tutor he was, in a matter in which his own
interest was concerned. Other cases in which
a tutor was given are mentioned by Ulpian,
Frag. 11.
Ulpian’s division of tutores is into Legitimi,
Senatusconsultis constituti, and Moribus intro-
ducti. His legitimi tutores comprehend all those
who become tutores by virtue of any lex, and
specially by the Twelve Tables: accordingly
it comprises tutores in the case of intestacy,
tutores appointed by testament, for they were
confirmed by the Twelve Tables, and tutores
appointed under any other lex, as the Atilia.
Various senatusconsulta declared in what cases
a tutor might be appointed; thus the Lex Julia
de maritandis ordinibus (Papia et Poppaea)
enacted that the praetor should appoint a tutor
for a woman or a virgin, who was required to
marry by this law, “ad dotem dandam, dicendam,
promittendamve,” if her legitimus tutor was
himself a pupillus: a senatusconsultum extended
the provision to the provinces, and enacted that
in such case the praesides should appoint a
tutor; and also that, if a tutor was mutus or
furiosus, another should be appointed for the
purposes of the lex. The case above mentioned
of a tutor being given in the case of an action
between a tutor and his ward, is a case of a
tutor moribus datus; that is, appointed according
to customary law. In the Imperial period from
the time of Claudius, tutores extra ordinem were
appointed by the consuls also. #
Only cives or those who had the jus commercii
could be tutores. Thus a person could not be
named tutor in a testament, unless he had the
testamentifactio with the testator, a rule which
excluded such persons as peregrini. The Latini
Juniani were excluded by the Lex Junia (Gaius,
i. 23). Women could not be tutores. Filii-
familias could be tutores as well as paterfamilias.
The tutela was a publicum munus, and hence
persons were bound to serve when called on,
unless they were under some incapacity or could
excuse themselves on some valid legal ground:
grounds of excuse (eaccusationes) were age,
absence, the being already tutor in other cases,
the holding of particular offices, and others
which are enumerated in the Fragmenta Vati-
cana (123–247), and by Justinian in his Insti-
tutes (i. 25).
The power of the tutor was mainly concerned
with the property and pecuniary interests of the
pupillus. The custody of the ward’s person
was generally assigned by the magistrate to one
of his near relations, who might or might not
be the same person as the tutor. The care of
the child belonged to the mother, if she survived
(custodia matrum, Hor. Ep. i. 1, 22; Dionys. viii.
51; Liv. xxxix. 9, 1; Sen. ad Marc. 24, 1), unless
the father had otherwise disposed in his will. In
a case mentioned by Livy (iv. 9), where the mother
and the tutores could not agree about the mar-
riage of the mother's daughter, the magistratus
decided in favour of the mother's power (Secundum
parentis arbitrium). But it was the duty of the
tutor to exercise a supervision over the pupillus,
and to see that he was properly educated and
cared for. (Cf. Dig. 26, 7, 12, 3: “Cum tutor
non rebus dumtaxat, sed etiam moribus pupilli
praeponatur; ” Dig. 27, 2; Cod. 5, 49.) In re-
spect of property the tutor’s office was “negotia
gerere et auctoritatem interponere,” though only
the auctoritatis interpositio was absolutely es-
sential to the notion of tutela; the administra-
TUTOR
TUTOR 911
tion of property (rem gerere) not belonging to
the tutor of mulieres.
Auctoritatem interpomere.—A pupillus who
was an infans—that is, below the age of seven
—could not perform any legal act. A pupillus
(major infantia) could do no act by which he
diminished his property without the sanction
(auctoritas) of his tutor, but any act to which
he was a party was valid, so far as concerned
the pupillus, if it was for his advantage. Con-
sequently a pupil could contract obligationes,
which were for his advantage, without his tutor
(Gaius, iii. 107). Thus the natural act of the
pupillus became, by auctoritatis interpositio of
the tutor, a legal act; and thus the pupillus
and his tutor formed one complete person, as to
legal capacity to act. [INFANS: IMPUBES.]
No particular form was required for the
expression of the tutor's auctoritas, but it
had to be given by the tutor himself when
the pupillus entered into the transaction which
required it (in ipso negotio); it could not be
transmitted by letter or by a messenger, and
it had to be unconditional (Inst. i. 21, 2;-Dig.
26, 8, 8; 9, 5). It could, generally speaking,
be withheld by the tutor of an impubes at his
discretion.
Auctoritas was necessary in order to give
legal effect to any act of a pupillus, by which
he might suffer loss, but a pupillus might
acquire rights for himself without auctoritas
(Inst. i. 21, pr.). Thus a pupillus could not
alienate his property without the concurrence
of his tutor, but he could receive property by
alienation to him simply by his own act ; so
too, though he could not contract an obligation
without his tutor’s intervention, he did not
require auctoritas in order to bind others by
a contract with him. The incapacity of the
pupillus is shown by the following instance:–
If his debtor paid a debt to the pupillus, the
money became the property of the pupillus,
but the debtor was not released, because the
pupillus might suffer loss by releasing his
debtor unless with the co-operation of his
tutor; if, however, the pupillus afterwards
sued for the debt, while still retaining the benefit
of the payment which had been made to him,
the praetor allowed the debtor an exceptio doli
(Gaius, ii. 84 : Cic. Top. 11). [IMPUBES.]
As the act; which was made valid by the
sanction of the tutor was the act of the im-
pubes, it follows that the auctoritas had no
application in the case of a pupillus altogether
incapable of performing an illegal act; and so,
as an infant or person who had not completed
his seventh year was thus incapable, it was not
till a pupillus was major infantia that auc-
toritas could be given to his acts.
Rem gerere.—The tutor had the administra-
tion of the property of the pupillus (rem, nego-
£ium gerere), and was bound to exercise this part
of his function according to the best of his ability.
It was his duty to prevent the property of the
pupillus from suffering any loss that he could
avoid, and to make such profit from the property
as it was fairly capable of. The tutor was liable
to the pupillus not only on account of dolus, but
also for such negligence as he did not show in the
management of his own property (Dig. 27, 3, 1,
pr. ; “In omnibus, quae fecit tutor, cum facere
non deberet, item in his, quae non fecit, rationem
reddet hoc judicio, praestando dolum, culpam
et quantum in rebus suis diligentiam ”). The
obligation between the tutor and the pupillus
was one of those arising quasi ea contractu
(Inst. iii. 27, 2). By an oratio of the Emperor
Septimius Severus it was enacted that the tutor
should be incapable of alienating praedia rustica
and praedia suburbana of the pupillus, unless
under an order of the magistrate; and this rule
was extended to other property of the pupillus,
excepting things of little value and superfluous
things (Dig. 27, 9; Cod. 5, 71).
The principle of allowing the tutor to re-
present the pupillus in legal transactions was
gradually admitted. If property was conveyed
by mancipium or in jure cessio to a tutor as
negotiorum gestor of pupillus, the tutor alone
acquired legal ownership of it, but in course of
time the praetor gave pupillus vindicatio utilis
for the recovery of it. If property was conveyed
by traditio to tutor on account of the pupillus,
the latter acquired possession of it in the time
of Justinian, and so direct ownership of it.
[DOMINIUM.] The tutor was first allowed to
acquire choses in action for the pupillus in case of
the pupillus infans having no slave, the pupillus
being allowed to maintain a right thus acquired
by actio utilis: this principle was extended to
pupilli who were at a distance from the tutor,
and finally was made applicable in all cases.
It is to be remembered that a pupillus could
always acquire rights through his slaves. A
tutor could only bind the pupillus when
authorised to do so by the magistrate. A
tutor could maintain actions on account of his
pupillus (Inst. iv. 10, pr. ; Gaius, iv. 82).
In order to secure the proper management
of the property of a pupillus or of a person
who was in curatione, the praetor required the
tutor or curator to give security; but no
security was required from testamentary
tutores, because they had been selected by
the testator; nor, generally, from tutores
appointed by a consul, praetor or praeses, for
they were appointed as being fit persons (Gaius,
i. 199).
The tutor might be removed from his office,
if he was misconducting himself: this was
effected by the accusatio suspecti, which is
mentioned in the Twelve Tables (Gaius, i. 182;
Dirksen, Uebersicht, &c. der Zwölf Tafeln, 599–
604).
When the tutela came to an end, the actio
tutelae directa could be brought against the
tutor by the pupillus for a general account of
the property managed by the tutor, and for its
delivery to the pupillus, now become pubes. If
the tutor was condemned in this action, the
consequence was infamia. [INFAMIA.] The
Twelve Tables gave the pupillus a special
action against the tutor in respect of fraudu-
lent accounting ; and if he made out his case,
he was entitled to double damages. This
appears to be the action which in the Digest
is called actio de rationibus distrahendis. The
tutor could claim to be indemnified for what he
had expended or done in the interest of his
pupillus, having the actio tutelae contraria
against his late pupillus for the purpose of
enforcing this liability.
When several tutores were joined in one tutela,
the administration might be committed to one
912 TUTOR
TUTOR
of them—called tutor géréns, as opposed to tutor
Honorarius. The tutor honorarius was liable, if
he did not exercise a proper supervision over
the tutor gerens, in case the loss could not
be recovered from the latter. The tutela was
terminated by the death or capitis deminutio
maxima or media of the tutor. A tutor
legitimus became disqualified if he sustained
a capitis deminutio minima, which was the case
if he allowed himself to be adopted (Gaius, i.
195; Ulpian, Fragm. 11, 13), since he thereby
ceased to be an agnate of the pupillus, but
capitis deminutio minima had no effect on the
position of a tutor testamentarius or dativus.
The tutela ceased by the death of the pupillus,
or by his capitis deminutio of any kind. It also
ceased when the pupillus attained the age of
puberty, which in the male sex was fourteen,
as the law came to be determined. [IMPUBES.]
In the time of the classical jurists, the tutela
might cease by the abdicatio of the testa-
mentary tutor; that is, when he declared
“nolle se tutorem esse.” Under the law of
Justinian the resignation of a tutor was in
no case allowed, unless it was approved by the
magistrate for some cause which appeared to
him reasonable.
The tutela of a tutor was terminated, as we
have observed, when he was removed from the
tutela as suspectus, or when his excusatio was
allowed to be justa; but in both of these cases
a new tutor would be necessary (Gaius, i. 182).
The tutela appears to have been regarded at
first as having for its object the benefit of the
tutor rather than that of the pupillus, as being
a means of protecting the family property to
which the tutor might succeed : but in later
law the idea of duty (onus) rather than that
of right attaches to the function. The duty
became a public one (publicum munus), brought
more and more under the supervision of the
magistrate.
The tutela of women who are puberes re-
quires a separate examination. A woman who
was not in patria potestate or in manu viri was
always under a tutela (in perpetua tutela), not
being capable, like a man Sui juris, of acting as
she pleased on attaining the age of puberty,
which was the completion of her twelfth year.
The tutor of a woman who was pubes had
not, however, the administration of her pro-
perty, as in the case of an impubes; she
managed her own affairs, but the auctoritas of
a tutor was required in order to give validity to
her acts in certain cases (Gaius, i. 190; Ulp.
Fragm. 11, 1, 25: cf. Liv. xxxiv. 2, the speech
of Cato for the Lex Oppia). The reasons for
this restriction on the capacity of women are
given by Cicero (pro Muraena, c. 12), by Ulpian
(Fragm. 11, 1), and by Gaius (i. 190); Gaius
considers the usual reasons as to the law being
founded on the weakness of the sex as unsatis-
factory, since women above the age of puberty
administer their own property, and the inter-
position of the tutor is a mere formality. The
original object of the law seems to have been to
prevent the alienation of her property, and so to
secure the succession of her agnati or of her gens,
who in early times would always have been her
tutores. Gaius remarks (i.193) that, though in
foreign states women were not under the same
tutela as under Roman law, they are generally
under a quasi tutela; thus the law of the
Bithynians requires the contracts of a woman
to be sanctioned by her husband or by a son
above the age of puberty.
A mulier might have a tutor appointed by
her father's testament; or by the testament of
her husband if she was in his power (manus).
A wife in her husband’s manus might receive
from his will the tutoris optio or right of
choosing a tutor for herself (tutor optivus)
(Gaius, i. 150: cf. Liv. xxxix. 19, 5), whereby
the right of the agnates might be effectually
excluded.
According to the law of the Twelve Tables,
women who had no testamentary tutor were
in the tutela legitima of their agnati; or,
in the case of freed women and of emancipated
daughters, in the tutela legitima of the pa-
tronus or of the parens manumissor. The
tutela legitima of agnati was abolished by a
law passed under the Emperor Claudius, called
the Lex Claudia (Gaius, i. 157). The tutela of
patroni was not included within the Lex
Claudia. The tutela legitima of agnati and
patroni over women could be transferred by in
jure cessio, while that of pupilli could not
(Gaius, i. 168); but it would seem that it was
rather the exercise of the tutor’s right than the
right itself which was thus transferred, since it
is said that on the death or capitis minutio of
the tutor cessicius, the tutela reverted to the
tutor qui cessit (Gaius, i. 170). A person might
become tutor of a woman subject to a fiducia or
trust as to the way in which he should exercise
his right (tutor fiduciarius).
A tutor dativus was given to women by the
magistratus under the Lex Atilia, when there
was no other tutor, or under a senatusconsul-
tum in the absence of a tutor or in case of a
legis actio between a woman and her tutor
(Gaius, i. 173, &c.; Ulp. Fragm. 11). By the
Lex Julia, if a woman was in the legitima
tutela of a pupillus, she might apply to the
praetor urbanus for a tutor who should give
the necessary auctoritas for the purpose of
making a dotal settlement (Gaius, i. 178; Ulp.
Fragm. 11, 20). The Westal Virgins were
exempt from tutela; and both ingenuae and
libertinae were exempted from tutela by the
Jus Liberorum (Gaius, i. 145, 194); it is to be
remembered that a married woman would be in
tutela if she were not in manu viri [MATRI-
MONIUM).
Octavia, the sister of Caesar Octavianus, and
his wife Livia, were released from tutela by a
special enactment (Dio Cass. xlix. 318).
The perpetua tutela of women originated and
long continued to exist for the purpose of pro-
tecting the agnatic family.
The agnatic tutela was in course of time
allowed to be excluded not only by the testa-
mentary disposition of a paterfamilias, or
husband with marital power, but also by means
of juristic contrivances (Cic. pro Mur. c. 12).
Thus, a woman for the purpose of escaping from
the control of her agnatic tutor would enter
into a fictitious marriage with some one, being
conveyed to him by means of coemptio, with a
fiduciary understanding (coemptio cum fiduciá)
that her supposed husband—the coemptionator
or purchaser—should at once release her by
remancipatio; she was accordingly remancipated
TUTOR
TYMBORUCHIAS GRAPHE 913
by the coemptionator to some person of her own
choice: this person manumitted her by vindicta
[MANUMISSIO), and became her tutor fiduciarius
(Gaius, i. 114, 115). Thus the woman passed
by coemptio from her own family to another,
her agnati losing all claims upon her, and her
tutor fiduciarius might be compelled by the
praetor to give his auctoritas to her acts (Gaius,
i. 115; ii. 122). The tutor legitimus might
Surrender his control of a woman to a tutor
cessicius by in jure cessio. Finally, as we have
seen, the agnatic tutela was abolished by the
Ilex Claudia, after which, except in the case
of patroni and parentes, the perpetua tutela
mulierum only remained a mere form.
The tutela of a woman was terminated by
the death of the tutor or that of the woman;
by a marriage by which she came in manum
viri; by the privilege of children (jus liberorum);
or by her becoming a Westal Virgin. A woman
had no right of action against her tutor in
respect of his tutela, for he had not the nego-
tiorum gestio, or administration of her property,
but only interposed his auctoritas (Gaius, i. 191).
If a woman was in the tutela legitima of a
patronus or parens manumissor, the tutor, Gaius
tells us (i, 191), could not be compelled to give
his auctoritas, except for very weighty reasons
(“praeterquam si magna causa interveniat”).
Other tutores could be compelled to give their
auctoritas, which in their case was a mere form.
It is probable that agnatic tutors were in the
same position as patroni and parentes, that is,
they were not compelled to give their auctoritas;
but Gaius wrote after the agnatic tutela had
been abolished.
The special cases in which the auctoritas of a
tutor was required were, if the woman had to
sue by legis actio or in a legitimum judicium, if
she was alienating a mancipable thing [Do-
MINIUM); a non-mancipable thing she might
alienate without the tutor's sanction (Gaius,
ii. 80). Gaius (ii. 47) states that formerly,
when a woman was under agnatic tutela, her
mancipable things were not subject to usucapion,
unless she herself delivered possession of them
with the authority of her tutor, and that this
was a provision of the Twelve Tables. In other
cases, if a res mancipi was transferred by tra-
dition, the purchaser acquired the quiritarian
ownership by usucapion [USUCAP10]. The
passage of Cicero (pro Flacc. 34, 84) is in ac-
oordance with Gaius; and another passage (ad
Att. 1, 5), though vaguely expressed, is not
inconsistent with his statement. (See Casau-
bon's note on the passage.) She could not
Imanumit without the auctoritas of a tutor (Ulp.
Fragm. 1, 17; compare Cic. pro Cael. 29, 68).
The auctoritas of a tutor was not required, in
the case of any obligatio by which the woman's
condition was improved, but it was necessary in
cases where the woman became bound (Gaius,
i. 192, iii. 108; Ulp. Fragm. 11, 27; Cic. pro
Caecin. 25, 72). So, if a woman wished to pro-
mise, the auctoritas of a tutor was necessary (Cic.
pro Flacc. 35). As a woman could alienate res
nec mancipi without the sanction of a tutor,
she could bind a person to her by lending
money (mutuum), for by delivery the money
became the property of the receiver.
A payment made to a woman was a release to
the debtor; if, however, she did not receive the
VOL. II.
money, but affected to release the debtor by
acceptilatio, this was not a valid release to him
(Cic. Top. 11; Gaius, ii. 83, 85, iii. 171).
A woman could not make a will without the
sanction of her tutor; the rules on this subject
are stated under TESTAMENTUM. If a woman
was not subject to a tutor legitimus, but to a
tutor of another kind, the praetor might perhaps
in the time of Gaius give bonorum possessio
to such will, although the merely formal re-
quisite of auctoritas had not been complied
with (Gaius, ii. 121, 122: cf. i. 194, 195).
It may be questioned whether the auctoritas
of a tutor was necessary in order to enable a
woman to marry without passing in manum viri
(see, however, Ulp. 11, 22; Cic. pro Cluent. 5,
14); but it seems clear that such sanction was
required in order to enable a woman to effect a
confarreatio or coemptio (cf. Gaius, i. 115).
The tutela mulierum existed at least as late
as Diocletian, A.D. 293 (Vat. Fragm. § 325).
There is no trace of it in the Code of Theodosius,
or in the legislation of Justinian. (Gaius, i.
142–200; Ulp. Fragm. 11, 12; Inst. i. 13–26;
Dig. 26 and 27; Cod. 5, 28–75; Rudorff, Das
Recht der Vormundschaft; Rein, Das röm. Pri-
vatrecht, p. 239, &c.; F. Minquet, Hist.jur. Rom.
de Tut. ; S. Szuldrzynski, de Orig. ac Progr. Tut.
Mul.; Le Fort, Essai Hist. de la Tutelle; Voigt,
Zwölf Tafeln, ii., § 110, &c.) [G. L.] [E. A. W.]
TYMBORUCHIAS GRAPHE (rvagopw-
xias ypaqf). Pollux mentions rvuòapúxos in a
long list of Övöuara éé &ölknuérov čq’ ois eigh
6íkat kal ypaqat. No instance of this action at
Athens is known to us, yet it is very probable
that this action might be maintained not so much
against a person who opened a tomb to rob the
dead (Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, p. 456), as against
a person who opened it to inter there some one
who was not entitled to burial there: cf.
Cic. de Legg. ii. 26, 64: “de sepulcris autem
nihil est apud Solonem amplius quam ‘ne quis
ea deleat neve alienum inferat’ poenaque est,
“si quis bustum,’ nam id puto appellari réušov,
‘aut monumentum,’ inquit, “aut columnam
violarit, deiecerit, fregerit.’” The custom of
fixing a fine to be paid for infringing the rights
of the owner of a grave arose in Lycia, and is
not derived from Roman usage (Hirschfeld,
Rönigsberger Stud. 1887, pp. 85–144). Hirsch-
feld considers the inscription of Pinara (C. I. G.
No. 4259) to be the oldest, and assigns it to the
3rd century B.C.; in it we find all the charac-
teristic points of such inscriptions. He who
opens a tomb, or orders another person to do so,
is accursed (äuaproxbs Éotal 6sóv rávrov kal
Amrods kal Tów Tékvav), has to pay a fine
(irpoo aroretoráta TéAavrov &pyvptov), and any-
one who cares may bring an action against him
(éčéarw rôt 8ovXouévot yöucáçeorðat repl roë-
Tov), i.e. the éykamua. TvußwpvXſas (Termessus,
C. I. G. No. 4336 l.): cf. &yearðat rup Sapuxtas,
Olympus, C. J. G. No. 4325 k. ; Śroketaſerai)
Ti, rvuòwp[ux{Jq, Telmissus, No. 4221 d. Add. ;
rø ris twº Sopuzias vôuq, Andriace, No. 4303 m.
From Lycia this custom spread, and the Roman
emperors sanctioned the law; cf. Bull. de Corresp.
Hellen. v. p. 344, Tralles: Öreſ,8vvos éotal roſs
âtardyuaat kal roſs trarptois véuois (C. I. G. iii.
p. 1128, Antiphellus: Öreč0vvos éoral roſs 61&
rów 9etwy Staſtay]&v épiquévois), i.e. constitu-
tiones Imperatorum and customary º The
N
914 TYMPANUM
TYRANNUS
amount of fine in Lycian inscriptions varies from
250 to (in one instance) 20,000 denarii; in non-
Lycian inscriptions some higher amounts occur.
The fine is usually paid in Lycia to the bipos
or the tróAus; everywhere else usually to the
fiscus (ptorkos, Tapuetov), sometimes to deities—
Isis at Thebes, uhrmp 9eóv ×umvXmv) in Smyrna,
etc.; in isolated cases the money goes to the
brothers or the heirs of the grave-owner. A
Jewess directs the fine to be paid to her people,
a physician to his colleagues, a slave to his
mistress and her heirs. The informer received a
share of the fine, sometimes one-half, sometimes
one-third ; tās irpoo'ayyextas oiſons travrl ré Bov-
Aopwévº èr) Tó jutorel, C. I. G. No. 4300 v. Add., cf.
No. 4293; eio'ayyéAAovros rod BovXopuévov ćirl rô
Tpírq Mépel, No. 4300 e. Add. ; Tod BovXopévov
ěčexéyxeiv ćirl tº Tp(tºp uépel, No. 4278 i. Add. ;
oiſons rās karmyopias travri ré 8ovXouévg
éri tº rpíró, a pet, No. 4224 d. Add., etc. An
action for rvpgapuzſa is mentioned also in
C. I. G. No. 2688 f. Iasus (cf. Hicks, Journ.
Hell. Soc. 1887, p. 115), No. 2826 ft. Aphrodisias,
No. 3266 Smyrna (Lebas-Waddington, Voyage
Archéol. iii.), No. 220 Miletus, etc. Of the Attic
tomb-inscriptions eleven contain a curse and
five fix a fine (C. I. A. iii. 2, No. 1417 ff.). These
may be added to Hirschfeld’s long list as well as
some others discovered since the publication of
his paper: two of Salonica (Journ. Hell. Stud.
1887, p.374, and Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1889,
No. 41), four of Heraclea in the Propontis (Berl.
Phil. W. 1888, No. 14), two of Smyrna (Mitth.
d. d. Archäol. Inst. xii. p. 248), one of Myra
(Journ. Hell. Soc. 1889, p. 85), three from
Ephesus (Anc. Greek Inscr., ed. Newton, iii.
p. 253 ff.). [H. H.]
TY'MPANUM (rùuravov). 1. A small drum
carried in the hand. Of these, some resembled
in all respects a modern tambourine with bells.
Others presented a flat circular disk on the upper
surface and swelled out beneath like a kettle-
drum, a shape which appears to be indicated by
Pliny when he describes a particular class of
pearls in the following terms:—“Quibus una
tantum est facies, et ab ea rotunditas, aversis
planities, ob id tympania vocantur” (H. N. ix.
§ 109). Both forms are represented in the cuts
below. Fig. 1 is from a painting found at
Pompeii (Mus. Borbon. tom. vii. tav. 37); fig. 2
is from a fictile vase (Millin, Peintures de Vases
Antiques, pl. 56), and here the convexity on the
under side is distinctly seen. Tympana were
covered with the hides of oxen (Ovid, Fast.
iv. 342; Stat. Theb. ii. 78) or of asses (Phaedr.
iv. 2, 4), were beaten with the hand (Ovid,
Met. iv. 30; see cuts), and were much employed |
in all wild enthusiastic religious rites (Aristoph.
Lysistr. i. 387), especially the orgies of Bacchus
and of Cybele (Catull. lxiv. 262; Claud. de
Cons. Stilich. iii. 365; Lucret. ii. 618; Catull.
lxiii. 8; Verg. Aen. ix. 619; Suet. Aug. 68; com-
pare Lobeck, Aglaophamus, pp. 630, 652), and
hence Plautus (Truc, ii. 7, 49) characterises an
effeminate coxcomb as “Moechum malacum, cin-
cinnatum, umbraticolam, tympanotribam.” Ac-
cording to Justin (xli. 2), they were used by
the Parthians in war to give the signal for the
Onset.
2. A solid wheel without spokes for heavy
waggons (Verg. Georg. iv. 444), such as is shown
in the cut on page 433. These are to this day
common in the rude carts of Southern Italy and
Greece, and Sir C. Fellows (Ea.cursions in Asia
Minor, p. 72), from whose work the figure
below is copied, found them attached to the
farm vehicles of Mysia. “The wheels are of
solid blocks of wood, or thick planks, generally
three, held together by an iron hoop or tire ; a
loud creaking noise is made
by the friction of the galled
axle,” a suggestive com-
mentary on the “stridentia
plaustra” of Virgil (Georg.
iii. 536). [PLAUSTRUM ;
SARRACUM.]
3. Hence wheels of va-
rious kinds, a sort of crane sºa wheel
* * eel, or
worked by a wheel for Tympanum.
raising weights (Lucret. iv.
903; Vitruv. x. 4) [MACHINA], a wheel for
drawing water (Vitruv. x. 14) [ANTLIA; RotA],
a solid toothed wheel forming part of the
machinery of a mill (Vitruv. x. 9, 10), and
the like.
4. An architectural term signifying the flat
surface or space within a pediment, and also the
square panel of a door (Vitruv. iii. 3, iv. 6).
5. A wooden cudgel for beating malefactors,
and also a beating post to which they were tied
when flogged; hence the Greek verbs rvuravićeiv
and &Torvutravígely are formed (Schol. ad
Aristoph. Plut. 476; Ep. to Hebrews, xi. 35;
Pollux, viii. 70). [W. R.]
TYRANNUS (répavvos). The word rápavvos
has not yet been satisfactorily explained by a
Greek etymology, and Boeckh's conjecture that
it was a foreign word and came to the Greeks.
from Lydia or Phrygia, where it is found
frequently in inscriptions, is extremely probable
(Boeckh, Comment, ad C. I. G. n. 3438). The
meaning the word conveyed to a Greek mind
was that of a man who wielded absolute power,
and a power not sanctioned by the ordinances of
the state in which it was exercised. This is all
that is essential to the notion; yet the later
philosophic thought of Greece, combined with
actual historical experience, developed an
addition to the conception,-namely, that the
rule of the ripavvos was exercised not in the
interests of the subjects, but in that of the ruler.
This was a natural consequence of the con-
ception that the rule of the 'tyrant was always
outside the pale of law (Eur. Suppl. 445), al-
though it was a deduction not always justified
by facts. Aristotle embraces every side of the
idea when he defined tyranny proper as “that
arbitrary power of an individual which is re-
sponsible to no one, and fgoverns all alike,




Page Missing
in Original
Volume




Page Missing
in Original


Volume


Page Missing
in Original
Volume




Page Missing
in Original


Volume
VANNUS
WAS 919
against the town, and the outer against any force
that might attempt to raise the siege. In this
Case the army was encamped between the two
lines of works.
This kind of circumvallation, which the Greeks
called &moreixtapºs and repureixtapés, was em-
ployed by the Peloponnesians in the siege of
Plataeae (Thucyd. ii. 78, iii. 20–23). Their
lines consisted of two walls (apparently of turf)
at the distance of 16 feet, which surrounded the
city in the form of a circle. Between the walls
were the huts of the besiegers. The walls had
battlements (éráA£ets), and at every tenth
battlement was a tower, filling up by its depth
the whole space between the walls. There was
a passage for the besiegers through the middle
of each tower. On the outside of each wall was
a ditch (réppos). This description would almost
exactly answer for the Roman mode of circum-
vallation, of which some of the best examples
are that of Carthage by Scipio (Appian, Punic.
119, &c.), that of Numantia by Scipio (Appian,
IHispan. 90), and that of Alesia by Caesar (Bell.
Gall. vii. 72, 73). The towers in such lines
were similar to those used in attacking fortified
places, but not so high, and of course not move-
able. [TURRIs.] (Lipsius, de Milit. Rom. v. 5,
in Oper. iii. pp. 156, 157; Poliorc. ii. 1, in Oper.
iii. 283; Marquardt, Röm. Staatsverwaltung, ii.”
419 ; and the art. CASTRA in Vol. I. of this
Dictionary.) [P. S.] [L. C. P.]
WANNUS (Aíkvov), a winnowing fan, i.e. a
broad basket, into which the corn mixed with
chaff was received after threshing, and was then
thrown up into the wind so as to disperse the
chaff and leave the grain (Col. R. R. ii. 21;
Verg. Georg. iii. 134). The same process was
performed by the (probably) more primitive
wooden shovel (irröov, pala lignea), an implement
with a long handle and broad blade, sufficiently
like an oar to account for the passage in the
Odyssey where the oar is mistaken for the &0mph-
Aotºyos (Od. xi. 128; PALA). The expression
“mystica vannus Iacchi " in Verg. Georg. i. 166
shows that the shape of the basket winnowing
fan and the Bacchic Atkvov (whence the title
Atóvvoros Aikvárms) was the same.
JUNONUUU\}\JNJJJJJJJJ
: N- - 2.
º
The infant Dionysus in the Aikvov. (From a terra-cotta
in the British Museum.)
The suggestion of Mr. Andrew Lang (Custom
and Myth, p. 36), that the mystica vannus was
a magic method of raising the wind, like the
whirling of the turbo or rhombus [TURBO], though
ingenious and attractive, must, we think, be
rejected. The Atkva uvorrikā are mentioned by
Plutarch (Alea. 2) as being covered with ivy,
and containing serpents which belonged to the
cult of Dionysus. It is probable that sometimes
a figure of the infant Dionysus was actually
placed in it, though the representation in the
antefixa engraved above may only indicate that
he was regarded as spiritually present in the
processions. We see here the infant god carried
in a Xíkvov or vannus by two figures, a Satyr
bearing a thyrsus and a Maenad bearing a torch,
both wearing skins [NEBRIS]. Some have wished
to trace a symbolism of purification by fire and
air [cf. OSCILLA], but we have little doubt that
the simpler explanation of the mystic vannus is
true. Plutarch speaks of the “Awakening of
Dionysus” (ärav ai 6vićdes éyetpoort row Aikvſ-
tnv, Is. et 0s. 35; cf. &upietà kaxéa Bákyov—
êypdaevov koúpals àua viſuqais einraokáuotoriv,
Orph. Hymn. 53), which belonged to the Delphic
winter month Agöoq6ptos. The swinging of the
basket cradle by the nymphs, who were the
nurses of Dionysus, represented the call upon the
god of springing vegetation to awake. In winter
he is an infant sleeping, as the vegetation sleeps;
by spring-time he is to wake and gain his full
strength: hence the appropriateness of the corn
basket being also the cradle of the god. The
idea is illustrated by the German superstition of
“waking the corn” described by Mannhardt
(Wald- und Feld-Kulte, i. 534) : perhaps also by
the “corn-baby’’ (see Frazer, Golden Bough,
ii. 23). The scene on the terra-cotta shows
doubtless what the procession of the Atkvoq'opia.
at Delphi and elsewhere represented: the Atkvo-
q6pot (Dem. de Cor. p. 313, § 260) bore a cradle
in which was either the infant god himself or
his attributes, the sacred serpents, &c. (See
further on this subject Lobeck, Aglaoph. 700;
Roscher, Learicon der Gr. und Röm. Myth. pp.
1042 f.; Baumeister, Denkm. p. 850.)
[J. Y.] [G. E. M.]
WAPPA. [VINUM.]
VAS (legal). [ACTIO, p. 17; PRAES.]
VAS (vasa, generic name for earthenware)
covers in its extended sense (a) vessels of all
materials; (b) wtensils of every sort; and is
(c) in a special use applied to the baggage of
an army. -
Earthenware naturally subdivides itself into
two classes, embracing firstly those objects of
the commonest utility which, once a suitable
material and form have been invented, retain
that form and material practically unaltered
to the end; and, secondly, those which are
subject also to the laws of ornament and fashion.
Product of primitive civilisation as is the inven-
tion of baked clay for household utensils, no art
is wholly removed from the influence of its
sister arts. Gourds, earlier in use than earthen-
ware vessels, showed men how to shape and
ornament them ; and metal-work, ornamental
glass, and textile industries have all left their
mark on the development of Greek and Roman
ceramics.
The earliest pottery unearthed on Greek soil
is represented in the finds of Dr. Schliemann at
Hissarlik, and is of a rude type. The manu-
facture is as yet in almost its first stage. There
are vases of very various forms, doubtless meant
for special uses, but showing no great adapta-
tion of means to end: in scarcely more than


920 WAS - WAS
two series have the potters succeeded in estab- have been rubbed, after firing, by a piece of wood
lishing fixed types; the one (fig. 1) being that or some similar materialso as to dress the surface
- == and impart a certain polish. The clay contains
many particles of mica, which may be used like
pounded granite to bind and strengthen. Handles
are not generally employed, and their place is
taken by bosses pierced for the passage of a
thong by which the vesselmight be hung against
a wall: a practice sometimes retained in later
ware as a mere form of ornament. The vases
are never painted, but in a certain proportion of
them scratches have been made to serve a first
rude idea of design. These scratchings have,
Dr. Schliemann states, been in many cases
“filled up with white chalk:” but the presence
of the chalk may, as in the parallel instance
- º - of certain Cypriote vases, be accidental and due
- ... . to the nature of the soil, which both at Hissarlik
Fig. 1. *ś Hissarlik. and Alambra (Cyprus) is of a limestone forma-
------- tion. A fragment of a large rſ60s “from the
which Dr. Schliemann imagined might represent second city” exhibits a second style of ornamen-
the Homeric Seras ºutpºreaxov, the other tation, the design being given by strips of clay
(fig. 2)—the “owl-vase"—being noteworthy applied in relief. [For the Hissarlik pottery, see
- Schliemann, Ilios and Troja; Dumont et
Chaplain, Les Céramiques, s. v.]
In many ways analogous to the pottery
of Hissarlik, but showing a distinct advance
upon it, is that obtained from the most
ancient graves of Cyprus. The class of ware
here indicated is known by the name of the
place where most examples have been found,
Alambra (Dali): elsewhere in Cyprus it has
not been discovered except at Larnaca (Ki-
tion): both are sites especially associated
with Phoenician colonisation. The class
consists of vases (a) covered with a vitreous
slip and baked to a lustrous red, almost ver-
milion in tint, ranging sometimes, by over-
exposure, to black or, by under-exposure,
to a light red: the ornamentation is by
lines incised generally before, occasionally
after, firing. Some specimens of this class
are decorated in appliqué with strips of clay,
which here and there take shape as serpents.
(b) Made of extra fine clay, moulded to a
very delicate texture. The colour is grey,
or pale black; and the vessels are less
frequently ornamented with incised lines,
and more often by appliqué work: often the
vase is left plain. The ware seems to be
rather later in date than that mentioned
under (a).
It is in the Alambra pottery that a dis-
tinctive style first emerges, both in form and
ornament. Two shapes are characteristic,
the first of which is simply a reproduction
in clay of the long-stalked gourd which has
always been and is to-day the commonest
- - … . water- or wine-bottle of the Cypriotes: in
Fig. 2. So-called "Owl Vase” from Hissarik. some cases it has even been fitted with
(Schliemann, Ilios.)
-
a string and stopper, thus carrying the re-
as marking a first attempt to establish, in the semblance into the closest detail. [An example
analogy between a vase and a living thing, a is in the Brit. Mus., 1 W. R., Wall-case 3, No. 1.]
principle of design and decoration. [Examples | The other shape is that of a broad, shallow,
of the shapes: Schliemann, Ilios, p. 299, No. 179, handleless cup. Something like a system of
and pp. 340 f, figs. 227 f, respectively..] This ornamentation also appears: the scratches are
analogy, though helpful, is responsible for many gathered together to form lozenges and cables,
vagaries in early ceramic art. The Hissarlik and the field is divided into sections by perpen-
vases are hand-made–Dr. Schliemann excepts dicular lines. Many of the vases with their
one, figured Ilios, p. 214, No. 23-are generally bright red colouring set off by the white lines.
of a dull-black colour produced by the smoke of incision, or their delicate grey tint, are really
of the furnace impregnating their substance, and effective. Their greater merit may be due te



WAS
WAS 921
Semitic influence, to which also the use of the
wheel is perhaps to be assigned.
Similar vases, though of inferior style, have
been found on a number of the Aegean Islands,
such as Amorgos, Antiparos, Naxos, Melos: and
they represent a distinct epoch in ceramics, an
epoch undoubtedly of considerable duration.
Already however a new style is growing up,
and the introduction of painting opens a great
career to the potter. By whom and when
painted vases were invented is unknown, nor is
it necessary to assume for them a single source.
At Thera (Santorin), which has, among the
Aegean Islands, yielded the richest harvest of
early pottery, the new style is found already
established. Thera ware is made entirely upon
the wheel, and, almost for the first time, vases
are furnished with a foot and intended to stand
by themselves instead of being hung against a
wall. The clay used proves the fabric to be an
insular product: while the ornamentation shows
a great preference for plant-life, but admits also
animal forms. Though great success is not
attained, there is a distinct striving to imitate
nature. As to colours, red, brown-black, and
white are used upon prepared grounds of grey,
buff, and a brownish red. By substituting the
brush for the point the artist is enabled to
ornament also the inside of the vase, and thus
a new departure is taken.
Thera pottery is found beneath a lava stratum,
and this fact has given it an exceptional value as
suggesting the possibility of an approximate
date. Geologists, however, are unable to speak
either with precision or unanimity; and the
opinion now in vogue that the ware belongs to
the period 2000–1500 B.C. must stand for what
it is worth. Any attempt to date the Hissarlik
and Alambra types from that of Thera is with-
out value: Cypriote pottery in particular, owing
to its conservativeness, is exceptionally difficult
in the matter of chronology.
[For early Cypriote pottery, see an article by
Sandwith, Archaeologia, xlv. (1877–80), which
is especially valuable for its reserve, and for its
illustrations in colour (v. pl. ix.); also Dümmler,
Mitth. d. Ath. Inst. xi. pp. 209 f. and A. S. Murray
in Cesmola’s Cyprus. For Thera, Dumont et
Chaplain, Les Céramiques, s. v. “Type de San-
torin,” and pll. i. and ii. : the geological question
in Fouqué, Santorin et ses Eruptions.]
The vases of Thera supply a natural point of
transition to the second great stage of early
ceramic art represented by the so-called My-
cenaean ware. Spread over virtually the
whole of the ancient classical world, there has
been found a class of pottery more or less uni-
form in technique and ornamentation which has
formed the subject of special study by Drs.
Furtwängler and Löschcke and has been named
by them “Mycenaean.” This class divides itself
broadly into vases painted (a) with opaque, or
matt, and (b) with lustrous, colours (Mattmalerei,
Firmissmalerei). The first division is of less
interest, is relatively small, and of greater an-
tiquity. Examples of it occurred only in the
deepest layers at Mycenae, and it is not generally
found accompanying (b) in localities other than
Mycenae itself. The decoration is painted in
opaque colour, either on red or pale clay: in the
former case the tints are violet-brown and red,
and white is at times employed, while the
surface is polished; in the latter only violet-
brown is used, and there is no polishing. The
ornaments sometimes show 'a close analogy to
the metal-work which Dr. Schliemann found
accompanying the pottery.
(b) The introduction of lustrous colours is “a
new factor in vase-making;” and is to all in-
tents peculiar to Greek ceramics (including the
pottery of peoples taught by Greece). Four
different styles may be distinguished:—1. A
small class, ground completely covered by black
varnish, on which designs are painted in matt
white or red. 2. The ground is supplied by a
whitish or yellow-brown slip, the ornament
painted in black-brown (lustrous). 3. A lustrous,
warm-yellow surface is ornamented with paint-
ings in all shades, from yellow to dark brown.
4. Similar but duller both in ground and lustre.
Inner face of open vases treated with varnish-
colour. Of these styles the third is the im–
portant one, and is the one almost solely repre-
sented outside the Argolid.
While the classification holds good, the con-
clusions based upon it by its authors are more
open to objection. They found in the Mycenae
ware the outcome of a civilisation pre-Dorian
but not un-Greek, localised in and about My-
cenae, which carried by the channels of trade
its manufactures to all parts of the ancient
world, so that “the Mycenaean pottery was as
exclusively made in the Argolid as the later
Attic ware at Athens, or the Corinthian at
Corinth.” These positions have been, with good
reason, often challenged; but an alternative
theory has not yet received the stamp of general
assent. In any case the problem of Mycenae
is bound up with the greater problem of the
Mycenaean culture in general as represented
especially in its metal-work; and that culture
has been variously traced to Phoenicia, Egypt,
Crete, and Caria.
Two styles of ornament mark themselves out
in “Mycenaean * pottery, and are indebted re-
spectively to marine forms, and the conventions
of metal-work, the former being especially in
favour at Ialysos, the latter at Mycenae. Two
shapes also are highly characteristic, the vase
with a bow-form handle (Bijelkanne) and the
cuttle-fish goblet: the first a general receptacle
for water, wine, oil, and ointments; the latter a
drinking cup, owing both form and ornament to
the popularity, probably as great then as now,
of a fish which is considered at once a peculiar
delicacy and an excellent thirst-producer.
For Mycenae ware, v. Furtwängler and
Löschcke, Mykenische Thongefässe and My-
kenische Vasen. A summary of the Mycenae
controversy to date is given in the last chapter
of Schuchhardt's Schliemann's Ausgrabungen.]
A small but most interesting class of early
vases is that which imitates Phoenician glass.
It is mainly represented by specimens obtained
by Mr. George Dennis in 1882 from the tumuli
of Bin-tepe near Sardis. The clay is painted
with waved lines of the warmest orange and red,
and is highly polished. Other imitations of
glass ware have been found on different sites,
and in Cyprus the style remains down to a
comparatively late date. e
In the Alambra and especially in the Mycenae
pottery a new ornamental style is beginning to
assert its claim to notice, the Geometric. Owing
922 WAS
WAS
its origin very largely to the influence of tech-
nique in metal, from which it borrows many of
its most characteristic members, like the con-
centric circle, spiral, maeander and cable, and
rosette, it soon won independence and makes its
first appearance,—in the Dipylon vases, already
a matured and established convention. That it
attaches itself closely in point of development
to the preceding Mycenae ware may seem es-
tablished by the fact of its being found side by
side with the third and fourth varieties of that
style: but in reality there is, from a technical
point of view, a very perceptible break between
the two; the birth of the Geometric style is
unknown, and it meets us first as a finished
product which a long process of development
must have preceded. This fact, coupled with
a minute examination of formal style and the
elements of ornamentation employed, has natu-
rally suggested an origin in a manner foreign.
Furtwängler and Löschcke would regard the
Geometric principle in contrast to the Mycenae
technique as Dorian compared with pre-Dorian :
others, as Kroker (Jahrbuch, 1886, pp. 95 f.), have
endeavoured to prove a close connexion with
Egypt, others with Phoenicia or Ionia. (Older
theory of the Geometric vases in Conze, Annali,
1877, p. 396 n.) The finest and most numerous
specimens however come from Athens, especially
from the neighbourhood of the Dipylon (whence
the name given to this ware); and a compara-
tively late oenochoe is marked as Attic by its
inscription (Mitth. d. Ath. Inst. vi. Taf. 3). That
Athens was the main seat of manufacture is
practically certain, but this in no way excludes
the question where the style first originated, a
question which for the present remains open.
Nor is the chronology of the Geometric style
satisfactorily determined.
course for five or six centuries, and lasts in
Greece proper down to the 6th cent. B.C. Limits
of space make it impossible here to give a de-
tailed account of the system of ornament : it will
be enough to reproduce an example (fig. 3) which
contains almost all the characteristic traits of
its class, and to refer for specimens of the date-
less conventionalised style to the collection from
Cyprus in the British Museum (1 W. R.).
Attention should be specially drawn to the
prevalence of forms of aquatic life, the limitation
of range in the depicting of quadrupeds, and the
introduction of scenes from daily life, among
which funeral processions and sea-fights deserve
most notice. Both matt and lustre colours are
used, including red of all shades, brown, and
black, while the ground is generally of a pre-
pared tone, varying from the palest neutral stone
to a deep red. Owing much to Orientalism in
its first development, the Geometric style at-
tained so high and lasting a popularity and
became so purely conventional that it threatened
to crush all life out of ceramic art, when salva-
tion came by a new impulse from the East.
Thenceforth two movements, conservative and
progressive, manifested themselves. The great
merit of the style lies in the training it gave
the artist in sureness of hand and eye, and in the
perfecting of shapes.
The pottery of Cyprus may here be briefly
dismissed. Alambra ware, already treated, is in
all probability genuinely archaic: absolute cer-
tainty is out of the question. Geometric style
It may have run its
was early established, and soon drove all com-
petitors from the field: it shows a special
preference for concentric circles and aquatic
life. The process of development is in a manner
retrograde: the later the ware, the simpler and
more purely geometric is its ornamentation.
Upon an unvarying background of geometric
forms foreign influences from time to time
superimposed themselves, and vanished, in
agreement with political conditions, and thus
there came into existence an Egyptian-geo-
metric, an Assyrian-geometric, a Persian-geo-
metric, and, lastly, a Greek-geometric. Finally
the style seems to die out about the end of the
4th century, although isolated specimens may
go down even to Roman times. No group of
vases is to be identified with the Phoenicians.
There is no reason to believe that that people
ever manufactured pottery to an appreciable
extent; though they introduced the potter's
wheel and other secrets of the craft from Egypt
and Babylon. Pottery is alien to the spirit of
their trade, which was concerned with articles
of little bulk and high value. Still Phoenicia is
responsible (a) for the introduction of certain
Oriental forms (like the sacred tree); (b) for a
more lasting Semitic flavour than the temporary
dominion of successive conquerors would have
imparted. Apart from the accidents of political
necessity, identically the same style of ware
remained in use for centuries: nor is there any
particular reason for assigning a given vase to
the end or the beginning of the period. [The
report of the last excavations in Cyprus, Journ.
Hell. Stud. 1890, may be consulted.]
The universal extension of Geometric style
gave rise to many local varieties, and from this
epoch begin fabrics classed, with greater or less
justice, as imitative. Especially was this the
case in Italy, the great market for vases, where
native ceramic art now entered upon and
maintained to the last a rivalry with Greek
(continental) wares. It was once, through
ignorance, the fashion to attribute all figured
vases to Etruria; it is now, through over-
subtlety, equally the fashion to attribute every-
thing to Greece proper. By anticipation it may
be said here that beside the distinct local
Etruscan wares, so well represented at Florence,
there were certainly other, and S. Italian Greek,
imitations of later Corinthian and Attic pottery;
but that these were not, virtually, contempo-
rary with their prototypes, it is difficult to show.
To have insisted on the possibly much wider
scope of such imitative art, to have protested
against the over-hasty generalisations now in
vogue, is the great merit of Prof. Brunn; but
his attempt to degrade so many figured vases to
the level of late Italian imitations has mainly
failed, resting as it does primarily on a mistaken
view of the epigraphic evidence from vases.
In the Geometric style—to return from this
brief digression—new tendencies soon appear. A
small class of vases, named after the place of
discovery Phaleron, embraces a series of jugs
(olpae) of a peculiar shape, having a narrow
body, an extremely high and broad neck, and a
trefoil lip. Though not differing in technique
from the Dipylon class, these vases introduce
new features in the characteristic label orna-
ment of the neck, in a manner of filling the
field which is prophetic of later Rhodian style,
WAS
above all in the employment of new animal
types and their treatment, both in design and
grouping, on Oriental models. The reaction
which manifests itself first in the Phaleron
ware soon spread widely,
giving birth to an era
of transition. Another
group of Attic vases
shows the same ten-
dency: the finest of
them is the Hymettos
amphora, No. 56 in the
Berlin Antiquarium.
Characteristic of the
new method as shown in
this vase is the heraldic
grouping of combatants
in pairs. A like process
was at work in the
islands, especially at
Melos and Rhodes. A
small class of amphorae
(it contains three and a
fragment) was early set
apart by Conze and
named by him “Melian.”
Though the claim of the
vases to a separate title ||
has been disputed, con-
venience at least has suf- ||
ficed for its retention.
The Melian ware is later
in development than ||
much of the Rhodian,
but it stands first here
because of its far closer
connexion with the Di-
pylon style, as shown in
the range of geometric
ornaments which still
fill the field, and in the
manner of rendering the
human animal forms as
in the spirit of the
grouping. There are
many features hitherto
unknown in these Me-
lian amphorae, and the
admixture of Oriental
style and design is espe-
cially obvious; but these
details may be best con-
sidered under the head-
ing of Rhodes.
[For Phaleron vases v.
Dumontet Chaplain, Les
Ceramiques, pp. 101 ff.:
Böhlau, Jahrbuch, 1887,
pp. 44 f : Hymettosam-
phora, Furtwängler, Be-
schreib, der Vasen S. . . .
zu Berlin, No. 56: Melos
vases, Conze, Melische
Thongeſüsse.]
Wase-painting then
has reached the point at
which the tide of Orien-
talism, whose rising has
been noted in the transition style beginning
with Phaleron, swells into full flood. Rhodes
indeed can show examples of the entire process:
but it is with the triumph of the Oriental style
Fig. 3. Vase from Curium in Cyprus.
WAS 923
that the island pottery is specially associated.
While under its influence the vase-painter
evolved a system of decoration effective and of
true beauty, the potter condensed the earlier
(Cesnola, pl.xxix.)
multiplicity of forms to a few simple and elegant
types, the most characteristic among which is
an oenochoe, resembling that in the next cut.
Almost equally characteristic is the pinar,


924 WAS
VAS
while amphora and cylia, are taking shape;
and, as the Oriental style waxes to its zenith,
the alabastos—which may conceivably be a
ſº
&
*COXXXXXXYYXXXº
º
º ©OXXXXX Cºolºº
C
º &h
W. O KºKº. Kº CKXCC KXC
Fig. 4. Oenochoe. (Birch.)
Naucratis invention—and the aryballos come
to the front and are the favourite shapes at
Corinth. [ALABASTRUM ; ARYBALLUS.] But
whereas the types of oenochoe, pinaa, ala-
bastos, and aryballos are created in the Oriental
school, those of the amphora and cylic are only
sketched.
Two alien arts exerted a special influence over
the birth of the new style, textiles—in particu-
lar, embroidery—and metal-work. Thus the
scheme of ornament on a Rhodian pinaa is com-
parable to the unit of a brocaded pattern with
the threads of the under-web left projecting ;
and Corinthian designs reproduce the continuous
texture and involved lines of close embroidery:
while on the other hand the choice of rosettes
and anthemia, the alternation of purple and red
with a brown-black, the employment of incised
lines for details, display a connexion with
metal-work. Both arts impel the painter to-
wards polychromy.
Painting at first, like the artists of the
Transition, with brown-black varnish on a plain
polished ground, Rhodian potters founded a new
method when they effected a combination of
silhouette and outline-drawing, and left the
light parts in ground-colour. Light and shade,
discrimination of planes of surface, become
thereby possible. A fresh step in advance is
made when the red clay is covered throughout
with a dull cream-white engobe which can be
used to represent flesh-colour with more fidelity
to nature. Then white and a new red tint are
employed to mark details and differences of
surface, and are generally laid on in broad un-
broken masses. A more minute discrimination
of details but a less spirited and less free con-
ception marks a yet further advance in tech-
nique, which is signalised by the use of purple
colour and the rendering of outlines and details
by incised lines.
These differences in technique allow Rhodian
ware to be divided into two main classes, which
have been named “Dorian * (“Egyptian *) and
“Assyrian.” The former exhibits a less con-
ventional style, more freedom in the choice of
animal types, and among the ornaments with
which in this, as in all Rhodian ware, the field
is sown, a preference for those of a geometric
class and for the Egyptian lotus: the latter
practically admits no animals but the lion, bull,
and goat, is more distinctly Oriental in its
forms, and loves to crowd the field with rosettes.
The former again employs white and red for
details, but retains outline drawing; the latter
alone uses incised lines and purple. In the one
a metope arrangement is frequent, and is often
forced ; in the other, where it occurs, it is only
in the modified form of an Assyrian blazon,
two animals facing one another and separated
by the sacred tree.
Taking Rhodian pottery as a whole, the sub-
jects are drawn almost entirely from the animal
creation. Beast forms, the goat, lion, bull,
boar, ram, &c.—the first two in overwhelming
preponderance—occupy most of the vases: an
apparently later group admits further the
human figure, and compound shapes like the
Sphinx. In this later group one vase stands out
from among its fellows. This is the well-known
Euphorbos pinaſc, whose importance lies not
only in the fact that it is the first instance in
which a definite scene—Menelaos and Hector
fight over Euphorbos—from a definite source
(the Epos) is represented, but because being
inscribed with the heroes' names it furnishes
other material for a date than that drawn from
internal evidence of style. Kirchhoff has thus
been enabled to place this vase at the end of the
7th century, and this fixes with approximate
certainty the lower limit of the Rhodian period
(v. Studien zur Gesch. d. griech. Alph.).
It is unnecessary here to discuss the doubts
which have been thrown on the claim of Rhodes
to be the actual manufacturer of the pottery
classed under her name. Other things being
equal, the principle is fairly trustworthy that a
particular style is native in the place where it
is most abundantly found. It is sufficient to
refer to the treatment of these and similar ques-
tions in e.g. Egypt Earplor. Fund Memoirs,
Naukratis, pts. i. and ii.; Jour. Hell. Stud. 1885,
pp. 180 f. [For Rhodian ware in general, v.
A. S. Murray in Revue Archéol., Dec. 1882,
pp. 342 ft. ; Dumont et Chaplain, Les Céramiques,
s.v.; Salzmann, Nécropole de Camiros, for
illustrations.]
There is a small class of vases of a peculiar
type found in Rhodes, at Naucratis, and in
Etruria, to which it has been proposed to give
the name “Polledrara,” after the large hydria
of the British Museum. The distinctive trait
of this class is the clay, which is black through-
out, and contains numerous particles of mica.
The designs are painted in Scarlet and purple,
and occasionally blue. The origin of the ware
is disputed; Naucratis, Lesbos, Rhodes, and
Etruria being all suggested as the seat of its
manufacture.
Closely, resembling this group in material,
but very distinct in point of ornament, are the
















































WAS
WAS 925
early Italian vases, the so-called Bucchero.
Dull and rough in appearance at first, like the
brown ware which accompanies them, the
Italian vases in their more developed state are
of lustrous black pottery, with ornaments and
scenes moulded in relief from the actual, clay of
the vase, the Bucchero properly so named. The
distinctive feature is the evident attempt to
imitate as closely as possible a bronze original:
whence both colour and polish, moulding of
ornament in relief as though embossed, and
treatment of lip and handles.
[Examples illustrated by Micali, Monumenti
Inediti; Dennis, Etruria.]
The polychromatic style, whose commence-
ment has already been seen in Rhodes, reaches
its highest development at Naucratis. So cos-
mopolitan a town (Herod. ii. 178) must have
'brought together all kinds of styles in ceramics,
and the absence therefore of geometric, not to
mention Mycenae, pottery is to be noted as
significant of the stage of vase-painting contem-
porary with the existence of Naucratis, a town
which first became powerful under Amasis, and
was ruined under Cambyses (roughly 580–520
B.C.). This furnishes a limit of exclusion for
the earlier classes of pottery, a limit which may,
according to Mr. Petrie, be pushed further back
—to about 650 B.C.—as the oldest remains of
the settlement are considerably prior to Amasis.
But among the various sorts of earthenware
found at Naucratis one group marks itself off
as a local fabric; as is proved by a dedication—
to the “Aphrodite of Naucratis”—which has
Been scratched in the clay before firing (see
Journ. Hell. Stud. viii. p. 119). The ware
shows a close connexion with, but also a dis-
tinct advance upon, that of Rhodes. An opaque
white engobe is used, of a tint generally
brighter than, but sometimes approaching, that
of Kameiros; on this engobe a design is painted
in colour, and the technique follows, but extends,
that combination of outline and silhouette which
Rhodes had introduced. New colours, copied
from the Egyptian wall-paintings, are employed,
especially a light sienna and an umber red, the
latter being a flesh tint for male figures. For
female figures flake white is added to the en-
gobe. Each of the chief colours appears in
various shades; and the distinction of flesh tints
so carefully worked out in Egyptian painting
reappears, but after a more haphazard fashion,
in Naucratis ware. The most advanced tech-
mique in use at Naucratis traces outlines in light
sienna and fills in the silhouette with an umber
tint.
[For Naucratis pottery, v. Memoirs of Egypt
Ea:ploration Fund, Naukratis, pt. i. 1884–5, and
pt. ii. 1888.] -
The excavations at Naucratis produced among
other things fragments of the ware known as
Cyrenaic; and on the strength of this fact the
claim of Cyrene to be the maker of the pottery,
often disputed before, has been anew called in
question. No sufficient reason has, however, as
yet been adduced for disregarding the evidence
* Wases with dedications are especially frequent at
Naucratis. Pottery was largely used in temple service,
and was then marked with the name of the divinity.
Numerous similarly inscribed fragments have been
found on the Athenian Acropolis.
furnished by the best-known Cyrene vase, the
Arcesilas cylix, with its strong local colouring.
The ware, too, is strikingly metallic in style;
and it is not, as Puchstein maintains, to the
Cypro-Phoenician, but to the Carthaginian
paterae that a debt is due. An artistic con-
nexion of this sort with Carthage is more pro-
bable in Cyrene than in Naucratis.
The class is not numerous, but highly dis-
tinctive. Its favourite shape is the cylia, which
thus takes definite rank in the development of
vase-painting: but the hydria, deinos, and am-
phora also occur. A ground-surface is given by
a dull smooth slip of light stone colour; and on
this the design is painted in black with purple
as a subsidiary colour, all main lines and inner
details, being scratched in. Subjects include
mythology and genre;—though not its first
appearance, for we have noticed it already in
Dipylon ware for example, genre becomes here
first of historic interest:—and with much of
helplessness in drawing there is decided feeling
and often spirit in the scenes. Zones of animals,
in particular an aquatic bird, are still retained,
and beast and bird forms serve to fill the field
in a manner which seems directly borrowed from
the bronze paterae already mentioned. Lip and
handle, and, in the cylices, stem and foot, are
covered with black varnish, a noteworthy
º Mechanical ornament is exceptionally
TICI).
[The Cyrene vases are put together by Puch-
stein, Arch. Zeit., 1881, pp. 215 f : they are
exceptionally well represented in the British
Museum, 1 W. R. Latest discussion, Ath. Mitth.
1886, pp. 90 fj -
With Corinthian ware Orientalism reaches
its zenith. Earlier however than Corinthian
ware properly so called is a group of vases—
almost without exception diminutive lekythoi
of a peculiar shape, and two-handled cups—
which, from their wide distribution must have
had as general, as they had a lasting, vogue.
As these little vases, by far the finest specimen
of which has lately been presented to the
British Museum, show a very close connexion
with the Corinthian, but also points of difference,
and seem moreover to be earlier, they have
been named Protocorinthian. Like the cy-
renaic, they too owe much in technique and
style to Phoenician metal-work... The clay is
a fine, clear yellow; the decoration consists
mainly of zones of animals, but admits also
human figures; an elaborate ornament, com-
posed of the anthemion and lotus, resembling
that which subsequently becomes characteristic
at Corinth, makes its appearance; and the field,
though in general less encumbered, is sown with
rosettes. The colours vary from a red-brown
to black.
The vast class of vases which groups itself
under the name Corinthian was long treated as
the oldest Greek ware. The surface in this ware
is often so crowded with ornament, that at a
few feet of distance the ground-colour cannot be
distinguished, and the general effect to the eye,
due at once to colour and design, is that of a
rich Oriental brocade. This is especially true of
earlier specimens, whose subjects, fantastic fish-
tailed monsters for example, seem to have been
directly chosen for their fitness to cover most
space. A like feeling has brought the alabastos
926 WAS
WAS
into peculiar favour. The ground is a clear
yellow; the painting in black (often brown,
thanks to over-firing), with details in purple and
red; while an extreme fondness for incised lines
marks the group as a whole. Subjects at first
are mainly animals—where possible in friezes—
and monsters, the panther and certain winged
shapes being characteristic. Often too a vase,
especially if an aryballos, is decorated solely by
an elaborate anthemion ornament. [Most of
the principal shapes are illustrated in Birch,
Anc. Pottery, p. 186. Baumeister, Denkmäler,
p. 1961, gives cuts mostly of protocorinthian
ware.] In the later group human figures be-
Fig. 5. Cover of the Dodwell vase, with boar-hunt. (Birch.)
come increasingly frequent, and occasionally
scenes from ordinary life, or from mythology,
appear. An example (fig. 5) is here reproduced
from Birch,-the lid of the famous Dodwell
vase. In technique there is no change of
moment.
Before the growing sense that human action
is the vase-painter's true subject, Orientalism
begins to give way: yet the old tradition lingers
in the animal shapes which, having no direct
relation to the main subject, still encumber the
field. The reform is due to the rise of a new
school, whose representative is the potter Timo-
nidas, known also by the plaques of the Akro-
korinthos [FICTILE. The Achilles vase, Berlin
Cat. 846]. A second master was Chares (Arch.
Zeit. 1864, Taf, 184). This section of Corinthian
ware should be especially compared with the
previously mentioned Cyrenaic group. The face
is generally rendered in silhouette, sometimes in
outline, and gradually a practice grows up of
distinguishing the faces of female figures by
white colour applied directly to the ground.
From its first adoption white grew rapidly in
favour at Corinth. The duration of this class
is fixed by the inscriptions for the 7th–6th
centuries B.C.
Yet a later class of Corinthian ware shows
the evidence of a strong foreign influence, prob-
ably that of Athens. The smaller types pre-
viously in vogue disappear, and their place is
taken by large vases like the amphora, heavy in
form and with ring handles, the hydria, and so-
called , vaso a colonnette [CRATER). The clay
ground becomes redder, lustre-varnish often
replaces the hitherto usual matt colour, white
is more largely employed, the field nearly freed
of foreign elements, and animals relegated to a
Separate zone below the main scene. Horsemen
and quadrigae are favourite subjects. The fine
Berlin vase of “the setting out of Amphiaraos”
will serve as an example (Furtwängler, Be-
schreib. 1655). -
This last development of Corinthian pottery
recalls the history of classical ceramic art to
Athenian soil, and henceforth we are concerned
almost solely with Athens. But before dealing
with Athenian ware proper, some side-
groups merit notice; and one, the Chal-
cidian, is of exceptional importance.
Unfortunately the group, first recognised
as Chalcidian through the alphabet of its
inscriptions, is as yet vaguely defined.
[W. Pottier ap, Dumont et Chaplain, Les
Céramiques, pp. 276 ft.; or Klein, Euphro-
nios, pp. 65 ft.; and contrast Brunn,
Probleme, in Abhandl. d. Kgl. bay. Akad.,
Bd. xii. pt. ii., pp. 113 ff.] It is even
maintained that the greater part are late
S. Italian imitations (Brunn, l.c.; and Id.
Abhandl. Bd. xviii. pt. i.). Certainly the
free and spirited rendering, the know-
ledge here shown of the laws of painting,
on vases of, as is assumed, so early a
fabric, are ground for surprise. The class
consists almost entirely of amphorae of
a distinctive type (see fig. 6); and is the
first to make that type of vase its spe-
cialty. As concerns style, the free-
grouping without regard to a fixed centre,
the élan and picturesqueness of conception,
and, as to details, the plain long girt chiton
of the women, fitting so closely as to reveal each
contour of the body, and the peculiar ornament
on the neck of the vase, are all alike character-
(L º ū’ſ gºſ/
{& \\? º
Bººk
jīāVºl Illy
§ sº Wº |
lºº
3:22.7%//7/77 UTVN SNSSNS:
غ sº.--SGº
2:sº <>, ~w-
ſ
§§§
&lº-
sº
C. TD
Fig. 6. Chalcidian amphora. (Gerhard.)
istic. Purple is richly used, incised lines em-
ployed with great skill, white less frequently.









WAS
WAS 927
Of other Ionian fabrics so little has as yet
been determined that it will suffice here to
remark their preference for a frieze-like system
of decoration, a more pictorial treatment, and a
tendency to polychromy. One large class of
amphorae has long been known as Tyrrhenian
[AMPHORA. The body of the vase is generally
more slender than the cut there given from
Dennis.j. It is distinguished by its shape, its
zones of animals, the peculiar ornament—an
alternation of maeanders with an 8-rayed star—
which separates the animal frieze from the main
scene on the shoulder, and by its prodigal use
of colours other than black. The origin of these
vases is doubtful: all examples hitherto have
been found in Etruria, but they are certainly not
of local make : Dümmler thinks them “Pontic”
(Röm. Mitth. 1887, pp. 171 ff., Taf, 8, 9).
One or two vases survive which represent
Boeotian style of this period; but they are too
few in number to allow of general criticism.
Being so few, however, it is curious that among
them occur the names of two artists, Gamedes
and Theozotos. The Caeretan hydriae are more
numerous, better known, and equally dis-
tinctive. They exhibit an important change in
technique. White and subsidiary colours are no
longer painted directly on to the ground-clay,
but are laid over the black varnish. Red and
white are freely used, the latter sometimes as a
flesh-tint for men: incised lines are frequent
and are firmly drawn. As the side handles of a
hydria necessarily interrupt a frieze, the decora-
tion is here divided into groups, and that on the
reverse is made of less account. The rendering
is characterised by an almost reckless freedom,
and shows traces of what is very rare in Greek
work, humour. As a whole they are com-
paratively late. Their origin is disputed:
Brunn, against general opinion, holds to Helbig’s
original view (since abandoned by its author)
that they are of Etruscan fabric. [Helbig, Annali,
1863, pp. 210 ft.; Brunn, l. c.; Dumont et
Chaplain (Pottier), pp. 264 ft.]
From the 7th century B.C. to the end of the
4th Athenian pottery'reigns almost without a
rival. It has two epochs, the black-figure and
the red-figure, united to each other by a period of
transition and experiment. With the exception
of the two or three classes of ware just previously
described, and some few imitative fabrics, the
great mass of black-figure pottery hails from
Athens. Two vase-shapes are especially in vogue
in this ware, amphorae and hydriae, the former
greatly preponderating: both are rapidly per-
fected in form. [The evolution of the amphora
may be followed on p. 1973 of Baumeister's
Denkmäler. The hydria improves as its centre
of gravity mounts and the shoulder-scene shal-
lows and widens.] A new discovery contributed
to the rapid advance of Athenian ceramics;—a
deep-black varnish of the highest brilliancy, with
a surface like polished metal, insensible to ordi-
nary reagents, but not interfering with that
porousness of the clay which under a Greek sun is
so necessary for the coolness of water or wine.
Its manufacture is still a secret: nor is it known
where the invention first saw the light. So
popular did it immediately become that the vase-
painter covered the whole surface with it, leaving
as field for the actual picture only a square panel
of red ground-colour—that of the natural clay
heightened by adding a little rubrica.” Not all
potters, however, followed this plan, and subse-
quently there was something of a reaction.
Thus two groups come to be distinguished,—
vases which have a panel-field, and those which,
though generally marking off reverse from ob-
verse, admit all space between the two handles
as ground for the painter. No real difference
of technique follows this division. In both the
artist first draws his outlines with a full brush
of black, fills in the silhouette, and then adds
details with the point or with strokes of white
and purple-red: but perhaps the panel-painter
uses less subsidiary colours and trusts more to
careful graving. Always, however, it is rather
a question of idiosyncrasy; and the polychromy
of some of the later vases is a reaction due to a
particular school imbued with a fondness for
metallic effects. It is with the masters of black-
figure style that the point first comes adequately
to express the lines of musculature and bodily
form. The rendering of drapery is a mark of
relative date. At first the chiton is a straight
daub of colour, as in Corinthian ware, and is
often purple in hue with perhaps a black girdle:
then patterns are scratched in, or elaborately
painted on with white : folds begin to be marked,
are outlined with the point, and dress gives
some hint of the underlying contour of the body.
An alternate use of purple and black for the
folds is occasionally carried so far as to express
light and shade. A like use of purple is to be
seen in the treatment of muscles in animals,
especially the horse. White is throughout a
flesh-tint for female figures, but is also employed,
on later vašés, for the long chiton of a charioteer
and the grey hair of old men.
Drawing is almost entirely in profile: full-
face is scarcely rendered with more adroitness
than was shown already in the François vase.
The eyes of men remain large and round, of
women oval and small. In more recent vases a
trick grows up of crowding the field with long,
purely conventional ivy sprays: equally conven-
tional in rendering are the landscape features
sometimes introduced, and no attempt is made
at pictorial perspective. Excellence of drawing
is seldom a sufficient criterion of date. r
The subjects of vases become now of less
importance for their general history. In black-
figure ware they are mainly mythological, some-
times genre. In mythology the Dionysiac cycle
and the feats of Herakles are by far most
frequent; after them, the legends of Athena
and Hermes. Frequently as scenes from the
Epic appear, scarcely any can be traced to the
Iliad or Odyssey.
Ornament, as distinct from painted scenes,
becomes stereotyped. Almost always the neck
of an amphora shows a design of lotus and
anthemion hooped together by a cable pattern :
dentals unite neck to shoulder: below the field
are two zones, the upper a maeander, the lower
continuous lotus buds: from the foot shoot up
the rays which since Rhodian pottery have held
their own. For a hydria, ivy tendrils or
chequers border the sides, a running anthemion
the bottom, of the field; below which sometimes
* So Suidas asserts, but contrast Blümner, Technologie,
ii. p. 57, as to the result of experiments made on frag-
ments.
928 WAS
WAS
an archaistic feeling has restored the Corinthian
frieze of animals, but has restored it purely as
an ornamental finish.
The different schools of black-figure ware have
yet to be recognised: those that are known are,
for the most part, concerned with either the
commencement or the end of this style and its
transition into red-figure. Early enough to be
somewhat isolated is the first Athenian master-
piece, the François vase of Florence, in itself an
JEpos. Early also, as is shown by shape, by style
of painting, and by arrangement of subject, are
a group of amphorae which, from their close
connexion with Corinthian ware, are known as
Corintho-Attic. Characteristic are their zones
of animals; which have often caused them to be
confounded in one class with the “Tyrrhenian’”
(see above). A different fundamentum divisionis
has served to mark off the Panathenaic amphorae
[AMPHORA]; which last through the black-
figure, and even to the end of the red-figure,
period. The archaism of the figure of Athena
on the obverse becomes in time a pure convention,
the reverse reflecting contemporary style. Many
specimens seem never to have been given at the
games, and are simply show-plate. Less nume-
rous and of peculiarly elongated form, are the
Prothesis-amphorae—vases used in the burial
service, and with subjects drawn mainly from
its liturgy. The finest examples belong to the
later red-figure ware.
[François vase, Mon. dell’ Inst. iv. 545–7;
Corintho-Attic, Löscheke, Arch. Zeit. 1876;
Panathenaic, Urlichs, Beiträge, pp. 33 ff.]
Much care was spent by masters of the black-
figure style on the evolution of the cylic. That
this type was in vogue at Cyrene has been already
noted, as also that it had acquired a developed
shape and style of decoration. The processes
at Athens and Cyrene are parallel, and not widely
'sundered in date, but have little or no influence
on one another. The oldest cylices at Athens
have that shape with off-set lip, which derives
from Rhodes through Corinth. The alteration
in form which follows [see under CALIX] is
closely connected with changes in the mode of
ornamentation. The early cylix having a deep
bowl is decorated in frieze fashion; and of the
several Zones into which the surface is divided
by the potter, only one is chosen by the painter.
Then comes a new idea: on the lip are drawn
tiny groups or animal shapes, each side having
a couple of figures, or, more often, one only.
The zone below is occupied by inscriptions, the
artist's signature or a xaſpe kai trié eſſ. This
group of vases is known as “Klein-meister.”
Their strongly metallic appearance proves their
indebtedness to foreign influence, communicated
through Rhodes. Another experiment is proba-
bly the work of the artist Exekias (or, according
to some, of Nicosthenes). He uses a shallower
vase without off-set lip, and revives the “sacred-
eye” ornament previously in favour at Rhodes
and Naucratis: making this suffice for the centre,
he places the actual scene under and about the
two handles. “Eye’’ vases had a considerable
success; but gradually the handles come to be
treated as the natural limits of the field, and,
the bowl becoming continually broader and
shallower, while off-set lips disappear, decoration
spreads over the whole outer surface. The
inside remains a difficulty. Earlier artists
neglected it altogether, or painted only a small
medallion in the centre. But fashion wavered
to and fro; sometimes the whole inner surface
is ornamented with a complete scene and the
outside is less regarded ; sometimes a medallion
is preferred. Especially to be noted are the
cylices which have a Gorgoneion for their
medallion ; for they may first have suggested a
new style, which, while the vase is covered with
a black ground varnish, leaves the actual figures
in the original clay-tint, as it were, in intaglio.
The cylic class is exceptionally fruitful in
artists’ signatures. Ergotimos and Klitias, who
made and painted the great François crater,
were followed by Nearchos, whose sons Tleson
and Ergoteles, with Ergotimos' son Eucheiros,
have signed many of the earlier cylices. Other
names are Xenocles, Hermogenes, Archicles, &c.
In amphorae Exekias takes first place for spirited
and careful drawing: Amasis carries nicety of
detail almost to extravagance: Hischylos re-
presents transition style.
[For signed vases, early and late, for the
characteristics of the great schools, and the
questions which group themselves round them,
the reader is referred once for all to Klein’s two
important works, Die griechischen Vasen mit
Meistersignaturen and Euphronios.]
By far the most prolific maker is Nicosthenes,
a clever entrepreneur who tried experiment after
experiment to hit popular taste. Already an
introducer of one new fashion in cylices, he is
perhaps best known by a group of small am-
phorae of very peculiar form (fig. 7). The
ſº §
.. P&S 3. º * : *
Rººs º
XTX; X "Jº
Wºfºº
vº O.O.O.º.º.º.o.º.º.º.o.o.o.o.o.o.º.
—1–
Fig. 7. Amphora of Nicosthenes. (Genick, Taf, iv.)
strange flat handles of his amphorae are by
a new process made of one piece with the vase.
Nicosthenes is a master of the metallic style ;
but his work distinguishes itself by a plumpness
and naïveté all his own. A doubt has indeed







WAS
WAS 929
been more than once expressed whether Nico-
sthenes was an Athenian; and the finding a signed
fragment of one of his vases at Naucratis may
suggest, whatever his provenance, the source
whence many of his novel departures were in-
spired (Mem. Eg. Eacpl. Fund, Naucratis, pt. i.
p. 53). With him too is associated the preva-
lence, though not the introduction, of yet
another technique, in which black figures are
painted on a white engobe ground; a technique
less new in Greek pottery than novel at Athens.
This group is confined to the smaller vases,
Oenochoae, alabastoi, above all lekythoi. The
style does not differ from that usual in black-
figure ware; but here, as in the metallic class,
a love for nicety, exact finish, and vivid lustre
makes itself prominent. It is the triumph of
the ornamental school. A peculiarity should
be noted in the lekythoi. While the main field
is covered by a white engobe, neck and shoulder
are left in the natural clay : no difference how-
ever is made in decoration, except that the
shoulder is left to mechanical ornament. In all
vases of the class lip and foot are black. [For
Nicosthenes, Klein, op. cit.; and Löscheke, Arch.
Zeit. 1881, pp. 33 ff.]
Nicosthenes is a typical figure. The epoch in
Athenian pottery we have now reached—roughly
speaking, 500 B.C.—is an epoch of transition and
experiment. The vase-painter’s art struggles
in the throes of a revolution. Process after
process is tried and rejected, until at last one
style emerges from the chaos, and triumphs as
rapidly as completely over all rivals. Many
relics of the struggle remain; vases which show
the two styles conflicting on obverse and reverse,
inner or outer, ornament and scene. The final
perfecting of early red-figure technique is
marked by the name of Epiktetos: among his
chief predecessors of the transition may be
named Hischylos and Pamphaios. Precise evi-
dence for the origin and date of red-figure ware
is wanting: it seems however to have begun
about 500 B.C. (some writers think even under
the tyranny of the Peisistratidae), and to have
owed its development to the influence of high
art. A close connexion may perhaps be sup-
posed with the improvements in painting intro-
duced at this time by Cimon of Cleonae (Pliny,
H. N. xxxv. § 56). While hitherto Greek cera-
mic art must, on its formal side, be placed
under the heading “ornament,” from this point
it becomes a branch of painting. The great
group of artists who inaugurate the new style
are proud of their mission, and spare no pains
to perfect what they began.
Among vase-forms it is the cylic which is
peculiarly the favourite of earlier red-figure
painters: its use in fact is a party-badge.
Though the new technique had triumphed, it
was opposed by a strong conservatism, which,
while adopting the new style of painting, clung
to old shapes like the amphora and to old tra-
ditions in the matter of field and ornament. To
this tendency we owe some very beautiful
examples of red-figure amphorae, of greater
elegance of form, and ornamented with only one
figure—sometimes a pair of figures – a side.
Among the more advanced types of this class is
the “Nolan” amphora. [See AMPHORA.] After
the cylia, and to some degree succeeding it,
come the stamnos and psycter [see PSYCTER ;
WOL. II.
STAMNUs], which are peculiar to the earlier
period: with them, but outlasting them, and
continuing in favour to very late times, is the
CRATER. At first the handles are placed low
down and the form resembles a cup; then, as
its sides become straighter, a chalice; lastly,
the handles are brought on to the shoulder, and
the vase is shaped like an inverted bell. This
campaniform crater was adopted also by later
S. Italian manufacturers. After 400 B.C. obverse
and reverse are more sharply distinguished;
the latter being ornamented in a purely con-
ventional manner with three drapery figures
(Mantelfiguren).
Technique, in red-figure ware, is simple. On
a red ground clay, like that of the black-figure
ware, the scene is outlined in freehand with
broad strokes of a full brush of black varnish
over a tracing lightly made with a fine point;
the rest of the surface is covered with an even
layer of the same colour, and details of organic
form and folds of drapery are painted in with a
fine pencil, also in black. Details are sometimes
given with red colour; in later examples this
tint is confined to the musculature, which is
better rendered by a shade scarcely standing out
from the red ground on which it is painted.
Gilding appears towards the close of the so-called
“strong * style, and about the same time an
attempt is made at polychromy. (Cf. the beau-
tiful Pandora cylix in the British Museum.)
But polychromy is soon confined, in the period
of finest style, to smaller vases, lekythoi, pyazides,
and alabastoi, in sympathy with a more developed
taste. [For plastic additions, see under FICTILE.]
Throughout a steady advance in draughtsman-
ship, contrasting with the conventionalism of
black-figure ware, is to be observed. In the
school of Epictetos a simple broad treatment,
with few or no details of organism, is in vogue;
a treatment suited to the subjects then in
favour, scenes from palaestra, banquets, and the
life of hetaerae. There follows a period in which,
while simplicity and strength of drawing and
grouping remain, details—as of drapery—are
fully rendered, but with inadequate success.
Among these earlier artists, whose style is
known as “strong” or “severe,” Euthymides is of
conservative tendency; Duris careful and studied,
but somewhat wanting in originality ; Eu-
phronios and Brygos represent its most perfect
form. A wonderful variety of motif, pose, and
grouping is attained,—a variety reflected from
the subjects where legends of Attic heroes like
Theseus, scenes from Epic and even from Lyric
have replaced the older crowd of athletes,
revellers, and courtesans. But grace and
natural truth are still largely wanting: the
face is still drawn almost solely in profile, or
where full is scarcely successful: foreshortening
is rarely āttempted: eyes are drawn in full
when the face is in side view. The year 430 B.C.
may be tâken as nearly representing the time
of transition from earlier “strong” to later
“fine” style. Wase-painting undoubtedly owed
most of its progress to a close relation with high
art: but this relation, as concerns details, is
as yet very incompletely explained. The chief
debt must have been to painting, though earlier
critics insisted rather on a connexion with
sculpture. Above all must be ranked the in-
fluence of Polygnotus: yet it remains difficult
- 3 O
930 WAS
WAS
to lay a finger on direct traces of it. The
earliest instance is a two-handled cup, repre-
senting the Slaying of the Suitors (Mon. dell’
Inst. x. 53): and the relation of this vase to
Polygnotus’ frescoes at Delphi can now be estab-
lished through comparison with the Gjölbaschi
reliefs. Another example is on a cup from
Chiusi, showing the washing of Odysseus’ feet
and Telemachus in the presence of Penelope
(Schreiber, Bilderatlas, Taf. 63, 3). But neither
vase can be earlier than 400 B.C., as is evi-
dent, restrained as the style is, from the
figures of Penelope and the suitor wounded in
the back. The influence of Polygnotus and his
school seems at first to have been restricted to
effecting improvements in motif and drawing:
it is only with the great age of painting in the
4th century that vases begin really to reflect
the higher art. To this period then, and not to
the time of Polygnotus, should be assigned such
changes as the rendering of figures in back view,
the distinction of background and foreground,
transparency of drapery, different tones of colour
to express light and shade, and the upgrowth of
polychromy. [A comparatively early example
of direct influence of high art. upon the vase-
painter is the beautiful Kamiros amphora
(pelike) of the British Museum : note espe-
cially the fleeing nymph in middle distance,
and the use of blue, gold, and white.—For other
views on the connexion between ceramic art and
the great schools of painting, v. Winter, Die jiin-
gere att. Vasen, and papers in Jahrbuch, 1887,
by Winter, Dümmler, and Studniczka.]
From 430 B.C. onwards the vase-artist rapidly
attains perfect command over material and in-
struments. He no longer shrinks, with the
timidity of ignorance, from the more difficult
motifs: with full-face, three-quarter face, and
profile he is equally familiar.
strength yields to the grace, charm, and refine-
ment of the family circle. . We are introduced
to the inner life of Athens, its pleasures, pas-
times, and foibles, as well as to its deeper senti-
ments. It is the reign of Aphrodite and Eros.
For Epic the painter gives us the drama. Fashion .
and luxury are, mirrored, in the gauze-like
drapery with its wealth of embroidery, in the
jewels of the women, the modishness of the
men. The human figure is no longer swathed
in the full folds of Ionic dress; transparent silk
replaces the heavier linen robes. Action is
dramatic and pictorial ; motifs are studied from
sculpture and painting. The deities who are
presented are those of music, love, song, and
revel, Fauns of the woods, Naiads of the sea, or
Bacchantes from Dionysus' train. -
Standing somewhat away from the red-figure
vases, but contemporary with all but the earliest,
is the polychrome ware with white ground. The
great majority of this class are lekythoi,” but
pyazides and alabastoi of similar technique also
occur, though not among the earliest examples.
As the finest and most important specimens are
lekythoi, it will suffice to confine this account to
them, merely adding that the pyxides also make
free use of gilding, which does not appear on leky-
thoi, and that their subjects are generally those
of the gynaecomitis. Two sorts of clay are used,
* Lekythoi in the ordinary red-figure technique are
also common, ; ' - - .
Boisterous
a pale-red and a grey-black, the former being
thinner and more fine. Over the clay a white
engobe is laid, covering the body and often the
shoulder; neck, lip, and foot are in black var-
mish. The white is laid on first, and possibly
while the vase revolves on the wheel. On this
white surface a sketch in simplest outline is
made with a fine brush of greyish or bluish
colour; sometimes, as in most red-figure vases,
it is faintly traced with a point. This sketch is
then lined in, in monochrome, with black;
yellow, or red: and the same tint is employed
for folds of drapery as for the outline. Nude
figures are rare: a false impression of nudity is
conveyed by the loss of strokes which once
indicated dress. It is a matter of taste with
the individual artist whether the broad surfaces.
of drapery are coloured in: later examples show
careful shading of the dress, and flesh-tints are
in a few cases employed, varying according to
the person represented. Ornament is only used
on the shoulder, but a maeander pattern regu-
larly forms a frame to the top of the field, very
rarely appearing below: in one case impressed
patterns, ovoles, are found (on an oenochoe). The
shoulder may be either red (ground-colour),
black, or white: the latter colour greatly pre-
ponderates, and alone occurs in the most
flourishing period. Colours are all opaque,
with exception of sienna (when used for out-
lines), and black: the range is a large one,
and includes red of all shades, from carmine to
brown, blue, violet, green, yellow, both chrome
and ochre, brown and black. Klein (Euphronios,
p.97) thinks that they were applied in encaustic.
[PICTURA.]
Three classes of lekythoi may be dis-
tinguished:—(a) Figures generally in red or
sienna: subjects entirely funereal: polychromy
sober and restrained : style fine. (b) Figures in
black or brown: subjects generally funereal,
but sometimes drawn from family life, the
pantheon, or even mythology: , polychromy
brilliant and often directly pictorial: style fine-
(c) Figures in yellow: shoulder without engobe:
painting almost always monochrome : style
decadent, often careless. (For lekythoi, V. E.
Pottier, Etude sur les Lecythes blancs attiques.)
Contemporary with the whole of the red-
figure and probably with a great part of the
black-figure period, are vases simply covered
with a lustrous black varnish. In the 4th cen-
tury these vases become of more importance,
are ornamented with gilding, and here and
there a figure” in polychrome. The majority
are moulded, and therefore fall under plastic
[FICTILE]: many shapes are of great beauty.
Equally to plastic belong vases in the shape of
human heads, and, though less decisively, the
rhyta. [RHYTON.] Plastic, too, is a group
which appears in the latter half of the 4th
century, and contains vases, formed of human
busts modelled in terracotta, surmounted by
the neck of a lekythos. Occasionally the vase
is more complete, and a plastic figure or group
is merely laid upon it. Painting is polychrome:
This class is the predecessor of the modelle
Capuan ware. [TERRACOTTA.] t
The question of mechanical ornament in red-
| figure ware may be very briefly dismissed. Its
principal use is to supply the ground-line of a
scene or to give a finish to certain parts, espe-
WAS
WAS 931
gº
cially the joints of a vase, as the lip, union of
shoulder and neck, or handles. Conservatism
accounts for the not infrequent retention of an
ornamental frame to the fields of hydria and am-
phorai: under the handles of early cylices, and
especially, under those ..of the stamnos, appear.
elaborate anthemia. ... The...forms almost solely
in use are the maeander, running anthemion,
lotos, and anthemion, laurel-wreath; the latter
of which is invariable on campaniform. craters,
The manufacture of red-figure vases ceased in
Greece proper about the time of Alexander, and
is now transferred to .S. Italy. There is no
sudden change: in this, as in all periods of
Greek ceramic art, the various distinctive styles
overlap, and, those which, like Geometric or
Corinthian, had an especial vogue, even outlasted
their immediate. successors. . There had always:
existed in Italy native schools.of ceramic, but so,
powerful had been the influence of pure Greek
style, so completely had the fabrics of Corinth
and Athens secured and kept the market, that
with a partial exception in favour, of Etruria,
none of the Italian potteries ventured more than,
an imitation of... the products of , continental
Greece. . With the opening of the Hellenistic
age, however, art becomes provincial; and as
sculpture and painting passed to Pergamon and
Rhodes, and Alexandria, so Magna Graecia in-
herited the , potter's craft. No new world-wide;
trade, like that of Athens, no important novelty
in.technique, marked the transference. Although
Apulia produced amphorae, and crateres, of great.
outward splendour, the decadence of style,
which had already begun at Athens, is painfully
apparent. Men sought to add 'fresh life to a
waning industry by inventing giant vases and
richer shapes, by bringing into play all the re-
Sources of polychromy, and even summoning
plastic to, their aid; but profuse ornament and ||
gaudy colouring scarcely cloak bad drawing and
bad, taste.
“strong * style, again occur, though, it is true,
in no great number. Two traits are character-.
istic: — (a) The strict relation maintained on
most examples between the use of the vase for
service, at the tomb and its decoration (either a .
scene of offerings at the tomb, or an appropriate
myth): and—where the subject is not funereal
—(b) the frequent. borrowing from the stage
(farces especially), and the rendering of other
than dramatic scenes with dramatic accessories
(cf. Heydemann, Jahrbuch, 1886, pp. 260 ft.).
Three separate. S. Italian fabrics may be dis-
tinguished, Lucanian, Campanian, Apulian.
The technique in all is that of red-figure ware.
Each class exhibits a peculiarity in depicting the
human figure, a peculiarity suggestive of differ-
ence of social type: each, too, introduces details'
of national costume. .
Lucanian vases may be relatively somewhat
older; at least their manufacture seems to have.
sooner come to an end. Though somewhat help-
less in draughtmanship, their style is compara-
tively restrained; polychromy is little used, and
the heavy, clumsy drapery seldom bears a trace
of ornament.
Reramik, pll. viii. ix. x.)... Assteas is a Lucanian
master. Earlier Campanian vases imitate both.
Yet the artists had a pride in their.
work, and signatures, rare since the end of the
A favourite shape is the campani-
form crater; another, a kind of amphora only
found in Lucania, is illustrated by Genick (Griech.
in shape and subjects the so-called “Nolan”
amphorae (see above). . Later examples show
great fondness for polychromy, tints especially
prominent being white and yellow —the latter,
in. most cases, a cheap substitute for gilding.
Tendrils of vine, ivy, and other plants are often-
introduced, as also on Apulian ware, with a
happy effect: and occasionally motifs are taken
direct from nature (as, e.g. a bird singing on a
spray). The most important class, and that of
highest artistic merit, is the Apulian, a product
probably of Tarentine activity. Characteristic
are the giant amphorae, one blaze of ornament
from head to foot : characteristic too the heavy
Doric chin of the men, the slender neck and,
stout barrel of the horses, the zones of fishes.
and marine forms employed as ornament. . [For
Apulian vases, v. O. Jahn, Einleitung, pp. 218 ft.;
Gerhard, Apul. Vasenb. (B).] . . g
. As regards colours in S. Italian polychrome
ware, the red ground-clay is often changed toº
brown, and white used as a flesh-tint for women,”
but also, with a dash of yellow, for men. Yellow .
is perhaps the favourite decorative colour. An
example will suffice to show the distribution of
tints. On a crater representing the Calydonian,
hunt, all the actors are in red ground-colour, but
the boar is black stippled with brown, his eye.
black on white, his ears, tail, hoofs, and snout
brown. His .antagonist assails him with a
yellow Roman sword, carries a yellow shield
with white rim and red inner, and wears a
yellow helmet. A dog, white, lined with
yellow, leaps against the monster. In the field
are tree-boles, white, lined with yellow, and
from them spring leafy sprays, also yellow.
Under the lip of the vase is an ivy-wreath, with
leaves in 1:ed ground-colour pointed with black
and edged with a broad white outline. *
It is doubtful; at "what time the S. Italian
fabrics died out, possibly by 250 B.C.: but al-
ready in the 3rd-2nd centuries B.C. Latin painted
vases appear. Their ornamentation is quite sim-
ple and rude,-a spray of vine or olive with per-
haps an Eros in the centre (Annali dell’Inst.
1884): . These are the last painted vases, and
they are immediately succeeded by the Cales
ware, black, metallie, and moulded (Gamurrini,
Gaz. Archéol. 1879, pp. 47 ff.). Henceforth
pottery, for so much life as is left to it, becomes
a branch of plastic. On the Calene style follow
the Samian and Aretine. Greek ceramic art has
given place to Roman. The pottery of Rome is
in itself of less importance, and is sufficiently
described under FICTILE: but it has a value of
its own, as the link by which the secrets of
classical ceramic art were communicated to the
Northern nations, among whom the Celts rank
first. Samian and Aretine vases were freely
imitated in. Gaul; and England, where native
fabrics, grew up under Roman influence. A
valuable and representative collection of Roman
and early British pottery is in the Yorkshire
Philosophical Society’s Museum at York.
The field of decoration in Vases.—At first the
field is necessarily vague. An early principle of
decoration is established by the analogy of a
vase to the human body: then in Alambra ware
definite units of ornamentation appear, and the
surface is divided into compartments. Painting,
as at Thera, makes it possible to decorate inner
surfaces. In the Mycenae period the high centre
3 O 2
932 WAS
WECTIGALIA
of gravity in the prevailing vase-shapes serves
to determine the shoulder as principal field : in
Dipylon style both shoulder and neck—the latter
perhaps especially—receive ornament, and there
is a general correspondence between obverse and
reverse. In Phaleron oenochoae the panel on the
neck and the beginning of a metope style are to be
noted; while the divergent rays which decorate
in perpendicular lines the lower body of the vase
introduce a new conception. The latter practice
is perfected at Rhodes, and becomes thenceforth
an established principle. Rhodes, too, began to
divide the field into zones, proportioned to each
other and to their position on the vase, to re-
serve the neck for mechanical ornament, and to
make the junction of neck and shoulder organic
by covering it with a band of dentals. Corin-
thian ware retrogrades: handsome as it un-
doubtedly is, it is false to the law of develop-
ment which Greek pottery had already marked
out for itself. At Cyrene the influence of metal
originals was supreme; but the zones, rays, and
dentals of Rhodes are retained. To metal-work
is due the medallion and the preference for
cylices and their ornamentation on the inner
surface. On large vases the centre zone or zones
form the field proper; the rest, like the outside
of cylices, is given up to mechanical ornament.
The main scene is placed, in Chalcidian am-
phorae, on the body; and above it is a narrow
band of animals and horsemen. With Attic
black-figure many improvements are introduced.
A fixed ornament is adopted for the neck, and
the field, divided into obverse and reverse by the
handles, is given an internal unity by being
framed in, and—as a consequence of the new
technique—separated from the rest of the vase.
To each of the several shapes, moreover, a special
system of decoration begins to be assigned, com-
pounded of three elements, the zone, panel,
and medallion,-of which the first and third
belong of right to metal-work; the second is
probably equivalent to a metope, and therefore
architectural. Of the manner in which a suit-
able ornamentation for cylices was determined
mention has previously been made. It need only
be added here that the outer surface was finally
adopted as true field, while the school of Epictetus
perfected the inner medallion. Framing of the
field, in red-figure technique, in amphorae and
hydriae, is only retained, as by Andocides, from
motives of conservatism. Until the influence of
painting was thoroughly felt only a single
ground-line was used, and there was no real
differentiation of background and foreground.
From 430 B.C. onwards the single ground-line
is frequently broken up, and the field is treated
as though the vase were so much canvas.
Figures are also placed in the air, and this prac-
tice is subsequently greatly abused. In Cam-
panian and Lucanian pottery as a rule no ground-
line is marked: there are a few exceptions. In
Apulian an irregular chain of dots serves that
purpose, while figures “in the clouds”—forces
controlling, and spectators interested in, the
action—are represented by busts only.
[For the difficult problem of the relation be-
tween obverse and reverse, and the extent to
which they mutually explain one another, v.
J. C. Morgenthau, Der Zusammenhang der Bilder
auf griechischen Vasen.]
LITERATURE.—General accounts: Jahn, Ein-
leitung zur Beschreibung der Vasensammlung zu
München (München, 1854: in parts obsolete);
Birch, Anc. Pottery (London, 2nd ed. 1873); Du-
mont et Chaplain, Les Céramiques de la Grèce
propre (Paris, 1881; in progress); Baumeister's
Denkmäler, s.v. “Vasenkunde” (München, 1889:
a most useful epitome, to which the present
article is in many ways indebted); Genick,
Griechische Keramik (Berlin, 1883: a résumé of
types with text by Furtwängler); Lau, Griech-
ische Vasen (München, 1877; numerous plates
illustrating formal side of Greek pottery).
Special works.-The references given under
various sections of this article are in no sense
exhaustive, but they will furnish a clue to the
most important and recent papers in periodic
literature which for vases is of the utmost
moment. For the connexion of early ceramics
with Homeric culture, Helbig, Das homerische
Epos: as a sample of modern criticism, Robert,
Bild und Lied; for Cyprus and Phoenicia,
Perrot et Chipiez, Histoire de l’Art dans l’Anti-
quite, vol. iii. Brunn's theories are to be found
in Abh. d. kgl. bay. Akad. vol. xii. pt. ii. pp. 87 ff.,
and vol. xviii. pt. i. More extravagant is
P. Arndt, Studien zur Vasenkunde (München,
1887).
Fºr tº works.—The chief publications of
figured and other vases may be found catalogued
under the names of Tischbein, Millin, Millingen,
Böttiger, Stackelberg, Gerhard, Panofka, Lenor-
mant et De Witte, Bröndsted, De Luynes, R.-
Rochette, Benndorf, Fröhner, Furtwängler: also
in special series like the Wiener Worlegeblitter,
or general collections like Müller-Wieseler's, and
Baumeister’s Denkmäler, and the chief archaeo-
logical journals. [H. A. T.]
WASA'RIUM. [SALARIUM.]
UDO, a warm close-fitting shoe of felt (Mart.
xiv. 140). It is clear that the translation
“sock” in dictionaries is wrong, for Dig. 34, 2,
25, § 4, specially distinguishes them as worn
“calceamentorum loco,” whereas the impilia are
said to be “vestis loco.” The impilia therefore
take the place of our socks, and are equivalent,
or nearly so, to the Greek triNot (Hes. Op. 542),
which seem to have been strips of felt wrapped
round the feet and extending up the leg: so in
Plat. Symp. p. 220 B, we find §roösöeuévov kal
&veixtyuévoy rows tróðas eis trixovs, the first
participle referring to the sandals, the second
describing the triXol. They were not ordinary
articles of Greek clothing, but were worn in
extreme cold, e.g. at the siege of Potidaea. The
name may, however, also have been given to
felt-soles (probably= Latin pedule), since Pollux
(vii. 91) distinguishes triNot from repleiahuara
Troööv. The same passage gives as names for
a sort of stocking tréAvvrpa and Troöeia: the
latter of these words occurs in Theophr.
H. P. vii. 12, 8, and is rendered impilia by
Pliny ( H. N. xix. § 32) in his translation of
that passage. (Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii. 284;
Gallus, iii. 226; — Marquardt, Privatleben,
p. 502.) [G. E. M.]
VECTIGA'LIA, a term used either (i.) in a
narrow sense, - dues levied on ager publicus;
see below: or (ii.) in a wide sense, =all regular
and ordinary sources of Roman revenue, as
distinct from the extraordinary tributum [TRI-
BUTUM). As many of these are treated in
separate articles, we need only give a list of
!
VECTIGALLA
them here and explain those which are not
elsewhere treated.
1. The tithes paid to the state by those who
occupied state-domains in Italy or the provinces
[DECUMAE; AGRARIAE LEGES]. Rents of houses
and buildings on public lands, solarium.
2. The sums paid by those who kept their
cattle on the public pastures [SCRIPTURA].
3. Products of the public forests; money
raised by sale of timber and of tar (picariae;
vectigal picariarum; Cic. Brut. 22, 84).
4. Income from public buildings and works;
markets; bridges [PORTORIUM); sewers (Ulpian,
Dig. 7, 1, 27, 3); water-supply [AQUAEDUCTUs);
baths [BALNEAE]: see Dureau de la Malle,
Economie Politique des Romains, Bk. iv. cc. 22,
23; and Hirschfeld (cited below).
5. The revenue derived from the salt-works
[SALINAE].
6. The revenue derived from mines (metalla;
fodinae aurariae, ferrariae, &c.) and from mine-
rals of every description. This branch of the
public income cannot have been very productive
until the Romans had become masters of foreign
countries. Till that time the mines of Italy
were worked, but this was presently forbidden
by the senate (Plin. H. N. iii. § 138; xxxiii.
§ 78; xxxiv. § 2). We do not know the date of
this measure, or its motive. It was perhaps
passed from distrust of publicani (cf. Livy, xlv.
18), or to discourage local minting. Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, iii. 1117, says the working was
forbidden “in the agrarian interest.” The
mines of conquered countries were, like the
Salinae, partly left to individuals (Plut. Crassus,
2; Tac. Ann. vi. 19), companies (Cic. Phil. ii.
19, 48), or towns, on condition of a certain rent
being paid, or they were worked for the direct
account of the state, or farmed by publicani. In
the last case, however, the profits of the pub-
licani were limited by the lex censoria or con-
tract settling how many labourers might be
employed (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 78). The
emperors by degrees got nearly all mines, and
quarries too, into their own hands, as belonging
either to the fiscus or to the patrimonium
Caesaris, whether they were found in imperial
or in senatorial provinces. These were then
either let to contractors (conductores metalli), or
worked directly for the emperor by procuratores
who had the right to employ soldiers and the
forced labour of criminals (ad metalla damnatio),
or else the right of working was sold to private
persons and the product taxed. Among the
richest mines known were the gold mines of
Aquileia (Polyb. xxxiv. 10) and of Vercellae
(Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 4 ; Strabo, v. 1, 12), and
the Spanish silver and iron mines (Polyb. xxxiv.
9; Liv. xxxiv. 21). The gold and silver mines
of Macedonia (Herod. v. 17; Liv. xxxix. 24)
were closed by the senate; iron was still allowed
to be worked (Liv. xlv. 18, 29). There were
also various mines in Thrace, Illyricum, Nori-
cum, Africa, Sardinia, and Britain. (See on the
last C. I. L. vii. p. 220 sq.; Hübner in Rhein.
Mus. N. F. 12). Revenue was also raised in like
manner from sandpits (arenariae ; Dig. 7, 1, 9),
chalk-pits (cretifodinae; Dig. 7, 1, 13; 24, 3, 7),
marble- and ordinary stone-quarries (lapicidinae),
grindstone- and millstone-quarries (cotoriae;
Dig. 39, 4, 15), and the vermilion-works in
Spain (Plin. H. N. xxxiii. § 118). (O. Hirsch-
WECTIGALIA. 933
feld, Die Bergwerke; Untersuchungen, 1876; J.
Binder, Die Bergwerke im ròmischen Staatshaus-
halt. 1880.) [METALLUM, 2.]
7. Revenue from letting-out public fisheries
(Polyb. vi. 17; Servius on Verg. Georg. ii. 161).
8. The customs-duties [PortORIUM).
9. Quinquagesima (or Quinta et vicesima) man-
cipiorum venalium; a duty on slaves sold [QUIN-
QUAGESIMA).
10. Centesima rerum venalium [CENTESIMA], a
duty on other articles sold. The produce of
this tax, like that of No. 11, belonged to the
aerarium militare [AERARIUM.].
11. Vicesima hereditatium
12. Vicesima manumissionum
13. The tribute imposed on foreign countries.
It has been thought that this was by far the
most important branch of the public revenue;
but it is difficult to maintain this against the
words of Cicero (pro Leg. Manil. 6, 14), “cete-
rarum provinciarum” (except Asia) “vectigalia
tanta sunt ut iis ad ipsas provincias tutandas
vix contenti esse possimus.” So Mommsen
writes (Hist. Rome, E. T., Bk. iv. c. 11) of the
republican period: “The only provinces yielding
a considerable surplus were perhaps Sicily, and
more especially Asia.” The provincial tribute
took different forms. It might be (i.) decumae
of the produce of land (i.e. land left to the old
owners, and regarded more as private than as
public property, though it was still technically
ager publicus). The decumae of course varied in
amount from year to year (App. B. C. v. 4).
The persons paying this charge were called
vectigales. Or the charge was (ii.) stipendium,
a tax of fixed amount. The persons who paid
this were called stipendiarii [STIPENDIARII]. It
was (a) tributum soli, a land-tax. This might
be paid in money or in kind (even in hides or
skins, Tac. Ann. iv. 72). Or it was (8) tributum
capitis (Dig. 15, 8, 7; pópos orwudrav of App.
Syr. 50), which might again be a property-tax
on wealthy people, or a tax on trades (cf. No.
14), or a poll-tax (éruce pdaatov: plur. Érike-
qdata in Cic. ad Fam. v. 16, 2; paid in Britain,
Dio Cass. lxii. 3), so as to reach people who had
no land, or no cultivated land. But little is
known of these charges. Some of them seem
to have varied with a man's census (Cic. Verr.
ii. 53, 131); and an unproductive estate was
perhaps valued and charged according to the
number of its columns or of its doors [COLUM-
NARIUM ; OSTIARIUM). The poll-tax (exactio
capitum, Cic. ad Fam. iii. 8, 5) amounted in
Syria and Cilicia to 1 per cent. of a man’s census
(App. Syr. 50), and was specially heavy for the
Jews. It was farmed to publicani in Cicero's
time. Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 4 (i) kað’
ékáormv kepax?iv eio popá), may mean poll-tax
or may use the term more widely. -
To the above items of provincial tribute
must be added a payment in kind; a supply of
corn [ANNONA) or other necessaries (wine, oil,
meat, fodder; Vegetius, iii. 3). This was pro-
bably a later development of the frumentumn in
cellam of republican times [PROVINCIA]. In
most provinces it was annona militaris, i.e. it
fed the army of occupation and the officials,
and was paid over on the spot. But Africa and
Egypt had to meet not only the annona militaris,
but also the annona civica; i.e. they had to find
food for Rome, and later for Constantinople.
} see VICESIMA.
934 Wºffo ALIA
WECTIGALIA TEMPLORUM
Africa had to feed Rome for eight months, Egypt
for four (Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 16, 4). For
Britain, see Tac. Agr. 19, 31.
14. Taxes on professions or trades (Suet. Cal.
40; Hist. Aug., Alea. Sev. 24, 32; Cod. Theod.
13, 1). 1.
15. A tax on obstinate celibacy [AES Uxo-
RIUM). The Lex Julia et Papia Poppaea of
Augustus’ time (which see) imposed penalties
very like taxation on unmarried persons of a
certain age: see Tac. Ann. iii. 25; Plin. Paneg.
42.
16. Temporary taxes. (a) A kind of ship-
money, levied on coast-towns for their defence
against the pirates (Cic. Verr. v. 17, 19, 24).
(8) Octava. In B.C. 31 all liberti living in Italy
and possessing property of at least 200 sestertia
had to pay a tax of 12% per cent. on their
property (Dio Cass. l. 6, li. 3). (y)"Temporary
exactions imposed between the death of Caesar
and the consolidation of the power of Octa-
vianus (Cic. ad Brut. 1, 18; App. B. C. iv. 5,
32; 5, 67; Dio Cass. xlvi. 31, xlvii. 16, xlviii. 31
and 34, l.. 10; and see TRIBUTUM). (6) The new
taxes of Caligula (Suet. Cal. 40). Among them
was the QUADRAGESIMA, LITIUM. They were
probably all repealed by Claudius. (e) The
new taxes, of Vespasianus (Suet. Vesp. 16, 23 ;
Dio Cass. lxvi. 14). On the vectigal urinae, see
Dureau de la Malle, Economie politique des Ro-
mains, Bk. iv. c. 23. [DOLIUM.] (£) Special
charge on senators, imposed by Commodus (Dio
Cass. lxxii. 16).
Here we may add, as sources of revenue,
though they are not strictly vectigalia, Nos.
17–21.
17. AURUM CORONARIUM.
18. Booty taken in war; product of sale of
prisoners, &c. [SPOLIA.] -
19. Profit made out of the coinage.
20. Windfalls of various kinds [BonA CA-
DUCA; BONA WACANTIA]. Fines and confiscated
property. - -
21. Legacies to emperors, sometimes of enor-
mous amount (Suet. Aug. 101, Cal. 38; Tac.
Ann. ii. 48, xvi. 11; Dio Cass. lviii. 16), looked
after by special procuratores. - *
Under the Republic the senate was the
highest authority in matters of finance, but the
censors carried out or supervised the details.
The collection of duties, taxes, and tributes, was !
let for the most part to publicani for a fixed
sum and a fixed number of years [CENSOR;
PUBLICANI]. Under the Empire the authority
of the senate was curtailed by the division of
provinces between senate and emperor, which
led to a separation between aerarium and fiscus;
the senate controlled the former, the emperor.
the latter... [AERARIUM ; FISCUS]. The chief
finance-minister of the early Empire was de-
scribed as a rationibus; afterwards called pro-
curator a rationibus; then procurator summarum
pationum, or rationalis.
titles and functions O. Hirschfeld in the Jahrb.
f. Philol. 1868.) . -
The total income of Rome from all sources
cannot be even approximately discovered for any
period. Plut. Pomp. 45 has the general state-
ment that before Pompey's Eastern conquests
the vectigalia (ra réAm) amounted to 200,000,000
sesterces; and beyond this we cannot well go.
. (See, Naquet, Des Impôts indirects chez les
(See on his successive
Romains, 1875; O. Hirschfeld, Untersuchungen
aus dem Gebiete der römischen Verwaltungs-
geschichte, 1876; S. Herrlich, De aerario et fisco
Bomanorum quaestiones, 1872.) [F. T. R.]
VECTIGA'LIA TEMPLO'RUM, the re-
venues of temples.
1. GREEK. Ancient temples, like modern
churches, often contained large accumulated
treasures in the precious metals and other
valuable objects. So far as these were merely
stored up unproductively (keluńxia), they will
not be noticed here: we are concerned only
with sources of annual income. We have seen,
however, that the productive employment of
such treasures dated from a very remote period,
and that, before the rise of the rparreſtral, the
temples were the earliest banks in Greece
[ARGENTARII, Vol. I. 180 b). Other revenues,
by which the priests were maintained and the
splendour of religious establishments supported,
are now to be considered.
The first and most important of these was the
rent of land. In the heroic age, indeed, there
was little other wealth, and it was the monopoly
of a royal and noble caste. The same word
Téuevos denotes both. the royal domain and
estates belonging to a temple (réuevos 8wſuffs
re 6vheus, Hom. Il, wiii. 48, xxiii. 148; 0d. viii.
363). In two instances in the Homeric Cata-
logue we find expressions implying that the
entire territory of a city was sacred to a god:
Onchestus in Boeotia is called IIoarioſitov iepov
&Agos (Il. ii. 506), Pyrasus on the Pagasaean
gulf Amuntpos réuevos (ib. 696). Wealthy
priests are mentioned, who are either royal or
noble: Chryses, who offers &mépeſort’ &towa for
| his daughter (Il. i. 13), and Anius (Verg. Aen.
iii. 80; Ov. Met. xiii. 631), are both kings of
men and priests of Apollo: in the case of Dares
(āqvelós, òuúuav, ipei’s ‘Hºpatorolo, Il. v. 9, 10)
it may be a question whether his riches are
derived from his priesthood or the priesthood
: bestowed upon a man of birth and wealth.
This state of things, which may remind us of
the “prince-bishops” of modern Europe, sur-
vived to a much later period, in Asia Minor
and adjoining countries: in several instances a
priest is next to the king, and enjoys large
landed revenues; among the Albanians of the
Caucasus, Strab. xi. p. 503; at Comana in
Cappadocia, Id. xii. p. 535; at Cabira or
Sebaste and another Comana, p. 557; at Zela,
p. 559; these last places are all in Pontus.
Actual figures are not wanting: in Morimene,
a district of Cappadocia, was a temple of Zeus
with 3000 hieroduli, and yielding an income of
fifteen talents a year. to the priest : this, after
Comana, was the next best thing of the kind in
Cappadocia (Strab. xii. p. 537). Cato, charged
by the senate with the deposition of Ptolemy of
Cyprus, proposed to pension him off handsomely
as priest of the Paphian Aphrodite (ös otre
xpmuárwv otre rupińs évôea Biworówevov, Plut.
Cat. Min. 35). - -
Temples were also endowed with tithes of
various kinds, described under DECUMAE, Vol. I.
pp. 603 b, 604 a. We add here some further
examples. The Athenians, when they con-
quered Chalcis and divided the lands of the
HIPPoBOTAE among cleruchs, assigned regévn
to Athena in the Lelantine plain, the richest
part of the territory in question: this must
VECTIGALFA TEMPLORUM
have been of the nature of a tithe, though the
exact proportion so dedicated is not mentioned
(Aelian, W. H. vi. 1). On the fall of Mytilene,
out of 3000 lots of land they devoted 300 to
the gods and sent cleruchs to the remainder
(Thucyd. iii. 50). When they planted a colony
at Brea, they decreed that whatever lands
already belonged to the gods should remain
sacred : this was probably their general prac-
tice (Inscr. ap. Rhangabé, Ant. Hell. 785 b,
1. 19). We find a réuevos of Athena in Samos
(C. I. G. 2246); at Aegina (C. I. G. [add.]
2638). Brasidas, after the storming of Lecythus
in Sithonia, where there was a temple to
Athena, dedicated the: whole territory to the
goddess, and pulled down all the secular build-
ings (Thucyd. iv. 116). Sometimes the cultiva-
tion of lands thus dedicated was forbidden, as in
the well-known instance of the Cirrhaean plain
on the coast below Delphi, the cause of two
sacred wars in the time of Solon and again in
that of Philip : the object of this was to give
the Delphians exclusive possession of that
region, and to secure the approaches to the
oracle (Aeschin. Ctes. § 107 ff. ; Dem. de Cor.
pp. 277–8, § 151 ff.). - . .
Among the produce of sacred lands are to be
reckoned cattle, timber, particular fruits such
as vines, figs, or olives, fisheries, and mines.
There might be, on the one hand, herds of cattle
called &qerou, which no one could touch, just as
there might be sacred groves from which no
stick was allowed to be removed, or which no
human foot might enter: but there were others
labouring under no such restrictions, and form-
ing part of the substantial endowments of
temples. . Such were the 3000 sacred cattle at
Minoa in Sicily (Diod. iv. 80); and those of
Juno Lacinia (Liv. xxiv. 3). In Attica, certain
olive-trees (uopiat, ormºcol) growing upon private
lands were themselves the property of the
goddess, and the oil from them was given away
at the Panathenaic festival (Lys. Or. 7, repl rod
ormicoſ). . . [OLEA, p. 263 a.] In the deme
Lakiadae was a grove of sacred fig-trees (Pausan.
i. 37, § 2; Schömann, Gr. Alterth. ii. 188).
Pausanias gives examples of fish-ponds which no
one might disturb (iii. 21, §5; vii. 22, § 4);
others again where the priests alone were per-
mitted to fish (i. 38, § 1), A Delian inscription
is our sole authority for the fact that sea-fisheries
sometimes belonged to temples; the language of
it, however, is clear and unmistakable: rhy
64Aarray thv’A6mvatov oſſo av ka?, rºv čv ‘Privetg
eulorðoorav 6éka črm (Boeckh, in Abh. d. Berl.
Akad...1834). The people of Siphnos granted a
tithe of their gold and silver mines to the
Pythian. Apollo, and prospered “exceedingly
(Herod. iii. 57; Pausan. xi. 1, § 2; for another
case, cf. C. I. G. 162). . . . . .
Temple property, whatever its description,
was let on much the same terms as other
property. Sacrifices were paid for &mb utorða-
uárov (Isocr. Areop. § 29); i.e. as explained by
Didymus, ap. Harpocrat. s. v. &to utorówpºdºrov,
gic rāv reaevuköv trpooróðav (cf. Xen. de Vect. 4,
§ 19; Plat. Legg. vi. p. 759 E). The Athenian
government allowed no perquisites to its officers;
hence it required those who purchased animals
for sacrifice—the 80&val, iepotroloſ, &c.—to
account for the skins of the victims. But
whether such money (the Öepuarikov) went into
VECTIGALLA TEMPLORUM 935
the sacred or the state treasury, seems un-
certain [DERMATIKon]. The revenue derived
by temples from predial serfs and other slaves
is more fully treated under HIERODULI.
The more popular shrines, while their perma-
nent treasure was increased by votive offerings
[DONARIA], further derived a large annual
income from sacrifices and payments by wor-
shippers. This was more particularly the case
with oracles, which were not to be consulted
gratuitously. So Ion says of his life at Delphi,
Bouot u' épépôov oširidºv ºr’ &el £évos (Eurip.
Ion, 323). The sums to which multitudes of
small payments might mount up are shown in
the case of the impostor Alexander of Abono-
teichos. His charge for consulting his sham
oracle was 1 drachma 2 obols; his profits 70,000
or 80,000 drachmas a year (Lucian, Alex. 23).
(Schömann, Gr. Alterth. ii. 18.1–246, 297–328;
Hermann, Gottesd. Alterth. § 20; Boeckh,
P. E. p. 303 = Sthh.” i. 372; R. Kohts, de
Reditibus Templorum Graecorum, Göttingen,
1869). [W. W.]
2. ROMAN. In considering the Roman temple-
treasuries and the source and management of
their revenues, it must be observed that the
system was based upon a different idea from
that of the Greek temple-treasuries treated of
above. Religion at Rome was more entirely an
affair of state: the maintenance of religion
(apart from the family observances) was a state
duty, and even the revenues which were dedi-
cated to religious purposes were under state
control. The temples had property: firstly,
that which from time immemorial had belonged
to the deity and his temple, or had been brought
with him when he became part of the Roman
order of gods by the incorporation of his
original state with Rome; secondly, the lands
and dues subsequently given or assigned: but
this property was, as will be seen, regarded as
part of the state possessions, merely assigned to
a special purpose — that of religious service.
This view of the matter arose naturally from
the fact that in ancient times the king defrayed
the cost of religion out of part of his own
revenues, being himself responsible for the dis-
charge alike of sacred and political duties.
The temples had a treasury (arca) into which
flowed revenues from various sources. We have
special mention of the arca of the Pontifices,
the Westals, and the Fratres Arvales, and there
can be little doubt that the case was similar in
all temples (C. J. L. v. 3924, vi. 1600, 2028,
10284, 13618; and more references in Mar-
quardt, Staatsverw. ii. 82). The revenues of
these treasuries arose :-1. From lands: these
were, as was said above, originally part of the
king's domain (Dionys. ii. 7, iii. 1); and the
same was the case at Alba before its union with
Romé (Id. iii. 29). Under the Republic the
priestly colleges had lands within and without
the city, of which in critical times part was
sold for state uses, and any surplus was no
doubt ordinarily so appropriated (Symmach. Ep.
i. 68; Fest. p. 189 ; Sic. Flacc. p. 162; Oros. v.
18: cf. Liv. i. 20; Dio Cass. xliii. 47; Appian,
Mithr. 22). This fact and the use of the lucar
or income from sacred groves for games under
state control [LUCAR] show clearly the secular
management of the treasuries. In Italy temples
were endowed in some cases from ancient rights
936 VENABULUMI
WENATIO
(Liv. xxiv. 3), in others by the Romans (e.g. the
temple of Diana Tifatana at Capua by Sulla;
Well. ii. 25; C. I. L. x. 3828). Gifts of land
to temples were dedicated by the Pontifex Maxi-
mus, and it was necessary that they should be
confirmed by a vote of the people, even when
the donor was a private person (Fest. p. 318;
Gell. ii. 5; Cic. de Dom. 49, 127; Mommsen,
Staatsr. ii. p. 61): the priests' had nothing to
do with its management; sales and leases were
under the authority of the magistrates. The
temple land revenues lasted till Christian times
(Cod. Theod. 10, 10, 24; 16, 10, 19 and 20); the
claim to sell was of course based on the old
Roman theory that all loca sacra were part of
the state domain (Frontin. de Contr. Agr. p. 56):
hence they were administered by the censor.
2. Fees on admission to a priesthood. Consider-
able sums were paid “pro introitu sacerdotii"
(Suet. Claud. 9, Cal. 22; Dio Cass. lix. 28): the
enforcement of such payment rested with the
civil magistrates.
3. Fees paid by subordinate ministers of the
temples. These were themselves paid officials,
but they paid fees on their admission.
4. Profits on victims: the sale of hides [com-
pare DERMATIKON].
5. Votive offerings made to the temple (Dig.
33, 1, 20, § 1 ; cf. Varro, ap. Macrob. Sat. iii.
12, 2
The arca pontificum (under control of the
senate, with the arcarius pontificalis to manage
it : Symmach. Ep. i. 68) received the proceeds
of (a) the forfeited deposits called sacramenta
[see WINDICATIol; (b) fines for damage to, or
trespass on, tombs (see Mommsen, Staatsr. i. 70)
[it is possible that the frequency of these fines
may be accounted for by the superstitions men-
tioned on p. 729 a); (c) fines levied on priests
by the Pontifiex Maximus; (d) the property of
a Westal who died intestate.
All the above revenues being, as has been
said, under state control, were used for the
maintenance of religion primarily, though the
surplus might in cases such as those before
mentioned be devoted to other purposes. The
temple buildings were kept in repair by the
state with funds taken from the Aerarium under
the authority of the Censors [Vol. I. p. 402]:
but the current expenses for regular sacrifices
were provided by the temple-treasuries, the
priests having doubtless power to draw upon
these funds. The great priesthoods were posts
of honour like the political magistracies, and,
like them, were unpaid ; but the working staff
of priests, or Jermanent officials, so to speak, in
the service of religion were paid by the state.
Maintenance was therefore provided for the
Curiones (Fest. Ep. p. 49), the Westals (Liv. i.
20; Tac. Ann. iv. 16), and for all those who had
to give their services whenever called for, i.e.
the haruspices and pullarii, and the subordinate
attendants, calatores, viatores, &c. For this
payment of ministers of religion the revenue
from sacred lands was used, and any other funds
belonging to the temple treasuries. It may be
noticed that the Roman temples (since their
property was directly under state control)
possessed no temple slaves, such as we find in
Greece and in some parts of Italy and Sicily
(e.g. Eryx and Larinum). [G. E. M.]
WENA'BULUM. [WENATIo, 1.]
VENA"TIO. 1. (0%pa, kuvnyeata.) That
hunting was practised as early as the Homeric
age, not only for food and profit but also as a
sport by the more wealthy, is clear from the
description of the hunting-party which Autoly-
cus arranged for Odysseus (Od. xix. 429–446),
and from its being represented as the pastime
of gods and heroes (Il. v. 49, xxi. 485; Od. vi.
102, xi. 572): as a matter of necessity, we find
it of course practised both to get food (Od. ix.
154) and to destroy wild beasts dangerous to
life and property (Il. v. 555, ix. 543; cf.
Pausan. i. 27). The animals hunted are lions
(Il. xvii. 132), panthers (xxi. 573), wild boars
(xi. 414), deer (xi. 473; Od. x. 159, xix. 227),
ibex (Od. xvii. 295), hares (ib.). As regards the
method and appliances, we get information on
most points from the passage of the Odyssey
alluded to above (xix. 429–446), in which we
notice especially the absence of nets as a point
of difference from later Greek and Roman
hunting [RETE]. The huntsmen (érakripes)
take the hounds forward to track the boar (cf.
Od. xvii. 312), and the hunting-party follows
armed with spears. The Homeric hunting
weapons are spears (6ópv, *yxos, Od. x. 161,
xix.437), javelins (ärovtes, Il. xi. 551; airyavéal,
Od. ix. 156), bows and arrows (Il. xi. 473), clubs
(Od. xi. 575). It may be noted that Döderlein
takes aiyavéal to be arrows in the passage cited
above, but he is probably wrong: see Il. ii. 774;
Buchholz, Homer. Realien, ii. § 33.
The later Greek hunting may be best studied
in Xenophon's treatise Cynegeticus, where, after
mention of the divine beings who loved the
sport, we find a description of the nets (for
which and their use, see RETE), and then an
account of the hounds, their breed, their points,
powers of scent, &c. Their equipment (kóo wos
kvvóv) consists of collars (6épala), leashes on
couples (iudvres), and broad belts (ortexplovías)
with spikes sewn in, to obviate the inconvenience
of dogs and bitches hunting together. It is
noticeable that as a point of training they are
never allowed to hunt foxes, because it takes
them off their proper game (év Tó Séovri otºrore
trapetow). The épköwpos goes out very early
and sets the nets into which the hunted animal
is to be driven : the kuvmyétms, who wears a
light dress suited for running, and carries a
stick (56traNov), brings on the hounds, and the
hare is either driven into the nets or run till
she falls exhausted, or sometimes is killed by the
páraxov. In snowy weather the hare is tracked
without dogs, since the snow makes tracking
easy and the frost injures the dogs’ feet. For
hunting deer, a larger and stronger hound,
which he calls 'Ivölkh, is used, and the hunter
has javelins: besides the ordinary apparatus
of nets, snares called trečootpd 8at are set about
the haunts of the herd. This is a wooden clog
with a noose to catch the foot, covered lightly
with earth: the deer drags this in his flight,
which is thus slower and more easily tracked.
For wild boars, besides the boar-hounds and nets
we find mention of boar-spears (66pv, venabulum),
which are not thrown as javelins, but are
slanted to receive a charge (cf. Verg. iv. 131,
ix. 553; Plin. Ep. i. 6; Cic. Verr. v. 3, 7).
The reboarpdflat are used for boars also. Lions
and panthers he speaks of as only trapped by
pitfalls (with a decoy) or poisoned (cf. Plin.
WENATIO
VENATIO 937
H. N. viii. § 99). The Roman method of
hunting hares, deer, or wild boars was essen-
tially the same as that described by Xenophon
(cf. Oppian and Nemesianus). Representations of
the Roman sport are found in Pompeian paintings
(see Baumeister, Denkm. p. 711). [G. E. M.]
2. The name venatio was given among the
Romans to an exhibition of wild beasts, which
fought with one another and with men. These
exhibitions originally formed part of the games
of the Circus. Julius Caesar first built a wooden
amphitheatre for the exhibition of wild beasts,
which is called by Dio Cassius (xliii.22) 0éarpov
kvvmystików, and the same name is given to
the amphitheatre built by Statilius Taurus (Id.
li. 23), and also to the celebrated one of Titus
(Id. lxvi. 24); but even after the erection of
the latter we frequently read of Wenationes in
the Circus (Spart. Hadr. 19 ; Vopisc. Prob. 19).
The persons who fought with the beasts were
either condemned criminals or captives, or
individuals who did so for the sake of pay and
were trained for the purpose. [BESTIARII.]
The Romans were as passionately fond of this
entertainment as of the exhibitions of gladiators,
and during the latter days of the Republic and
under the Empire an immense variety of animals
was collected from all parts of the Roman world
for the gratification of the people, and many
thousands were frequently slain at one time.
The spectacle was called especially ludus
matutinus, because, when a gladiatorial combat
also was given, the venatio came first early in
the day (Friedländer, S. G. ii. 349). The first
recorded occasion of a venatio was in B.C. 186,
in the games celebrated by M. Fulvius in ful-
filment of the vow which he had made in the
Aetolian war; in these games lions and panthers
were exhibited (Liv. xxxix. 22). It is mentioned
as a proof of the growing magnificence of the
age that in the Ludi Circenses, exhibited by
the curule aediles P. Cornelius Scipio Nasica and
P. Lentulus, B.C. 168, there were sixty-three
African panthers and forty bears and elephants
(Liv. xliv. 18; cf. Mart. Spectac. passim).
From about this time combats with wild beasts
probably formed a regular part of the Ludi
Circenses, and many of the curule aediles made
great efforts to obtain rare and curious animals,
and put in requisition the services of their
friends. (Compare Caelius's letter to Cicero, ad
Fam. viii. 9.) Elephants are said to have first
fought in the Circus in the curule aedileship of
Claudius, Pulcher, B.C., 99, and twenty years
afterwards, in the curule aedileship of the two
Luculli, they fought against bulls (Plin. H. N.
viii. § 19). A hundred lions were exhibited by
Sulla in his praetorship, which were destroyed by
javelin men sent by king Bocchus for the purpose.
This was the first time that lions were allowed
to be loose in the Circus; they were previously
always tied up (Senec. de Brev. Wit. 13). The
games, however, in the curule aedileship of
Scaurus, B.C. 58, surpassed anything the Romans
had ever seen ; among other novelties he first
exhibited a hippopotamus and five crocodiles
in a temporary canal or trench (euripus, Plin.
H. N. viii. § 96). At the venatio given by
Pompey in his second consulship, B.C. 55, upon
the dedication of the temple of Venus Victrix,
and at which Cicero was present (Cic. ad Fam.
vii. 1), there was an immense number of animals
slaughtered, among which we find mention of
600 lions, and eighteen or twenty elephants: the
latter fought with Gaetulians, who hurled darts
against them, and they attempted to break
through the railings (clathri) by which they
were separated from the spectators (Senec. l.c.;
Plin. viii. § 21). To guard against this danger
Julius Caesar surrounded the arena of the
amphitheatre with trenches (euripi). The pilae
of the amphitheatre were puppets or effigies of
straw thrown in to divert the attention of an
infuriated animal, or at other times to stimulate
and excite him (Mart. Spectac. 9, 19). In the
first fragment of the speech pro Cornelio Cicero
speaks of “homines foeneos in medium ad
tentandum periculum projectos,” i.e. to judge
of the temper of the animal, whether he would
sulk or charge : compare “men of straw,” and
“fiat experimentum in corpore vili.”
In the games exhibited by Julius Caesar in his
third consulship, B.C. 45, the venatio lasted for
five days and was conducted with extraordinary
splendour. Camelopards or giraffes were them
for the first time seen in Italy (Dio Cass. xliii.
23; Suet. Jul. 39; Plin. H. N. l. c.; Appian,
B. C. ii. 102; Well. Pat. ii. 56). Julius Caesar
also introduced bull-fights, in which Thessalian
horsemen pursued the bulls round the circus,
and, when the latter were tired out, seized
them by the horns and killed them. This seems
to have been a favourite spectacle; it was
repeated by Claudius and Nero (Suet. Claud.
21; Dio Cass. lxi. 9). In the games celebrated
by Augustus, B.C. 29, the hippopotamus and the
rhinoceros were first exhibited, according to
Dio Cassius (li. 22), but the hippopotamus is
spoken of by Pliny, as mentioned above, in the
games given by Scaurus. Augustus also ex-
hibited a huge snake (Suet. Aug. 43), and
thirty-six crocodiles, which are seldom men-
tioned in the spectacles of later times (Dio Cass-
lv. 10).
The occasions on which venationes were ex-
hibited have been incidentally mentioned above.
They seem to have been first confined to the
Ludi Circenses; but during the later times of
the Republic, and under the Empire, they were
frequently exhibited on the celebration of
triumphs, and on many other occasions, with
the view of pleasing the people. The passion
for these shows continued to increase under the
Empire, and the number of beasts sometimes
slaughtered seems almost incredible. At the
consecration of the great amphitheatre of Titus,
5000 wild beasts and 4000 tame animals were
killed (Suet. Tit. 7; Dio Cass. xlv. 25); and
in the games celebrated by Trajan, after his
victories over the Dacians, there are said to
have been as many as 11,000 animals slaughtered
(Id. lxviii. 15). Under the emperors we read of
a particular kind of venatio, in which the beasts
were not killed by bestiarii, but were given up
to the people, who were allowed to rush into,
the area of the circus and carry away what they
pleased. On such occasions a number of large
trees, which had been torn up by the roots, were
planted in the circus, which thus resembled a
forest, and none of the more savage animals
were admitted into it. A venatio of this kind
was exhibited by Gordian I. in his aedileship,
and a painting of the forest with the animals in
it is described by Julius Capitolinus (Gordian,
938 WENATIO
WENATE6)
3). One of the most extraordinary venationes
of this kind was that given by Probus, in which
there were 1000 ostriches, 1000 stags, 1000
boars, 1000 deer, and numbers of wild goats,
wild sheep, and other animals of the same kind
(Vopisc. Prob. 19). The more savage animals
were slain by the bestiarii in the amphitheatre,
and not in the circus, Thus, in the day suc-
ceeding the venatio of Probus just mentioned,
there were slain in the amphitheatre 100 lions
and the same number of lionesses, 100 Libyan
and 100 Syrian leopards, and 300 bears (Vopisc.
l. c.). It is unnecessary to multiply examples,
as the above are sufficient to give an idea of the
numbers and variety of animals at these spec-
tacles; but the list of beasts which were col-
lected by Gordian III. for his triumph, and
were exhibited by his successor Philip at the
Secular Games, deserves mention on account
of their variety and the rarity of some of them.
Among these we find mention of 32 elephants,
10 elks, 10 tigers (which seem to have been
very seldom exhibited), 60 tame lions, 30 tame
leopards, 10 hyaenas, an hippopotamus and rhi-
noceros, 10 archoleontes (it is unknown what
they were), 10 camelopards, 20 onagri (wild
asses, or perhaps zebras), 40 wild horses, and an
immense number of similar animals (Vopisc.
Gordian, 33).
. These spectacles were continued till the 6th
century, but had gradually become less de-
structive to human life, since the bestiarii had
more contrivances afforded for their protection
and more opportunity allowed them for escape
from a dangerous encounter. (See on this point
Friedländer, S. G. ii. 379.)
Combats of wild beasts are sometimes repre-
sented on the coins of Roman families, as on the
annexed coin of M. Livineius Regulus, which
probably refers to the venatio of Julius Caesar
mentioned above. . . " . -
Coin of M. Livineius Regulus.
In the bas-reliefs on the tomb of Scaurus at
Pompeii, there are representations of combats
with wild beasts, which are copied in the
following woodcuts from Mazois (Pomp. i. pll.
32, 33). On the same tomb gladiatorial combats
are represented, which are. . figured under
GLADIATORES.. . - - -
Fig. 1 represents a man naked and unarmed
between a lion and a panther. Persons in this
defenceless state had of course only their agility
to trust to in order to escape from the beasts:
r Fig. 3.
but it must be confessed, as Baumeister notices,
that the apparent flight of both animals' lacks
explanation. -
In Fig. 2 we see a bestiarius against whom a
wild boar is rushing : he has probably lost or
broken his spear, and has little chance of escape.
In the same relief there is a wolf running at full
speed, and also a stag with a rope tied to his
horns who has been pulled down by two animals,
probably wolves. The third relief is supposed
by Mazois to represent the training of a besti-
arius: Baumeister with greater probability
takes it as a combat. It may result in the two
animals attacking either each other or the
bestiarii. The man on the left is stimulating
the bull with a venabulum; the armed bestiarius
to the right is watching for a favourable
moment to throw his javelin. For the panther
attached by a rope to the bull, cf. Sen. de Ira,
-Tri-
Fig. 4. t = W
iii. 43. The fourth woodcut represents a man
i equipped in the same way as the matador in the



WENEFECIUM
VER SACRUM 939
Spanish bull-fights in the present day, namely,
with a sword in one hand and a veil in the
other. The veil was first employed in the arena
in the time of the Emperor Claudius (Plin. H. W.
viii. § 54). The animal is supposed to be in-
tended for a bear. (Friedländer, S. G. ii. 348 f.;
Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 565; Baumeister,
Denkm. 2104 f.) * [W. S.] . [G. E. M.]
VENEFI’CIUM, the crime of poisoning, is
frequently mentioned in Roman history. Women
were most addicted to it; but it seems not im-
probable that this charge was frequently brought
against women without sufficient evidence of
their guilt, like that of witchcraft in Europe,
in the Middle Ages. We find them condemned
to death for this crime in seasons of pestilence,
when the popular mind is always in an excited
state and ready to attribute the calamities under
which they suffer to the arts of evil-disposed
persons. Thus the Athenians, when the pesti-
lence raged in their city during the Pelopon-
ºnesian war, supposed the wells to have been
poisoned by the Peloponnesians (Thucyd. ii. 48),
and similar instances occur in the history of
almost all states. Still, however, the crime
of poisoning seems to have been much more
frequent in ancient than in modern times; and
this circumstance would lead persons to suspect
it in cases when there was no real ground for
-the suspicion. Respecting the crime of poisoning
at Athens, see PHARMACON GRAPHE.
The first instance of its occurrence at Rome
in any public way was in the consulship of M.
Claudius Marcellus and C. Walerius, B.C. 331,
when the city was visited by a pestilence.
After many of the leading men of the state had
died by the same kind of disease, a slave-girl
gave information to the curule aediles that it
was, owing to poisons prepared by the Roman
matrons. Following her information, they sur-
prised about twenty matrons, among whom were
Cornelia and Sergia, both belonging to patrician
families, in the act of preparing certain drugs
over a fire; and being compelled by the magis-
trates to drink these in the forum, since they
asserted that they were not poisonous, they
perished by their own wickedness. . Upon this
further informations were laid, and as many as
a hundred and seventy matrons were condemned
(Liv. viii. 18; compare Val. Max. ii. 5, § 3;
Oros. iii. 10; August. de Civ. Dei, iii. 17). We
next read of poisoning being carried on upon an
extensive scale as one of the consequences of the
introduction of the worship of Bacchus (Liv.
xxxix. 8) [BACCHANALIA]. In B.C. 184, the
praetor Q. Naevius Matho was commanded by
the senate to investigate such cases (de veneficiis
quaerere): he spent four months in the investi-
gation, which was principally carried on in the .
1municipia and conciliabula, and, according, to
Valerius of Antium, he condemned 2000.persons
(Liv. xxxix. 38, 41). We again find mention of
a public investigation into cases of poisoning by
order, of the senate, in B.C. 180, when a pesti-
lence raged at Rome, and many of the magistrates
and other persons of high rank had perished.
The investigation was conducted in the city and
within ten miles of it by the praetor C. Claudius,
and beyond the ten miles by the praetor C.
Maenius. Hostilia, the widow of the consul
S. Calpurnius, who had died in that year, was
accused of having poisoned her husband, and
condemned on what appears to have been mere
suspicion (Liv. xl. 37). In B.C. 154 two consulars
were said to have been poisoned by their wives
(Liv. Ep. xlviii.; Wal. Max. vi. 3, 8). Cases of
what may be called private poisoning, in oppo-
sition to those mentioned above, frequently
occurred: so Quintil. v. 11, 39, “nullam
adulteram non eandem esse veneficam ” (cf. Auct.
ad Herenn. 1, 23; Plin. H. N. ii. §§ 156, 157).
The speech of Cicero in behalf of Cluentius
supplies us with several particulars on this
subject. Under the Roman emperors it was
carried on to a great extent, and some females
who excelled in the art were in great request.
One of the most celebrated of these was Locusta,
who poisoned Claudius at the command of
Agrippina, and Britannicus at that of Nero, the
latter of whom even placed persons under her
to be instructed in the art (Tac. Ann. xii. 66,
xiii. 15; Suet. Ner. 33; Juv. i. 71). For a
fuller list of poisoning cases, see Mayor's note on
Juv. i. 70. - - r
The first legislative enactment especially
directed against poisoning was a law of the
dictator Sulla—Lex Cornelia de sicariis et
veneficis—passed in B.C. 82, which continued in
force, with some alterations, to the latest times.
It contained provisions against all who made,
bought, sold, possessed, or gave poison for the
purpose of poisoning (Cic. pro Cluent. 54, 158;
Marcian, Dig. 48, 8, 3; Inst. iv. 18, 5). The
punishment fixed by this law was, according to
Marcian, the deportatio in insulam and the
confiscation of property; but it was probably
in the earlier period the interdictio aquae et
ignis, since the deportatio under the emperors
took the place of the interdictio, and the ex-
pression in the Digest was suited to the time
of the writers or compilers. [LEx CORNELIA,
p. 39.] By a senatusconsultum passed subse-
quently, a female who gave drugs or poisén ºf r
the purpose of producing conception even with-
out any evil intent, was banished (relegata), if
the person to whom she administered them died
in consequence. By another senatusconsultum
all druggists (pigmentarii) who administered
poisons carelessly “purgationis causa,” were
liable to the penalties of this law. [PHARMA-
coPola.] In the time of Marcian (that of
Alexander Severus) this crime was punished
capitally in the case of persons of lower rank
(humiliores), who were exposed to wild beasts,
but persons of higher rank (altiores) were con-
demned to the deportatio in insulam (Dig. l. c.).
The word veneficium was also applied to
potions, incantations, &c. (Cic. Brut. 60, 217;
Petron. 118); whence we find veneficus and
venefica used in the sense of a sorcerer and
sorceress in general. [SUPERSTITIo.] For the
poisons employed, cf. Dioscor. de Venen, and
other passages collected by Professor Mayor. It
is noticeable that mineral poisons were unknown
(Quintil. Lect. 350, p. 741 B). See further on
this subject Rein in Paully, s. v. veneficium,
venenum; Mayor, l.c. [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
VER SACRUM (ºros ispáv). It was a
custom among the early Italian natiºns,
especially of the Umbro-Sabellian stock, in times
of great danger and distress, to vow to the
deity the sacrifice of everything born in the
next spring; that is, between the 1st of March
and the last day of April, if the calamity under
940 VERBENA
WESTALES
which they were labouring should be removed.
(Fest. Ep. p. 379; Liv. xxii. 9, 10, xxxiv. 44;
Strab. v. p. 250; Sisenna, ap. Non. xii. 18;
Serv. ad Aen. vii. 796.) This sacrifice in the
early times comprehended both men and
domestic animals, and there is little doubt that
in many cases the vow was really carried into
effect. But in later times the actual sacrifice
was thought cruel, and accordingly the follow-
ing expedient was adopted. The children were
allowed to grow up, and in the spring of their
twentieth or twenty-first year they were with
covered faces driven across the frontier of their
native country, whereupon they went whither-
soever fortune or the deity might lead them.
Dionysius (i. 16) describes it as happening
(a) as a thanksgiving for eiavāpta or víkm, (b) for
propitiation: if the former, they offer sacrifices,
and send out the colony with good omens; if
the latter, in grief, demanding pardon of those
sent out. The real occasion, at least in most
cases, was doubtless pressure of over-population
in the Apennine valleys: the emigration, which
was a more merciful course than sacrifice by
infanticide, was so like the swarming from a
hive that Warro chooses it as an illustration,
“Cum examen exiturum est . . . ut olim Sabini
factitaverunt propter multitudinem liberorum ”
(R. R. iii. 16). Several Italian nations traced
their origin to a Ver Sacrum : Samnites, Lu-
canians, Bruttii, Picentini, Hirpini; the Umbri
and Sabini being regarded as autochthons.
According to the legendary account, Mars, the
national god of Italy, sends guides for the home-
less warriors, in the case of the Hirpini a wolf
(hirpus), of the Picentini (Plin. H. N. iii. § 110)
a woodpecker (picus), of the Samnites an ox
(cf. Bovianum). It is probably a truer view to
recognise in these legends the ancient animal
totems of these tribes than to suppose that the
legend arose from the tribal name. . That this
swarming still went on as late as the time of
the First Punic War, is shown by the case of
the Mamertini, or “sons of Mars” in Sicily,
whose origin is traced to a Ver Sacrum (Fest.
p. 158).
In the two historical instances in which the
Romans vowed a ver sacrum, that is, after the
battle of lake Trasimenus and at the close of the
Second Punic War, the vow was confined to
domestic animals, as was expressly stated ifi the
vow. (Liv. xxii. 10: for a critical discussion of
the words, see Häsenmuller, in Rhein. Mus. xix.
1864.) It must be observed that in these two
cases it had only a religious significance as a
vow, and had nothing to do with emigration.
(Liv. l. c. and xxxiii. 44; Plut. Fab. Maa. 4.)
For further discussion see Mommsen, Hist. of
Rome, i. 122; Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 281;
Nissen, Das Templum, p. 154 f.
[L. S.] [G. E. M.]
VERBE'NA. [SAGMINA.]
VERBENA'RIUS. [FETIALIS.]
WERNA. [SERVUS, pp. 662 b, 665 a.]
VERSO IN REM ACTIO. [SERVUs,
p. 661 b.]
VERSU'RA. [FENUs.]
VERU, VERUTUM. [HASTA.]
WESPAE, VESPILLO'NES.
Vol. I. p. 892 a.]
WESTALES (Virgines Vestales), the virgin
priestesses of Westa, who ministered in her
[FUNUs,
temple and watched the eternal fire. That
they were recognised as a priesthood is clear
from their official designation, “sacerdotes
Vestales” (C. I. L. vi. 2128;-Gellius, i. 12,
14; x. 15, 31). They belonged to that oldest
class of priesthoods [SACERDOS] whose duties
were limited to the service of particular deities,
and we have good reason to suppose that they
were at least as ancient as any of these. Their
existence at Alba Longa is connected with the
earliest Roman traditions, for Rhea Silvia, the
mother of Romulus, was, according to the
legend, a Vestal (Liv. i. 20; Dionys. i. 76);
and they are known to have survived at Alba
down to the age of the later Empire. ...The
institution is also found at Lavinium and Tibur
(Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 336, reff ; Preuner,
Hestia-Vesta, 340), and was without doubt
originally common to all Latin communities.
From Alba it was believed to have been brought
to Rome; whether by Romulus or Numa, the
Roman antiquaries were not agreed (cf. Schweg-
ler, Röm. Gesch. i. 544, note 1). The original
number of the Westals was four (their names
are given in Plut. Numa, 10), two representing
the Rhamnes, two the Tities (Dionys. ii. 67, iii.
67; Festus, 344b); to these two were added by
Tarquinius Priscus or Servius Tullius, to re-
present the third tribe of the Luceres.
The true explanation of the origin and mean-
ing of this singular priesthood has been recently
placed beyond doubt by the researches of anthro-
pologists. The germ of the cult of Vesta is to
be found in the great difficulty experienced by
primitive man in obtaining fire, and in the con-
sequent veneration with which he regarded it
when obtained. Convenience suggested that in
one house in every settlement a fire should
be kept perpetually burning, from which the
members of the community could at any time
procure the flame. This house was that of the
king or chief, whose unmarried daughters were
charged with the duty of keeping up the fire;
their brothers also, as “kindlers” (flamines),
had duties of the same kind, perhaps more
especially sacrificial. (For the comparative
evidence on which this explanation rests, see
especially J. G. Frazer, in Journal of Philology,
vol. xiv., No. 28, pp. 145 foll. : cf. Helbig, Die
Italiker in der Poebene, p. 53; PRYTANEUM.)
From the first, probably, this duty of the chief’s
daughters was a religious one, and the flame
was a sacred flame (Ovid, Fast. vi. 291 : “Nec
tu aliud Westam quam vivam intellige flam-
mam”); and thus, by a process of development
which cannot be entered into here, the fire
became a deity whose nature and origin were
forgotten (ib. vi. 267, “Westa eadem quae
terra; ” Varro in August. Civ. Dei, vii. 16 and
23), and the duties of the chief's daughters were
transferred to an organised priesthood, retaining
throughout their history the leading charac-
teristic of maidenhood. What had been matter
of mere utility becomes symbolic of the life,
welfare, and unity of the state; and the sacred
hearth continues to be guarded by virgins whose
purity of life and antique simplicity of occu-
pation recalled their humble origin even in the
latest ages of Roman history. (Jordan, Tempel
der Vesta, pp. 50 foll, regards the Vestal as in
the position of the state representative of the
materfamilias, and not as the daughter of the
WESTALES
WESTALES 941
rex or pontifex maximus: an opinion which
is incompatible with the comparative evidence
alluded to above.)
The Westals may be treated under the heads
of (1) qualification, (2) mode of appointment,
(3) duties, and (4) privileges.
1. Qualifications.—The maiden who was to be a
Vestal must not be under six or over ten years
of age (Labeo in Gellius, i. 12, 1); she must be
perfect in all her limbs, and in full enjoyment
of all her senses (Gell. l. c.; Marquardt, Staats-
verw. iii. 339); must be “patrima et matrima,”
f.e. have both parents living; and these parents
must be, if not patricians (Mommsen, For-
schungen, i. 79), at least free and freeborn, per-
sons who had never been in slavery or followed
any dishonourable occupation, and who were in
residence in Italy (Labeo in Gell. l.c.). These
rules may have been to some extent relaxed as
time went on ; we know, for example, that
Augustus allowed the daughters of libertini to
be considered eligible (Dio Cass. lv. 22). But
on the whole great care must have been at all
times taken to maintain their reputation by
attention to these qualifications; and thus the
institution survived intact, and without loss of
dignity, long after the establishment of Chris-
tianity as the state religion.
2. Mode of Appointment.—A Lex Papia, of
uncertain date, ordained that when a vacancy
occurred, the pontifex maximus should name at
his discretion twenty damsels qualified as above,
one of whom was publicly (in contione, i.e. in
Comitia calata ?) fixed on by lot, an exemption
being granted in favour of those who had a
sister already a Westal, whose father was flamen,
augur, XWvir, VIIvir, Salius, or Tubicen sa-
crorum ; the betrothed of a pontifex was also
excused, and, in the age of the Empire, the
daughter of anyone who had the “jus trium
liberorum.” It was possible also for a parent
to offer his child voluntarily to the pontifex
maximus to be made a Westal; in which case,
if she were duly qualified, the senate might
grant absolution from the terms of the Lex
Papia (Gell. i. 12, 10; an example of the last-
mentioned procedure in Tac. Ann. ii. 86, where
two candidates are presented to the senate for
selection: cf. Dio Cass. lv.22).
When the girl was chosen, the ceremony of
“captio" by the pontifex maximus took place.
This was simply an application of the old legal
procedure of “mancipatio per aes et libram,”
by which personal property, e.g. slaves, passed
into the possession of the buyer. The pontifex
maximus took the girl by the hand and addressed
her in a solemn form of words, preserved by
Gellius from Fabius Pictor: “Sacerdotem Wes-
talem quae sacra faciat quae ius siet Sacer-
dotem Westalem facere pro Populo Romano
Quiritibus uti quae optima lege fuit ita te
Amata capio ; ” where the title Amata seems to
be simply an honorary one, suggesting perhaps
the gentle character of everything in the
worship of Westa. By this ceremony the girl
Passed out of the potestas of her father, and
into that of the pontifex maximus, who here
represented in one sense the king, as father to
the Westal, in another the goddess to whose
service she was dedicated. Thus she now
entered a new and sacred familia, the centre
of which was the hearth of Westa, the members
the Westals with the Flamines and Flaminicae,
and the paterfamilias the pontifex maximus.
She suffered by the process no capitis deminutio,
but on the contrary was henceforth qualified to
hold property independently and to make a will
(Gell. i. 12, 9; Marquardt, iii. 314 and 337;
Jordan, Tempel der Vesta, p. 82).
The ceremony seems to have been reckoned as
legally equivalent to the inauguratio of other
priests (Gaius, i. 130; Ulpian, Fragm. 10, 5).
When it was over, she was conducted to the
Atrium Vestae; her hair was cut off, and hung,
apparently as a dedicatory offering, on a branch
of the sacred lotus-tree (cf. Plin. H. N. xvi.
§ 235; Tylor, Primitive Culture, ii. 364), but
was suffered to grow again, as the recently dis-
covered statues of Vestals clearly prove (Mid-
dleton, Rome in 1885, p. 200; Marquardi, iii.
338, note 4, with Wissowa's addition). She was
then clothed in the white garments of a Westal
(to be described further on), and was sworn to
abide in her office and to maintain her virginity
for not less than thirty years (Gell. l.c., and
vii. 7, 4). If she chose then to resign her office
—which seems rarely to have been the case—
she became a private individual, and was entitled
to marry.
3. Duties.—These would seem to have been
more complicated than we might suppose: for
the Westal is said to have spent the first ten
years of her service in learning them, the next
ten years in practising them, and the third
decade in teaching them to novices (Dionys.
ii. 67; Plut. Numa, 10. Jordan, op. cit. p. 60,
argues that this division of duties could not
have always held good; but it may be taken
as roughly representing what was the natural
and regular course). The chief duty, however,
was the simple one of tending the sacred fire;
which, as symbolic of the life and religion of
the state, might never be suffered to go out.
Its extinction was the most fearful of all pro-
digia. If such extinction was the fault of the
Vestal on duty, she was stripped and scourged
by the pontifex maximus in the dark, with a
screen interposed, and he rekindled the flame
by the friction of two pieces of wood from a
felia, arbor (Dionys. l.c.; Liv. xxviii. 11; Festus,
s.v. Ignis). Their other daily duties, so far as we
know them, were exactly such as the daughters
of a primitive household might have performed.
They had to bring fresh water on their heads
from a sacred spring, e.g. that of Egeria; and,
as the recent discovery of the house of the
Vestals has shown, no water was ever supplied
them in pipes (Jordan, op. cit. p. 63; and p. 215
of Dissertations in honour of E. Curtius). A
marble tank in the peristyle of the house served
as a receptacle for the water which they brought
(Middleton, Rome in 1885, p. 195; Jordan thinks
that under the Empire this service was performed
by assistants): when used for sacrificial pur-
poses, this was mixed with muries, i.e. salt
pounded in a mortar, thrown into an earthen
jar, and baked in an oven (Festus, 158 b ; Serv.
ad Ecl. viii. 82). They also daily cleansed the
temple with a kind of mop, and adorned it with
laurel, which was renewed once a year (Mar-
quardt, iii. 343 and reff). The same homely
character of their service is seen in the antique
simplicity of the utensils they used; which were
all of the most ordinary ware, made of baked
942. WESTALES
WESTALES
clay, and without ornament (Ovid, Fasti, vi. 310 ;
Val. Max. iv. 4, 11). . - {
The Westals also had certain public duties in
connexion with fixed festivals of the calendar.
All of these, it should be noticed, belonged to
the oldest class of rites, and expressed, the
religious ideas and interests of the primitive
Italian husbandman. Beginning the year on
March 1 with the renewal of the sacred fire,
they had a share in the FORDICIDIA and PARILIA
in April, and, on May 1 were present at the
women's festival of the Bona Dea. From May
7 to 14, they were busy making their sacrificial
cake (mola salsa) from the first ripe ears of
corn, by pounding it after the fashion of an age
when mills were not invented (Helbig, Die
Italiker in der Poebene, 17 and 72. The mill
lately found in the Westals' house could hardly
have been used for the sacred cake, as Middleton
suggests, op. cit. p. 193: cf. Jordan, p. 64). On
May 15 they were present at the primitive
rite of the Argei, and their presence is evidence
for a possible connexion of that ceremony with
agricultural interests. From June 7 to 14
was their busiest time; on the 9th fell their
own festival of the Westalia, and on the 15th
the penus or temple-storehouse of Vesta, which
was open during these days, was cleaned out and
the refuse carefully removed to a particular
spot, an act probably symbolic of the prepara-
tion of barns and garners for the harvest then
proceeding. At the true harvest festivals of
Consus and Ops Consiva in August they were
also present, and once again on the Ides of
September at a ceremony possibly connected
with the vintage. At the end of the religious
year they appear once more, providing mola
Salsa for the LUPERCALIA, the ancient feast of
fructification. (For details and evidence, see
Marquardt, iii. 343 foll. ; Preller, Röm. Myth.
ii. 164 foll.) º l ,
They had in their keeping the blood of the
“October equus,” and the ashes of the unborn
calves sacrificed at the Fordicidia. But of
greater importance was the charge of the sacred
relics which formed the fatale pignus imperii,
the pledge granted by fate for the permanency
of the Roman sway, deposited in the inmost
adytum (penus Vestae; see Festus, s. v.), which
no one was permitted to enter save the Virgins
and the chief pontifex. What these objects were
no one knew, and it may even be doubted
whether the tradition of their existence was not
wholly, without foundation (so Jordan, op. cit.
p. 67). Some supposed that they included the
Palladium, others the Samothracian gods carried
by Dardanus to Troy and transported from thence
to Italy by Aeneas, but all agreed in believing
that something of awful sanctity was here pre-
served, contained, it was said, in a small earthen
jar closely sealed, while another exactly similar
in form, but empty, stood by its side. (Dionys.
i. 69, ii. 66; Plut. Camill. 20; Lamprid. Elagab.
6; Ovid, Fast. vi. 365; Lucan,-ix. 994.) --
We have seen above that supreme importance
was attached to the purity of the Westals, and
a terrible punishment awaited her who violated
the vow of chastity. According to the law of
Numa, she was simply to be stoned to death
(Cedrenus, Hist. Comp. p. 148, or p. 259, ed.
Bekker), but a more cruel torture was devised
by Tarquinius Priscus (Dionys, iii. 67; Zonaras,
vii. 8) and inflicted: from that time forward.
When condemned by the college of pontifices,
she was stripped of her vittae and other badges
of office, was scourged (Dionys. ix. 40), was
attired like a corpse, placed in a close litteriand
borne through the forum attended by her.
weeping kindred, with all the ceremonies of a
real funeral, to a rising ground called the
Campus Sceleratus, just within the city walls,
close to the Colline gate. There a small vault
underground had been previously prepared, eon-
taining a couch, a lamp, and a table with a
little food. . The pontifex maximus, having
lifted up his hands to heaven and uttered a
secret prayer, opened the litter, led forth the
culprit, and, placing her on the steps of the
ladder which gave access to the subterranean
cell, delivered her over to the common execu-
tioner and his assistants, who conducted her
down, drew up the ladder, and having filled the
pit with earth until the surface was level with
the surrounding ground, left her to perish
deprived of all the tributes of respect usually
paid to the spirits of the departed. In every
case the paramour was publicly scourged to
death in the forum. (Plut. Num. 10, Fab. Max.
18, Quaest. Rom. 96; Dionys. ii. 67, iii. 67.
viii. 89, ix. 40; Liv. iv. 44, viii. 15, xxii. 57;
Plin. Ep. iv. 11; Suet. Dom. 8; Dio Cass.
lxvii. 3, lxxvii. 16, and fragg. xci. xcii. Festus,
s. v. Probrum et Sceleratus Campus.)
4. Privileges. – But if the labours of the
Vestals were unremitting and the rules of the
order rigidly and pitilessly enforced, so the
honours they enjoyed were such as in a great.
measure to compensate for their privation.
They were maintained at the public cost and
from sums of money and land bequeathed from
time to time to the corporation (Suet. Aug. 31,
Tib. 76; Sicul. Flacc. p. 162, ed. Lachmann).
From the moment of their consecration, as we,
have seen, they became as it were the property of
the goddess alone, and were completely released
from all parental sway without going through
the form of emancipatio or suffering any capitis
deminutio (Gell. i. 12, 9). They had a right to
make a will, and to give evidence in a court of
justice without taking an oath (Gell. x. 15),=-
distinctions said to have been first conceded by.
an Horatian law to a certain Caia Tarratia or
Fufetia, and afterwards communicated to all'
(Gell. i. 12; Gaius, i. 145; compare Plin. H. W.
xxxiv. § 11). Each was preceded by a lictor,
like the Flamen Dialis, when she went abroad
(Dio Cass. xlvii. 19), consuls and praetors made
way for her, and lowered their fasces (Senec.
Controvers. vi. 8; compare Plut. Tib. Gracch.
15), even the tribunes of the plebs respected?
their holy character (Oros. v. 4; Suet. Tib. 2;
compare Cic. pro Cael. 14, 34; Val. Max. v. 4,
§ 6), and if any one passed under their litter he
was put to death (Plut. Num. 10). Augustus
granted to them the jus trium liberorum (Dio.
Cass. lvi. 10; Plut. l. c.), and assigned them - a
conspicuous place in the theatre (Suet. Aug-
44; Tac. Ann. iv. 16), a privilege which they
had enjoyed before at the gladiatorial shows
(Cic. pro Muren. 35, 73). Great weight was
attached to their intercession on behalf of those
in danger and difficulty, of which we have a
remarkable example in the entreaties which
they addressed to Sulla on behalf of Julius
WESTALES
WESTALES 943
Caesar (Suet. Jul. 1; compare Cic. pro Font. 17;
Suet. Vitell. 16; Dio Cass. lxv. 18; Tac. Ann.
iii. 69, xi. 32, Hist. iii. 81), and if they chanced
to meet a criminal as he was led to punishment
they had a right to demand his release, provided
it could be proved that the encounter was
accidental. Their general dignity and influence
are attested by the inscriptions on the pedestals
of their statues, recently discovered in the
Atrium Vestae (Middleton, Rome in 1885, p. 200
foll.). Wills, even those of the emperors, were
committed to their charge (Suet. Jul. 83, Aug.
101; Tac. Ann. i. 8), for when in such keeping
they were considered inviolable (Plut. Anton,
58); and very solemn treaties, such as that of
the triumvirs with Sextus Pompeius, were
placed in their hands (Appian, B. C. V. 73 ;
Dio Cass. xlviii. 37 and 46). Their own persons.
were inviolable (Plut. Numa, 10); and as in 'so
many other points in their life they retained the
privileges of the ancient royal household, so
after death they were an exception to the law
of the Twelve Tables which forbade burial.
within the pomerium (Serv. ad Aen. xi. 206).
Their burial-place is not as yet discovered (Mar-
quardt, iii. 309, 341.; Lanciani, Ancient Rome,
p. 142). -
They were attired entirely in white (Suidas,
1010 B). Fes-
tus in a doubt-
ful passage (p.
4, 1) describes
their dress as
a toga, and this
may have been
originally so,
and would be
in keeping with
the antique
character of
the rest of
their life and
ritual. But
\ the portrait
statues of Wes-
tals lately dis-
covered, dating
, from the 2nd
century A.D.,
show that in.
that day at
least they wore
a stola or long
(Jordan.) gown, confined
- by a girdle at
the waist, and usually sleeveless; and over this
a-pallium or loose robe, as is seen in the accom-
panying cuts. On their head was an infula, or
diadem-like band (Serv. ad Aen. x. 538), from
which on each side depended vittae ; and when
sacrificing they wore also the suffibulum, which
was their especial characteristic. This was
a white woollen hood with a purple border,
folded over the head and fastened below with a
brooch (fibula); it is represented only in the
statue of the Virgo Vestalis Maxima, of which
a cut is given, and corresponds with the descrip-
tion of Festus (p. 349; cf. Varro, L. L. vi. 21).
The second cut, copied from a gem, represents
the Westal Tuccia, who when wrongfully accused
appealed to the goddess to vindicate her honour,
and had power given her to carry a sieve full of
Statue of Virgo Vestalis Maxima,
from the Atrium Westae.
they seem to have
dignity by seni-
ority ;
water from the Tiber to the temple—a con-
venient legend for checking hasty accusations
(Montfaucon, Ant. Exp. i. pl. xiv., Supplem, i.
pl. vi.; Wal. Max. - t -
viii. 1, 35 ; Plin. §§
H. N. xxviii. § 2). *.
Of the organisa-
tion and interior
life of the Vestals,
we still know very.
little. It has been
mentioned that
they were supposed
to spend the first
ten years of their
service in learning,
the second in prac-
tising, and the
third in teaching,
their duties. Thus
risen gradually in
The Westal Tuccia, from an
ancient gem.
and the
oldest, under the
title of Virgo Vestalis Maxima, acted as a kind
of president or lady superior (Marquardt, iii.
340 and reff. : cf. the inscribed pedestals in .
Middleton, p. 200 foll., especially Nos. 5 and 6,
whence, it appears that the head of the sister-
hood had passed through “omnes gradus sacer-
dotii ºº). The Vestalis Maxima had also the
title of antistes (C. J. L. vi. 2139, 2143; cf.
Liv. i. 20, 3). All were equally under the
supervision of the pontifex. maximus, whose
duty it was to keep a vigilant eye on the sister-
hood.: cf. Liv. iv. 44, where a Westal is de-
nounced to him as guilty of a desire, for per-
sonal adornment, and ordered to behave more
discreetly in future. They all resided together
in a house adjoining the . Regia and the round
temple of Westa, at the south-eastern corner of
the Forum Romanum, and immediately under
the north-western, end of the Palatine Hill.
This house was probably several times burnt.
and rebuilt ; the important remains of it which
were excavated in 1883–4, are of Hadrian's
time. For a detailed description of it, the
student is referred to Middleton's work already
quoted, ch. vi. ; and for its history and relation
to the Regia and the Aedes Vestae, see also
Jordan, Röm. Topographie, i. pt. 2, pp. 298 foll.,
423 foll. ; and the same author's Tempel der
Vesta, passim.
The ample size and accommodation of the
house seem to show that after the 1st century
A.D. the Westals were no longer content with
their former simplicity of life; it may perhaps
have been necessary, to their reputation and
dignity in a luxurious age, that they should live
in comfort if not in splendour. It was partly
rebuilt after the great fire of 191 A.D., and con-
tinued to be occupied by the Westals for two cen-
turies after that date, in spite of the public re-
cognition of Christianity (Preuner, Hestia-Vesta,
p. 442 and notes). The inscriptions show that
the sisterhood continued to maintain its prestige
and to discharge its duties until towards the
end of this period; but in the latter half of the
4th century some members seem to have be-
come Christians, and it is possibly for this
reason (as Middleton suggests, op. cit. p. 206;


944 VESTIBULUM
WESTIS
but cf. Lanciani, p. 171) that in the latest in-
scription in date the name of the Vestal has
been erased. This was in A.D. 364; in A.D.
394, after the defeat of Eugenius by Theodosius,
and the entry of the latter into Rome, the
Vestals were dispersed and their order abolished.
(See Zosimus, v. 38; and the story there related
of the last of the Westals.) But the modern
Italian nunnery, with its organisation and vows,
still recalls the Atrium Vestae and the life
of the Westals, which thus form a connecting
link between the most primitive civilisation
of Italy and the ideas and practice of modern
Christianity. [W. R.] [W. W. F.]
VESTI'BULUM. [Domus, Vol. I. p. 668;
JANUA.
VESTICEPS. [IMPUBEs.]
WESTIS. The history of Greek and Roman
dress has been only told in part by the articles
which describe various garments and ornaments
under their several names. In them the changes
which new modes of life, new channels of trade,
and new manufactures brought about are only
touched on incidentally. The object of the
present article is to supply the connecting link,
and to give a chronological sketch of the develop-
ment of the costume of the latest periods that
concern us. Unfortunately it can only be a
sketch, for the ground is for the most part new,
there being no authoritative treatises on the
subject. This is due to the fact that the evi-
dence is chiefly to be drawn from the monu-
ments, and that they have not yet been ade-
quately studied. Until they are known with
scientific thoroughness, and until this know-
ledge has been brought to bear on the evidence
from literature, the details of the history of
Greek and Roman dress cannot be filled in.
The earliest pre-historic remains in Greece
and at Hissarlik go back to the Stone age, when
metals were unknown, and the potter's wheel
had not yet come into use. Yet, even among
these, spindle-whorls and what may be regarded
as loom-weights are found, showing that thread
was manufactured then. Whether this thread
was of flax as well as wool has been debated,
but the combined evidence of philology and
archaeology shows that it was not only known,
but woven into stuffs (cf. Schrader, Sprachver-
gleichung und Urgeschichte, p. 361 foll. ; Stud-
niczka, Beiträge zur G. d. altgr. Tracht, p. 45;
Taylor, The Origin of the Aryans, pp. 165, 171;
FUSUs).
Besides these woven garments, the people of
these early times must have possessed plaited
mats of reeds and rushes, much like those of the
fisher-folk of classical times (cf. popués, Theocr.
xxi. 13; cf. Paus. x. 29, 8), and of some ancho-
rites of the Christian era. That such mats
were skilfully woven with all manner of pat-
terms, a glance at early pottery, with its plait
ornamentation, is sufficient to show. These
woven and plaited stuffs were worn with fleeces
and dressed skins [PELLIS], or in some parts
with hats and coats of felt [PILLEUS].
The civilisation of the so-called Mycenaean
period brought with it many changes in dress,
but these have been sufficiently described in the
articles which treat of garments mentioned by
Homer [PALLA; PALLIUM ; , TUNICA]. One
point, however, deserves special mention, the
connexion that existed between the people who
enjoyed this civilisation and the East. Both
Egyptian and Assyrian works of art are found
side by side with those of Mycenae, and there
can be no doubt that the commerce between
them, if not direct, was at any rate a regular
one (cf. Furtwängler und Loeschcke, Mykenische
Vasen). Such a trade must have brought many
products of the Eastern looms to Greece, as well
as much costly jewellery and furniture. The
opening of historical times in the eighth and
seventh centuries shows the Oriental influence
still strong, but chiefly exercised through the
colonists in Ionia. It was from the Lydians (cf.
Avôowa.0eſs rués, Anacr. fr. 155), and after-
wards the Persians, that these Ionians borrowed
their luxurious ways. This new #8poortvm spread
from Aeolia and Ionia to Magna Graecia, Sicily
no less than to Thessaly and Corinth, and flou-
rished more especially at the courts of the tyrants
of this period. The result on dress is to be
traced in the number of foreign garments, whose
names are to be found in the Lyric poets. Thus
Bággapa (cf. Daremberg et Saglio, Dict. i. p. 681)
and kútraororis (cf. Studniczka, loc. cit. p. 21,
note 62; BASSARA) were both borrowed from
Lydia, and were names of long linen garments,
while ordpatris is Median. Linen also came from
Egypt ; and the pdºoroov, jutrö8tov, kaxáoripts,
and orivöðv are words derived from this source
(cf. Müller, Handbuch, p. 412; Daremberg et
Saglio, loc. cit. ii. p. 756; Studniczka, loc. cit.
pp. 47, 51). Besides these linen stuffs were
dyed woollen fabrics, especially those of Tyrian
purple (travakovpyéa pápea, Xenophan. fr.; &Aovp-
Tytöes, Athen. xii. 16) and saffron, the latter
owing part at least of its vogue to its use in
Dionysiac ritual.
The luxury of this time was, in Greece proper
at any rate, chiefly confined to the courts of
tyrants; and when their régime passed away, a
reaction towards simplicity set in, which Thucy-
dides describes (cf. art. PALLIUM). The chief
reform effected was, somewhat like the Jaeger
movement of our days, a return to the use of
wool in the place of linen, and a reduction in
the number of garments worn. However, this
must in most cases have been a counsel of per-
fection, for the variety of clothing shown by
fifth-century art would scarcely lead one to
suspect that much greater simplicity actually
prevailed. This period of what may be called
classical Greek dress ends with the foundation
of Alexander's empire. The new and close
contact with the East that was then established
not only brought many new stuffs, such as
cotton, but shifted the centre of fashion away
from Greece to the new capitals of the Hellenis-
tic world. All manner of fine muslins (sührpioi
oruvââves, Nearch. Peripl. Mar. Er. 14, 6; cf.
Theophr. H. P. iv. 4, 8) and other cotton pro-
ducts (köpiraoros : cf. Müller, op. cit. p. 436;
Haverfield, Journal of Philology, xiii. 299–302;
Daremberg et Saglio, s. v. carbasus; Schrader,
Ling. hist. Forsch. pp. 210, 211), and even silks,
became known [SERICUMl.
In sketching the history of Roman dress, it
would be useless to begin with pre-historic
antiquities, as we did in the case of Greek dress.
Such an inquiry would, it is true, give a glimpse
of the mode of life led by the common ancestors
of the Umbrians, Romans, and other Italians in
the Stone age; but it would throw no special
WESTIS
WESTIS 945
light on Roman civilisation. So great in fact is
the gap between these primitive times and the
Rome of history that the traditions of the kings
give the earliest starting-point. These tradi-
tions all go to show that the influence of Etruria
on dress, if not on the manners and customs,
Was great. The form this influence took was
recognised in classical times by archaeologists,
like Florus, who tells us that the insignia of
power were borrowed from Etruria (i. 5, 6:
Inde fasces, trabeae, curules, anuli, phalerae,
paludamenta, praeteata, inde quod aureo curru.
quattuor equis triumphatur, togae pictae, tuni-
caeque palmatae, omnia denique decora et insignia
quibus imperii dignitas eminet).
The civilisation of the Etruscans was much
older than that of the Romans; their commerce
was extensive, their manufacturing skill famous
throughout the world, and their wealth and
luxury very great, to judge by the remains that
have been found in their graves. Even apart
from the fact that the last dynasty that reigned
at Rome, that of the Tarquins, was Etruscan,
their debt to Etruria could not be anything else
than great. Yet it would be wrong to suppose
that the Romans imported more than they
needed for ceremonial display. As in all
primitive communities, the women of the
family and their maids were mostly busied in
spinning and weaving wool.
The primitive stage, however, in which
garments are worn, as they come direct from
the loom, had long since passed at Rome, even
in the days of Numa. In his time, if we can
believe a tradition, the fullers [FULLONEs]
and dyers (infectores) had already attained the
status of forming guilds (cf. Plut. Numa, 17).
They were only concerned with the dressing of
cloth and preparing it for wear, so that there
must have been considerable variety in clothes,
both as regards colour and finish, even in those
early times. Nor were these the only crafts
concerned with dress, for the goldsmiths (fabri
aurarii) also, one of the original nine guilds,
were in part at any rate employed in the manu-
facture of jewellery. Besides, the felters (coac-
tiliari), also a very old craft, must have existed
at this date, and provided coats and blankets,
not to speak of hats [PILLEUs].
The garments produced by these native
industries were for the most part of wool, for
the use of linen did not become common at Rome
till late in the history of the Republic. The
form they took can, to a certain extent, be
recovered from tradition, and from their survival
in certain ceremonial uses. From these we
learn that originally both men and women wore
a cloak of wool, the ToGA, and that below it
the men had a tightly-girt loin-cloth, the
SUBLIGACULUM. The first change was the
adoption by both sexes of a woollen shirt or
shift, the TUNICA, which from that time became
the chief under-garment. Early forms of these
garments were used in historic times; the
trabea [TOGA, p. 849 bl for instance, a narrow
toga, was the uniform of the Equites publico equo
and the vestment of certain priests. In the
same way the tunica recta was worn by the bride
on the wedding-day [MATRIMONIUM, p. 142b;
TELA, p. 769 al. She also wore the RICINIUM,
which was retained by certain priesthoods.
Besides the toga, other forms of cloak seem to
WOL. II.
have been worn in sacred rites, such as the
LAENA, which was the vestment of the flamens
and augurs, and the palla, the dress of the
flaminica [FLAMEN ; SACERDOS]. Of the various
coverings for the head, those of felt were far
the oldest at Rome; the pilleus and galerus of
men, the tutulus of women, being of this material
[PILLEUS].
Towards the end of the third century B.C. the
conquest of Magna Graecia had begun to take
effect on the Romans. In no respect was the
change more evident than in that of dress,
where it is shown by the large number of words
for new garments and new fabrics derived from
the Greek, in the Latin of that period. For
instance, it was then that friezes (amphimallum
or amphimallus), linen (carbasus), and muslin
(molochina) first became known. Embroidery
(vestis plumatilis) and the use of trimmings (e.g.
patagium), flounces, and other adornments be-
came more common. It was now the fashion
to wear more than one under-garment (tunica),
and sleeves were no longer unusual. Women
especially fell victims to Greek fashion, giving
the name STOLA (a roA) to their principal
garment, and wearing the STROPHIUM below it,
and wrapping the parapechium (trapdºrmzv,
Varro, L. L. v. 30, 133) over it. The men too,
though they still retained the old dress for
ceremonial purposes (see article TOGA), adopted
the Greek indºriov, giving it the name PALLIUM,
the ééopºls and TpuSöv under the name of
ABOLLA, and the XAapabs with its name un-
changed. This adoption of Greek fashions went
on ever increasing until the period of the
Empire, when, except for the most ceremonial
purposes, the old Roman dress had finally
disappeared. Under the Empire, however, the
Greek, or rather Hellenistic fashions, changed
rapidly. The increase of the means of communi-
cation, and the constant influx of provincials
and foreigners to Rome, brought a great number
of new fabrics, such as fine linens, muslins
(sindon), soft stuffs (leporinum), and silks [SERI-
CUM]. The prevalence of peace and the great
growth of wealth created a constant demand
for luxurious garments of cloth of gold and rich
embroidery. Of such a kind was the paragauda
(in Greek writers trapaydłóms), a sleeved tunic
of Syrian origin, which was of the finest wool,
with a purple border and embroidered with silk
ornaments. It was worn by women, but for
men was one of the insignia of office (cf. Ed.
Diocl. xvi. 15; Trebell. Poll. Claud. 17; Vopisc.
Aur. 46; Lyd. de Mag. i. 17, ii. 4, 13). Even
in ordinary use the sleeved TUNICA or STOLA
had been supplanted by the DALMATICA, which
from the time of Commodus (Lampr. Commod.
8, 8, “Dalmaticatus in publico processit;” cf.
Lampr. Heliog. 26, 2) was worn by both men
and women. A companion tunica, but without
sleeves, was called the colobium [DALMATICA].
Other new garments came from Gaul, such as
the CARACALLA and the bardocucullus, or birrus
[BIRRUs; CUCULLUs]. Even trousers [BRAGAE]
(Ed. Diocl. vi. 46) and breeches (cowale, Ed.
Diocl. i. 13) were worn at this period.
The chief literary source of our knowledge of
Greek dress is Pollux, who in the fourth and
seventh books of his Onomasticon gives long
lists of garments, with short descriptions o
their shape and make. Almost º im-
P
946 WESTIS
WIAE
portant, though only describing women's gar-
ments, are the inventories of the temples of
Artemis at Brauron (C. I. A. ii. 715–765) and
of Hera at Samos (Curtius, Inschriften und
Studien zur Geschichte von Samos, pp. 10–21),
and the inventory from Thebes (Bull. Corr. hell.
v. 264). Of these the inscription from Brauron
belongs to the beginning of the second half of
the fourth century B.C. The passages in Greek
writers which mention dress are too numerous
and varied to call for comment in an article like
the present; it is necessary, however, to point
out that great caution must be used in inter-
preting such incidental descriptions or allusions.
In a drama, for instance, the garments worn are
those of the stage, which differed in every way
from those of every-day life. The characters
wearing them appeared for the most part in the
antique magnificence of the Heroic age, not in
the clothes of common folk. It is in fact only
in comedies that we can expect to find ordinary
apparel worn and spoken of, though even there
the comic characters had extravagant and im-
possible costumes. For the costume of the
stage, see Albert Müller, Lehrbuch der griech-
ischen Bühnenalterthümer, pp. 226 foll. ; Iwan
Müller's Handbuch, vol. v. 3 (by Oehmichen),
pp. 254–262.
The monumental evidence is that from which
we must expect any further extension of our
knowledge, but it is of enormous bulk, and has
not yet been worked up as a whole. Böhlau,
however, in his de re Vestiaria, and Studniczka
in the Beiträge zur Gesch. d. altgr. Tracht, have
shown with regard to the early history of dress
what results scientific archaeology applied to
the subject can produce. The chief difficulty in
determining the value of monumental evidence
is that of estimating the effect of artistic con-
vention. Thus, for instance, there are a vast
number of statues which are nude, because
there was an artistic tradition that heroes were
so represented. So, too, there are large classes
of monuments in which dress is only given the
figures as a kind of ornament, to fill up the
background, or to suggest movement. As yet,
however, no one has formulated these conven-
tions, nor shown how their influence can be
eliminated. The chief obstacle is the rapid
increase of our knowledge, new discoveries
bringing unsuspected variations and unknown
specimens to light before the old have been
satisfactorily systematised and described.
In current literature the only account of
Greek dress besides that of Studniczka, which is
based on the idea of historical development, is
to be found in Iwan Müller's Handbuch, in the
section devoted to Privatalterthümer, pp. 395–
441 a. A summary account on the same lines
is given by Von Heyden in his Tracht der Kul-
turvölker Europas (Leipzig, 1889). Besides, the
older works of Weiss (Kostümkunde, 1872) and
Köhler (Trachten der Völker, Dresden, 1872)
contain much that is useful. The two English
works—Hope's Costume of the Ancients (1841;
2nd ed. 1875), and Moyr-Smith’s Ancient Greek
Female Costume (1882)—contain many illustra-
tions, but are otherwise of little value. The
same may be said of Racinet’s work in French.
Among the standard handbooks, the literature of
the subject is best given in Hermann's Lehrbuch,
vol. iv. Die griechischen Privatalterthümer (ed.
Blümner, 1882), and Becker's Charikles (ed.
Göll). Guhl and Koner's Leben der Griechen und
Römer (1882; Eng. edition by Hueffer), and
Blümmer's Leben und Sitten der Griechen, es-
pecially the latter, give good illustrations from
the original monuments. The articles in Bau-
meister's Denkmäler (1884, &c.), Daremberg et
Saglio's Dictionnaire des Antiquités, and Rich's
Companion to the Greek and Latin Dictionary
are also useful in giving monumental evidence.
A useful account of how Greek dresses were
made and worn, with experiments on models by
Conze, is given in Teirich's Blätter für Kunst-
gewerbe, vol. iv. 1875, pp. 61, 74 (Vienna).
For Roman dress Warro, who describes and
discusses the derivation of the names of garments
in the fifth book of his de Lingua Lating (pre-
served to us by Nonius), is the chief authority.
On the subject of dress under the Empire the
fragments of the edict of Diocletian, fixing the
customs due on articles of dress, are of great
interest, as giving a full list of the garments
then in use. Of the work of the older scholars,
the treatises collected in Graevius's Thesaurus
give all that is best. Needless to say, they are
antiquated, but in the treatises of Ferrarius and
Rubenius much that is of value may still be
found. In modern literature the histories of
Weiss, Kohler, and Von Heyden, and the dic-
tionaries mentioned above, may be consulted.
Of the handbooks, Marquardt's Das Privatleben
der Römer (2nd edit. 1886) and Becker's Gallus
(ed. Göll) give the literature with great fulness.
Guhl and Koner and Iwan Müller's Handbuch,
vol. iv. 2 (by Voigt), are also useful.
A detailed account of the various articles of
Greek and Roman dress, their forms and their
uses, will be found under their special names in
this Dictionary. [W. C. F. A.]
VEXILLAYRII. [ExERCITUS, Vol. I. p. 792.]
VEXILLUM. [SIGNA MILITARIA.]
WIAE. In legal Latin the word via signifies
(1) a rural servitude, (2) a regularly made street
or road. In the first sense it is distinguishable
from the servitudes of iter and actus. Iter is
the right of walking or passing along a road;
actus is the right of walking or passing and
driving cattle or vehicles (exclusive of heavy
traffic) along a road. Via includes both iter and
actus, and is the right of walking or passing
and driving cattle, vehicles, or traffic of any
description along a via properly so called, i.e. a
regularly made street or road (Ulpian, Dig. 8, 3,
1,7; and cf. Isidor. Orig. xv. 16; SERVITUTES).
By the laws of the Twelve Tables (Dig. 8,
3, 8) the minimum width of a via was fixed at
8 feet where it was straight, and 16 feet where
it turned. Hence via differs in this sense also.
from actus and iter, which denoted smaller or
rougher roads, bridle-paths, drifts, and tracks.
As regards the actual width of the different
classes of roads, see Burn, Rome and the Cam-
pagna, Introd. p. liii. note 2; Middleton, Ancient
Rome in 1888, p. 478. tº º
Ulpian (Dig. 43, 8, 21, 22, 23) distinguished
three kinds of viae :—1. Viae publicae, consularé,
praetoriae or militares : public high or main
roads, constructed and maintained at the public
expense, and with their soil vested in the state.
Such roads led either to the sea, or to a town,
or to a public river (i.e. one with a constant
flow), or to another public road (Dig. 43, 7, 3).
WIAE
WLAE 947
Siculus Flaccus, who lived under Trajan (A.D.
98–117), calls them viae publicae regalesque, and
describes their characteristics as follows (de
Cond. Agr. p. 9, ed. Goesius, 1674):—(1) They
are placed under curatores (commissioners), and
repaired by redemptores (contractors) at the
public expense; a fixed contribution, however,
being levied from the neighbouring landowners:
(2) they bear the names of their constructors
(e.g. Via Appia, Cassia, Flaminia). With the
term viae regales compare the 660, 8aoixàtal of
the Persian kings (who probably organised the
first system of public roads: see Herod. v. 52,
53), the term 66bs Baoruxukh in Numbers (LXX.)
xx. 17, and Plutarch, Demetr. 46, and our own
“royal road” and “king's highway.” With the
term via militaris compare the German Heer-
strasse, and the A.-S. Here-straet. So Guest
(Origines Celticae, ii. 228) identifies the Icknield
Way as the Icem-hilde-weg, or War-way of the
Iceni.
2. Viae privatae, rusticae, or agrariae : private
or country roads, originally constructed by
private persons, in whom their soil was vested,
and who had the power of dedicating them to
the public use. Such roads were subject to a
right of way, in favour either of the public or
of the owner of a particular estate. Under the
head of viae privatae were also included roads
leading out of the public or high roads to parti-
cular estates or settlements. These Ulpian
considers to be public roads themselves (Dig.
43, 8, 23).
3. Viae vicinales: village, district, or cross-
roads, leading through or towards a vicus or
village. Such roads ran either into a high-road,
or into other viae vicinales, without any direct
communication with a high-road. They were
considered public or private, according to the
fact of their original construction out of public
or private funds or materials (Dig. 43, 8, 22).
Such a road, though privately constructed,
became a public road when the memory of its
private constructors had perished (Dig. 43, 7, 3).
Siculus Flaccus (l.c.) describes viae vicinales
as roads “de publicis quae divertunt in agros et
saepe ad alteras publicas perveniunt.” The
repairing authorities, in this case, were the
tnagistri pagorum or magistrates of the pagus or
canton. They could require the neighbouring
landowners either to furnish labourers for the
general repair of the viae vicinales, or to keep in
repair, at their own expense, a certain length of
road passing through their respective properties.
An attempt will be made in this article to
state the main facts concerning the viae pub-
licae of the Roman Empire under the heads of
I. History; II. Materials and Methods of Con-
struction. Rival theories and minute points of
information must be sought for in the list of
authorities given below, under the head of III.
Literature. It comprises the principal works
dealing with the history, construction, and topo-
graphy of the Roman roads, in four divisions,
thus: 1. General Information; 2. Viae Publicae
in Rome and Italy (within the Eleven Regions of
Augustus); 3. Viae Publicae in Britain; 4. Viae
Publicae in the other provinces of the Empire.
I. HISTORY.
The public road-system of the Romans was
thoroughly military in its aims and spirit: it
was designed to unite and consolidate the con-
quests of the Roman people, whether within or
without the limits of Italy proper. Dr. Guest,
in commenting on the Itinerary of Antoninus
(Origines Celticae, ii. 102), describes the system
as follows: “With the exception of some out-
lying portions, such as Britain north of the
Wall, Dacia, and certain provinces east of the
Euphrates, the whole Empire was penetrated by
these iters. There is hardly a district which we
might expect a Roman official to be sent to, on
service either civil or military, where we do not
find them. They reach the Wall in Britain; run
along the Rhine, the Danube, and the Euphrates;
and cover, as with a network, the interior pro-
vinces of the Empire.” See also Marquardt,
Staatsverwaltung, i. 559. The following illus-
tration represents part of a magnificent Roman
~3
*...(ſ// d
ãº. is t \ . % §º
Ş. Nº
º ! M º ((((M tºº:
§§§ § º ºš
º º SS
N. { º §§
Part of a Roman road in Lancashire.
road which is still to be seen on a hill-side at
Blackstone Edge, in Lancashire.
A similar policy, attended by similar success,
has been repeatedly followed in more modern
days. We need only refer to the roads made by
General Wade and Captain Burt in the Scottish
Highlands, after the Jacobite rising of 1715 (see
Burton, History of Scotland, 1689–1748, ii. 246–
256, and Burt, Letters, ed. Jamieson, 1818); to
the Simplon, Cornice, and other military roads
of Napoleon I.; and finally to the road-systems
of our military engineers and Public Works
Department in India.
It is evident that the construction of some
visible presentment of this huge network of
communications would soon become a practical
necessity. A review of the authorities seems
to warrant the statement that, in the time of
Augustus, a map or chart, founded on the geo-
graphical statistics contained in the Commentari:
of Agrippa, and engraved on marble, was exhi-
bited for public reference in the Portico of Polla
or Pola, Agrippa's sister, which was erected in
the Campus Martius between B.C. 12 and A.D. 7
(Plin. H. N. iii. § 17). It was probably very
similar in construction to the marble map of
Rome divided into Regions, now known as the
Capitoline Plan. It is certain that geographical
measurements took place under Augustus; but
the story that they were merely completions of
a survey originally ordered about 44 B.C. by
Julius Caesar, rests on more doubtful au-
thority (see Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, ii.
207 ff.). Vegetius alludes to the early possession
of maps by military commanders: “Usque eo
ut sollertiores duces itineraria provinciarum . . .
non tantum adnotata sed etiam picta habuisse



















3 P 2
948 WLAE
WIAE
firmentur” (R. M. iii. 6). Moreover, a book,
perhaps bearing the name of Chorographia (it is
quoted by Strabo as 6 xopo'ypáq,0s), was con-
structed from the same Commentarii of Agrippa,
whose measurements are constantly referred to
as authoritative by Pliny.
The marble map which has been mentioned
was, most probably, the original authority on
which the Antonine and other Itineraries, and
the ancient map or chart of the Roman do-
minions, known as the Peutinger Table, were
founded. The Peutinger Table has by some been
identified with a copy, made in 1265 by a
Dominican monk of Colmar, from a certain
original Mappa Mundi. Miller, however, whose
works on the Peutinger Table are cited below,
considers it to be two centuries earlier in date,
and to be based on an original constructed in
the fourth century A.D., and probably in the
reign of Valentinian II. (375–392 A.D.). The
remarks of Vegetius, who lived under this
emperor, on the use of itineraria picta, have
already been quoted. The Table was discovered
in 1507 by Conrad Celtes (1459–1508) in a
German monastery. Celtes bequeathed it by
his will (in which he described it as Itinerarium
Antonini) to Conrad Peutinger, a scholar of
Augsburg (1465–1547), for eventual publication.
After many vicissitudes, it was bought for 100
ducats, in 1720, by Prince Eugene, and passed,
after his death, into the possession of the Im-
perial Library at Vienna. In the modern sense
of the word, the Peutinger Table is not a map
at all. It observes neither latitude nor longitude.
All the territories and seas depicted on it are
drawn out into a continuous narrow strip, almost
regardless of their true geographical conforma-
tion and relative position. It runs east and
west, and its existing remains comprise all the
known world between the east coast of Britain
and the limits of Alexander’s Indian conquests.
The westernmost part has been lost. The Table
shows the course of the public roads of the
Empire, and gives the distances from station to
station in miles. Its peculiar shape may per-
haps be accounted for by a passage in which
Merivale (H. R. c. xxxix.) comments on the
original marble map : “Its extension along the
walls of a gallery or cloister was meant to keep
all its parts nearly on the same level.” A large
globe or circular map, constructed like the
Mappa Mundi at Venice, would have been more
accurate in form, but less easy to consult.
The construction and care of the public roads,
whether in Rome, in Italy, or in the provinces,
was, at all periods of Roman history, considered
to be a function of the greatest weight and
importance. This is clearly shown by the fact
that the censors, in some respects the most
venerable of Roman magistrates, had the earliest
paramount authority to construct and repair all
roads and streets. Indeed, all the various func-
tionaries, not excluding the emperors themselves,
who succeeded the censors in this portion of
their duties, may be said to have exercised a
devolved censorial jurisdiction (see Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii. 428 ft., 451 ff.). This devolution
early became a practical necessity, resulting
from the growth of the Roman dominions and
the multifarious labours which detained the
censors in the capital city. Hence, in Rome
and the immediate neighbourhood, as we shall
presently see, certain special official bodies suc-
cessively acted as constructing and repairing
authorities. In Italy, the censorial responsibility
passed to the commanders of the Roman armies,
and, later on, to special commissioners (cura-
tores), and, in some cases perhaps, to the local
magistrates. In the provinces, the consul or
praetor (hence the terms via consularis, via prae:
toria = via publica) and his legates received
authority to deal directly with the contractors
(Cic. pro Font. 4, §§ 7, 8). e
The systems successively pursued in Italy
may be illustrated from Livy, who tells us
(xxxix. 2) that C. Flaminius (consul 185 B.C.),
in his campaign against the Ligurian Friniates,
“ne in otio militem haberet, viam a Bononia.
duxit Arretium.” Moreover, his colleague, M.
Aemilius Lepidus, made another road, the earlier
Via Aemilia, from Placentia to Ariminum, where
it joined the Via Flaminia (Livy, l.c.; and
Strabo, v.1,11=p. 217). In 21 A.D. Cn. Domitius
Corbulo complained to Tiberius that numerous
roads in Italy had become impassable, “fraude
mancipum et incuria magistratuum ” (Tac. Ann-
iii. 31). It is uncertain whether the neglectful
magistrates here alluded to were the permanent
curatores of the roads in question, or the muni-
cipal magistrates. (See the notes of Lipsius
and Orelli in their respective editions of
Tacitus.)
But there were many other persons besides
the special officials, who from time to time, and
for a variety of reasons, sought to connect
their names with a great public service like
that of the roads. Caius Gracchus, when Tri-
bune of the people (123–122 B.C.), paved or
gravelled many of the public roads, and pro-
vided them with milestones and mounting-
blocks for riders (Plut. C. Gracchus, c. 7).
Again, C. Scribonius Curio, when Tribune (B.C.
50), sought popularity by introducing a Lex
Viaria, under which he was to be chief inspector
or commissioner for five years (Appian, B. C. ii.
27; Cic, ad Fam. viii. 6). Dio Cassius (xlvii-
17) mentions as one of the forcible acts of the
triumvirs of 43 B.C. (Octavianus, Antony, and
Lepidus), that they obliged the senators to
repair the public roads at their own expense:
There is little doubt that such a measure would
be popular with all but the direct sufferers.
The care of the streets and roads within the
Roman territory was, as we have already stated,
committed in the earliest times to the censors.
An ancient enactment (ap. Cic. Legg. iii. 31)
prescribed thus:–“Censores . . . . urbis templa
vias aquas aerarium vectigalia tuento.” Appius
Claudius Caecus (censor 312 B.C.) paved the
Appian Way (Liv. ix. 29); C. Junius Bubulcus
and M. Valerius Maximus (censors 307 B.C.)
made roads in the country districts at the
public expense (Liv. ix.43); C. Flaminius
(censor 220 B.C.) “viam Flaminiam munivit”
(Liv. Epit. xx.). The censorship (174 B.G.) of
Q. Fulvius Flaccus and A. Postumius Albinus
was marked by an important step in advance-
They made contracts for paying the streets
inside Rome, including the Clivus Capitolinus,
with lava, and for laying down the roads outside
the city with gravel. Side-walks were also
provided (Liv. xii. 27). M. Aemilius Scaurus
(censor 169 B.C.) paved the later of the two
roads known as Via Aemilia from Pisae to Der-
WLAE ·
WLAE 949
tona. (Aurelius Victor, de Viris Ill. c. 72;
Strabo, v. 1, 11 = p. 217.)
The aediles, probably in virtue of their re-
sponsibility for the freedom of traffic and the
police of the streets (Dig. 43, 10), co-operated
with the censors and the bodies that succeeded
them. Cn. and Q. Ogulnius (aediles 296 B.C.)
laid down a pavement on the path or track
(semita) from the Porta Capena to the Temple
of Mars (Liv. x. 23). Again, Agrippa, when he
voluntarily became aedile (33 B.C.), spent largely
of his own money on the roads.
It would seem that in the reign of Claudius
(41–54 A.D.) the quaestors had become respon-
sible for the paving of the streets of Rome, or
at least shared that responsibility with the
quatuorviri viarum, who will presently be men-
tioned. Suetonius (Claud. c. 24) states that the
Emperor “Collegio Quaestorum pro stratura
viarum gladiatorium munus injunxit.” It has
been suggested that the quaestors were obliged
to buy their right to an official career by per-
sonal outlay on the streets (Mommsen, Staats-
recht, ii. p. 534). There was certainly no lack
of precedents for this enforced liberality, and
the change made by Claudius may have been a
mere change in the nature of the expenditure
imposed on the quaestors. {}
The official bodies which first succeeded the
“censors in the care of the streets and roads were
two in number, viz. (1) the Quatuorviri viis in
wrbe purgandis, with jurisdiction inside the walls
of Rome; (2) the Duoviri viis eatra urlem pur-
gandis, with jurisdiction outside the walls. Both
these bodies were probably of ancient origin, but
the true year of their institution is unknown.
Hittle reliance can be placed on Pomponius (Dig.
1, 2,28–30), who states that the quatuorviri were
instituted eodem tempore with the praetor pere-
grinus (i.e. about 242 B.C.) and the Decemviri
Stlitibus judicandis (time unknown). The first
mention of either body occurs in the Lex Julia
Municipalis of the year 45 B.C. (A.U.G. 709).
The quatuorviri were afterwards called Quatuor-
viri viarum curandarum. Pomponius (l.c.) terms
them Quatuorviri qui curam viarum gererent,
and Dio Cassius (liv. 26) oi réorgapes of Töv čv
ró &otel 66āv étripexoduevoi. The extent of
jurisdiction of the Duoviri is to be gathered
from the same Lex, which gives their full title
as Duoviri viis extra propiusve urbem Romam
passus mille purgandis. Their authority extended
over all roads between their respective gates of
issue in the city wall and the first milestone
beyond. Dio Cassius (liv. 26) simply calls them
of 500 of rās $o roß retxovs 660ts éyxeipiſó-
wevot (Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 603 ff., 668).
The next change was made by Augustus. In
the course of his reconstitution of the urban
administration he created new offices in con-
nexion with the public works, streets (Momm-
sen here reads viarum variarum), and aqueducts
of Rome (Sueton. Aug. c. 37). He found the
quatuorviri and duoviri forming part of the
body of magistrates known as vigintise.cviri.
These he reduced to twenty members (viginti-
viri), but retained the quatuorviri among them.
The latter were certainly still in existence under
Hadrian (117–138 A.D.: see an inscription ap.
Bergier, Grands Chemins, i. p. 7). Augustus
abolished the duoviri, no doubt because the
time had come for dealing comprehensively
with the superintendence of the roads which
connected Rome with Italy and the provinces.
Dio Cassius relates (liv. 8) that Augustus per-
sonally accepted the post of trpoor rātms or super-
intendent rôv repl rºw Péumv 66óv. In this
capacity he represented the paramount autho-
rity which belonged originally to the censors.
Moreover, he appointed men of praetorian rank
to be 660trolol or road-makers, assigning to each
of them two lictors (C. I. L. vi. 1501). Lastly,
he made the office of curator of each of the
great public roads a perpetual magistracy, in-
stead of a special and temporary commission,
as had been the case hitherto.
The previous state of things seems to have
been this. In case of an emergency in the con-
dition of a particular road, men of influence and
liberality were appointed, or voluntarily acted as
curatores or temporary commissioners to super-
intend the work of repair. The dignity attached
to such a curatorship is attested by a passage
(Epp. ad Att. i. 1) in which Cicero says that
one Thermus should have the best chance of
becoming Caesar's colleague in the consulship,
proptered quod curator est Viae Flaminiae (com-
pare also Plin. Epp. v. 15). Among those who
performed this duty in connexion with parti-
cular roads was Julius Caesar, who became
curator (67 B.C.) of the Via Appia, and spent
his own money liberally upon it (Plut. Caes. 5).
Certain persons appear also to have acted as
Viarum curatores e lege Wisellia. The inscrip-
tions which contain the little that is known
about them have been collected by Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, ii. 668 ft.
It was not as curator but as consul that
Augustus (27 B.C.) restored the Via Flaminia,
a road essential to his military expeditions (Dio
Cass. liii. 22). He has himself recorded the
fact in the Monumentum Ancyranum as follows
(ed. Mommsen, pp. 86–87, Berlin; Weidmann,
1883): CONSUL. SEPTIMUM . VIAM. FLAMINIAM .
AB . URBE - ARIMINUM . FECI , ET · PONTES .
OMNES . PRAETER, . MULVIUM . ET . MINUCIUM.
A passage from Suetonius (Aug. 30) is here
in point: “Quo autem facilius undique urbs
adiretur, desumpta sibi Flaminia Via Arimino
tenus munienda, reliquas triumphalibus viris
ex manubiali pecunia sternendas distribuit.”
Dio Cassius (q. v. Supra) states that Augustus
assigned the great roads, other than the Flami-
nian, to certain of the senators to be repaired
at their own expense, and adds that it was almost
impossible to tell who really paid for these re-
pairs. The senators, he says, grudged any ex-
penditure of their own money, and the Emperor's
privy purse was practically indistinguishable
from the public treasury. Indeed, the concur-
rent outlay of public and private moneys on
the public roads, which so constantly took
place, presents a perpetual obstacle to any clear
distinction of the two sources.
Plutarch (Quaest. Rom, 66) apparently sug-
gests that the Via Flaminia was first paved out
of the annual profits of an estate given to the
city by Flaminius quidam. M. Fonteius, when
praetor of Gallia Narbonensis (76–73 B.C.),
raised money for repairing the roads by imposing
a due on wine (portorium vini, Cic. pro Font. 5)
Agrippa repaired all the public roads, according
to Dio Cassius (xlix. 43), uměv ék Toº &muootov
Aabdºv, an expression which probably covers not
950 WLAE
WLAE
only his private munificence, but the personal
outlay imposed on the senators, and the pecunia
manubialis mentioned by Suetonius (Aug. 30).
In the country districts, as has been stated, the
magistri pagorum had authority to maintain the
viae vicinales. In Rome itself each householder
was legally responsible for the repairs of that
portion of the street which passed his own house
(Dig. 43, 10, 3). It was the duty of the aediles
to enforce this responsibility. The portion of
any street which passed a temple or public
building was repaired by the aediles at the
public expense. When a street passed between
a public building or temple and a private house,
the public treasury and the private owner shared
the expense equally. (See the municipal law
quoted by Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 505 ft.) No
doubt, if only to secure uniformity, the personal
liability of householders to execute repairs of
the streets was commuted for a paving rate
payable to the public authorities, who were
responsible from time to time.
We have already said that Augustus, in his ca-
pacity as supreme head of the public road-system,
converted the temporary cura of each of the great
roads into a permanent magistracy. The persons
appointed under the new system were of senatorial
or equestrian rank, according to the relative im- |.
portance of the roads respectively assigned to
them. It was the duty of each curator to issue
contracts for the maintenance and repairs of his
road, and to see that the contractor who under-
took the work performed it faithfully, both as
to quantity and quality. Moreover, he authorised
the construction of sewers and removed ob-
structions to traffic, as the aediles did in Rome.
It was in the character of an imperial curator,
though probably of one armed with extra-
ordinary powers, that Corbulo (as has been
already mentioned) denounced the magistratus
and mancipes (ékeſvous re [robs étriotdºras] real
Totºs épyoAağho avrds ri trap' airröv, Dio Cass. lix.
15) of the Italian roads to Tiberius. He pursued
them and their families with fine and imprison-
ment for eighteen years (21–39 A.D.), and was
rewarded with a consulship by Caligula, who
was himself in the habit of condemning well-
born citizens to work on the roads (Tac. Ann.
iii. 31; Dio Cass. lx. 27; Suet. Calig. 27). It is
noticeable that Claudius brought Corbulo to
justice, and repaid the moneys which had been
extorted from his victims.
Special curatores for a term seem to have
been appointed on occasion, even after the in-
stitution of the permanent magistrates bearing
that title. According to an inscription sub-
sequent in date to A.U.C. 731 (23 B.C.), one
P. Paquius Scaeva was appointed Viarum
curator eatra urbem Roman eac senatusconsulto
in quinquennium (C. J. L. ix. 2845; and see ibid.
vi. 1501; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 669). It is
possible that Scaeva was one of the 660 moto)
appointed by Augustus in A.U.C. 734 (20 B.C.).
(Dio Cass. liv. 8, q. v. Supra.) -- -
The Emperors who succeeded Augustus ex-
ercised a vigilant control over the condition of
the public highways. Their names occur fre-
quently in the inscriptions to restorers of roads
and bridges collected by Gruter (Corpus Inscrr.
pp. cxlix-clxiii.). Thus, Vespasian, Titus, Do-
mitian, Trajan, and Septimius Severus were
commemorated in this capacity at Emerita;
Nero at Corduba; Trajan at Asculum, Augusto-
briga, and Arganda; Hadrian and Septimius
Severus at Braccara ; Hadrian at Suessa;
Marcus Aurelius at Capua; Caracalla at Ma-
laca. Trajan’s care for the communications of
his Empire received the following elaborate
panegyric from Galen (Method. Med. ix. 8):
&piéAet taúr’ exoſſo as ātrāoras rās étrº ris’Iraxias
6öows 6 Tpatavos ékelvos éirmvwp660 ato rà uév
inſpi, kal trn Nøðm uépm Atôous groovyi's # 5/m3\oſs
ěčaipov x&pagu : ékkaffaipov 8& Tá ºre &kav66öm
kal Tpaxéa kal yeqāpas àrifláAAwv roſs 8votrópous
Töv trotagóv. čv6a 3& étripfikms oi, trpoo`micóvra's
ôöös fiv čvraj0a orávropov štépav replvögevos-
ăgrep kai ei Si', iſ/os Aépov xaxerº Suá têv
eitropotépov xoptov čkºrpétrov.
The Itinerary of Antoninus, which was probably
a work of much earlier date, republished in an
improved and enlarged form, under one of the
Antonine emperors, remains as standing evidence
of the minute care which was bestowed on the
service of the public roads (Guest, Origines
Celticae, ii. 101–118). On the probability of
a connexion between the Itinerary and the
Peutinger Table (q. v. Supra), see the works of
Bergier (i. 354–359) and Miller cited below.
II. MATERIALS AND METHODS OF
CoNSTRUCTION.
Viae are distinguished not only according to
their public or private character, but according
to the materials employed and the methods
followed in their construction. Thus we have
(Ulpian, Dig. 43, 11, 2)—
(1) Via terrena, a plain road of levelled
earth.
(2) Via glareata, glarea strata, an earthen
road with a gravelled surface (Liv. xli. 27).
(3) Via munita, lapide quadrato strata, silice
strata, a regular metalled road, paved with rect-
angular blocks of the stone of the country, or
with polygonal blocks of lava.
The construction of viae munitae is said by
Isidorus to have been borrowed by the Romans
from the Carthaginians: “Primum Poeni di-
cuntur lapidibus vias stravisse : postea Romani
per omnem paene orbem disposuerunt, propter
rectitudinem itinerum et ne plebs esset otiosa ‘’ -
(Orig. xv. 16, 6). In course of time, the terms
via munita and via publica became identical, but
Livy mentions some of the most familiar roads
near Rome, and the milestones on them, at
periods long anterior to the first paved road—
the Appian. Unless these allusions be simple
anachronisms, the roads referred to were proba-
bly at the time little more than levelled earthen
tracks. Thus the Via Gabina is mentioned in
Liv. ii. 11 ((temp. Porsena, about 500 B.C.); the
Via Latina in ii. 39 (temp. Coriolanus, about
490 B.C.); the Via Nomentana or Ficulensis in
iii. 52 (449 B.C.); the Via Labicana in iv. 41
(421 B.C.); and the Via Salaria in vii. 9
(361 B.C.).
Our best sources of information as regards
the construction of a regulation via munita are:
(1) The many existing remains of ciae publicae.
These are often sufficiently well preserved to
show that the rules of construction were, as far
as local material allowed, minutely adhered to
in practice. (2) The directions for making
pavements, given by Vitruvius (vii. 1). The
pavement and the via munita were identical in
WLAE
WLAE · 951
construction, except as regards the top layer, or
surface. This consisted, in the former case, of
marble or mosaic, and, in the latter, of blocks
of stone or lava. (3) A passage in Statius
(Silv. iv. 3, 4) describing the repairs of the Via
Domitia, a branch road of the Via Appia, leading
to Neapolis.
The general construction of a via munita is
shown in the following woodcut.
* g º & ſº
2 o'. - G.: "... • *, 2*, *. CŞ."e"e
* & fº g <> s” g
* 9 • sº tº ** * * ~ * fö
g • * * * * C cº
:.”.”: āj-e Jºe 3. . º.o.e. 2.33: • *e 2.
V ºf A, ...Nº NNW ºS Vº w
\,\ , NNNº.
&\\\\\\\
NSN
A. Dorsum or agger viae (hence the phrases
agger publicus = via publica; Aurelius Agger =
via Aurelia: Sidon. 24, 5): the elliptical surface
or crown of the road (media stratae eminentia,
Isidor. Orig. xv. 16, 7), made of polygonal blocks
of silew (basaltic lava) or rectangular blocks of
saacum quadratum (travertine, peperino, or other
stone of the country). The upper surface was
designed to cast off rain or water like the shell
of a tortoise. The lower surfaces of the separate
stones, here shown as flat, were sometimes cut
to a point or edge in order to grasp the nucleus,
or next layer, more firmly. *
B. Nucleus: kernel or bedding of fine cement
made of pounded potsherds (testae tusae : cf.
Witruv. vii. 1, 17) and lime.
C. Rudus : rubble or concrete of broken stones
and lime.
D. Statumen: stones of a size to fill the hand.
E. Native earth, levelled and, if necessary,
rammed tight with beetles.
F. Crepido, margo or semita: raised footway,
or sidewalk, on each side of the via. It was
strengthened by it mbones or edge-stones (G), and
gomphi or kerb-stones of greater size and height,
which were placed at intervals in the Hine of
wmbones. Crepido seems also to denote the
mounds of earth or rubbish on the sides of an
unpaved road (Petron. Sat. 9: “Widi Gitona
in crepidine semitae stantem”). The general
appearance of such a metalled road and footway
is shown in the following illustration of an
existing street in Pompeii.
The directions given by Vitruvius (l.c.) are as
follows: “If the bedding is to be laid flush with
the ground (instead of on wooden joists), it
must first be ascertained whether the ground be
thoroughly sound. If it is found to be so, it
should be levelled, and then the courses of stones
(statumen) and rubble mixed with lime (rudus)
should be successively laid on. But if the
ground consist wholly or partly of made or loose
earth, it should be very carefully rammed tight
with beetles ... next should come a layer of
stones large enough to fill the hand (statumine-
tur), and over them should be laid a course of
rubble of stones and lime (rulus). If the rubble
be new, the proportion of stone to lime should
be as 3: 1. If it be old, as 5: 2. When
the rubble has been laid, it should be thoroughly
rammed down with wooden beetles, by gangs of
men, to a final thickness of not less than 9
inches. Over the rubble should be laid a course
of pounded potsherds, mixed with lime (nucleus),
in the proportion of 3 : 1, and at least six
fingers (=4% inches) in thickness. The pave-
-
-- \ d
Nºs
R
* * \ * † vºs
-> N Sºw
}}
..ºf
Street in Pompeii. (Mazois.)
ment, whether consisting of cut slabs or mosaic
cubes, should be well and truly laid, by rule
and level, on the top of the nucleus.”
In another passage (v. 9, 7) Vitruvius gives
directions for constructing ambulationes or gravel
paths for walking on. Such a path consisted of
a firm foundation of earth, with a layer of char-
coal (carbones) next to it, and a top-layer or
surface of levelled gravel (Sabulo). It was
drained by earthenware pipes (tubuli) passing
into a covered drain on either side.
Statius (l. c.) epitomises the whole process
of road-making. “The task,” he says, “is first
to cut (parallel) trenches, to mark the limits
of breadth of the road, and next to carry the
excavations deep into the ground. Next, to fill
the empty ditch with new materials, and to
prepare a bed for the surface of the road: lest
the ground give way and afford but a treacherous
support to the pavement when weighted. Next,
to confine the roadway with edge-stones fixed on
each side and with numerous kerb-stones.” .
In this passage, fossa denotes the ditch made
by the removal of the earth between the two
parallel sulci, down to the point at which a firm
earthen foundation can be obtained ; gremium
the three courses below the Dorsum or agger
viae—viz. statumen, rudus, and nucleus.
As has been said, the methods of construction
already detailed were followed wherever the
soil was of an ordinary character. Where, how-
ever, the foundation was of rock, the statumen
and rudus were dispensed with, and the nucleus
and dorsum sufficed. This is the case with an
existing portion of the Via Appia near Albano
(Burn, Introd. p. liv.; Mazois, Pompéi, i. 26).
Caius Gracchus was the first to provide the
public roads systematically with milestones
(Plut. C. Gracchus, 7), though Livy, as we have
stated above, refers to milestones as existing on
certain roads at periods much earlier than the
time of Gracchus [MILLIARE]. It is now
practically certain that the distances recorded
on the milestones of each road were measured




952 VIAE
WLAE
from the gate by which that road issued from
Rome. The first milestone on the Via Appia
was found in situ at a distance of exactly a
thousand paces from the reputed position of
the Porta Capena in the line of the Servian
wall (Burn, pp. 49, 432; Middleton, Ancient
Rome in 1888, pp. 67,496). In 28 B.C. Augustus
erected in the Forum and at the foot of the
Capitol the celebrated Milliarium Aureum or
Golden Milestone (ro Xpwaroov uſatov kekAm-
puévov, Dio Cass. liv. 8; “Milliarium aureum
sub aede Saturni,” Tac. Hist. i. 27; Suet. Otho,
6; “a milliario in capite Romani fori statuto,”
Plin. H. N. iii. § 66). It was, properly speak-
ing, not a milestone, but an Imperial Itinerary
or Table of Distances. It bore a gilt tablet, on
which were recorded the distances from Rome
to which the public roads reached from their
respective gates of issue in the city wall. Of
these gates there were thirty-seven in Pliny’s
time (Plin. l.c.).
Travelling on the public roads was facilitated
by the establishment of (1) mutationes (äAAayal)
or posting-houses, where horses were changed
and vehicles were obtainable if required;
and (2) mansiones (kataAto'eis), stations, khans,
caravanserais, or resting - places, where the
journey could be conveniently broken. [MAN-
SIONES.] The towns and places where a halt on
one ground or the other could be made, are fre-
quently detailed in the Antonine Itinerary. For
an account of the Postal or Despatch system
created by Augustus, and developed by his suc-
cessors, see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, ii. 1029–
1031 ; Marquardt, Staatsverwalt. i. 558 f.; and
a note to Merivale (H. R. c. xxxiv.).
The following illustration of a part of the
Via Stabiana at Pompeii shows some of the
stepping-stones which have puzzled some anti-
š
=.#.
*=
º
* ~
Wia Stabiana at Pompeii, with stepping-stones.
From a photograph.)
They are to be found in nearly every
street in the town, whatever its breadth. The
narrower streets are practically blocked by
single large stones in their centres; the broader
streets are crossed by rows, containing from
quaries.
two to five stones. Their shape is, generally, a
flat-topped oval: larger and smaller stones
lying side by side. They measure, very com-
monly, about 3 feet by 18 inches, and have their
longer axis parallel to the footway on either
side of the street. The height of the footway
ranges from 12 to 18 inches above the carriage-
way, and the particular height is, in most cases,
that of the stepping-stones also. The surface
of the street being elliptical, the stone on the
centre stands slightly higher than those at the
sides. Many streets are marked with wheel-
ruts, some of them deeply cut. They are found
both in the interstices between the stepping-
stones and elsewhere. The distance from rut to
noise did not disturb his studies.
rut measures, as a rule, one yard, which was,
accordingly, the gauge of the ordinary vehicles.
Such being the facts, three points demand atten-
tion: first, the nature and conditions of traffic
in a Roman provincial town like Pompeii;
secondly, the reasons for erecting stepping-stones
of great size in the centre of the carriage-way ;
and, lastly, the probable mode in which draught
animals and carriages passed these stones.
Until the reign of Septimius Severus (193–
211 A.D.) riding and driving, both in Rome and
in the provincial towns, were closely restricted,
and at times forbidden, by law. (Lex Julia
Municipalis, ap. C. J. L. i. 206; Marquardt,
Privatleben, ii. 727–738; Friedländer, Sittenge-
schichte, i.” 60 ft.). Claudius (41–54 A.D.:
some twenty-five years before the destruction
of Pompeii) forbade travellers to drive in car-
riages through provincial towns (Sueton. Claud.
c. 25). Seneca, it is true, who died in 65 A.D.,
still nearer to the catastrophe, speaks of the
noise of essedae transcurrentes at Baiae (Epp. 56).
But these may have plied principally on the
roads to the neighbouring towns, of which
Pompeii was one, and Seneca states that the
Marcus
Aurelius (161–180 A.D.) again forbade riding
and driving in provincial towns (Vit. c. 23; and
compare Galen, xi. p. 301, ed. Kühn, for the
practice in Rome). Under Severus carriages,
in Rome at least, seem to have been more com-
monly used (Dio Cass. lxiv. 4). But, as late as
the reign of Aurelian (270–275 A.D.), we find
the emperor preferring to ride into Antioch
“quia invidiosum tunc erat vehiculis in civitate
uti" (Wit. c. 5).
Thus the street-traffic of the ordinary Roman
provincial town seems to have resembled that
of the Tangier or Tetuan of to-day. Heavy
burdens were carried on the backs of
horses, mules, or cattle. Walking was the
rule, riding on horseback or in a litter was
the exception, driving almost unknown.
Before the date of the edict of Claudius,
and perhaps later, the law was probably
indulgent to towns such as Baiae and
Pompeii. Thither came the “carriage-
company ” of Rome to seek health and
spend money. In the case of Pompeii
carriages and horses were, beyond a doubt,
confined to certain streets. An extant
inscription shows that the station of the
cisiarii was not even within the town walls.
[See CISIUM.] Other streets were always re-
served for foot-passengers, and possibly for
litters. Others, again, once open to all traffic,
and still bearing the marks of wheels, were
afterwards closed to all but foot-passengers
by huge stepping-stones or iron gratings.
The deep ruts already mentioned were the
natural result of confining the traffic to a few
streets. None of these were broad enough to
allow of any considerable variation of the track,
even had the fixed stepping-stones presented no
additional difficulty. Moreover, there is evi-
dence that some of the existing pavements bore
traffic for at least 120 years. In one street the
edge of the footway bears the inscription Ex. K.
QVI. (ea, kalendis Quinctilibus); in another the
inscription K. Q. Now the month Quinctilis
was renamed Julius in 44 B.C., and Pompeii
perished in 79 A.D. It is not surprising that




WIAE
WIAE 953
even a small amount of wheeled traffic, unre-
lieved by the use of springs, and acting on the
same stones for so many years, should have left
deep traces behind.
The reasons for the erection of very large
stepping-stones were, no doubt, at once local
and practical. Pompeii occupies the summit
and slopes of a small hill. Hence the lower
streets, according to the drainage level of the
ground, received the rain-water and refuse of
the upper. In times of heavy rain the lower
streets “must * in Dyer’s words “have flowed
like a torrent or a Welsh cross-road'' (Pompeii,
c. 3). No sewerage-system could have at once
mastered the downward rush of the water.
Indeed a similar sight may now be witnessed,
during the winter rains, in the heavily-paved
streets of Florence, where stepping-stones of
the largest size would not be out of place. At
Pompeii, where the lie of the ground, together
with the close-set stone surface and sides of the
streets, provided a ready-made watercourse, side-
walks of substantial height were absolutely
necessary to foot-passengers. The means of
crossing from one side-walk to another, in any
weather, were naturally provided by stepping-
stones of corresponding size.
Lastly comes the question of the manner in
which draught animals and carriages passed the
stepping-stones. The wheels passed between the
stones, as is shown by the many ruts found
in situ. A vehicle with wheels three feet apart,
and raised on them, say, two feet above the
ground, could easily pass over a stone eighteen
inches wide and from twelve to eighteen inches
high. In the case of vehicles drawn by two
animals, it may be conceived that the latter
were harnessed loosely and moved in front of
the wheel on each side. This arrangement
would enable each animal to precede a wheel of
the carriage through one and the same interstice
of the stepping-stones. The operation must of
course have been performed at a very slow walk,
and its repetition would soon have become
intolerable had the carriage-traffic been large or
constant. The case of vehicles drawn by one
animal presents more difficulty. It has been
held that whilst the wheels passed, as before, on
either side of a stone, the animal stepped on or
over it. This view can hardly be treated with
gravity, even if it be conceived that the surface
of the street was somewhat raised by accumu-
lated rubbish. It has been already stated that
the stepping-stones often attain a height of
eighteen inches and measure three feet in the
longer axis which lay along the path of an
approaching animal’s feet. The better opinion
is that carriages drawn by one animal were not
admitted into the town at all. [See on the
whole question, Dyer, Pompeii, Lond. 1868;
Mazois, Pompéi, Paris, 1824–1838 (with plans);
Overbeck, Pompeii" (with illustrations); and
the works of Presuhn (Leipzig, 1881) and
Schöner (Stuttgart, 1877) on the same subject.]
III. LITERATURE.
1. General Information on the subject of
Roman Roads. – Archaeologia : see Index to
vols. 1–50, s. v. “Roads,” pp. 583–584, London,
1889. Bergier: Histoire des Grands Chemins
de l’Empire Romain, Bruxelles, 1736. Burn,
Rome and the Campagna. Ersch und Gruber:
Allgemeine Encyclopädie, s. v. Peutingerianz
Tabula. Gruter: Corpus Inscriptionum, vol. i.
pp. cxlix—clxiii. Guest: The Itinerary of An-
toninus, in Origines Celticae, vol. ii. pp. 101–
118, London, 1883. Hirschfeld: Untersuch-
wngen auf dem Gebiete der Römischen Verwal-
tungsgeschichte, vol. i. Berlin, 1877. Marquardt
and Mommsen, Handbuch = Mommsen, Staats-
recht (see index); Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung,
ii. 90 ft., Privatleben, pp. 727 ff. Miller: Welt-
karte des Castorius, genannt die Peutingersche
Tafel; Id. Die Weltkarte des Castorius, genannt
die Peutingersche Tafel—Einleitender Teact.
Nibby : Delle vie degli antichi dissertazione ap.
Nardini, Roma antica, 1818–1820. Parthey et
Pinder : Itinerarium Antonini et Hierosolymi-
tanum, Berlin, 1848. Rich: Dict. of Roman and
Greek Antiq., s.v.v. agger, crepido, fistuca, gom-
phus, mansiones, mutationes, Semita, silew, via.
2. Authorities on Viae Publicae in Rome and
Italy (within the Eleven Regions of Augustus).
—Archaeologia, l.c. Becker-Göll, Gallus, i. 77.
Bergier, op. cit. Burn, op. cit. Corpus In-
scriptionum Latinarum : vol. v. parts i. (1872)
and ii. (1877), pp. 934–956, ed. Mommsen (with
maps), Viae Publicae Galliae Cisalpinae (i.e. Re-
gionum Italiae ix. x. xi.). Ibid. vol. ix. pp. 580–
602, ed. Mommsen, 1883 (with maps): Wiae
Publicae Regionum Italiae ii. iv. v. Ibid. vol. x.
parts i. and ii. pp. 45*–46°, 683–712 (ed.
Mommsen), 1883 (with maps): Viae Publicae
Regionum Italiae i. iii. (including those of
Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily). Ibid. vol. xiv. pp.
456–457, 500, ed. Dessau, 1887: Aquae Viae
Urbis Romae. Gruter, op. cit. Middleton,
Ancient Rome in 1888. Nibby, op. cit. Par-
they et Pinder, op. cit. Dictionary of Greek
and Roman Geography, vol. ii. pp. 1286–1307.
3. Authorities on Viae Publicae in Britain.—
Archaeologia, l.c. Bergier, op. cit., vol. i. pp.
113–116; vol. ii. pp. 88–94. C. I. L. vol. vii.
pp. 206–214, ed. Hübner, 1873 (with map).
Elton: Origins of English History, 1890. Guest:
The Four Roman Ways (with map) in Origines
Celticae, vol. ii. pp. 218–241; The Itinerary of
Antoninus, ibid. pp. 101–118. Parthey et Pinder,
op. cit. Pearson, Hist, of England, i. ch. 3. Id.,
Roman Britain in Historical Maps of England,
pp. 6–17. W. T. Watkin, Roman Lancashire.
Id., Roman Cheshire. Note. It will often be
necessary to consult, in addition, the standard
county histories and the proceedings of local
antiquarian societies. Ferguson's History of
Cumberland (1890) may be specially mentioned.
4. Authorities on Viae Publicae in the other
Provinces of the Empire. — Archaeologia, l.c.
Bergier, op. cit. C. I. L., vol. ii., ed. Hübner,
1869 (with maps): Wiae Publicae Lusitaniae
(pp. 619–625); Baeticae (pp. 626–632); Tarra-
conensis (pp. 632–656). Ibid., vol. iii., parts 1
and 2, ed. Mommsen, 1873 (with maps): Wiae
Publicae Syriae Palaestinae (p. 21); Syriae
Littoralis et Mediterraneae (pp. 35–40); Cypri
(pp. 42, 43); Ciliciae (p. 44); Cappadociae et
Galatiae (pp. 56, 57); Ponti et Bithyniae
(p. 61); Asiae Minoris (pp. 87–90); Achaiae
(p. 111); Macedoniae (pp. 127, 128); Daciae
(p. 256); Moesiae Superioris (p. 269); Dalma-
tiae (pp. 406–408); Pannoniae Inferioris (pp.
464–471); Pannoniae Superioris (pp. 572-577);
Norici (pp. 692–702); Raetiae (pp. 735-740).
Ibid., vol. viii., parts 1 and 2, pp. 859–910, ed.
954 VIATICUM
VICTORLATUS
Wilmanns, 1881 (with maps): Wiae Publicae
Provinciarum Africanarum. Ibid., vol. xii., pp.
632–682, ed. Hirschfeld, 1888 (with maps):
Viae Publicae Galliae Narbonensis. Fustel de
Coulanges: La Monarchie Franque, pp. 254–256,
Paris, 1888. Lenthéric : Les Villes Mortes du
Golfe de Lyon, 3rd edition, Paris, 1879. Id.:
La Provence Maritime, Paris, 1880. Parthey
et Pinder, op. cit. Dictionary of Greek and
Roman Geography, l.c. [H. A. P.]
WIA"TICUM (épéðiov) is, properly speaking,
everything necessary for a person setting out on
a journey, and thus comprehends money, pro-
visions, dresses, vessels, &c. (Plaut. Epid. v. 1,
9; Plin. Epist. vii. 12; Cic. de Senect. 18, 66).
When a Roman magistrate, praetor, proconsul,
or quaestor went to his province, or an envoy
on any mission from the senate, the state pro-
vided him with all that was necessary for his
journey. Hence the provision is called also
legativum (Dig. 50, 4, 18, 12). But as the state
in this as in most other cases of expenditure
preferred paying a sum at once to having any
part in the actual business, the state engaged
contractors (redemptores), who for a stipulated
sum had to provide the magistrates with the
viaticum, the principal parts of which appear to
have been beasts of burden and tents (Liv. xli.
1; Dio Cass. liii. 15). Augustus once for all
fixed a sum in proportion to their rank to be
given to magistrates on setting out for their
provinces, so that the redemptores had no more
to do with it, nor had any vote to be passed
(Cic. ad Fam. xii. 3; Verr. i. 22, 60;-Suet.
Aug. 36; Gell. xvii. 2, 13; Dio Cass. lii. 23,
liii. 15). The power of demanding these supplies
was warranted by the insignia of the magistrates.
Envoys were accredited by their ring (Zonar.
viii. 6; LEGATUS, p. 24 b). See also Mommsen,
Staatsrecht, i. 301. [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
WIA"TOR was a servant who attended upon
and executed the commands of certain Roman
magistrates, to whom he bore the same relation
as the lictor did to other magistrates. The
name viatores was derived from the circumstance
of their being chiefly employed on messages
either to call upon senators to attend the
meeting of the senate, or to summon the people
to the comitia, &c. (Cic. de Senect. 16, 56; Fest.
p. 371 ; cf. Plin. H. N. xviii. § 20). Those
magistrates who had no lictors employed their
viatores instead (Liv. ii. 56, iii. 56; Cic. in Wat.
9, 22; TRIBUNUs). Here they had to carry out
the jus prendendi but not vocandi. On the
other hand, those magistrates who had lictors
used the lictors as their personal attendants
[see LICTOR), but the viatores to summon the
senate and for other official messages (Liv. vi.
15, viii. 18, xxii. 11, xli. 15; Cic pro Cluent.
27, 74). The viatores of the Aerarian quaes-
tors were employed as subordinates in the
Aerarium.
Viatores were mostly freedmen or of low
birth (Wal. Max. ix. 1, 8); but those of the
Quaestores aerarii were of equestrian rank (C. I.
L. xiv. 169, 3544). Mommsen infers from
inscriptions that there were three decuriae of
viatores for the superior magistrates (one
being reserved for consuls), and one decuria
for tribunes (see Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i.
360 f., and inscriptions there cited). Viatores
were employed also as attendants by Augurs,
Septemviri Epulones, and Sodales Augustales
(Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 226).
[L. S.] [G. E. M.]
VICA'RIISERVI. [SERVUs]
WICE'SIMA, a tax of 5 per cent. (1) Vice-
sima libertatis (C. I. L. x. 3875). When a slave
was manumitted, the state claimed 5 per cent.
on his value, by a law passed in 357 B.C. (Liv.
vii. 16; Cic. Att. ii. 16, 2; Wilmanns, Ea'empla
Inscriptionum Latinarum, 314). The fund thus
raised was for some time at least kept in reserve
ad ultimos casus; e.g. it was used in a crisis of
the Second Punic War, B.C. 209 (Liv. xxvii. 10).
The amount was doubled by Caracalla and re-
duced to its original rate by Macrinus (Dio Cass.
lxvii. 9, lxviii. 12). The tax, like others, was
farmed to publicani (Arrian, Epict, ii. 1, 26;
iv. 1, 33; C.I. L. x. 3875); but under the Empire
it came to be managed by procuratores. The
slave paid it (Arrian, Epict. iv. 1, 33); if the
master chose to pay, the slave was said to enjoy
gratuita libertas (Suet. Vesp. 16).
(2) Vicesima hereditatium et legatorum, legacy-
duty. This differs from all other vectigalia by
touching Roman citizens only : it was thus a
sort of set-off against the disappearance of tri-
butum and the absence of land-tax from Italy.
Every Roman citizen had to pay to the aerarium
militare (AERARIUM) 5 per cent. on any inhe-
ritance or legacy left him. None were exempt
except the nearest relatives of the deceased (sui
heredes) and persons whose legacy or inheritance
did not exceed a certain (unknown) sum (Dio
Cass. lv. 25, lvi. 28; Plin. Paneg. 37, 39; Hist.
Aug. M. Aur. 11). Peregrini and Latini who
had become Roman citizens had, in a legal sense,
no relatives, and were therefore obliged in all
cases to pay the duty (Plin. Paneg. 37). It is
often said to have been introduced by Augustus,
in A.D. 6; but it is probably older (Plin. Paneg.
42, and Hirschfeld, Untersuchungen, p. 62; also
VoconIA LEx); or was at least tried by the
triumvirs in B.C. 40 (App. B.C. v. 67). It was
of course unpopular (Dio, Cass. lvi. 28). Cara-
calla, in granting the Roman ºitizenship to all
subjects of the Empire, a º which would
of itself make the tax far more "productive, also
doubled the amount ; but Macrinus brought it
back to 5 per cent. (Id. lxvii. 9, lxviii. 12; Hist.
Aug. Heliog. 12). It had disappeared altogether
before Justinian (Cod. Just. 6, 33, 3). We do
not know whether it had to be paid by citizens
on property situated in the provinces. The tax
was farmed out to publicani, and afterwards
managed by procuratores Augusti vicesimae here-
ditatium ; a statio hereditatium occurs in inscrip-
tions [STATIONES FISCI]. (O. Hirschfeld, Un-
tersuchungen aus dem Gebiete der römischen
Verwaltungsgeschichte, 1876.) [F. T. R.]
VICOMAGISTRI. [VICUs.]
VI'CTIMA. [SACRIFICIUM.]
VICTORIA’TUS was the name of a Roman
coin of considerable importance in the time of
the Roman Republic, so called because it bore
the type of Victory crowning a trophy. Its
origin is doubtful; but it makes its appearance
in Italy towards the end of the 3rd century B.C.,
first in Campania and then in other parts of the
Roman dominions and in Rome itself. The
weight is three scruples, or three sestertii; that
is to say, three-fourths of the denarius, or about
45 grains. It has been disputed whether the
WICUS
VIGINTI SEX WIRI 955
weight of the victoriatus was taken from that
of the contemporary coins of Illyria (after
Roman Victoriatus.
B.C. 229), or whether the reverse was the case.
The convenience of the coin lay in the fact that
it was equal in value to the drachms of the
Illyrian, Achaian, Rhodian, Massilian, and other
important currencies. Its importance in cur-
rency is fully attested by numerous finds.
Beside the victoriatus, its half, weighing about
22 grains, also circulated.
The weight of the victoriatus soon fell; and
at a period put by Mommsen at about B.C. 104,
but by other writers earlier, quinarii or half
denarii were issued with the types of the vic-
toriatus, and after that time even victoriate
coins issued earlier but still in circulation were
reckoned only as half a denarius. P. G.]
WICUS (akinto otros), a term used in different
applications.
1. In the earliest times the various Italian
nations appear to have lived, not in towns, but
in cantons (pagi), consisting of an indefinite
number of vici or homesteads, with one common
place of shelter (arz or castellum) in time of war,
sometimes itself called pagus. The term pagus
fell out of use, being replaced by more precise
names, but vicus continued to denote a hamlet or
similar group of buildings, attached to a town;
hence the word is often translated “village.”
Cf. the Lex Rubria and Lex Julia in C. J. L. i.
205, 206.
2. In towns the word vicus means “a street’’
or “quarter” (cf. Varro, L. L. v. 145: “in
oppido vici a via, quod ex utraque parte viae
sunt aedificia”). Strictly speaking, it seems to
have denoted a block of buildings bounded by
the streets (plateae) and the alleys (angiportus),
but it was doubtless used with some latitude
(Jordan, Top. Roms, ii. p. 80). Cf. vicus Tuscus,
&c.
3. According to tradition, Servius Tullius
divided the city of Rome into four tribes,
each subdivided into vici, while the country
tribes were divided into pagi; and when
Augustus in B. c. 8 redivided the city into
fourteen regions, each region was still sub-
divided into rici (Suet. Aug. 30; Dio Cass. lv.
8). It is not always possible to separate our in-
formation as to the earlier vici from that which
bears upon the later ones; but there is no
reason to believe that any important changes
were made; and perhaps Mommsen is right in
regarding the redivision as mainly intended to
organise better the worship of the Lares Compi-
tales. The vici in the different regiones varied in
number: the total under Augustus was, accord-
ing to Pliny (H. N. iii. § 66), 265: under Con-
stantine there must have been at least 307.
The vici were administered by magistri vicorum
(vico magistri), elected, four for each vious (cf.
the basis Capitolina in C. I. L. vi. 975, ib. 445
f), from the commons, mostly liberti; it is pro-
bable that the four took turns to act as magister.
Hadrian fixed the number of magistri ricorum at
48 for each region, irrespective of the number of
vici; and this is the number which we find in
the Notitia of the time of Constantine (Jordan,
ii. 541 ff.).
Besides the oversight of the drains and
fountains and a general police supervision
under the aediles, the chief duty of the magistri
ricorum consisted in providing for the worship
of the Lares Compitales, at the sacella usually
erected at the crossways. These formed part of
the popular religion, and were maintained by
the collegia compitalicia: but they acquired
increased importance after Augustus added to
the two Lares Compitales the Genius Augusti
(Suet. Aug. 31), fixed the festival, which pre-
viously had been ſeriae conceptivae, for two days
in May and August (probably the Kalends), and
granted the magistri the privilege of appearing
in the toga praetexta attended by two lictors.
(Cf. Marquardt, iii. 200; Ascon. in Pis. p. 7.)
The Compitalia were probably identical with the
Laralia (cf. Mommsen, C. I. L. i. p. 393); but
quite distinct from the Paganalia.
Our information as to the distribution of the
vici among the regiones is mainly derived from
two descriptions of Rome under Constantine, the
earlier (A.D. 334) commonly called the Notitia,
the later (A.D. 357) the Curiosum urbis Romae
regionum xiv.: the former was at one time
ascribed (in an interpolated form) to a non-
existent scholar P. Victor; the latter with as
little reason to Sex. Rufus. [A. S. W.]
WICU.S. [UNIVERSITAs.]
VI'GILES. [ExERCITUs, Vol. I. p. 795.]
VIGILLAE. [CASTRA, Vol. I. p. 377.]
VIGINTI SEX WIRI under the Republic,
or VIGINTIVIRI under the Empire, a name
given to a group of minor magistrates at Rome,
who, though of different origin and functions,
formed in a certain sense a unity, from the fact
that under the Republic it was usual, and under
the Empire probably legally requisite, for one of
them to be held before a man could become a
candidate for the quaestorship. The former
name is mentioned by Festus, p. 233, and Dio
Cass. liv. 26, and in four inscriptions (cf.
C. I. L. i. 186), all dating from the time of
Augustus. We do not know whether it was in
use earlier. The latter occurs in Dio Cass. I. c.
and lz. 5, and in Tac. Ann. iii. 29 (cf. Lipsius’
note), but never in inscriptions, where the title
of the special office is always used. The magis-
trates grouped under the name were: 1. tres
viri capitales; 2. tres viri aeri argento auro.
ſlando ferºundo, sometimes called monetales;
3. Quattuor viri vils in urbe purgandis; 4, duo
viri riis extra urbem purgandis (abolished in
B.C. 20); 5. decºm viri litibus judicandis;
6. guttuor praefecti Capuam Cumas (abolished
under Augustus). An account of each of these
has been given under its own heading. They
were probably all elected at one time by the
tribes; but under the Empire they were chosen
by the senate, and it was not usual that the
emperor should nominate any candidate for these
offices. But as it was necessary that candidates
should possess the census senatorius and the
latus clavus, those who were not the sons of
senators had to seek this from the emperor.
The Vigintiviri had not the right of sitting in
the senate, which they obtained only by gaining


956 VIGINTIVIRI
WILLA
the quaestorship. The Vigintivirate lasted till the
3rd century (Spart. Did. Jul. 1), after which we
hear no more of it. (Cf. Mommsen, Röm. Staatsr.
ii. 578–595.) [A. S. W.]
VIGINTIVIRI. [VIGINTI SEx VIRI.]
VILLA, a farm or country-house. The
Roman writers mention two kinds of villa,
the villa rustica or farm-house, and the villa
wrbana or pseudo-urbana, a residence in the
country or in the suburbs of a town. When
both of these were attached to an estate, they
were generally united in the same range of
buildings, but sometimes they were placed at
different parts of the estate. The part of the
villa rustica in which the produce of the farm
was kept, is distinguished by Columella by a
separate name, villa fructuaria.
1. The villa rustica is described by Varro (R. R.
i. 11–13), Vitruvius (vi. 9), and Columella (i. 4,
§ 5 ft.).
The villa, which must be of size corresponding
to that of the farm, is best placed at the foot of
a wooded mountain, in a spot supplied with
running water, and not exposed to severe winds
nor to the effluvia of marshes, nor (by being
close to a public road) to a too frequent influx
of visitors. If there was no running stream, it
was accounted of great importance that tanks
should be constructed, one under cover for men,
one in the open air for the beasts. The villa
attached to a large farm had two courts (cohortes,
chortes, cortes, Warro, i. 13). At the entrance to ||
the outer court was the abode of the vilicus, that
he might observe who went in and out, and over
the door was the room of the procurator (Varro,
l. c.; Colum. i. 6). Near this, in as warm a
spot as possible, was the kitchen, which, besides
being used for the preparation of food, was the
place where the slaves (familiae) assembled
after the labours of the day, and where they
performed certain indoor work. Vitruvius
places near the kitchen the baths and the press
(torcular) for wine and oil, but the latter, accord-
ing to Columella, though it requires the warmth
of the sun, should not be exposed to artificial
heat. In the outer court were also the cellars
for wine and oil (cellae vinariae et oleariae),
which were placed on the level ground, and the
granaries, which were in the upper stories of the
farm-buildings, and carefully protected from
damp, heat, and insects. These store-rooms
form the separate villa fructuaria of Columella;
Varro places them in the villa rustica, but
Vitruvius recommends that all produce which
could be injured by fire should be stored without
the villa.
In both courts were the chambers (cellae) of
the slaves, fronting the south; but the ergastulum
for those who were kept in chains (vincti) was
underground, being lighted by several high and
narrow windows.
The inner court was occupied chiefly by the
horses, cattle, and other live stock, and here
were the stables and stalls (bubilia, equilia,
ovilia).
A reservoir of water was made in the middle
of each court, that in the outer court for soaking
pulse and other vegetable produce, and that
in the inner, which was supplied with fresh
water by a spring, for the use of the cattle and
poultry.
2. The villa urbana or pseudo-urbana was so
called because its interior arrangements corre-
sponded for the most part to those of a town-
house. [Domus.] Vitruvius (vi. 8) merely
states that the description of the latter will
apply to the former also, except that in the
town the atrium is placed close to the door,
but in the country the peristyle comes first,
and afterwards the atrium, surrounded by
paved porticoes, looking upon the palaestra and
ambulatio.
A striking difference in the general aspect of
a country-house from that of a town-house lay
in the fact that the blank walls of the latter
were replaced by long colonnades, broken by
towers, apses, and the like. Cf. the view of a
villa near the sea given in a painting from
Pompeii by Guhl and Koner, fig. 393.
Our chief sources of information on this sub-
ject are two letters of Pliny, in one of which
(ii. 17) he describes his Laurentine villa, in the
other (v. 6) his Tuscan. The former of these,
however, was not, strictly speaking, a villa, as
it had no estate or farm-buildings attached to
it : the latter was connected with a large estate.
There are also a few allusions in one of Cicero's
letters (ad Quint. iii. 1), and, as a most impor-
tant illustration of these descriptions, the re-
mains of a suburban villa at Pompeii, of which
a view and a plan are given by Overbeck,
Pompeii, p. 325 ft. : cf. Guhl and Koner, fig.
392.
The Tuscan villa was approached by an avenue
of plane-trees leading to a colonnade, in front of
which was a wystus divided into flower-beds by
borders of box. This xystus formed a terrace,
from which a grassy slope, ornamented with box-
trees cut into the figures of animals, and forming
two lines opposite to one another, descended till
it was lost in the plain, which was covered with
acanthus (Plin. v. 6). Next to the portico was
an atrium, smaller and plainer than the corre-
sponding apartment in a town-house. In this
respect Pliny’s description is at variance with
the rule of Vitruvius; and the villa at Pompeii
has also no atrium. It would appear from
Cicero (l. c.) that both arrangements were
common. Next to the atrium in Pliny’s Lauren-
tine villa was a small semicircular peristyle
(porticus in D literae similitudinem circumactae,
where, however, the reading O is also given
instead of D). The intervals between the
columns of this peristyle were closed with talc
windows (specularibus; see DOMUS, Vol. I. p. 686),
and the roof projected considerably, so that it
formed an excellent retreat in unfavourable
weather. The open space in the centre of this
peristyle seems often to have been covered with
moss and ornamented with a fountain. Opposite
to the middle of this peristyle was a pleasant
cavaedium, and beyond it an elegant triclinium,
standing out from the other buildings, with
windows or glazed doors in the front and sides,
which thus commanded a view of the grounds
and of the surrounding country, while behind
there was an uninterrupted view through the
cavaedium, peristyle, atrium, and portico into
the xystus and the open country beyond.
The details of the other chambers are less
clear; and though in Castell's Villas of the
Ancients there are numerous plans illustrating
them, much is based upon mere conjecture
(cf. Schinkel in the Architekturalbum, Part 7,
WILLA
WINDICATIO 957
Berlin, 1862). There is mention of several
chambers, a room with an apse, serving as a
library, and servants’ rooms; while the other
wing is occupied with dining-rooms, baths, a
tower, at the base of which are two sitting-
rooms, a dining-hall, and another tower with
store-rooms. Pliny further describes with much
satisfaction the colonnade (cryptoporticus) which
runs round the garden, and other embellish-
ments.
In the villa at Pompeii the arrangement is
somewhat different, and corresponds in its main
features with the rules laid down by Vitruvius.
The entrance is in the Street of the Tombs. The
portico leads through a small three-cornered
space, due to the fact that the building does not
stand square with the road, into a large square
peristyle paved with opus signinum, and having
an impluvium in the centre of its uncovered
area. Round this are various bed-rooms and
other small chambers, and a set of bath-rooms.
Beyond it is an open hall, resembling in form
and position the tablinum in a town-house. Next
is a long gallery extending almost across the
whole width of the house, and beyond it is a
large cyzicene oecus, corresponding to the large
triclinium in Pliny’s villa. This room looks out
upon a spacious court, which was no doubt a
xystus or garden, and which is surrounded on
all sides by a colonnade composed of square
pillars, the top of which forms a terrace. In
the farthest side of this court is a gate leading
out to the open country. As the ground slopes
downward considerably from the front to the
back of the villa, the terrace just spoken of is
on a level with the cyzicene oecus, the windows
of which opened upon it; and beneath the oecus
itself is a range of apartments on the level of the
large court, which were probably used in sum-
mer, on account of their coolness.
The other rooms were so arranged as to take
advantage of the different seasons and of the
surrounding scenery. (For the importance at-
tached to a fine view, cf. Friedländer, Sittenge-
schichte Roms, ii." p. 200.) Of these, however,
there is only one which requires particular
notice; namely, a state bed-chamber, projecting
from the peristyle in an elliptic or semicircular
form, so as to admit the sun during its whole
course. This apartment is mentioned by Pliny,
and is also found in the Pompeian villa. In
Pliny’s Laurentine villa its wall was fitted up as
a library.
The villa contained a set of baths, the general
arrangement of which was similar to that of the
public baths. [BALNEAE.]
Attached to it were a garden, ambulatio, ges-
tatio, hippodromus, sphaeristerium, and in short
all necessary arrangements for enjoying different
kinds of exercise. [HoRTUS; Gym NASIUM.]
Becker-Göll's Gallus, vol. iii. pp. 46–63 ;
Schneider's notes on Columella and Varro, and
Gierig's on Pliny, contain many useful remarks.
The remains of the Roman villas in England
have been discussed (with plans) by Mr. Neville
in the Archaeological Journal, vols. ii. vi. vii. x.
For Pliny’s Laurentine villa, cf. Cowan’s edition
of Pliny, i.—ii. (with a plan), Burn’s Rome and
the Campagna, pp. 411–415 (with a plan), and
especially Prof. Aitchison's lecture (with plans)
in The Builder for Feb. 8, 1890.
[P. S.] [A. S. W.]
VI'LLICUS, WILICUS (érírporos in Greek
writers, Plut. Crass. 4), a slave who had the
superintendence of the villa rustica, and of all the
business of the farm, except the cattle, which
were under the care of the magister pecoris
(Varro, R. R. i. 2). The duties of the vilicus
were to obey his master implicitly and to
govern the other slaves with moderation, never
to leave the villa except to go to market, to
have no intercourse with soothsayers, to take
care of the cattle and the implements of hus-
bandry, and to manage all the operations of the
farm (Cato, R. R. 5, 142). His duties are
described at great length by Columella (xi. 1
and i. 8), and those of his wife (vilica) by the
same writer (xii. 1) and by Cato (c. 143).
The vilicus is properly distinct from the
actor (oikovéuos) who had charge of finance,
payments, &c. The vilicus is, however, some-
times called actor praedii. (Marquardt, Privat-
leben, 139.) [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
WINA'LIA. There were two festivals of
this name celebrated by the Romans: the
Vinalia urbana or priora, and the Winalia rustica:
or altera. The vinalia urbana were celebrated
on the 23rd of April. This festival answered
to the Greek triðovyta, as on this occasion the
wine casks which had been filled the preceding
autumn were opened for the first time, and the
wine tasted (Plin. H. N. xviii. § 287). But
before men actually tasted the new wine, a liba-
tion was offered to Jupiter (Fest. Ep. p. 374,
12), which was called calpar (Id. p. 65, 13).
The rustic vinalia, which fell on the 19th of
August (Plin. H. N. xviii. § 289; Varro, L. L.
vi. 20) and was celebrated by the inhabitants of
all Latium, was the day on which the vintage was
opened. On this occasion the flamen dialis offered
lambs to Jupiter, and while the flesh of the victims
lay on the altar he broke with his own hands a
bunch of grapes from a vine, and by this act he,
as it were, opened the vintage (vindemiam
auspicar; ; Varro, L. L. vi. 16), and no must
was allowed to be conveyed into the city until
this solemnity was performed. This day also
was sacred to Jupiter only originally (Fest.
p. 265, 28), but afterwards to Venus also, being
the day of dedication for her temples in Murcia.
valle and in Luco Libitinae (Fest. p. 265, 31).
The question what Venus had to do with the
Winalia is raised by Ovid (Fast. iv. 877), but
not answered. We may be content with Warro's
account, that Venus took gardens under her
protection (R. R. i. 1, 6 ; L. L. vi. 20; cf. Fest.
Ep. p. 58, 14; Marquardt, Staatsverwaltung, iii.
pp. 333, 374). IL. S.] [G. E. M.]
VINDEMIA'LIS FERLA. [FERIAE.]
WINDEX. [ACTIO, Vol. I., p. 145; MANUS
INJECTIO.]
VINDICATIO. Actions were divided by
the Roman jurists into two classes: real (in rem)
and personal (in personam). Actiones in rem or
actions about the title to ownership (dominium)
and other real rights were called vindicationes;
actiones in personam or actions for the enforce-
ment of obligations arising from contract and
delict were called condictiones (Gaius, iv. 2–5;
Ulpian, Dig. 44, 7, 25, pr.). Windicatio in this
wide sense includes not only strictly proprietary
actions, but also actions respecting family rights
and rights of status; as, e.g., an action as-
serting that a man is free (cf. the expressions in
958 WINDICATIO
WINDICATIO
libertatem, in servitutem, in ingenuitatem vindi-
catio). The term vindicatio is, however, gene-
rally used in legal writings in a narrower sense,
signifying simply an actio in rem by which
dominium of a corporeal thing is claimed (rei
vindicatio). Condictio also came to have a much
more restricted meaning. [ACTIO.] The dis-
tinction between vindicationes and condictiones is
an essential distinction, which is not affected
by changes in the form of procedure, such as
that of the substitution of the formulae for
legis actiones. The forms of the legis actio
procedure bring most clearly to light the
characteristics of a vindicatio, showing how
distinctly the early Romans had conceived the
idea of individual ownership of property. They
also explain the origin of the word vindicatio.
The five modes of proceeding lege (Gaius, iv.
12) were sacramento, per judicis postulationem,
per condictionem, per manus injectionem, per
pignoris capionem (P., J. P., P. C*, Maº Inº, Per
Pign. C*). A man might proceed sacramento
either in the case of an actio in personam or in
rem, this action being a general one applicable
in all cases where there was no other prescribed
by law (Gaius, iv. 13). It was the only legis
actio by which an actio in rem could be brought.
In this action it was necessary that each party
should make himself liable to a penalty (summa
Sacrament) in the event of his failing in the
cause. The condition of the penalty was in fact
the existence or non-existence of the right
claimed by the plaintiff, whatever that right
might be. Thus the process assumed the form
of a suit to determine which of the parties had
forfeited the penalty, owing to the assertion of
right, on which he had staked it, proving un-
founded (“utrius sacramentum justum, utrius
injustum sit,” Cic. pro Caec. 33, 97; pro Domo,
29, 78), though the real object of the proceeding
was to determine the dispute between the
litigants. The Praetor took security (praedes)
from both parties for the amount of the sacra-
mentum; which the party who failed paid as a
penalty (poenae nomine) to the public treasury
[AERARIUM). The sums of money were
originally deposited in sacro; what was forfeited
was devoted to sacred purposes, whence the
term sacramentum, the successful party receiv-
ing his money back (Varro, L. L. v. 36, 180;
“utrique ad pontem deponebant,” Fest. s. v.
Sacramentum ; cf. Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln, ii. 6,
n. 3, who compares with the sacramentum the
Tpvraveſc. of Athenian procedure; Meier and
Schömann, Att. Pr. 603). The poena of the
sacramentum was quingenaria; that is, quingenti
(500) asses, in cases when the property in dis-
pute was of the value of 1,000 asses and up-
wards; and in cases of smaller value it was 50
asses. This was a provision of the Twelve
Tables; but if a man’s freedom (libertas) was at
issue, the poena was never more than 50 asses.
The penalty appears to have been originally a
fixed number of cattle (Voigt, op. cit. ii. § 61).
Gaius (iv. 16) describes in some detail the form
of the actio sacramenti when it was a proceeding
for vindicating ownership (rei vindicatio). The
forms of the action must have been in some
respects modified when its object was a servitude
or an inheritance.
In the case of an actio sacramenti in personam,
there would be no assertion of quiritary right
over a specific object, but simply a claim by the
plaintiff against the defendant on account of an
obligatio between them. If it was an actio in
rem—that is, a rei vindicatio—movable things
and moving things (mobilia et moventia) that
could be brought or led into court were claimed
before the Praetor (in jure vindicabantur) thus
(Gaius, iv. 16): he who claimed a thing as his
property (qui vindicabat), holding a rod in his
hand, and laying hold of the thing, it might for
instance be a slave, said, “This man I claim as
mine by due acquisition by the law of the
quirites” (“Hunc ego hominum ex jure qui-
ritium meum esse aio secundum suam causam :”
cf. Plaut. Rud. v. 3, 86; Cic. pro Mur. 12, 26.
For a different interpretation of the words
Secundum swam causam, see Voigt, Zwölf Tafeln,
ii. § 74, n. 11). “See, as I said, I have put
my spear on him " (“sicut dixi, ecce tibi, vin-
dictam imposui.’’); and, saying this, he placed
his rod on the thing. The other party then
said the same words and performed the same
acts. The laying hold of the thing by the vin-
dicant seems to be a symbolical act of self-help,
by which possession of the object is taken, while
the putting the wand on the thing, which
Gaius tells us was a substitute for a spear, is
an act of pretended violence (“vis civilis et
festucaria,” Gell. xx. 10, 6), signifying the
intention of the claimant to maintain himself
in possession by force against any attack. Ac-
cordingly the word vindicare (vindicere, vim.
dicere) perhaps originally meant to declare force;
that is, to assert one’s right to a thing by force.
(O. Müller, Etym. Erőrter. ; Bethmann-Hollweg,
Civ. Proc. i. § 40, n. 23; Voigt, i. § 53, n. 25;
ii. § 74.) Cf. Cicero’s definition of vindicatio
(de Inv. ii. 53, 161). This claiming of a thing
as property by laying the hand on it, and by
using solemn words, together with the touching
the thing with the spear or wand, was, when it
had been completed by both parties to the action,
“injure manum conserere,”—that is, the parties
thus contended before the magistrate for the
thing, each asserting by words and acts that he
was owner of it (“manu asserere liberali causa "
is to take hold in a vindication claiming the
liberty of a slave, Plaut. Poen. iv. 2, 84; v. 2,
4, 42, &c.): this phrase is as old as the Twelve
Tables (cf. Gell. xx. 10, 9, “in jure, apud Prae-
torem manum consererent"). (For the different
modern interpretations of the words manum,
conserere, see Bethmann-Hollweg, Civ. Proc. i.
$ 40.) It is to be noticed that in the vindication
no distinction is made between plaintiff and
defendant, each party claiming ownership in
exactly the same form.
The parties having vindicated the object in
turn, the Praetor then said: “Mittite ambo
(rem) hominem’’ (“Let the (thing) man alone”)
—a command which the claimants obeyed, thus
surrendering possession of the property to the
magistrate. It would seem that the repre-
sentative of the state here intervenes in the
quarrel in order to prevent the parties from
committing a breach of the peace by taking the
law into their own hands. Then he who had
made the first vindicatio thus addressed his
opponent, “Postulo anne dicas qua ex causa
vindicaveris” (“I demand a statement of the
ground of your claim:” cf. Cic. pro Mur. 12, 26).
The opponent replied, “Jus ſeci sicut vindictam
WINDICATIO
WINDICATIO 959
imposui.” (“I did what I was entitled to do,
when I put my spear on him *), thereby refusing
to give the ground of his claim (cf. Voigt, op.
cit.). Then he who had made the first vindicatio
said, “Quando tu injuria vindicavisti, D aeris
sacramento te provoco" (“Since you claim him
without any right, I challenge you to stake 500
(or 50 asses, as the case might be), upon the
issue of a trial”), to which the other answered
by a corresponding challenge. A day was now
fixed on which the parties were to appear before
the decemvirs or centumvirs for the trial of the
issue, or else they were ordered to appear again
before the Praetor on the thirtieth day ad judi-
cem capiendum. [JuTEX.] The Praetor then
awarded to one of the claimants possession of
the thing pending the suit, and compelled him
to give security to his opponent for the thing
in dispute and the mesne profits, or, as it was
technically expressed, “jubebat praedes adver-
sario dare litis et vindiciarum ” (Gaius, iv. 16:
cf. Liv. iii. 47, 56, 58; Gell. xx. 10, 9). The
expression lis et vindiciae seems to be redundant,
the word vindiciae (the object of the vis) by
itself meaning the thing or things which are
vindicated (Festus, p. 376 a ; cf. Voigt, op. cit.
ii. § 74, nn. 30, 44).
The Praetor awarded interim possession to
one of the claimants (“secundum alterum eorum
vindicias dicebat”); no doubt he would as a
rule give it to the party who was in possession
at the time when the vindication was brought,
unless he had acquired possession from the other
claimant by violence, or furtively, or by his
permission (vi, clam, precario). The party to
whom possession was given on this ground
would occupy the advantageous position of
defendant in the trial before the judex, the
burden of proof being on the other side. But
in an action between a civis and the Roman
people the vindiciae always belonged to the
latter (Festus, s. v. vindiciae); and in the case
of suits respecting a man’s freedom, the person
whose status was in question was allowed his
liberty till the matter was determined, what-
ever his previous state may have been (vindiciae
secundum libertatem). If the property which
was the subject of vindicatio was land, the
Praetor originally went with the parties to the
place in question, so that the vindication might
there be made. It was possibly the practice for
one of the claimants to go through the form of
forcibly ejecting the other from the land, which
was called the vis civilis, or vis ea conventu—an
act of pretended violence, which would perhaps
correspond with the festucaria vis in the case
of movables. [DEDUCTIO; FESTUCA.] This pre-
tence of an ejectment (cf. English procedure in
the old action of ejectment, Keller, Civ. Pr.
§ 28, n. 328) is described by Cicero as a part
of the proceedings in an actio in rem by sponsio,
and is known as “deductio quae moribus fit,”
but it seems likely that it originated in the legis
actio in rem.
The practice of the Praetor going with the
parties to the land in question, which was a
means by which the subject of dispute could be
exactly defined, was in course of time modified
as the Roman state increased in size. Thus it
became the practice at the commencement of
the action before the Praetor in the forum for
each party to challenge his opponent to follow
him to the land which he had formally claimed
and specifically described in court, the object
being “ad conserendam manum in rem de qua
agebatur;” the parties then at the command of
the Praetor went together to the land accom-
panied by witnesses (Cic. pro Mur. 12, “suis
utrisque superstitibus praesentibus istam viam
dico, inite viam :” cf. Festus, s. v. Superstites);
and having come to an understanding as to the
subject of their dispute and gone through the
requisite forms, which would include the feigned
ejectment — a supposed conflict between the
parties (manum conserere)—they returned to
court bringing back a clod of earth from the
land, which was regarded as the whole ager in
the subsequent proceedings.
This change in the form of procedure, which
change was accomplished “contra duodecim
tabulas tacito consensu,” led to the phrase “ex
jure manum conserere.” By the time of Cicero
the proceeding had been further simplified.
Before the action commenced the parties went
to the land and brought back a sod of earth
with them ; the summons in court to proceed
to the land was obeyed by the parties going
round the sod of earth, which had been placed
at some distance from the tribunal, and return-
ing with it into court. (Cic. l.c.; Gell. xx. 10:
“ex jure manum consertum?verba sunt ex anti-
quis actionibus, quae, cum lege agitur et win-
diciae contenduntur, dici nunc quique apud
Praetorem solent.”)
When the formulae became the ordinary mode
of procedure instead of the legis actiones [ACTIO),
actiones in rem were framed after the new
system, although it continued to be possible to .
bring a legis actio in rem so that it might go to
the centumviral court for trial (Gaius, iv. 31,
“Tantum ex duabus causis permissum est lege
agere; damni infecti et si centumvirale judi-
cium sit ’). The conveyance called in jure
cessio is derived from the actio sacramenti in rem.
[CESSIO IN JURE.]
There were two modes of maintaining an
actio in rem under the formulary system: 1, per
sponsionem, which was the earlier, and 2, per
formulam petitoriam (Gaius, iv. 91).
1. Per sponsionem.—The earliest formulae
appear to have been derived from the legis
actio per condictionem, which was perhaps based
on a sponsio, and so to have been actiones in
personam. There was no formula in rem con-
cepta (Bethmann-Hollweg, Civ. Proc. ii. § 89).
The sponsio, however, which was a wager
entered into in court by question and answer,
originally perhaps a matter of private agreement
between the parties, was used as a means of
framing a formula for trying an actio in rem,
which was analogous in some respects to the use
of the sacramentum in the legis actio procedure.
The right in rem, which was in question, was
made the subject of the sponsio, but the wager
itself in this case was pure matter of form for
the purpose of framing a formula on it (sponsio
praejudicialis), the amount of it (summa
sponsionis) not being really paid by the unsuc-
cessful to the successful party, as was the case
when the sponsio was poenalis (Gaius, iv. 94).
The defendant was challenged by the plaintiff to
a sponsio in such terms as these: “Si homo de
quo agitur ex jure quiritium meus est, sestertios
Xxv. nummos dare spondes?” (Cf. Cic. pro
960 WINDICATIO
WINDICATIO
Quint. 8, 27.) [The use of the word si or ni in
the sponsio would depend on the fact which was
affirmed or rather on the mode of affirmation.
Cicero (pro Caecin. 23, 65) alludes to the use of
these words (sive, nive). Brissonius (de Formulis,
v. 7, p. 348) has collected instances of them.]
The intentio in this formula [ACTIO) was that
if the slave belonged to the plaintiff the sum of
money contained in the sponsio ought to be paid
by the defendant to the plaintiff (Gaius, iv. 93,
“deinde (i.e. after the sponsio had been entered
into) formulam edimus quaintendimus sponsionis
summam nobis dari oportere”). If the plaintiff
proved the slave to be his property, he was
entitled to a judgment, by which he only ob-
tained a judicial declaration of his right; the
summa sponsionis, which was the supposed object
of the action, not being in fact paid to him.
Thus, though the action had the formal ap-
pearance of an actio in personam, it was in
fact simply an actio in rem. We learn from a
passage of Cicero (pro Caecin. 7, 20) that when
land was the subject of a sponsio, a form of ficti-
tious ejectment (deductio quae moribus) was gone
through, which perhaps was derived from earlier
procedure. The defendant would be allowed by
the Praetor to retain interim possession of the
property in dispute, unless he had acquired it
from the plaintiff vi, clam, or precario; but he
was obliged to give security to the plaintiff for
restitution of the thing, together with mesne
profits, if judgment was given for the plaintiff.
This security was called “satisdatio pro praede
litis et vindiciarum,” corresponding to the
“praedes litis et vindiciarum ” of the legis actio
in rem. The judgment in favour of the plaintiff
in the actio on the sponsio only declared the
right of the plaintiff to the property in question;
it did not entitle him to execution, in case the
defendant refused to surrender the thing with
the profits he had made by it ; the summa
sponsionis having been the formal object of the
action, and not damages, no liquidated sum had
been fixed for the purpose of execution. Hence
a supplementary action for the purpose of
assessing damages was necessary, as had also
been the case after a legis actio Sacramenti in
rem ; this was called arbitrium litis aestimandae.
2. Per formulam petitoriam.—The sponsio,
owing to the indirect way in which its formula
submitted the right in question to the judex,
was not a convenient mode of prosecuting an
actio in rem, having the defect of obliging the
plaintiff, if he was successful, to maintain a
further action in order to obtain execution
against the defendant, and not allowing the use
of equitable pleas (exceptiones), since the judex
had simply to decide whether or not the right
claimed legally belonged to the plaintiff
(Keller, Civil-Process, $ 27). Hence a new
kind of formula was invented, called the formula
petitoria, by which these inconveniences were
avoided. The formula appears to be well
established in the time of Cicero (Verr. ii. 12).
The following is given by Keller (op. cit. § 28)
as an example of it:—“Titius Judex esto. Si
paret, illam rem (e.g. hominem Stichum, fundum
Cornelianum, L. Annii hereditatem) qua de
agitur ex jure Quiritium Auli Agerii esse, neque
eam Numerius Negidius Aulo Agerio arbitratu
tuo restituet, quanti ea res erit, Numerium
Negidium Aulo Agerio condemnato, si non paret,
absolvito” (cf. Cic, in Verr. ii. 12, 31; Gaius, iv.
92). Here, as Keller has observed, the object is
at once attained, which in the actio in rem per
sponsionem required a number of acts, viz.: 1,
the entering into the sponsio before the Praetor;
2, the publication of the formula ex sponsione;
3, the arbitrium litis aestimandae, in case the
plaintiff succeeded. The intentio of the formula.
is a direct claim of ownership on the part of the
plaintiff, the defendant not being named in it as
in an actio in personam (Gaius, iv. 87). The
words from neque to restituet make the formula
a formula arbitraria, of which class of formulae it
was the typical instance; the condemnatio from
quanti to absolvito authorises the judex either to
condemn the defendant in damages, which the
judex is to assess (“quanti eares est,” the thing,
“cum omni causa,” i.e. with fructus and other
accretions [ACTIO), or to absolve him. Thus it
is the duty of the judex in the first place to pro-
nounce (pronuntiatio) whether the thing belongs
to the plaintiff, or whether restitution is due to
him from the defendant. If the finding is for the
plaintiff, the defendant has the opportunity of
avoiding condemnation by making restitution;
if he does not do so, damages are assessed against
him. The plaintiff could only claim pecuniary
damages under the formulary system, not specific
restitution; but the defendant, after there had
been a pronuntiatio against him, would often
make specific restitution, so far as he was able,
in order to avoid the liability to condemnation
in heavy damages. The formula by combining
the judicium and arbitrium dispenses with the
necessity of an arbitrium litis aestimandae, and
allows all equitable pleas to be taken into
account. In this form of proceeding there was
the stipulatio called judicatum solvi, by which
the defendant, the possessor of the thing claimed,
engaged before the Praetor to obey the decree of
the judex (Gaius, iv. 91). The vindicatio rei was
brought by a person who claimed to be owner
of property (petitor) against the person who
was in possession of it, or who had fraudulently
made away with the possession of it (possessor).
It was incumbent on the owner to prove his
ownership, and such proof might be a matter of
the greatest difficulty where the title of the
claimant was a derivative one, since he would
have to prove the right of his predecessors in
title; the shortness of the period of usucapion,
however, greatly facilitated the proof of owner-
ship. The proof of ownership on the part of the
plaintiff did not as a matter of course entitle
him to judgment in his favour, since the de-
fendant might have a right to keep the thing
from the owner, as if he were pledgee or usu-
fructuary, or when he had a lien over the thing
for his outlay on it. [DOMINIUM.] Not only
a vindicatio rei was maintained by formula.
petitoria, but also an action respecting a servi-
tude or inheritance. The formula was adapted
by means of a fiction to praetorian actiones in
rem, of which the actio Publiciana is the chief
example (Gaius, iv. 36). The formula petitoria
ceased with the system of procedure to which it
belonged, but the principles on which it was
based were still adhered to. (Kritz, Darstellung,
Bk. i. ; Wetzell, Der röm. Wind. ; Klagen, Der
Lehre vom Eigenthum.; Brintz, Pandekten,
§§ 167, 168; Windscheid, Pand. § 193; Do-
MINIUM.) [E. A. W.]
WINDICTA
WINDICTA 96.1
WINDICTA. This word is used by Gaius
(iv. 16) in describing the proceedings of a
vindicatio for the rod or wand in place of a
spear, by which each vindicant forcibly asserted
his dominium [WINDICATIO), and it frequently
signifies the rod with which a slave was struck
when he was manumitted before the Praetor
[MANUMISSIO). Another meaning of vindicta
was self-redress exercised by an injured party
against the party committing the injury; and
hence vindicta came to signify “vengeance,”
“revenge,” the Italian vendetta. To prevent
persons from taking the law into their own
hands by forcible self-redress (vindicta) was a
principal object of early law. Hence money
compositions were gradually substituted in the
place of vengeance, and actions were instituted
for their recovery. In some cases the state
itself took vengeance on criminals, and penalties
were inflicted on those who broke the peace in
seeking private satisfaction for their wrongs
(Ihering, Geist des rômischen Rechts, i. 122, &c.).
The actions which were given on account of
delict came to be distinguished according as to
whether they had for their object simply com-
pensation, as in the actio doli, or simply to give
the plaintiff a pecuniary penalty (poena), as in
the actio furt, which was distinct from his
claim to compensation, or to give him in one
and the same proceeding both compensation and
a penalty, as in the actio vi bonorum raptorum
[FURTUMJ (Savigny). There were, however,
certain actions which, though they had for their
immediate object money or property, had for
their ultimate object satisfaction to the personal
feelings of the injured party, and the term vin-
dicta is used in a special sense to signify the
personal satisfaction which is the object of
these peculiar actions: e.g. the actio de sepulcro
violato, which is one of them, is said “non ad
rem familiarem, magis ad ultionem pertinere in
sola vindicta constitui” (Dig. 47, 12, 6 and 10;
cf. Dig. 29, 2, 20, § 5).
Civilians describe such actions as “actiones
vindictam spirantes.” Those actions of which
vindicta is the object are distinguished from
other actions by the fact that they are not
transmissible to the heredes of the injured
party, the injury not being so much to his pro-
perty as to his person, and for the same reason
they are not, like proprietary actions, capable
of assignment. They also form exceptions to
general rules as to the legal capacity of the
plaintiff. It was a fundamental rule that a
filiusfamilias could not maintain an action on
his own account, all property which he acquired
being acquired for his paterfamilias. But as
vindicta and not damages or other property was
the main object of the actions in question, they
could, generally speaking, be brought by a filius-
familias. So, too, a person who had acquired
such a right of action did not lose it by a change
of status (capitis deminutio), e.g. by arrogation,
as in ordinary cases. It may, however, be
doubted whether Savigny is right in thinking
that all actions which were exceptional in these
respects were considered to have vindicta for
their object.
The following are cases of actiones vindictam
spirantes :—
1. Actio injuriarum, or action on account
of insult, by assault, libel, slander, &c. This
WOL. II. *
was an action which could not be maintained
by the heredes of the injured party. When
a filiusfamilias was the subject of injuria, a
wrong was done both to him and to his pater-
familias, for the latter was indirectly affected
by the insult. The paterfamilias generally
brought not only the action which he had on
his own account, but also sued on account of the
wrong to his filiusfamilias, as he acquired
through his son all rights of action. But the
filiusfamilias could bring an action in his own
name with the permission of the Praetor, if his
paterfamilias was absent, or was in any way
prevented from bringing the action. The pecu-
niary damages, which were the immediate
object of the action, belonged to the pater-
familias, so that the only immediate advantage
which the filiusfamilias obtained for himself
by bringing the action was the vindication of
his honour. [It may be noticed that under the
canon law a person who was insulted might
claim in a judicial proceeding a public apology
from the wrongdoer (46 Dist. c. 5).] If the son
was emancipated, his right of action belonged
exclusively to himself, and was not destroyed
by the capitis deminutio (Inst. iv. 4; Dig. 47,
10; Cod. 9, 35).
2. Actio sepulcri violati, or action given on
account of an intentional act of outrage to a
grave or sepulchral monument. This could be
brought by the children of the deceased, even if
they refused the hereditas. The object was
vindicta, which was effected by giving the plain-
tiff damages, which were assessed by the judex
according to the gravity of the offence (Dig. 47,
12, 3, § 8: “qui de sepulcri violati actione
judicant, aestimabunt, quatenus intersit, Scilicet
ex injuria, quae facta est, item ex lucro ejus,
qui violavit, vel ex damno, quod contigit, vel ex
temeritate ejus, qui fecit”). The right of
action was not affected by capitis deminutio.
The action could not be maintained by the
heredes of the person injured. (If those who
had a right to bring this action neglected to do
so, any person might sue the delinquent for a
penalty limited to 100 aurei by the Edict.)
3. The action on account of obstructing the
burial of a corpse (Dig. 11, 7, 9).
4. Actio de effusis et ejectis, in respect of
injury to a free person by something poured or
thrown from a house (Dig. 9, 3, 5, § 5).
5. The action against a libertus in respect of
an unauthorised in jus vocatio of his patron
[PATRONUS]. If the libertus had proceeded
against the son of his patron, and the father
was absent, the son could institute the suit
himself, as in the case of the actio injuriarum.
6. Querela inofficiosi testamenti, the character
of the querelant being supposed to be affected
by his disinherison [TESTAMENTUM).
7. Actions for penalties on account of adul-
tery (Dig. 24, 3, 15, § 1). Savigny also includes
in this class of actions the interdictum quod vi
aut clam, since it could be instituted by a filius-
familias in his own name. He considers that
the ground of this capacity of a filiusfamilias
was an injury done to him personally by a
person who acted in opposition to his remon-
strance. If, for instance, the son inhabited a
house belonging to his father or one hired from
a stranger, and was disturbed in the enjoyment
by some act of his neighbour, the filiusfamilias
Y- 3 Q
962 WINEA
WINUM
might have an action for the amount of the
damage, but the pecuniary satisfaction would
belong to the father, as the case of the actio
injuriarum. Savigny further includes in the
same category actiones populares, which are
actions in which the plaintiff claims a sum of
money, but not as a private individual; he
comes forward as a kind of representative of
the state.
A filiusfamilias could bring such an action.
By virtue of the litis contestatio [ACTIO] the
action becomes the same as if it were founded
on an obligatio, and this right of action as well
as the money which may arise from it is
acquired by the filiusfamilias for his pater-
familias. With the populares actiones may be
classed, as belonging to the same kind, the
interdicta publica or popularia, and that operis
novi nuntiatio which is for the protection of
publicum jus; with this distinction, that the
proceedings have not for their object the re-
covery of a sum of money. But in the general
capacity of all persons to bring such actions,
independent of the general rules as to legal
capacity, all these modes of proceeding agree.
(Savigny, System des heutigen römischer Rechts,
ii. 121; Wangerow, Pandekten, i. 145.)
[G. L.] [E. A. W.]
VI'NEA. According to the description of
vineae given by A. Müller in Baumeister’s Denk-
ináler, i. pp. 540–1, they differed from the
testudines very slightly, viz. in not being so
large and in having the sides open (Veg. iv.15).
They appear to have been used behind engines
of assault to protect the men working those
engines. They were called o'rotöta in Greek
(Athen. de Mech. p. 31, Wescher), and Müller
thinks that they were small testudines with open
fronts and sides covered with skins or wicker-
work. Vegetius mentions (... c.) one as 16 feet
long, 7 broad, and
8 high. Owing
to their small-
ness, many were
put behind one
another. They
were especially
* liable to be set
on fire by the
enemy (Liv. ii.
- 17, 2; v. 7, 3,
&c.). We give a cut from Marquardt (Staats-
verw. ii.”530), also adopted by Schiller in Iwan
Müller's Handbuch, iv. p. 740.
The Šutrexot described by Apollodorus (p. 141,
Wescher) and Rüstow and Köchly (Griech.
Jºriegswesen, p. 313) are probably the plutei of
the , Romans [PLUTEUsj; though Droysen
(Griech. Kriegsalt. p. 228) says that they are
the same as the vineae; and certainly the simi-
larity of the name lends some probability to
this view. [L. C. P.]
WINUM (oivos). The general term for the
fermented juice of the grape. siſ
It appears pretty well established that the
use of wine came to the Greeks from a Semitic
source. . The word vinum is undoubtedly bor-
rowed from oivos, the neuter form, as in other
cases, being due to a misunderstood accusative;
and in spite of Curtius (Gr. Etym. No. 594) and
A. Müller (Bezzenberger's Beiträge, i. 294),
olvos is almost certainly of Semitic origin (cf.
Arab. and Ethiop. wain, Heb. jain, which can
hardly be, as Renan, Hist. gen. des Langues
Sémitiques, p. 193, holds, borrowed from the
Aryans). Mommsen's belief that vinum is not
borrowed from oivos, but that both words go
back to the common vocabulary of the two lan-
guages, is based mainly upon the hypothesis,
now generally discredited, of a Graeco-Italic
unity. The earliest home of the vine was the
fertile country south of the Caucasus and the
Caspian; and here we must place probably the
first home of the Semites. So that the use of
wine must be regarded as extending partly by
land through Asia Minor and Thrace, in con-
nexion with which it is worth while remember-
ing the legend of Lycurgus, and also that Homer
lays especial stress on the excellence of Thracian
wine, and partly by the agency of Phoenician
traders and Carian settlers. Mommsen argues
that wine cannot have been introduced into
Italy by Greeks: first, because the Latins kept
their wine-feasts in honour of the native god
Liber, not the Greek Bacchus; secondly, because
according to the legend Mezentius demanded
from the Latins or the Rutulians a tribute of
wine, and the Kelts were attracted to invade
Italy by the fame of its wine; and thirdly,
because of the place which wine held in the
early sacrificial ritual (Hist, of Rome, Bk. i.
c. 13). A further proof is found in the name
Oenotria, “land of the vine-pole,” by which
Italy was known to the Greeks. Hehn holds
that legends point clearly to a time when wine
was unknown ; and that the fact that Jupiter
Liber was the father of the vine only indicates
a borrowing from Zeus 'EAev6éptos or Aðartos.
Both in Greece and in Italy wine was the only
drink (besides water) at all in common use, and
even slaves were freely supplied with it in
historic times. But it is plain that wine was
both rare and costly in the earlier ages of Italian
and Roman history. Romulus is said to have
used milk only in his offerings to the gods (Plin.
l. c.): Numa to have prohibited the sprinkling
of wine upon the funeral pyre ; a law which Pliny
(xiv. § 88) quotes to prove the costliness of wine,
but which, like the story about Romulus, rather
shows that it was believed to have been un-
known in the earliest times. To stimulate the
energies of the rustic population, Numa is also
said to have ordained that it should be held
impious to offer a libation to the gods of wine
which had flowed from an unpruned stock. The
story that Papirius, the dictator, when about to
join in battle with the Samnites, vowed to
Jupiter a small cupful of honeyed wine (mulsi
pocillum) if he should gain the victory, does not
so much prove, as Pliny thinks, the dearness of
Wine, as the rough jesting humour of the
general, especially as he added that he should
follow this with a draught of temetum for him-
self. Soldiers, too, drank it at a triumph (see
below). That wine was racked off into am-,
phorae and stored up in regular cellars as early
as the era of the Gracchi, Pliny considers proved
by the existence in his own day of the Vinum
Opimianum, described hereafter. But even then
no specific appellation was given to the produce
of different localities, and the jar was marked
with the name of the consul alone. For many
years after this foreign wines were considered
far superior to native growths (one of the most

WINUMI
WINUM 963
interesting signs of this being the 23 Rhodian
amphorae recently found at Praeneste); and so
precious were the Greek vintages esteemed in
the times of Marius and Sulla that a single
draught only was offered to the guests at a
banquet. The rapidity with which luxury
spread in this matter is well illustrated by the
saying of M. Varro (Plin. xiv. § 96), that Lucullus
when a boy never saw an entertainment in his
father's house, however splendid, at which
Greek wine was handed round more than once;
but when in manhood he returned from his
Asiatic conquests, he bestowed on the people a
largess of more than a hundred thousand cadi.
An imitated Greek wine was made at an early
date, for making which Cato, 24, 112, and Colum.
xii. 37, give rules. Four different kinds of wine
are said to have been presented for the first time
at the feast given by Julius Caesar in his third
consulship (B.C. 46), these being Falernian, Chian,
Lesbian, and Mamertine; and not until after this
date were the merits of the numerous varieties,
foreign and domestic, accurately known and
fully appreciated. But during the reign of
Augustus and his immediate successors the
study of wines became a passion, and the most
scrupulous care was bestowed upon every process
connected with their production and preserva-
tion. Viticulture was very profitable, and the
Italian wines became famous even as far as
India (Arrian, Peripl. 6, 49). Pliny calculates
that the number of wines in the whole world
deserving to be accounted of high quality
(nobilia) amounted to eighty, of which his own
country could claim two-thirds (xiv. § 87); and
in another passage (xiv. § 150) he asserts that
195 distinct kinds might be reckoned up, and
that if all the varieties of these were to be
included in the computation, the sum would be
almost doubled (Plin. H. W. xiv. § 150).
The process followed in wine-making was
essentially the same among both the Greeks
and the Romans. After the grapes had been
gathered, they were first trodden with the feet,
as is represented in the following cut from an
ancient relief (Mon. Matth. iii. tab. 45). After-
ºf NM
gº º £º §§ | g
/
£) º Maº
$17, §3. ©.
º
Ø
gtº
l sº
2S_ſº Yº º
§\º A$ºS
... ſº
& -
KºJºž
*
º) ( ) ( )
(From a relief.)
Treading the grapes.
wards they were submitted to the action of the
press. [TORCULAR.]
The sweet unfermented juice of the grape was
termed y\ejicos by the Greeks and mustum by
the Romans, the latter word being properly an
adjective signifying new or fresh (cf. Cato, R. R.
115). Of this there were several kinds distin-
guished according to the manner in which each
was originally obtained and subsequently treated.
That which flowed from the clusters, in con-
sequence merely of their pressure upon each
other before any force was applied, was known
as trpóxvua (Geopon. vi. 16) or protropum (Plin.
H. N. xiv. § 85), and was reserved for manufac-
turing a particular species of rich wine described
by Pliny (l. c.) to which the inhabitants of
Mytilene gave the name of Trpáöpogos or trpá-
Tporos (Athen. i. p. 30 b, ii. p. 45 e). That
which was obtained next, before the grapes had
been fully trodden, was the mustum liarivum,
and was considered best for keeping (Cato,
R. R. 23; Geopon. vi. 16; Colum. xii. 41).
After the grapes had been fully trodden and
pressed, the mass was taken out, the edges of
the husks cut (circumcidunt extrema), and the
whole again subjected to the press: the result
was the mustum tortivum or circumcisicium (Cato,
R. R. 23; Warr. i. 54; Colum. xii. 36), which
was set apart and used for inferior purposes.
A portion of the must was used at once, being
drunk fresh after it had been clarified with
vinegar (Geopon. vi. 15). When it was desired
to preserve a quantity in the sweet state, an
amphora was taken and coated with pitch within
and without ; it was filled with mustum liarivum,
and corked so as to be perfectly air-tight. It
was then immersed in a tank of cold fresh water
or buried in wet sand, and allowed to remain
for a month, six weeks, or two months. The
contents after this process were found to remain
unchanged for a year, and hence the name àel
'yAeoxos, i.e. semper mustum (Geopon. vi. 16;
Plut. Quaest. Nat. 26; Cato, R. R. 120; Colum.
xii. 29; Plin. H. W. xiv. § 83). This was pro-
bably the oivos of the Gospel parable of the
wine-skins: at least it alone fulfils the necessary
conditions of the case: cf. Farrar, Ea:Cursus III.
on St. Luke. A considerable quantity of must
from the best and oldest vines was inspissated
by boiling, being then distinguished by the
Greeks under the general names of éipmuc or
'yatºls (Athen. i. 31 e), while the Latin writers
have various terms according to the extent to
which the evaporation was carried. Thus, when
the must was reduced to two-thirds of its
original volume, it became caroenum (Pallad.
Octobr. tit.xviii.); when one-half had evaporated,
defrutum (Plin. H. N. xiv. § 80); when two-
thirds, sapa (known also by the Greek names
siraeum and hepsema, Plin. l.c.), but these words
are frequently interchanged. (See Warr. ap.
Non. p. 551 M.; Colum. xii. 19.) Similar pre-
parations are at the present time called in Italy
musto cotto and sapa, and in France Sabe. The
process was carried on in large caldrons (vasa
defrutaria), over a slow fire of chips, on a night
when there was no moon (Plin. xviii. § 318), the
scum being carefully removed with leaves (Plin.
l. c.; Werg. Georg. i. 296, iv. 269), and the liquid
constantly stirred to prevent it from burning
(Plin. xxiii. § 62; Cato, R. R. 105; Colum. xii.
19, 20, 21; Pallad. xi. 18; Dioscorid. v. 9).
These grape-jellies—for they were nothing else
—were used extensively for giving body to poor
wines and making them keep, and entered as
ingredients into many drinks, such as the bur-
ranica potio, so called from its red colour (“a
rufo colore quem burrum vocant ’), which was
formed by mixing sapa with milk (Paul. D.,
s. v. Burranica; compare Ovid, Fast. iv. 782),
and others described hereafter.



3 Q 2
964 WINUM
WINUM
. The whole of the mustum not employed for
some of the above purposes was conveyed from
the lacus to the cella vinaria (oivo0%km, tribečov,
Geopon. vi. 2, 12), an apartment on the ground-
floor or a little below the surface, placed in such
a situation as to secure a moderate and equable
temperature, and at a distance from dunghills or
other objects emitting a strong odour (Varro,
R. R. i. 13, 6; Plin. xiv. § 133; Geopon. l.c.).
Here were the dolia (rſ90), otherwise called
seriae [DOLIUM), long bell-mouthed vessels of
earthenware [hooped tubs of wood (cupae = ligned
vasa) being employed in cold climates only, Plin.
xiv. § 132], very carefully formed of the best
clay and lined with a coating of pitch (trigora,0évra,
picata), the operation (trforgooris, picatio) being
usually performed while they were hot from the
furnace. They were usually sunk (depressa, de-
fossa, demersa) one-half or two-thirds in the
ground; to the former depth if the wine to be
contained was likely to prove strong, to the latter
if weak, and attention was paid that they should
repose upon a dry bed. They were moreover
sprinkled with sea-water or brine, fumigated with
aromatic plants and rubbed with their ashes; all
rank-smelling substances, such as rotten leather,
garlic, cheese, and the like, being removed, lest
they should impart a taint to the wine (Geopon.
vi. 2, 3, 4; Cato, R. R. 23; Warro, i. 13;
Colum. xii. 18, 25; Dig. 33, 6, 3). In these
dolia the process of fermentation took place.
They were not filled quite full, in order that
the scum only might boil over, and this was
also cleared off at regular intervals by skim-
ming, and carried to a distance. The fermenta-
tion usually lasted for about nine days; and as
soon as it had subsided and the mustum had
become vinum, the dolia were closely covered,
the upper portion of their interior surface as
well as the lids (opercula doliorum) having been
previously well rubbed over with a compound
of defrutum, saffron, old pitch, mastic, and fir-
cones (Geopon. vi. 12; Cato, R. R. 107; Warro,
i. 65; Colum. xii. 25, 80). The opercula were
taken off about once every thirty-six days, and
oftener in hot weather, in order to cool and give
air to the contents, to add any preparation
required to preserve them sound, and to remove
any impurities that might be thrown up. Par-
ticular attention was paid to the peculiar light
Scum, the &v60s oivov (flos vini), which fre-
quently appeared on the surface after a certain
time, since it was supposed to afford indications
by its colour and consistence of the quality of
the wine. If red (tropºpvpígov), broad, and soft,
it was a sign that the wine was sound, though
Pliny regards it as a bad sign, except with red
wine; if glutinous, it was a bad symptom ; if
black or yellow, it denoted want of body; if
white, it was a proof that the wine would keep
well (uávuov). Each time that the opercula
were replaced they were well rubbed with fir-
cones (Geopon. vii. 15; Colum. xii. 38).
[THYRSUS.]
The commoner sorts of wine were drunk
direct from the dolium, and hence draught wine
was called vinum dollare or vimum de cupa (Dig.
18, 6, 1,4; Hor. Epod. ii. 47, “horna dulci vina
promens dolio; ” Cic, in Pis. 27, 67, “vinum de
cupa.”); but the finer kinds, such as were
yielded by choice localities and possessed suffi-
cient body to bear keeping, were drawn off
(diffundere, ueray'yſgeu), generally the next
spring, into amphorae, cad; or lagoenae, many
fanciful precautions being observed in trans-
ferring them from the larger to the smaller
vessel (Geopon. vii. 5, 6). These amphorae were
made of earthenware, and in later times occa-
sionally of glass; they were stoppered tight by
a plug of wood or cork (cortea, suber), which
was rendered impervious to air by being smeared
over with pitch, clay, or gypsum (Cato, R. R.
120; Hor. Carm. iii. 8, 10). The practice of
using cork seems to have been comparatively
late, and to have been introduced from Gaul
(Hehn, Kulturpflanzen,” p. 511). On the out-
side the title of the wine was painted, the date
of the vintage being marked by the names of
the consuls then in office; or when the jars were
of glass, little tickets (pittacia, tesserae) were
suspended from them indicating these particu-
lars (Petron. 34). The amphorae were then
stored up in repositories (apothecae, Colum. i.
6; Plin. Ep. ii. 17; horrea, Senec. Ep. 115;
tabulata, Colum. xii. 41) completely distinct
from the cella vinaria, and usually placed in the
upper story of the house (whence descende, testa,
Hor. Carm. iii. 21, 7; deripere horreo, iii. 28,
7) for a reason explained afterwards.
It is manifest that wines prepared and bottled,
if we may use the phrase, in the manner de-
scribed above, must have contained a great
quantity of dregs and sediment, and it became
absolutely necessary to separate these before it
was drunk. This was sometimes effected by
fining with yolks of eggs, those of pigeons being
considered most appropriate by the fastidious
(Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 56), or with the whites whipped
up with salt (Geopon. vii. 22), but more com-
monly by simply straining through small cup-
like utensils of silver or bronze perforated with
numerous small holes, and distinguished by the
various names 5Atarijp, Tpúryoutros, h996s, colum
vinarium (Geopon. vii. 37). [COLUM.] Occa-
sionally a piece of linen cloth (ordickos, saccus)
was placed over the Tpúyoutros or colum (Pollux,
vi. 19, x. 75) and the wine (orakktas, saccatus)
filtered through (Martial, viii. 45). The use of
the saccus was considered objectionable for all
delicate wines, since it was believed to injure
(Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 54) if not entirely to destroy
their flavour, and in every instance to diminish
the strength of the liquor. For this reason it
was employed by the dissipated in order that
they might be able to swallow a greater quan-
tity without becoming intoxicated (Plin. xiv.
§ 138, cf. xix. § 53; Cic. de Fin. ii. 8, 23). The
double purpose of cooling and weakening was
effectually accomplished by placing ice or snow
in the filter, which under such circumstances.
became a colum nivarium (Martial, xiv. 103) or
Saccus nivarius (xiv. 104).
The wine procured from the mustum tortivum.
which was always kept by itself, must have been
thin and poor enough, but a still inferior bever-
age was made by pouring water upon the husks.
and stalks after they had been fully pressed,
allowing them to soak, pressing again, and fer-
menting the liquor thus obtained. This, which
was given to labourers in winter instead of
wine, was the 0&uva or Sevréptos of the Greeks,
the lora or vinum operarium of the Romans, and
according to Varro (Non. p. 551 M.) was, along
with sapa, defrutum, and passum, the drink of
WINUM
VINUM 965
elderly women. (See Athen. x. p. 440.) The
Greeks added the water in the proportion of
# of the must previously pressed out, and then
boiled down the mixture until , had evaporated;
the Italians added the water in the proportion
of h of the must, and threw in the skimmings
of the defrutum and the dregs of the lacus.
Another drink of the same character was the
faecatum from wine-lees, and we hear also of
vinum praeliganeum given to the vintagers,
which appears to have been manufactured from
inferior and half-ripe fruit gathered before the
regular period (Geopon. vi. 3; Cato, R. R. 23,
57, 153; Varro, i. 54; Colum. xii. 40; Plin.
xiv. § 86). We find an analogy to the above
processes in the manufacture of cider, the best
being obtained from the first squeezing of the
apples and the worst from the pulp and skins
macerated in water.
In all the best wines hitherto described the
grapes are supposed to have been gathered as
soon as they were fully ripe and fermentation
to have run its full course. But a great variety
of sweet wines were manufactured by checking
the fermentation, or by partially drying the
grapes, or by converting them completely into
raisins. The y\vicës oivos of the Geoponic
writers (vii. 19) belongs to the first class. Must
obtained in the ordinary manner was thrown
into the dolia, which remained open for three
days only and were then partially covered for
two more ; a small aperture was left until the
seventh day, when they were luted up. If the
wine was wished to be still sweeter, the dolia
were left open for five days and then at once
closed. The free admission of air being neces-
sary for brisk fermentation, and this usually
continuing for nine days, it is evident that it
would proceed weakly and imperfectly under
the above circumstances. For the Vinum Dulce
of Columella (xii. 27) the grapes were to be
dried in the sun for three days after they were
gathered, and trodden on the fourth during the
full fervour of the mid-day heat. The mustum
licivum alone was to be used, and after the
fermentation was finished an ounce of well-
ground iris-root was added to each 50 sextarii;
the wine was racked off from the lees, and was
found to be sweet, sound, and wholesome
(Colum. l.c.). For the Vinum Diachytum, more
luscious still, the grapes were exposed to the
sun for seven days upon hurdles (Plin. H. N.
xiv. § 84).
Lastly, Passum or raisin-wine was made from
grapes which were dried in the sun until they had
lost half their weight, or plunged into boiling
oil, which produced a similar effect, or the
bunches after they were ripe were allowed to
hang for some weeks upon the vine, the stalks
being twisted or an incision made into the pith
of the bearing shoot so as to put a stop to vege-
tation. The stalks and stones were removed,
the raisins were steeped in must or good wine,
and then trodden or subjected to the gentle
action of the press. The quantity of juice
which flowed forth was measured, and an equal
quantity of water added to the pulpy residuum,
which was again pressed and the product em-
ployed for an inferior passum called secundarium,
an expression exactly analogous to the Sevrépuos
mentioned above. The passum of Crete was
most prized (Mart. xiii. 106; Juv. xiv. 270),
and next in rank were those of Cilicia, Africa,
Italy, and the neighbouring provinces. The kinds
known as Psithium or Psythium and Melam-
psythium possessed the peculiar flavour of the
grape and not that of wine; the Scybelites from
Galatia and the Aluntium from Sicily in like
manner tasted like must. The grapes most suit-
able for passum were those which ripened early,
especially the varieties Apiana (called by the
Greeks Psithia) and Scripula (Geopon. vii. 18;
Colum. xii. 39; Plin. H. N. xiv. § 8; Verg.
Georg. ii. 93; Stat. Silv. iv. 9, 38). Passum
was known to Plautus (Pseud. 741).
The Greeks recognised three colours in wines:
red (préxas), white, i.e. pale straw-colour
(Aevkós), and brown or amber-coloured (kijós).
(Athen. i. p. 32 c.) Pliny distinguishes four:
albus answering to Asukás, fulvus to kippás,
while uéAas is subdivided into sanguineus and
niger, the former being doubtless applied to
bright glowing wines like Tent and Burgundy,
while the niger or ater (Plaut. Menaech. 915)
would resemble Port. (Ussing on v. 900 is
probably wrong in regarding the epithet as an
intentionally absurd one. In modern Greek
red wine is called kpaol uavpá.) In the ordinary
Greek authors the epithet épubpos is as common
as piéAas, and will represent the sanguineus.
We have seen that wine intended for keeping
was racked off from the dolia into amphorae.
When. it was necessary in the first instance to
transport it from one place to another, or when
carried by travellers on a journey, it was put
into bags made of goat-skin (āorkot, wtres), well
pitched over so as to make the seams perfectly
tight. (Cf. the commentators on Matt. ix. 17 =
Mark ii. 22, Luke v. 37, and especially Tristram,
Nat. Hist. Bib. p. 92.) The cut below, from a
bronze found at Herculaneum (Mus. Borbon.
vol. iii. tav. 28), exhibits a Silenus astride upon
Silenus on a wine-skin. (Mus. Borbon.)
one of them. When the quantity was large, a
number of hides were sewn together, and the
leathern tun thus constructed carried from
place to place in a cart, as shown in the illus-

966 WINUM
WINUM
tration under AMPHORA. (Compare Lucian,
Lea. 6.)
Among the ancients recourse was had to
various devices for preventing or correcting
acidity, heightening the flavour, and increasing
the durability of the inferior kinds of wine.
This subject was reduced to a regular system by
the Greeks: Pliny, xiv. § 120, mentions four
authors who had written formal treatises, and
the authors of the Geoponic collection, together
with Cato, Varro, and Columella, supply a
multitude of precepts upon the same topic.
The object in view was accomplished sometimes
by merely mixing different kinds of wine to-
gether, but more frequently by throwing, into
the dolia or amphorae various condiments or
seasonings (&prügels, medicamina, conditurae).
When two wines were mixed together, those
were selected which possessed opposite good
qualities and defects (Athen. i. p. 32, 6). Con-
noisseurs, however, justly valued most those
wines which needed no such treatment (Col. xii.
19, 2; Plin. xxiii. § 45).
The principal substances employed as condi-
turae were—1. sea-water; 2. turpentine, either
pure, or in the form of pitch (pia), tar (pia,
liquida), or resin (resina); 3. lime, in the form
of gypsum, burnt marble, or calcined shells;
4. inspissated must ; 5. aromatic herbs, spices,
and gums: and these were used either singly,
or cooked up into a great variety of complicated
confections.
We have already seen that it was customary
to line the interior of both the dolia and the
amphorae with a coating of pitch; but besides
this it was common to add this substance, or
resin, in powder, to the must during the fer-
mentation, from a conviction that it not only
rendered the wine more full-bodied, but also
communicated an agreeable bouquet, together
with a certain degree of raciness or piquancy
(Plin. N. H. xiv. § 124; Plutarch, Symp. v. 3).
In Greece the peasants still drink little but
pergivató, which is supposed to be a wholesome
corrective to bad food. Wine of this sort, how-
ever, when new (novicium resinatum) was ac-
counted unwholesome and apt to induce head-
ache and giddiness (Plin. xxiii. § 46). From
this circumstance it was denominated crapula.
It was found to be serviceable in checking the
fermentation of the must when too violent.
It must be remembered, that when the vinous
fermentation is not well regulated, it is apt to
be renewed, in which case a fresh chemical
change takes place, and the wine is converted
into winegar (ěšos, acetum), and this acid, again,
if exposed to the air, loses its properties and
becomes perfectly insipid, in which form it was
called vappa by the Romans, who used the word
figuratively for a worthless blockhead.
Now the great majority of inferior wines,
being thin and watery, and containing little
alcohol, are constantly liable to undergo these
changes, and hence the disposition to acescence
was closely watched and combated as far as
possible. With this view those substances were
thrown into the dolia which it was known
would neutralise any acid which might be
formed, such as vegetable ashes, which contain
an alkali, gypsum, and pure lime, besides which
we find a long list of articles, which must be
regarded as preventives rather than correctives,
such as the various preparations of turpentine
already noticed, almonds, raisins steeped in
must, parched salt, goat's milk, cedar-cones,
gall-nuts, blazing pine-torches, or red-hot irons
quenched in the liquid, and a multitude of
others (Geopon. vii. 12, 15, 16, &c.). But in
addition to these, which are all harmless, we
find some traces of the use of the highly poi-
sonous salts of lead for the same purpose
(Geopon. vii. 19), a practice which produced the
most fatal consequences in the Middle Ages, and
was prohibited by a series of the most stringent
enactments. (See Beckmann's History of Inven-
tions, vol. i. p. 396, trans.)
Defrutum also was employed to a great extent;
but being itself liable to turn sour, it was not
used until its soundness had been tested by
keeping it for a year. It was then introduced,
either in its simple state, in the proportion of a
sextarius to the amphora—that is, of 1 to 48—or
it was combined with a great variety of aroma-
tics, according to a prescription furnished by
Columella (xii. 20). In this receipt, and others
of the same kind, the various herbs were in-
tended to give additional efficacy to the nourish-
ing powers of the defrutum, and great pains
were taken to prevent them from affecting the
taste of the wine. But from a very early
period it was customary to flavour wines highly
by a large admixture of perfumes, plants, and
spices. We find a spiced drink (é àpapdraw
kataakeva(duevos) noticed under the name of
Tpſuua by Athenaeus and the writers of the
New Comedy (Athen. i. p. 31 e : Pollux, vi. 18),
and for the whole class Pliny has the general
term aromatites (xiv. § 107).
There was another and very numerous family
of wines, entitled oivo i öyielvoſ, into which
drugs were introduced to produce medicinal
effects. Such were vinum marrubii (horehound)
for coughs; the scillites (squill-wine), to assist
digestion, promote expectoration, and act as a
general tonic; absinthites (wine of wormwood),
corresponding to the modern vermuth, and above
all the myrtites (myrtle-berry wine), which
possessed innumerable virtues (Columell. xii.
32–39; Geopon. viii. 1, &c.).
Pliny, under the head of vina ficticia, includes
not only the oivot tryielvoi, but a vast number of
others bearing a strong analogy to our British
home-made wines, such as cowslip, ginger, elder-
berry, and the like; and as we manufacture
champagne out of gooseberries, so the Italians
had their imitations of the costly vintages of
the most favoured Asiatic isles. These vint
Jicticia were, as may be imagined, almost count-
less, every variety of fruit, flower, vegetable,
shrub, and perfume being put in requisition :
figs, cornels, medlars, roses, asparagus, parsley,
radishes, laurels, junipers, cassia, cinnamon,
saffron, nard, malobathrum, afford but a small
sample. It must be remarked, that there was
one material difference between the method
followed by the Greeks and that adopted by the
Romans in cooking these potions. The former
included the drug, or whatever it might be, in
a bag, which was suspended in a jar of wine,
and allowed to remain as long as was thought
necessary ; the latter mixed the flavouring in-
gredient with the sweet must, and fermented
them together, thus obtaining a much more
powerful extract; and this is the plan pursued
WINUM
WINUM 967
for British wines, except that we are obliged
to substitute sugar and water for grape-juice
(Geopon. viii. 32, 33, 34; Plin. H. N. xiv.
§ 98 ft. ; Colum. ll. cc.; Cato, R. R. 114, 115).
But not only were spices, fragrant roots,
leaves, and gums steeped in wine or incorporated
during fermentation, but even the precious per-
fumed essential oils (unguenta) were mixed with
it before it was drunk. The Greeks were ex-
ceedingly partial to this kind of drink (Aelian,
W. H. xii. 31). We also learn from Aelian
(l. c.) that it was named uváštvírms, which
seems to be the same with the plugfiſvns of
Poseidippus (Athen. i. p. 32 b), the pºváñívm of
Hesychius, the pavpivns of Pollux (vi. 2), and
the murrina of Plautus (Pseudol. 745; compare
nardini amphoram, Miles Gl. 824; Paul. D., s. vy.
Murrata potio and Murrina). Others, however,
take the murrina to be identical with myrtites,
i.e. wine either made from myrtle-berries or
with an infusion of them (Col. l. c.; cf. Ussing
ad loc.). The Romans were not slow to follow
the example set them, valuing bitterness so
highly, says Pliny (H. N. xiii. § 25), that they
were resolved to enjoy costly perfumes with two
senses; and hence the expressions foliata sitire
in Martial (xiv. 110) and perfusa mero spumant
wngwenta Falerno in Juvenal (vi. 303).
In a more primitive age we detect the same
fondness for the admixture of something ex-
traneous. Hecamede, when preparing a draught
for Nestor, fills his cup with Pramnian wine,
over which she grates goat-milk cheese and
sprinkles the whole with flour (Il. xi. 638), the
latter being a common addition at a much later
epoch (Athen. x. p. 432). So also the draught
administered by Circe (Od. x. 234) consisted of
wine, cheese, barley-meal, and honey; and
according to Theophrastus (Athen. i. p. 32 a)
the wine drunk in the prytaneum of the
Thasians was rendered delicious by their throw-
ing into the jar which contained it a cake of
wheaten flour"kneaded up with honey. (Com-
pare Plut. Symp. i. 1, 4.)
This leads us on to notice the most generally
popular of all these compound beverages, the
oiváueAt of the Greeks, the mulsum of the
Romans. This was of two kinds; in the one
honey was mixed with wine, in the other with
must. The former was said to have been
invented by the legendary hero Aristaeus, the
first cultivator of bees (Plin. xiv. § 53), and
was considered most perfect and palatable when
made of some old rough (austerum) wine, such
as Massic or Falernian (although Horace objects
to the latter for this purpose, Sat. ii. 4, 24), and
new Attic honey (Mart. iv. 13, xiii. 108; Dio-
scor. v. 16; Macrob. Sat. vii. 12). The propor-
tions as stated in the Geoponic collection were
four, by measure, of wine to one of honey; and
various spices and perfumes, such as myrrh,
cassia, costum, malobathrum, nard, and pepper,
might be added. The second kind, the oenomelum
of Isidore (Orig. xx. 3, § 11), according to the
Greek authorities (Geopon. viii. 26), was made
of must evaporated to one-half of its original
bulk, Attic honey being added in the proportion
of one to ten. This, therefore, was merely a
very rich fruit syrup, in no way allied to wine.
The virtues of mulsum are detailed by Pliny
(H. N. xxii. § 60; cf. Geopon. l.c.); it was
considered the most appropriate draught upon
an empty stomach, and was therefore swallowed
immediately before the regular business of a
repast began (Hor. Sat. ii. 4, 25; Senec. Ep.
122; Petron. 34), and hence the whet (gustatio)
coming before the cup of mulsum was called
the promulsis (Cic. ad Fam. ix. 16, 8, and 20, 1).
We infer from Plautus (Bacch. 967, 1071; coni-
pare Liv. xxxviii. 55, 2) that mulsum was given
at a triumph by the Imperator to his soldiers.
Illulsum (Sc. viiium) or oiváuex, is perfectly
distinct from muſsa (Sc. aqua). The latter, or
mead, being made of honey and water mixed and
fermented, is the uéAikparov or ööpánext of the
Greeks (Geopon. viii. 28; Dioscorid. v. 9; Col.
xii. 12,33, Isidor. Orig. xx. 3, § 10; Plin. H. N.
xiv. § 113), although Pollux confounds (vi. 2)
*Atºparov...with oiváuext. Again, 56péanxo,
(Geopon, viii. 27) or hydromelum (Isidor. Örij.
xx. 3, § 11) was cider; āśānext (Plin. H. W. xiv.
§ 114) was a compound of vinegar, honey, salt,
and pure water, boiled together and kept for a
long time; 5056aeal was a mere confection of
expressed juice of rose-leaves and honey (Geopon.
viii. 29).
The ancients considered old wine not only
more grateful to the palate but also more whole-
some and invigorating (Athen. i. p. 26 a ; ii.
p. 36 e). Generally speaking, the Greek wines
do not seem to have required a long time to
ripen (cf. Theocr. vii. 147). Nestor in the
Odyssey, indeed, drinks wine ten years old (iii.
391), and wine kept for sixteen years is inci-
dentally mentioned by Athenaeus (xiii. p. 584 b);
but the connoisseurs under the Empire pro-
nounced that all transmarine wines arrived at
a moderate degree of maturity (ad vetustatem
mediam) in six or seven (Plin. xiv. 79). Many
of the Italian varieties, however, as we shall see
below, required to be kept for twenty or twenty-
five years before they were drinkable (which is
now considered ample for our strongest ports),
and even the humble growths of Sabinum were
stored up for from four to fifteen (Hor. Carm.
i. 9, 7; Athen. i. p. 26). Hence it became a
matter of importance to hasten, if possible, the
natural process. This was attempted in various
ways: sometimes by elaborate condiments
(Geopon. vii. 24), sometimes by sinking vessels
containing the must in the sea, by which an
artificial mellowness was induced (praecoa,
vetustas), and the wine in consequence termed
thalassites (Plin. H. N. xiv. § 78); but more
usually by the application of heat (Plut. Symp.
v. 3). Thus it was customary to expose the
amphorae for some years to the full fervour of
the sun's rays, or to construct the apothecae in
such a manner as to be exposed to the hot air
and smoke of the bath-furnaces (Colum. i. 6,
20); and hence the name fumaria applied to
such apartments, and the phrases fumosos,
fumum bibere, fuligine testae in reference to the
wines (Tibull. ii. 1, 26; Hor. Carm. iii. 8, 11 ;
Juv. v. 35). If the operation was not conducted
with care, and the amphorae not stoppered down
perfectly tight, a disagreeable effect would be
produced on the contents, and it is in conse-
quence of such carelessness that Martial pours
forth his maledictions on the fumaria of Mar-
seilles (x. 36; iii. 82, 22; xiii. 123).
The year B.C. 121 is said to have been a season
singularly favourable for all the productions of
the earth; from the great heat of the autumn
968 WINUM
VINUM
the wine was of an unprecedented quality, and
remained long celebrated as the Vinum Opi-
mianum, from L. Opimius the consul of that
year, who slew C. Gracchus. (Cic. Brut. 83,
287; Mart. i. 26, 5, &c.) A great quantity
had been treasured up and sedulously preserved,
so that samples were still in existence in the
aays of the elder Pliny, nearly two hundred
years afterwards. It was reduced, he says, to
the consistence of rough honey, and, like other
very old wines, so strong and harsh and bitter
as to be undrinkable until largely diluted with
water. Such wines, however, he adds, were
useful for flavouring others when mixed in small
quantities (xiv. §§ 55, 94).
Our most direct information with regard to
the price of common wine in Italy is derived
from Columella (iii. 3, § 10), who reckons that
the lowest market price of the most ordinary
quality was 300 sesterces for 40 urnae; that is,
15 sesterces for the amphora, or 6d. a gallon
nearly. At a much earlier date, the triumph
of L. Metellus during the First Punic War (B.C.
250), wine was sold at the rate of 8 asses the
amphora (Varro, ap. Plin. H. N. xviii. § 17), but
this is quoted as an instance of extraordinary
cheapness, and in the year B.C. 89 the censors
P. Licinius Crassus and L. Julius Caesar issued a
proclamation that no one should sell Greek and
Aminean wine at so high a rate as 8 asses the
amphora; but this was probably intended as a
prohibition to their being sold at all, in order to
check the taste then beginning to display itself
for foreign luxuries, for we find that at the
same time they positively forbade the use of
exotic unguents (Plin. H. N. xiv. § 95, xiii. § 24).
The price of native wine at Athens was four
drachmas for the metretes—that is, about 4%d.
the gallon—when necessaries were dear, and
Boeckh considers that we may assume one-half of
this sum as the average of cheaper times. In
fact, we find in an agreement in Demosthenes
(in Lacrit. p. 928) 3000 jars (kepdula) of Men-
daean wine, which we know was used at the
most sumptuous Macedonian entertainments
(Athen. iv. p. 129 d), valued at 600 drachmas.
If the kepdulov is rightly estimated as about
two-thirds of the épºqopečs, and as holding
nearly six gallons, this gives little more than
2d. a gallon; but still more astonishing is the
marvellous cheapness of Lusitanian wine, of
which more than ten gallons were sold for 3d.
Of course we must remember that the purchasing
power of money was far higher then than at
present. On the other hand, high prices were
given freely for the varieties held in esteem,
since, as early as the time of Socrates, a metretes
of Chian sold for a mina (Plut. de Anim. Tran-
quill. 10; Boeckh, P. E., Book i. c. xvi.).
With respect to the way in which wine was
drunk, and the customs observed by the Greeks
and Romans at their drinking entertainments,
the reader is referred to the article SYMPOSIUM.
It now remains for us to name the most
esteemed wines, and to point out their localities;
but our limits will allow us to enumerate none
but the most celebrated. As far as those of
Greece are concerned, our information is scanty ;
since in the older writers we find but a small
number defined by specific appellations, the
general term oivos usually standing alone with-
out any distinguishing epithet. The wine of
most early celebrity was that which the minister
of Apollo, Maron, who dwelt upon the skirts of
Thracian Ismarus, gave to Ulysses. It was red
(épv6póv), and honey-sweet (weatmöéa): so
precious, that it was unknown to all in the
mansion, save the wife of the priest and one
trusty housekeeper; so strong, that a single cup
was mingled with twenty of water; so fragrant,
that even when thus diluted it diffused a divine
and most tempting perfume (9d. ix. 208).
Pliny (H. N. xiv. § 54) asserts that wine was
produced in the same region in his own day,
which would bear eight times its own amount
of water. Homer mentions also more than
once (Il. xi. 638; Od. x. 234) Pramnian wine
(oivos IIpăuvetos), an epithet which is variously
interpreted by certain different writers (Athen.
i. p. 22 f). The Scholiast on Il. l. c. explains
that it got its name from a hill in Caria. . It
seems to have been rather the name of a kind of
vine. (Cf. Ebeling, Lex. Hom. s. v.) In after-
times a wine bearing the same name was pro-
duced in the island of Icaria, around the hill
village of Latorea, in the vicinity of Ephesus,
in the neighbourhood of Smyrna near the shrine
of Cybele, and in Lesbos (Athen. i. p. 30 c, &c.;
Plin. xiv. § 54). The Pramnian of Icaria, is
characterised by Eparchides as dry (akampás),
harsh (abornpös), astringent and remarkably
strong,-qualities which, according to Aristo-
phanes, rendered it particularly unpalatable to
the Athenians (Athen. i. p. 30 c).
But the wines of greatest renown during the
brilliant period of Grecian history and after the
Roman conquest were grown in the islands of
Thasos, Lesbos, Chios, and Cos, and in a few
favoured spots on the opposite coast of Asia
(Strabo, xiv. p. 637), such as the slopes of Mount
Tmolus, the ridge which separates the valley of
the Hermus from that of the Cayster (Plin. v.
§ 110; Verg. Georg. ii. 97; Ovid, Met. vi. 15);
Mount Messogis, which divides the tributaries
of the Cayster from those of the Maeander
(Strabo, xiv. p. 650); the volcanic region of the
Catacecaumene (Vitruv. iii. 3), which still re-
tains its fame (Keppel’s Travels, ii. p. 355); the
environs of Ephesus (Dioscorid. v. 12), of Cnidus
(Athen. i. p. 29 a), of Miletus (Athen. l. c.), and
of Clazomenae (Plin. xiv. § 73 f). Among these
the first place seems to have been by general
consent conceded to the Chian, of which the
most delicious varieties were brought from the
heights of Ariusium, in the central parts (Verg.
Ecl. v. 71; Plin. H. N. xiv. § 73; Silius, vii.
210), and from the promontory of Phanae at the
southern extremity of the island (Verg. Georg.
ii. 98). The Thasian and Lesbian occupied the
second place, and the Coan disputed the palm
with them (Athen. i. pp. 28, 29, &c.). In Lesbos
the most highly prized vineyards were around
Mytilene (Athen. i. p. 30 b ; iii. p. 86 e, p. 92 d),
and Methymna (Athen. viii. p. 363 b : Pausan.
x, 19; Verg. Georg. ii. 89; Ovid, Ar. Am. i. 57).
Pliny (xiv. § 73), who gives the preference over
all others to the Clazomenian because it was
least flavoured with brine, says that the Lesbian
had naturally a taste of salt water, while the
epithet “innocens,” applied by Horace (Carm. i.
17, 21), seems to point out that it was light and
wholesome.
It may here be observed that there is no
foundation whatever for the remark that the
VINUM
WINUM 969
finest Greek wines, especially the products of the
islands in the Aegean and Ionian seas, belonged
for the most part to the luscious sweet class.
The very reverse is proved by the epithets
aiornpós, orkXmpás, Aerrós, and the like, applied
to a great number, while y\vkös and y\vicógov
are designations comparatively rare, except in
the vague language of poetry. “Vinum omne
dulce minus odoratum,” says Pliny (H. N. xiv.
$80), and the ancients appear to have been fully
sensible that sweet wines could not be swallowed
either with pleasure or safety, except in small
quantities. The mistake has arisen from not
perceiving that the expressions oivos YAvki’s and
oivos jöös are by no means necessarily synony-
mous. The former signifies wine positively sweet,
the latter wine agreeable to the taste from
the absence of acidity, in most cases indicating
nothing more than sound wine.
It is well known that all the most, noble
Italian wines, with a very few exceptions, were
derived from Latium and Campania, and for the
most part grew within a short distance of the
sea. “The whole of these places,” says Strabo
(v. p. 234), when describing this coast, “ yield
excellent wine; among the most celebrated are
the Caecuban, the Fundanian, the Setinian, and
so also are the Falernian, the Alban, and the
Statinian.” But the classification adopted by
Pliny (xiv. § 59 f.) will prove our best guide,
and this we shall follow to a certain extent.
In the first rank, then, we must place the
Setinum, which fairly deserves the title of
Imperial, since it was the chosen beverage of
Augustus and most of his courtiers. It grew
upon the hills of Setia, above Forum Appii, look-
ing down upon the Pomptine marshes. (“Pen-
dula Pomptinos quae spectat Setia campos,”
Mart. xiii. 112 ; see also vi. 86, ix. 3, x. 74, xiii.
112 ; Juv. v. 34; Silius, viii. 378; Plin. H. W.
l. c.) Before the age of Augustus the Caecubum
was the most prized of all. It grew in the
poplar swamps bordering on the gulf of Amyclae,
close to Fundi (Mart. xiii. 115). In the time of
Pliny its reputation was entirely gone, partly
in consequence of the carelessness of the culti-
vators, and partly from its proper soil, origin-
ally a very limited space, having been cut up
by the canal of Nero extending from Baiae to
Ostia. Cf. Plin. xxiii. § 35: “Caecuba jam non
gigmuntur.” The name, however, continued to
be used for any first-class wine (Galen, x. p. 834).
Galen (Athen. i. p. 27 a) represents it as gene-
rous, full-bodied, and heady, not arriving at
maturity until it had been kept for many years
(Plin. l.c.; Strabo, v. p. 231; Mart. xiii. 115;
Hor. Carm. i. 20, 9, iii. 23, 2, &c.).
The second rank was occupied by the Faler-
num, of which the Faustianum was the most
choice variety, having gained its character from
the care and skill exercised in the cultivation
of the vines; but when Pliny wrote, it was be-
ginning to fall in public estimation, in conse-
quence of the growers being more solicitous
about quantity than quality. The Falernus
ager, concerning the precise limits of which
there have been many controversies, commenced
at the Pons Campanus, on the left hand of
those journeying towards the Urbana Colonia of
Sulla (cf. Dict. Geog. s. v.); the Faustianus
ager at a village about six miles from Sinuessa,
so that the whole district in question may
be regarded as stretching from the Massic
hills to the river Vulturnus. Falernian be-
came fit for drinking in ten years, and might
be used when twenty years old, but when kept
longer gave headaches, and proved injurious
to the nervous system (Plin. xxiii. § 34). Pliny
distinguishes three kinds, the rough (austerum),
the sweet (dulce), and the thin (tenue); Galen
(ap. Athen. i. p. 26 c) two only, the rough
(avarmpus) and the sweetish (y\vkóſov). When
the south wind prevailed during the season of
the vintage, the wine was sweetish and darker
in colour (ueAdvrepos); but if the grapes were
gathered during weather of a different de-
scription, it was rough and tawny or amber-
coloured (kijñós). The ordinary appearance
of Falernian, which has been made a theme of
considerable discussion, seems to be determined
by a passage in Pliny (H. N. xxxvii. § 47), in
which we are informed that the finest amber
was named Falerna. Others arranged the varie-
ties differently ; that which grew upon the hill-
tops they called Caucinum, that on the middle
slopes Faustianum, that on the plain Falernum
(Plin. l.c.; Athen. i. p. 26 c ; Hor. Carm. i. 20,
10; Prop. iv. 6; Martial, ix. 95; Silius, vii.
159). It was unknown to Plautus and Cato,
but occurs in Catullus and Varro.
In the third rank was the Albanum, from the
Mons Albanus (Mons Iuleus, Mart. xiii. 109), of
various kinds, very sweet (praedulce), sweetish
(YAvkdºwv), rough (Plin. xxiii. § 36), and sharp
(ópºparcías); it was invigorating (nervis utile),
and in perfection after being kept for fifteen
years (Plin. ll. cc.; Mart. xiii. 109; Hor. Sat.
ii. 8, 14; Juv. v. 33; Athen. i. p. 26 d). Here
too we place the Surrentinum, from the pro-
montory forming the southern horn of the bay
of Naples, which was not drinkable until it had
been kept for five-and-twenty years; for, being
destitute of richness (āAirls) and very dry
(Waqapós), it required a long time to ripen, but
was strongly recommended to convalescents, on
account of its thinness and wholesomeness.
Galen, however, was of opinion that it agreed
with those only who were accustomed to use it
constantly ; Tiberius was wont to say that the
physicians had conspired to dignify what was
only generous vinegar; while his successor,
Gaius Caesar, styled it nobilis vappa (Plin. xiv.
§ 64; Athen. l.c.). Of equal reputation were
the Massicum, from the hills which formed
the boundary between Latium and Campania,
although somewhat harsh, as would seem, from
the precautions recommended by the epicure in
Horace (Sat. ii. 4, 51 : cf. Carm. i. 1, 19; i. 7,
21; iii. 21 ;-Mart. xiii. 111; Silius, vii. 207),
and the Gauranum, from the ridge above Baiae
and Puteoli, produced in small quantity, but of
very high quality, full-bodied (strovos) and
thick (tréxus). (Athen. l.c.; Plin. xiv. § 63: cf.
iii. § 60 ; Flor. iii. 5.) In the same class are to
be included the Calenum from Cales, and the Fun-
danum from Fundi. Both had formerly held a
higher place, “but vineyards,” moralises Pliny
(xiv. § 65), “as well as states, have their periods
of rise, of glory, and of fall.” The Calenum
was light (Kojpos), and better for the stomach
than Falernian; the Fundanum was full-bodied
(etrovos) and nourishing, but apt to attack both
stomach and head; therefore little sought after
at banquets (Strabo, v. p. 234; Athen. i. p. 27a;
970 VINUM
WINUM
Hor. Carm. i. 31, 9; Juv. i. 69; Mart. x. 35,
xiii. 113). This list is closed by the Veliternum,
Privermas, and Signinum, from Velitrae, Pri-
vernum, and Signia, towns on the Volscian hills:
the first was a sound wine, but had this pecu-
liarity, that it always tasted as if mixed with
some foreign substance; the second was thin
and pleasant ; the last was looked upon only in
the light of a medicine, valuable for its astrin-
gent qualities (Athen. i. p. 27 b : Plin. l. c. ;
Mart. xiii. 116). We may safely bring in one
more, the Formianum, from the gulf of Caieta
(“Laestrygonia Bacchus in amphora,” Hor. Carm.
iii. 16, 34), associated by Horace with the Cae-
cuban, Falernian, and Calene (Hor. Carm. i. 20),
and compared by Galen (ap. Athen. i. p. 26 e)
to the Privernas and Rheginum, but richer
(Attraporépos), and ripening quickly.
The fourth rank contained the Mamertinum,
from the neighbourhood of Messana, first brought
into fashion by Julius Caesar (Mart. xiii. 117).
The finest, called Potitianum ('IwraNºvos, Athen.
i. p. 27 d), from the fields nearest to the main
land, was sound (#50s), light, and at the same
time not without body. The Tauromenitanum
was frequently substituted fraudulently for the
Mamertinum, which it resembled (Athen. i.
p. 27 d: Plin. l.c.).
The wine of Etruria was proverbially bad,
even that of the Mons Vaticanus (Mart. i. 26,6;
vi. 92, 3, &c.). At Ravenna wine was very cheap
and abundant (Mart. iii. 56, 57), and the
Rhaetian wine of Verona was famous (Verg.
Georg. ii. 96; Plin. xiv. § 67).
Of the wines in Southern Gaul, that of Baeter-
rae alone bore a high character. The rest were
looked upon with suspicion, in consequence of
the notorious frauds of the dealers in the Pro-
vince, who carried on the business of adultera-
tion to a great extent, and did not scruple to
have recourse to noxious drugs. Among other
things, it was known that they purchased aloes,
to heighten the flavour and improve the colour
of their merchandise, and conducted the process
of artificial ripening so unskilfully as to impart
a taste of smoke, which called forth, as we have
seen above, the malediction of Martial on the
fumaria of Marseilles (Plin. H. N. xiv. § 68).
The produce of the Balearic isles was com-
pared to the first growths of Italy, and the
same praise was shared by the vineyards of
Tarraco and Lauron, while those of the Laletani
were not so much famed for the quality as for
the abundance of their supply (Plin. H. N. xiv.
§ 71; Mart. xiii.118; Silius, iii. 370).
Returning to the East, several districts of
Pontus, Paphlagonia, and Bithynia, Lampsacus
on the Hellespont, Telmessus in Caria, Cyprus,
Tripolis, Berytus, and Tyre, all claimed dis-
tinction; and above all the Chalybonium, origin-
ally from Beroea, but afterwards grown in the
neighbourhood of Damascus also, was the chosen
and only drink of the Great King (Plin. H. N.
xiv. § 73; Geopon. v. 2; Athen. i. p. 28 d.), to
which we may join the Babylonium, called nectar
by Chaereus (Athen. i. p. 29 f), and the Bö8Awos
from Phoenicia, which found many admirers
(Athen. i. p. 29 b). The last is spoken of else-
where as Thracian, or Grecian, or Sicilian, which
may have arisen from the same grape having
been disseminated through these countries.
(Compare Herod. ii. 35; Athen. i. p. 31 a.)
Passing on, in the last place, to Egypt, where,
according to Hellanicus, the vine was first dis-
covered, the Mareoticum, from near Alexandria,
demands our attention. It is highly extolled by
Athenaeus, being white, sweet, fragrant, light
(Aerrós), circulating quickly through the frame,
and not flying to the head; but superior even to
this was the Taenioticum, so named from a long
narrow sandy ridge (raivta) near the western
extremity of the Delta; it was aromatic,
slightly astringent, and of an oily consistency,
which disappeared when it was mixed with
water : besides these we hear of the Sebennyti-
cum, and the wine of Antylla, a town not far
from Alexandria. Advancing up the valley, the
wine of the Thebais, and especially of Coptos,
was so thin and easily thrown off that it could
be given without injury to fever patients; and
ascending through Nubia we reach Meroë, whose
wine has been immortalised by Lucan (Athen. i.
p. 33 f; Strab. xvii. p. 799; Hor. Carm. i. 37,
14; Verg. Georg. ii. 91; Lucan, x. 162; Plin.
H. N. xiv. § 74). Martial appears to have held
them all very cheap, since he pronounces the
vinegar of Egypt better than its wine (xiii. 122).
We'read of several wines which received their
designation, not from the region to which they
belonged, but from the particular kind of grape
from which they were made, like the Pramnian,
or from some circumstance connected with their
history or qualities. Names belonging to the
former class were in all likelihood bestowed
before the most favoured districts were generally
known, and before the effects produced upon the
vine, by change of soil and climate, had been
accurately observed and studied. After these
matters were better understood, habit and
mercantile usage would tend to perpetuate the
ancient appellation. Thus, down to a late
period, we hear of the Aminneum (’Aulvalos
oivos, Hesych.), from the Aminnea vitis, which
held the first place among vines, and embraced
many varieties, carefully discriminated and
cultivated according to different methods (Plin.
H. N. xiv. § 46; Cato, R. R. 6 and 7; Colum.
iii. 2, § 7; 9, § 3). It was of Grecian origin,
having been conveyed by a Thessalian tribe to
Italy (a story which would seem to refer to
some early migration), and reared chiefly in
Campania around Naples, and in the Falernus
ager. Its characteristic excellence was the
great body and consequent durability of its
wine (firmissima vina, Verg. Georg. ii. 97; Galen,
Meth. med, xii. 4; Geopon. viii. 22; Cels. iv. 2;
Macrob. ii. 16; Auson. Ep. xviii. 32; Seren.
Samm. xxix. 544). So, in like manner, the piðtos
oivos (Athen. i. p. 28 f), from the pióſz
&ntrexos (Colum. iii. 2, § 24), which Virgil tells
us (Georg. ii. 93) was particularly suitable for
passum, and the katvías (Smoke-wine) of Plato
the comic poet (Athen. i. p. 31 e), prepared in
greatest perfection near Beneventum, from the
k&tveos àutrexos, so named in consequence of
the clusters being neither white nor black, but
of an intermediate dusky or smoky hue (Theophr.
H. P. ii. 4, C. P. v. 3; Aristot. de Gener. iv. 4;
Plin. H. N. xiv. § 39; compare xxxvii. § 118,
on the gem Capnias).
On the other hand, the Xarpías, on whose
divine fragrance Hermippus descants in such
glowing language (Athen. i. p. 29 e), is simply
some rich wine of great age, “toothless, and
WIOCURI
VIs 971
sere, and wondrous old * (366wras oëk #xov,
#öm oratrpos . . . yépav ye Saipovías, Athen. x.
p. 441 d ; see Eustath. ad Hom. 0d. ii. 340;
Casaub. ad Athen. i. p. 29). The origin of the
title āv6oopaſas is somewhat more doubtful:
Some will have it to denote wine from a sweet-
smelling spot (Suid. s. v.); others more reason-
ably refer it to the “bouquet” of the wine
itself (Hesych. s. v.); according to Phanias of
Eresus, in one passage, it was a compound
formed by adding one part of sea-water to fifty
of must, although in another place he seems to
say, that it was wine obtained from grapes
gathered before they were ripe (Athen. i. p. 32 a ;
compare p. 462 e).
Those who desire more minute details upon
this very extensive subject may consult the
Geoponic Collection, books iii. to viii. inclusive;
the whole of the 14th book of Pliny’s Natural
Bistory, together with the first sixty sections
of the 23rd; the 12th book of Columella, with
the commentary of Schneider and others; the
2nd book of Virgil’s Georgics, with the remarks
of Heyne, Voss, and the old grammarians; Galen,
vol. vi. 334–339, xiv. 28 f.; Pollux, vi. foll.;
Athenaeus, lib. i. and lib. x.; besides which
there are a multitude of passages in other parts
of the above authors, in Cato, Varro, and in the
classics generally, which bear more or less upon
these topics.
Of modern writers we may notice particularly,
Prosper Rendella, Tractatus de Vinea, Vindemia
et Vino, Venet. 1629; Galeatius Landrinus,
Quaestio de Miatione Vini et Aquae, Ferrar.
1593; Andreas Baccius, de Naturali Winorum
Historia, &c., Rom. 1596, de Conviviis Antiquorum,
&c., Gronov. Thes. Graec. Antiq.; Sir Edward
Barry, Observations on the Wines of the Ancients,
Lond. 1775; Henderson, History of Ancient and
modern Wines, Lond. 1824. Some of the most
important facts are presented in a condensed
form in Becker-Göll's Gallus, vol. iii. pp. 412–
442, and Charikles, vol. ii. 337–352 ; and in
Marquardt, Röm. Privatalt. ii. 54–84 : cf. also
W. Hehn, Kulturpflanzen,” pp. 63–84.
[W. R.] [A. S. W.]
VIOCU'RI. [VIAE.]
VIRGAE. [FASCEs.] .
VIS. Laws were passed at Rome for the pur-
pose of making various acts of violence criminal.
The LEx PLOTIA or PLAUTIA, perhaps named
after M. Plautius Silvanus, B.C. 89, appears to
have first made vis the subject of a special
judicium publicum, crimes of violence having
previously only been punished when they could
be brought under the head of majestas or of the
crimen de sicariis et veneficis. The Lex Plautia
was enacted against those who devastated
houses, or who occupied public places and
carried arms, or who attempted to influence the
magistrates and senate by assembling bodies of
armed men (Cic. ad Att. ii. 24; de harusp. Resp.
8, 15; pro Cael. 1, 1; the dissertation of
Waechter, Neues Archiv des Criminalrechts,
vol. xiii., reprinted in Orelli Onomasticom).
Besides other subsidiary laws under the
Republic on the subject of vis, the nature of
which is doubtful, there was a Lex Julia
of the dictator Caesar, which made certain
kinds of vis subject to aquae et ignis interdictio
(Cic. Phil. i. 9, 21). Under Augustus the law
concerning vis Was the subject of two Juliae
leges, which consolidated previous enactments
and became the basis of subsequent laws. These
leges were respectively entitled de vi publica and
de vi privata. There has been considerable
difference of opinion as to the meaning of the
distinction thus made between vis publica and
vis privata. The explanation of some writers is
that vis publica was vis exercised by public per-
sons, as by magistrates, while vis privata was that
of private individuals. Another view is that vis
was publica when deadly weapons were employed,
privata when they were not. The most probable
explanation is that originally vis publica meant
such vis as was an open violation of a right of
the state; vis privata, on the other hand,
would be vis which seemed mainly to affect an
individual right, though it was made criminal
as interfering with the function of the state
in maintaining public order (cf. Rein, cit.
infr.). It is to be remembered, however, that
various acts of vis which under the Julian laws
were treated as vis privata, were subsequently
made vis publica, in order to punish them with
greater severity. Hence we find acts mentioned
by Paulus (cit. infr.) as vis privata included in
the Digest under vis publica.
The Lex de Vi Publica did not apply, as the
title might seem to import, exclusively to acts
against the public peace, and it is not possible to
define it except by enumerating its chief pro-
visions (cf. Paul. l.c.; Dig. cit. infr.). According
to the law of the Digest, it was vis publica to
collect arms (tela) in a house or in a villa
except for the purpose of hunting, or going a
journey or a voyage, the word tela , being
extensively interpreted so as to be equivalent to
arma; to attack houses with armed men; to
evict a person with an armed force (hominibus
armatis); to appear in court or in a public
assembly with arms for the purpose of intimida-
tion; for a candidate to attempt to influence an
election by assembling a mob (turba) or a gang
of slaves; to cause a mob to assemble for various
unlawful purposes; to interfere in various ways
with the due administration of justice, as by
preventing judices from exercising their functions
in security, or by forcibly hindering an accused
person from going to Rome to take his trial on
the day fixed for it (“ne quis reum vinciat
impediatve, quominus intra certum tempus
adsit''); to assault or insult ambassadors; for a
magistrate to abuse his power by causing a
Roman citizen to be tortured (cf. Acts xxiii. 25),
or to be executed without allowing an appeal to
Rome (cf. Acts xxv. 10–12); for a magistrate
to compel people to pay illegal taxes (“qui nova
vectigalia exercet”); to interfere by force with
the burial of a person ; to commit rape; to
compel a person by force to promise games or
gifts to the people, &c.
The punishment for the violation of the Lex
Julia de vi publica was aquae et ignis interdictio
(subsequently deportatio in insulam), except in
the case of attacking and plundering houses or
villas with an armed band, in which case the
punishment was death; and the penalty was the
same for carrying off a woman, married or
unmarried. The cases enumerated in the Digest
as falling within the penalties of the Lex Julia
devi privata, are cases where the act was ºf less
atrocity: for instance, if a man got a number of
men together for a riot, which ended in the
972 VIS ET WIS ARMATA
WITRUM
beating of a person, but not in his death, he
came within the penalties of the Lex de Vi
Privata.
It was also a case of vis privata when persons
assembled in order to prevent a person being
brought before the Praetor. The SENATUS-
CONSULTUM VoIUSIANUM extended the penalties
of the lex to those who maintained another in
his suit, with a view of sharing the damages
awarded to him. The penalty of the law was
also extended by imperial enactments to the
offence of wrecking ships. It was vis privata to
take the law into one's own hands by an act of
violence. Thus a creditor who entered on the
property of his debtor, which was not hypothe-
cated to him, unless under judicial authority,
was guilty of this offence. The penalties of this
lex were the loss of a third part of the offender’s
property; and he was also declared to be
incapable of being a senator, or decurio, or a
judex; by a senatusconsultum, the name of
which is not given, he was incapacitated from
enjoying any honour, quasi infamis. (Dig. 48,
6, 7; Cod. ix. 12, 13; Paul. Sent. rec. v. 26;
Rein, Das Criminalrecht der Römer, p. 732, &c.;
Walter, Geschichte d. R. R. ; Stephen, History
of the Criminal Law of England, i. pp. 16, 17.)
G. L.] [E. A. W.]
VIS ET WIS ARMATA. There was an
interdict unde vi or de vi which could be main-
tained by a man who was forcibly ejected from
the possession of a piece of ground or building
(“unde tu illum vi dejecisti restituas”) against
the person who had ejected him. The interdict
had two forms, according as to whether deadly
weapons had been used in carrying out the
ejectment or not. The interdict in the latter
case of simple violence is called by Cicero inter-
dictum quotidianum ; the interdict in case of
armed violence was known as interdictum de vi
armata. When the interdict was brought on
account of eviction by ordinary violence, the
defendant could defend himself by proving that
he himself had been previously evicted by the
plaintiff vi, clam, or precario [POSSESSIO), but he
was precluded from this defence if he had been
guilty of vis armata. By a constitution of the
Emperor Valentinian (Cod. 8, 4, 7), however, it
was provided that a person who had evicted
another by violence should in all cases restore
possessio, and, if owner, should forfeit his
property; if not owner, should forfeit the
value. Thus the plea that the plaintiff had
acquired possession vi, clam, or precario from
the defendant, was excluded in the case of vis
quotidiana as well as in that of vis armata.
(Dig. 43, 16; Gaius, iv. 154, ed. Poste; INTER-
DICTUM; POSSESSIO ; for an account of the
praetorian action de vi bonorum raptorum, see
FURTUM.) [E. A. W.]
WITRUM (§axos), glass. A singular amount
of ignorance and scepticism long prevailed with
regard to the knowledge possessed by the ancients
in the art of glass-making. Some asserted that
it was to be regarded as exclusively a modern
invention, while others, unable altogether to
resist the mass of evidence to the contrary, con-
tented themselves with believing that the sub-
stance was known only in its coarsest and rudest
form. It is now clearly demonstrated to have
been in common use at a very remote epoch.
Various specimens still in existence prove that
the manufacture had in some branches reached
a point of perfection to which recent skill has
not yet been able to attain; and although we
may not feel disposed to go so far as Winckel-
mann (i. c. 2, § 20), who contends that it was
used more generally and for a greater variety of
purposes in the old world than among ourselves,
yet when we examine the numerous collections
arranged in all great public museums, we must
feel convinced that it was employed as an ordi-
mary material for all manner of domestic utensils
by the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans.
A vitreous glaze is found in remains dating
from the earliest periods of Egyptian history,
and we find the process of glass-blowing dis-
tinctly represented in the paintings of Beni-
Hassan, which were executed during the reigns
of Usertesen the First and his immediate suc-
cessors (circa 2300 B.C.). The oldest Egyptian
glass proper which can be dated with certainty
is a vase of opaque blue glass in the British
Museum, with a design inlaid in yellow, which
includes the name of Thothmes II. (16th cent.
B.C.). Vases also, wine-bottles, drinking-cups,
bugles, and a multitude of other objects have
been discovered in sepulchres and attached to
mummies both in Upper and Lower Egypt; and
although in most cases no precise date can be
affixed to these relics, many of them are referred
to an early period. (Wilkinson, Ancient Egyp-
tians, iii.” pp. 141 f.; Deville, L’Art de la
Verrerie, pl. iii.)
The Assyrians also attained to a high degree
of skill in glass-making. The oldest piece with
a fixed date is an alabastron of bright green
glass from the North-west Palace at Nimroud,
with the name of king Sargon, B.C. 719 (Layard,
Nineveh and Babylon, p. 197; Froehner, La
Verrerie ant. p. 16). This vase is in the British
Museum.
A story has been preserved by Pliny (H. N.
xxxvi. § 191), that glass was first discovered
accidentally by some merchants who having
landed on the Syrian coast at the mouth of the
river Belus, and being unable to find stones to
support their cooking-pots, fetched for this pur-
pose from their ship some of the lumps of nitre
which composed the cargo. This being fused by
the heat of the fire, united with the sand upon
which it rested and formed a stream of vitrified
matter. The Phoenicians probably learnt the
art of glass-making from the Egyptians; but
the tale is no doubt connected with the fact re-
corded by Strabo (xvi. p. 758) and Josephus
(B. J. ii. 9), that the sand of the district in
question was esteemed peculiarly suitable for
glass-making, and exported in great quantities to
the workshops of Sidon, long the most famous
in the ancient world. (See Hamburger and
Michaelis on the Glass of the Hebrews and Phoe-
nicians, Commentar. Soc. Gott. vol. iv.; Heeren,
Ideen, i. p. 94.) Alexandria, another centre of
the industry, sustained its reputation for many
centuries; Rome derived thence a great portion
of its supplies, and as late as the reign of
Aurelian we find the manufacture still flourish-
ing (Cic. pro Rabir. Post. 14, 40; Strabo, l.c.;
Martial, xi. 11, xii. 74, xiv. 115; Vopisc. Aurel.
45; Boudet, Sur l'Art ge la Verrerie né en
Egypte; Description de l'Égypte, vol. ix. p. 213).
Glass is not mentioned in Homer, unless
Helbig’s theory is accepted that kūavos is a blue
WITRUM
WITRUM 973.
vitreous glaze (Helbig, Homerisches Epos, p. 80).
In the deposits of Mycenae and kindred sites,
numerous beads, rosettes, pendants, and other
ornaments of glass occur. Bottles, however, are
very rare; a few only having been found at
Ialysos in Rhodes.
There is some difficulty in deciding by what
Greek author glass is first mentioned, because
the term iſaxos, like the Hebrew word used in
the Book of Job (xxviii. 17) and translated in the
LXX. by taxos, unquestionably denotes not only
artificial glass, but rock-crystal, or indeed any
transparent stone or stone-like substance (Schol.
ad Aristoph. Nub. 768). Thus the ſexos of
Herodotus (iii. 24), in which the Ethiopians
encased the bodies of their dead, cannot be glass,
although understood in this sense by Chesias and
Diodorus (iii. 15), for we are expressly told that
it was dug in abundance out of the earth; and
hence commentators have conjectured that rock-
crystal or rock-salt, or amber, or Oriental ala-
baster, or some bituminous or gummy product,
might be indicated. But when the same his-
torian in his account of sacred crocodiles (ii. 69)
states that they were decorated with ear-rings
made of melted stone (&primard. Te Al6iva xvr&
kal xptorea €s r& 3ra évôévres), we may safely
conclude that he intends to describe some vitreous
ornament for which he knew no appropriate
name. The org/payls jaxtum and orºpayióe Öax{va
of an Athenian inscription referred to B.C. 398
(Boeckh, Corp. Inscr. Gr. n. 150, $50), together
with the passage in Aristophanes (Acharn. 74)
where the envoy boasts that he had been drink-
ing with the Great King é; jaxtuov ćicro-
pudºrov, are not decisive. But the early Greek
pastes with designs in intaglio, preserved in all
museums, make it highly probable that the seals
referred to above were of glass. Wessels of glass
also appear to be mentioned in the treasure lists
at the beginning of the 4th century (C. I. A. ii.
645, 646, 656). Setting aside the two problems
with regard to glass, attributed to Aristotle, as
confessedly spurious, we at length find a satis-
factory testimony in the works of his pupil and
successor, Theophrastus, who notices the circum-
stances alluded to above, of the fitness of the
sand at the mouth of the river Belus for the
fabrication of glass. Blümmer, however (Techno-
logie, iv. p. 384), questions whether glass was
manufactured in Greece itself, even in the time
of the Diadochi.
Among the Latin writers Lucretius appears to
be the first in whom the word vitrum occurs
(iv. 604, vi. 991); but it must have been well
known to his countrymen long before, for Cicero
names it, along with paper and linen, as a com-
mon article of merchandise brought from Egypt
(pro Rab. Post. 14, 40). Glass of Phoenician
importation occurs indeed in cemeteries of the
8th century, at Tarquinii (Helbig, Homerisches
Epos, p. 15). Scaurus, in his aedileship (B.C. 58),
made a display of it such as was never witnessed
even in after-times; for the scena of his gorgeous
theatre was divided into three tiers, of which
the under portion was of marble, the upper of
gilded wood, and the middle compartment of glass
(Plin. H. W. xxxvi. §§ 114, 189). In the poets of
the Augustan age it is constantly introduced,
both directly and in similes, and in such terms as
to prove that it was an object with which every
one must be familiar (e.g. Verg. Georg. iv. 350,
Aen. vii. 759; Ovid, Amor. i. 6, 55; Prop. iv. 8,
37; Hor. Carm. iii. 13, 1). Strabo declares that
in his day a small drinking-cup of glass might
be purchased at Rome for half an as (xvi. p. 758;
compare Martial, ix. 60), and so common was
it in the time of Juvenal and Martial, that old
men and women made a livelihood by bartering
sulphur matches for broken fragments (Juv. v.
48; Martial, i. 42, x. 3; Stat. Sylv. i. 6, 73;
compare Dio Cass. lvi. 17). When Pliny wrote,
manufactories had been established not only in
Italy, but in Spain and Gaul also, and glass
drinking-cups had entirely superseded those of
gold and silver (H. N. xxxvi. §§ 192–199), and
in the reign of Alexander Severus we find vitrearii
ranked along with curriers, coachmakers, gold-
Smiths, silversmiths, and other ordinary artificers
whom the emperor taxed to raise money for his
thermae (Lamprid. Alez. Sev. 24). A list of
the glass-workers whose names are known as
occurring on extant specimens, is given by
Froehner, La Verrerie antique, p. 123.
The numerous specimens transmitted to us
prove that the ancients were well acquainted
with the art of imparting a great variety of
colours to their glass; they were probably less
successful in their attempts to render it perfectly
pure and free from all colour, since we are told
by Pliny that it was considered most valuable in
this state. It was wrought according to the
different methods now practised, being fashioned
into the required shape by the blowpipe; or cut,
as we term it, although ground (teritur) is a
more accurate phrase, upon a wheel; or engraved
with a sharp tool, like silver (“aliud flatu figu-
ratur, aliud torno teritur, aliud argenti mode
caelatur,” Plin. H. N. xxxvi. § 193). The
diatreta of Martial (xii. 70) were glass cups cut
or engraved, according to one or other of the
above methods. The process was difficult, and
accidents occurred so frequently (Mart. xiv. 115)
that the jurists found it necessary to define
accurately the circumstances under which the
workman became liable for the value of the
vessel destroyed (Dig. 9, 2, 27, 29). The art of
etching upon glass, now so common, was entirely
unknown, since it depends upon the properties
of fluoric acid, a chemical discovery of the last
century.
We may now briefly enumerate the chief uses
to which glass was applied. The best idea, how-
ever, of the admirable ingenuity and skill of the
ancient glass-workers, may be obtained from
such a collection as that of the British Museum,
or the chief continental cabinets. Specimens of
the different types are finely engraved by
Froehner, La Terrerie antique (1879).
1. Bottles, vases, cups, and cinerary urns.
These specimens are extant in immense number
and variety. Many which have been shaped by
the blowpipe only, are remarkable for their
graceful form and brilliant colours. Some have
been blown out into moulds, by the blow-pipe,
and appear in the form of a bunch of grapes (cf.
Achilles Tatius, 2, 3), a shell, or a negro's head.
Others are of the most delicate and complicated
workmanship. A very remarkable object be-
longing to the last class, now in the Trivulsi
Collection at Milan, is described in the notes to
Winckelmann (i. c. 2, § 21) and figured in Vol. I.
under DIATRETA. That woodcut, however, hardly
does justice to the delicacy of the work, which is
974. WITRUM
WITRUM
better shown in the photographic plate of Adda,
Ricerche sulle Arti e sull' Industria Romana. For
a description, see DIATRETA, Vol. I., p. 626.
A small fragment of a similar vase may be seen
in the glass collection of the British Museum.
Another cup, found at Strasburg, was dated by
the name of the Emperor Maximian (286–310
A.D.). This specimen, which perished in 1870,
is engraved by Deville, L’Art de la Verrerie,
pl. xxxiii A. But the great triumph of ancient
genius in this department is the celebrated Port-
land Vase, formerly known as the Barberini Vase,
which is now in the British Museum. It was
found in the 16th century at a short distance
from Rome, in a marble coffin within a sepulchral
vault, pronounced upon very imperfect evidence
to have been the tomb of Alexander Severus.
The extreme beauty of this urn led Montfaucon
and other antiquaries to mistake it for a real
sardonyx. Upon more accurate examination it
was ascertained to be composed of dark blue
glass, of a very rich tint, on the surface of which
are delineated in relief elaborately wrought
figures of opaque white glass. [See SCALPTURA.]
With such samples before us, we need not
wonder that in the time of Nero a pair of
moderate-sized glass cups with handles (pteroti)
sometimes cost fifty pounds (HS. Sea, millibus,
Plin. H. N. xxxvi. § 195). Another method
practised with success was that of adding
coloured glasses in a fused state to a background,
in the manner of enamel. See a medallion with
a gryphon, now in the British Museum (Cata-
logue of the Slade Collection, No. 84).
2. Glass Pastes presenting fac-similes, either
in relief or intaglio, of engraved precious stones.
In this way have been preserved exact copies of
many beautiful gems, of which the originals no
longer exist, as may be seen from the catalogues
of Stosch, of Tassie, and from similar publica-
tions. These were in demand for the rings of
such persons as were not wealthy enough to
purchase real stones, as we perceive from the
phrase “vitreis gemmis ex vulgi anulis” (Plin.
B. N. xxxv. § 48). Large medallions also of
this kind are still preserved, and bas-reliefs of
considerable magnitude, which successfully imi-
tate precious materials, and in some cases the
true material has only been ascertained in quite
recent years. (See Winckelmann, i. c. 2, § 27.)
3. Closely allied to the preceding were imi-
tations of coloured precious stones, such as the
carbuncle, the Sapphire, the amethyst, and,
above all, the emerald. These counterfeits
were executed with such fidelity that detection
was extremely difficult, and great profits were
realised by dishonest dealers who entrapped the
unwary (Plin. H. W. xxxvii. § 197). That such
frauds were practised even upon the most ex-
alted in station is seen from the anecdote given
by Trebellius Pollio of the whimsical vengeance
taken by Gallienus (Gall. c. 12) on a rogue who
had cheated him in this way, and collections are
to be seen at Rome of pieces of coloured glass
which were evidently once worn as jewels, from
which they cannot be distinguished by the eye.
(Plin. H. N. xxxvii. § 98; Senec. Ep. 90; Isidor.
Orig. xvi. 15, § 27; Beckmann, History of In-
ventions, vol. i. p. 199, Eng. Trans. 3rd edit.)
4. One very elegant application of glass de-
serves to be particularly noticed. A number
of fine stalks of glass of different colours were
placed vertically, and arranged in such a manner
as to depict upon the upper surface some figure
or pattern, upon the principle of a minute
mosaic. The filaments thus combined were
then subjected to such a degree of heat as
would suffice to soften without melting them,
and were thus cemented together into a solid
mass. It is evident that the picture brought
out upon the upper surface would extend down
through the whole of the little column thus
formed, and hence, if it was cut into thin slices
at right angles to the direction of the fibres,
each of these sections would upon both sides
represent the design which would be multiplied
to an extent in proportion to the total length
of the glass threads. Further, if the column
is heated and drawn out, the design becomes
proportionately minute. When these sections
have been again fused together side by side, the
result is millefiori glass (Cat. of the Slade Col-
lection, pl. iv.). Two beautiful fragments evi-
dently constructed in this way are accurately
commented upon by Winckelmann (i. c. 2,
§§ 22–24); another, more recently brought from
Egypt, is shown in Wilkinson's work, Pl. xiv.,
figs. 5, 6, 7; cf. vol. ii. p. 146. Many mosaic
pavements and pictures (opus musivum) belong
to this head, since the cubes were frequently
composed of opaque glass as well as marble,
but these have been already discussed under
PICTURA, pp. 397 f.
5. One method of decoration employed by the
ancients consisted in enclosing designs in gold
leaf between two layers of transparent glass.
This is most common from the 3rd century A.D.,
when small Christian subjects are thus repre-
sented. Examples also occur of a good Greek
period, such as three cups from Canosa, now in
the British Museum, perhaps dating from 200
B.C., but these are very rare. The Christian
examples have been described by Garrucci, Vetri
ornati di Figure in oro dei Cristiani. In a few
rare examples, the gold leaf has been cut away
with a sharp point, in such a way as to produce
the effect of a finely-stippled drawing.
6. Thick sheets of glass of various colours
appear to have been laid down for paving floors,
and to have been attached as a lining to the
walls and ceilings of apartments in dwelling-
houses, just as scagliola is frequently employed
in Italy, and occasionally in our own country
also. Rooms fitted up in this way were called
vitreae camerae, and the panels vitreae quadra-
turae. Such was the kind of decoration intro-
duced by Scaurus for the scene of his theatre,
not columns nor pillars of glass as some, nor
bas-reliefs as others, have imagined. (Plin. H.
N. xxxvi. § 189; Stat. Syl. i. 5, 42; Senec. Ep.
76; Vopisc. Firm. c. 3; Winckelmann, i. c. 2,
§ 21; Passeri, Lucernae Fictiles, p. 67, tab.
lxxi.)
7. The question whether glass windows were
known to the ancients has, after much dis-
cussion, been set at rest by the excavations at
Pompeii, for not only have many fragments of
flat glass been disinterred from time to time,
but in the tepidarium of the public baths, a
bronze lattice came to light with some of the
panes still inserted in the frame, so as to de-
termine at once not only their existence, but
the mode in which they were secured and
arranged. (Mazois, Palais de Scaurus, c. viii.
WITTA
WITTA 975
p.97; Ruines de Pompei, vol. iii. p. 77.) A few
specimens of window glass may be seen in the
glass collection of the British Museum. [DOMUS,
Vol. I. p. 686 b.] The same collection also
contains a wooden picture-frame of late Graeco-
Egyptian origin, with a rebate for a sheet of
glass. (Petrie, Hawara, pl. xii.)
8. From the time that pure glass became
known, it must have been remarked that when
darkened upon one side, it possessed the pro-
perty of reflecting images. We are certain that
an attempt was made by the Sidonians to make
looking-glasses (Plin. H. N. xxxvi. § 193), and
equally certain that it must have failed, for the
use of metallic mirrors, which are more costly
in the first instance, which require constant
care and attain but imperfectly the end desired,
was universal under the Empire. Respecting
ancient mirrors, see SPECULUM.
9. A strange story with regard to an alleged
invention of malleable glass is found in Petro-
nius (c. 51), is told still more circumstantially
by Dio Cassius (lvii. 21), and is alluded to by
Pliny (H. N. xxxvii. § 195), with an expression
of doubt as to its truth. An artist appeared
before Tiberius with a cup of glass. This he
dashed violently upon the ground. When taken
up, it was neither broken nor cracked, but dinted
like a piece of metal. The man then produced
a mallet, and hammered it back into its original
shape. The emperor inquired whether any one
was acquainted with the secret, and was
answered in the negative, upon which the order
was given that he should be instantly beheaded,
lest the precious metals might lose their value,
should such a composition become generally
known.
Literature.— Franks in Art Treasures of the
Manchester Eaſhibition Section Vitreous Art ;
Nesbitt, Catalogue of the Slade Collection of
Glass, Notes on the History of Glass-making
(1871); Blümner, Technologie, iv. p. 379; Deville,
Hist. de l’Art de la Verrerie, 1873; Froehner,
La Verrérie antique, 1879; Marquardt and
Mommsen, Handö. d. rāmischen. Alterthümer, vol.
vii. (1886), p. 744. References to the older
literature may be found in the above works.
[W. R.] [A. H. S.]
VITTA, or plural WITTAE, a ribbon or
fillet, is to be considered (1) as an ordinary por-
tion of female dress; (2) as a decoration of
sacred persons and sacred things.
1. When considered as an ordinary portion of
female dress, it was simply a band encircling
the head, and serving to confine the tresses
(crinales vittae); the ends, when long (longae
taenia vittae), hanging down behind (Verg. Aen.
vii. 351, 403; Ovid, Met. ii. 413, iv. 6; Isidor.
xix. 31, § 6). It was worn (1) by maidens
(Verg. Aen. ii. 168; Prop. iv. 11, 34; Val.
Flacc. viii. 6; Serv. ad Verg. Aen. ii. 133);
(2) by married women also, the vitta assumed
on the nuptial day being of a different form from
that used by virgins (Ovid, Trist. ii. 252; Prop.
v. 3, 15, and 11, 34; Plaut. Mil. Gl. iii. 1, 194;
Val. Max. v. 2, § 1). From the word altera in
Prop. v. 11, 34, Marquardt is probably right in
deducing that the vitta of married women was
a double band, whereas the fillet of maidens was
single (Marquardt, Privatleben, 46; cf. Becker-
Göll, Gallus, ii. 31: for the wearing of Taſvial
by Greek brides, see Becker-Göll, Charikles, iii.
375;-Stephani, Compte Rendu, 1872, p. 192;
1874, p. 140).
The vitta was not worn by libertinae even of
fair character (Tibull. i. 6,67), much less by
meretrices; hence it was looked upon as an
insigne pudoris, and, together with the stola and
instita, served to point out at first sight the
freeborn matron (Ovid, A. A. i. 31; R. A. 386;
Trist. ii. 247; Ep. ex: Pont. iii. 3, 51).
The colour was probably a matter of choice:
white and purple are both mentioned (Ovid,
Met. ii. 413; Ciris, 511;-Stat. Achill. i. 611).
One of those represented in the cuts below is
ornamented with embroidery, and they were in
some cases set with pearls (vittae margaritarum,
Dig. 34, 2, 25, § 2).
The following woodcuts represent back and
front views of the heads of statues from Hercu-
laneum, on which we perceive the vitta (Bronz:
d'Ercolano, vol. ii. tav. 72, 75).
Vittae.
A full discussion of the dressing of the hair
and further illustration will be found under
COMA.
For raivial and vittae in Greek and Roman
funerals as used for the decoration of the dead
body and of the bier, see FUNUs, Vol. I. pp. 886,
890 (woodcut), and compare Becker-Göll, Chari-
kles, p. 122.
2. When employed for sacred purposes, it was
usually twisted round the infula [INFULA], hold-
ing together the loose flocks of wool, and
depending in streamers (Verg. Georg. iii. 487,
Aen. x. 537; Isidor. xix. 30, § 4; Serv. ad Verg.
Aen. x. 538; Lucan. v. 142). Under this form
it was employed as an ornament for (1) priests,
and those who offered sacrifice (Verg. Aen. ii.
221, x. 537; Tac. Ann. i. 57); (2) priestesses,
especially those of Vesta, and hence vittata
sacerdos for a Westal, kar’ foxhv (Verg. Aen.
vii. 418; Ovid, Fast. iii. 30, vi. 457; Juv. iv. 9,
vi. 50; WESTALEs); (3) prophets and poets,
who may be regarded as priests, and in this case
the vittae were frequently intertwined with
chaplets of olive or laurel (Verg. Aen. iii. 81,
vii. 665;-Stat. Silv. ii. 1, 26; Achill. i. 11;
Theb. iii. 466); (4) statues of deities (Verg.
Aen. ii. 168, 296; compare Stat. Silv. iii. 3, 3);
(5) victims decked for sacrifice (Verg. Georg. iii.
487, Aen. ii. 133, 156, v. 366; Ovid, Ep. ex: Pont.
iii. 2, 74; Stat. Achill. ii. 301); (6) altars (Verg.
Ecl. viii. 64, Aen. iii. 64; ARA, Vol. I. p. 158 a);
(7) temples (Prop. v. 9, 27; compare Tac.
Hist. iv. 53); (8) the ice'rmpta of suppliants
(Verg. Aen. vii. 237; viii. 128). Here the vittae
seem to have served to bind the festoons of wool
upon the branches which were borne in the
hand (Verg. Aen. vii. 237, viii. 128; Hom. Il.
i. 14; Plut. Thes. 18; Soph. O. T. 3).
The sacred vittae, as well as the infulae, were
made of wool, and hence the epithets lanea
(Ovid, Fast. iii. 30) and mollis (Verg. Ecl. viii.

976 ULNA
UNGUENTUM
64). They were white (niveae, Verg. Georg.
iii. 487; Ovid, Met. xiii. 643; Stat. Theb. iii.
466), or purple (puniceae, Prop. v. 9, 27), or
azure (caeruleae) when wreathed round an altar
to the manes (Verg. Aén. iii. 64).
[W. R.] [G. E. M.]
ULNA (&Aévm), properly the fore-arm from
the shoulder to the wrist, is also used for the
whole arm, and even for the whole span of both
arms; and hence, as a measure of length, it
appears to be used with different significations.
In most of the passages in which it occurs (Verg.
Georg. iii. 355; Ovid, Metam. viii. 750; Hor.
Epod. iv. 8) there is nothing to determine its
length, but Hultsch is probably right in taking
it to be one-third of the āpyvić, or arm-stretch
of nearly 6 feet, and therefore one-third of the
human body. Hence in Verg. Ecl. iii. 105
three ulnae = the size of the body, and so the
size of the grave of Caelius. Pliny, however,
uses it as equivalent to the épyvič, as
may be seen from H. N. xvi. § 202, xxxii.
§ 133, compared with $203 (Hultsch, Metrol.
p. 78). [P. S.] [G. E. M.]
ULTROTRIBUTA. [CENSOR, Vol. I. p.
402 b.]
UMBELLA. [UMBRACULUM.]
UMBILI'CUS. [LIBER.]
UMBO. [CLIPEUs; ToGA.]
UMBRA/CULUM, UMBELLA (orkić6etov,
orkiağtorkm). Umbrellas and fans are shown on
both Assyrian and Egyptian monuments before
the 7th century B.C., and it may be assumed
that they came to Greece with other articles of
Oriental luxury about that period. By the 5th
century, the use of umbrellas was so established
at Athens that they were carried by the
daughters of the aliens (uéroukot) after the
Athenian maidens in the procession at the
PANATHENAEA [p. 327 al. So far, indeed, were
they from appearing strange or incongruous that
on the Eastern frieze of the Parthenon the god
Eros holds the parasol of his mother Aphrodite.
(From a vase-painting.)
Umbraculum.
Such umbrellas and parasols appear on vase-
paintings, from those of the perfect Attic style
down to the latest South Italian wares. The
accompanying cut from a vase of the latter
class (Millin, Peintures de Vases Antiques, vol. i.
pl. 70) shows a lady wearing a xitáv [TUNICA]
and small indºrtov [PALLA], and holding a parasol
over her bare head. In other paintings ladies
sit on chairs shading themselves with a parasol,
while in not a few a slave holds it above his
mistress’s head. All these pictures show forms,
like those used nowadays, with a frame-work
of ribs (virgae) which could be opened and
shut (Aristophanes, Eq. 1347 f., to 5’ 6t’. . . .
ěčetrerávvvro, Šotrep gridãetov ſcal tróAlv čvvå-
'yero: cf. Ovid, Art. Am. ii. 209, “ipse tene
distenta umbracula virgis”).
The use of umbrellas was almost confined to
women, for, as has been explained in the article
PILLEUS, it was considered effeminate for men to
wear a protection against the sun except when
travelling. Some luxurious fops, or upstarts,
however, like the repupépmros 'Apt'éuov of
Anacreon (Athen. xii. p. 534 a), occasionally
braved public opinion and used them. In
Hellenistic times a large straw hat came into
fashion, doubtless as a substitute for the parasol.
It is shown on an immense number of terra-cotta
figures from Tanagra, Myrina, and all over the
Greek world. The 60Aſa which Praxinoa puts
on in the famous toilet scene in Theocritus (Id.
xv. 39) seems to have been something of this
kind (Schol. in Theocr. l.c.; Pollux, vii. 174,
x. 127; Jahn, Arch. Beiträge, p. 403).
At Rome the practice of using parasols pro-
bably came in with the Greek fashions which
prevailed in the last two centuries of the Re-
public. The Roman lady walked with her
parasol carried by an attendant slave (pedi-
Sequus or pedisequa ; cf. Claud. in Eutrop. i.
464, “[Eunuchilumbracula gestant virginibus; ”
Mart. xiv. 73, 6), whose place might be taken
by a diligent wooer if he wished to win her
good graces (Ovid, l. c.). Parasols were in
great demand at the amphitheatre, for the
velum was not always sufficient to keep off the
sun, and it seems to have been the fashion to
adopt the colour—green, &c.—of one's favourite
faction on them (Juv. ix. 50 ; Mart. xiv. 28).
[See Paciandi, de Umbellae gestatione, Rome,
1752; Baumeister, Denkmäler, art. Sonnen-
schirm ; Iwan Müller, Handbuch, pp. 433, 440;
Hermann-Blümmer, Privatalterth., p. 195 f.;
Becker-Göll, Charikles, i. 201; Blümmer, Leben
wnd. Sitten, p. 73; Marquardt, Privatleben,
p. 148; Böttiger (ed. Fischer), Sabina, pp. 132,
135, 161.] [W. S.] [W. C. F. A.]
U’NCIA. [As; PONDERA. Table No. XIII.
at the end of the volume.]
UNCIA'RIUM FENUS. [FENUs.]
UNCTO'RES.. [BALNEAE.]
UNGUENTUM (#Aatov, utpov, opiua or
opiºua). The term includes all the products
of the perfumer, whether used for health or
luxury ; oils, ointments, pomatums, essences,
salves. The first and simplest of unguents, oil,
is mentioned repeatedly in Homer, usually in
connexion with the bath (Aoûorav kal Xplorav
éAatº, fixelſhev Attr' éAaig are quite stock
phrases); and to the latest times it remained
associated with bathing and athletic contests
[ATHLETAE; BALNEAE]. The more elaborate
arts of perfumery had early attained an extra-
ordinary development in the East ; the Greeks,

TJNGUENTUM
UNIVERSITAS 977
for whose practice the comic writers are our
fullest witnesses, rapidly acquired the same
tastes; the Romans did not wait till they had
direct intercourse with the East, but learnt these
arts at an early period from the luxurious cities
of Magna Graecia.
Among the various and costly oils which were
used partly for the skin and partly for the hair,
the following are enumerated by Pliny (H. W.
xiii. §§ 4–18): Delium, Mendesium, irinum,
rhodinum or rosaceum, crocinum (cf. Propert.
iii. 10, 22=iv. 9, 22 Müller), oenanthinum,
amaracinum (cf. Lucret. ii. 847, iv. 1179, vi.
973), melinum, cyprinum, metopium, Panathe-
naicum, pardalium, narcissinum, Sampsuchinum,
susinum, sesaminum, telinum, megalium or
megalesium, balaninum, nardinum, spicatum.
Other favourites, likewise mentioned by Pliny,
are myrrh (Propert. i. 2, 3), malobathrum (Hor.
Carm. ii. 7, 8), costum (Id. ib. iii. 1, 44, with
Orelli’s excursus), amomum (Verg. Ecl. iii. 89,
iv. 25), cardamomum, cinnamomum, &c., besides
mineral products. A regale unguentum made
for the Parthian kings was compounded of 25
precious substances (Plin. l. c. § 18). Soap, a
Gallic or perhaps rather a German invention
(Beckmann, Hist. of Inv. ed. Bohn, ii. 92), was
used as a pomatum rather than a detergent, and
imparted to the hair the red or yellow tinge so
much in fashion among the Romans: the “sapo,
Gallorum hoc inventum rutilandis capillis " of
Pliny (H. N. xxviii. § 191, where the word sapo
occurs for the first time) is doubtless identical
with the spuma Batava, caustica spuma, and
Mattiacae pilae of Martial (viii. 33, 20; xiv. 26
and 27; cf. Dict. Geogr. art. Mattiaci). This
fancy for light hair was as old as Cato; “flavo
cinere unctitabant, ut rutilae essent” (ap. Serv.
ad Aen. iv. 698; cf. Val. Max. ii. 1, § 5). The
“hair-restorers” also came from Germany:
“femina canitiem Germanis excitat herbis" (Ov.
A. Am. iii. 163). The effects of these herbae
and venena were sometimes disappointing (Id.
Amor. i. 14 passim), when recourse was had to
the same country for the false hair which then
became necessary (cf. GAUSAPE, last paragraph).
In addition to these oils the ancients also used
various kinds of scented powders, called by the
general name of Starčo Mara (Theophr. Odor. 8;
Dioscor. i. 6; [Lucian] Amor. 39). To what an
excess the habit of using fragrant oils and the
like was carried, appears from Seneca (Ep. 86,
§ 12), who says that people anointed themselves
twice or even three times a day. At Rome,
however, these luxuries did not pass unrebuked
in the time of Scipio (Gell. vi. [vii.] 12, § 5);
and still later, in B.C. 89, the censors positively
forbade the sale of exotic unguents (Plin. H. W.
xiii. § 24). The wealthy Greeks and Romans
carried their oils and essences with them,
especially when they bathed, in small boxes of
costly materials and beautiful workmanship,
which were called narthecia (Cic. de Fin. ii. 7,
§ 22; Mart. xiv. 78; cf. Böttiger, Sabina, i. 52).
Another very common kind of scent bottle was
the ALABASTRUM. It was, however, thought
undignified to carry one’s own oil flask to the
public baths, instead of having it borne by a
slave: such persons were called airoAfikv6ot (L.
and S., ed. 7, s. v.; Sandys, Eccurs. on Dem. ii.
227 ff.). The traffic which was carried on in
these ointments and perfumes in several towns
WOL. II.
of Greece and Southern Italy was very consider-
able. The persons engaged in manufacturing
them were called by the Greeks avpeºpol and
plupotróXat (see L. and S. s. v.v.), by the Romans
wngnentarii (Cic. de Off. i. 42, § 150; Hor. Sat.
ii. 3, 228), or, as they frequently were women,
wngwentariae (Plin. H. W. viii. § 14), and the
art of compounding them unguentaria. In the
wealthy and effeminate city of Capua there was
a street or square called the Seplasia, which
consisted entirely of shops in which unguents
were sold (Cic. in Pison. 11, § 24; Asconius ad
loc.; de Lege Agr. ii. 34, § 94; pro Sest. 8, § 19).
On oils and unguents, see especially Becker-
Göll, Gallus, iii. 157–167. For the cosmetics
employed in painting the face, see FUCUs; for
the detergents used instead of soap for wash-
ing, see FULLO ; on the antiquities of the toilet
generally, the work of Böttiger, Subina oder
Morgenscenen im Putzzimmer einer reichen
Rötnerin, 2 vols. Leipzig, 1806, is not yet
superseded. [L. S.] [W. W.]
UNIVERSITAS. The philosophical divi-
sion of things (res) in the widest sense of the
term into res corporales—objects of the senses—
and res incorporales—objects of the intelligence
only (Cic. Top. 5; Sext. Empir. adv. Mathemat.
3; Quintil. Hist. v. 10, 116; Gell. v. 15;
Boeth. Top. iii. &c.), was applied to the objects
of rights by the Roman jurists (Gaius, ii. 12–
14; Dig. 1, 8, 1, 1 ; Inst. ii. 2, pr. 2), who
were perhaps led to this way of regarding the
matter by the fact that every action in rem related
to either a corporeal thing or an incorporeal
right (“si paret, rem actoris esse . . . si paret,
jus utendi fruendi actoris esse"). If this is so,
res originally meant in legal phraseology any
thing of which it could be said “meum est,”
whether a corporeal thing or an incorporeal
(real) right; but later, by an extension of
meaning, res incorporalis came to include all
rights other than dominium (which fell under
res corporalis because the Romans habitually
identified it with the thing over which it
existed), especially the rights in personam
termed obligationes (Gaius, ii. 14; Inst. ii.
2, 2).
Every thing which is in its nature divisible
can be conceived as consisting of parts, in con-
trast with which it is itself a unit or uni-
versitas (e.g. “universitas agrorum,” Dig. 50,
16, 239, 8; “fundi,” Dig. 41, 4, 2, 6); and if
this be done with reference to the subjection of
one of those parts to exclusive rights in a
person, that part is itself conceived as a unit
or independent object of rights, and the whole
is regarded pro diviso, as though it were divided
(“Quintus Mucius ait, partis appellatione rem.
pro indiviso significari, nam quod pro diviso
nostrum sit, id non partem, sed totum esse,
Servius non ineleganter partis appellatione
utrumque contineri,” Dig. 50, 16, 25, 1). But
some things consist of parts which cannot be
physically divided from it without an essential
change in their nature, and in relation thereto
such a thing cannot be regarded pro diviso;
the whole can be the object of rights, but a
physical part of it cannot. The stones, for
instance, of which a house is built, are not parts
of it in the sense that they cannot be removed
without a change in their nature, and conse-
quently they can be owned pro diviso gº while "
B
978 UNIVERSITAS
TJNIVERSITAS
unseparated; but the house itself is an integral
part of the soil on which it stands, apart from
which it cannot be an independent object of
rights; nor can one person own the right arm
of a slave, another the left, or one the head
and shoulders of a horse, another the hinder
quarters. The contrast between the two is
thus put by Pomponius: “[unum genus cor-
porum] continetur uno spiritu et Graece jvo-
puévov vocatur, ut homo tignum lapis et similia:
alterum quod ex contingentibus hoc est pluribus
inter se cohaerentibus constat, quod avvmupwévov
vocatur, ut aedificium navis armarium ” (Dig.
41, 3, 30, pr.).
But a thing, even though physically indi-
visible (as a slave), may be conceived as con-
sisting of ideal or intellectual parts: e.g. one
person may own a field or a slave in one-third,
and another may own him in two-thirds:
“servus communis sic omnium est, non quasi
singulorum totus, sed pro partibus, utique indi-
visis, ut intellectu magis partes habeant quam
corpore ” (Dig. 45, 3, 5): and if such a part is
regarded as the object of exclusive rights, the
thing is nevertheless taken pro indiviso, and is
said to belong to two or more persons in
common: no one can say that any particular
physical part belongs to him exclusively. Here
the whole is corporeal, the parts are intel-
lectual. But conversely there are cases in
which, though the parts are corporeal, the whole
is intellectual or ideal only; as when there is a
number of independent corporeal things not
materially connected, but connected in thought
owing to some common end or purpose so as
to form in idea a whole: e.g. the books com-
posing a library, or the sheep which make up a
flock (Inst. ii. 20, 18). Where the purpose of
the several things, so far from being different
from and independent of the general purpose
for which the idea is formed, is subservient to
that general purpose, such intellectual wholes,
consisting of corporeal parts which may be com-
pletely changed without its ceasing to be the
same, are treated as independent objects of
property, so that (e.g.) they can be pledged
(Dig. 20, 1, 13, pr. ; b. 34, pr.); they are
juristic “things,” and are called universitates
rerum, just as universitates personarum are
juristic persons, or sometimes universitates
Terum distantium to distinguish them from the
so-called universitates rerum cohaerentium, ex-
emplified in the passage of Pomponius cited
above. Passages in which these universitates
ºrerum (distantium) are characterised may be
found in Inst. ii. 20, 18;-Dig. 30, 22; ib. 7, 1,
70, 3; ib. 6, 1, 1, 3; ib. 3, pr.
But the term universitas is not applied merely
to “things” in the narrower signification. Upon
its Roman use in the sense of an aggregate of
proprietary, rights (whether real or personal)
and liabilities, especially with reference to he-
reditas—though we also read of peculia (Dig.
5, 3, 20, 10) and dotes (Dig. 33, 4, 1, 4) as uni-
versitates—modern jurists have founded the
conception of a “universitas juris,” the complex
of a man's assets and liabilities, which may be
the object of succession, as upon death, adro-
gatio, conventio in manum, &c. [SUCCESSIO).
And from its other Roman use in the sense of
the aggregate of persons belonging to a cor-
poration (Dig. 1, 8, 1, pr. ; b. 2, pr: ; ;5, 6, 1 ;
ið. 3, 4, 2; ib. 7, 1 and 2; ib. 46, 8, 9), they have
coined the expression universitas personarum as
denoting one of the species of what are now
usually termed “juristic persons.”
It is only the individual man who can
properly be regarded as the subject of rights
and duties, and it is he who determines for
himself the ends to which his property shall be
devoted. But there are some ends which con-
cern more men than the single individual, and
these may often be attained by the formation of
a partnership between those to whom they are
an object; and others of a wider and more
enduring interest still, which are an object to
successive generations, e.g. to the inhabitants of
a town, the citizens of a state, the members of a
family, the practitioners of an art—or even to
all mankind, as is the case with civilisation and
religion. The attainment of these is facilitated
by certain funds being set aside and adminis-
tered for that very purpose; and thus the end
seems to resemble man, for to it is ascribed the
proprietary capacity which only man can
properly possess, and the foundation which is
its outward symbol is conceived as a person is
said personae vice, privatorum loco, esse (Dig. 46,
1, 22; 50, 16, 16), and is described as owner,
heir, creditor, and debtor (Dig. 34, 7, 1 ; ib. 4 ;
1, 3, 49, 4) : communities of persons organised
for permanent public purposes are in the
writings of the Agrimensores (pp. 16, 54, ed.
Lachmann) called persona publica, persona co-
lonia. This is the notion of a juristic person,
of which there may be said to be two kinds:
corporations (corporatio, Nov. Severi, ii., but
more ordinarily corpus in the authorities: the
moderns speak of universitates personarum), and
funds or property-aggregates devoted to some
permanent and definite object, which, so far as
proprietary rights are concerned, the state has
endowed with personality and legal capacity:
these are by modern writers often termed uni-
versitates bonorum, an expression which the
Romans appear to use only in the sense of an
inheritance (Dig. 6, 1, 1, pr. ; 29, 1, 18, pr.).
Of corporations the following kinds occur:—
(1) The Roman State, Respublica, considered as
the subject of rights and duties comprised under
Private Law: its property, and legal personality
in respect of property, are also called Fiscus or
Aerarium, though some writers (e.g. Baron,
Pandekten, § 30) treat the Fiscus and State
together as a juristic person of anomalous
character, which cannot properly be classed as
a corporation at all. By the classical jurists
respublica is most commonly used to express a
civitas dependent on Rome, not Rome herself.
(2) Political or local subdivisions of the people,
such as civitates, municipes, communes or com-
munitas, vicus, colonia, provinciae, fora, con-
ciliabula, castella (the last three, though not
mentioned in the legislation of Justinian, occur-
ring in the Tabula Heracleensis, the Lex Ru-
bria de Gallia Cisalpina, and in Paulus, Sent. rec.
iv. 6, 2). (3) Military subdivisions, such as
legions (Dig. 28, 3, 6, 7; 41, 3, 30, pr. ;-Cod.
6, 62, 2). (4) Associations of official persons
and administrative authorities, of which the
body of scribae became one of the most nume-
rous and important through being employed in
all branches of the administration. The general
name was Scribae, which included the sub-
UNIVERSITAS
UNIVERSITAS 979
ordinate corporations termed Decuriae librari-
orum, fiscalium, censualium (Dig. 37, 1, 3, 4 ;
46, 1, 22; 29, 2, 25, 1;-Cod. 11, 13), whose
individual members, called decuriati and subse-
quently decuriales, had great privileges at Rome
and subsequently at Constantinople (Cic. in
Verr. iii. 79; ad Quint, fratr. ii. 3; Tac. Ann.
xiii. 27; Sueton. Octav. 57, Claud. 1). Simi-
larly the decuriones of a town were regarded as
a corporation distinct from the general body of
Municipes, as in Cod. 6, 62, 4; Dig. 4, 3, 15,
where it is stated that an action for dolus will
not lie against the Municipes, of which a ficti-
tious person cannot be guilty, but that such
action will lie against the individual decuriones
who administer the affairs of the Municipes.
(5) Associations of religious persons, collegia
templorum (Dig. 32, 38, 6), such as the priests of
the various gods and the Vestal Virgins. (6) As-
sociations for trade and commerce, as Fabri,
Pistores, Navicularii (Dig. 3, 4, 1, pr. ; 50, 13,
5, 13), the bond between whom was their com-
mon calling, though each worked on his own
account. Under this head also fall certain
partnerships, which, though termed Societates,
had a permanent corporate existence, such as
the associations for farming the taxes (Societates
publicanorum), and for working mines (salinae :
Dig. 3, 4, 1, pr., and 1 ; 37, 1, 3, 4; 47, 2, 31,
1). (7) The associations in the nature of
modern clubs which were called Sodalitates,
Sodalitia, Collegia Sodalitia. These were in
origin friendly associations for purposes of com-
mon feasting and worship, but in course of time
many of them acquired a political character,
and in periods of commotion became centres of
faction and intrigue, their members crowding
together in public places (Cic. ad Quint. frat. ii.
3), so that at last the senate was compelled to
propose a law subjecting those who would not
disperse to the penalties of vis. According to
Asconius, this was followed by a general disso-
lution of collegia, but in fact those only were
dissolved which were of a mischievous cha-
racter; and under the emperors the rule was
established that no collegium of this or the
preceding class could be founded without per-
mission from the princeps or senate, which was
granted only on special grounds (Dig. 47, 22,
1–3; 3, 4, 1, pr.). (8) There were also in the
imperial period Collegia Tenuiorum (Dig. 47, 22,
1, pr. ; b. 3, 2), associations of poor people for
mutual support, and especially to secure their
members decent burial. A man could only
belong to one of them : the members might
meet only once a month, and paid monthly con-
tributions. To clubs of this class even slaves
could belong, on obtaining permission from their
masters. Upon the whole subject compare the
article on COLLEGIA. -
Of the rights comprised in private law, some
only can reside in corporations. An independent
property or proprietary capacity is essential to
the corporate character: “quibus autem per-
missum est corpus habere . . . . proprium est ad
exemplum reipublicae habere res communes,
arcam communem et actorem sive syndicum,
per quem, tanquam in republica, quod, com-
muniter agi fierique oporteat, agatur fiat " (Dig.
3, 4, 1, 1). Corporations could own, possess,
owe, be owed, and institute legal proceedings;
they could possess the jus patronatus, but none of
the family rights, and many of them, though
capable of taking legacies, were excluded from
succeeding deceased persons by way of inhe-
ritance (Dig. 30, 117, 122; ib. 73, 1). A cor-
poration is not identical with its members at
any given time, and remains the same “person’’
unaffected by changes in them (Dig. 3, 4, 7, 2);
they do not share pro parte in its rights and
liabilities (“si quid universitati debetur, sin-
gulis non debetur, nec quod debet universitas
singuli debent,” Dig. ib. 7, 1), and can become
its debtors and creditors in precisely the same
way as other persons can (Dig. ib. 9). Their
rights and duties, as such members, vary with
the character of the corporation itself, which
may be established entirely or principally for
their benefit, so that sometimes the members
for the time being may be entitled to divide its
property between themselves on its dissolution.
Having no will of its own (Dig. 41, 2, 1), it
can perform legal acts only through agents,
whether these be its presidents (magistri, rec-
tores) or subordinate officials, especially those
appointed for the conduct of litigation (syndici,
actores); and what these agents decide on and
do within the scope of their authority is
regarded as the determination and act of the
corporation itself (Dig. 35, 1, 97; 50, 1, 14).
Who are its duly authorised agents is usually
defined by its constitution : but in the absence
of such definition the aggregate of its members
are to be considered its natural representatives,
and the acts and resolutions of a majority at a
duly summoned meeting to be taken as con-
clusive (Dig. 19, 160, 1; Cod. 10, 63, 5, 1),
unless contrary to positive law or the interests
of the public (Dig. 47, 22, 4).
Some corporations were established by the
state : but the chief mode in which they arose
was the voluntary association of a number of
persons (not less than three : Dig. 50, 16, 85)
for a common purpose which was neither un-
lawful nor immoral. Whether a special recog-
nition of the associated persons as a corporation
by the state was essential cannot perhaps be
regarded as settled; but (notwithstanding Dig.
3, 4, 1; 47, 22, 3, 1) the better opinion would
seem now to be that an association might be
invested with the corporate character under
general law or custom, and that as a rule it
could not be denied to any lawful combination
of persons so organised as to create a fund of
property distinct from that of the associated
persons themselves (Windscheid, Lehrbuch, $60,
note 3).
A corporation was dissolved by the death or
withdrawal of all its members: “In universita-
tibus nihil refert, utrum omnes iidem maneant,
an pars maneat vel omnes immutatisint: sed et
si universitas ad unum redit, magis admittitur
posse eum convenire et conveniri, cum jus
omnium in unum reciderit et stet momen uni-
versitatis” (Dig. 3, 4, 7, 2). But it cannot as a
rule be extinguished by a resolution of its
members. Of course, where no public interest
stands in the way, these can agree unanimously
to withdraw from the corporation and so put an
end to its existence: but in such a case unani-
mity is indispensable unless it is provided by
the constitution of the corporation itself, that
for this purpose (as for others) a majority shall
be able to bind a minority. It could also be
3 B 2
980 TJNIVERSITAS
WOCONIA. T.EX
dissolved by its object becoming unlawful, as
where the state prohibits associations of certain
kinds which hitherto have been perfectly legal
(e.g. the collegia sodalitia), or declares a single
corporation extinct on grounds of policy (Dig.
7, 4, 21). Upon dissolution, the property of
those corporations whose members were jointly
entitled to its funds or income was divided
among them; in other cases, any resolution of
the members made before extinction as to what
was to become of it was binding: if there had
been no such resolution, the property went as
bona vacantia to the Fiscus.
The second class of juristic persons (the so-
called universitates bonorum) are those which
are not necessarily supported by any natural
person—a support which, as has been seen, was
essential to the existence of a corporation:
they are so much property, or aggregates of
rights and duties, personified and regarded as
capable of perpetuating their separate existence
and fictitious unity indefinitely. These were
uncommon at Rome before the adoption of
Christianity as the state religion, though by
special favour of the emperor or senate certain
temples were endowed with capacity of inhe-
riting property (Ulpian, Reg. 22, 6): but after
Constantine's religious reformation the character
of the juristic person came to be possessed by foun-
dations established for the encouragement of the
new worship, such as churches, monasteries, and
religious houses generally, and by other institu-
tions of a charitable nature, such as hospitals
and almshouses, which Christianity regarded
with peculiar favour (Cod. 1, 2, 23; 1, 3, 35,
46). A juristic person of any of these kinds
came into existence by the dedication by any
one, even in his last will, of property to a per-
manent end of religious or charitable character:
it had full proprietary rights, including capacity
to take by inheritance no less than by legacy
(Cod. 1, 2, 23; 1, 3, 24, 49): like a corporation,
it could act only through agents, the appoint-
ment of whom, if not provided for in the
constitution of the juristic person by its founder
(Cod. 1, 3, 46, 3), was entrusted to the public
magistrates (ib. 49, 6; Nov. 131, 11). Aliena-
tion of property belonging to such foundations
was subject to important restrictions (Nov.
120). *
} is disputed whether the character of a
juristic person can be ascribed to the successive
holders of an office or magistracy (after the
fashion of English “corporations sole’’): but
this would seem to be the case, inasmuch as a
legacy to “the emperor’’ or “the holder of such
and such a magistracy'” was good without fur-
ther specification (Dig. 31, 56, 2; 33, 1, 20, 1;
50, 1, 25). There is the same question with
regard to a hereditas jacens, i.e. a man’s property
in the interval between his decease and accept-
ance by an heir, of which it is said “hereditas
vice defuncti fungitur, personam defuncti sus-
finet’ (Dig. 41, 1, 33, 2; ib. 34; 28, 5, 31, 1,
&c.), and which, even while res nullius, could
acquire fresh rights and incur fresh liabilities.
It is difficult to explain such properties without
attributing to an inheritance a fictitious juristic
personality, while at the same time it is impossi-
ble to classify it with either of the two groups
of juristic persons treated above.
The term Universitas was adopted in the
Middle Ages to denote certain great schools, but
not as schools: it denoted these places as cor-
porations, i.e. as associations of individuals.
The adjunct which would express the kind of
persons associated would depend on circum-
stances: thus, in Bologna, the expression “Uni-
versitas Scholarium ” was in common use: in
Paris, “Universitas magistrorum.” The school
as such was called Schola, and from the 13th
century most commonly Studium ; and if it was
a distinguished school, it was called Studium
Generale. The first occasion on which the term
wniversitas was applied to a great school is said
to be a Decretal of Innocent III. of the beginning
of the 13th century, addressed “Scholaribus
Parisiensibus.” (Dig. 3, 4; Puchta, Institu-
tionen, § 222; Savigny, System, &c. i. p. 378,
ii. 235, iii. 8; Dirksen, Historische Bemerkunjen
iiber den Zustand der juristischen Personen nach
röm. Rechte, in his Civil. Abhandlungen, ii. 1;
Pfeifer, Die Lehre von den juristischen Personen,
Tübingen, 1847; Uhrig, Ueber die jur. Personen,
Dillingen, 1854.) [J. B. M.]
WOCATIO IN JUS. [ACTIo, Vol. I.
p. 14 a.]
WOCONIA LEX. This law was passed
on the motion of Q. Voconius Saxa, trib. pleb.,
with the strong support of the elder Cato, A.U.C.
585=B.C. 169 (Cic. Sen. § 14; Liv. Epit. xli.).
Its provisions appear to have been two: (1) That,
beginning with the censorship of A. Postumius
Albinus and Q. Fulvius Flaccus (A.U.C. 581–585),
no one enrolled in the burgher list as having a
property of 100,000 asses (qui centum milia aeris
census est) should make any maiden or woman
his heir (Cic. Verr. i. 42, § 107; Gaius, ii. 274).
Vangerow (in his treatise, p. 13) points out
that this sum was the maximum qualification
for the first class of Servius Tullius’ arrange-
ment (Liv. i. 43); and that as Cato's speech
contained a reference to this classification, the
restriction imposed by this law was in fact
imposed upon the classici or first class (Gell. vii.
13). Dio Cassius (lvi. 10) gives the limit as
25,000, probably meaning drachmae, which were
equal to 100,000 sesterces, and that is the
annount named by Pseudo-Asconius (ad Cic.
Verr. 1. c.). Whether this substitution of “ses-
terces” for “asses” is due to mistake, or more
probably to the tacit substitution in popular
interpretation of the current coin for an extinct
or disused one, cannot be decided (cf. Marquardt,
Staatsverw. ii.” p. 15). A Vestal Virgin was
allowed to make a woman her heir (Cic. R. P.
iii. § 17).
(2) Another clause (general in terms, and not
confined to the case of women) provided ne cui
plus legatorum nomine mortiswe causa capere
liceret quam heredes caperent: and Gaius points
out, that if there were many legatees, the
portion left to the heir might be very small
(Gaius, ii. 226, followed by Theophil. Inst. ii.
22). Cicero refers to the law in words which
are easily reconcilable with this, but, if taken
strictly, mean that no one enrolled (i.e. in the
first class) could give in legacies an amount
more than would come to the heir or heirs
(Verr. i. 43, § 110); a provision which would
secure the heir or heirs at least half the estate.
Quintilian’s 264th Declamation has “ne liceat
mulieri nisi dimidiam partem bonorum dare; ”
but this, whatever be its worth, is still consistent
WOCONIA LEX
WOTA PUBLICA. 981
with Gaius, as showing the maximum which a
woman could take under a will. This second
clause was practically repealed by the Lex
Falcidia (Gaius, ii. 227).
The Voconian law did not interfere with a
woman’s rights to her share in an intestate
estate (Gaius, iii. 1 sqq.), nor with the claim of
a daughter, granddaughter, &c. to a share where
the will contained no disinheriting clause (Gaius,
ii. 124 sqq.). Hence a father, though unable to
make his only daughter heir by his will (Au-
gustin, Civ. D. iii. 21), could bequeath her (not
exceeding) one-half of his estate, or, if she was
in his power, by omitting to disinherit her,
could by the operation of the general law in
effect leave her an equal share with other
children, or, if strangers were made heirs by the
will, could leave her one-half the estate. If he
made a will and expressly disinherited her, she
could contest the will, as undutiful (inofficiosum);
and if no good cause for her disinherison were
shown, she would obtain at least a share (Paul.
iv. 5; Dig. 5, 2). If he made no will, she
would get an equal share with other sui heredes.
The intention of the Voconian law apparently
was to curb the extravagance, by limiting the
pecuniary means, of women (Gell. xvii. 6; xx.
1, § 23). One of the interlocutors in Cic. R. P.
iii. 10 attacks its aim, and also its provisions, by
pointing out that by not fixing a maximum sum
which a woman could take or hold, the law
would work (in one or other of the above-
named ways) very unequally in the case of
fathers of different degrees of wealth. More-
over, from Cic. Verr. l. c., it is clear that rich
persons, by not being enrolled, perhaps purposely,
perhaps by irregularity in taking the census
(cf. Huschke, Census, p. 61), were sometimes
free from the operation of the law. Trusts (fidei-
commissa), too, afforded another means of
escaping what seemed to some an unnatural
law. In Cicero’s time trusts were not legally
enforceable (Cic. Fin. ii. 17, § 55); but when after
Augustus trusts were protected by the praetor,
the Voconian law could thereby be nullified at
will (Gaius, ii. 274). Its provisions were re-
laxed by the Lex Papia Poppaea (Dio Cass. lvi.
10) in favour of those who had children, and it.
was probably repealed in fact, though not for-
mally, before the time of Gaius (Gell. xx. 1,
§ 23). What was the interpretation of “census.”
in this law after the last burgher list was made
by Vespasian is not known (Mommsen, Röm.
Staatsr. ii.” p. 408).
The words of Pliny (Pan. 42), “Locupletabant
et fiscum et aerarium non tam Voconiae et
Juliae leges, quam,” &c. probably refer to the
claims of the public treasury to inheritances
left vacant or legacies lapsed in consequence of
violation of the Lex Woconia, and of the Lex
Julia de maritandis ordinibus or of that which
imposed a 5 per cent, succession duty (vicesima
hereditatum). . Cf. Voigt, Condict. p. 227;
Huschke, ZRG. v. 178. The policy, though not
the words, of the Lex Voconia is thought by
Paulus (iv. 8, § 20) to have led (jure civili
Voconiana ratione effectum) to restricting the
claims of women as heirs of an intestate estate
to those who were sui heredes or consanguineae
and not to further degrees.
Of the many discussions on this law, see
particularly Savigny, Verm. Schr. i. 407 sqq.
(1820, 1849); Haase, Rhein. Mus. iii. 183 sqq.
(1829); v. Wangerow, Lea Voconia (1863).
H. J. R.]
WOLCANA'LIA, a festival celebrated at
Rome in honour of Vulcan, on the 23rd of
August (x. Kal. Sept.), with games in the Circus
Flaminius, where the god had a temple (C. I. L.
vi. 2295; Jordan, Ephem. Epig. i. 36, 230).
The sacrifice on this occasion consisted of fishes
which the people threw into the fire (Varro,
L. L. vi. 20), and of a red heifer and a boar-pig
(C. I. L. vi. 826). That the festival was pro-
pitiatory, to stay the destroying fire, is shown
not only by the last-mentioned inscription,
which alludes to the great fire of Nero's reign,
but also by the fact that Stata Mater, who
stayed the fire, and Juturna and the Nymphs
who supplied water, were associated in the festi-
val (see Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii. 9, note 2).
This may perhaps explain the selection of fish
as the victims. There were feriae Volcano also
on the 15th of May (Ov. Fast. v. 725; Mar-
quardt, Staatsverw. iii. 575). [L. S.] [G. E. M.]
WOLSELLAE (rpixoMagís, Tpixoxá8tov), a
pair of tweezers (Plaut. Curc. iv. 4, 21; Mart.
ix. 28, 5). The extent to which the practice of
pulling out hairs was carried, both among
Greeks and Romans, has been noticed under
PSILOTHRUM. For the slaves, both male and
female, employed for this purpose, see ALIPILUS.
Several examples of ancient tweezers have been
discovered; some joined with a rivet at the back
like scissors, others, as in the illustration, made
of flexible metal (Marquardt, Privatl. 581 ;
Becker-Göll, Gallus, iii. 241).
wºrneº.,
riºtiatiºs
Wolsellae, tweezers; actual size. (From the Roman villa
at Brading, Isle of Wight; preserved on the spot.)
Some of the smaller kinds of forceps used
as surgical instruments are likewise called vol-
sellae by Celsus (vi. 12, § 1 ; vi. 18, § 3; vii.
10, § 7). One of these is figured by Rich s. v. ;
see also the cut No. 17 under CHIRURGIA, in
Wol. I. [W. W.]
WOTA PUBLICA. These rested on the
same principle as the vows and votive offerings
made at critical moments, and after an escape
from danger by private persons, which have
been described under DONARIA. The public
vows were made in time of war (Liv. v. 21,
xxxvi. 2, xlii. 28; cf. Ov. Fast. v. 573); or of
pestilence (Liv. iv. 25, xl. 37, xli. 21). A clause
often occurs to the effect that the vow is made
on condition that the state should be free from
trouble for five or for ten years, and such vows
are called vota quinquennalia or decennalia (Liv.
xxi. 62; xxx. 2, 27; xxxi. 9; xlii. 28).
The things vowed, as may be seen from the
above passages, were of various kinds, offerings
at shrines or at pulvinaria, a tithe of the spoil,
votive games [LüD1, p. 84b], or a temple. The
most remarkable of all vows was the VER
SACRUM, which has been described in a separate
article.
The consul or praetor who had been ordered
by the senate suscipere votum (i.e. to undertake
the obligation), or the dictator in times of a
dictatorship, publicly announced (nuncupavit)


982 VOTORUM NUNCUPATIO
TJSUCAPIO
the vow and its object in formal words dictated
to him by the Pontifex Maximus (Liv. iv. 27,
xxxvi. 2). In Liv. xli. 21 we find a case where
XV vir sacrorum dictates the vow, and it is
announced by the voices of the assembled
people; but this, according to Mommsen, was
because the vow was intended to bind each
individual, not the state as a whole (Staats-
Techt, i. 244). Finally, the vows were entered
in the public records in the presence of wit-
nesses (Fest. p. 173, 13). The fulfilment of the
vow at the proper time was under the charge of
the magistrate who had announced it, or of his
successor, if he had vacated office in the mean-
time; but it might in case of necessity devolve
on another magistrate (cf. Liv. xxxvi. 2). When
a commander in the field made a vow, the senate
afterwards determined how much money should
be assigned for its discharge from the treasury
or from the spoils which would otherwise be
paid into the treasury (Liv. xxxix. 5; xl. 44).
Besides these extraordinary public vows, there
was an annual votum publicum (of victims to
be offered) made by the new consuls on Jan. 1st,
“pro reipublicae salute ’’ (the “sollemnis
votorum nuncupatio” in Liv. xxi. 63; to this
also must be referred the “sollemnia precatus.”
in the letter of Tiberius, Tac. Ann. iv. 70).
After the end of the Republic a special vow was
added for the emperor's safety (Dio Cass. li. 19).
In order, however (as Mommsen thinks), to
avoid confusion between the vow for the
emperor and that for the state, the 3rd of
January became the day for the “votum pro
salute principis ‘’; and this day accordingly
appears in the Calendars and elsewhere as
votorum nuncupatio or simply as vota (C. I. L.
i. p. 334 ; Tac. Ann. xvi. 22; Capitolin. Pert.
6). In the Greek writers it is called juépa rôv
eūxów (Dio Cass. lxxix. 8). It was observed in
the provinces as well as at Rome (Plin. Ep. x.
35, 36), and the practice was so far extended
that we find vota for various occasions con-
cerning the emperor, his return, his birthday,
&c. (see numerous instances in Marquardt), and
further for various members of the imperial
family. Hence if a private person (as Sejanus)
allowed his own name to be added, it was con-
strued as a treasonable usurpation of imperial
power (Dio Cass. lviii. 3; cf. lxxv. 14). For
further details, see Marquardt, Staatsverw. iii.
pp. 265–268; Mommsen, Staatsrecht, i. 244, ii.
810. [G. E. M.]
WOTO’RUMI NUNCUPATIO. [VOTA
PUBLICA.]
URCEUS (dim. urceolus) was a name applied
to any sort of jug with one handle (Mart. xi. 56,
xiv. 106, &c.), used for pouring. Hence in Hor.
A. P. 22 the urceus is selected as the shape
essentially different from the amphora. It is
often mentioned as used for pouring water into
another vessel (Cato, R. R. 10 ; Plin. H. N. xix.
§ 71), but in this sense is sometimes distin-
guished as wroeus aquarius (Cato, R. R. 13;
Gell. x. 24). In this use it is equivalent to the
arpáxoos or trpáxovs, which was used as a water
jug or ewer [see PELVIS], of which a cut is
given from Dennis's Etruria. . The smaller kind
of urceus aquarius served this purpose. The
urceus or urceolus was also used for serving the
calda or frigida at table (Mart. xiv. 105), or,
like the oivoxán, for wine (Plaut. Mil. iii. 2, 18).
A common shape of the oivoxán is here given,
but there are other forms; sometimes an older
\
Prochous. (Dennis.) Oenochöe. (Dennis.)
shape, less rounded or bellying (see Baumeister,
Denkm. fig. 2102), sometimes with a more pro-
nounced spout and a base sugges-
tive of a pyxis. This in Birch is I
called an étrixvoris [EPICHYSIs];
and it is probable that it should
be distinguished alike from the
ordinary oenochöe and prochous.
The oenochöe was used in the
symposia, like the totally dif-
ferent cyathus, for dipping wine
from the crater and pouring it
into the cups, as we see on the vase-painting
in Panofka, Pl. xxxiv. 2, for which purpose a
jug of the above shape would be unsuitable.
To these purposes of the urceus and urceolus
must be added the sacrificial use; for Varro
says that the capis used for wine at sacrifices
under the ritus Romanus was an urceolus [see
CAPIs; SIMPULUM). Its shape is seen in the
annexed coin of the gens Pompeia. The
étrixvarts.
Coin with capis and lituus on the obverse.
material of the urcei and urceoli was not only
earthenware (as in Hor. l.c.), but also copper or
bronze (Cato, l.c.; Juv. x. 64; Mayor ad loc.) and
silver (Dig. 34, 2, 21). . [W. S.] [G. E. M.]
USUCAPIO. “Usucapio est adjectio domi-
nii per continuationem possessionis temporis lege
definiti’ (Dig. 41, 3, 3: cf. Ulpian, Reg. xix. 8;
Isidor. Orig. v. 25): it is the acquisition of full
Quiritarian ownership by possession continued
for a prescribed period of time. It is not every
system of law that recognises this title to pro-
perty, and there has been no little speculation
as to the reasons of its existence at Rome.
The rationale suggested by Gaius (ii. 44), “ne
rerum dominia diutius in incerto essent,” and
by other authorities (Dig. 41, 3, 1; Cic. pro
Caec. 26 ; Dig. 41, 10, 5, pr.), is regarded by
many writers as not satisfying, and the mode in
which the subject is introduced by Gaius himself
has led to the theory that usucapio originated in
the distinction between the so-called Quiritarian
and Bonitarian ownerships, a distinction which
itself arose from the abandonment in many cases

DSUCAPTO
LSUCAPIO 983
by the Romans of the old established methods of
conveyance. It would seem that as in primitive
times property belonged, not to the individual,
but to the family group, it was according to
archaic law practically inalienable. The head
of the family administered it on behalf of the
group, but he could not by conveyance prejudice
the rights of its other members: at Rome alien-
ation first took the guise of a fictitious action at
law, just as in England property which was
strictly inalienable was enabled to be conveyed
by the transparent device of a fine or recovery:
the party to whom it was wished to convey the
property instituted an action for the purpose of
establishing his pretended title to it against the
would-be conveyor, who made no defence, and so
in effect admitted the plaintiff’s right, where-
upon the property which was the subject of the
action was adjudged to the latter by the praetor.
This process was called in jure cessio. Owing
to its great inconvenience, a less troublesome
method of conveyance (mancipatio) was subse-
quently introduced for certain favoured objects
of property, probably those in which dealings
were most common between man and man, and
which were called res mancipi; but later still it
became established that though the forms of
mancipatio or in jure cessio must be strictly
observed in order to transfer ownership in res
mancipi, that in res nec mancipi might be con-
veyed by traditio or mere delivery—a con-
veyance of the jus gentium or natural law.
The tables thus were turned, and things which
but a little while before were the easiest were
now the most difficult to alienate. But the
cumbrousness and inconvenience of the old forms
in contrast with the simplicity of traditio were
now so galling that it became common, when it
was wished to convey a res mancipi, to deliver
it merely, though the effect of this, as the law
prescribed mancipatio or in jure cessio, was that
nothing strictly passed except possession; the
alienor retained the legal title or jus Quiritium
over the property, and the alienee was said to
have the thing in bonis by a title which we
should describe as equitable; the phrase “boni-
tarian ownership ’’ commonly used to describe
his interest is as old as Theophilus. Thus
Gaius says (ii. 40): “There was originally in
Rome only one kind of ownership : a person was
either owner of a thing ex jure Quiritium, or he
was not owner at all. But afterwards owner-
ship was divided, so that one man might be
owner ex jure Quiritium, and another might
have the same thing in bonis.” It is supposed
that usucapio was introduced simply for the
purpose of converting this equitable interest into
dominium ex jure Quiritium ; for, as Gaius says
(ii. 41), “Semel impleta usucapione proinde
pleno jure incipit, id est, et in bonis et ex jure
Quiritium tua res esse, ac si ea mancipata vel in
jura cessa esset.” If this hypothesis is correct,
we must hold that the changes which have been
described as taking place in the law of aliena-
tion had occurred, and that the practice of
merely delivering res mancipi had become
common, before the enactment of the Twelve
Tables, which regulated if they did not intro-
duce the law of usucapion (Gaius, ii. 42, 54):
but, after all, it does not seem unreasonable to
accept the general account of the matter given
by the authorities referred to above, and to find
*
the origin of the rules on this subject in the
failure of other conditions prescribed for the
acquisition of property (such as the requirement
of ownership, Gaius, ii. 43, or of capacity of legal
action in the alienor), and in the difficulty of
proving, after a considerable interval of time,
the validity of a conveyance which as a matter
of fact was perfectly unimpeachable in respect
both of form and of title.
As to the acquisition of property by lapse of
time in general, we find two distinct sets of
rules in the Roman law : those of Usucapio,
which are part of the jus civile, and those of
Longi temporis possessio or praescriptio [PRAE-
SCRIPTIO), which were introduced by the
praetor through the Edict.
Usucapio appears to have been called in the
Twelve Tables usus simply: the addition auctoritas
sometimes found with it (Cic. Top. 4; pro Caec.
19) denotes the warranty of title incumbent on
a vendor by mancipation, or (as some say) the
addition of the jural to the actual element (usus),
with which may be compared the adjectio domini
in the definition cited above from Dig. 41, 3, 3,
though there the proper reading may be adeptio,
which occurs in the definitions of Ulpian (Reg.
xix. 8) and Isidorus (Orig. v. 25). The time during
which the thing must be possessed, that the
possession may be converted into ownership, was
by the Twelve Tables a year for res mobiles,
two years for “fundus” or land (Gaius, ii. 42,
44, 54, 204; Cic. Top. ; Isidor. Orig. loc. cit.):
and during this period the possession must be
continuous and unbroken (Dig. 41, 3, 16: ib. 31,
1; 41, 2, 1, 15; ib. 36); the effect of interrup-
tion [USURPATIO) was that the previous posses-
sion counted for nothing, the time having to
commence afresh and run again in full. Nor
could the possession of one person be added to
that of another; so that if A, having possessed
a res mobilis for eleven months, transferred his
possession to B, the latter would still require a
continuous possession of his own for another
year before he acquired the dominium. The
only apparent exception to this rule for centuries
was that the heir succeeded to and could reckon
as his own the possession of the person from
whom he inherited (Dig. 4, 6, 30, pr. ; 41, 3, 20,
40, &c.), provided no third person had taken
possession of the object in the interval between
the decease and his own acceptance of the
inheritance (Dig. 41, 3, 20; 41, 4, 6, 2): but
this is accounted for by the “unity of person’’
which in the Roman view existed between a
deceased man and his heir, and which (as will
be seen) they realised most completely in respect
of usucapio : and it was not till the time of
Antoninus and Severus that the doctrine of
accessio temporis or possessionis was admitted
upon any transfer of possession inter vivos, when
by an enactment of those emperors a purchaser
was allowed to add to his own possession that of
his vendor (Inst. ii. 6, 13). It would seem that
subsequently the same thing was done under
other circumstances, as the general word auctores
occurs in Dig. 44, 3, 5, pr. ; and there is men.
tion of accessio temporis upon transfer of
possession by way of legacy, gift, dowry, pledge,
&c. (e.g. Dig. 44, 3, 5, pr. ; ib. 14, 3-5; 41, 2,
13, 6 sq.), though we may perhaps, infer from
Dig. 44, 3, 14, pr. (“de accessionibus posses-
sionum nihil in perpetuum neque generaliter
984 USUCAPIO
USUCAPIO
definire possumus, consistunt enim in sola aequi-
tate”) that there was no established rule of
law in the matter, the praetor judging of the
circumstances of each case on the occurrence of
litigation, and allowing or disallowing the claim
to accessio as he thought right by means of his
power to grant actions and exceptiones.
The possession must be civil or juristic
possession—that is, to the actual detention there
must be superadded the intention to deal with
the property as one's own (Dig. 41, 3, 25; ib.
13, pr. ; see POSSESSIO); and where it is deriva-
tive or representative (as in the cases of the
sequester, pledgee, and precario rogans), it can-
not ripen into dominium, though the possession
of the sequester prevents the acquisition of the
property per usucapionem by any of the seques-
trating parties (Dig. 41, 2, 39). Moreover, the
possession must have been acquired by a justa
&ausa or justus titulus (Inst. ii. 6, pr. ; Cod. 7,
29, 4); that is to say, the possessor must have
obtained it in some way which would have
made him owner, only that in the particular
case, owing to some external defect (e.g. weak-
ness in the transferor's title, or his incapacity of
legal action), acquisition of possession is not
equivalent to acquisition of ownership. The
causa in which the possession originates is in the
authorities expressed by the preposition pro
(“possidet pro empto, pro derelicto, pro donato,
pro soluto, pro herede, pro legato, pro dote,”
&c.). A titulus putativus (as where the possessor
erroneously supposes there was an intention to
vest the property in him, “veluti si quis, cum
non emerit, emisse re existimans, possideat: vel
cum ei donatum non fuerit, quasi ex donatione
possideat,” Inst. ii. 6, 11) would not support
usucapio (Inst. loc. cit.), though it was not
hindered if there was a causa of which the
possessor was ignorant (Dig. 41, 10, 22), or as
to the precise nature of which he was mistaken
(Dig. 41, 3, 31, 6), and even in the absence of
titulus altogether it could proceed if the pos-
sessor believed one to exist through an excusable
error of fact (Dig. 41, 10, 5, 1; 22, 6, 4), as
where A commissions B to buy a thing for him
which B brings him with the fraudulent assur-
ance that he has done so (Dig. 41, 4, 11).
But a person whose possession, notwithstand-
ing the existence of a justus titulus, did not
originate in bona fides could not acquire by
usucapio (Inst. ii. 6, pr. ; Gaius, ii. 43). By
bona fides in this connexion seems to be meant a
negative rather than a positive mental state—in
other words, excusable ignorance of fact with
regard to the circumstances which in the
particular case prevent acquisition of ownership
(“qui ignorabat . . . alienum . . . bonae fidei
possessor,” Dig. 48, 15, 3, pr. ; “bonae fides
emptor esse videtur, qui ignoravit eam rem
alienam esse, aut putavit eum qui vendidit jus
vendendi habere: puta procuratorem aut tutorem
esse,” Dig. 50, 16, 109): and the only cases in
which its presence can be really a question are
cases of materially defective acquisition, as e.g.
where a non-owner sells and delivers property:
here the purchaser, besides this causa (pro
empto), must not know that it belongs to some
one other than the vendor, or that the vendor
has no authority to sell (Dig. 50, 16, 109, cited
supr.). Bona fides was required by Roman law
only at the inception of possession (Dig. 41, 1,
48, 1), and in sales also at the time of the
contract (Dig. 41, 4, 2, pr., and 13); so that if
the possessor discovered his error a moment
after the possession became vested in him,
usucapio was not hindered. This is expressed in
the maxim (which, however, is not classical),
“mala fides superveniens non nocet :” but
under the canon and modern civil laws the rule
is different, the presence of bona fides being
required throughout the whole period of posses-
sion. If a man's possession commenced in good
faith, the fact of his heir's knowledge that the
property was not his own was immaterial, there
being in contemplation of law no break in the
continuity of the possession: and conversely if
the ancestor's possession was mala fide in its
inception, ignorance on the heir's part of the
flaw in his title did not avail to enable him to
acquire by usucapio.
There were certain anomalous cases in which
some of the rules hitherto stated were varied, or
had no application. Thus, if the state sold land
which it held in pledge, and the purchaser
(praediator) allowed the former proprietor to
remain two years in possession without making
entry and ejecting him, the latter recovered
his ownership by what was called usureceptio ea:
praediatura (Gaius, ii. 61). A second species of
usureceptio was where a man conveyed property
fiduciae causa [PIGNUs], with an agreement for
future reconveyance, to a friend for custody,
or by way of mortgage: here, if he obtained
possession, he could regain the ownership in one
year (even though the property was immobilis),
unless the original conveyance had been made as
security for a debt which remained undischarged,
in which case he could thus recover only if he
had got possession neither by hire nor by pre-
carium (“usu receptio lucrativa,” Gaius, ii. 59,
60). Again, res mancipi of a woman in the
guardianship of her nearest agnate had been
excepted by the Twelve Tables from the opera-
tion of usucapio, unless delivery of them were
made by the woman herself with the guardian’s
auctoritas (Gaius, ii. 47); so that if a man
knowingly bought such property from the
woman without the tutor’s sanction, the re-
quirement of bona fides was unsatisfied: but it
was provided by a “constitutio Rutiliana,” of
which nothing further is known, that he could
acquire a full title by usucapio unless before
its completion the woman offered to return him
the purchase-money (fragm. Wat. 1). None of
these cases survived to the time of Justinian.
Gaius also tells us (ii. 52) that, if a man took
possession of a res hereditaria, a piece of pro-
perty belonging to an inheritance, before the
heir, he could acquire it by usucapio in a year
(Gaius, ii. 54 ; Cic. ad Att. i. 5), even though a
res immobilis, notwithstanding his knowledge
that he had no title to it whatever (cf. Plin. Ep.
5, 1): this was called possessio or usucapio pro
herede (Gaius, ii. 52), and was also lucrativa
(ib. 56), “nam sciens quisque rem alienam lucri-
facit.” The reason, he says, why even land
could in this case be acquired in a year was that
an hereditas was a res incorporalis, and there-
fore fell under the ceterae res which the Twelve
Tables had enacted should be acquirable in the
shorter period: and he accounts for this curious
form of usucapio by the desire to induce heirs
to make a prompt aditio of inheritances to
LSUCAPIO
DSUCAPIO 985
which they were entitled, in order that there
might be some one to perform the family sacra,
and to discharge the deceased's liabilities (ii. 55):
considerations which also probably will account
for the doctrine that there could be no theft of
res hereditariae until the heir had taken posses-
sion of them (Gaius, iii. 201; Paul. Sent. rec. ii.
31, 11; Dig. 47, 2, 68–70; 47, 4, 1, 15). The
law on this subject, however, was altered by a
senatusconsultum Juventianum passed at the
instance of the Emperor Hadrian (Gaius, ii. 57),
by which it was enacted that, even though the
possessor had retained the property for the
necessary year, the usucapio might be avoided
by the heir's proving his original title against
him by hereditatis petitio, though, should he not
do so, the right acquired by usucapio would
avail against all other persons. Subsequently
the wrongful appropriation of res hereditariae
of which the heir had not yet possessed himself
rendered the delinquent liable to a criminal
prosecution under the name of crimen ea pilatae
hereditatis: “Si quis alienam hereditatem ex-
pilaverit, extra ordinem solet coerceri per accu-
sationem expilatae hereditatis, sicut et oratione
divi Marci cavetur” (Dig. 47, 19, 1 ; cf. ib. 3).
After this change possessio pro herede usually
denotes the interest of a person who had obtained
from the praetor a grant of the bonorum
possessio or praetorian inheritance, which usu-
capio would convert into ownership; but this
case was obsolete in the law of Justinian’s time,
in which usucapio pro herede signifies usucapion
of a res hereditaria by a person who through an
excusable error believes himself heir (Dig. 41, 3,
33, 1), or of res non hereditariae by the heir
who supposes them to belong to the inheritance
(Dig. 41, 5, 3).
Usucapio being a “civil” mode of acquisition,
by which the possessor became dominus ex jure
Quiritium, it followed that no person could
avail himself of it who had not the commercium :
this in particular excluded peregrini, as was
signified by the phrase of the Twelve Tables
“adversus hostem aeterna auctoritas” (Cic. de
Off. i. 12, 37): so, too, Gaius says (ii. 65),
“usucapionis jus proprium est civium Roman-
orum.” Similarly things which were not in
commercio, incapable of being owned by private
individuals, were excluded from its operation:
among these were res divini juris, such as
temples and lands dedicated to the gods, sepul-
chres and their approaches: res communes and
res publicae, especially provincial soil (Gaius,
ii. 46) and free men (Gaius, ib. 48). There
were also a number of other things which could
not be acquired by usucapion, some on account
of their actual nature, some by reason of positive
enactment.
As the foundation of the right is possession,
and nothing can be possessed but what is corpo-
real and tangible (“possideri autem possunt,
quae sunt corporalia . . . nec possideri intelli-
gitur jus incorporale,” Dig. 41, 2, 3, pr. ; 41, 3,
4, 27), a title to mere incorporeal rights, such
as servitudes and other jura in re aliena, could
not be established in this manner. It would
seem that in respect of urban servitudes this
doctrine had been reversed—perhaps because in
them there was a greater semblance of physical
possession—and that the acquisition of them by
usucapio had to be declared void by statute (the
Lex Scribonia: see SERVITUTEs): though those
writers who suppose that usucapio was intro-
duced solely to perfect the traditio of res
mancipi contend that rustic servitudes, or at
least some of them, could originate in this
manner (Engelbach, Ueber die Usucapion zur
Zeit der Zwölf Tafeln, Marburg, 1828). But
the determination of servitudes by non-user, as
to which there was never any doubt (Paul. Sent.
rec. i. 17; ib. iii. 6, 30), was in effect a usucapio
of libertas—a phrase actually used, in speaking
of the extinction of urban servitudes, in Dig.
8, 2, 6 ; and it would seem that eventually a
title to rights of this class could be established
by longi temporis possessio or praescriptio
[SERVITUTES].
The withdrawal of certain corporeal things
subject to private dominium from the operation
of usucapio was due either (1) to the wish to
confer a privilege on the owner, or (2) to the
character of the property itself. To the former
class belong (a) res mancipi of women in agnatic
guardianship, of which enough has been already
said above. (b) Property of towns (“usuca-
pionem recipiunt maximè res corporales, ex-
ceptis rebus . . . civitatum,” Dig. 41, 3, 9; cf.
Dig. 6, 2, 12, 2), though their land could be
acquired by a praescriptio of twenty years
(Paul. Sent, rec. v. 2, 4). (c) Res immobiles of
churches and religious and charitable founda-
tions (Nov. iii. 1, 131, 6). (d) Property of the
fiscus, though bona vacantia were not excepted
from usucapio until they had been nüntiata
(Inst. ii. 6, 9; Dig. 41, 3, 18, 24): the same
privilege was extended to the private property
of the emperor (Cod. 7, 30, 2; 7, 38, 2, 3; 11,
61, 64). (e) Things belonging to pupilli or to
minors under cura, the alienation of which was
prohibited by law (Dig. 27, 9; Cod. 5, 71–74;
Dig. 8, 6, 10, pr. ; 41, 1, 48, pr.).
To the second class belong the following :-
(a) Res furtivae, stolen property, which was
excepted from usucapio by the Twelve Tables
(Gaius, ii. 45; Inst. ii. 6, 2), whose enactment
was repeated by a lex Atinia (Inst. loc. cit.;
Gell. xvii. 7; Cic, in Verr. ii. 1, 42; Dig. 41, 3,
4, 6; ib. 33, pr. ; 50, 16, 215) of unknown date,
which added that the vitium furti should be
purged as soon as the owner (or his agent to his
knowledge) regained possession of the stolen
property, or was able to bring a vindicatio for
its recovery (Inst. ii. 6, 8). So too if a non-
owner pledged a res aliena or gave it to another
in usufruct, and subsequently stole it from the
pledgee or usufructuary, recovery of possession
by the latter made the thing again acquirable by
usucapio (Dig. 41, 3, 49). The result was that
not even a possessor in good faith of property
which had been stolen at any distance of time
could acquire a title to it in this manner, and
Gaius (ii. 50) observes that it was consequently
extremely difficult for a mere boná-fide possessor
(who was not also Bonitarian owner) to become
owner ex jure Quiritium by usucapio of movable
property, because any unauthorized dealing with
a res which to one's knowledge was aliena (i.e. not
one's own) was theft in contemplation of law,
though he mentions some cases by way of illustra-
tion in which it was possible: as where an heir
sells property which had been deposited with, or
let or lent to, the deceased, but which he believed
to belong to the inheritance; or where the
986 TJSUCAPIO
TJSUCAPIO
usufructuary of a female slave sells or gives
away her offspring in the belief that he was
entitled to do so: in both of which instances
the bona fides of the alienor excludes the pre-
sumption of furtum. Fugitive slaves could not
be acquired by usucapio on the same principle
(Inst. ii. 6, 1), their running away being regarded
as a theft of themselves (Cod. 6, 1, 1). Land
could not be stolen (Inst. ii. 6, 7), and therefore
did not come within the provisions of the Twelve
Tables or the Lex Atinia : but it was enacted
by leges Julia and Plautia (Gaius, ii. 45, 51;-
Dig. 41, 3, 4, 22, 23; ib. 48, pr.) that res vi
possessae (and thus land from which the tenant
had been forcibly ousted) should be equally
excluded from the operation of usucapio, until
the tenant recovered possession or was in a
position to bring a vindicatio (Inst. ii. 6, 8).
Justinian points out in the Institutes that a
title to land in general could be more easily
thus acquired than to movable property, because
there would be no vis in a man’s entering on a
locus vacans; and though he could not become
its owner himself, because his possession was
mala fide, yet a boná-fide possessor to whom the
land was conveyed by him without knowledge
of the defect in his title could do so (Inst. ii.
6, 7). (b) Fundus dotalis, land comprised in a
dos, was forbidden to be alienated by the Lex
Julia de fundo dotali (Gaius, ii. 63; Inst. ii. 8,
pr.), a prohibition which also excepted it from
acquisition by usucapio if it came into the
possession of a third person after the dos was
created (Dig. 23, 5, 16), it being a general rule
that wherever alienation of property was for-
bidden by statute, its usucapion was forbidden
also (“alienationis verbum etiam usucapionem
continet, vix est enim, ut non videatur alienare,
qui patitur usucapi,” Dig. 50, 16, 28, pr.).
Justinian further enacted (Cod. 5, 12, 30) that
to an action brought by the wife against a
third person for the recovery of any dotal
property, movable or non-movable, no exceptio of
usucapio or praescriptio should be pleadable.
(c) By the Lex Julia repetundarum it was
provided that no one should be able to set up a
title by usucapio to any property of which a
provincial governor had become possessed against
the laws relating to extortion (Dig. 48, 11, 8,
pr. ; 41, 1, 48, pr.): but (as in cases of theft)
the vitium was removed by the revesting of
possession in the owner (Dig. 48, 11, 8, 1).
(d) It was declared by the Lex Mamilia that
the space of five feet which the law required to
be left clear between landed estates should not
be acquirable by usucapio (“quoniam usuca-
pionem intra quinque pedes esse moluerunt,”
Cic. de Legg. i. 21, 55), though under the law of
Justinian it was liable to a thirty years’ pre-
scription (Cod. 3, 39, 6). (e) Building materials
of one man used by another without the former’s
knowledge were not subject to usucapio so long
as they remained part of the structure (Dig. 41,
1, 7, 11 ; 6, 1, 23, 7). (f) Other res of less
importance excepted from usucapion are those
belonging to the so-called peculium adventitium
regulare of filiifamilias (Cod. 6, 60, 1; 6,61, 4),
and property which devolves on children of a
first marriage owing to the parents’ marrying
again (Nov. 22, 24).
Two peculiar subjects to which usucapio
applied under the older law deserve a brief
notice. One of the modes in which a husband
could obtain manus over his wife was usus,
residence under his roof continuously for a year,
though she could save her independence by
staying away three successive nights (Gaius,
i. 110 ; Gell. Noct. Att. iii.; Macrob. Saturn.
i. 3): Cicero mentions this as a way in which
manus could originate even in his time (pro
Flacco, 34), but at the time at which Gaius
wrote it was obsolete (i. 111). Originally, too,
hereditates were regarded as acquirable by
usucapio (Gaius, ii. 54), so that even the sacra
passed to the person who became entitled to
them in this manner (Cic. de Legg. ii. 19 sq.;
pro Flacco, 34; ad Att. i. 5), but in the early
days of the Empire this doctrine began to be
questioned, and by the time of Gaius (loc. cit.)
it was settled that though res hereditariae could
still be thus acquired, the “universitas” could
Inot. §
The rules as to acquisition by lapse of time
which were established through the Edict
originated partly perhaps in the incapacity of
peregrini to gain a title to property by the civil
law usucapio (though this is more a matter of
inference than of positive knowledge: see Puchta,
Institutionen, § 240, note b), and partly also in
the exemption of provincial soil from its opera-
tion. A person who had acquired a bonā-fide
possession of land by a justus titulus, and
retained it continuously for ten years (or twenty
if the alleged owner resided in a different pro-
vince), was enabled by the edict of the governor
to plead in defence to an action brought against
him by such owner for its recovery the length
of his possession (praescriptio or exceptio longi
temporis: see PRAESCRIPTIO), and on proof of
his plea the plaintiff would have judgment given
against him (Paul. Sent. rec. v. 2, 3, 4; v. 5a, 8).
The positive enactments excluding certain things
from this mode of acquisition on account of a
vitium (e.g., res furtivae and in possessae) were
as a rule applied here as well as in usucapio :
but accessio temporis was generally allowed
where the possession had been derived from
another person by a genuine succession of title
(e.g. between donor and donee, testator and
legatee, &c.), which in usucapio we have seen
was not the case. At first Praescriptio longi
temporis operated only as a rule of Limitation,
not making the possessor owner, but merely
enabling him to repel the action of an owner
who had been for a certain period out of posses-
sion; but it would seem that in course of time
it acquired the operation of usucapio, a man
who had possessed provincial land for the time
required by the edict being able to bring a real
edict for its recovery if he lost possession: “Si
quis emptionis vel donationis vel alterius cujus-
cunque contractus titulo rem aliquam bona fide
per decem vel viginti annos possederit . . . postea-
que fortuito casa possessionem qui reiperdiderit,
posse eum etiam actionem ad vindicandam rem
eandem habere saucimus, hoc enim et veteres
leges, si quis eas recte inspearerit, sanciebant.”
(Cod. 7, 39, 8, pr. ; cf. Dig. 12, 2, 13, 1).
Praescriptio also became a title to servitudes on
Italian no less than provincial soil (Dig. 8, 5,
10, pr.), and probably also (for peregrini) to res
mobiles all over the Empire (“rescriptis qui-
busdam Divi Magni Antonini cavetur, ut in
rebus mobilibus locus sit praescriptioni diutinae
TJSUCAPIO
TJSURPATIO 987
possessionis,” Dig. 44, 3, 9): indeed, considering
its advantages over usucapio in respect of
accessio temporis and in some other points (Dig.
41, 3, 44, 5; 20, 1, 1, 2; 44, 3, 5, 1 ; ib. 12;
—Cod. 4, 10, 14; 7, 36), it was perhaps some-
times relied upon as a title to soil in Italy.
Indeed, the new rules seem to have entirely
superseded those of usucapio in the Empire of
the Visigoths, whose Lex Romana contains, in
the Sentences of Paulus, a title “de Usucapione”
(v. 2), the contents of which however relate
entirely to longi temporis praescriptio or pos-
sessio. In the Eastern empire the two bodies of
law subsisted side by side up to the time of
Justinian; the acquisition of land being for the
most part governed by rules of Praescriptio (for,
with the exception of the few towns which had
as a favour received a grant of jus Italicum, the
whole of its soil was provinciale), and that of res
mobiles by those of the old usucapio.
Justinian himself completely reformed the
law on this subject. In A.D. 528 he issued
a constitution definitely establishing the effect
of longi temporis praescriptio as a mode of ac-
quiring dominium, a point which seems hitherto
not to have been clearly settled (Cod. 7, 39,
8, pr., cited above), and three years later he
abolished the old two years' usucapio for land,
and with it the distinction between solum Itali-
cum and solum provinciale, enacting that the
latter no less than the former should be acquir-
able in absolute ownership by a possession of ten
years if both the parties were domiciled in the
same, twenty ifin different provinces (Cod. 7, 31).
He further substituted for the old usucapio of
one year for res mobiles one of three years, as-
similated the rules both as to movables and im-
movables in respect of titulus, bona fides, and
the kinds of things which could not be acquired
in this manner, and allowed accessio temporis
to the fullest extent in which it had been recog-
nised by the praetorian law. The term “usu-
capio.” is in his legislation confined to the acqui-
sition of res mobiles, while that of land is very
uniformly described by the terms “longo tem-
pore capio,” “longa possessione capio,” “diutina
possessione capio,” “longi temporis possessio’”
or “praescriptio,” though sometimes the two
are combined (e.g. Inst. ii. 6, pr. : “immobiles...
per longi temporis possessionem ... usucapian-
tur”).
Finally by Cod. 7, 39, 8, pr. and 1, Justinian
introduced a new species of Prescription, usually
termed “longissimi temporis praescriptio’’ or
“usucapio extraordinaria,” and based upon
Theodosius II.'s thirty or forty years’ limitation
of actions [PRAESCRIPTIO], according to which a
person who could successfully meet a real action
brought against him by another for the recovery
of property, movable or immovable, by the plea
of thirty years’ possession, was empowered, if
his own possession had commenced in good faith,
to himself bring a vindicatio against third per-
sons: in other words, he was under such circum-
stances recognised as owner. As in the ordinary
usucapio or praescriptio, accessio temporis was
allowed to the fullest extent where there had
been a succession in title between two possessors:
but here there was no requirement of justus
titulus; and though res extra commercium could
not be thus acquired, all other things excepted
from the ordinary usucapion or prescription were
subject to acquisition in this longer period except
property of pupilli, res dotales, and peculium
adventitium regulare. The foundation of this
new institution on Theodosius’ limitation of
actions appears in the rule, that in those cases
where the period of limitation was forty years
(i.e. where the property belonged to the church,
a charitable foundation, the Fiscus, emperor or
empress) the prescription must be of the same
duration: and that where time could not be
counted for purposes of limitation, it could not
be reckoned for purposes of prescription either:
e.g. the period during which the original owner
was impubes could not be considered.
(Gaius, ii. 41–61; Ulpian, Reg. xix. 8 ; Paul.
Sent, rec. v. 2; Inst. ii. 6;-Dig. 41, 3–11; 44,
3;—Cod. Theod. 4, 13;-Cod. 7, 26–31; 33–37.
For discussions as to the original purpose of
usucapio, reference may be made to Engelbach,
Ueber die Usucapion zur Zeit der Zwölf Tafeln,
Marburg, 1828, and Schirmer, Grundidee der
Usucapion, 1855. For the subject in general,
see Puchta, Institutionen, §§ 239, 240; Baron,
Pandekten, §§ 144–147; Vangerow, Lehrbuch
der Pandekten, §§ 314–325; and in particular
Unterholzner, Verjährungslehre, 2nd edit., 1858.
For titulus, Stintzing, Das Wesen der bona fides
wnd titulus in der römischen. Usucapionslehre, 1853;
Mayer, Die justa causa bei Tradition und. Usuca-
pion, 1871. For bona fides, Möllentheil, Ueber
die Natur des guten Glaubens bei der Verjährung,
1820, and Wächter, Die bona fides insbesondere
bei der Ersitzung des Eigenthums, 1871.)
[J. B. M.]
TJSURPATIO and the verb from which it is
formed have a variety of meanings in the Roman
legal writings. The verb denotes: (1) Simply
“to make use of: ” e.g. “si judicium defuncti
non usurpabitur, sed ad irritum vocatum est,
petitio relictorum nullo jure procedit” (Cod. 6,
39, 2). (2) “To wrongfully exercise an alleged
but non-existent right ° (“per vim atque usurpa-
tionem windicare,” Cod. 1, 4, 6; cf. Cod. 1, 6, 1:
“usurpare illicitum Collegium,” Dig. 47, 22, 2:
“curam,” Cod. 1, 30, 3: “honorem,” Dig. 50,
4, 7, 1 : “nomen tutoris,” Cod. 5, 6, 8). (3)
“To appropriate to oneself,” as in the common
English sense of the word (Dig. 4, 6, 40, 1 ; 10,
1, 8, pr. ; 50, 8, 2, 1). (4) “To preserve a right
of servitude by its exercise,” as opposed to “non
utendo deperdere” (Dig. 8, 6, 6, 1). (5) The in-
terruption of usucapio (Dig. 41, 3, 2; 41, 6, 5).
Appius Claudius Caecus, who constructed the
Via Appia and brought the Aqua Claudia to
Rome, wrote a book De Usurpationibus, which
was not extant in the time of Pomponius (Dig.
1, 2, 36).
Usurpatio in this last sense most commonly
occurred from loss of possession, and even if it
were subsequently regained the whole period of
usucapio had to commence de novo and run again.
Before Justinian litis contestatio (to the article
on which reference may be made) in an action
brought by the owner against the possessor for
the recovery of the property interrupted longi
temporis praescriptio (Cod. 3, 19, 2; 3, 32, 26),
but not usucapio (Dig. 6, 1, 18, 20, 21 ; 41, 4,
21, 1), and this distinction was retained, appa-
rently by an oversight, in his compilations,
though it was not of much importance because,
if the defendant lost the action, he still had to
give up the property to the plaintiff, notwith-
988 |USUSFRUCTUS
USUSFRUCTUS
standing the completion of usucapio during its
pendency (“ usucapio frustra complebitur anti-
cipata lite,” fragm. Wat. 12: cf. Dig. 41, 4, 2,
21 ; 6, 1, 18). Interruption also ensued from a
judicial protest addressed by the owner to the
possessor, if the latter was a person whom for
some reason or other he was disabled from suing
(Cod. 7, 40, 2), and possibly also from the
owner's being taken captive in war (Dig. 41, 3,
15, pr. ; ib. 44, 7; 49, 15, 12, 2; ib. 22, 3; ib.
29). As to the passage in Gellius (iii. 2) and
Macrob. Saturn. (i. 3) relating to the non-estab-
lishment of manus per usum by absence of the
wife per trinoctium, see Savigny, System, &c.,
iv. 365; Puchta, Institutionen, § 199, note y.
A suspension of usucapio, as distinct from its
interruption, enabled the possessor to reckon the
period of his possession before it took place:
this occurred when the property over which the
right was being prescriptively established be-
came vested in an owner privileged in respect of
usucapio (e.g. the Fiscus, enaperor, charitable
foundations, &c.), and when the owner was pre-
vented by grounds of law from bringing his real
action for its recovery (e.g. in the interval
allowed to the heir under Justinian's legislation
for preparing an inventory of the deceased’s pro-
perty, Cod. 6, 30, 22, 11). [J. B. M.]
|USUSFRUCTUS and USUS were two of
the personal servitudes of Roman law (Dig. 8,
1, 1): for the nature of the distinction between
them and praedial servitudes, see SERVITUTEs.
Ususfructus is defined as “jus alienis rebus
utendi fruendi salva rerum substantia” (Dig. 7,
1, 1; Inst. ii. 4, pr.); it is the “real” right of
using and taking the fruits of property, movable
(including slaves) as well as immovable, the use
of which does not diminish its substance : “est
enim jus in corpore, quo sublato et ipsum tolli
necesse est” (Inst. ib.; Dig. ib. 2: cf. Cic. Top. 3,
“usus enim, non abusus legatus est”). The
person entitled is called usufructuarius or fruc-
tuarius (Dig. 7, 8, 14, 1–3); the owner of the
property subject to the right, proprietarius or
dominus proprietatis (Inst. ii. 4, 3); and his
ownership, so long as the usufruct subsists, nuda
proprietas (Inst. ib. 1). Unless otherwise pro-
vided by the disposition in which it originated,
a usufruct endured for the lifetime of the person
entitled and no longer (Inst. ii. 4, 3; Dig. 45, 1,
38, 12): if vested in a juristic person, it could
not last beyond a hundred years except by
express provision (Dig. 7, 1,56).
The things over which usufruct could exist
were properly only tangible objects of property,
in the use of which lies the true and essential
notion of a servitude: the right of taking fruits
was probably a later extension. Hence the
Romans did not recognise a fructus sine usu
(Paul. Sent, rec. iii. 6, 24; Dig. 7, 8, 14, 1); and
if a right (e.g.) to take the annual fruits of an
estate were given, it was construed either as a
usufruct (which was usual in cases of bequest:
Dig. 7, 1, 20), or as a mere right in personam
and not a servitude at all.
Unless his rights were otherwise limited in
the disposition by which they were created, the
usufructuary was entitled to the detention or
“natural” possession of the property (Dig.
41, 2, 12, pr. ; 43, 17, 4;—Gaius, ii. 93; Inst.
ii. 9, 4): to make any lawful use of it he
pleased (Dig. 7, 1, 12, 1 ; ib. 15, 4; ib. 23, 1,
&c.), and to take its fruits, whether natural,
industrial, or what are termed fructus civiles,
e.g. money made by letting out a thing on
hire (Dig. ib. 7, pr. and 1; ib. 9, pr. ; ib. 15,
&c.). His title to natural fruits was perceptio,
actual taking of possession (Inst. ii. 1, 36); but
though in the case of land, for instance, he was
entitled to collect and keep for himself all the
fruits which were already on it, and all that
were produced during the time of his enjoyment,
he had no right to those which existed on the
land when his interest terminated unless he had
taken possession of them. Nor had he rights of
any kind over accessions of the principal object
(e.g. the issue of an ancilla, Inst. ii. 1, 37; Dig.
7, 1, 68, pr. ; or “insula in flumine nata,” Dig.
ib. 9, 4), unless they were immediately bound up
with so as to form an integral part of it (e.g.
alluvio), in which case the accession also was
subject to the usufruct. He might also exercise
all rights annexed to the property, such as
praedial servitudes. But all these rights are
qualified by the words “salva rerum sub-
stantia: ” they must not be exercised so as to
injure the reversionary interest of the dominus,
so that he may not deal with the res fructuaria
otherwise than as a “bonus paterfamilias” (Inst.
ii. 1, 38): rather he must act as carefully and
economically as though he were himself its
owner, “boni viri arbitratu’” (Dig. 7, 1, 9, pr. ;
7, 9, 1, pr.): “causam proprietatis deteriorem
facere non debet.” His duties in this respect
seem to be of two kinds: firstly, not to put
the thing to other or at any rate inferior uses
than has been customary (e.g. to employ a slave
in work of mere drudgery who has been engaged
before in artistic or literary occupations: Dig.
7, 1, 15, 1); and secondly, not to change its
character, even though it might thus be improved
or made more valuable ; e.g. he may not convert
a pleasure into a fruit garden (Dig. ib. 13, 4),
build on land save so far as is necessary for
storage of its fruits (ib. 13, 6), or raze buildings
already standing. As regards acts of waste,
as they would be termed in English law, it
would seem that in the absence of provision to
the contrary he might, at any rate, dig for
minerals, but only if the estate subject to his
right was of considerable extent (Dig. ib. 9, 3;
ib. 13, 5): upon this subject see Vangerow,
Lehrbuch der Pandekten, § 344, notes 1 and 2.
These common law rights of the usufructuary
might, however, be curtailed by the disposition
by which they were created, or even, it would
seem, by subsequent agreement between the
parties, in respect both of the usus and the
fructus, or of either: e.g. he might be allowed
to take certain kinds of fructus only, or a right
which ordinarily is praedial (such as aquae
haustus) might be conferred on one man by
another as a personal servitude (Dig. 34, 1,
14, 3).
A usufruct might be released to the owner of
the property, in Gaius’ time (ii. 30) by in jure
cessio [Jure CESSIO), in Justinian's by any act
conclusive of the intention to surrender (Inst. ii.
4, 3): but it could not be alienated by the
usufructuary to a third person (Gaius and Inst.
l. c.;-Dig. 23, 3,66; 10, 2, 15), though he might
assign the exercise or enjoyment of it (even by
way of pledge or mortgage), the actual right
remaining in himself (Dig. 7, 1, 12, 2; ib.
USUSFRUCTUS
DSUS 989
38–40). The effect of an attempt to transfer it
absolutely to a third person was in Gaius’ time
disputed : he himself (ii. 30) says that it was
nugatory, while Pomponius, his contemporary,
affirms (Dig. 23, 3, 66) that it caused a for-
feiture to the dominus: of these two views the
first was adopted by Justinian, who reproduces
it in the Institutes (ii. 4, 3).
Subject and without prejudice to the usu-
fructuary's rights, the owner of the property
might deal with it as he pleased (Dig. 7, 1, 7, 1 ;
ib. 13, 7, &c.), e.g. alienate or pledge it (Cod. 3,
33, 2): but he could not even with the other's
consent create any servitudes over it which
would injuriously affect the latter's rights (Dig.
7, 1, 15, 7) or surrender servitudes existing in
its favour.
The usufructuary was bound to indemnify the
owner for any loss occasioned by his dealing
with the property in excess of his legal rights
(Inst. ii. 1, 38; Dig. 7, 1, 9, pr. and 2; ib. 65,
pr.): to see that no servitudes appurtenant to
it were extinguished by non-user (Dig. ib. 15,
7): to keep buildings in ordinary repair (ib. 7,
2) and land in proper cultivation and tenantable
condition (Inst. ii. 1, 38): to maintain the
numbers of flocks and herds by replacing cattle,
&c. which died (ib.): to pay all rates, taxes, &c.
charged on the property itself (Dig. 7, 1, 7, 2;
ib. 27, 3), and when his interest determined to
restore it to the person entitled along with all
accessions (Dig. 7, 9, 1, pr. ; ib. 9, 3). To
secure the performance of these duties he must
enter into a cautio usufructuaria [CAUTIO),
supported by sureties, with the owner; a
practice originally introduced where the usu-
fruct was created by bequest, but subsequently
extended to nearly all cases (Dig. 7, 1, 13, pr. ;
Cod. 3, 33, 4); and until this was done the
owner might either refuse to let him have the
enjoyment of the property, or bring an action to
compel him to give the requisite security (Dig.
loc. cit.: 7, 9, 7, pr.): and though this obli-
gation might be surrendered by the owner,
where the usufruct was based on contract, if a
testator bequeathed such a right to another
person, and by his will released him from the
cautio, the release was taken pro non scripto
(Dig. 36, 4, 6, pr. ; Cod. 6, 54, 7). For the
legal remedies (actions and interdicts) by which
the usufructuary and usuary could enforce their
rights, reference should be made to the article
on SERVITUTES.
The modes in which ususfructus and usus
were created were the same in general as for all
servitudes, and for these the reader may be
referred to the same article. The commonest
was testamentary disposition, the right being
either bequeathed directly, or the heir being
directed to constitute it in favour of the legatee:
“ususfructus uniuscujusque rei legari potest,
et aut ipso jure constituetur aut per heredem
praestabitur : ex causa damnationis [LEGATUM)
per heredem praestabitur, ipso jure per vindica-
tionem ’’ (Paul. Sent. rec. iii. 6, 17). In certain
cases usufruct arose ipso jure in virtue of
statutory enactment (lea); e.g. the pater's
usufruct in the peculium adventitium of his son
in power (Inst. ii. 9, 1;-Dig. 8, 6, 5; 8, 5, 1,
&c.). Similarly, these rights were extinguished
in the ways common to all servitudes.
The inconvenience of the rule which, on
grounds of both natural and civil law (Inst. ii.
4, 2), excluded from usufruct things “quae usu
tolluntur vel minuuntur” (such as money,
provisions, and clothes), led to the enactment of
a senatusconsultum which legalised bequests of
usufruct over such kinds of property, the legatee
being entitled to enjoy them on giving security
to the heir that on his death or capitis demi-
nutio he would return him things of a similar
quantity or quality, or pay him their estimated
value (Inst. ii. 4, 2; Dig. 7, 5, 1). As Justinian
says, the senate did not introduce a genuine
usufruct in such things, for that was impossible,
“sed per cautionem quasi usumfructum con-
stituit.” The date of the senatusconsultum is
not precisely known, but it is supposed to lie
between Cicero (on account of Top. 3: “Non
debet ea mulier, cui vir bonorum suorum usum–
fructum legavit, cellis vinariis et oleariis plenis
relictis, putare id ad se pertinere; usus enim,
non abusus legatus est”) and the enactment of
the Lex Papia Poppaea (A.D. 9), which often
speaks of usufruct over part of a whole
property. The difference between the new
right and usufruct proper lies in the fact that
the person entitled became owner of the
property in question (“ita datur ut ejus fiat,”
Inst. ii. 4, 2), so that the notion of a jus in
re aliena is entirely absent: he may consume it
entirely, and so has not to return it in specie.
The main purpose of the innovation was doubt-
less to enable testators to bequeath a general
usufruct over the whole of their property (Dig.
33, 2, 24, pr. ; Cod. 3, 33, 1), but such rights
were also constituted over nomina or “choses in
action,” whereby the person to whom they were
given became entitled to call in the debt, or to
take the interest payable on it (Dig. 7, 8, 2, 1;
ib. 4): if it was the debtor himself, he was
released from the obligation to pay interest,
though he must give security for the discharge
of the debt at the proper time (Dig. 7, 8, 12,
pr. and 1). Whether clothes could be the
subject of a true usufruct seems to have been
doubtful: Dig. 7, 1, 15, 4; 7, 9, 9, 3, is for the
affirmative: Inst. ii. 4, 2, for the negative.
[J. B. M.]
TJSUS is defined (Dig. 7, 8, 2) by the nega-
tion of frui: “cui usus relictus est, uti potest,
frui non potest.” But the right of mere user
was not strictly confined to the personal needs
of the usuary, e.g. the person who had a usus of
a house was entitled to lodge there his family,
slaves, servants, and freedmen, and apparently
even a guest, though this had been doubted
(Inst. ii. 5, 2; Dig. 7, 8, 2, 1 ; ib. 3; ib. 4, 1):
but anything which came under the notion of
fructus was as a rule denied him, so that he
could not let the res usuaria out, or transfer the
exercise of his right to a third person even
gratuitously (Inst. ii. 5, 1; Dig. 7, 8, 11). The
contrast between usus and ususfructus is very
characteristically marked in connexion with
acquisition through slaves: “de iis autem servis,
in quibus tantum usumfructum habemus, ita
placuit, ut quidquid ex re nostra vel ex operis
suis acquirant, id nobis acquiratur” (Inst. ii. 9,
4). “Per servum usualium si stipuler vel per
traditionem accipiam, an acquiram, quaeritur,
si ex re mea vel ex operis ejus. Et si quidem ex .
operis ejus, non valebit, quoniam nec locare
operas ejus possumus : sed si ex re mea, dicinus, .
990 UTERINI
IXENELASIA
servum usuarium stipulantem vel per tra-
ditionem accipientem mihi acquirere, quum hac
opera ejus utar” (Dig. 7, 8, 14, pr.).
But in certain cases, especially where the
usus was bequeathed by will (on the principle
“in testamentis plenius voluntates testantium
interpretamur,” Dig. 50, 17, 12), the wti com-
prised or was interpreted as frui : viz. (1) Where
the sole utility of the property was in its fruits,
as in a usus silvae (Dig. 7, 8, 22), or pecuniae
(Dig. ib. 5, 2; ib. 10). (2) Where the usuary
cannot “use ’’ the property at all, or can use it
only in part, so that from the other part he
would derive no benefit: e.g. where the usus is
over land with a house, he may live in the
house, and take from the fruits of the land so
much as he requires for the daily wants of himself,
his family, and dependents (Inst. ii. 5, 1 ; Dig.
7, 8, 12, pr. and 1; ib. 15); or where it is over
a house too large for his personal needs, he may
let the part which he does not want for himself
(Dig. 7, 8, 2, 1 ; ib. 4). The usuary was subject
to substantially the same duties as the usu-
fructuary, and for securing the performance of
these he had to enter into a cautio usualia
(Dig. 7, 9, 5, 1 ; ib. 11): he also had to bear
the costs of repairs and to pay the taxes if the
property produced no fruits for the owner:
otherwise these charges fell on the latter. If
the right to fructus was vested separately
from the usus in a third person, the latter
(or otherwise the owner) could demand access,
&c. to the things for the purpose of taking them
(Inst. ii. 5, 1 ; Dig. 7, 8, 10, 4 ; ib. 11, 12, pr.,
&c.).
(Inst. ii. 4 and 5; Gaius, ii. 30–33; Paul.
Sent. rec. iii. 6, 17–33; Fragm. Wat. 41–93;
Dig. 7, 1 sqq.; 33, 2;-Cod. 3, 33; Pellat,
Sur la Propriété et sur l'Usufruit, 1853; Kohn-
feldt, Die sogenannte irreguláren Servituten nach
rölnischen Rechte, 1862; Burkel, Beiträge zur
Lehre vom Niessbrauch, 1864; Roby, Introduc-
tion to the Digest : text and commentary on
Dig. 7, 1 (1884). On quasi-usufruct, see Held,
Die Lehre vom Ususfructus earum rerum quae usu
consumuntur vel minuwntur, 1848; and Puchta,
Ueber das Alter des Quasiususfructus, Rhein.
Museum für Jurisprudenz, vol. iii. p. 82; and
on usus, Beckmann, Ueberden Inhalt und Umfang
der Personalservitut des Usus mach römischen
Fechte, 1861.) [J. B. M.]
UTER'INI. [CoGNATI.]
DTI POSSIDETIS. [INTERDICTUM.]
UTRES.. [VINUM, p. 965 b.]
UXO'RIUM. [AEs UxoRIUM.]
X.
XENA'GI (£evayoſ). The Spartans, as being
the head of that Peloponnesian and Dorian league
which was formed to secure the independence of
the Greek states, had the sole command of the
eonfederate troops in time of war, provided that
the league did not disapprove of the war (see
Herod. v. 75; Gilbert. Gr. Staatsalt. i. 96, note);
they ordered the quotas which each state was to
furnish, and appointed officers of their own to
command them. Such officers were called
£evayoſ. The generals whom the allies sent
with their troops (&pxovres, otpatnyol) were
subordinate to these Spartan £evayoſ, though
they attended the council of war, as repre-
sentatives of their respective countries (Thucyd.
ii. 7, 10, 75; v. 54; vii. 18;-Xenoph. Hell.
iii. 5, § 7; Agesil. ii. 10). After the peace of
Antalcidas, the league was still more firmly
established, though Argos refused to join it;
and the Spartans were rigorous in exacting the
required military service, demanding levies by
the okvráAm, and sending out £evayol to collect
them: in case of desertion they could fine the
state 1 stater a day for each man who was due.
(Xenoph. Hell. v. 2, §§ 7, 22, 37; vi. 3, § 7;—
Wachsmuth, Hell. Alterth. vol. i. pt. ii. pp. 114,
241, 1st ed. ; Schömann, Ant. Jur. Pub. Gr.
p. 426; Gilbert, Gr. Staatsalterth. i. 95 f.;
Thumser, Gr. Staatsalterth. i. 214.)
[C. R. K.] [G. E. M.]
XENELA'SLA (;evnagata). The Lacedae-
monians appear in very early times, before the
legislation of Lycurgus, to have been averse to
intercourse with foreigners (£évotal &mpôopuktol,
Herod. i. 65). This disposition was encouraged
by the lawgiver, who made an ordinance for-
bidding strangers to reside at Sparta, without
special permission, and empowering the magis-
trate to expel from the city any stranger who
misconducted himself, or set an example in-
jurious to public morals (cf. Herod. iii. 148).
Such jurisdiction was exercised by the Ephori.
Thucydides (ii. 39) makes Pericles reproach the
Lacedaemonians with this practice, as if its ob-
ject were to prevent foreigners from becoming
acquainted with such institutions and means of
defence as would be dangerous for an enemy to
know. The intention of Lycurgus, more proba-
bly, was to preserve the national character of
his countrymen, and prevent their being cor-
rupted by foreign manners and vices (as Xenophon
says), Štra's u%) figãtowpyías of troAirai &mo Tów
Ščvalv ćutriträaivro (de Rep. Laced. 14, § 4 ; com-
pare Plut. Lycurg. 27; Schömann, Antiq. of
Greece, p. 278, E. T.). With the same view
the Spartans were themselves forbidden to go
abroad without leave of the magistrate. Both
these rules, as well as the feelings of the people
on the subject, were much relaxed in later times
when foreign rule and supremacy became the
object of Spartan ambition. Even at an earlier
period we find that the Spartans knew how to
observe the laws of hospitality upon fit and
proper occasions, such as public festivals, the
reception of ambassadors, &c. (Xenoph. Mem. i.
2, § 61). They worshipped a Zeus $évios and
*A6avá ševſa (Pausan. iii. 1, § 111). The con-
nexion, called by the Greeks ºrpočevſa, was
cultivated at Sparta both by the state and by
individuals; of which their connexion with the
Peisistratidae is an example; and also that of a
Spartan family with the family of Alcibiades
(Thucyd. v. 43, vi. 89, viii. 6; Herod. v. 91;
compare vi. 57). [HoSPITIUM.] Many illustrious
men are reported to have resided at Sparta with
honour, as Terpander, Theognis, and others
(Schömann, Ant. Jur. Publ. Gr. p. 142). Xeno-
phon was highly esteemed by the nation, and
made Spartan trpáčevos. It is noticeable that
though there is no mention of £evmAao'ía at
Crete, yet the Dorian dislike of things foreign
is evidenced by the prohibition of foreign travel
for young men (Plat. Protag. p. 342 D). The
§evmäagía at Apollonia, a colony founded by the
XENI
ZETETAE
991
Corinthians and Corcyraeans, is mentioned in Ael.
W. H. xiii. 16. (See further on the subject of
the Ševmägaía, Thucyd. i. 144, with Arnold's
notes; Aristoph. Aves, 1013; Harpocr. s. v. kal
'y&p to uměéva.) [C. R. K.] [G. E. M.]
XENI (£évol). [MERCENARII.]
XENIA (£evía). [HOSPITIUM.]
XE'NLAS GRAPHE (£evías ypaſp#). This
was a prosecution at Athens for unlawfully usurp-
ing the rights of citizenship. As no man could
be an Athenian citizen, except by birth or crea-
tion (qPāorel, yévet or trothorel, Öapeã), if one,
having neither of these titles, assumed to act as
a citizen, he was liable to a ypzqh £evtas, which
any citizen might institute against him (Lys.
c. Agor. § 60; Isae. Pyrrh. § 37;-Dem. c. Boeot.
i. p. 999, § 18, ii. p. 1020, § 41; c. Timoth.
p. 1204, § 66; c. Neaer. p. 1363, § 52, etc.); or
he might be proceeded against by eio'ayyeXía
(Dinarch. c. Agasicl. cf. Hyper. pro Euac. c. 19,
etc.). If condemned, his property and person
were forfeited to the state, and he was forth-
with to be sold for a slave ([Dem.] Epist. iii.
p. 1481, § 29; Schol. Dem. c. Timocr. p. 741,
etc.). The judgment, however, was arrested, if
he brought a 6them ſevöopaptupiðv against the
witnesses who had procured his conviction, and
convicted them of giving false testimony. Dur-
ing such proceeding he was kept in safe custody
to abide the event (Dem. C. Timocr. p. 741,
$131). [MARTYRIA; Journ. of Philol. vi. p. 15 f.]
When a person tried on this charge was acquitted
by means of fraudulent collusion with the prose-
cutor or witnesses, or by any species of bribery
(Aristotle in Lea. Rhet. Cantabr. p. 674: éâv Tus
6&pa. Stöows &tropiº)m Thy đeviav: cf. Harpocr.
s.v.), he was liable to be indicted afresh by a ypaq)))
Sopoćevtas, the proceedings in which, and the
penalty, were the same as in the ypaq))) {evías.
The jurisdiction in these matters belonged in
the time of Demosthenes to the Thesmothetae,
but anciently, at least in the time of Lysias (de
Pecun. publ. § 8), to the Nautodicae.
In order to prevent fraudulent enrolment in
the register of the 67Wol, or Amétapxukov ypau-
pareſov, which was important evidence of citizen-
ship, the Ömuórat themselves were at liberty to
revise their register, and expunge the names of
those who had been improperly admitted. From
their decision there was an appeal to a court of
justice, upon which the question to be tried was
much the same as in the ypaſp? §evías, and the
appellant, if he obtained a verdict, was restored
to the register; but, if judgment was given
against him, was sold for a slave (Dem. c. Eubul.
p. 1317, § 60 f.; Dionys. Halic. de Isaeo judic.
16, kal éâv to bettepov čexeyx860s, terpāq-6a,
airroës, etc. Busolt, d. griech. Staats.-w. Rechts-
alt. § 157, in I. Müller’s Handbuch d. klass.
Altertumswissensch., probably misled by Plut.
Pericl. 37, Émpd.6ma'av oſſu &Aóvres àAſya, trevra-
.ktoxixtov čAdºrrows, says that those whose names
were expunged from the register were sold for
slaves; it was only in case of a person not ac-
quiescing in the verdict of the demotae and
appealing to a court of justice (épeois), that, if
judgment there also went against him, he was
sold for a slave). [DEMUs; PARENGRAPTOI.]
For an example of this, see the speech of Demo-
sthenes against Eubulides; Isae. pro Euphil.
(Att. Process, ed. Lipsius, pp. 95–98, 437–441.)
[C. R. K.] [H. H.]
[MENSURA, p. 164 a ;
XESTES (#arms).
TABLES.]
XYSTUS. [GYMNASIUM ; HoRTUS.]
Z.
ZETE'TAE (Čntmraſ), commissioners of
inquiry, were appointed at Athens on special
occasions as extraordinary officers, not as a
regular magistracy; and were of two kinds,
sometimes confused by grammarians (Harpocrat.,
Poll. viii. 115) and by modern writers. 1. Cri-
minal investigators or inquisitors, to discover
the authors of some crime against the state, and
bring them to justice. ... The court of Areiopagus
often discharged the office of inquisitors for the
state, and were sometimes armed with special
powers by the people in assembly [AREIOPAGUs,
Vol. I. p. 176b). During the panic consequent on
the mutilation of the Hermae, the BovX?) received
absolute power to investigate (fiv Yap airo-
kpárap, Andoc. de Myst. § 15), but (mºrntal
were also appointed (ib. §§ 14, 36, 40, 65).
This is perhaps the only occasion on which
(mTºmºral are mentioned in connexion with an
inquiry other than financial. 2. Zmtmºral were
more frequently appointed to search for confis-
cated property, the goods of condemned criminals
and state debtors; to invite and receive infor-
mation against any persons who concealed, or
assisted in concealing them, and to deliver an
inventory (&lroypaq))) of all such goods to the
proper authorities. The delinquent was then
prosecuted, either before the orévôukou [SYNDICUs],
or it might be before the Čntmºral themselves, if
their commission extended to the holding of a
#yeptovía Sukao Tºmptov. Any person, however,
who had claims against the goods which were
the subject of such information, might petition
to have such claims settled while the confis-
cation was still in process and before the state
had taken possession: this was called évett-
orkſ pagóat (IDem.] c. Timoth. pp. 1197–8, §§ 45,
46, 47; the subst. Évertakmupa only in Har-
pocrat.). Such overhaulings of the treasury by
the appointment of Çntmºral were especially
frequent in times of chronic deficit, such as the
Social War and the years immediately succeeding
it (Dem. c. Timocr. p. 703, § 11); but there are
earlier examples (Lys. &mox. 6opo6. § 16). In
the case of the alleged bribery by Harpalus we
find a decree rºw Bouxhv (mTeſv (Dinarch.
c. Dem. §§ 4, 55). According to Schöll, the
(mºrnral were only introduced for a short time
after the expulsion of the Thirty, and then
replaced by the ovXAoye's : the more probable
opinion, already maintained under SYLLOGEIS, is
that the ovXAoye7s were appointed only on that
single occasion, the (nºrmtal more frequently.
They were technically an āpxft, though classed
by Pollux (viii. 114, 115) among the Örnpérat
or underlings [HYPERETEs, in Vol. I.] : as
Boeckh remarks, it was an office which men of
high rank were not ashamed to accept. Another
name for commissioners of inquiry into con-
fiscated property was uagtipes (Hyperid. ap.
Harpocrat. s. v.; Suid., Phot., S. vo. uao Tſipes
and uárrelpes: Lex. Seguer. p. 279). The 17th
and 19th speeches of Lysias, the 6taëlkaata and
de Bonis Aristoph, throw considerable light on
992 ZEUGITAE
ZYTHUM
the way such inquiries were conducted at
Athens. (Harpocrat. s. v. (mºrnths: Boeckh,
P. E. p. 158–Sthh.” i. 192; Fränkel, n. 247 on
Boeckh; Att. Process, p. 126 Lips. ; R. Schöll,
Quaestiones fiscales juris Attici ea: Lysiae ora-
tionibus illustratae, Berlin, 1873.)
[C. R. K.] [W. W.]
ZEUGITAE (Sevyiral). [CENSUs, Wol. I.
p. 403.]
ZONA. [CINGULUM.]
ZO'PHORUS (@opópos), “bearing animals
or figures,” of a panel or relief; hence especially
applied to the continuous carved frieze of the
Ionic and Corinthian orders, while in Doric
buildings the triglyphs and metopes take the
place of this member. (Vitruv. iii. 5, 10.)
A. G.]
ZYTHUM (Kö00s). [CERVESIA.] [E.
TABLES OF GREEK AND ROMAN MEASURES, WEIGHTS, AND MONEY.
TABLE -
I. Greek Measures of Length.
(1) Smaller Measures.
II. Roman Measures of Length.
(1) Smaller Measures.
Greek Measures of Length.
(2) Land and Itinerary.
Roman Measures of Length.
(2) Land and Itinerary.
W. Greek Measures of Surface.
WI. Roman Measures of Surface.
VII. Greek Measures of Capacity.
(1) Liquid Measures.
Roman Measures of Capacity.
(1) Liquid Measures.
Greek Measures of Capacity.
(2) Dry Measures.
X. Roman Measures of Capacity.
(2) Dry Measures.
III.
IV.
VIII.
IX.
XI. Greek and Oriental Weights.
XII. Greek Money.
XIII. Roman Weights.
(1) The As and its Uncial Divisions.
XIV. Roman Weights.
(2) Subdivisions of the Uncia.
XV. Roman Money. (1) Weights.
XVI. Roman Money. (2) English Walues.
In the construction of these Tables, most use
has been made of F. Hultsch’s Griechische und
Römische Metrologie, 2nd ed., Berlin, 1882; but
Hultsch's results have been, in some instances,
corrected by W. Dörpfeld in Mittheilungen des
Deutschen Instituts zu Athen, since 1883. The
tables of weights and money are founded
on the articles As and PONDERA by Professor
Gardner.
The Tables are so arranged as to exhibit the
corresponding Greek and Roman measures in
direct comparison with each other. In some of
the Tables the values are given, not only in our
several measures, but also in decimals of a
primary unit, for the purpose of facilitating
calculations. In others, approacimate values are
given; that is, values which differ from the
true ones by some small fraction. Where both
French and English determinations are given,
these cannot correspond with the utmost
exactness, but the discrepancy between them is
barely noticeable, save in the highest and
lowest measures determined. Fuller informa-
tion will be found under MENSURA, NUMMUs,
PONDERA, and the specific names.
[P. S.] [J. G.]
TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
993

‘II ĐIq0J, Oļ sºļoN 998 “sp.ſeptī£4S reqąo toſſ-'GILON
JO SIBULIȚ00CI
JO SI BUuț00CI
9168 · 6Q|8 #38. g9/,/. • I‘, ‚VIXIAO, | ſſ | ff | ## | ſg | 9 || 8 | ±±8|| ZI | FZ || 8Ť || 96
Ź9õiff , ††|9899, †Z99 . I��* 40YQE | G | $3 | ff | ## | 9 | ±±9 | 6 || SL || 99 | z）
†† Ziff. g.I | Z9gſ. I### .· KÄXJHII | # I | ÎL | ŘI | Z | Bººz | 8 | 9 | «I | ſz
Z99 · Z)I|99 IZ . I0!,8 ·�∞��* 49.，a DI | #1 | {I | ȘI | ±±I | {z | g | OL | Oz
890I . II | Iz60. I999 .· · · · · ļºdºn II | ÎI | ÎI | ±±I | {z | ## | 6 | 3I
96ț79 . II’’’ || 8016.96% .�����* <_XOII | Î | | ±±I | Z | ff | 8 | 9I
Z/8/. • 8© ®|I8%ſ', .ZZZ .�£ © ®�· · į dogſ uz | ±±I | # I | g | 9 || ZI
I600 · 8∞ √|81,99 ·90% •�ç© ©��· Aodºgo@do, | ȘI |#z | #g | II
8ī£738 · 9· · zg8ſ.8ț7 I •� � ��spXIV Jo ºspXiv | z | + | 3
† ZI6 - Z* , ， ， .† 1,0 ·& ©è· įvdXogovalxov Io ſorſ\ov ‘Modov ºſſ loov oII | z | #
Z99 † . I| 81ZI.A80 •�§ © ® e�Sovaga9YI | Z
[86]) •|1090 ·98][0 .����č��Sown ixpw
|
'89ųou I“ļ00 JI|'q00）[ 0’9.Iļ0 IN '8'SCHRIQ SWOIWI ȘIGITIIVIAIS "I
('q'IVOINVIS OILIV) · HJÆÐNÆTTI JO SCIſInSVGIIN NVIORI™IÐ
'I GI'I {{W \L
3 S
WOL. II.
#

T A B L E II.
ROMAN MEASURES OF IENGTH.
I. SMALLER MEASURES. Pººr º of Teet. Inches.
Digitus & Q 2 tº a • 0185 • 060675 {º º • 7281
1, UNCIA or Pollex . . . . . . . . . • 0.247 • 0809 tº e • 9708
4 || 3 | Palmus . o e te te e & fe tº º • 074 • 2427 tº º 2 - 9124
12 || 9 || 3 | Palmus Major (of late times) . * e e © • 222 • 7281 tº º 8 7372
16 || 12 || 4 1} TES . * § g gº * © & * > • 296 • 9708 § { } 11 * 6496
20 | 15 || 5 || 13 || 14 || Palmipes . . ſº o tº & tº • 370 1 - 2135 1 2 - 562
24 | 18 || 6 || 2 || 1 , |1} | CUBITUs . 3. g gº tº * • 444 1 ° 4562 1 5 ° 4744
NOTES TO TABLES I. AND II.
A metre is 39.37 English inches: an English foot is 3048 metre.
It is not thought necessary to give the whole scale of the Uncial divisions of the foot. They can easily be calculated from the Uncia.
Other Standards.-The relations of the measures to one another were always, with hardly any exception, those above given: but the standards varied in
different places and at different times. Thus the Attic trous being 296 m., the Aegimetan was 333 m., the Olympic 3205 m., the Philetaerean: 333 m., the
Ionic 350 m., the Phrygian 2775 m.
In the West, though the Roman foot was 296 m., the same as the Attic, the older Italian foot was only 275 m., and the Drusian foot, used in Gaul and
Germany, was 333 m.
In Egypt, under the Pharaohs, the Royal ell was 525 m., the smaller ell 425 m. : under the Ptolemies, the Royal ell was 533 m., the greater foot
• 355 m., and the smaller foot '303 m. &
The Great Babylonian ell was 550 m., the Royal or Persian ell '495 m., the Phoenician ell 4435 m.
Compared with one another, the Attic, Roman, and Phoenician feet are the same: the Aeginetan, Philetaerean, and Drusian are the same : the Italian and
Phrygian are the same: the Ionic and Royal (or Greater) Egyptian are the same—either exactly or very nearly indeed. -
TA B L E III.
GRECIAN MEASURES OF LENGTH.
(ATTIC STANDARD.)
º
II. LARGER MEASURES.—LAND AND ITINERARY. *...* | *.*.* | Miles. | Feet. Inches.
IIOY"> © o © tº © 0 - 296 • 0001838 11 * 6496
1|, | IIHTXYX e O - 4.44 || - 0002757 1 5 - 4744
2} 13 Bºpa © º 0.739 • 0004596 2 5 - 124
6 4. 23 'OPTYIA’ e © 1 - 774 • 001103 5 9 - 8976
10 63 4. 13 KáAapos, "Akawa, or Aekátovs 2 - 957 • 001838 9 8 - 496
100 663 40 163 || 10 | IIXéðpov 29 • 57 • 01838 97 || 0 - 96
600 400 240 100 60 | 6 || >TA'AION or >TA'AIOX . 177' 4 • 11028 582 || 5 - 76
1200 800 480 200 120 | 12 || 2 || AlavXos 354 • 8 • 22056 1164 11 52
2400 | 1600 960 | 400 240 24 || 4 || 2 | Itaruków © • 44112 22, 11.04
18,000 || 12,000 || 7200 |8000||1300||1so go is ſº Hapagºs 3 - 3084 3 | 1634 || 4 - 8
36,000 T24,000 T 14,400 Toooo Tagoolagoſ ooſao TsI 2 Xxoivos 6 - 6168 6 || 3268 9 • 6
NOTE:-The oxolvos, above given, is that of Herodotus, but the measure seems to have varied in different reaches of the Nile, and the Romans reckoned
it about 4 Roman miles. On the parasang, see note to next Table.
§

#

TA B L E IV.
ROMAN MEASURES OF LENGTH.
II. TARGER MEASURES.—LAND AND ITINERARY. Pººr Dºor Milº. Fºr male
PES . . . . º * e & * © e ve © e 0 - 296 • 0001838 tº ſº is 11 * 6496
tº Culitus . . . . . . . . . . . 0.444 • 0002757 || . . 1 5'4744
2} 13 Gradus, or Pes Sestertius . e • º tº g 0 - 740 • 0004596 tº º 2 ) 5 - 124
5 3} 2 | PASSUs . . . . . . . . 1 * 48 • 0009193 || . . 4 10:248
10 63 4 || 2 Decempeda, or Pertica. . . . . 2 96 • 001838 tº º 9 || 8 - 496
120 so I as T 24 12 || Actus (in length) . . . 35' 52 • 2206 . . . 116 || 5 ° 952
5000 || 3333} | 2000 || 1000 500 || 415 || Muir Passuum . . . . 1480 • 91.93 . . . 4854 ge º
NOTES TO TABLES III. AND IV.
N.B.-The Roman mile only differs from the English by less than 1-10th.
Ancient Road Measures.—As in Tables I. and II, so here, the relations of the measures to one another are correctly given, but the standards varied. It is
proper, therefore, to add the length of various road measures according to the standards in use in different parts of the ancient world.
The Attic stadium being 177 m., the Olympic was 192 m., the Ptolemaic 185 m., the Ionic 210 m. (A metre is 39°37 English inches.)
Ital The Romans, using round numbers, reckoned 8 stadia to the mile. According to this relation, the Roman stadium would be 185 m., and the old
talian 165 m.
Similarly, the Greeks reckoned 30 stadia to the parasang, but the parasang was really 30 Persian stadia, which were longer than the Greek, being 1968 m.
The true parasang was therefore 5904 m., or 3 miles 1180 yards. (So Oppert, but Hultsch determines it at 5670 m.)
The Gallic leuga was 2220 m. ; the German vasta 4440 m.
TA B L E W.
GRECIAN MEASURES OF SURFACE.
(ATTIC STANDARD.)
ORDINARY LAND MEASURES. Square Metres.
IIOY"> terpáyovos (Square Foot) & © Q e e © .' 0 - 087
100 | "Akawa (Square of the káAapos) . © Q o & ſº 8 - 74
10,000 || 100 IIAE’OPON . gº o g © tº * . | 8740
|
Square Feet. Perches. Square Feet.
• 94.245 •94245
94 ° 245 94 ° 245
9424' 5 34 167 - 5
NOTES.
The English acre being 160 perches or 4840 sq. yds., the TAé6pov is obviously less than } of an acre.
The Egyptian &poupa (Herod. ii. 168) was a square of 50 Egyptian ells each way. The ell being taken at 0°524 m., or about 21 English inches, this gives
a value of about 820 sq. yds. for the &poupa.
É

§

TA B L E VI.
ROMAN MEASURES OF SURFACE.
ORDINARY LAND MEASURES. Square Feet. Acres. Roods. | Perches. | Square Feet.
PES QUADRATUS •94245 • 94.25
100 Scrupulum, or Decempeda Quadrata.” 94 - 245 94 ° 245
480 4; Actus SIMPLEx 452 - 377 1 | 180 - 127
2400 24 5 | UNCLA.f. 2261 - 89 8 || 83' 885
3600 36 7% 1} , Clima . 3392.85 12 | 125 - 83
14,400 || 144 30 || 6 || 4 || Actus QUADRATUs. 13,571 - 318 1 9 || 231 - 07
28,800 288 60 | 12 || 8 || 2 || Judeaux 27, 142. 636 2 19 189-89;
57,600 576 120 | 24 16 4 2 | Heredium 54,285. 272 1 || 0 39 || 107 - 53
5,760,000 |, 57,600 12,000 2400 1600 400 | 200 || 100 | Centuria 5,428,527.2 124 2 19 || 135 - 25
23,040,000 280,400|48,000 96.06) 6400||1300 800 | 400 || 4 || Saltus. || 21,714, 108.8 498 || 1 37 268 - 75
* This was the square of the pertica or standard 10-foot measuring-rod.
f The A8 to which this Uncia and the above Scrupulum belong is the Jugerum. The other uncial divisions of the Jugerum may easily be calculated from
The Semissis is, of course, the Actus Quadratus.
the Uncia.
t i.e. almost $ths of an acre.
The Italian voršuš was about #ths of a jugerum, or nearly 18 perches.
TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
999

qnoqe qe pouļūII049p 9q IIȚA sų Ludlºrd ºtſ! º IĮĮI g#0. që pºqºtuļļ89 sį į Į JI
© ©
T-4
r—ſº
-*.
-ſo
6
|
'$!UIĻI
'Suo[[gſ)
’948ūIȚxo Iddy
ZI • 9
80 • 9
9/, s 9!
96 •
8† •
†Z .
ZI •
80 ·
†0 .
Z0 •
9I0 •
800 •
*$'}UIȚEI
！ºssºſ quȚd I
·æAOqe pºqºguļļsº se ºso9o%， º qļ ūIOJŲ pºļ8I moſgo sp 9 ſq 84 º AOq. 3 QUIT,—'GILON
8* <„HLHĀLEHIN | ŘI | ZI | Z | | †† I | 88Z | 919 | #98 | 8ZZI | 9gŤ8 || 0，87 | 0798
*<„KGHāOĞþWV
Q(nordpdºx) vāOHāWW || 8 | 87 | 96 || Z.6 L | #89 | 929 || Zg II | #084 | 0984 | 091.g
NW WOȘI
§���* <JVOX | 9ZI†Z8 #7ZA##Ț88%09907/,
��(snſ reqxoS) kHLķÆIE | Z | † | 8 || ZI | †z | 8Ť | 09 | 0ZI
• ©��waſ d'H, IO ‘aoywºnd Lºuxº lox | z#9ZI†Z0909
� ���©�©�· Moldol?J,Z99ZIĢI09
� ��∞©��* 40ț¢ogºșO, | ff I | g9§ 2,gI
© ®∞��������ĶO@W,XXIZ†g0I
§��∞�������lix%95IZ#zg
��������©��Modu 09 IN{I#z
Œ œ�����©�����∞�urlį，Z
� �©����������●�aondpºwXoyſ
‘SUOIȚ89(‘NVINOTOŞ)
'SG{{IQ SWOIWI CTIQÖTT OILI W 'I
‘ĀLIOVāVO HO SCIſInSVGIIN
TIA
GIT £IV TIL
NUWIOGIH 0
#

TA B L E VIII.
ROMAN MEASURES OF CAPACITY.
I. LIQUID MEASURES. Gallons. Pints.
Ligula . . e e e e º º e º © o © O 02
4. Cyathus " . & º tº º © o Q © o dº © • 08
6 1% Acetabulum . º o e © e © º o e o • 12
12 3 2 Quartarius, i.e. 4th of the Seatarius . º º & • 24
24 6 4 2 Hemina or Cotyla o & e g © • 48
48 12 8 4 2 | SEXTARIUS, i.e. ºth of the Congius 96
288 72 48 24 12 6 | CONGIUs . * º o * © 5 - 76
1152 288 192 || 96 || 48 24 || 4 || Urna 2 7 * 04
2304 || 576 || 384 || 192 | 96 || 48 8 || 2 |AMPHORA QUADRANTAL 5 6 - 08
46,080 11,520 7680 | 8840 1920 960 | 160 |40 20 | Culeus 115 || 1 - (5
Approximate.
Gallons. Pints.
1.
A 8
1.
TE
I
TS
l
4.
#
1
6
3
6
120
* According to the uncial division, the Sectarius was the As, and the Cyathus the Uncia.
NOTE:-The above table is also calculated from the Cyathw8, determined at :08 pint, and here also a calculation from the Cyathus = '045 litre would make a
trifling difference in the Amphora.
T A BLE IX.
GRECIAN MEASURES OF CAPACITY.
Approximate.
II. ATTIC DRY MEASURES. (SoLONIAN.) Gallons. | Pints.
Gallons. Pints.
KYAG)OX . e º º o e • 08 *
1% 'Ość8adow ge e º g & & $ © o g o ſº e • 12 #
6 4 || KOTYAH, or “Huiva º o O º -> © º o e © • 48 #
12 8 2 º EE">TH> (Sectarius) ſº © ſº - @ Q G O © o tº • 96 1
24 16 4. 2 | XOITNIE. e e e © o º º o º 1 - 92 2
96 64 | 16 || 8 || 4 || Hulekrov . e º tº º º * > tº 7 : 68 1
192 128 32 | 16 || 8 || 2 || “Ekreiſs (equal to the Roman Modius) . º e e 1 7-36 2
1152 768 192 96 || 48 || 12 || 6 | ME’AIMNOX . º º tº e e tº 11 4 - 16 12 * @
NoTE.—The Egyptian him was about 10 kūado.: the Persian &pré8m about 48 quarts; the Ptolemaic àprá8m about 48 quarts (= 1 uéötuvos): the Spartan
medimnus about 65 quarts: the Ptolemaic medimnus about 96 quarts or 3 bushels.
3

#

TA B L E X.
ROMAN MEASURES OF CAPACITY.
Approximate.
II, DRY MEASURES. Gallons. | Pints.
Gallons. Pints.
Ligula . o & º º º o º o e º e o Q. º © tº • 02 tº º a's
–– CYATHUS + & º e o º e e e o e © e e tº e • O8 * Q t’s
6 1} || Acetabulum . • • e º e º © o o e º e tº • 12 #
12 3 2 | Quartarius, i.e. 1-4th of the Seatarius . º, o o e º $ 9 • 24 #
24 | 6 4. 2 Hemina or Cotyla e o e e e º º e tº º • 48 #
48 12 8 4. 2 | SEXTARIUS, i.e. 1-6th of the Congius º º th e tº º • 96 tº e 1
384 || 96 64 || 32 | 16 || 8 || Semimodius . º o o o e º tº e 7 : 68 I
768 192 º 64 || 32 | 16 || 2 | MODIUS . º e º º e º 1 7-36 2
* See also Table VIII. and Note.
TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
1003
TA B L E XI.
N.B.-One pound avoirdupois is exactly 7,000 grains: one ounce avoirdupois is 437% grains.
1 gramme is 15:43234 grains.
(A.) Warious Oriental Weights,

Grammes. Grains. Avoirdupois.
1. Egyptian. (Approximate.) | (Approximate.) (Approximate.)
Kat g 9 I40 # OZ.
10 || Outen or Ten 90 1400 3; OZ.
2. Babylonian Heavy Gold.
Shekel º º ve e 16-83 260 # OZ.
| 50 || Mina 841 - 5 13,000 1 lb. 13% oz.
3000 | 60 | Talent 50,490 780,000 111; lbs.
3. Babylonian Heavy Silver.
Shekel . . . . 22°4 344 # OZ.
50 Mina 1,122 17,200 2 lbs. 7 oz.
3000 | 60 | Talent 67,320 1,032,000 1473 lbs.
4, Babylonian Light Gold and Light
Silver Standards were exactly half
the heavy gold and heavy silver re-
spectively, so that:
Light Gold Shekel 8’41 130 # OZ.
Light Silver Shekel 11 - 2 172 # OZ.
5. Phoenician Silver.
Shekel 14 •9 230 # Oz.
50 || Mina e gº 745 11,500 1 lb. 10% oz.
3000 || 60 | Talent 44,700 690,000 984 lbs.
(B.) Aeginetan and Attic Commercial Weights,
Grammes. Grains.
Obol . e tº 1 - 05 16
6 Trachm e e tº 6' 30 97
12 2 Didrachm (orraráp) 12 - 60 195
600 100 50 | Mina, 630 9,750
36,000 || 6000 || 3000 | 60 Talent 37,800 585,000
(C.) Euboic Weights.
Grammes. Grains.
| Drachm e 4 - 20 65
2 | Stater 8’40 130
100 50 | Mina, 420 6,500
6000 || 3000 | 60 | Talent 25,200 390,000


N.B.—Just as the Euboic drachm is of the Aeginetan stater, so the Corinthian drachm
is of the Euboic stater. See Vol. II., p. 449 b.
(D.) Attic Weights (Solonian Coinage).

Grammes. Grains.
Drachm wº tº e 4 * 40 67.5
2 | Didrachm or Stater . 8.80 135
100 50 Mina, 440 6,750
6000 || 3000 || 60 | Talent 26,400 405,000
N.B. It will be seen that the ratio of the Aeginetan stater (195 gr) to the Aſſiº
(135 gr) is a good deal larger, than 100:73 or 188: 100 or 83 : 60, which are the ratios
ascribed to Solon’s reduction of the Attic coinage.
#

TA B L E XII.
GRECIAN MONEY (valued by Weight)."
I. ATTIC COPPER AND SILVER. £ 8. d. | Farthings.
Lepton (Aetrów) & • 10
7 Chalcus (XaXkoús) o tº e * © i • 75
14 2 Dichalcon, or Quarter Obol (Aixaxkov) | 1 - 5
28 4 2 || Half Obol (Huw86Atov) º © & 9 tº º 3
56 8 4 || 2 | OBOL ('OgoNós). e * * * 1 1
112 16 8 || 4 2 | Diobolus (Auðflokov) © & 2 2
168 24 12 || 6 3 1% Triobolus (Tpwó80Aov) © 3 3
224 32 | 16 || 8 |_4__2 1, Tetrobolus (TerpóSoxov) 5 O
336 48 24 12 | 6 3 2 1} | DRACHMA (Apaxpºff) . e . 8 2
672 96 48 24 | 12 6 3 2_ Didrachm (Aſ8paxpov) 5 0
1344 192 96 48 24 12 8 6 4. 2 | Tetradrachm (Terpéðpaxuov) 2 9 3
33,600 || 4800 |2400 || 1200 || 600 800 || 200 || 150 || 100 || 50 || 25 || MINA (Mvá) 3 || 10 8 3
2,016,000288,000.144,00072,000 36,00018,000.12,000 9000 |6000 |3000||1500|60 |TALENT (TáAarov)|210|18 || 9 O
* N.B. The above table is calculated from the weights of existing coins, and gives their value as bullion, if silver be taken at 5s, an ounce troy... But their
value, if compared with English coined silver, would be much higher; e.g. the shilling weighs 87°27 gr., and contains only about 80 gr. of pure silver.
drachma, of 67.5 gr, pure, is obviously more than 3rds of this.
(93d.), the mina £4. Cf. Table XVI, and notes.
Worth £1 28. 6d.
The
For practical purposes it is perhaps better to reckon the drachma as worth about a French franc
An Attic gold talent would be worth £3375, if gold be taken at 2d. a grain, and a gold didrachm would be
TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
1005

ºgg. Zg0g Jo pē948trĮ ‘super3 Og0g qe uºx{8! sț 80 øqJ , !
'super3 ſ, ugų į 880I Kq (Super3 g. 19?) spodnp.IȚOA 8 00ūno eqĄ ULIO Į SJagſſp sſqĪ, ,
49 · 183 | 4 LI997 · 169* wºg III IO ‘SW || ±I | {I | $I | # I | # I | Z | Ģz | g | ſ | 9 || 3 || ZI
$88.09%() I89 I - 009��º xunøOI I ºſº I | ȘI | ȘI | # I || $I | {z | {z | Ģg | Řg | $1. || II
$88.02Z6088. ZAZ,* * * * su eqx0CI | #L | {L | # I | ȘI | Z | #º | $3 | g | #9 || OI
9 · 2,2%8Ź69 · 9f7Z©���sueIp0(I | ȘI | #I | ŘI || $ I || {z | g | ff | 9 | 6
ģ9I.ŤOI!†709 · 8IZ,����sſssºgIioºsąg | {I | Î | | $I | Z | §z | # | ſg | 9 .
$gg. Ozg99][0 .. [6][�ſae���º xunqdeş | # I |#| |#| |#z | ſg | $+ ! /,
9 • 2,88Q862 · 89||º o ſe º osſssſuI0S TO “SINGIS | # I | ŘI | Z | g | † | 9
#91 . ſºgg#Offſ; . 98 I* * * · · · · · xunouļnè) | {I | ȘI | #º | ſg | g
$88.02%8Zg’I • 60 I�©�����§º suºſ II, | $I | Z | $4 | †
009 !, -89 IZ†798. I8���©�§º smloum Iº I,10ºsuerpenº) | ŘI | Z | g
ģ9I.ţOŤI92,9 · 79· · · · · · · · · · · sueņxoS | ȘI | z
g/, º 80%IZ96 , 07�∞����●��xumososIo ºeſou nosºŞ | # I
„$88.08%© ©88Z • 1,6� e ：§ ø •∞ √∞ √∞ √∞· · · VION n
istº‘ZOsomumio "CINQOBI GIHUI, „HO SNOISIAICI VIVIONIQ GHEIT, ‘I
'qų349 M. spodnp.IȚOAV
"SLH ĐIGIMA NWIWIO'H
'IIIX (H TI {IW II,
1006
TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

0909�* VARITI JO SW || ZI | #Z || 99 || 8Ť | Z | | †† I | 88Z | 919 | 8ZLI
888 - 0{,}��•* VION Q | Z | 8 | ff | 9 si#Z | 8Ť | †† I
9 Iºff • OZI� � �º eſoumureş | ŘI | Z | 9 || 9 || ZI | †Z || Z.),
/, /,，, - 07 I• • • • • • eĮĮonq | ĶI | Z | † | 8 | 9 || || 8Ť
9803 · 90 I• • • • • • snoȚIſoſS | # I || 8 | 9 || ZI | 99
881 · 0,1,�© ©© ©�* WT/mLXEIŞ | Z | ff | 8 | †Z
† 690 · 98© © © ©�o�ºeſnąx08ļUū9Ş | Z | ff || ZI
Z/ iſº9 • 2, I©��Q���©* Wn'Inān （IOSZ9
I982.92 • 8●�©∞�©�∞�* Sn(Oq|O | 9 .
†ZZ6 - Z●�•��∞•∞º ſembȚIIS
'suſtaeſſ)*VIONIO GIHUI, „HO SNOISIAICI8I(1S "II
‘SWILH ĐI@HAA NWIWIO'H
’AIX (HI'IſI W NI,
TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 1007
TA B L E XV.
NORMAL WEIGHTS OF ROMAN COINS IN ENGLISH GRAINS.

B.C. 350. B.C. 269.* | B.C. 210.f B.C. 89. Augustus. |Nero. Caracalla.S
GOLD.
Aureus . . * - G. e. 52 - 5 º tº 126 - 112 101
SILVER.
Denarius . . tº e 70 60 60 60 52
Quinarius. . - © 35 30 º e 30 26
Sestertius. . & © 17 - 5 15 C & 15
Victoriatus . e G tº e e e 45 |
Antoninianus. º e tº e e e tº º tº º e - 84
CoPPER.
Sestertius
(brass). • e tº c e e e s 420 420
Dupondius
(brass). tº º • e © º e e 210 210
As (libella) . 5050 1750 421 | 210 2002 200
Semis . . . 2525 875 210 105 100 2
* In B.C. 269 1 demarius = 4 sestertii = 10 asses or libellae.
+ In B.C. 210 1 denarius = 1 Attic drachma = 4 gestertii = 16 asses. (I aureus =
15 denarii.)
† Temp. Augusti, 1 aureus = 25 denarii = 100 sestertii = 400 asses.
§ Temp. Caracallae, 1 aureus = 20 Antoniniani = 100 gestertii = 400 asses.
The gold solidus of Constantine and his successors weighed a little over 80 grains.
N.B.-The English sovereign weighs 123.27447 grains; the shilling 87.27272 gr. ;
the penny 145.83333 gr. These weights form the basis of Table XVI.
1008 TABLES OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
T A B L E XVI.
ROMAN COINS COMPARED, IN WEIGHT, WITH ENGLISH.

B.C. 350. B.C. 269. B.C. 210. B.C. 89. Augustus. |Nero. Caracalla.
GOLD.
Aureus . . tº e • * £}; tº º £145 | £4} | £ºr
SILVER.
Denarius . #8 #8 #8. #8 #8
Quinarius #8 #8 #8 Tºys º
Sestertius #8 #48. #8
Wictoriatus . #8.
Antoninianus e se tº o • - . . . . . e - #8.
COPPER.
Sestertius
(brass) . tº G . . º º tº tº 2%d. 2%d. º º
Dupondius
(brass) . © Cº e e © e tº e 11%;d. 11%d. . .
As . . . . 34%d. 12d. 2%d. 1%d. 13d. (?) 136. . .
Semis . . . 17#d. 6d. 11%d. | #d.
NOTE:-The above table gives a good idea of the size of the coin, but not so accurate a
notion of its intrinsic value, for the English sovereign contains ºth alloy, the shilling #ths
alloy, the penny ºth alloy.
The intrinsic value of a gold coin may be determined from the fact that the Bank of
England is bound to buy gold bullion at the fixed rate of £3 17s. 9d per Oz. Troy of 480 grs.
Hence, for instance, the aureus of Augustus would fetch £108.9%d. But the price of
silver bullion is not fixed, and has varied within the last 20 years from 58. to 3s. 8d. per oz.
Troy; and similarly the value of copper varies. The relative values, again, of gold to silver
and of silver to copper fluctuated considerably in ancient times, as they do now, and the
intrinsic values of e.g. the aureus to the denarius, taken now, would not correspond to their
relative values of 1 aureus = 25 denarii. Cf. also the article As.
For practical purposes, the aureus of Augustus = £1 sterling; the denarius = a franc
(9%d.); the Sestertius = 2.Éd. or ºth of £1. A sum given in sestertii may be converted into
pounds sterling by dividing it by 100. - - -
( 1009 )
G-REEK INI) EX.
The numerals indicate the volumes and pages, and the letters a and b the first and second
A.
*A&aktoricos, i. 1, a ; ii. 397, b.
"ABač, i. 1, a.
‘A8p& repticovpos, ii. 378, a.
"ABpoorávn, ii. 944, b.
"Aºyaxpa, ii. 785, a ; ii. 794, a.
'A'yaputov Ypaqf, i. 43, a.
*Aya&oepyot, i. 43, a.
*Ayyapeta, i. 124, b.
*Ayyapos, i. 124, b.
*A yºyo0%km, i. 1005, a.
'A'yéAao Tot, i. 43, b.
'A'yexdºrms, i. 43, b.
'A'yéAm, i. 43, a.
*A yeapylov Sticm, i. 43, b.
"Aºympia, i. 43, b.
'A'ymths, i. 366, a.
'A'ymtépetov, i. 366, a.
'A'ymtépio', i. 366, a.
*A yūrop, i. 136, b.
*Aykowa, ii. 223, b.
'A'yköAm, i. 935, b.
'A'ylcúpa, ii. 83, b ; ii. 218, a.
'A'ykvpígeuv, ii. 83, b.
'A'yköves, ii. 854, a.
'A'yvö6es, ii. 765, a.
'A'yopſi, i. 44, b.
, yuvaiketa, i. 48, a.
, trafiðovora, i. 48, a ;
i. 392, b ; i. 635, a.
'A'yopaváuos, i. 49, a.
*Ayāpas tram04.pm, i. 48, a.
*Ayopaorths, i. 48, b.
'A'ypovăța, i. 54, b.
'A'ypaſpíov ypaph, i. 49, b.
*Aypaſpot vöuoi, ii. 238, a.
'A'ypáqov werdàAov Ypaph, i.
49, b.
'A'yptdivuos, i. 339, b.
*Ayptdºvia, i. 92, b. '
'A'ypt&vios, i. 338, b.
’Aºypoikos, ii. 377, a.
'A'ypovéuot, i. 93, a ; i. 985, b.
'A'yporépas 6voría, i. 93, a.
"Aºyvios, i. 340, a.
*Ayvpués, i. 718, b.
'A'yūptai, i. 93, b.
*Ayxeiv, ii. 83, b.
*Ayxéuaxoi, i. 190, a.
*Ayxia reta, i. 906, a.
'A'yovápxal, i. 44, b.
*Ayāves, i. 44, b ; i. 628, b.
, &rtum'rol, ii. 842, b.
,, eiore?Agorukot, i. 239, b.
, Tſuntol, i. 622, b ; ii.
3, a.
WOL. II.
columns respectively.
'A'yovuotaſ, i. 237, b.
'A'yovoëtical, i. 44, b.
'A'yavo0éral, i. 44, b.
*A6öté, “A65ušis, i. 24, b.
*Aöela, i. 24, b ; i. 102, a.
'A6éotrorol, i. 941, a ; ii. 62, b.
'A8m payta, i. 238, b.
'Abūvatoi, i. 31, a.
'A66via, i. 25, a.
*A6vrov, ii. 774, b.
‘Aelvaúral, i. 35, b.
'Aetolitol, i. 721, a ; ii. 515, a.
‘Aelburyła, i. 741, b.
*Aerós, i. 218, b ; i. 829, b.
'Aéropa, i. 829, b.
*Aguyes, i. 695, a.
'A6%ivalov, i. 236, b
'A0Amraſ, i. 237, a.
'A9Xmråpes, i. 237, a.
'A6A06éral, i. 44, b.
Aidiceia, i. 31, a.
Aidvreia, i. 94, a.
Aiyavéal, ii. 936, b.
Aiyuaxées, ii. 875, b.
Aiyukopets, i. 901, b ; ii. 876, b.
Aiyivmtöv éoptſ, i. 33, b.
Aiyêoxos, i. 34, a.
Aiyês, i. 34, a.
Aiyorcépos, i. 70, a ; i. 220, b.
Aiyvirtualcá, ii. 301, a.
Aï0ovora, i. 94, b.
Aikta, i. 128, a.
Aircías 6them, i. 94, a.
Aircígeabat, ii. 851, b.
Aïviyua, i. 35, b.
Aivikós, i. 340, a.
Aïč, i. 218, a.
Aiovuvâtms, i. 41, a ; i. 44, b.
Aioxpoxo'yta, i. 518, b.
*Afras, i. 769, a.
Altvata, i. 41, a.
Airwačov, to kolvöv Tóv, i. 41, a.
Aixuń, i. 935, a.
Aixuoq6pot, i. 935, a.
Aidºpmua, ii. 816, b.
*Akaiva, ’Akatvm, i. 4, b.
*Akarva Śāa, i. 5, a.
'Akdreios, ii. 217, b.
'Akdriov, i. 5, a ; ii. 223, a.
*Akaros, i. 5, a ; ii. 223, a.
*Arceva, i. 4, b.
'Akéo Tpa, i. 23, b.
’Akivarms, i. 10, a.
*Akpı66erov, i. 1005, b.
*Akpany, i. 1005, b.
'Akohv uaprupeſv, i. 94, b.
*Akovitt, ii. 272, a.
*Akóvrtov, i. 936, b.
*Alcovtto ads, i. 937, b.
*Akpa, i. 200, b.
'Akpáriopia, i. 10, b ; i. 392, b.
'Alepatopópov, i. 10, b.
'Akpóaua, i. 11, a.
'AirpoSarukóv, ii. 107, b.
'Akpoétulov, i. 688, a.
'AkpóAetov, i. 688, a.
'AkpóAtôol, i. 11, a ; ii. 696, b.
'Akpóvvyos, i. 225, a.
'Akpotróðuov, i. 11, a.
'AkpotróAel, éyyeypaupévos év,
i. 49, b.
'AkpótroAts, i. 11, b ; ii. 907, b.
'Akpoortzis, ii. 671, a.
'Akpoo TóAtov, ii. 211, a.
'Akpoo ròutov, i. 870, a.
*AKpopäguov, i. 870, a.
"Airpoxetpía, i. 930, a.
'Akpoxeiptop.6s, ii. 83, a.
'Akpatmpiaçeiv, i. 11, b ; ii.
566, a.
*Akpotſipuov, i. 11, b.
“Aktia, i. 14, a.
*Akvpos, ii. 516, b.
*Akaoki, i. 934, b.
*Akov, i. 936, b.
*AAağaorpo6%icm, i. 95, b.
*AAdBao'rpov, i. 95, b.
*AAd8aa’rpos, i. 95, b.
"AAaôe uča ral, i. 718, a.
‘AAaí, ii. 592, a.
*AAata, i. 97, a.
*AAaxkopičvios, i. 338, b.
*AAéala, i. 97, a.
*AAeſtral, i. 98, a.
*AAelittàpiov, i. 98, a ; i. 268, a.
'AA7tus, i. 36, a.
‘AAía, i. 45, a.
"AAta, i. 932, b.
‘AAtela, i. 932, b.
*AAtvömous, i. 930, a ; ii. 82, b.
*AAkaffola, i. 96, b.
'AAAayat, ii. 121, b.
*AAAmé, or "AAAić, i. 98, b.
“AAua, ii. 364, b.
“AAum, ii. 592, a.
’AAoytov Šírcm, i. 99, a.
‘AAoirá)iov, ii. 592; a.
‘AAtipes, i. 932, b : ii. 365, a.
*AAvaíðtov, i. 385, b.
'AAñortov, i. 385, b.
*AAvoris, i. 385, b.
*AAğral, ii. 271, b.
*AAvrápxms, ii. 271, b.
*AApeotBotai, i. 691, §
T
1010
GREEK INDEX.
‘AAóa, i. 98, b.
'AAóa, i. 98, b.
‘AAof, or 'AAaſh, i. 64, a.
‘AAws, i. 64, a.
'Apºd Nios, i. 338, a.
”Apača, i. 216, b ; i. 933, a ;
ii. 433, b.
‘Auašátroöes, i. 932, b, ii. 433, b.
'Apuapāv6ta, i. 99, a.
"Agapúata, i. 99, a.
"Apºlogis, i. 4, a.
*Apºpoata, i. 101, b.
*Aggov, i. 292, b.
*Auttpos, ii. 174, a.
"Apua, ii. 83, a.
"Appa, i. 101, b ; ii. 164, b.
'Auvmatia, i. 102, a.
'Apºvoo Kotría, ii. 300, a.
'Auépym, ii. 265, a.
'Auðpylva, i. 102, a.
'Agopyis, i. 102, a.
*AutreWol, ii. 962, a.
'Autrexévn, i. 102, b.
”Apatrittapes, i. 940, b.
”Apatrvictiip, i. 117, b.
"Apurvè, i. 117, b.
'Autºkxai, i. 333, a.
*Apºvicaatöes, i. 333, a.
'AuvoT) trivetv, i. 120, b.
'Auºtapáña, i. 102, b.
'AuſpiðAmarpov, ii. 546, a.
'AuºtöovXos, ii. 656, b.
'Auguêpópata, i. 105, b.
'Auguódźapºos, i. 106, b.
'Auguóéatpov, i. 106, b.
'Augbuktüoves, i. 102, b.
'Augtua)\Aot, ii. 762, a.
'Aubtopicua, i. 106, a.
'AuburpóatvNos, ii. 775, b.
*Apºpto:3mteiv, i. 947, a.
'Aubio 6%tmoſus, i. 106, a.
'Augbird"rmtes, -ot, ii. 762, a.
'Aubuqopečs, i. 115, a.
”Apaquqāovtes, ii. 181, b ; ii.
581, b.
'Auſpopets, i. 115, a.
92 puerpmths, ii. 170, b.
'Aubapoata, i. 106, a.
*Apºpottöes, ii. 524, b.
’AvaSaôuoſ, i. 661, b ; i. 663, b.
"AvagoNets, i. 742, a.
'Avayicatov, i. 362, b.
'Avaykaioſpayia, i. 238, a.
'AváyAvirta, i. 121, a.
*Aváyavipa, i. 121, a.
*Avayváptorus, ii. 864, a.
*Avaya'yńs 6them, i. 121, a.
'Avaydºyla, i. 121, a.
'Avašéaum, i. 121, a.
'Avačukta, i. 144, a.
’Ava6%uata, i. 687, a.
'Ava6vutao is, ii. 282, a.
'Avalcaävirthpia, ii. 136, b.
*Avdiceta, i. 121, a. –
*Avakeipiéva, i. 687, a.
*Aváicetov, i. 121, a.
’Avakivhuata, i. 930, a.
'Avakånthpta, i. 121, b.
*Avákâmrot, i. 791, b.
'Avakålvotáàm, ii. 329, a.
'Avákatvrpov, ii. 17, b.
'Avdićptais, i. 121, b ; i. 167,. a.
*Aváicropov, ii. 774, b.
'AváAmuwa, i. 123, a.
*Avaš, ii. 548, a.
*Avačayópeia, i. 123, b.
'Avačvptöes, i. 314, b.
'Aváratotos, i. 422, a
'Avaravatmpta, ii. 854, b.
'Avairmwigeo-0ai, ii. 767, b.
'Avatriéopara, ii. 817, b.
'Avairtiſaa’eiv, i. 771, b.
'Aváppvais, i. 134, b.
'Avdoſiuos, ii. 375, b.
'Avao traorthpta, i. 385, a.
'Avatoxft, i. 224, b.
'Avatpéreuv, ii. 84, a.
'Avavuaxiou ypc.ph, i. 123, b.
'Avdºpopov, i. 211, a.
'Avôpatroötoºths, i. 123, b.
'Avôpeia, ii. 749, a.
'Avôpićs, ii. 395, b.
'Avôpoyedºvia, i. 123, b.
'Avôpoxmyia, i. 123, b.
'Avôpox{iptov, i. 123, b.
'Avôpopuéöm, i. 218, b.
'Avöpóves, i. 124, b ; i. 662, a.
’Avôpovirus, i. 660, b.
*Avev ščaros 6trºm, i. 973, a.
'Avebuaboos, ii. 385, a.
'Av6eſa, i. 127, a.
'Av6egrípta, i. 638, b.
'Avôearmpidºv, i. 338,
399, a.
'Av6eorq6pua, i. 126, b.
*Av6m, ii. 390, b.
'Av6oopatas, ii. 971, a.
'Avěpárciov, i. 127, a.
'Avôvirapooría, i. 623,
629, b.
"Avoãos, ii. 833, b.
"Avoirãot, i. 190, a.
*Avreos, i. 339, a.
'Avtetrippmua, i. 422, a.
'Autepetóts, ii. 854, b.
'Avtmptôes, ii. 216, b.
'Avriyáveia, i. 127, b.
'Avriyovíðes, i. 347, b.
'Avtſyovos, i. 696, a.
'Auturypaqets, i. 128, a.
'Avríðooris, i. 127, a.
'AvtíAmèts, i. 623, a.
'Avrivéeta, i. 128, b.
'Avrtov, ii. 765, a.
'Avriträ6eta, ii. 559, b.
'Avrío Tpetrºra, i. 938, b.
'Avrittumous, i. 404, a.
'Avríqepva, i. 690, b.
'Avriqova, ii. 193, b.
'AvrXmptat, ii. 831, b.
'AvTAfa, i. 128, b.
*Avt.A0s, ii. 212, b. =
"Avrvč, i. 129, b; i. 458, b, i.
577, b.
'Avrºpófi, i. 422, a.
"Avtopogría, i. 121, b.
'Avviroömoſa, ii. 684, b.
'Aétvm, ii. 616, a.
"A$oves, i. 264, a ; ii. 239, b.
*Aşov, i. 578, a ; ii. 239, b.
'Avatokio Más, i. 123, a ; i. 835, a.
'Avôpatroëtquoi, Ypaqi, i. 123, b.
a ; i.
a ; i.
'Avtiºpaq ft, i. 127, b; i. 753, a.
-’Avrto Tpoq à, i. 421, b ; ii. 564, a.
*Aop, i. 919, a.
'Aoptip, i. 284, a.
'AtráyeXol, i. 43, a.
'Atrayayyil, i. 133, b: i. 733, a.
'Atratmoréas toū 3%uov Ypaq'ſ,
i. 134, a.
'Atratotipua, i. 134, b.
'Atratotipuos, i. 339, a.
'Atratoupuſºv, i. 338, b, i. 339, a ;
i. 340, a.
'AtraúAta, ii. 136, b.
'AtravXuaràpia, ii. 136, b.
*Atreupol, i. 130, a.
‘Atreipoves, i. 130, a.
'AtreWeißepos, ii. 61, a.
"AtreWAa, i. 915, a.
‘AtrexNaios, i. 338, a ; i. 339, a.
‘Atreviavtugués, i. 741, b.
'Atrávn, i. 135, b.
'Atrog&rms, i. 618, b.
'Atroyovicós, i. 340, a.
'Atroypaqi, i 137, a.
'Atroyptiqav, i. 137, b.
'Atroöékrat, i. 136, b ; ii. 677, b.
'Atrööeapºos, i. 827, a ; ii. 720, b.
'Atroötöpaaktvöa, i. 137, a.
'Atroëepaireia, i. 98, a.
'Atro8éajorts, i. 139, b.
'Atroëffic), i. 139, b ; i. 915, b.
'Atroucía, i, 476, b.
*Aroucou, i. 474, b.
'Atrokhpušis, i. 137, b.
'AtrákWntol, i. 42, a.
'AtroAeſthea's 6trºm, i. 648, a.
'AtróAelbis, i. 647, p.
'AtroAA&via, i. 138, a.
'Atropayáaxtal, i. 394, a ; ii.
126, a.
'Atrátratou, i. 664, a.
'Atrotréuſews 6trºm, i. 647, b.
'Atrötrepiºus, i. 647, b.
'AtroTutyeiv, ii. 83, b.
'Atrárruyua, ii. 903, b.
'Atroppeºutſipua, ii. 773, b.
'Atróppaśus, i. 293, a ; ii. 423, b.
'Atropphorea's Öſtem, i. 138, b.
'Atróppnoſis, i. 138, b.
'Atróppmta, i. 139, a.
'Atroataotov Šíkm, i. 139, a.
'Atroatoxets, i. 139, a.
'Atroteuxuguós, ii. 919, a.
'AtroTeXeguatikós, i. 213, a.
'AtroTipáv, i. 692, b.
'Atrottumaa, i. 692, b, i. 971, b.
'Atrotup.mtaſ, ii. 174, a.
'AtroTuptavia pads, i. 143, b.
'Atráqavois, i. 138, a.
'Atródagus, i. 127, a ; i. 138, a ;
i. 176, b.
'Atropopd, i. 138, a.
'Atroq6pmta, i. 138, b.
'Atropophtm, i. 138, b.
'Atroppſ#6es àuépal, i. 138, b.
'Atroxelpotoveſv, i. 168, b ; i.-
409, b.
'Atroxelpotovía, i. 409, b.
'ATpógicAmtos 6them, i. 146, a.
'Arpoataotov Ypaqf, i. 146, b :
i. 168, a.
”Apaflápxms, i. 158, b.
”ApatóatvXos, ii. 777, b.
'Apdreia, i. 158, b.
GREEK INDEX.
1011
*Apščam, i. 332, b ; ii. 373, b.
*Apydóels, i. 901, b ; ii. 876, b.
”Apyta, i. 195, a.
'Apytas ypaqf, i. 184, b.
2, véuos, i. 184, b.
”Apyixos, i. 842, a.
'Apyol Aſbou, i. 178, a ; ii. 700, a.
'Apyovavrikā, ii. 299, b.
'Apyvpdatrióes, i. 184, b.
*Apyüpıov, ii. 248, b.
'Apyvptov Štrºm, i. 185, a.
'Apyvpokoretov, i. 185, a ; ii.
177, a.
'Apyvpox6-yot, i. 185, a.
"Apyvpos, i. 183, b.
'Apyvporautal, i. 185, a.
'Apyvpºvmtol, ii. 656, b.
*Apºyd, i. 222, b.
'ApôāAtov, i. 174, b.
'Apôāvuov, i. 174, b ; i. 885, b.
*Apôto6%pa, i. 872, a ; ii. 587, b.
”Apôts, ii. 587, a.
"Apelos, i. 340, a.
, trgºyos, i. 175, a.
"Apeoicos, i. 521, a.
'Apnotów, i. 338, b.
*Apud Sveta, i. 185, b.
'Aptóumrukh, i. 187, b; ii. 76, b.
'Apts, ii. 793, b.
'Apia repoatãral, i. 420, b.
"Aptattvömv, i. 442, a.
'Aptorokpatia, i. 187, a.
"Aptoſtov, i. 391, b.
'Apicaätköv, to kolváv, i. 162, a.
'Apicteia, i. 316, b.
'Apictetely, i. 316, b.
'Apicteteorðat, i. 316, b.
"Apktoi, i. 316, b.
"Apºctos ueydam, i. 216, a.
, Pukpá, i. 216, b.
'Apictoopos, i. 217, a.
'Apictoq àAaš, i. 217, a.
"Apkus, ii. 546, a.
'Apiciopos, ii. 936, b.
"Apua, i. 577, b ; i. 933, a.
‘Appiduača, i. 933, a.
‘Apployfi, ii. 390, b.
‘Approvía, ii. 198, a.
‘Applovíai, ii. 538, b.
‘Apuovitch, ii. 192, b.
‘Appoorths, i. 933, a.
*Apwarcís, i. 543, b.
'Apwis, i. 192, b.
"Aporoi ispot, i. 193, a.
*Apotpov, i. 159, a.
*Apoupa, i. 197, b ; ii. 164, b.
‘Aptrayå, i. 933, b.
“Aptrayås ypaſph, i. 933, b.
‘Aptraorév, ii. 424, a.
‘Aptrečováirtal, i. 924, a.
“Aptrºl, i. 823, a.
*Appr1pópia, i. 193, b.
*Apprºpópol, i. 194, a.
"Apoſts, ii. 558, b.
*Apré8m, i. 194, a.
'Aprapatrios, i. 339, b.
*Apteruſota, i. 194, b.
*Aprepatorios, i. 339, a.
"Aprepugićv, i. 339, a ; i. 340, a.
*Aprio. 3) treputrā traigetv, ii.
336, b.
”Aprićgely, ii. 336, b.
'Apraopºds, ii. 336, b.
"Apriot, i. 188, a.
'Aprotroués, ii. 430, a.
'AprotróAal, i. 394, a.
'AptotróAtöes, i. 394, a.
'Aptival, -ot, i. 197, b.
*Apriorels, ii. 966, a.
'ApúBaxxos, i. 201, a.
'Apúrawa, i. 268, b.
'Apxaſpecial, i.409, b, i. 702, b.
'Apxeſov, i. 162, b.
'ApxéAaot, ii. 875, b.
'Apxh, i. 165, b.
'Apxmyérms, i. 753, a.
'Apxtatpos, i. 162, b.
'Apx180ükoxos, i. 309, a.
'Apxtepaviorths, i. 758, b.
'Apxtepets, i. 241, b ; i. 340, a.
'Apx10éopos, i. 611, a ; ii. 825, a.
'Apxtrektovía, i. 163, b.
'Apxitektovikſ, i. 163, b.
'Apxtréktov, ii. 818, a.
"Apxwv, i. 165, a.
, étrévvuos, i. 167, b.
'Apx6vms, i. 266, b ; ii. 366, a ;
ii. 771, a.
'Aorduiv60s, i. 208, a.
*AgeBetas ypaq ft, i. 210, a.
'Aortépxat, i. 210, b.
'Aoſtaxa, i. 211, a.
'Ao-kāvrms, ii. 18, a.
'Aq KAmtrſeta, i. 209, b ; ii. 154, a.
"Aakós, i. 210, a ; ii. 965, b.
'Aoka')\taapids, i. 209, b.
"Aakaua, ii. 223, b.
*Aotrís, i. 458, b.
‘Aatriotat, i. 190, a.
'Agordplov, i. 211, a.
'Aotépes &yaôotrotot, i. 213, a.
, éticoivot, i. 213, a.
, kakotrotot, i. 213, a.
'Aotpd.6m, i. 742, a.
'Aotpāyaxos, i. 212, a ; ii. 247,
a; ii. 759, a.
'AotpayaMoth, i. 864, a.
'Aotpatetas ypaſph, i. 212, b.
*Aotpov, Tb, i. 221, b.
'Aotpovouſa, i. 214, a.
'Aotvvóplot, i. 234, a.
'AovXta, i. 234, b
*AovXov, i. 235, a.
'Aavvæptmra, ii. 563, a.
'AtéNeia, i. 236, a.
'Ariuſa, i. 241, b.
"Atipos, i. 242, a.
'ATAayevels, i. 219, b.
*ATAavres, i. 243, b.
*Arpakros, i. 897, b.
'Attikos ºrd policos, i. 478, b.
'Atrikovpyés, i. 245, a.
Aöövvaſos, i. 339, a.
Aü0épms, i. 263, a.
Aixata, i. 259, b.
AüAetos 6&pa, i. 661, b.
AüAfi, i. 259, b ; i. 655, b.
AüAmths, i. 417, b; ii. 841, b.
AüAmrukh, ii. 840, a.
AüA.00%km, ii. 841, b.
Ağxos, ii. 161, b.
AüAós, ii. 840, a.
AüA@6ta, ii. 528, b.
Abroká8öaxoi, i. 516, a.
Aörokparopicós, i. 340, a.
Aüroxmicó001, ii. 977, a.
Aütowoxtas Ypaqf, i. 263, b.
Airovopata, ii. 682, a.
Aörðvouot, i. 263, b.
AüToo Yečiao Tukh, i. 514, a ; ii.
859, a.
AttoreAxis 8tºm, i. 630, b.
'Aqaipéorea's 6them, i. 764, b.
'Aqaipeats, ii. 75, b.
‘Agbapuárai, i. 555, a.
'Aq'avhs oioſa, i. 136, a.
*Aqeoris, i. 964, a ; ii. 693, b.
'Aq'etat, i. 941, a ; ii. 62, b.
*Aqeroi, ii. 935, a.
'Aq'föuros juépa, ii. 750, b.
*Apxaorov, ii. 211, a.
*A poãos, i. 664, a.
'Aqoppºſis 6trºm, i. 136, a.
'Aqpaktos vais, ii. 214, b.
'Aq poètoria, i. 136, b.
'Aq poèto tos, i. 340, a.
'Axałków, rö, i. 8, a.
'Axdum, i. 10, a.
'Ax60¢6pos, i. 266, a.
*Axtrav, ii. 320, b.
*A*/mqot, i. 130, a.
‘Ayís, i. 4, b ; i. 578, a.
*Alºxov Štrºm, i. 146, b.
B.
Baëpópitos, i. 339, b.
Bá0pa, ii. 619, a.
BattvXos, ii. 774, a.
Baktmpta, i. 265, b ; i. 628, b.
Bakxukh, ii. 593, a.
BaAavāypa, i. 451, a ; ii. 467, b.
BaAaveſov, i. 266, b.
BaAavečs, i. 268, b.
BaAavočákm, ii. 467, b.
B&Aavos, i. 451, a ; ii. 467, b.
BaAdv'rlov, i. 565, a ; ii. 126, a.
BaA6ts, i. 644, b ; ii. 693, b.
BaAAdvrtov, i. 565, a.
Bavavaria, i. 195, a.
Battai, i. 285, a.
B&paôpov, i. 285, a.
Bápbutov, -os, ii. 106, b.
Băpus, i. 286, b.
Bapooxicov., ii. 107, b.
Bao'avuotal, ii. 852, a.
Báo avos, ii. 851, a.
Bao'íaeta, i. 287, a ; i. 293, b.
Bao'íAetov, i. 293, b.
Baoixets, i. 168, a ; ii. 546, b.
Baorixtóes, i. 332, b.
Bagińſvöa, i. 293, a.
Bao (Auvva, i. 168, a.
Bao'ſ Atos, i. 340, a.
Bao (Algoa, i. 168, a ii. 202, b.
Báorus, ii. 558, b.
Baakavía, i. 827, b.
Bágicavos àq6axpads, i. 827, b.
Bao'adpa, i. 293, b.
Bathp, ii. 693, b.
Barakh, i. 294, b.
Bavkd'Am, i. 294, b.
3 T 2
1012
GREEK INDEX.
BavköAtov, i. 294, b.
BačkaAls, i. 294, b.
Bavktöes, i. 294, b ; ii. 685, a.
Baqf, ii. 3, a.
Beflatáorea's 6trºm, i. 295, a.
BeXóvn, i. 23, b. .
BeNovís, i. 23, b.
Béuémé, -ič, i. 929, a; ii. 906, b.
Bevölðaios, i. 340, a.
Bevöſöela, i. 295, b.
Bepovíkms 860tpuxos, i. 223, a.
33 TAókapºos, i. 223, a.
Bmxós, i. 987, a.
Bäua, i. 295, b, i. 698, a ; i.
921, a ; ii. 162, a ; ii. 870, a.
Bhora, -lov, i. 296, b.
Bío-ora, i. 296, b.
Bíaios Tpoq à, i. 238, a.
Buatov Šticm, i. 297, a.
BíBaorus, ii. 594, a.
BuğAtoypdqol, ii. 60, a.
BuğAu06%km, i. 297, b.
Bu6AtokdºrmWol, ii. 60, a.
BuğAtov, ii. 57, b.
Bí8A0s, ii. 57, b.
Buôaiot, i. 298, b.
Bikos, i. 298, b.
Buðs, i. 169, b.
Bíppos, i. 299, a.
BA&8ms 6them, i. 122, b, i. 299, a ;
i. 814, b.
BAaúrm, i. 332, b ; ii. 685 a.
BAaúria, i. 332, b.
Boayós, i. 299, b.
Boabó0s, i. 338, a.
Bombpóula, i. 300, a.
Bombpoutdºv, i. 338, a ; i. 339, a.
Bom60ſ, ii. 344, b.
BomAaaſai, i. 766, b.
Bó9pos, ii. 832, a.
Bouwtdpxms, -os, i. 300, a.
Boxts, i. 384, b.
Bouflükia, ii. 649, b.
BouévX%, i. 302, b.
BoggvXués, i. 116, b; i. 302, b.
Böuðvé, ii. 840, b.
Bopeaguoſ, i. 308, b.
Bopeaguós, i. 308, b.
Boraviopºds, i. 63, b.
Botavoplavºreſa, i. 647, a.
Bovayóp, -os, i. 299, b.
Boüal, i. 43, b.
Bovkdtuos, i. 338, a, b.
Boökepas, -ws, i. 70, a.
Bovktövov, i. 294, b.
Boško Not, i. 308, b.
BovXeñorea's Ypzqf, i. 313, b ;
ii. 518, b.
BovXevtaſ, i. 309, b.
Bouxeuthpiov, i. 313, a ; i. 577, a.
BovXh, i. 309, a.
Boötupov, -os, i. 319, a.
Bovºpovla, i. 636, b.
Bovºpovićv, i. 338, b.
Boðval, i. 308, b.
Boðrms, i. 217, a.
Bpaflets, i, 44, b.
Bpagevtat, i. 44, b.
Bpao'íðela, i. 316, a.
Bpavpdºvia, i. 316, a.
Bpaxtoxos, i. 315, b.
Bpaxtáviov, i. 315, b.
Bpoxts, i. 244, b.
Bporov, i. 407, a.
BúðAos, ii. 57, b.
Bukávm, i. 317, b.
Bupoets, i. 542, a.
Buporoöéºns, i. 542, a.
Büorios, i. 339, a.
Bugorós, i. 319, b.
Baplovíkms, i. 303, a.
Bop.6s, i. 157, a.
Baºpets, ii. 876, a.
I'.
Táyyapov, ii. 546, a.
T&AAoi, i. 899, b.
TáAws, i. 43, a.
Taum Afa, i. 900, b.
Tapinxtov, i. 338, a.
Tápopot, i. 911, b.
Tápios, ii. 130, a.
Távoorus, ii. 395, a.
Tápyov, i. 578, a.
Tao Tpaq’étms, ii. 856, a.
TavXós, i. 323, a.
TeXéovres, i. 901, a ; ii. 876, b.
Texatotrowoſ, ii. 205, b ; ii.
344, a.
TeveóAtañoyſa, i. 213, a.
Tévelov, i. 285, a.
Tevéoria, i. 888, a.
Téveolus, i. 213, b.
Tevviſitat, i. 903, b ; ii. 877, a.
Tévos, i. 903, a ; ii. 559, a ; ii.
875, a.
Tepalpaí, i. 639, a.
Tépavos, i. 986, b ; ii. 593, a.
Tepavodăkos, i. 986, b.
Tepapai, i. 639, a.
Tepdatios, i. 339, a.
Tépovres, i. 912, a. -
Tepovoia, i. 577, a ; i. 912, a.
Téppa, i. 562, a ; i. 699, a ; i.
916, a ; ii. 752, a.
Tepata, i. 914, a.
Tepovía, ii. 749, b.
Tepoxia, i. 914, a.
Tépupa, ii. 456, b.
Teq vpfgeuv, i. 515, a.
Teq vptopºds, i. 719, b.
Teq vptotat, i. 515, a.
Tewadpol, i. 911, b ; ii. 876, b.
Tºyyavuos, i. 364, b.
Tívypas, ii. 841, a.
TAedicos, ii. 963, a.
TAööts, ii. 963, b.
TAvirtukh ord paytówy, ii. 601, b.
TAüqavov, ii. 601, a.
TAwororokopetov, ii. 841, b.
TAótta, ii. 840, a.
Tvaqets, i. 881, a.
Tvåortos, i. 25, b.
Tvøwov, i. 923, b; i. 972, b ; ii.
243, a ; ii. 443, a.
Toñs, ii. 728, a.
Tápagos, i. 452, b ; ii. 538, b.
Topyūpa, i. 362, b.
Top truatos, i. 339, a.
Tpatºtov čAeë0epov, ii. 375, b.
, ioxvóv, ii. 377, b.
» Aukaſvlov, ii. 377, b.
, oiketucóv, ii. 375, b.
,, oikovpdv, ii. 377, b.
Tpduſia, ii. 613, b.
Tpappareſov, ii. 753, a.
99 Amélapxuków, i. 26,
a; i. 616, b
59 ºppatpuków, i. 26, a.
Tpaupareds, i. 9, b ; i. 921, b.
Tpapplatfölov, i. 394, a.
Tpapparloths, ii. 96, b.
Tpapparoëtäägicañol, ii. 94, b.
Tpappah, ii. 390, a ; ii. 693, b.
Tpaupiñs, traigetv Štá, i. 929, a.
Tpaqetov, ii. 390, a ; ii. 713, b. '
Tpaqf, i. 922, a ; ii. 389, b.
Tpaqº) &yautov, i. 43, a.
, &ypaſptov, i. 49, b.
, &ypdqov werd.MAov, i.
49, b
, &vaupaxtov, i. 123, b.
, &vöpatroëtopoi), i. 123, b.
, &rarmoréas toū 6%uov,
i. 134, a.
, &rpoo raortov, i. 146, b;
i. 168, a.
, &pyías, i. 184, b.
, àpirayfis, i. 933, b.
, &orefleias, i. 210, a.
, &otpatetas, i. 212, b.
, airouoxſas, i. 263, b.
, Bovaetorea's, i. 313, b :
ii. 518, b. -
, belxias, i. 212, b.
2, 6ekao Moſſ, i. 599, b.
, 6muooſa, i. 628, b.
2, 6apoãoktas, i. 599, b.
2, 6opoćevtas, ii. 991, a.
2, 6&pav, i. 599, b.
,, eipyuot, i. 938, b.
, éčaywyfis, i. 764, a.
, Taiphoreos, i. 958, b.
, iota, i. 628, b.
; iepoorvXtas, i. 961, a.
» cakoyaputov, i. 43, a.
» ſcataAüorea's rod Shuov,
i. 383, b.
2, Kataokotris, i. 385, a.
, k\otris, i. 462, b.
» Attrovavtſov, i. 123, b.
2, Attrootpatíov, i. 212, b.
, Attoračíov, i. 212, b.
» wouxetas, i. 29, b.
» voufouaros Stapôopås,
ii. 237, a.
, §evías, ii. 991, a.
, Öyvyautov, i. 43, a.
, trapavofas, ii. 339, a.
, Tapavéuwu, ii. 339, b.
» trapatpeogetas, ii. 342, b.
, trapaya, yetas, ii. 491, b.
, trepi Tôv ei6vvöv, i.
764, a.
, trpoãoo'ías, ii. 500, a.
,, ºntopurch, i. 739, a ; ii.
y
, orvkopavrías, ii. 732, a.
, Tpadpatos éic trpovolas,
ii. 868, a.
, rvubwpuxtas, ii. 913, b.
GREEK INDEX.
1013
Tpap?) rvpavvíðos, i. 168, b.
, iſºpeas, i. 982, b.
, ÖtroBoxms, i. 986, a.
,, papuaketas, ii. 382, b.
,, pappudkov, ii. 382, a.
,, póopås róv éAev6épov,
ii. 388, a.
q6vov, ii. 386, b.
, bevöey'ypaſp?is, ii. 518, b.
iyevöokAmretas, i. 456, b;
ii. 519, a.
Tpaqukh, ii. 389, b.
Tpaq'ſs, ii. 390, a ; ii. 713, b.
Tpiqos, i. 35, b; ii. 546, a.
Tpoorqoudºxot, i. 936, b.
Tpóo pos, i. 936, b.
Túaxa, ii. 77, b.
Töms, i. 159, b ; ii. 161, a.
Tupuaaldpxms, i. 928, a.
Tvuvaortapxos, i. 928, a.
Tvuváortov, i. 925, b.
Tupuwworraí, i. 928, b.
Tvuvija tot, i. 930, b.
Tvpurital, i. 190, a.
Tupuwires, i. 190, a ; i. 930, b.
Tupuyoſ, i. 190, a.
Tvuvoirauðta, i. 931, a.
Twpawós, ii. 248, a.
Tuvaikokóapot, i. 931, b.
Tvvaikováuoi, i. 931, b.
I'vvailcaovirus, i. 660, b.
I'vvºi Aekiruch, ii. 377, b.
, otAm, ii. 377, b.
Tovía, ii. 243, a.
Topvrós, i. 170, b.
A.
Aáyvvov, ii. 526, a.
Aayās, ii. 526, a.
Agögq6ptos, i. 338, a.
Agötov, ii. 755, b.
Agöovp'yeiv, ii. 755, b.
Agöovpyós, ii. 755, b.
Agöouxão aora, i. 721,
Agö00x0s, i. 721, a.
Aaeupºrus, i. 721, b.
Aatóaxa, i. 592, b ; i. 593, a.
Aatódaeta, i. 592, b.
Aafts, ii. 755, b.
Aatatos, i. 339, a.
AakrvX70pal, ii. 121, a.
AaktvNio'yat pos, ii. 604, a.
AakrvAto6%icº), i. 592, b.
Aakróxios, i. 129, b.
AdictivXos, i. 592, b ; ii. 161, b.
AdAtos, i. 339, b.
Aaxpartich, i. 594, a.
Aquapéretou vöutoua, i. 594, a.
Aapadºrpios, i. 338, b.
Aapitotipyol, i. 613, a.
Aapooría, i. 596, b; ii. 441, b.
Aavákms, i. 596, b.
b.
Advelopic, čuqotepētāovv, i.
33, a.
25 érepôtràovv, i. 833, a.
Aaveto rat, i. 179, b.
Admis, ii. 761, b.
Aapeikós, i. 597, b.
Aás, ii. 755, b.
Aarmtat, i. 598, b.
Aaq.vmſpópos, -ia, i. 597, a.
Aetypa, i. 609, b.
AetkmAtkrat, i. 514, b.
Aetam, i. 635, a.
Aetatas ypaqf, i. 212, b.
Aeſºrvov, i. 391, b.
Aetirvoq'ópot, ii. 303, b.
Aékašapxia, i. 591, a.
Aekað00x01, i. 591, a.
Aekáirpatol, i. 599, b.
Aercapxta, i. 591, a.
Aékaopids, i. 100, a ; i. 599, b.
Aekaapoo ypaq ft, i. 599, b.
Aelcáatuxos, ii. 777, a.
Aekateſſelv, i. 316, b.
Aekatevtat, i. 604, b.
Aercarev'riptov, i. 604, b.
Aekdtm, i. 603, a ; ii. 233, b :
ii. 772, a.
Aekarm?Aó'you, i. 604, b.
Aekarnºpópot &tapxaſ, i. 603, b.
Aercatóval, i. 604, b.
AeApatuch, i. 594, a.
AéAtol, ii. 753, a.
AeAratóv, i. 218, b.
AeAqtu, i. 218, b.
AeAqívia, i. 611, b.
AeAq'ís, i. 218, b ; i. 611, b.
Aéuviov, ii. 17, a.
Aečaplevå, ii. 429, b.
Aečvoordtal, i. 420, b.
Aétras, i. 617, b ; ii. 161, b.
Aépatov, i. 470, a.
Aéppa, i. 542, a.
Aepuatucóv, i. 618, b; ii. 771, b.
Aepaarouańdictms, i. 542, a.
Aéppus, i. 427, a.
Aeggoºpääakes, i. 942, a.
Aeopathpiov, i. 362, a.
Aeotrogiovaotai, i. 940, b ; ii.
62, b.
Aéo Tpov, i. 578, a.
Asurepayaviaths, i. 966, a.
Aevrépios, ii. 964, b.
Aevrepoxo'yta, ii. 746, a.
AeutepotróTuoi, i. 889, a.
Aïrypia, i. 876, b.
Aft\la, i. 610, b ; ii. 826, b.
AmAlaotai, i. 103, a.
Amuayaºyot, ii. 746, a.
Amuopxečočotos, i. 340, a.
Afinapkot, i. 611, b.
Ampañyopoi, ii. 746, a.
Amuntpia, i. 612, b.
Amplitpuos, i. 340, a.
Amuátpata, i. 612, b.
Amutovpyot, i. 9, b ; i. 612, b :
ii. 757, a ; ii. 876, b.
Ahutos, i. 613, a ; i. 942, b ; ii.
852, a.
Amuákovos, i. 614, a ; i. 942, b :
ii. 852, a.
Amuokpatía, i. 613, a.
Amuoroſmros, i. 443, a.
Añuos, i. 614, b.
Anuéoua Ypduuara, i. 12, b.
Amuáoioi, i. 614, a. -
Amudotov, i. 37, a ; i. 162, b.
Amuágios, i. 942, b.
Amaëral, i. 616, a.
Atá826pov, i. 332, b.
Aug;3athpua, i. 619, a.
Ala8%rms, i. 429, b.
Alaypaupuapés, i. 695, a.
Ataypaq, eſs, i. 712, b.
Alaypaqfi, ii. 390, a.
Alayó'ylov, i. 604, b.
Atóðmua, i. 619, b. -
ii. 385, b.
Ataşukaata, i. 620, b :
55 KXàpov, i. 26, a.
22 Tàs étrucAfipov, i.
747, a.
Alabógeis, i. 625, a.
Atógopal, ii. 765, a.
Aláçopia, ii. 721, a.
Atagºpata, ii. 815, a.
Ala8%rcat, i. 945, b ; i. 946, a ;
ii. 299, b.
Aſatra, i. 623, b.
Alavrmtat, i. 620, b.
Alavrm'ruch, i. 623, b.
Atókpioi, ii. 877, a.
Ataxapºdively, ii. 84, b.
Alapaptupta, i. 122, a.
Atapao Tſyaois, i. 625, a.
Aićuitpos étalpa, ii. 378, a.
Alavouai, i. 625, a.
Alatróopata, ii. 977, a.
Alatrúxtov, ii. 771, b.
Awdata, i. 626, a.
Audio Två0s, ii. 777, b.
AlavXoöpóuot, i. 581, b.
AtavXos, i. 581, b ; ii. 163, a ;
ii. 693, b. *...
Ataxelpotovía, i. 409, b.
Atázpvaos étatpa, ii. 378, a
Atalyſiquorus, i. 625, b.
A#80s, i. 696, a.
Atôaorica?\etov, i. 417, b; ii. 94, a.
Atôaorica Atal, i. 417, b; ii. 865, a.
Atôāoricaxos, i. 417, b.
Atôpaxuov, i. 694, b.
Atövºol, i. 219, b.
Alexicvartvöa traigetv, i. 928, b.
Almyeptured, ii. 136, b.
Alfipes, i. 663, b.
Atóðpapagos, ii. 858, a.
Atical éppanwol, i. 478, a ; i.
730, a.
AticeXAa, ii. 66, b.
AutróAta, i. 636, b.
AlkaoTriptov, i. 626, b.
Atkaaths, i. 627, a.
Atkaartaköv, i. 628, a.
AticeXAa, ii. 66, b.
Atkm, i. 628, b.
, &yeapytov, i. 43, b.
, aircías, i. 94, a.
, &Aoytov, i. 99, a.
» &vayooyās, i. 121, a.
, &váöukos, i. 144, b.
,, &veu iſèatos, i. 973, a.
, &troAeſtheas, i. 648, a.
, &toiréuipews, i. 647, b.
, &roppigeos, i. 138, b. * *
&tograortov, i. 139, a , i.
168, a.
&ro ovu}óAww, ii. 734, a.
, &mpôoricantos, i. 146, a ;
i. 629, a.
, &mpoo ragtov, i. 168, a.
1014
GREEK INDEX.
Aſkm &pyvpſov, i. 185, a.
7) .. i. 630, b.
ãºpaipéorews, i. 764, b.
&qopuñs, i. 136, a.
&:/txov, i. 146, b.
Begatóorea's, i. 295, a.
Biafov, i. 297, a.
, 8A38ms, i. 122, b ; i.
299, a ; i. 814, b.
, yyúms, i. 737, a.
, éAev6epotrpaotov, i. 123, b.
, éutropuch, ii. 225, a ; ii.
338, b ; ii. 734, b.
, évolktov, i. 737, a.
, Čšaipéoreos, i. 764, b.
, ÉÉoãAms, i. 815, b.
, étritpimpapxhuatos, ii.
3.
, épaulich, i. 759, a.
, kaðvºpéorews, i. 923, a.
, kakmyoptas, i. 321, b.
, karmyoptov, i. 321, b.
, kakoxo'ytas, i. 321, b.
, kakotekviðv, i. 322, b.
, kakočevſas, i. 978, a.
, kóprov, i. 367, a, i. 737, a.
, kxotrºs, i. 462, b.
, Aeltrouapruptov, i. 122, h;
i. 814, b
, Aotöopias, i. 321, b.
, oikías, ii. 262, a.
,, obotas, i. 737, b.
, trapakata.0%kms, i. 136, a.
, trposuo popas, ii. 500, b.
, trpoucós, i. 692, b ; ii.
678, b.
, trpès iſºap, i. 973, a.
, orírov, ii. 678, a.
, Xkvpia, ii. 614, b.
, orvpſ30Aatov, or ovvômicóv
trapaflāqews, ii. 734, a.
, Tipmth, i. 630, a.
, Tpaxeta, ii. 614, b.
,, povich, ii. 384, b.
, xpéovs, i. 424, a.
, xpmuatikfi, i. 752, b.
, bevöopaptupidov, ii. 129, a.
Aikpavov, i. 894, a.
Atkpota, ii. 223, a.
Aíkpovv šūxov, i. 894, a.
Auctivvia, i. 634, b.
Aircrwov, ii. 299, b; ii. 545, a.
Audzai, i. 637, a.
Atuitos, ii. 767, a.
Atouchaews, 6 €tri, ii. 761, b.
Atók\eta, i. 637, a.
Atovãoria, i. 637, a.
, Ču ägret, or uéyéxa,
i. 640, a.
75 kat’ &ypots, or utkpá,
i. 638, a.
Atovãotos, i. 340, a.
Atos, i. 339, a ; i. 340, a.
Atoo mueta, i. 647, a.
Alookotºpia, i. 640, b.
Alookoúpos, i. 340, a.
Attraağ, ii. 318, b.
Attrañ, i. 531, a.
Aitkołówov, ii. 903, b.
Attr?\ots, ii. 903, b.
Attróxia, or Attróxela, i. 636, b.
Attrepos, ii. 775, b.
AttravXa, i. 643, b ; ii. 753, b.
Atorkos, i. 644, b.
Atorkovpa, i. 644, b.
Atoºrdótov, ii. 163, a.
Atarreyta, ii. 817, a.
Atrovov, ii. 193, b.
Aiq6épa, i. 641, a ; ii. 58, b;
ii. 362, b ; ii. 752, b.
Aiq9eptas, ii. 375, b.
Aug.0epºrts, ii. 375, b.
At poos, i. 577, b, i. 578, a ;
ii. 618, b.
Atqºpos ékAaôtas, ii. 619, a.
Atxańkov, i. 630, b.
Atxàs, ii. 161, b.
Atxàumvis, i. 338, a.
Atxopia, i. 421, b.
Aw8exía, i. 637, a ; ii. 826, a.
Autó80Aov, i. 637, a.
Atoyua, ii. 832, b.
Atwºogia, i. 121, b.
Atwoºtpa, ii. 854, a.
Atotos, i. 115 a ; i. 640, b.
Aókava, Tâ, i. 649,
700, a.
Aoicipiaoſa, i. 649, a ;
i. 739. a.
AoAtxoëpówou, i. 582, a
b
- 2 - *
; 11.
3 * *
AóAuxos, i. 581, b ; ii. 693, b.
AóAov, i. 651, a.
Aópot, ii. 853, b.
Aóvač, i. 329, b.
Aopé, i. 542, a.
Aopätuov, i. 935, a.
Aopatobákm, i. 935, b.
AoptdºwTo., ii. 656, a.
Aóptreia, i. 134, b.
Aoptría, i. 134, b.
Aóptrov, i. 391, a.
Aópv, i. 934, b.
AopvQ,&pol, i. 772, b : i. 935, a.
Aóois, i. 947, a.
AoûAös, ii. 656, a.
Aoxºff, ii. 161, b.
Apdikav, i. 217, a.
Apáooreiv, -eq9ai, ii. 83, a.
Apaxuſ, i. 694, a ; ii. 448, b.
Apetróvn, Apéravov, i. 823, a.
Apoſtal, i. 887, b.
Apóuos, i. 581, a ; ii. 693, b.
Apváxot, ii. 211, a ; ii. 223, b.
Apúq'aktot, i. 351, a ; i. 987, b.
Aupuavatai, ii. 875, a.
Avuáves, i. 914, a ; ii. 875, a.
Aövapus, i. 188, b.
Avvao reta, ii. 266, b.
Avvarot, ii. 233, a.
Aöorrpos, i. 339, a.
A&pia, i. 657, b.
Aópa, i. 687, b.
Awpoãorcías ypaqf, i. 599, b.
Aópov, ii. 161, a.
Awpoševias Ypaqf, ii. 991, a.
Aópov ypaqf, i. 599, b.
Awrfum, i. 692, a.
E.
‘Eavés, ii. 314, b.
"Eap, i. 233, a.
a ; ii.
’Eyyám, i. 736, a.
’Eyyum0%km, i. 1005, a.
°E)')ims 5them, i. 737, a.
°E))imorus, ii. 134, b.
'E'ykekºrmuévos, i. 732, b.
‘Eykevrpís, i. 331, b.
*Eykåmua, i. 629, a.
*E.)KAmpos, i. 746, b.
'Eyków8wpia, i. 732, b.
*Eyktmua, i. 732, b
*E)Krmats, i. 732, b.
’Eykrm'riköy, i. 616, b ; i.
733, a.
'E'ykūkAtos trauðeta, ii. 95, a.
‘Eykorov, ii. 215, a
'Eºyxelpíðuov, ii. 525, a.
"E')xos, i. 934, b.
'E'yxvotpíſelv, i. 426, b.
°E.)xvo Tpío Total, i. 427, a.
*Eðaqos, ii. 223, b.
"Eðva, i. 691, a.
“Eöpm, ii. 618, b.
*Eeóva, i. 691, a.
'E6exotſpáčevos, i. 980, b.
Eiavós, ii. 314, b.
EłówWow kópakos, i. 222, b.
Eikas, i. 338, b.
Eikovicós, ii. 377, b.
Eikovoypaqta, ii. 389, b.
Eiicootſi, i. 603, a ; i. 707, b.
Eikoo toWöryos, i. 707, b.
Eixares, -ai, i. 939, b.
Ełuav, i. 340, a.
Eip'yuot, 8th m, i. 938, b.
Eipeguávn, ii. 526, b ; ii. 581, b.
Eipmv, i. 707, b.
Eiptov, i. 319, b.
Eio'dºyeuv, i. 708, a.
Eiga y yeata, i. 708, b.
Eiga yaºye's, i. 708, a.
Eio itſipia, i. 710, b.
EigtváAas, i. 769, a.
Eio move to 6al, i. 25, b.
Eiotroinois, i. 25, b.
Eia troumºrós, i. 25, b.
Eio pépelv, i. 713, a.
Eio popd, i. 711, a.
‘Ekatóuflata, i. 943, a.
‘Ekarápagalos, i. 339, a.
‘Ekatop 8216v, i. 338, a.
‘Ekatoubets, i. 339, a.
‘Ekarou8%, i. 943, a.
‘Ekatopaq6via, i. 937, b.
‘Ekaroo Tii, ii. 366, a.
"Ekyovot, i. 948, a.
*Eköukos, i. 703, b.
*Eköooris, i. 833, a.
'Ekéxelpía, i. 960, a.
'Eickxmoría, i. 697, b : i. 914, b.
37 kvpta, i. 697, b.
2? Aoxºrus, i. 504, b.
?? Pukpg, i. 703, a.
?? vóutuos, i. 697, p.
}} orūykAmtos, i. 698, a.
37 q'patpurch, i. 503, b.
*Ekkamtol, i. 703, a.
'Ekkökåmua, i. 815,
816, b.
'EkAoyeſs, i. 704, a.
*Expayetov, ii. 125, b,
'Ekpaptupta, i. 704, a.
'Ekiroueiv, i. 25, b
a ; ii.
GREEK INDEX.
1015
'Eictroteio 6al, i. 25, b.
‘Ektets, “Ektm, i. 937, b.
'Eictmuáplot, i. 938, a.
*Ektutrov, ii. 794, a.
*Ektviros, i. 704, a.
'Eicrútrap.a., ii. 794, a.
'Ekſpopd, i. 886, b.
(EKºpvanoqopia, i. 310, a.
'EAaía, "EAatov, ii. 262, a ; ii.
976, b.
'EAaloºpópov, i. 279, a.
'EAatov, ii. 262, a.
'EAatóval, i. 575, b.
'EAarhp, ii. 899, a.
'EAaqºm 36Ata, i. 713, b.
"EAaqºm 8oxidºv, i. 338, a.
*EAapos, i. 713, b.
‘EAéveia, ii. 157, a.
*EAeos, ii. 157, a.
‘EAéroxus, i. 938, b.
'EAev6épua, i. 725, b.
'EAev6eporpaatov Šíkm, i. 123, b.
'EAevotvia, i. 715, b.
'EAépas, i. 715, a.
‘EAlkm, i. 216, a.
“EAtć, i. 939, a.
‘EAkvoºrtvöa traíſeuv, i. 928, b.
‘EAAavočíkai, i. 772, a ; i. 939, a ;
ii. 271, a.
‘EAAmvorautal, i. 939, a.
'EAAtpévtov, i. 726, a ; ii. 366, a.
'EAApreviatat, i. 726, a.
'EAAó8tov, i. 1002, a.
'EAA&tia, or ‘EXAdria, i. 726, a.
*Exupa, i. 159, b.
'EufláAAeiv, ii. 84, a.
°Eugés, i. 727, a.
*EuBagus, i. 266, b.
'Euflateta, i. 727, b.
'Euflárms, i. 332, b ; ii. 174, b ;
ii. 861, b.
'EpºR&quov, i. 7, b.
*EußAmua, i. 727, b.
*Epigoxii, i. 186, a.
'Euflóxpos, i. 338, a.
*EuBoAov, ii. 217, a.
*Eu30Aos, i. 578, a.
'Eupéxela, i. 422, a ; ii. 862, b.
'Eppleaſis, ii. 192, b.
*Eupamvol Sikal, i. 478, a ; i.
730, a.
’Eutratorikh réxvm, i. 325, a.
'Eatréawpo, i. 49, a.
’Eutrepôvnaa, i. 841, a.
*EurAsktov, i. 327, b ; ii. 188, a.
"Epwrxefus, ii. 764, b.
'Eutropurch 6them, ii. 225, a ; ii.
338, b ; ii. 734, b.
'Európtov, i. 731, b.
"Epitropos, i. 731, b.
"Euppovpol, i. 730, b.
'Eupúrévois, i. 730, b.
*Evaytonata, i. 888, a.
*Evara, i. 888, a.
*Evêq60s, ii. 755, b.
'Evêq600v, ii. 755, b.
*Evöeišts, i. 733, a.
"Evöeka, oi, i. 942, a.
'Evêooval, i. 661, b.
*Evêpopuís, i. 735, a.
*Evövua, i. 101, b.
*Evövatroitpários, i. 339, a.
*Evertoricnpua, ii. 337, a ; ii.
744, a.
*Everh, i. 840, b.
'Evéxupa, i. 735, b; i. 832, b.
‘Evvedicpouvos, i. 147, a.
*Evveatmpts, i. 337, b.
'Evöölov, ii. 546, a.
, otºſłoxov, i. 646, b.
'Evotktov Šírcm, i. 737, a.
*Evotrºpov, ii. 688, a.
*Evragus, i. 737, b ; ii. 780, b.
*Evrea, i. 189, b.
'Ev'róvuov, ii. 853, b.
'Evouaríaſ, i. 769, a.
'Evártov, i. 1002, a.
"Ečaywyſ, i. 727, b.
'Eğaywyſis 'ypaq ft, i. 764, a.
*Eğaupéorews Sticm, i. 764, b.
*EŠáuttov, ii. 770, b.
‘EğdoºrvXos, ii. 777, a.
*Eðeyyvågøal, i. 737, a.
*Eğéðpa, i. 765, a.
"EčeXtypiós, i. 771, a.
"Ečeragtaſ, i. 763, a ; i.
813, a.
'Ełm'ymtat, i. 721, b ; i. 762, a ;
i. 765, b ; i. 1039, b.
‘Eğipets, ii. 211, a.
'Eğipatov, ii. 770, b.
*Eğuthpia, i. 813, b.
'Eöööua, i. 813, b.
"Ečoôos, i. 420, b ; ii. 864, b.
*EŠoćAms 6frºm, i. 815, b.
'Eğapuís, i. 814, a ; ii. 321, b.
*Eğapooſa, i. 814, b.
'E860 rpa, i. 815, a.
‘Eopth Aaputróðos, ii. 4, b.
'Etrayyexía, i. 738, b.
'EtrafficMov, ii. 750, b.
*E*raivos, i. 892, a.
'Etrakrpts, i. 391, b.
’EtróA£ets, ii. 919, a.
’Etrépitol, i. 739, a.
*E*retoróðuov, i. 814, a ; ii. 864, b.
’Etreč6öta, i. 813, b.
’Etrevvaktat, i. 739, a.
’Etrigăral, i. 745, b.
*Etrugba, i. 135, a.
*Earí8Amua, i. 101, b.
’Etrigoxh, i. 745, b.
'Eartboxos, i. 578, a.
’Etrušćulos, i. 721, a.
'Etriyapata, i. 445, a.
'Eartypauſa, ii. 843, a.
’Etruypaqets, i. 712, b.
’Etričašpia, i. 718, b.
’Etrubertvís, i. 397, b.
’Etručukaola, i. 747, a ; i. 944, a ;
ii. 134, b.
’Etríðukos, i. 746, b.
’Etribóoreus, i. 748, b.
’Etruſuryts, ii. 853, b.
’Etrí6mua, ii. 158, a.
’Etrurce:pāAatov, ii. 933, b.
’EtrſkAmpos, i. 746, b.
’EtrikAlvirpov, ii. 17, b.
’Etrákouvos, ii. 424, a.
’Etríkovpoi, ii. 165, a.
’Etríkptov, ii. 211, b.
’EtríAektoi, i. 787, a.
’EtríAoutpov, i. 267, b.
’Etruexmrat, i. 722, a ; i. 749, a.
’Etrup.mxmtal too €ºtroptov, i.
49, a ; i. 749, a.
35 Töv kakoúpyov, i.
750, a.
92 Tris Kouvms trpoord-
Sov, i. 748, a ;
ii. 761, a.
» Töv Popudov 'EAal-
av, i. 749, a.
3? Töv Muqrmpfwy, i.
49, a.
97 Tów weaptov, i.
749, b.
25 6ööv, i. 969, a.
35 Tis tropatris Tó Ato-
wāorq, i. 749, b.
92 Töv orvppopuāv, i.
* 3.
92 Tøv pu%u, i.
749, b.
'Etripopros yú, i. 938, a.
'Etriplºxtov, ii. 175, b.
'Etruträpačos, i. 420, b,
'Etrutxorch, ii. 559, b.
'Etrutropºrts, i. 840, b.
'Ezrímpoukou, i. 944, b.
'Etrippmua, i. 422, a ; i. 521, a.
'Etrío’etov, ii. 223, b.
| 'Etría'elotos befºrepos, ii. 377, a.
97 jºyepatów, ii. 377, b.
37 otpatidºtºms, ii.
377, a.
'Ettornua, i. 1011, a ; ii. 72, b.
’Etrformuov, i. 1011, a.
’Etruo Ichirrelv eis "Apelov trgyov,
i. 178, a.
'Earíakmºns, ii. 129, a.
'Etrío Kotrol, i. 750, a.
’Etríaicvpos, ii. 424, a.
'Etrio traoraoréal, i. 661, b.
'Etria traorràp, i. 989, b.
’Etruo Tárms, i. 310, b ; i. 750, a ;
i. 771, a ; i.
772, a.
35 Töv Šmuoaſtav ćp-
ºwv, i. 750, a.
27 Töv ščdºrov, i.750,b.
’Etruatoxets, i. 531, b.
’Etriotpdºtnyos, ii. 717, a.
'Etruo'röAtov, i. 531, b.
'Earto'o wrpov, i. 578, a.
’Etríraypa, i. 779, b.
’Etrurdºpua, ii. 828, b.
'Etrituata, i. 241, b.
’Etríriuos, i.’817, a.
'EtrutoMºh, i. 224, b.
'Etritovoi, ii. 17, b ; ii. 211, b.
'Etrutpinpapxhaatos Sticm, ii.
889, b.
’Etrurporâs 5them, i. 752, a.
'Etrírpotos, i. 751, a ; ii. 957, b.
'Etruxelporovía, i. 168, b :
409, b; i. 697, b.
'Etruq opd., ii. 388, a.
'Etrixworts, i. 746, a.
*Etroikos, i. 474, b.
'Etróttal, i. 720, a ; i. 723, a.
’Etrotrºteia, i. 723, a.
'EtroxAeës, ii. 723, b.
’Etrolyta, i. 723, a.
'Etrogexta, i. 752, b ; ii. 732, 9.
'Etrºpóós, ii. 728, a.
1016
GREEK INDEX
*Earwyfa, ii. 771, b.
'Erévvuos, i. 753, as
72 rów iiNiktóv, i.
753, a.
99 róv puxāv, i. 753, a.
*Earwríðes, ii. 216, b.
*Epavápxms, i. 758, b.
'Epavićeiv, i. 758, a.
'Epavlich êtrem, i. 759, a.
'Epavioraí, i. 758, a.
*Epavov ovvio Túval, i. 758, b.
, ovXAéyetv, i. 758, b.
*Epavos, i. 393, a ; i. 758, a.
'Epávov TAmpaths, i. 758, b.
"Epya kal juépal, ii. 300, a.
*Ep'ya or pupfixata, ii. 79, a.
'Epyaäets, i. 901, b.
*Epyāvm, ii. 6, a.
*Epyaathpiov, ii. 153, b.
°Epyao rival, ii. 327, a.
°Epé8tv60s, i. 69, a.
'Epetud, ii. 212, a.
'Epex9etov, ii. 785, a.
*Ept00u ii. 771, a.
*Epiqos, i. 218, a.
‘Eppiat, i. 953, b.
“Eppala, i. 953, b; i. 955, b.
‘Eppatos, i. 339, b ; i. 340, a.
"Epuara, i. 1002, a.
‘Eppaqpóöttos, i. 956, a.
‘Eppſtöta, i. 953, b.
‘Epployauqetov, i. 954, b.
‘Epployaiqos, i. 954, a.
‘Eppoicotríðal, i. 954, b.
‘Eppadºvetos, ii. 376, b.
3y Seirepos, ii. 377, a.
'Epátia, i. 760, a.
'Epartöta, i. 760, a.
'Eppm pāpua, i. 194, a.
'Eppm påpot, i. 194, a.
'Epo mºpópta, i. 194, a.
'Epo mºpópot, i. 194, a.
'Epukräpes, i. 940, b ; ii. 62, b.
*Earðuos, i. 340, a.
'Eaſicappeva, td., ii. 365, a.
*Earottpov, ii. 688, a.
‘Earta, i. 868, a.
‘Earldorus, i. 956, b.
‘Earudrop, i. 956, b.
°Eaxdpa, i. 157, a ; i. 868, a.
'Eoxapets, ii. 219, a.
*Eaxopts, i. 868, a.
‘Eraſpa Śuduitpos, ii. 378, a.
, 6tózpworos, ii. 378, a.
‘Eraſpal, i. 956, b. '
‘Eralpeſai, i. 470, a ; i. 759, b.
‘Eralphaews Ypaqf, i. 958, b.
‘Etaptówov, ii. 378, a.
“Etapoi, i. 777, a.
‘Erepouſikms, i. 188, b.
‘Erepôtropiros, i. 841, a.
“Etos ispáv, ii. 939, b.
Eğa, ii. 306, b.
EüayyéAtos, i. 339, a.
Eðavöpfa, ii. 326, b.
Eiao Tís, ii. 306, b.
Eü(ovos, i. 427, b : ii. 315, a.
Eöðvöukta, i. 121, b ; i. 630, a ;
ii. 338, b.
Eö0övm, i. 762, b.
Eöðvvot, -ai, i. 762, b.
Eð6vrokſa, i. 123, a ; i. 832, a
Eü0örovov, ii. 853, a.
Eük\eta, i. 761, a.
Eijuapus, i. 332, b.
Eðuoxtríðal, i. 761, a.
Eüvī, ii. 17, a ; ii. 218, a.
Eütratpíðal, i. 762, a ; ii. 876, b.
Ešo rvXos, ii. 777, b.
Eūqmpeire, i. 646, b.
Eüqºmuta, i. 646, b.
’Eqarris, ii. 321, a.
’Eq'exictoragóal, i. 661, b.
’Eq'éoria, i. 740, a.
'Eq'éoua ypéupata, i. 740, b.
’Eq,éorus, i. 144, a.
’Eqeq Tpts, i. 101, b ; ii. 321, a.
’Eq'état, i. 740, b.
’Eq.m.8eta, i. 739, b.
'Eq/m3urch, ii. 424, a.
*Eq.m.80s, i. 739, b.
'Eqf") mois, i. 734, a.
'Eq/muspíðes, i. 213, b.
'Eqttriretov, i. 742, a.
'Eqíttriov, i. 742, a.
’Eqítrarios, i. 581, a.
’Eq)06eta, i. 377, a.
'Eq6öta, ii. 714, b.
’Eq6ölov, ii. 954, a.
*Eqopot, i. 723, a ; i. 743, a.
’Equgh, ii. 765, a.
'Exéram, i. 159, b.
'Exivos, i. 703, b ; ii. 782, b.
"Eſºmua, ii. 963, b.
“Elmorus, ii. 828, b.
Z.
Zákopou, i. 33, b; ii. 571, b.
Zarpſiclov, ii. 13, b.
Zéa, or Zeta, i. 65, b; i. 67, b.
Zevºyºral, i. 403, b ; i. 774, a ;
ii. 877, a.
Zejºyos, ii. 840, a.
Zmuta, ii. 835, a.
ZnTurai, ii. 991, b.
Zvyá, ii. 213, a.
Züryiot, ii. 215, a.
Zvºyºrai, ii. 215, a.
Zúyov, i. 420, b ; i. 1034, b ;
ii. 105, a ; ii. 685, a. -
Züyos, i. 1034, b, ii. 685, a.
Züyooris, ii. 800, b.
Z060s, i. 407, a.
Zwypaqeiv, ii. 391, a.
Zwypaq'fa, ii. 389, b.
Zápa, i. 428, a ; ii. 77, b.
Zapºos péAas, ii. 750, b.
Zºvn, i. 190, a ; i. 427, a ; ii.
815, a.
Záviov, i. 427, a.
Zoopópos, ii. 781, b ; ii. 992, b.
Zwarip, i. 427, a ; ii. 77, b.
Zwſpópos, ii. 992, b.
H.
"H3m, i. 649, b.
‘Hyeuáves avapoptas, i. 712, a ;
ii. 737, a.
‘Hyeuovía Sikaa’rmptov, i. 708, a.
‘H’yeudºv, ii. 476, a ; ii. 483, b.
, trpeggårms, ii. 376, b.
, 9epātrov, ii. 377, b.
‘Hyeropſa, ii. 440, a.
‘Hövtroríðes, i. 347, b.
*H6&vuov, i. 488, b.
'Hôpiós, i. 488, b ; ii. 964, b.
'HAaicărm, i. 897, b ; ii. 223, b.
*HAekºrpov, -os, i. 714, a.
‘HAtao rat, i. 627, a.
‘HAuotpóirtov, i. 972, b.
* HAos, i. 452, b.
* Huap Seſeñov, i. 635, a.
, wéorov, i. 635, a.
‘Huépa kvpta toû vópov, i. 123, a.
, uéon, i. 635, a.
‘Huépal &moqpáðes, i. 138, b.
‘Huepoãavelotai, i. 832, a.
‘Huepoëpóuou, i. 941, b.
‘Huepooricórol, i. 941, b.
‘HutöltrAotötov, ii. 904, b.
‘Huercredy, i. 937, b.
‘Hulékºrov, i. 937, b.
‘Hutkūkatov, i. 941, b.
‘HuíAvyö0s, ii. 796, a.
‘Hutuva, or ‘Huiva, i. 560, a ;
i. 941, b.
‘Huitróðtov, ii. 161, b.
‘Huttà8tov, ii. 723, a ; ii. 944, b.
‘Huixópta, i. 421, a.
‘Hvla, i. 932, a.
‘Hvíoxos, i. 218, a ; i. 580, a.
"Hpaia, i. 942, b.
‘Hpaſos, i. 338, a ; i. 340, a.
‘Hpdicaela, i. 942, b.
‘Hpakaetóat, ii. 876, a.
‘Hpdraetos, i. 339, a ; i. 340, a.
‘Hpdorios, i. 338, a.
'Hpodv6eta, i. 760, a.
‘Hpóov, i. 888, b ; ii. 643, b.
"Hrptov, ii. 765, a ; ii. 770, a.
'HXeſa, ii. 815, b.
’Hôs, i. 634, b.
(9.
Oapós, i. 364, b.
©axduuot, ii. 215, a.
Oaxapºral, ii. 215, a.
Odº apos, i. 657, b ; ii. 214, a.
OaxAoq6pot, ii. 327, a.
Oaxworta, i. 99, a ; ii. 809, b.
Oduva, ii. 964, b.
Odarteuv, i. 887, a.
OapyńAta, ii. 809, b.
Oapymatów, i. 338, a.
Oéatpov, ii. 814, b.
Oeatpotra,Ams, ii. 818, a.
Oearpºv’ms, ii. 818, a.
Oelkoč6ios, i. 339, b.
Oéua, i. 213, b.
Oéutores, ii. 237, b.
Oeo'yovía, ii. 300, b.
Oeočaſota, ii. 827, a.
Oeoöðaios, i. 340, a.
OeoAoyetov, ii. 817, a.
Geočevia, ii. 827, a.
GREEK INDEX.
1017
Oeočévios, i. 339, a.
Oeopavía, ii. 824, b.
©epairevrukoi, ii. 344, a.
©epātrav, i. 772, a ; i. 940, b.
» uato ov, ii. 377, b.
3? Tétrič, ii. 377, b.
Oeppaorpts, i. 871, b.
©épuos, i. 68, b.
©épos, i. 233, a.
0éoris, i. 25, b ; ii. 558, b.
©eopo6érat, i. 167, b.
Oeoplós, ii. 238, b ; ii. 829, a.
Oeoploqāpia, ii. 829, a.
©eopoq’éptos, i. 339, b.
Oeoploqopudºv, i. 340, a
©eoploqūAakes, i. 942, 9
©eroí, i. 25, b.
Oetta Moucéral, ii. ob4, b.
Oevö&otos, i. 339, b.
Oewpía, i. 611, a ; ii. 825, b.
Oewplica, ii. 825, b.
©ewpts, i. 611, a ; ii. 826, b.
©ewpot, i. 611, a ; ii. 825, a.
Ofical, ii. 645, a.
0ápa, ii. 936, b.
Ompticxetol, i. 347, a.
©mptopadixot, i. 297, a.
©mptov, i. 222, b.
Omaraupés, ii. 779, a ; ii. 828, a.
Omoreſa, ii. 828, b.
Oñoroa, i. 947, b. -
07tes, i. 403, b ; ii. 836, b;
ii. 877, a.
Otagos, i. 758, a.
Owoſſos, i. 339, b.
©ouv}, yapulch, ii. 136, a.
OoAfa, ii. 976, b.
©óAos, ii. 514, a ; ii. 836, b.
Oówkos, i. 45, a.
Opaviral, ii. 215, a.
©pmvus, ii. 211, b ; ii. 618, b ;
ii. 837, a.
Opoulogoſ, ii. 300, a.
Opóvos, ii. 157, a ; ii. 837, a.
Oveta, ii. 180, b.
OvmtroAtków, ii. 300, a.
OöAaicos, i. 314, b ; ii. 122, a
OvpuéAm, ii. 814, a.
Ovulatāptov, ii. 907, a.
Oápa, i. 987, a.
» aiſàelos, i. 987, a.
, 8aoríaetos, ii. 817, b.
, kntrata, i. 663, b.
, Pláoravàos, i. 662, b.
,, petavaos, i. 662, b.
Oupeés, ii. 614, a.
Otºperpov, i. 988, b.
Ovpíðes, i. 663, b.
Ovporox&mzos, ii. 839, b.
Oùporos, ii. 839, a.
Ovpdºv, i. 661, b.
Ovpapetov, i. 661, b.
Ovpwpós, i. 661, b ; i. 990, b.
Oüo avoi, i. 859, a.
Ovoría, ii. 579, a.
Ovtåpuov, i. 157, a ; i. 222, b.
Odépaš, i. 578, a ; ii. 77, b.
I.
*Iaicxaya Yás, i. 721, b.
*Iakxos, i. 718, a.
*Iaugurch, i. 516, a.
"Iapbol, i. 516, a.
*Iarpaxeltrás, i. 98, a ; i. 990, b.
*Iarpetov, ii. 153, b ; ii. 918, a.
*Iarpurch, ii. 152, a.
*Iarpós, ii. 153, a.
*Iatpooroquorths, i. 990, b.
*IBökuvov, ii. 595, a.
*I'yöus, ii. 180, b.
*Iöudºrms, ii. 556, a.
‘Iepā Bordum), ii. 588, b.
‘Iépala, i. 721, b.
‘Iepáictov, i. 127, a.
‘Iepareſov, i. 292, b.
‘IepačAms, i. 721, b.
‘Iépeia, ii. 568, b.
‘Iepe’s róvoatſápov, i. 959, a.
‘Iepets, ii. 568, b.
‘Iepoyaupatets, i. 104, a.
‘Iepoötödorkaxos, ii. 460, b.
‘IepóðovXol, i. 959, a.
‘Iepoi A6 you, ii. 299, b.
‘Iepokäpvč, i. 721, a.
‘Iepopuavreia, i. 646, b.
‘Iepopumvía, i. 960, a.
‘Iepopuhuoves, i. 104, a ; i.
0, b
‘Iepóv, ii. 774, a.
‘Iepovčical, i. 239, a.
‘Iepovčaos, ii. 460, b.
‘Iepotrotot, i. 960, b.
‘Iepós, i. 339, b.
‘Iepooré8aotos, i. 339, a.
‘Iepoorkotría, i. 646, b.
‘Iepoo roAtatücd, ii. 300, a.
‘Iepéqavrus, i. 721, a.
‘Iepopäxaš, ii. 460, b.
‘IepoorvXías ypaqf, i. 961, a.
‘Iepopóvrms, i. 720, b ; i. 761, a ;
ii. 460, b.
*I66pata, i. 1026, a.
‘IceTºpſa, i. 210, a.
"Ikpua, ii. 211, b ; ii. 539, a ;
ii. 812, a. -
*Icºrivos, i. 223, b.
*IAal, i. 777, a.
*IAatos, i. 339, a.
‘IA&pta, i. 961, b.
‘Ipidures, ii. 217, b.
‘Ipidures truktukot, i. 328, b.
‘Indriov, i. 520, b ; ii. 318, a.
*Ivöuch, ii. 936, b.
*Iváa, i. 1011, a.
*Iós, ii. 587, a.
'IoëAlos, i. 340, a.
'Itryotråd.60s, ii. 794, a.
'Itryós, ii. 6, b.
‘Ittraypérat, i. 769, b.
‘Ittrapplográs, i. 769, b.
“Intrapxos, i. 9, b; i. 775, a ;
ii. 757, a.
‘Ittreſs, i. 403, b ; ii. 877, a.
‘It trucóv, i. 962, a ; ii. 163, a ;
ii. 695, a.
"It trios, i. 581, b.
‘IttroSárai, i. 962, a.
‘Intročáuela, i. 962, a.
‘Ittroëpóulos, i. 338, b.
‘Ittróðpop.os, i. 430, a ; i. 962, a.
‘Ittrotripal, i. 965, a.
“Itriros, i. 218, b.
‘Ittrotpoqta, i. 775, a.
“Ittrov trporouñ, i. 218, b.
*Ipmv, i. 707, b.
'Io myopia, ii. 658, b.
"Io 6ata, i. 1023, b.
"Io 6puov, ii. 178, b. *
*Io-0utovíkms, i. 1024, b.
*IorotroAireſa, ii. 9, b.
*IooteWeis, i. 923, a ; ii. 747, b. .
‘Iotſov, ii. 217, b.
‘Ioto80éâs, i. 159, b.
‘Iotočákm, ii. 211, b.
‘IoTótroöes, ii. 765, a.
‘IoTós, ii. 217, b ; ii. 764, b.
‘Iqtdºv, i. 663, a ; ii. 771, a.
*ITws, i. 458, b ; i. 578, a.
'Iqblicpatáčes, i. 332, b.
'Ix6iſes, i. 220, b.
'Ix6is vérios or ačyas, i. 223, a.
K.
Ka88axiich, ii. 82, a.
Ka8etpia, i. 319, b.
Kačíaicol, ii. 516, a.
Káö0s, i. 323, a ; ii. 516, a.
Kaffapuoſ, ii. 583, b.
Kabapata, ii. 103, a.
Ká6aporis, ii. 101, a ; ii. 864, b.
Ka6éöpa, i. 386, a ; ii. 618, b.
Ká6eros, ii. 373, b.
Ká0060s, ii. 833, b.
Kaôvq?éorea's 6trem, i. 923, a.
Kaić5as, i. 390, a.
Kaipos, ii. 765, a.
Kaipapa, ii. 766, a.
Kator&ptos, i. 339, a.
Kattpa, -éa, i. 408, a.
Kaicryopias Šticm, i. 321, b.
Kakmºyoptov Šticm, i. 321, b.
Kakkø8m, -os, i. 321, a.
Kalcoxo'ytas 6them, i. 321, b.
Kalcotekviðv Štrºm, i. 322, b.
Kárcavorus, i. 321, b.
KöAa60s, i. 330, a ; i. 492, b.
Kaxapatwu, i. 339, a ; i. 34", a.
KaNáuivos, ii. 902, a.
Kaxauís, i. 330, a.
Kaxaployātīqos, ii. 601, a.
KáAapºos, i. 329, b.
Kaxdoripts, ii. 944, b.
Kaxfitap, i. 331, a.
Kańticuos, i. 333, b.
KaNAuyéveia, ii. 834, b.
KaxAlepeiv, i. 646, b.
Ka}\Auoteia, i. 348, a.
KöAoi, ii. 211, b.
Kaxótrovs, i. 873, a.
KáArts, i. 348, b ; i. 985, a.
Kaxvirtip, i. 849, a ; ii. 764, a.
KáAwes, ii. 217, b.
Kápaš, i. 935, a.
Kauápa, i. 171, a ; i. 349, b.
Káuivos, i. 873, a.
1018
GREEK INDEX.
Káuov, i. 407, b.
Kaputritàp, ii. 693, b.
Kávagos, or Kāvyağ0s, i. 350, b :
ii. 796, a.
Kávaôpov, or
351, a.
Ráv6apos, i. 356, a.
Kav6% Ata, i. 461, a.
Kávvaflis, -os, i. 71, a.
Kávövs, i. 353, b.
Kávetov, Kavouv, i. 354, a.
Kavmq6pos, i. 354, a ; ii. 327, a.
‘Ravdºv, i. 354, b ; i. 459, a ; ii.
541, b ; ii. 765, a.
Kairmaetov, i. 387, a.
Kárm Aos, i. 387, b ; i. 731, b.
Katryſas, ii. 970, b.
Kamºvočákm, i. 664, a.
Kairvouavreta, i. 646, b.
Karvpls &Krata, ii. 322, a.
Kapò8tov, kápagos, i. 361, a.
Kapòarívm, i. 361, b ; ii. 684, b.
Kapòotreſov, ii. 176, a. -
Kapkivos, i. 219, b ; i. 429, b.
Kapwed tat, i. 366, a.
Kapweia, i. 365, b.
Kapweios, i. 338, a ; i. 339, b.
Kápuvé, ii. 902, a
Kapirata, ii. 593, b.
Káptraoros, i. 361, a.
Käprevrov, i. 366, a.
Kapirot, Sticm, i. 367, a ; i. 737, a.
Kapuatis, i. 368, a.
Kapzijatov, i. 363, b.
Kaoro.dpa, i. 293, b.
Kaorotétreia, i. 218, a.
Kaoratºrspos, ii. 167, a.
Kará8a0 is eis Atóov, ii. 299, b.
Kard.6Amua, ii. 223, b.
Katafloxi, ii. 771, a.
Kataya, yh, ii. 121, a.
Kataydºyla, i. 121, a.
Karayó'ytov, i. 387, a ; i. 978, a.
Karayaºyts, ii. 854, a.
Karaſwortuká, ii. 300, a.
Karaïrvč, i. 571, b ; i. 899, a.
KarakAmata, i. 698, a.
Karakolumtiká, ii. 136, b.
Karákopios, ii. 375, b.
KataAAayh, i. 179, b.
KataAoyā, i. 422, a.
KatóAoyos, i. 383, a ; i. 805, a.
Karaağaews roo Shuow ypaqº,
i. 383, b.
Kardavoris, i. 387, a ; i. 978, a.
Karatraxtapeota, ii. 857, a.
Karamdarms, ii. 853, a.
Karatre patmpin, i. 384, b.
Karappékrms, i. 384, b, i. 989, b.
Kataokotris Ypaq ft, i. 385, a.
Karaatp(6pata, ii. 214, b.
Katdºbpaktot, i. 383, b.
Karaxelpotovía, i. 409, b.
Karaxáguara, ii. 658, b.
Kateyyväv, i. 629, a ; i. 737, a.
Karetakºr) träxm, i. 384, b.
Karmyopia, i. 922, b.
Kathyopos, ii. 745, a.
Károucou, i. 781 a.
Károttpov, ii. 688, a.
Katopúttetv, i. 887, a.
Kárrupa, ii. 685, a.
Kávvaôpov, i.
Katoxets, i. 989, a.
Kárpuos, i. 159, b.
Káta Tpuxias, ii. 377, b.
, tetplxopévos, ii. 377, b.
Katwwdrcm, ii. 362, b.
Katwvakopópol, ii. 362, b.
Kačkaxts, i. 294, b.
Kaworus, ii. 391, b.
Kavriptov, i. 414, b ; ii. 393, a.
Kaptopdºriov, ii. 723, b.
Keāāas, i. 390, a.
Kelp.fixta, ii. 934, b.
Keupta, ii. 17, b.
Kekpótretov, ii. 785, a.
Kekpāqaxos, i. 499, a.
Kexe6vres, ii. 765, a.
KeXfittov, i. 391, a.
KeXevorís, ii. 219, a ; ii. 468, b.
KéAms, i. 391, a ; i. 964, b ;
ii. 223, b.
Kevoi, ii. 559, a.
Kevord plov, i. 397, b.
Kévravpos, i. 222, b.
Kévrpov, i. 331, b.
Kévrpov, i. 404, b.
Kepaía, ii. 217, b; ii. 759, b.
Kepatris, i. 70, a.
Kepausús, i. 842, a.
Kepáutov, ii. 968, a.
Kepauís, ii. 763, b.
Képauos, i. 842, a ; i. 849, a ;
ii. 763, b.
Képas, ii. 565, a ; ii. 901, a.
Kepatíov, ii. 675, b.
Képôov, i. 406, a.
Kepktöes, ii. 765, a ; ii. 815, a.
Képkovpos, Kepkowpos, i. 405, b.
Keppattoºris, i. 179, b.
Kepvāqopol, ii. 581, a.
Kepovakós, ii. 218, a.
Kegrós, i. 407, b.
Keq daalov, ii. 75, b.
Keq)&Añ, i. 186, a.
Kmuós, i. 357, b ; ii. 546,
Kmtrata 6ipa, i. 663, b.
Kºtros, i. 976, a.
Kmtrotéptov, i. 405, b.
Kmpás, i. 405, b, ii. 753, b.
Kmpūketov, i. 322, b.
Kmpvé, i. 721, a.
Käpoua, i. 406, a.
Kåros, i. 221, a.
Kmpets, i. 217, a.
Kišćptov, i. 427, a.
Kığarós, i. 160, b.
Kiykatóes, i. 351, a.
Köapis, ii. 839, b.
Klödpa, ii. 104, b.
Kíðapis, ii. 105, a.
Ki6apw8ta, ii. 528, b.
KIAAíBas, i. 427, a ; ii. 390, b.
Kloviarcot, ii. 645, a.
Kuoroºfluov, i. 439, b.
Kiarm, or Kuorts, i. 439, b.
Kiaroq6pos, i. 441, a.
Kirapus, ii. 839, b.
Ktav, i. 489, a.
KAdpia, ii. 747, a.
KAapôtal, i. 555, a ; i. 944, a.
KAetótov, i. 450, b.
KAelborouás, i. 989, b.
KAétéoùxol, i. 452, a ; ii. 571, b.
KAeſópov, i. 989, a.
KAets, i. 450, b ; i. 989, b.
KAetorías, i. 988, b.
KAeſtaußos, i. 422, b.
KAeſºpa, i. 973, a.
KAmpos, i. 947, a ; ii. 756, a.
KAmpouxta, i. 477, a.
KAmpouxol, i. 477, a ; ii. 892, a.
KAmrečeiv, i. 122, b.
KAmråpes, i. 456, a.
KAfttopes, i. 456, a.
KAt 8av0s, i. 873, a.
KAtua, i. 458, a.
KAuaktöes, ii. 224, a.
KApakiſeiv, ii. 84, b.
KAuakts, ii. 855, b.
KAiuag, ii. 212, b ; ii. 601, a ;
ii. 817, b.
KAtvm, ii. 14, a ; ii. 17, a.
KAuvráp, ii. 618, b.
KAuotas, i. 988, b.
KAtotºm, ii. 618, b ; ii. 752, a.
KAuguós, ii. 618, b.
KAoués, i. 302, b ; i. 470, a.
KAotris Šticm, i. 462, b.
, Ypaq ft, i. 462, b.
Kvaqets, i. 881, a.
KvépañAov, ii. 17, b.
Kvåual, i. 578, a.
Kvnuts, ii. 260, b.
Kviouds, ii. 834, b.
Köyxm, i. 524, a.
Kó6opvos, i. 557, b.
Koſam, ii. 854, a.
Koupºntſipuov, ii. 749, b.
Kouvovircá, ii. 892, a.
Koutóves, i. 662, a
KóAakes, ii. 344, a.
KóAaš, ii. 377, b.
Koxarthp, ii. 601, b.
Końeós, i. 919, b.
KońAa3topós, ii. 201, b.
KóAAmarus, ii. 166, b.
KoMAv610ths, i. 471, a.
KóAAw80s, i. 471, a.
KoMAápa, -lov, i. 471, b.
Końooroukótepa, i. 488, a.
Koxoo.orés, i. 487, a.
KóAtros, i. 427, b.
Koxvuð%0pa, ii. 429, b.
Köum, i. 496, a.
Koupid riov, i. 422, a
Koppids, ii. 864, b.
Kóvöv, i. 526, b.
KóvövX0s, ii. 161, b.
Kovía, i. 881, b.
Kovíaua, ii. 391, a.
Kovátroöes, i. 333, a.
Kovíarpa, ii. 814, b.
Kovrás, i. 540, b ; ii. 212, b.
Kotrís, i. 541, a ; i. 572, b ;
i. 823, a ; i. 982, b.
Kotrpóves, i. 664, a.
Kórretv, i. 990, b.
Kópač, i. 989, b.
Kópèaš, i. 422, a ; i. 516, a.
Kópm, ii. 376, a ; ii. 377, b ;
ii. 526, a.
Kopu6ta Kópm, i. 958, a.
Kopiuðiðgeq0al, i. 958, a.
Köppa, i. 407, a.
Kopotad.60s, ii. 794, a.
GREEK INDEX.
1019
Kopotradarms, ii. 794, a.
KopotAao Tukh, ii. 401, a.
Kopå8avres, i. 553, a.
Kopw8avrikā, i. 553, a.
Kopv8avtuguês, i. 553, a.
Köpupiðos, i. 497, a.
Kopåvm, i. 450, a ; ii. 361, b.
Köpus, i. 898, b.
Kopuqaía, i. 876, a.
KopvQPalos, i. 420, b.
Kopſøvn, i. 170, a ; i. 989, b.
Kopovis, i. 551, b.
Koopum ràs, i. 553, b ; i. 928, a ;
i. 986, a.
Koopot, i. 553, b.
Kógoſagos, i. 558, b.
Kooroºpſ&m, ii. 363, a.
Kootuşm, i. 521, a.
Kórivos, ii. 272, a.
Korraðelov, i. 558, b.
Korrā8tov, i. 558, b.
Kórragos, i. 558, b.
KóTrvTes, i. 560, a.
KorūAm, -os, i. 559, b ; i. 590, a.
Korūtria, i. 560, a.
KovXeóv, i. 919, b.
Koupe&tus, i. 135, a.
Końpipios trap6évos, ii. 376, a.
Kowppu, i. 407, a.
Kovtd.X. m., ii. 615, a.
Kóquos, i. 541, a.
KoxAudpuav, i. 464, b.
KoxAtas, i. 463, b.
KoxAts, i. 463, b.
KóxAos, i. 317, b.
Kpd88aros, ii. 18, a.
Kpañíms vówos, ii. 810, a.
Kpdivos, i. 898, b.
Kpaortrečiral, i. 421, a.
Kpdo trečov, ii. 3, a.
Kpatevraſ, i. 562, b.
Kpatevriptov, i. 562, b.
Kparſip, i. 222, b ; i. 560, b
Kpatipes, ii. 299, a.
Kpedypa, i. 933, b.
Kpepiá0pa, ii. 817, a.
Kpéuðaxa, i. 564, b.
Kpeoöaſtmºs, i. 596, b ; i. 772, a.
Kpeoirw?\etov, ii. 106, b.
Kphēepivov, i. 331, b.
Kpmvat, i. 146, b.
Kpfivapxot, i. 147, b.
Kpfivm, i. 870, b.
Kpmvoq ūAakes, i. 147, b.
Kpmtrís, i. 563, a ; ii. 863, a.
Kpu6opiavtsia, i. 646, b.
Kpikos, i. 989, b; ii. 223, b ;
ii. 899, a.
Kpués, i. 185, b ; i. 219, a.
Kpitat, i. 564, a.
Kpokºi, ii. 765, a.
Kpokotów, -ós, i. 564, a.
Kpóvia, i. 564, b.
Kpooroof, i. 859, a.
Kpóraxov, i. 564, b.
Kporaq'ís, ii. 116, a.
Kpoſſeuv, i. 990, b.
Kpotjua, i. 565, a.
Kpovvoſ, i. 146, b.
Kpotſtregai, ii. 613, b.
Kpovirégia, i. 591, a ; ii. 614, a.
Kpotorus, ii. 199, a.
Kpotapa, i. 565, a.
Kpurteſa, i. 569, b.
Kpurriſ, i. 568, b.
Kpvirtía, i. 569, b.
Kpagáàos, i. 497, a.
Krets, ii. 360, a ; ii. 765, a.
Kreviotis, ii. 360, a.
Kräuara, i. 732, b.
Krío is kóopov, ii. 299, b.
Kúa60s, i. 589, b.
Kvápos, i. 68, a.
Kvaveipuſºv, i. 339, a.
Kv3eta, i. 695, a ; ii. 11, a.
Kw8epvioria, ii. 828, b.
Kv3epvárms, ii. 219, a.
Kv8to ripes, ii. 593, b.
Kú80s, i. 571, a ; i. 695, a ;
ii. 799, a.
Kv6mpoèticms, ii. 371, b.
Kūkāa, i. 578, a.
KvkAds, i. 590, a.
Kūkxos, i. 47, a ; ii. 657, a.
Kökvos, i. 218, a.
Kúxuous, ii. 82, b.
KvXukeia, i. 346, b.
Köxlvöpos, i. 590, a ; ii. 59, a.
KöAić, i. 346, b.
Kvätzvn, -us, -lov, i. 348, a.
Kūpa, i. 590, b.
Kvuartov, i. 590, b.
Küpftaxov, i. 590, b.
Köppm, i. 590, b.
Küuð0s, -lov, i. 591, b.
Kvvém, i. 898, b ; ii. 427, a.
Kvvmyeota, ii. 694, b ; ii. 936, b.
Kvvm'yérms, ii. 936, b.
Kvvmyerukov 6éarpov, ii. 937, a.
Kuv6orovpa, i. 216, b.
Kuvégovpus, i. 216, b.
Kvvopóvirus, i. 192, b.
Kötraorais, ii. 944, b.
Kupgaota, ii. 839, b.
Küpbels, i. 264, a ; ii. 240, a.
Kupta, ii, i. 622, b.
Köpuot, i. 135, a.
Kūptos, i. 313, b ; i. 592, a ;
ii. 516, b.
Kvptís, ii. 546, b.
Kvibéâm, i. 160, b ; ii. 546, b.
Küov, i. 221, b.
Kööwv, ii. 844, b.
Kóea, ii. 17, b.
Koxarypérat, i. 469, b.
Kołakpétat, i. 469, b.
KóAov, ii. 560, b.
Kópal, i. 770, a.
Köplos, i. 640, a.
Kapıgöta, i. 514, a.
Követov, i. 942, a.
Kövos, ii. 906, b.
Kovotrerov, i. 529, a.
Kötrm, i. 359, b ; ii. 212, a.
Katrió, i. 597, b.
Kapukoplaxia, i.
930, a.
Köpulcos, i. 553, b.
Kós, i. 362, b.
Kopov trpóo warov, i. 966, a.
553, b ; i.
A.
Aaßh, i. 359, b ; ii. 83, a.
Aagis, i. 872, a.
Aaflüpiv60s, ii. 1, a.
Adyvvos, ii. 4, a.
Aaya SóAos, ii. 361, b.
Aayoós, Aaytós, i. 221, b.
Ad.6vpos, i. 69, a.
Aakovikaſ, -á, i. 333, a.
Aapitrabapxta, ii. 4, b.
AaputraSmöpopuía, ii. 4, b.
Aawiračnºpopta, ii. 5, b.
Aaparađmºpópol, ii. 5, b.
Aaaardöuov, ii. 378, a.
Aapatráðuotaſ, ii. 5, b.
Aautrāāos éoprſ, ii. 4, b.
Aaptračouxos &ydºv, ii. 4, b.
, Spógos, ii. 4, b.
Aapatrás, ii. 4, b.
Aaoëticuos, i. 339, a.
Adpvakes, i. 887, b.
Adpvaš, i. 160, b.
Aata'yetov, i. 558, b.
Adºrać, i. 558, b.
Aaroufal, i. 363, b ; ii. 13, b.
Aatiſtrm, i. 327, b.
Aaijpai, ii. 1, a.
Aaúpm, i. 656, a.
Aavpoatãtal, i. 420, b.
Adºppua, ii. 7, a.
AaqºupotröAal, i.
772, a.
Aé8ms, ii. 13, b ; ii. 125, b.
Aetal, ii. 765, a.
Aeltrowapruptov Šírm, i. 122, b;
i. 814, b
Aettoupyia, ii. 27, a.
Aekdum, i. 558, b.
Aekavičíov, ii. 349, b.
Askøvlov, ii. 349, b.
Aekavts, ii. 349, b.
Aekavíokm, ii. 349, b.
Aéugos, ii. 30, a.
Aéčis eipouévn, ii. 77, a.
Aétračva, i. 579, b.
Astréorm, ii. 31, a.
Aertö, ii. 74, a.
Aepvala, ii. 31, b
Aéoxm, ii. 31, b.
Aevicos &vhp, ii. 375, a.
Asúicopa, ii. 753, b.
Aexépua, i. 943, a.
Aéxos, ii. 17, a.
Aéov, i. 219, b.
Asww.t5eſa, ii. 31, a.
Amödptov, ii. 321, a.
Aftöos, ii. 321, a.
Añkv60s, i. 117, b; i. 279, a ;
i. 885, b ; i. 925, a.
Aftvala, i. 638, a.
Affivatos, i. 339, a.
Amvatov, i. 338, b; i. 339, a ;
i. 340, a.
Amvoſ, i. 887, b.
Amvös, ii. 217, b ; ii. 850, a.
Amélapzikov Ypapplateſov, i.
26, a ; i. 616, b.
Amélépxoi, i. 698, b.
Añéus, i. 629, a.
Ampoſ, ii. 67, a.
596, b ; i.
1020
GREEK INDEX.
Amarooraxtriykrat, ii. 901, b.
Aigavouavreta, i. 646, b.
ABupvts, ii. 222, a.
Auðupvév, ii. 222, a.
Atôucd., ii. 300, a.
A10086Xia, ii. 67, b.
Atôoğ6Aos, ii. 853, a.
Atôos, i. 901, b.
, &vatāetas, i. 178, a.
,, #6peos, i. 178, a.
A10orouſai, ii. 13, b.
Atkumtmpts, ii. 312, a.
Aſkvov, i. 573, a ; ii. 919, a.
Aikvoºpópos, ii. 919, b.
Atvov, i. 71, b.
Autovavtſov Ypaqf, i. 133, b.
Attrootpatſov Ypaph, i. 212, b.
Altrotašíov ypaſph, i. 212, b.
Atatpuov, i. 464, b.
Aftpa, ii. 69, a.
Auxás, ii. 161, b.
Aoyetov, ii. 813, a.
Aoyuotat, i. 49, a.
Aoyiotăptov, i. 763, b.
Aoyiotis, i. 336, a ; i. 763, a.
Aoyuatuch, ii. 71, a.
Aoyo’ypáqot, ii. 77, a.
Aoyotrotot, ii. 77, b.
Aóyxm, i. 936, a.
Aoyxoq6pot, i. 935, a.
Aoetpóv, i. 266, b.
Aotöopias 6them, i. 321, b.
Aoiráðuov, ii. 349, b.
Aovräp, i. 267, b.
Aovräptov, i. 267, b.
Aovrpóv, i. 266, b; i. 275, b.
yy vvuſpików, i. 269, a.
Aovrpoq’ópos, i. 269, a ; ii.
45, a.
Aóqos, i. 899, a.
Aoxayot, i. 769, a ; ii. 763, b.
Aóxos, i. 769, a ; i. 770, a ;
ii. 763, b.
, Śpólos, i. 771, b.
Avyiſeuv, ii. 83, b.
Aikata, ii. 104, a.
Avicopahāeios, ii. 377, a.
Aükos, i. 933, b.
Aápa, i. 217, b ; ii. 104, b.
AvXvetov, i. 352, a.
AvXutov, i. 352, a.
Aüxvos, ii. 81, b.
AvXvooxos, i. 352, a ; ii. 6, b.
Aó0s, i. 339, a.
Adºm, ii. 321, a.
Aótros, ii. 321, a.
Awtroëtms, i. 144, a ; i. 707, a.
M.
Máyaäus, ii. 106, b.
Mayelpeia, i. 47, b.
Máyetpot, i. 394, a.
Mága, i. 394, a ; ii. 151, a.
Maçováuos, -lov, ii. 151, a.
Matuaktmputów, i. 338, a.
Mataav, ii. 378, a.
Mato ovukd, i. 518, a.
Máke AAa, ii. 66, b.
Makpóv, i. 422, a.
Máktpa, i. 2, a.
MáA6m, ii. 753, a.
MaNAós, ii. 762, a.
Mávôaxos, i. 989, a.
Mävöpal, ii. 568, a.
Mavööm, ii. 322, a.
Mávns, i. 558, b.
Mavretov, ii. 277, b.
Mávreus, i. 645, b.
Mavrukh, i. 645, a.
Mápms, ii. 126, a.
Mápus, ii. 126, a.
Mápurtov, ii. 126, a.
Mapatriov, ii. 126, a.
MapTupta, ii. 126, b.
Magrãpes, ii. 991, b.
Mao rvyováuot, ii. 129, b.
Maori'yoq)6pot, ii. 129, b.
Máotič, i. 864, a.
32 Icepaulkh, i. 818, b.
Mao XaAvothp, i. 284, b.
Máxalpa, i. 572, b ; ii. 525, a.
Maxaiptov, ii. 525, a.
Meyaxo~ypaqta, ii. 389, b.
Méyapov, ii. 774, b ; ii. 831, p.
Méðuplvos, ii. 155, b.
Méðos, i. 407, b.
Metayoyás, i. 135, a.
Metata, i. 691, b.
Meixtyal, i. 328, b.
Metov, i. 135, a.
MéAav, i. 244, a.
MeXavôoxetov, i. 244, b.
Mexavčáxov, i. 244, b.
Mexavtmpta, i. 332, a.
MéAas &víp, ii. 375, a.
Mexía, i. 935, a.
Mexíkpatov, ii. 967, b.
MeXutºroúra, i. 885, b.
MeXAeſpnv, i. 707, b.
Mexotrotta, ii. 198, b.
Mevexdeua, ii. 157, a.
Megawatos 99pa, i. 662, b.
MégavXos 6&pa, i. 662, b.
Meo muſpía, i. 635, a.
Meo'o6aoixets, i. 1021, a.
Megóöpim, i. 657, a ; ii. 211, b.
Megókovpos trpóa patos, ii.375,b.
, &xpé, ii. 375, b.
Meorońabeiv, ii. 329, a.
Megoordrai, ii. 853, a.
Meo &rotxos, ii. 345, b.
Meragdºrms, i. 618, b.
Meraðoxh, ii. 198, b.
Meta'yeſ rvia, ii. 166, a.
Merayevrvitöv, i. 338, a.
MéraxNov., ii. 166, a.
Meravitt'pts, i. 394, b.
Metávitrºpov, i. 394, b.
Mérača, ii. 650, a.
Meråpxios, i. 340, a.
Merdorraorus, i. 420, b.
MéravXos 60pa, i. 662, b.
Meteopoxoyia, i. 213, a.
Meroticia, ii. 748, a.
Meroticlov, i. 236, a ; ii. 62, a ;
ii. 168, b ; ii. 771, b.
Métourcot, ii. 62, a ; ii. 168, a.
Meróirm, i. 489, a ; ii. 170, a.
Metátrapov, i. 233, b.
Merpmrås, ii. 170, b.
Mérpov, ii. 158, b.
Metpováuot, ii. 170, b.
Mmöurch, i. 69, b.
Mäxm,i. 414, b.
Māv, i. 338, a.
, &míav, i. 338, b.
, épéðApios, i. 338, a.
, Širl 6éica, i. 338, b.
,, iotduevos, i. 338, a.
, coixos, i. 337, a.
, Afyov, i. 338, b.
, uegów, i. 338, b.
, trauðuevos, i. 338, b.
, TAſipms, i. 337, a.
,, p8tvov, i. 338, a.
Mävvorus, i. 702, a.
Mmtpayúptai, i. 93, b.
MntpétroAts, i. 474, b.
Mfitpºpov, i. 162, b.
Mmtpø0s, i. 340, a.
MnXavaí, ii. 107, b.
MíAtov, ii. 163, a.
Miwos, ii. 172, a.
Mio 604,6poi, ii. 164, b.
Mio 660 eas oikov påous, ii.
173, b.
Muoróatoſ, ii. 164, b.
Mírot, ii. 765, a.
MíTpa, ii. 174, a.
Mírpm, i. 190, a ; ii. 77, b.
Mvå, ii. 448, b.
Mvota, i. 555, a.
Mvötal, i. 555, a.
Móðakes, i. 446, b ; i. 941, a.
M600Ves, i. 446, b ; i. 941, a.
Mouxetas Ypaqi, i. 29, b.
Moxv6öſöes, i. 884, a.
MoAv6öts, ii. 373, b.
MoAv6öouauteta, i. 647, a.
MóAv660s, ii. 167, a.
Movapxta, ii. 177, a.
Mová-yappaos, ii. 390, a.
Movoudyot, i. 916, a.
Movoq d'you, i. 33, b.
Movoxpoſuata, ii. 390, a.
Movgöta, ii. 864, a.
Mápa, i. 769, a.
Moptal, i. 210, b ; ii. 263, a.
Moptſ, i. 938, a.
Movvizia, ii. 181, b.
Movvvy:16v, i. 338, a.
Moûoretc., ii. 192, a
Movoreſov, ii. 192, a
Movo lich, ii. 192, b.
Moxxás, i. 989, b.
Mvivöa, ii. 201, b.
Mvictipes, ii. 81, b.
MöXm, ii. 175, a.
Möxos, ii. 175, a.
Múčai, ii. 81, b.
Mupepot, ii. 977, b.
Mvpidöes, ii. 76, a.
Mvptol, ii. 201, b.
Múpumices, i. 328, b.
Mvpo6%ktov, i. 279, a.
Múpov, ii. 976, b.
MupotróAal, ii. 977, b.
Mvppíval, i. 47, b.
Mvppuvárms, ii. 967, a.
Möoria, ii. 202, a.
Mvarayayós, i. 718, a ; i. 721,b.
GREEK INDEX.
1021
Müotal, i. 718, a ; i. 723, a.
Müotaš, ii. 200, b.
Mvotăpta, ii. 202, a.
MvoríAm, i. 394, a.
Māorpov, i. 394, a ; ii. 205, a.
Müotpos, i. 394, a.
Möwik, i. 331, b.
N.
Ná8Aa, ii. 106, b.
Naås, i. 125, a ; ii. 774, a.
Nápômé, i. 864, b.
Navapxta, ii. 206, a.
Natapxos, ii. 206, a.
NatſkAmpou, ii. 747, b.
Navkpapía, ii. 207, a ; ii. 877, b.
Naikpapos, ii. 207, a.
Nats, i. 292, b ; ii. 208, a.
Naiota.6Mov, i. 191, a.
Navrikal ovyypaſpaſ, i. 833, b.
Navtucol rôkot, i. 833, a.
Navrikov 6&velopia, i. 833, a.
Navrošíkai, ii. 225, a.
Neavíakos àtraxás, ii. 375, b :
ii. 377, a.
35 AéAas, ii. 377, a.
25 ošAos, ii. 375, b;
ii. 377, a.
35 ardyxpmotos, ii.
375, a.
9% TrápovXos, ii. 375, b.
25 trøpoxpos, ii. 375, b.
25 trivapós, ii. 375, b.
}} ūmépoykos, ii. 375, b.
2? &xpós, ii. 375, b.
Nekpóðeitryov, i. 887, b.
Nekpoq’ápol, i. 886, b.
Nekvouavretor, ii. 292, a.
Nekūgia, i. 888, a.
Nektorios, i. 340, a.
Nepala, ii. 228, a.
Népaea, ii. 227, a.
Nepeia, ii. 227, a.
Nepāoreia, ii. 228, a.
Neoãapić6els, i. 941, a.
Neorevruká, ii. 300, a.
Newpéotraora, ii. 526, a.
Neupérovoi, ii. 853, b.
Newkópol, i. 33, b ; ii. 228, a ;
ii. 571, b.
Netºpia, ii. 206, a.
Nečs, ii. 774, a.
Nedoroucou, ii. 206, a.
Nijua ormpurcóv, ii. 650, a.
Nmoteta, ii. 834, a.
Nſtpov, i. 881, b.
Nopleſs, ii. 223, b. - -
Náutopia, ii. 248, b ; ii. 687, a.
Noutagaros Stapôopås Ypaq’ſ,
ii. 237, a.
Nouoypdºpot, i. 42, a.
Nouo&érms, i. 168, b ; ii. 241, b.
Náuos, ii. 237, b.
, kpačíms, ii. 810, a.
,, Trúðikos, ii. 528, b
NouoqūAakes, ii. 237, a.
Noorokopetov, ii. 917, b.
Novumvía, i. 338, a.
Noüppos, ii. 248, b.
Nvuſparyayyás, ii. 136, a.
Núpupm, i. 159, b ; ii. 526, a.
Nüora'a, i. 964, b ; ii. 693, b.
Nux6%uepov, i. 634, b.
assº
º
anºt
Eavölkós, i. 339, a.
Hav08s &váp, ii. 375, a.
Favóórepos &vip, ii. 375, a.
Eevayof, ii. 990, a.
Eevm?\aoría, ii. 990, b
Eevta, i. 977, b ; ii. 827, a.
Eevtas Ypaqf, ii. 991, a.
sevikov réaos, i. 49, b.
Eévos, i. 977, b; ii. 164, b.
Bevöves, i. 977, a ; i. 978, b.
Eéatms, ii. 164, a ; ii. 531, a ;
ii. 668, a.
Eſqos, i. 919, a.
Eóavov, i. 592, b ; ii. 698, a ;
ii. 785, a.
Hviſixm, i. 773, a.
HöAa škarva, i. 5, a.
EvXfiquov, i. 377, a.
EvXokotría, i. 897, b.
EðAov, ii. 228, b.
Eupias &váp, ii. 375, a.
Żvardpxos, i. 928, a.
Evotís, ii. 321, a.
Evotós, i. 927, a.
Eðarpa, i. 268, b.
O.
*OSextorkos, ii. 252, b.
'O6exós, ii. 252, b.
'O90Aós, ii. 260, a ; ii. 448, b.
*OBoAoordral, i. 832, a.
*Oykos, ii. 375, a ; ii. 862, a.
‘Oöol Baoixàial, ii. 947, a.
'Oöovráypa, i. 415, b, i. 872, a.
*OSovróa'amºyua, i. 617, a.
'OSovrátpupa, i. 617, a.
‘Oöorouot, i. 968, b ; ii. 949, b.
*O6ós, où6ós, i. 987, a.
'O66vm, ii. 176, a.
'O6óviov, ii. 649, b.
Oikérms, ii. 656, b.
Oikettköv ueo dicovpov, ii. 375, b.
Oilchuara, i. 662, a.
Olicmous, i. 654, a.
Oircmthplov, i. 654, a.
Oikta, i. 654, a.
Oircías Sticm, ii. 262, a.
Oiktorths, i. 474, b.
Oilcot, i. 662, a.
Oikováuos, ii. 957, b.
Oikos, i. 654, a.
Oikógiros, i. 699, b.
Oikorpfflalos, ii. 656, b.
Oikörpuſ, ii. 656, b.
Oivnpol 9epdarovres, ii. 741, a.
Oivia rhpia, i. 497, b.
Oivo0%km, ii. 964, a.
OivöueAt, ii. 967, a.
Olvos, ii. 962, a.
Oiváqopov, ii. 261, b.
Oivoxéat, ii. 740, b ; ii. 982, a.
Oivoxóot, ii. 741, a.
Oſvares, ii. 876, a.
'Oio rós, i. 218, b ; ii. 587, a.
Oiwww.rrat, i. 248, b.
Oiwwworrukh, i. 646, b.
Oiwwoudvreis, i. 248, b.
OiwvotróAos, i. 248, b.
Oiwwoo Károl, i. 248, b.
*Okaagua, ii. 834, b.
*Okpí8as, ii. 390, b ; ii. 813, b.
*Octaermpts, i. 342, a.
*Okráo rvXos, ii. 777, a.
'OAtºyapxta, i. 187,
266, a.
“OApuov, ii. 840, b.
”OApaos, ii. 180, b.
"OApios, ii. 893, a.
‘OAokavreiv, ii. 584, a.
'OAoorqupiñta épya, ii. 116, b.
*OAúpatria, ii. 268, a.
'OAvutrićs, ii. 274, a.
*OAvpatrioviical, i. 239, a.
*OAvpa, i. 67, b.
‘Ouoyd Aakres, ii. 877, a.
"Ouolot, i. 447, b, i. 596, b;
i. 969, b.
‘Ouoxo'yta, ii. 746, b.
‘Op.ox&ios, i. 339, b.
‘Ouoqovía, ii. 193, b.
'Ouqd Aos, i. 458, b ; ii. 59, a.
'Ove&rat, ii. 875, b.
'OvelpotroAta, i. 647, a.
"Ovtokos, ii. 853, b.
*Ovopa, ii. 233, a.
'Ovouaorruká, ii. 300, a.
*Ovos, ii. 175, b.
'Ośćs, i. 7, b.
*Oğ0s, ii. 966, a.
'Ośw8áquov, i. 7, b.
a ; ii.
’Oigatov, i. 7, b ; i. 591, a.
'Ośvypáqol, ii. 244, a.
'OéâueAl, ii. 967, b.
'Oévirüvöaka, i. 347, b.
*Otratov, i. 723, b ; ii. 783, a.
’Orſi, ii. 170, a ; ii. 782, b.
'Orta 6660p.os., ii. 777, b.
"OTAa, i. 189, b.
"Otramres, i. 901, b ; ii. 876, b.
‘OTAfrai, i. 190, a.
‘OTAftms Spópos, i. 582, a.
‘OTAitoöpopºta, ii. 5, a.
‘OTAiroëpópºol, i. 582, a.
‘OTA06%km, i. 190, b.
"Otra ov, ii. 854, a.
’Orthpia, ii. 136, b.
'Orépa, i. 233, a.
”Opyavov, ii. 107, a.
'Opyeaves, i. 903, b.
”Opyia, ii. 202, a.
'Opyvić, ii. 162, a ; ii. 297, a.
*Opeyua, ii. 162, a.
*Opetxa Nicos, ii. 297, a.
*Op66öwpov, ii. 161, b.
'Opéoordºrms, ii. 854, b.
‘Opurraſ, i. 972, a.
1022
GREEK INDEX.
"opkoi, ii. 300, a.
"opkos, i. 1045, a.
"oppos, ii. 178, b : ii. 594, a.
‘Oputòotpoſpía, i. 78, a.
*Opvis, i. 218, a.
, aloxos, i. 218, a.
*Opobos, i. 70, a.
*Opot, i. 127, a ; i. 971, a.
'Opravoãukaotai, i. 752, b.
*Opvyua, i. 285, a.
*OppavogbúXakes, i. 752, b.
*Oppés, i. 221, a.
*Opxmous, ii. 592, b.
*Opxmoºroëtódio caxos, i. 967, a ;
ii. 594, b.
‘Opxhoºrpa, ii. 811, b ; ii.
814, a.
"Oorlot, ii. 283, a. *
‘Oototáp, ii. 283, a.
*Ootpaktvöa, ii. 306, a.
*Ooſtpakuo w8s, i. 818, a.
*Oortpakov, i. 842, a.
'Oaxopópia, ii. 303, b.
'Oaxoq6pot, ii. 303, b.
Oööós, i. 987, a.
OVAaplot, i. 769, b.
OśAos 9epd. Tov, ii. 377, b.
Oüpayós, i. 770, b ; i. 784, a.
Oüpavía, ii. 423, b.
Oüpudy:0s, i. 935, a.
Oüortas Šíkm, i. 737, b.
*Oglets, i. 191, b.
*Optotºxos, i. 218, a.
*Opts, i. 217, a ; i. 218, b.
'Opoviaopiós, ii. 714, b.
'Oxávm, i. 459, b.
”Oxavov, i. 459, b.
'OxAokpatta, i.
260, a.
*Opta, i. 635, a.
*Opov, ii. 276, b.
'Oi!otra,Xeſov, ii. 106, b.
*ObotroAta, ii. 106, b.
’Oiloqāyos, ii. 277, a.
'Opéviov, ii. 714, b.
614, a ; ii.
II.
IIaykpatuaotai, ii. 324, b.
IIaykpártov, ii. 324, a.
IIdyxpmoºros, ii. 377, a.
IIaláv, ii. 307, a.
IIaišaya, yetov, ii. 95, b.
IIaiša'ya'yös, ii. 307, b.
IIatāapidºves, i. 48, b.
IIaiêepaotta, i. 926, a.
IIaşuo-ketov, i. 957, b.
IIaşovápos, ii. 308, a.
IIatàorpiðat, i. 928, b; ii. 312, b.
IIaiśāves, i. 48, b.
IIathov, ii. 307, a.
IIalávlov, ii. 918, a.
II&Aatapa, ii. 82, a.
... IIaxata wootivn, ii. 82, a.
‘IIaxata rh, i. 571, a ; ii. 161, a.
IIaMaiarpa, ii. 312, a.
IIaMato Tpoq àAakes, i. 929, b.
IIdºm, ii. 82, a.
IIaxtºykdºrmAos, i. 387, b.
IIaxtvrovos, -ov, i. 170, b ; ii.
855, a.
IIaMAaich, i. 525, a ; ii. 377, b.
IIaMAakls, i. 525, a.
IIaxtáv, i. 934, b.
IIapgao weta, ii. 177, a.
IIapºgotátia, ii. 324, a.
IIapaboutórios, i. 338, b.
IIáuſaxoi, ii. 324, b.
IIáuq.vxot, i. 914, a ; ii. 875, a.
IIavayers, i. 721, b.
IIava6#vata, ii. 324, a.
IIdvauos, i. 338, b, i. 339, b.
IIóvöta, ii. 333, a.
IIavôokeſov, i. 387, a ; i. 978, a.
IIavöpóoretov, ii. 785, a.
IIaveXAftvia, ii. 334, a.
IIavāyupus, ii. 333, b.
IIdumuos, i. 339, a.
IIavuòvia, ii. 334, a.
IIavotAim, i. 190, a.
IIavóibia, ii. 526, b.
IIavráugos, ii. 334, a.
II&tiros, ii. 377, b.
,, Tepos, ii. 376, b.
, trpatos, ii. 376, b.
IIdrupos, ii. 57, b.
IIapó8aats, i. 422, a.
IIapaštas, -n, i. 407, a.
IIapagóAuov, i. 144, b ; ii. 336, b.
IIapg|30Åov, i. 144, b; ii. 336, b.
IIapayvaðiðes, i. 899, a.
IIapayva6tövov, i. 876, b.
IIapaypaſph, i. 122, a ; i. 753, a ;
ii. 338, a.
IIapayaºyſ, i. 770, b.
IIapayáöms, ii. 945, b.
IIapóðeloos, ii. 338, a.
IIapabočovákms, i. 239, a.
IIapaffºlkm, ii. 337, b.
IIapabūpa, i. 987, a.
IIapaléâtms, i. 580, a.
IIapakaraB&AAelv, i. 947, a.
IIapakata:80Xh, i. 106, a ; i.
123, a ; i. 137, b ; i. 629, b ;
ii. 337, a.
IIapakata.0%km, i. 136, a ; ii.
337, b.
IIapakara.0%kms àticº), i. 136, a.
IIapakpoiſelv, ii. 84, a.
IIapaxi rai, ii. 826, b.
IIápañol, ii. 826, b ; ii. 877, a.
IIdpaxos, ii. 826, b.
IIapduegos 6&ntvNos, i. 130, b.
IIapaumpföta, ii. 369, a.
IIapavofas 'ypapf, ii. 339, a.
IIapavópov Ypaqf, ii. 339, b.
IIapávvuqos, ii. 136, a.
IIapałóviov, i. 578, a.
IIapatréraopia, i. 259, b.
IIapathyuata, i. 223, b.
IIapampsogeia, ii. 341, a.
TIapaopea betas ypaqf, ii. 342, b.
IIapatrvXts, ii. 467, b.
IIapappūuara, ii. 223, b.
IIapaoré'yyms, ii. 163, a, ii. 343, a.
IIapóo muov, i. 1011, a, ii. 216, b.
IIapdoritos, ii. 343, b ; ii. 377, b.
IIapaokhviov, i. 421, b ; i. 966, aft
ii. 817, b.
IIapaqtdöes, i. 125, a.
IIapao rds, i. 125, b ; i. 662, b.
IIapdorraori, vabs év, ii. 775, b.
IIapdoºragis, i. 629, b, ii. 344, a ;
ii. 771, b.
IIapao rdºtal, i. 420, b ; i. 942, a ;
ii. 217, b ; ii. 853, a.
IIapdračus, ii. 220, b.
IIapatíArpial, i. 98, a.
IIapatpurſuata, ii. 840, b.
IIapaq ovía, ii. 199, b.
IIapaxophymua, i. 418, a ; i.
966, a ; ii. 818, b.
IIapóxpopuos, ii. 375, b.
IIapaxårms, i. 268, b.
IIapamphotov, ii. 378, a.
IIapéy'ypattoi, ii. 345, a.
IIapéyypaſpot, ii. 345, a.
IIapečpta, ii. 345, a.
IIdpeãpot, ii. 344, b.
IIapepušāAAeuv, ii. 84, a.
IIapetetpeata, ii. 216, b.
IIapířov, i. 876, b.
IIaphopos, i. 579, a.
IIap6eviat, ii. 348, b.
IIap6éviol, ii. 348, b.
IIap6évos, i. 219, b.
IIópoãol, ii. 814, b.
IIdpoãos, i. 420, b ; i. 421, b ; ii.
216, b ; ii. 864, b.
IIdpoxos, ii. 136, a.
IIapopts, i. 386, b.
IIapuq.f., ii. 67, a.
IIao Tós, ii. 349, a.
IIao to póptov, ii. 349, b.
IIao Toq6pos, ii. 349, a.
IIdraikot, i. 1011, b.
IIarpováuot, ii. 356, a.
IIatpotzou, i. 747, b.
IIarpºpóxot, i. 747, b.
IIavorikém, ii. 176, a.
IIaxeta ypads, ii. 377, b.
IIéön), i. 523, b.
IIeóuatoi, ii. 877, a.
IIéöuxov, i. 332, a ; ii. 684, b.
IIeó00 tpd Bat, ii. 936, b.
IIeſakovtuotaſ, i. 987, a.
IIéapzoi, ii. 757, a.
IIegétaipou, i. 777, a.
IIéAavoi, ii. 581, b.
IIéAavop, ii. 362, a.
IIead tai, ii. 362, a.
IIeX&tims, ii. 362, a.
IIeXelaöes, ii. 279, b.
IIéAskvs, ii. 616, a.
IIéApia, ii. 685, a.
IIeXTaarat, i. 190, a ; i. 776, a ;
ii. 363, b.
IIéArm, ii. 363, b.
IIéAvvrpa, ii. 932, b.
IIeX&pia, ii. 363, b.
IIéupata, ii. 581, b.
IIeputraſbes, i. 770, b.
IIepatraorths, ii. 71, a.
IIevéo rai, ii. 364, a.
IIevraetmpts, i. 14, a ; i. 103, a ;
i. 720, b ; ii. 104, a.
IIévra.0Aov, ii. 364, b.
IIevrakoo woréöuplvot, i. 403, b ;
ii. 877, a.
IIevráAu00s, i. 929, a.
IIevrátra-vya, ii. 753, b.
IIevre?\10ígely, ii. 759, b.
GREEK INDEX.
1023
IIevrnkóvtapxos, ii. 219, a.
IIevtmkóvtopos, ii. 213, b, ii.
215, a.
IIevtmkoorfi, ii. 366, a.
IIevrmicoothp, i. 769, a.
IIevrmicootoxóyou, ii. 366, a.
IIeutmkoo ris, i. 769, a.
IIevrhpeus, ii. 221, a.
IIétrepi, ii. 429, b.
IIétràos, ii. 299, b ; ii. 314, b ;
ii. 902, b.
IIeptarctoi, ii. 817, a.
IIeptappa, i. 118, a.
IIeptairtov, i. 118, a.
IIept Sapa, i. 333, a.
IIepuSapíðes, i. 333, a ; ii. 685, a.
IIept&Ampua, ii. 318, a.
IIepubóAatov, ii. 846, a.
IIept&oxos, ii. 568, a.
IIepubpaxtáviov, i. 315, b.
IIepºypaſpfi, ii. 390, a.
IIeptóetirvov, i. 887, b.
IIeptèpopuíðes, i. 927, a.
IIeptérios, i. 340, a.
IIepiſopa, ii. 82, b ; ii. 721, a.
IIepuköpirtov, i. 315, b.
IIepulcóXAtov, i. 464, a.
IIepupamptôia, i. 831, a ; ii. 369, a.
IIeptveq., ii. 215, a.
IIeptočovikal, i. 239, a.
IIeptoãos, ii. 562, a.
IIeptoticol, i. 447, a ; ii. 369, b.
IIeputréteia, ii. 864, a.
IIepiiróötov, i. 1012, a.
IIepiiroXol, i. 740, a ; i. 774, a.
IIeptºrrepos, ii. 775, b.
IIeptºrrãoorely, i. 771, b.
IIeptoricexts, ii. 373, a.
IIeptoroof, i. 188, a.
IIepuotepetºv, i.
588, b.
IIeptorreporpoqeſov, i. 488, b.
IIeptotia, i. 699, b
IIeptortíapxos, i. 699, b.
IIeptorTouís, ii. 853, b. '
IIeptorrūAlov, i. 662, a ; ii. 373, b.
TIspiteuxiopºds, ii. 919, a.
TIepários, i. 339, a.
IIepitopets, ii. 601, a.
IIeptºrpmta, ii. 853, a.
IIepovaTpts, i. 841, a.
IIepôum, i. 840, b ; ii. 854, a.
IIepovts, i. 840, b.
IIepoets, i. 218, a.
IIeportică, -ai, i. 333, a.
IIeororot, ii. 11, a.
IIera Auguós, i. 819, b.
IIéraoros, ii. 428, a.
IIéraupov, ii. 379, a.
IIéreupov, ii. 379, a.
IIerpoSóAos, ii. 853, a.
IIettela, ii. 11, a.
IIečkm, ii. 755, b.
IIñypia, ii. 361, b.
II'mö&Atov, ii. 212, a.
II'micrís, ii. 106, b.
IIñAmè, i. 898, b.
TInAotrarſöes. i. 333, a.
II'm Notrétis, ii. 373, b.
II'm Notrkó60s, i. 842, a.
II'm Nós, i. 842, a.
II'm Novgyós, i. 842, a.
488, b ; ii.
IIłivm, ii. 765, a.
IInviſeoréal, ii. 767, b.
IImvíkm, i. 498, b.
IIñviov, i. 898, a ; ii. 767, b.
IIñpa, ii. 122, a ; ii. 368, a.
II?xus, i. 170, a ; i. 571, a ;
ii. 161, a.
IIleathp, -fiptov, ii. 850, a.
III6eóv, ii. 964, a.
II.601-yta, i. 638, b.
II£60s, i. 650, a ; ii. 964, a.
IIuxtàtov, ii. 427, a.
II.Nos, ii. 427, a ; ii. 932, b.
IIlvakuich, i. 213, a.
IIIváictov, ii. 753, a.
IIlvaico8%icm. ii. 429, a.
IIſvač, ii. 752, b.
, éickamotaatikós, i. 616, a.
ITſvov, i. 407, a.
TIto ov, i. 69, a.
IIfora worls, ii. 964, a.
IIAayyáv, ii. 526, a.
IIAatoſtov, i. 772, a
IIAdices, ii. 645, a.
IIAavitat, ii. 432, a.
IIAavapiévol &otépes, ii. 432, a.
IIA&opia, i. 841, b ; ii. 831, b.
IIA&otims, i. 841, b.
IIAao Turch, i. 841, b.
IIAarayå, i. 591, a.
IIAataydºvlov, i. 591, a.
IIAaTetov Štrºyeypapºpºvov, i.
377, b.
IIAé6pov, ii. 162, a.
IIAetašes, i. 219, a.
IIAeloto80Atvöa, ii. 760, a.
IIAm0ötratos, i. 340, a.
IIAmiáðes, i. 219, a.
TIA micrpov, ii. 106, a.
IIAñuvm, i. 578, a.
IIAmuoxéal, i. 720, a.
IIAmuoxóm, i. 720, a.
IIAlv6íov, i. 772, a ; ii. 8, a ;
ii. 853, a.
IIAuv6ís, ii. 8, a.
Ilxtubotroïta, ii. 8, b.
IIAiv60s, i. 848, a ; ii. 8, a ;
ii. 439, b.
IIAlv6opópot, ii. 8, b.
IIAovpaptos, ii. 439, b.
IIAoûortot, ii. 233, a.
IIAovrokparta, ii. 266, b.
IIAvvripta, ii. 440, a.
IIvºyos, i. 422, a.
IIvić, i. 698, a.
IIoãavittàp, ii. 364, a.
IIoöeia, ii. 932, b.
IIóðes, ii. 211, b ; ii. 559, a.
IIoãokóicicm, i. 362, a ; ii. 228, b.
IIole ºv, i. 25, b.
IIoweto 6at, i. 25, b.
IIoíma is, i. 25, b.
IIowmtés, i. 25, b.
IIoíðuot, ii. 530, a.
IIolvå, ii. 440, b.
IIottpótrios, i. 338, a.
IIóAets, ii. 12, a.
IIoxéuapxos, i. 168, a ; i. 769, a ;
ii. 441, a.
IIoxià cardicoptos, ii. 375, b.
IIóAts àickxmtos, ii. 735, a.
IIoWireto, i. 441, b.
IIox{rms, i. 441, b ; ii. 169, a.
IIoxtrogºńakes, ii. 757, a.
IIóAos, i. 972, b ; ii. 442, b.
IIoxvipets, ii. 213, b.
IIoxiºuvros, ii. 770, b.
IIoxörruxa, ii. 753, b.
IIourſ, i. 437, a.
IIóvros, i. 340, a.
IIótrava, ii. 581, b.
IIoptotaí, ii. 466, a.
IIopweiov, i. 957, b.
IIópum, i. 956, b.
IIopvikov réAos, i. 957, b, ii.
771, b.
IIopvo900 kot, i. 957, a.
IIopuo&ookós, ii. 377, a.
IIopwore?Aóval, i. 957, b.
IIópiraua, i. 841, a.
IIópirač, i. 459, b.
IIópirm, i. 840, b.
IIogetöeóv, i. 338, a ; i. 339, a ;
i. 340, a.
IIoquëadºv, i. 339, a.
IIoatvöa, ii. 336, b.
IIotapués, i. 221, b.
Ilotſkpavov, i. 407, b.
IIóros, ii. 740, a.
IIows, ii. 161, a.
IIpărctopes, ii. 474, a.
IIpaštepytöal, ii. 440, a.
IIparhp A(60s, ii. 657, a.
IIpeogórms, ii. 376, b.
IIpmorrāpes, i. 870, a.
IIpăgºris, i. 221, a.
IIptov, ii. 650, b.
IIpodºyvevous, i. 717, b.
IIpoa'yo Yeſas Ypaqf, ii. 491, b.
IIpodyov, ii. 818, b.
IIpoaktotſpua, ii. 501, a.
IIpogoxá, i. 663, b; ii. 492, a.
IIpoéoùAevua, i. 311, b ; i.
709, b.
IIpóBouxoi, ii. 493, a.
IIpoyduela, ii. 136, a.
IIpoöukaota, ii. 385, b.
IIpóðouos, ii. 777, b.
IIpoãoota, ii. 499, b.
IIpoãootas ypaſpfi, ii. 500, a.
IIpóðpopot, i. 778, a.
IIpóðpop.os, ii. 963, b.
IIpoeópía, i. 1024, b ; ii. 815, a.
IIpósópol, i. 310, b.
IIpoeto popá, i. 711, a ; ii. 737, a.
IIpoeto popas àticºm, ii. 500, b.
IIpoeußoxts, ii. 217, a.
IIpompoo'íc., ii. 501, a.
IIpó6egis, i. 885, b.
IIpoéeopata, i. 735, b ; ii. 506, a.
IIpo6eapitas vôpos, ii. 506, a.
IIpóðvpov, i. 661, b ; i. 990, a.
IIpoukos Sticm, i. 692, b ; ii. 678, b.
IIpoić, i. 691, a.
IIpoica.0aporus, i. 717, b.
IIpokaxe?06al, i. 622, a.
IIpokata/30Afi, ii. 771, b.
IIpokátapčus, ii. 69, a.
IIpókAmorus, i. 622, a ; i. 629, a ;
ii. 852, a.
IIpokoutdºv, i. 671, b.
IIporcüov, i. 222, a.
IIpóAoyos, ii. 864, b.
IIpomavreia, ii. 282, b.
1024
GREEK INDEX.
IIpêuaxoi, i.,190, a.
IIpouñ6eta, ii. 6, a.
IIpouñkms, i. 188, b.
IIpouvºotplai, ii. 136, a.
IIpouvno Tptöes, ii. 135, b.
IIpóvaos, i. 292, b ; ii. 777, b.
IIpočevta, i. 978, b.
IIpáčevos, i. 978, b.
IIpătrâagua, ii. 501, b.
IIpótovs, ii. 217, b.
IIpomºxala, ii. 502, b.
IIpóppmaris, i. 718, b; ii. 385, b.
IIpoorkará8xmpa, ii. 771, b.
IIpoorked dAetov, i. 407, b ; ii.
17, b
IIpoorkävlov, ii. 812, a.
IIpóorkXmoris, i. 629, a ; ii. 127, b.
IIpookövmous, i. 28, b.
IIpóorošov Ypd/aa-6al, i. 311, b.
IIpoortés, i. 662, b.
IIpoatathpuos, i. 339, b.
IIpoatãºrms, ii. 62, a ; ii. 169, a.
99 Too Shuov, ii. 504, b.
IIpoo reputólov, i. 284, b.
IIpoortmötövov, i. 284, b.
IIpoortuáv, ii. 844, a.
IIpoortiuáo 6ai, ii. 844, a.
IIpoortumpia, ii. 844, a.
IIpóa rvAos, ii. 775, b.
IIpóa'rgov, i. 662, a.
IIpos iſãop 5ticm, i. 973, a.
IIpoorwiretov, ii. 374, a.
IIpágorov, ii. 374, a.
IIporéAeta yduov, ii. 136, a.
IIporoph, i. 186, a.
IIpótovoi, ii. 211, b.
IIpórporos, ii. 963, b.
IIporpiº)ata, ii. 506, b.
IIpotivelicot, i. 48, b.
IIpoqfitns, ii. 281, a.
TIpoqopeto 6al, ii. 765, b.
IIpoxelpotovía, i. 312, a.
IIpáxoos, -ows, ii. 982, a.
IIpóxvua, ii. 963, b.
IIpowplooſa, i. 121, b.
IIpvXées, i. 767, a.
IIpúAus, ii. 593, b.
IIpúuvm, ii. 212, a.
IIpvraveta, i. 310, b ; ii. 719, b.
IIpvtaveſa, i. 137, b; ii. 513, b;
ii. 771, b.
IIpvtaveſov, ii. 513, b.
IIpvravels, i. 310, b; ii. 513, b;
ii. 719, b.
IIpot, i. 635, a.
IIpwfa, i. 635, a.
IIpépa, ii. 211, b.
IIpopsis, ii. 219, a.
IIporayaviaths, i. 966, a.
IIporáAetov, i. 688, a.
IIpwroAoyſa, ii. 745, b.
IIpotográrms, i. 420, b ; i.
770, b ; i. 772, a.
II repa, i. 159, b.
IITépwa, ii. 854, a.
IITspvſgeuv, ii. 84, a.
IIrepáevra Tréðixa, ii. 758, a.
IITépvyes, ii. 78, a.
IITöyua, ii. 315, a.
IIrúov, ii. 312, a.
IIvavélia, ii. 526, b.
IIvavelićv, i. 338, a.
IIvyuaxia, ii. 524, a.
IIvyuh, ii. 161, a ; ii. 524, a.
IIvyuootiv", ii. 524, a.
IIvydºv, ii. 161, a.
IIvéAoi, i. 268, a ; i. 887, b.
IIv6atarai, ii. 529, a ; ii. 825, b.
IIö6ia, ii. 528, a.
IIü0ucos vöuos, ii. 528, b.
IIöðuot, ii. 530, a.
IIv6 uſiv, i. 989, a.
IIv6óxpmotoi, i. 766, a.
IIvicv6orvXos, ii. 777, b.
IIüktal, ii. 524, a.
IIvXayópal, i. 104, a.
IIvXata, i. 104, a.
IlúAm, ii. 466, b.
IIvXts, ii. 467, b.
IIvX&v, i. 661, b ; ii. 467, b.
II'ſé, ii. 524, a.
IIvčíövov, i. 319, a.
IIvčíov, i. 244, b ; i. 319, a ;
ii. 399, a ; ii. 753, a.
IIüğus, ii. 530, a.
IIáčos, i. 319, a.
IIvpdypa, i. 871, b.
IIvpat, i. 887, b.
IIūpºyos, i. 877, a ; ii. 527, a ;
ii. 907, b.
IIvpeºa, i. 991, a.
IIvpta, i. 268, a.
IIvpiathpubv, i. 268, a.
IIvpopuavreta, i. 646, b.
IIvppixh, i. 516, a ; ii. 527, a ;
ii. 593, b.
IIvpºpópot, i. 721, b.
IIóryov, i. 285, a.
IIa)\?\tau, ii. 442, a.
IIwAntſipuov, ii. 442, b.
IIópos, ii. 780, a.
P.
‘PaSöſov, ii. 393, a.
‘PaSãováuot, i. 44, b.
‘Pá860s, i. 265, b.
‘PaSöooxol, i. 44, b ; ii. 64, b :
ii. 818, b.
‘Paßöopópol, ii. 64, b ; ii. 571, b.
‘Pašív010s, i. 340, a.
‘Patarſip, ii. 116, a.
‘Papts, i. 23, b.
‘Phryea, ii. 17, b.
‘Pntopuch-yptºpſ, i. 739, a ; ii.
9 ºr
‘Phrpa, ii. 556, b.
‘Phrop, ii. 556, a ; ii. 746, a.
‘Piſáypa, i. 872, a.
‘Pívm, ii. 67, a.
‘PuotröAm, ii. 467, b.
‘Pirts, i. 863, b.
‘Pirtorrhp, i. 863, b.
‘Počávm, ii. 765, a.
‘Počáptext, ii. 967, b.
‘Páušos, i. 929, a ; ii. 906, b.
‘Popºpata, i. 920, a ; i. 937, a.
‘Póraxov, i. 450, a.
‘Párrpov, i. 990, b.
‘Pvkdvn, ii. 567, b.
‘Pöua, ii. 541, b.
‘Púupa, i. 269, a.
‘Pvaés, i. 578, b ; ii. 779, a.
‘Pvtrapoypaq'fa, ii. 416, b.
‘Púata, ii. 734, a.
‘Pvtóv, ii. 565, a.
‘Papaia, ii. 348, a.
‘Papuatos, i. 340, a.
‘Potroypaſpía, ii. 389, b.
X.
Xağükm, ii. 594, b.
Xaymuečeiv, ii. 546, b.
Xayfivm, ii. 546, a.
24-ylov, ii. 71, b.
Xakktas, ii. 964, b.
2dicicos, i. 499, a ; ii. 568, a ;
ii. 964, b.
Xdicos, i. 458, b.
XaAapitvia, ii. 826, b.
XaAapíviou ii. 826, b.
XaAtri'yicrºſs, ii. 902, a.
XàXtriº, ii. 901, a.
Xaſıbükm, ii. 594, b.
Xapbvictorptai, ii. 595, a.
XavóóAtov, ii. 685, a.
X&vôaxov, ii. 685, a.
Xavöökm, ii. 595, a.
Xavis, i. 988, b.
Xàvrpaë, ii. 13, b.
Xatrpías, ii. 970, b.
Xàpakov, i. 70, a.
Xàpatris, ii. 322, a ; ii. 944, b.
Xapööv, ii. 545, b.
Xàptora, i. 778, a ; i. 937, a.
X&rvpos, ii. 858, b.
Xavpotfip, i. 935, a.
Xeflagrás, i. 340, a.
Xetafivuot, i. 309, a.
>elpatos, i. 579, a.
>epaq6pos, i. 579, a.
3. i. 221, b.
Xelodzøeta, ii. 449, a ; ii. 617, a.
Xetarpov, ii. 676, a.
XeXevictóes, i. 347, b.
XeXmvís, ii. 674, a.
>mkot, i. 210, b.
>micós, i. 391, a ; ii. 774, a.
>hicopa, i. 851, b ; ii. 696, b.
2nuatai, ii. 672, b.
>mpaorta, ii. 199, b.
>mueta, ii. 243, b.
>muetoypdq'ot, ii. 244, a.
>muelov, i. 1011, a.
>mpuków, ii. 649, b.
2npukotroués, ii. 650, a.
20éi za, ii. 713, b.
>{y^0s, i. 598, a ; ii. 672, a.
Xuââpeos, ii. 672, a.
216mpouavreta, i. 647, a.
>{6mpos, ii. 166, a.
>uceXtkós, ii. 377, b.
>{icuvis, i. 422, a.
>{k\os, ii. 672, a.
Xikvavia, i. 333, a.
Xivööv, ii. 944, b.
Xiaºpa, ii. 362, b.
GREEK INDEX.
1025
Xiaºpwa, ii. 362, b.
Xtrevris, i. 826, a.
2itmpéatov, i. 418, a ; i. 776, a ;
ii. 714, b.
>{rmats, ii. 514, b.
Xitoöeſai, ii. 677, b.
XutotróAal, ii. 677, b.
Xºros, ii. 676, b.
Xtrov Sticm, ii. 678, a.
Xttoq,w}\akeſov, i. 975, b.
Xutoſpiºxakes, ii. 676, b.
>{trugal, -ot, ii. 59, a.
Xitóval, i. 575, b; ii. 677, b.
>{qpov, i. 570, b.
2Kaxeta, i. 63, a.
Xkaxts, ii. 597, a.
2kaxtorſipuov, ii. 597, a.
>icańplot, ii. 212, a.
Xicairávn, ii. 311, b.
Xicairépôa, i. 929, a.
XKaſpeſov, ii. 311, b.
3rd pn, i. 573, a.
XKaſpn.gopia, i. 985, b.
Xica ptov, ii. 312, a ; ii. 611, a.
Xkémapvov, i. 208, b.
Xkevo9ákm, i. 190, b.
XRevotrotoſ, ii. 374, a.
XKevó popos, i. 986, a.
Xkmvá, i. 46, b; ii. 752, a ; ii.
812, a.
Xknvoypaſpia, ii. 389, b ; ii.
816, a ; ii. 860, a.
Xkmirrotxou, ii. 611, b.
Xicºttpov, i. 265, b, ii. 611, b.
Xicta, ii. 390, b.
Xiclaypaſpía, ii. 390, a.
Xicidóelov, ii. 976, a.
Xicia&mgopia, i. 985, b.
Xictabío-km, ii. 976, a.
XKid (eiv, ii. 390, b.
Xkić0mpov, i. 972, b.
2ktapu?mouás, ii. 390, a.
Xicids, ii. 515, a ; ii. 822, a.
2kipitröölov, ii. 14, a.
Xicipitrovs, ii. 18, a ; ii. 618, b.
Xkſpa, ii. 833, b.
XKipopópta, ii. 612, a ; ii. 831, b.
XKupoqopudºv, i. 338, a.
XkóAta, ii. 741, b ; ii. 777, b.
Xicoxoiſ, i. 565, a.
Xicoptrios, i. 220, a.
Xköðat, i. 614, a.
Xkupta Šíkm, ii. 614, b.
>kūpos, i. 327, b.
XKurdam, i. 265, b; ii. 615, a ;
ii. 747, a.
Xkvrſum udović, i. 864, a.
XKūqos, ii. 614, a.
Xicotraſol, ii. 205, b.
Xuāypia, i. 68, b, ii. 976, b.
Xpºſiua, ii. 976, b.
XuíAm, i. 414, b ; ii. 601, a.
Xput?Mov, ii. 601, a.
Xuív6ia, ii. 679, b.
>uivöm, ii. 537, b.
XáXos, i. 644, b.
×opot, i. 887, b.
Xovöäptov, ii. 723, a.
Xoduplos, i. 696, a.
Xırdótov, ii. 162, b ; ii. 693, a.
Xırd.6m, i. 160, a ; i. 919, b ; ii.
765, a.
WOL. II.
Xtra.0mrós, ii. 768, a.
Xırdpyavov, i. 1005, a.
Xtraptoiróxios, ii. 375, a.
57 Aekrurch, ii. 377, b.
Xtreſpa, i. 407, b ; ii. 690, b.
Xtreſpat Boetal, i. 328, b.
Xırı0aph, i. 571, a ; ii. 161 b ;
ii. 691, a.
Xtroyyetis, ii. 692, a.
Xtroyyta, ii. 692, a.
Xtroy yo0%pas, ii. 692, a.
Xtroy yokoxvußmrås, ii. 692, a.
XtroAds, ii. 80, b ; ii. 362, b.
Xtrovöat, i. 394, b ; i. 960, a.
Xtrov6opópot, i. 721, b; i. 960, a;
i. 1025, a.
XtróvövXol, ii. 516, a.
Xırupts, i. 541, a.
X-raðuoöpóplot, i.
693, b.
Xrdöuot, ii. 693, a.
Xtdölov, i. 581, a ; ii. 162, b ;
ii. 693, a.
Xrd.6pm, ii. 373, b.
X-raðuoſ, ii. 444, b.
X-raðuðs, i. 656, b ; i. 987, a ;
ii. 63, b ; ii. 121, a.
X-raðuotixoi, ii. 747, b.
X-raíðua, ii. 962, a.
Xtapulves, ii. 539, a.
XTapavlov, ii. 695, a.
Xtduvos, ii. 695, a.
Xrdo uov, i. 421, b ; ii. 864, b.
X-rathp, ii. 695, a.
Xtavpós, i. 565, a.
X-raq.vxh, ii. 56, b.
Xtaſpuxoëpáuot, i. 366, a.
X-reyao rip, i. 849, a.
Xteºpa, ii. 216, a.
XreqavnTAókot, i. 545, a.
Xreq’avotrotot, i. 545, a.
Xtépavos, i. 217, b ; i. 545, a.
57 vérios, i. 222, b.
>Teqāvapa, i. 545, a.
XTºxal, i. 1046, b ; ii. 712, a.
XThuata, ii. 854, a.
Xthuay, ii. 765, a.
Xtfivta, ii. 831, a.
XtíAtroves, ii. 205, b.
Xttxos, ii. 215, a.
XTAey'yís, i. 268, b ; i. 499, a.
>Tod, ii. 468, a.
XTouxetov, i. 972, b.
Xroixos, i. 420, b.
Xroxh Settryirus, i. 396, a ; ii.
748, a.
XróAos, ii. 208, a.
Xróulov, i. 876, a.
Xropuſs, ii. 840, b.
Xtóuoua, ii. 3, a.
Xróuwo is, ii. 3, a.
>Tpdºretos, i. 340, a.
Xtparmyta, ii. 717, a.
>Tparmyós, i. 9, b ; i. 42, a ;
ii. 717, a.
53 6 étrº Stolkhorews,
ii. 761, b.
Xrparóvukos, i. 339, a.
×Tparós, i. 766, b.
Xrpe&Aów, ii. 851, b.
Xtpetrtós, ii. 857, a.
Xtpépetv, ii. 84, a.
581, a ; ii.
Xrpá81Aos, i. 929, a ; ii. 906, b.
XTpopećs, i. 364, b.
Xtpoſph, i. 421, b ; i. 422, a ;
ii. 564, a.
XTpéquyê, i. 364, b.
Xrpáquov, i. 720, b ; ii. 572, b :
ii. 720, b.
>Tpaparóðeorgos, ii. 126, b.
Xrpôpival, ii. 15, b.
Xrporâpes, ii. 216, b.
Xttºos, i. 489, a ; ii. 713, b.
3rvpdictov, i. 935, a.
3ripaś, i. 935, a.
36Bakxot, ii. 810, a.
Xv,8āvm, ii. 841, b.
Xvyyevels, i. 903, b.
>vy'ypaqets, ii. 747, b.
>vy'ypaqf, i. 411, a ; ii. 746, b.
Xàykantos éickamoría, i. 698, a.
>vyicoptothpia, i. 99, a.
>vyxopmyopia, i. 418, b.
2vçuyia, ii. 560, a.
>vicopévrms, ii. 730, b.
>vicopavrias ypaſpſ, ii. 732, a.
20Aal, ii. 732, b.
2vXAoyers, ii. 733, a.
×vußóAatov, ii. 733, b.
>vufloxafov trapafláorews Sirm,
ii. 734, a.
Xuugo?\%, i. 393, a.
Xiufloxov, i. 627, b ; ii. 734, a.
>vuò6Awv, Štical &md, ii. 734, a.
>{p}ovXol, ii. 344, b.
Xiuwaxoi, ii. 681, a.
>vuuopia, i. 712, a ; ii. 736, a ;
ii. 891, a.
Xvutróortov, ii. 740, a.
Xvaqopets, i. 772, a ; ii. 441, b.
Xuuqovía, ii. 199, a ; ii. 739, a.
Xuvayooyſ, i. 540, b.
XvváAAayua, ii. 733, b.
>vvápxovres, ii. 719, b.
Xàvölkos, ii. 743, b.
2vvöpopuń, i. 213, a.
>vvéöpia, ii. 751, a.
Xàveópot, i. 42, a.
>vvmyopticóv, ii. 745, b.
Xuvhyopos, i. 763, a ; ii. 744, b.
Xàv6eous, ii. 75, b.
Xvv6%km, ii. 733, b.
>vv0micóv trapaśāorews 6trºm, ii.
734, a.
Xúv0mua, ii. 799, b.
Xàvoö0s, i. 540, b.
>vvoukégua, ii. 747, b.
>uvoukta, ii. 747, b.
>vvoppaviorral, i. 752, b.
Xuvovoría, i. 540, b.
Xuvráčets, ii. 748, a.
Xàvračus, i. 707, b ; ii. 748, a.
XuvréAeta, ii. 737, b ; ii. 891, a.
Xuvrexe?s, ii. 737, b ; ii. 891, a.
Xuvrpińpapxoi, ii. 890, a.
>vvopts, i. 579, a.
Xàpty; ii. 748, a ; ii. 840, a.
> üppa, ii. 317, b.
Xàokmvol, i. 540, a ; i. 596, b.
>varottia, ii. 749, a.
Xàoraqis, i. 718, a.
Xào rvXos, ii. 777, b.
| >qayis, i. 572, b.
X4aipa, ii. 421, b.
3 U.
1026
GREEK INDEX.
×4 aſpal, i. 328, b.
×4 aipeis, ii. 422, a.
;, i. 928, b.
xpaipigºràptov, i. 928, b ; ii.
2, a.
×qaptorrukh, ii. 422, b.
>qaptorukós, i. 928, b.
×papouazia, i. 928, b; ii. 423,b.
Xpevöövm, i. 130, a ; i. 499, a ;
i. 883, b; ii. 693, b.
×qevöovărat, i. 883, b.
Xq'myotróyov, ii. 375, b ; ii.
377, a.
XqāvövXos, ii. 906, b.
Xºpayás, i. 130, a.
Xºpa, ii. 116, a.
XqupiñAarov, -os, ii. 690, b.
>xaotºmpfa, ii. 854, a.
Xxe6tal, ii. 457, b; ii. 538, a.
>xiua terpáyovov, i. 420, b :
i. 953, b.
Xxhuata, i. 419, b.
Xxolvía, ii. 224, a.
Xxoivoğātms, i. 883, a.
XXolvos, ii. 163, b.
XoAftv, i. 862, a ; ii. 853, a.
Xapid ruov, i. 520, b ; ii. 863, a.
XopatoſpöAakes, i. 777, b.
Xóotpa, ii. 658, a.
Xothpia, ii. 300, a.
Xórpa, i. 578, a.
Xaqpoviorat, i. 928, b.
Xwºppoviarăptov, i. 362, b.
×oppoortvm, i. 928, b.
T.
Tā8Aa, i. 695, a.
Töymvov, ii. 597, b.
Tayós, ii. 755, b.
Tatvía, i. 827, a ; ii. 720, b.
Taxaldºv, i. 339, b.
TáAavra, ii. 63, b.
TáAavrov, ii. 449, a ; ii. 758, a.
TéAapos, i. 330, a.
Taxaata, ii. 770, b.
Tañaquoup'yła, ii. 770, b.
Tapuías, ii. 760, a.
Tačíapxot, ii. 763, a.
Tášis, i. 772, a ; i. 772, b :
ii. 763, a. *
Táirms, ii. 17, b ; ii. 761, b.
Tátris, ii. 761, b. *
TapymAidºv, i. 339, b.
Tappós, ii. 224, a.
Tápoos, i. 562, a ; ii. 650, b.
Taporépara, ii. 215, a.
TaüAa, i. 696, b.
Taupe&v, i. 339, a.
Taipos, i. 219, a.
Tápot, ii. 643, a.
Tappoirotot, i. 750, a.
Táppos, ii. 919, a.
Té0puriros, i. 579, b.
Teixotroués, ii. 764, b. '
Teixos, ii. 182, a.
TeXaudºv, i. 284, a.
TeXawóves, i. 243, b.
Téa stov štauptköv, ii. 377, b.
TeXéovres, i. 901, b.
TeXeorrhpiov, ii. 774, b.
TeXeraſ, ii. 202, a ; ii. 299, b.
TéAos, ii. 693, b ; ii. 771, b.
TeX&vms, ii. 771, a.
Téuevos, ii. 772, b ; ii. 934, b.
Téperpa, ii. 538, a ; ii. 793, a.
Tépôpioi, ii. 224, a.
Tépua, ii. 693, b.
Teorgepakovräpms, ii. 800, a.
Téraptov, ii. 535, b.
Terpaëapxta, ii. 808, b.
Terpſiópaxplov, i. 694, b.
Terpañoyia, ii. 860, b.
Terpaopia, i. 579, b.
Terpápxms, ii. 808, b.
Terpapxta, ii. 808, b.
Terpás, ii. 756, a.
TerpáarvXos, ii. 777, a.
Terpſipets, ii. 221, a.
TGTpé80Aov, ii. 451, a.
Terrapákovra, oi, ii. 809, a.
Térrič, i. 497, a.
Teixea, i. 189, b.
Texviral, i. 195, b.
Thbevva, ii. 845, b.
Tâyavov, ii. 597, b.
TúAts, i. 70, a.
Tugpa, ii. 839, b.
Tudpas, ii. 839, b.
TuSépios, i. 339, a.
Tiónvíðua, ii. 845, a.
Tſumpia, i. 403, a ; i. 746, a ;
i. 751, b ; ii. 842, a.
Tupam reta, i. 397, b.
Tupam Tſis, i. 397, b.
Tipokparta, ii. 266, b.
Tíqºm, i. 67, b.
Toíxapxos, ii. 219, a.
Totxo'ypaſpía, ii. 391, a.
Tölzot, ii. 211, a.
Toixos, ii. 211, a ; ii. 345, b.
Touxopúxos, i. 660, a ; i. 707, a.
Tokoyašqot, i. 832, a.
Tókot &yºyetol, i. 831, b.
2, #yyvot, i. 831, b.
, vavrikof, i. 833, a.
Tókos, i. 831, a.
Toxim, i. 897, b.
Topleås, ii. 601, a.
Topós, ii. 59, a.
Tóvot, ii. 17, b; ii. 853, a.
Tóvos, ii. 198, a ; ii. 390, b.
Tóšapxol, i. 614, a.
Táčevua, ii. 587, a.
Toševráp, Toševrás, i. 220, b.
Točºrus, ii. 854, a.
Toč00%km, i. 170, b.
Táčov, i. 169, b; i. 218, b.
Točórai, i. 598, a ; i. 614, a.
Topsvruch, i. 323, b.
Topóvm, ii. 901, a.
Tpayhuata, ii. 819, b.
Tpayq,6ta, ii. 858, b.
Tpdºreſa, ii. 157, a.
Tpdaregai Öeūrepat, i. 394, b :
ii. 158, a.
27 trpótal, i. 394, b ; ii.
158, a.
Tpareſtral, i. 179, b.
Tpaire(okóuos, i. 394, a.
Tpaireſorotés, i. 394, a.
Tpačuaros ék trpovotas ypaſph,
ii. 868, a.
Tpdqºmé, ii. 224, a.
Tpaxma (ſelv, ii. 84, b.
Tpaxeta Strm, ii. 614, b.
Tphpara, ii. 853, a.
Tplayuás, ii. 299, b
Tptaiwa, i. 897, a.
Tptakóes, i. 888, b ; 1.905, a ;
ii. 875, b.
Tptakós, i. 338, a ; i. 888, b.
Tpiakooriouéðuvot, i. 403, b.
Tptakthp, ii. 82, b.
Tpuðis, ii. 853, b.
Tpl£6xos, ii. 870, a.
Tp(Bov, ii. 321, b ; ii. 869, b.
Tptyńtºpos, ii. 782, b.
Tptywyov, i. 218, b.
Tpuetmpts, i. 337, a.
Tpimpapxia, ii. 888, b.
Tpiñpapxot, ii. 888, b.
TpumpačAms, ii. 219, a.
Tpiñpels, ii. 221, a.
Tpimporouot, i. 750, a ; ii. 892, b.
Tpixoyſa, ii. 860, b.
Tpſupta, ii. 740, b ; ii. 966, b.
Tpírovs, ii. 892, b.
Tpírrvya, ii. 753, b.
Tpíra, i. 888, a.
Tpirayavtotás, i. 966, a.
Tpurrúa, ii. 725, b.
Tpurrës, ii. 582, b ; ii. 876, a.
Tpixoxapts, i. 414, b ; ii. 981, b.
Tpſipts, iſ trapaa’revrukh, i. 98, a.
Tptó80Aov, i. 628, a ; ii. 771, b.
Tporatov, ii. 900, a.
Tpóris, ii. 211, a.
Tpotrós, ii. 224, a.
Tpotrarſip, ii. 224, a.
Tpop? Bíaios, i. 238, a.
TpáxtAos, ii. 690, b.
Tpoxotréðm, ii. 723, b.
Tpoxós, i. 578, a ; i.
i. 843, a ; ii. 899, a.
TpuðAtov, i. 560, a ; ii. 351, a.
Tpíryotiros, ii. 964, b.
Tpūtravov, ii. 793, a.
Tpvirhuata, i. 489, a ; ii. 840, b.
Tpur&vm, ii. 63, b.
Tpuqd Aeta, i. 899, a.
Tvåeſov, ii. 17, b.
TöAm, i. 407, b; ii. 17, b.
Túpgos, ii. 913, b.
Twº Sopuxtas ypaq ft, ii. 913, b.
Túpatravov, ii. 851, a ; ii. 914, a.
Tötros, i. 872, b ; ii. 794, a.
Tupavvſöos Ypaq ft, i. 168, b.
Tvpavvis, ii. 915, a.
Túpavvos, ii. 914, b.
Tuppmvuká, i. 333, a.

581, a ;
T.
“Tööes, i. 219, a.
‘Takſvöua, i. 982, a.
‘Takſvětos, i. 339, b.
"Taxos, ii. 972, a.
GREEK INDEX.
102.7
“Yāral, ii. 875, b.
"TBea's ypaqf, i. 982, b.
"T3pts, i. 982, b.
“Töaros xúorts, i. 220, b.
‘Töpaywyía, i. 146, b.
Töpañérms, ii. 176, b.
‘Töpavós, i. 721, b.
Töpápyvpos, ii. 167, b.
‘TöpačAms, i. 984, b.
Töpavaikov ćpyávov, i. 984, a.
"Tôpavais, i. 984, a.
"rópavaos, i. 984, a.
"Töpm, i. 217, a ; i. 222, b.
‘Töpla, i. 348, b ; i. 985, a ;
ii. 679, a.
‘Töplaqopia, i. 985, a.
‘TöpóueAl, ii. 967, b.
‘Töpópºnxov, ii. 967, b.
TöpóuvAos, ii. 176, b.
“röpos, i. 222, b.
Töpox60s, i. 220, b.
“röwp, i. 220, b.
‘TAmapot, i. 985, b.
“TAtarſip, ii. 964, b.
‘TAAets, i. 914, a ; ii. 875, a.
‘TAwpot, i. 985, b.
"Tuvoi, ii. 299, b.
“Tvvis, i. 159, b.
“Tiratºpov, ii. 783, a.
“Traiépos, ii. 777, a.
“Tirao artorraſ, i. 772, a ; i. 778, a.
"Tiratos, i. 532, a.
“Trépal, ii. 211, b.
“ſtrepòeperatos, i. 339, a.
“ſtrepòépetos, i. 340, a.
“ſtrepſiuepos, i. 735, b.
“Trépôupov, i. 988, a.
*Trepos, ii. 181, a.
‘Treprepta, i. 578, a.
‘Trepčov, i. 656, a ; i. 658, b :
i. 663, b, ii. 777, b.
‘Treš6vvos, i. 165, b; i. 763, a.
“Trávn, i. 285, a ; ii. 200, b.
‘Tirmpeo ſa, i. 985, b, ii. 890, a.
“Tºrmpérms, i. 985, b.
‘Tiró8Amua, ii. 224, a.
“TroSox is ypaſph, i. 986, a.
“Troypappareds, i. 922, a.
“Troypaſph, ii. 390, a.
“Tróðmua, i. 332, a ; ii. 684, b.
“Troötödorkaxos, i. 417, b.
“Troſópara, ii. 224, a.
“Throbákm, i. 832, b.
“TºrokóAtriov, i. 420, b.
“Tºrokoopmrat, i. 986, a.
‘Tºrokpurhs, i. 965, b, ii. 859, a.
“Tropetoves, i. 969, a.
‘Trouvâuara, i. 12, b.
‘Tiróvouos, i. 146, b; i. 461, b ;
i. 573, b : i. 728, b.
“Throtróðtov, ii. 618, b.
‘Tróttepvis, ii. 854, a.
‘Trépuyua, i. 573, b.
“Trópxmpia, i. 986, b, ii. 863, a.
“TrookeNigeuv, ii. 84, a.
“Trotpaxfixtov, i. 490, b.
“Troxaxivöta, i. 876, b.
‘Tiróxm, ii. 546, b.
‘Trriagp16s, ii. 329, a.
‘Traptoata, i. 121, b ; i. 621, b ;
i. 629, b.
“TortAmè, i. 433, a ; ii. 693, b.
“Tororós, i. 936, a.
“To repôtroTuoi, i. 889, a.
“Torpuxts, i. 864, a.
“Tºpóvrai, ii. 770, b.
“TºpóApatov, ii. 840, b.
{*.
‘patópúvrai, i. 721, b ; ii. 778, a.
£atkdöes, i. 333, a.
‘Palicãota, i. 333, a.
‘patvivöa, ii. 424, a.
*akós, i. 68, b.
$4Mayºyes, ii. 379, b.
$4Xayå, i. 767, b; i. 768, b—
779.
$4Aapov, ii. 380, a ; ii. 674, a.
$4Akms, ii. 216, a.
$4Aos, i. 899, a.
‘Pavós, i. 830, a ; ii. 7, a.
‘Papérpa, ii. 381, b.
‘Papparcetas karmyopia, ii. 382, b.
‘Papparcevrpíai, ii. 382, b.
‘Papualcíðes, ii. 382, b.
‘Papparcot, ii. 810, a.
$4puakov, ii. 390, b.
‘PappakotráAms, ii. 382, b.
‘Papuákov Ypapſi, ii. 382, a.
‘Papos, ii. 315, a ; ii. 319, a ;
ii. 729, b.
$4pos, ii. 383, a.
$da’yavov, i. 919, a.
$40 mAos, ii. 223, b.
$20 ho?\os, i. 69, a.
$40 is, ii. 383, b.
, alo 660 ea's
173, b.
devăkm, i. 498, b.
‘Pevſvöc., ii. 424, a.
*evvis, ii. 424, a.
êepvå, i. 691, a.
$6ivôtropov, i. 233, b.
$60pá, i. 29, b.
, Tóv éAev6épav, ii. 388, a.
‘Pudºm, ii. 349, b ; ii. 674, a.
‘ptóſtºms, ii. 750, b.
$16tria, ii. 750, a.
‘pupiós, i. 357, b ; i. 877, a.
*Adorkm, -tov, ii. 4, a.
‘PAldo tos, i. 339, a.
*Ağakes, i. 516, a.
$olvíkm, i. 216, b.
$ovikh Strºm, ii. 384, b.
*óvos, ii. 384, b.
‘Póvov ypaqi, ii. 386, b.
‘Pop&eta, i. 357, b ; ii. 840, b.
‘Popeaſpépoi, ii. 14, a.
‘Popetov, ii. 14, a.
‘Péputyé, ii. 105, a.
‘popués, ii. 677, b.
‘Pópos, i. 138, b ; ii. 387, a ;
ii. 772, a.
$optºs, ii. 209, b.
*parpía, i. 444, a ; ii. 875, a.
*parpíapxos, i. 906, a.
*patpukov Ypaupiateſov, i. 26, a.
*pdrop, i. 905, b.
£poupé, i. 772, b.
oftcov, ii.
*poſpapxot, i. 750, a.
*purcroi, ii. 516, a. ,
$vyń, i. 816, b.
‘Pokos, i. 880, a.
‘PvNaketov, i. 377, a.
‘PöAakes, i. 750, a ; ii. 344, b.
‘Puńakräptov, i. 118, a.
*5Xapxoi, ii. 388, a.
‘Pvxh, i. 775, a ; ii. 875, a.
‘PvNo8aanxeſs, i. 442, a ; i.
762, b ; ii. 388, b.
*WXov, ii. 875, a.
*ēoral, i. 870, a.
divoruká, ii. 299, a.
*wæeów, -os, ii. 95, b.
$60 orwV, ii. 944, b,
‘Pataywyot, i. 663, b.
$óri-yé, ii. 841, a.
X.
XaAao r^pia, i. 385, a.
XaAlvás, i. 876, a ; ii. 217, b.
XaAketa, i. 408, a.
XáAkelov, i. 558, b.
XàAkioſkia, i. 409, a.
XaAktov, i. 409, a.
XaXicioués, ii. 742, a.
XaAkós, i. 38, b.
XaAkoús, i. 409, a.
Xapeivm, ii. 18, a.
Xaueðviov, ii. 18, a.
Xápakes, ii. 918, b.
Xapixa, i. 409, a.
Xapóviot ſcAiuakes, ii. 817, b.
Xéðpotra, i. 68, a.
Xel'Nothp, ii. 840, b.
Xetua, Xetuáv, i. 233, a.
Xeip, ii. 854, a.
Xelpápača, -lov, i. 411, a.
Xelpíðes, ii. 120, b.
Xeiptówros xitóv, ii. 903, b.
XeipoğaxAtoºrpa, i. 169, b.
Xelpöypaqov, i. 411, a ; ii.
746, b
2 we
Xelpoxağſis, i. 159, b.
Xelpóuaktpov, i. 394, a ; ii.
125, b.
Xeipovítrpov, i.
125, b.
Xeipovouſa, i. 409, b ; i. 930, a.
XeipóTexval, i. 195, b.
Xe-poroveſv, i. 409, b.
Xeuporovnrot, i. 409, b.
Xeipotovía, i. 409, b.
Xepovyta, i. 412, a.
Xetpov, i. 222, b.
Xelpávalores, i. 195, b.
Xeipováštov, i. 196, a.
Xextóóvia, i. 410, a.
Xexiàoviorrat, i. 410, b.
XeXAmoróes, ii. 876, a.
XéAvs, i. 217, b.
XéAvoga, ii. 216, a.
Xexdºwn, ii. 807, b.
XeX&viov, ii. 854, a.
Xepvires, i. 195, b.
Xepvifleſov, i. 410, b.
410, b ; ii.
3 U 2
1028
º, #
GREEK INDEX.
xépvigov, i.410; b.
Xépwiſh, ii. 125, b.
Xmaaſ, i. 220, a.
Xmxh, i. 410, a.
Xm?Aós, i. 160, b.
Xmuſh, i. 410, b.
Xmvlakos, ii. 216, b.
Xmpoo rat, i. 946, a.
X66via, i. 426, b.
Xixtapxot, i. 797, a.
Xirév, ii. 902, b.
, &pſpuéoxaxos, ii. 322, a.
, Érepouáoxaxos,ii. 322,a.
, Öp600 réðios, ii. 904, b.
,, arpetrós, ii. 903, a.
, oxtortós, ii. 905, a.
, xeiptăorés, ii. 903, b.
Xitſºvia, i. 415, b.
Xurévuov, ii. 904, a.
Xtrovía kos, ii. 904, a.
XAalva, ii. 3, b ; ii. 17, b; ii.
318, b.
XAapºſs, i. 415, b.
XXapºlov, i. 416, a.
XAavíðuov, ii. 321, a.
XAavis, i. 774, b; ii. 321, a.
XAaviorkov, ii. 321, a.
XXóela, i. 417, a.
XAoud, i. 417, a.
Xvoh, i. 578, a.
Xoat, i. 888, a ; ii. 581, a.
Xóes, i. 638, b.
Xoeës, i. 424, a.
Xolvikſs, i. 417, a.
Xoivucouérpat, ii. 657, b.
Xolvić, i. 417, a ; ii. 228, b.
Xoupe&tou, ii. 875, b.
Xoupºval, ii. 516, a.
Xopayás, i. 420, b.
XopačAms, ii. 739, b.
Xopevraſ, i. 420, a.
Xopmyslov, i. 417, b; ii. 818, a.
Xopmyia, i. 417, a.
Xopmyós, i. 417, a.
xopo6töáokaxos, i. 417, b.
Xopoxékºrms, i. 417, b; i. 420, b.
Xoporoués, i. 420, b.
Xopós, i. 419, a ; i. 931, a.
, kūkatos, ii. 858, a.
, Tpayikós, ii. 858, a.
Xopoordºrms, i. 420, b.
Xoptatos, ii. 378, b.
Xolos, i. 424, a.
Xpatveiv, ii. 390, b.
Xpéovs 8trem, i. 424, a.
Xpewkoria, ii. 617, a.
Xped orms, i. 832, b.
Xphuata, ii. 248, b.
Xpmuariatat, i. 195, b.
Xpmopot, i. 645, b.
XpmouðMoyol, i.
669, a.
Xpmothplov, ii. 277, b.
Xpharms, i. 832, b.
Xpmoto'ypaqta, ii. 413, b.
Xpovox.oyfa, i. 424, b.
Xpwortov, i. 262, a.
Xpva'és, i. 260, b.
Xpworówntol, i. 555, a ; ii. 656, b.
Xpwooths, ii. 396, a.
Xpéſelv, ii. 390, b.
Xpôpia, ii. 390, b.
Xúrpa, i. 426, b, ii. 267, a.
Xörpal, i. 47, b.
Xvrpets, i. 842, a.
Xörpot, i. 639, b.
Xvrporać60s, i. 842, a.
Xúrpos, i. 426, b, ii. 267, a.
Xópia, i. 43, b.
X&pai, ii. 12, a.
Xapls oikoúvres, ii. 62, a.
Xopo6&rms, i. 419, a.
646, a ; ii.
W.
WóAtov, i. 876, b.
WaAſs, i. 872, b.
VéAtov, i. 191, b.
Yevöeyypaqºis ypaſpſ, ii. 518, b.
Yevö0ötirrepos, ii. 775, b.
Yevööðupov, i. 987, a.
YevöokAmreſa's ypaq h, i. 456, b :
ii. 519, a.
Yevöoköpm, ii. 377, b.
Wevöopapruptóv Šíkm, ii. 129, a.
Yevöotreptirrepos, ii. 776, b.
Whquapa, i. 312, a ; i. 700, b :
ii. 243, a.
Yāqos, i. 130, a ; ii. 11, a ; ii.
397, b, ii. 516, a.
WiNot, i. 190, a.
WiNets, i. 421, a.
WiNord tribes, ii. 762, a.
VíAø6pov, ii. 519, b.
Wvkºrhp, ii. 519, b.
Wvxotropºretov, ii. 292, a.
Q.
'Claptov, i. 221, a.
'08at, i. 914, a.
'08eſov, ii. 822, a.
'Qöh, i. 422, a.
'QAévm, ii. 976, a.
'Qud, i. 844, b.
‘Quoqayta, ii. 303, a.
'006vruká, ii. 300, b.
'Qoorkotrikā, ii. 300, b.
'Qookūquov, i. 427, a.
“opa, i. 970, b.
‘Opatov Štaiptówov, ii. 378, a.
'Opelov, i. 975, b.
*Optov, i. 221, a.
‘OpoAóvtov, i. 972, b.
‘Opoorkótros, i. 213, b.
°00'xoq6pta, ii. 303, b.
°0'ra, ii. 780, a.
*Oxpos, i. 70, a.
A.
Abactores, i. 3, a.
Abaculus, i. 1, a.
Abacus, i. 1, a.
Abalienatio, ii. 117, b.
Abamita, i. 469, a.
Abavia, i. 469, a.
Abavunculus, i 469, a.
Abavus, i. 469, a.
Abigeatores, i. 3, a.
Abigei, i. 3, a.
Abmatertera, i. 469, a.
Abnepos, i. 469, a.
Abneptis, i. 469, a.
Abnormis, ii. 243, b.
Abolla, i. 3, b.
Abortio, i. 4, a.
Abortus, i. 4, a.
Abpatruus, i. 469, a.
Abrasax, i. 4, a.
Abraxas, i. 4, a.
Abrogare legem, ii. 33, a.
Abrogatio magistratus, i. 4, b.
Absentia, ii. 544, a.
Absinthites, ii. 966, b.
Absis, i. 4, b.
Absolutio, i. 17, b ; i. 1030, b.
Abstinendi beneficium, i. 948, b.
Abusus, ii. 988, a.
Acapna, i. 5, a.
Accensi, i. 5, a ; i. 782, b.
Accensus, i. 5, b.
Acceptilatio, i. 6, a.
Acceptum, or Accepto, facere,
or ferre, i. 6, a.
Acceptum habere, i. 6, a.
Accessio, i. 6, b.
Acclamatio, i. 7, a.
Accubatio, i. 7, a.
Accubitalia, i. 7, a.
Accubitio, i. 7, a.
Accubitum, i. 7, a; ii. 157, b.
Accusatio, i. 1027, a.
Accusator, i. 23, a ; i. 1028, b.
Acerra, i. 7, b. -
Acetabulum, i. 7, b; i. 8, a.
Acetum, ii. 966, a.
Achaicum foedus, i. 8, a.
Acies, i. 807, b.
Acilia lex, ii. 34, b ; ii. 542, b.
Acilia Calpurnia lex, ii. 34, b.
Acinaces, i. 10, a.
Aciscularius, i. 209, a.
Acisculus, i. 209, a.
Aclis, Aclys, i. 385, a.
LATIN IN DEX.
Acna, Acnua, i. 10, b ; i. 57, b.
Acquisitiones civiles, i. 653, a.
35 naturales,i. 653, a.
Acratophorum, i. 10, b.
Acroama, i. 11, a.
Acropodium, i. 11, a.
Acropolis, i. 11, b; ii. 907, b.
Acroterium, i. 11, b.
Acta, i. 12, a.
, diurna, i. 12, b.
;, forensia, i. 13, b.
, jurare in, i. 12, a.
, militaria, i. 13, b.
, patrum, i. 12, a.
, senatus, i. 12, a ; ii. 630, b.
Actarius, i. 12, a ; i. 13, a.
Actia, i. 14, a.
Actio, i. 14, a ; i. 1018, a.
, adjectitiae qualitatis, i.
766, a.
, de aedibus incensis, i.
595, b.
, aestimatoria, i. 1010, b ;
ii. 535, a.
, albi corrupti, i. 96, b.
, aquae pluviae arcendae,
i. 157, a.
, arbitraria, i. 18, b.
, de arboribus succisis, i.
595, b.
, auctoritatis, i. 246, b.
, bonae fidei, i. 22, a.
, bonorum vi raptorum,
i. 896, b.
, certi, incerti, i. 406, b.
, civilis, i. 21, a.
, commodati, i. 513, a.
, communi dividundo, i.
513, b.
, per condictionem, i. 16, a.
, confessoria, i. 527, b; ii.
655, a.
, damni injuria dati, i.
595, a.
,, dejecti effusive, i. 609, b.
, depensi, i. 1014, b.
, depositi, i. 618, a.
, directa, i. 21, b.
, de distrahendis rationi-
bus, i. 897, a.
, de dolo malo, ii. 543, b.
, de effusis et ejectis, ii.
961, b.
, empti et venditi, i. 731, b.
, exercitoria, i. 766, a.
, ad exhibendum, i. 813, a.
, extra ordinem, i. 22, b.
Actio
in factum, i. 21, b. .
familiae erciscundae, i.
825, a.
famosa, ii. 63, a.
fictitia, i. 855, b.
fiduciaria, i. 22, a.
finium regundorum, i.
859, b. -
furti, i. 895, b.
honoraria, i. 21, a.
hypothecaria, ii. 419, b.
injuriarum, i. 1010, b;
ii. 961, a.
institoria, i. 1012, a.
institutoria, i. 1014, a.
judicati, i. 1031, b.
in judicio, i. 1040, b.
per judicispostulationem,
i. 15, b.
in jure, i. 1040, b.
quod jussu, i. 1052, a.
legis, or legitima, i. 14,
a ; ii. 67, a.
locati conducti, i. 387, a.
mandati, ii. 120, a.
per manus injectionem,i.
16, a. -
mutui, ii. 201, a.
negativa, i. 653, a.
negatoria, i. 527, b; i.
653, a; ii. 655, a.
negotiorum gestorum, i.
22, a ; i. 226, b.
noxalis, ii. 246, a.
de pastu pecoris, i. 595, b.
de pauperie, ii. 360, a.
de peculio, ii. 661, b.
perpetua, ii. 481, a.
persecutoria, ii. 481, a.
in personam, i. 15, b.
pignoratitia, ii. 421, a.
poenalis, i. 22, a.
popularis, ii. 962, a.
praejudicialis, ii. 479, a.
praetoria, i. 21, a.
Publiciana in rem, i. 21,b;
i. 653, a ; ii. 523, b.
quadrupli, i. 895, b.
quanti minoris, ii. 535, a.
de rationibus distrahen-
dis, ii. 911, b.
de recepto, ii. 539, a.
redhibitoria, ii. 540, a.
rei uxoriae, or dotis, i.
694, a.
in rem, i. 15, b.
de in rem verso, ii. 661, b.
1080
LATIN INDEX.
Actio rerum amotarum, i.897,a.
„ restitutoria, ii. 545, a.
,, de rupitiis, i. 595, b.
,, Rutiliana, i. 306, b.
,, sacramenti, i. 15, a ; ii.
958, a.
,, sepulchri violati, ii. 961,
,, Serviana, ii. 419, b.
,, de servo Occelso or occiso,
i. 595, b.
,, pro socio, ii. 680, a.
,, ex stipulatu, i. 694, a.
,, stricti juris, i. 22, a.
,, temporalis, ii. 481, a.
,, de tigno juncto, i. 897, a.
,, tributoria, ii. 661, b.
,, tutelae, ii. 911, b.
,, utilis, i. 21, b.
,, vindictam spirans, ii.
961, a.
Actor, i. 23, a.
,, praedii, ii. 957, b.
,, publicus, i. 23, a.
,, rerum privatarum nos-
trarum, i. 23, a.
Actuariae naves, ii. 223, a.
Actuarii, i. 12, a ; i. 13, a; i.
23, a ; ii. 245, b.
9) centuriales, i. 85, a.
Actus, i. 23, b ; ii. 162, a.
„ minimus, i. 23, b.
,, quadratus, i. 23, b ; i.
- 57, b ; ii. 163, b.
,, servitus, ii. 653, b.
», simplex, i. 23, b.
Acus, i. 23, b ; i. 68, a.
Adamas, i. 118, a.
Adclamationes, ii. 630, b.
Adcrescendi jure, i. 951, a.
Addico, i. 246, a ; i. 1040, a.
Addicti, ii. 229, b.
Addictio, ii. 230, b.
Ademptio, ii. 22, b.
99 equi, i. 402, a.
Adeptio, ii. 983, b.
Adfines, i. 42, b.
Adfinitas, i. 42, b.
Adgnati, i. 468, a.
Adgnatio, i. 468, a.
Aditio hereditatis, i. 1021, b.
Adjectio, i. 737, b ; ii. 780, b ;
ii. 983, b.
Adjudicatio, i. 17, b ; i. 653, b.
Adlecti, i. 24, b ; ii. 624, a.
Adlectio, i. 24, b ; ii. 622, a.
Adlector, i. 25, a.
Adlocutio, i. 25, a.
Adminicula hominum, i. 60, a.
Admissio, i. 25, a.
Admissionales, i. 25, a.
Admissionis primae, secundae,
&c., amici, i. 25, a.
Adnepos, i. 469, a.
Adneptis, i. 469, a.
Adnotatio, i. 531, b.
Adobruere, i. 63, b.
Adolescentes, i. 1000, a.
Adonia, i. 25, a.
Adoptio, i. 25, b.
9» apud praetorem, i.
$
Adoptio per populum, i. 26, b.
Adoratio, i. 28, b.
Adrogatio, i. 26, b.
Adscripti glebae, ii. 656, b; ii.
664, b.
Adscripticii, i. 782, b.
Adsertor, i. 211, b.
Adsessor, i. 211, b.
Adsidui, ii. 70, b.
Adstipulatio, ii. 257, a.
Adstipulator, ii. 257, a.
Adventus, i. 30, a.
Adversaria, i. 30, a.
Adversarius, i. 23, a.
Adulterium (Greek), i. 29, a.
99 (Romam), i. 29, b.
Adulti, i. 1000, a.
Advocatus, i. 30, b.
99 fisci, i. 30, b.
Adytum, ii. 774, b.
Aebutia lex, i. 405, b ; ii. 34, b.
Aedes, i. 665, a; ii. 773, a.
,, sacra, ii. 773, a.
Aedicula, i. 31, a.
Aediculae, i. 31, a ; ii. 645, a.
Aediles, i. 31, b.
,, cereales, i. 33, a.
Aeditimi, i. 33, b.
Aeditui, i. 33, b.
Aeditumi, i. 33, b.
Aegis, i. 34, a.
Aelia lex, ii. 35, a.
,, Sentia lex, ii. 35, a; ii.
357, a.
Aemilia lex, ii. 35, b.
,, Baebia lex, ii. 39, b.
,, Lepidi lex, ii. 725, a.
,, Scauri lex, ii. 725, a.
Aematores, i. 35, b.
Aenigma, i. 35, b.
Aenum, i. 35, b.
Aequipondium, ii. 696, a.
Aera, i. 425, b.
Aerarii, i. 36, b.
,, Praefecti, i. 38, a.
,, Praetores, i. 38, b.
,, Quaestores, i. 38, a.
,, Tribuni, i. 40, b ; ii.
871, a.
Aerarium, i. 37, a.
9 ) militare, i. 37, b.
99 Praetores ad, i. 38, b.
9» sanctius, i. 37, b.
99 sanctum, i. 37, b.
Aerii nummi, i. 40, a.
Aero, i. 38, b.
Aes, i. 38, b ; ii. 844, b.
Aes (money), i. 40, a.
,, Aegineticum, i. 39, a.
,, alienum, i. 40, a.
,, circumforaneum, i. 40, b.
,, Corinthiacum, i. 39, a.
,, Deliacum, i. 39, a.
,, equestre, i. 40, b.
,, grave, i. 40, b; i. 202, a.
„ hordearium, or hordiarium,
i. 40, b.
,, manuarium, i. 40, b.
militare, i. 40, b.
,, rude, i. 41, a; i. 201, b.
,, thermarum, i. 271, b.
„ uxorium, i. 41, a.
9
»
Aestivae feriae, i. 839, a.
Aetolicum concilium, i. 41, b.
99 foedus, i. 41, a.
Affines, i. 42, b.
Affinitas, i. 42, b.
Agaso, i. 43, a.
Agema, i. 43, b; i. 772, a.
Ager, i. 49, b ; i. 84, b ; i.
884, b.
,, arcifinius, i. 84, b.
,, assignatus, i. 86, b.
,, concessus, i. 87, a.
,, divisus et assignatus, i.
84, b.
,, effatus, ii. 443, b.
,, emphyteusis, i. 730, b.
,, emphyteuticaria praedia,
i. 731, b.
,, limitatus, i. 86, b.
,, mensura comprehensus,
i. 84, b.
,, occupatorius, i. 52, b ; i.
89, b.
», privatus, i. 53, a.
,, publicus, i. 49, b ; ii.
509, a.
,, quaestorius, i. 50, a.
,, redditus, i. 51, a.
,, restibilis, i. 62, b; i. 68,
a; i. 72, a.
,, sanctus, i. 43, b.
,, scamnatus, i. 89, a.
,, scripturarius, ii. 613, b.
,, strigatus, i. 89, a.
,, vectigalis, i. 51, a ; i.
730, b.
,, viritanus, i. 50, b.
Agger, i. 43, b.
Agitator, i. 437, a.
Agmen, i. 806, b.
,, quadratum, i. 807, a.
Agnati, i. 468, b.
Agnatio, i. 468, a.
Agnomen, ii. 234, b.
Agolum, i. 44, a.
Agonales, ii. 589, b.
9» dies, i. 44, a.
Agonalia, i. 44, a.
Agonensis, ii. 589, b.
Agonia, i. 44, a.
Agora, i. 44, b.
Agoranomi, i. 49, a.
Agrariae leges, i. 49, b.
Agraulia, i. 54, b.
Agricultura, i. 55, a.
Agrimensores, i. 83, b.
Agrimetatio, i. 84, b.
Agripetae, i. 477, a.
Agronomi, i. 93, a.
Ahematores, i. 35, b.
Ahenum, i. 35, b.
Ala, i. 95, a.
Alabarches, i. 95, a.
Alabaster, i. 95, b.
Alabastrum, i. 95, b.
Alae, i. 380, b ; i. 670, b ; i.
786, b; i. 790, b.
Alares, i. 95, a.
Alarii, i. 95, a.
Alauda, i. 96, a.
,, legio, i. 96, a.
Albarium opus, ii. 346, a.
LATIN INDEX.
1031
Albogalerus, i. 135, b.
Album, i. 96, b.
2, decurionum, i. 96, b.
, judicum, i. 96, b; i.
1029, a.
» Senatorum, i. 96, b.
Alea, i. 96, b.
Aleator, i. 96, b.
Ales, i. 218, a ; i. 250, a.
Alica, i. 66, b.
Alicula, i. 97, a.
Alimentarii pueri et puellae, i.
97, b.
Alipilus, i. 98, a.
Aliptae, i. 98, a.
Allecti, i. 24, b.
Alluvio, i. 98, b.
Altare, i. 57, b.
Altercationes, ii. 629, b.
Altius non tollendi servitus, ii.
653, a.
Aluta, i. 334, b.
Amanuensis, i. 99, a.
Ambacti, i. 99, a.
Ambarvalia, i. 99, a ; i. 200, b.
Ambitio, i. 100, b.
Ambitus, i. 100, a.
Ambrosia, i. 101, b.
Ambubaiae, i. 101, b.
Ambulationes, i. 977, a ; ii.
951, b.
Amburbiale, i. 101, b.
Amburbium, i. 101, b.
Amentum, i. 935, b.
Amicire, i. 101, b.
Amictorium, i. 101, b.
Amictus, i. 101, b.
Amiculum, i. 101, b.
Amita, i. 469, a.
Amnis, i. 221, b.
Amphictyones, i. 102, b.
Amphimalla, ii. 762, a.
Amphitapae, ii. 762, a.
Amphitheatrum, i. 106, b.
Amphora, i. 115, a ; ii. 530, b ;
ii. 964, b. -
Ampliatio, i. 1030, a.
Amptruare, ii. 590, a.
Ampulla, i. 116, b.
Ampullarius, i. 117, b.
Amuletum, i. 118, a.
Amurca, ii. 265, a ; ii. 850, b.
Amussis, or Amussium, i. 120, b.
Amylum, i. 66, b.
Amystis, i. 120, b.
Anagnostae, i. 121, a.
Anancaeum, i. 123, a.
Anates, i. 79, b.
Anatocismus, i. 123, a ; i.
835, a.
Ancilia, ii. 590, b.
Ancilla, ii. 662, a.
Ancones, ii. 545, b.
Andabatae, i. 917, b.
Andromeda, or Andromede, i.
218, b.
Angaria, i. 124, b.
Angariorum exhibitio, or prae-
statio, i. 124, b.
Angiportus, or Angiportum, i.
124, b.
Anguifer, i. 218, a.
Anguis, i. 217, a ; i. 218, b; i.
222, b.
Anguitenens, i. 218, a.
Angustus clavus, i. 453, b.
Animadversio censoria, i. 401, a.
Animus furandi, i. 895, a.
Anio novus, i. 150, a.
, vetus, i. 148, a.
Annales maximi, i. 829, b ; ii.
462, a.
Annalis lex, ii. 36, a.
Annona, i. 124, b.
, civica, i. 879, b ; ii.
993, b.
Annulus, i. 129, b.
Annus magnus, i. 337, a.
2, vertens, i. 340, b.
Anquina, ii. 223, b.
Anquisitio, i. 1027, a.
Ansa, i. 562, b, ii. 696, a.
Anseres, i. 79, a.
Antae, i. 125, a.
Anteambulones, i. 125, b.
Antecanis, or Antecanem, i.
222, a.
Antecenia, i. 395, a.
Antecessor, i. 1039, b.
Antecessores, i. 125, b.
Antecursores, i. 125, b.
Antefix, i. 849, b.
Antefixa, i. 125, b.
Antemeridianum
635, b.
Antenna, ii. 217, b.
Antepagmenta, i. 126, b; i.
987, a.
Antepilani, i. 785, a.
Antesignani, i. 807, b ; ii.
672, b.
Antestatio, i. 14, a.
Antia lex, ii. 725, a.
Antichresis, ii. 420, b.
Anticum, i. 987, a.
Antidos, i. 690, b.
Antinoeia, i. 128, b.
Antinous, i. 218, b.
Antiquarii, ii. 64, a.
Antistes, ii. 943, b.
Antlia, i. 128, b.
Antoniae leges, ii. 36, a.
Anuli aurei jus, i. 132, a.
Anulorum jus, i. 133, a.
Anulus, i. 129, b.
Apaturia, i. 134, b.
Apes, i. 81, a.
Apex, i. 135, b.
Apicula, i. 135, b.
Aplustre, ii. 216, b.
Apocha, i. 6, a.
Apodectae, i. 136, b; ii. 677, b.
Apodyterium, i. 272, b.
Apollinares ludi, ii. 89, b.
Apophoreta, i. 138, b.
Apotheca, i. 139, b.
Apotheosis, i. 139, b.
Apparitores, i. 144, a.
Appellatio (Greek), i. 144, a.
33 (Roman), i. 144, b.
Applicatio, i. 820, a ; ii. 435, b.
Applicationis jus, i. 820, a ; ii.
435, b.
Apsis, i. 4, b.
i
º
tempus,
Apuleia lex, i. 1014, b ; ii. 36, a.
2, agraria lex, ii. 36, a.
, frumentaria lex, i.
878, a.
, majestatis lex, ii. 36, a ;
ii. 114, b.
Aqua, i. 220, b.
3, Alexandrina, i. 151, a.
, Algentia, i. 151, a.
». Alsietina, or Augusta, i.
150, a.
» Appia, i. 148, a.
, caduca, i. 155, b.
» Claudia, i. 150, a.
2, Crabra, i. 151, b.
» Julia, i. 149, a.
, Marcia, i. 148, a.
» pluvia, i. 157, a.
, Septimiana, i. 151, a.
, Tepula, i. 149, a.
, Trajana, i. 151, a.
, Virgo, i. 149, a.
Aquae ductus, i. 146, b.
2, ductus servitus, ii. 653, b.
,, effusio, i. 220, b.
,, haustusservitus, ii.653,b.
2, et ignis interdictio, i.
820, a.
3, pluviae arcendae actio,
i. 157, a.
Aquaelicium, i. 156, b.
Aquaemanalis, i. 157, a.
Aquarii, i. 157, a.
Aquarioli, i. 157, a.
Aquarius, i. 220, b.
Aquila, i. 218, b ; ii. 672, a.
Aquilia lex, i. 595, b.
Aquilicium, i. 156, b.
Aquilifer, i. 801, a.
Ara, i. 157, a ; i. 222, b.
Arabarches, i. 158, b.
Aratio, i. 60, b.
Aratrum, i. 159, a.
Aratrum auritum, i. 60, b.
Arbiter, i. 15, b ; i. 1026, a.
Arbiter bibendi, ii. 743, a.
Arbitraria actio, i. 18, b.
Arbitria, i. 1026, b.
Arbitrium, i. 1026, b.
Arbor infelix, i. 160, b.
Arbusculae, i. 932, b ; ii. 433, b.
Arca, i. 160, b ; ii. 935, b.
o, publica, i. 161, b.
Arcadicum foedus, i. 162, a.
Arcarius, i. 161, b ; ii. 936, a.
Arcera, i. 162, b.
Archiater, i. 162, b.
Archimimus, i. 891, b ; ii. 173, a.
Architectura, i. 163, b.
Archium, ii. 805, b.
Archon, i. 165, a.
Arcifinius ager, i. 84, b.
Arcirma, i. 169, b.
Arcitenens, i. 220, b.
Arctophylax, i. 217, a.
Arctos Lycaonis, i. 216, b.
,, Parrhasis, i. 216, b.
Arcturus, i. 217, a.
Arctus major, i. 216, a.
, minor, i. 216, b.
Arcuballista, i. 169, a.
Arculum, i. 169, b.
1032
LATIN INDEX.
Arcuma, i. 169, b. v
Arcus, i. 169, b; i. 171, a ; i.
220, b.
, Augusti, i. 173, b.
, Claudii, i. 173, b.
, Constantini, i. 174, b.
, Drusi, i. 173, b.
, Gallieni, i. 174, b.
, Septimii Severi, i. 174, a.
, Tiberii, i. 173, b.
, Titi, i. 174, a.
, Trajani, i. 174, a.
, triumphalis, i. 172, a.
Area, i. 64, a ; i. 175, a; i. 245,
a ; i. 884, b.
Areiopagus, i. 175, a.
Arena, i. 110, b; i. 113, a ; i.
178, b; i. 435, b.
Arenaria, ii. 422, b.
Arenariae, ii. 933, a.
Arenarii, i. 179, a.
Arepennis, i. 23, b.
Aretalogi, i. 179, a.
Argei, i. 179, a.
Argentarii, i. 179, b.
Argentum, i. 183, a.
99 vivum, ii. 167, b.
Argilla, i. 842, a.
Argo, i. 222, b.
Argyraspides, i. 184, b.
Aries, i. 185, b ; i. 219, a.
Arinca, i. 67, b.
Arithmetica, i. 187, b; ii. 71, a.
Arma, Armatura, i. 189, b.
Armamenta, i. 190, b.
Armamentarium, i. 190, b.
Armarium, i. 161, a ; i. 191, a ;
i. 298, a.
Armatura levis, i. 190, a.
Armelausa, i. 191, a.
Armilausa, i. 191, a.
Armilla, i. 191, b ; ii. 868, a.
Armillum, i. 192, b.
Armilustrium, i. 192, b.
Aromatites, ii. 966, b.
Arquites, ii. 588, a.
Arra, Arrabo, i. 193, a.
Arrogatio, i. 26, b.
Artaba, i. 194, a.
Artifices, i. 194, b.
Artopta, ii. 431, b.
Arvales Fratres, i. 198, a.
Arundo, ii. 588, a ; ii. 765, a.
Arura, i. 197, b.
Aruspices, i. 934, a.
Arvum, i. 72, a.
Arx, i. 200, b.
As, i. 201, b; ii. 63, a.
, libralis, i 202, b.
Ascia, i. 208, b.
Asclepiadae, ii. 152, b.
Asellus, i. 76, b.
Asiarchae, i. 210, b.
Asinus, i. 76, b.
Assa, i. 277, b.
Assarius, i. 211, a.
Asser, i. 211, a.
Asseres falcati, i. 211, b; i.
824, a.
, lecticarii, ii. 14, b.
Assertor, i. 211, b.
Assertus, i. 211, b.
Assessor, i. 211, b.
Assiduitas, i. 100, a.
Astragalus, i. 212, a ; ii. 247,
a ; ii. 759, a.
Astrologi, i. 213, a.
Astrologia, i. 212, b.
Astronomi, i. 213, a.
Astronomia, i. 214, a.
Asyli jus, i. 235, a.
Asylum, i. 235, a.
Atavia, i. 469, a.
Atavus, i. 469, a.
Atellanae Fabulae, i. 522, b.
Aternia Tarpeia lex, ii. 36, b.
Athenaeum, i. 236, b.
Athletae, i. 237, a.
Atia lex, ii. 36, b.
Atilia lex, ii. 36, b.
Atinia lex, ii. 36, b.
Atlantes, i. 243, b.
Atlantides, i. 219, b.
Atramentale, i. 244, b.
Atramentarium, i. 244, b.
Atramentum, i. 244, a ; ii.
392, b.
Atrium, i. 245, a ; i. 274, a ; i.
669, b.
Atticurges, i. 245, a.
Auceps, i. 245, b.
Auctio, i. 245, b.
Auctor, i. 246, a ; ii. 722, a.
Auctoramentum, i. 297, a ; i.
916, b.
Auctorati, i. 916, b.
Auctores fieri, i. 246, a.
Auctoritas, i. 246, b ; ii. 637, b.
99 Patrum, i. 247, a ;
i. 506, a.
55 senatus, ii. 630, b ;
ii. 637, b.
Auctoritatem imponere, i.246,b.
Aucupium, i. 245, b.
Auditores, i. 1037, b.
Auditorium, i. 247, b ; ii.
814, b.
Avena, i. 67, b.
Averta, ii. 122, a.
Aufidia lex, i. 101, a.
Augmenta, ii. 586, b.
Augur, i. 248, a.
Auguraculum, i. 201, a ; ii.
772, b. -
Augurale, i. 251, b.
Auguratorium, i. 380, b.
Augurium, i. 248, a ; i. 646, b.
95 ex avibus, i. 250, a.
5» ex caelo, i. 249, b.
55 ex diris, i. 251, a.
ex quadrupedibus, i.
3) ex tripudiis, i. 250, b.
Augustales, i. 257, b; i. 258, a.
Augustalia, i. 257, b.
Augustus, i. 259, b.
Avia, i. 469, a.
Aviaria, i. 77, b; i. 78, a.
Avis, i. 218, a.
Aula, i. 259, b ; ii. 267, a.
Aulaeum, i. 259, b; ii. 821, b.
Aurarius, ii. 155, a.
Aurelia lex, i. 1028, a.
Aures, i. 159, b.
Aureus nummus, i. 207, a ; i.
260, b. -
Aurichalcum, ii. 297, a.
Auriculae ormatrix, i. 1002, b.
Auriga, i. 218, a ; i. 437, a.
Aurigae manus, i. 218, a.
Aurigator, i. 218, a.
Aurum, i. 260, b.
, coronarium, i. 262, a.
, lustrale, i. 262, b.
Auspex, i. 248, a.
Auspicium, i. 248, a.
Authenticum, ii. 246, a.
Authepsa, i. 263, a.
Autonomi, i. 263, b.
Avunculus, i. 469, a.
Avus, i. 469, a.
Auxilia, i. 787, a ; i. 790, a ;
ii. 683, b.
Auxiliares, i. 787, a.
Axamenta, ii. 590, b.
Axis, i. 578, a.
B.
Babylonicum, i. 264, b.
Babylonii, i. 213, a.
37 numeri, i. 213, a.
Bacchanalia, i. 264, b.
Baculum, i. 265, b.
Baebia lex, ii. 36, b.
, Aemilia lex, ii. 39, b.
Bajulus, i. 266, a.
Balatro, i. 266, a.
Balineae, i. 266, b.
Ralineum, i. 266, b; i. 269, a.
Ballista, ii. 855, a.
Balneae, i. 266, b.
Balnearium, i. 269, b.
Balneator, i. 270, b ; i. 274, a.
Balneum, i. 266, b ; i. 269, a.
Baltearius, i. 284, b.
Balteus, or Baltea, i. 284, a ; ii.
847, b.
Baptisterium, i. 275, b.
Barathrum, i. 285, a.
Barba, i. 285, a.
Barbati bene, i. 286, a.
Barbatuli, i. 286, a.
Bardocucullus, i. 571, b.
Baris, i. 286, b.
Bascauda, i. 287, a.
Basilica (building), i. 287, a.
, (legal work), i. 292, b.
Basilicus, ii. 760, a.
Basilium, i. 293, b.
Bassara, -is, i. 293, b.
Bastagarii, i. 294, a.
Basterna, i. 294, a.
Batavi, i. 795, b.
Batiaca, i. 294, b.
Batillum, i. 294, b.
Baxae, or Baxeae, i. 294, b.
Bellaria, i. 397, b.
Bellicrepa saltatio, ii. 594, b.
Beneficiarius, i. 296, a ; i. 804, a.
Beneficium, i. 296, a ; i. 994, b.
99 abstinendi, i. 948, b.
LATIN INDEX.
1033
Benignitas, i. 100, a.
Benna, i. 296, b.
Berenices coma, or crinis, i.
223, a.
Bes, ii. 455, a.
Besa, bessa, i. 296, b.
Bestia, i. 222, b.
Bestiarii, i. 297, a.
Bibasis, ii. 594, a.
Bibliopola, ii. 60, a.
Bibliotheca, i. 297, b.
Bidens, i. 298, b ; ii. 311, b.
Bidental, i. 298, b.
Bidiaei, i. 298, b.
Biga, or Bigae, i. 579, b.
Bigati, i. 299, a.
Billix, ii. 767, a.
Bipalium, ii. 312, a.
Bipennis, ii. 616, a.
Biremis, ii. 209, b.
Birrus, i. 299, a.
Bisaccium, i. 965, a.
Bisellium, ii. 620, a.
Bisextum, i. 344, a.
Bisextus, i. 344, b.
Bissextilis annus, i. 344, b.
Boiae, i. 302, b.
Bombycinum, ii. 649, b.
Bombyx, ii. 649, b.
Bona, i. 303, a.
, caduca, i. 304, a.
, fides, i. 304, b.
» rapta, i. 896, b.
o, vacantia, i. 305, a.
Bonam copiam jurare, i. 305, b.
Bonorum cessio, i. 305, b.
59 collatio, i. 306, a.
37 emtio, et emtor, i.
306, a.
35 possessio, i. 307, a.
33 viraptorum, actio, i.
896, b.
Boötes, i. 217, a.
Boves Icarii, i. 216, b.
Bracae, i. 314, b.
Bracchiale, i. 315, b.
Branchidae, ii. 287, a.
Brattea, i. 316, a.
Bratteator, i. 316, a.
Bravium, i. 437, b.
Breviarium, i. 316, b.
35 Alaricianum, i.
316, b.
Bruttiani, i. 317, b.
Bucco, i. 522, b.
Bucculae, i. 899, a.
Bucina, i. 317, b.
Bucinator, i. 35, b ; i. 318, a.
Bulga, i. 318, a.
Bulla, i. 318, b.
Bura, or Buris, i. 159, b.
Burranica potio, ii. 963, b.
Burrus, i. 299, a.
Bustum, i. 893, a.
Butyrum, i. 319, a.
Buxum, i. 319, a.
Byssus, i. 319, b.
C.
Caccabus, i. 35, b ; i. 321, a.
Caduceator, i. 323, a. -
Caduceus, i. 322, b.
Caducum, i. 304, a.
Cadurcum, i. 323, a.
Cadus, i. 323, a ; ii. 964, b.
Caecilia lex de censoribus, ii.
36, b.
35 lex de vectigalibus, ii.
37, a.
92 Didia lex, ii. 37, a.
Caelatura, i. 323, b.
Caelebs, ii. 44, a.
Caelia lex, ii. 752, a.
Caelibatus, ii. 45, b.
Caementa, -um, i. 327, b.
Caerimonia, ii. 573, a.
Caeritum tabulae, i. 36, b.
Caesar, i. 328, b.
Caestus, i. 328, b.
Caetra, i. 408, a.
Calamistrum, i. 329, a.
Calamus, i. 329, b.
Calathiscus, i. 330, a.
Calathus, i. 330, a.
Calator, i. 331, a.
Calautica, i. 331, b ; i. 502, a.
Calcar, i. 331, b.
Calceamen, i. 333, b.
Calceamentum, i. 333, b.
Calcearium, i. 453, a.
Calceus, i. 332, a.
Calculator, i. 336, a.
Calculi, i. 336, a.
Calda, i. 336, a.
2, lavatio, i. 282, b.
Caldarium, i. 272, a ; i. 336, b.
Calendae, i. 336, b.
29 Fabariae, i. 68, b.
Calendarium, i. 336, b ; i.
828, b.
Calida, i. 336, a.
Caliendrum, i. 346, a.
Caliga, i. 346, b.
Calix, i. 156, a ; i. 346, b ; i.
348, a.
Callis, i. 348, a.
Calo, i. 348, a.
Calpar, ii. 957, b.
Calpurnia lex de ambitu, i.
100, b.
7? » de repetundis,
ii. 542, a.
Calvatica, i. 502, a.
Calumnia, i. 349, a.
Calumniae judicium, i. 349, a.
, jusjurandum, i. 349, a.
Calx, i. 433, b.
Camara, i. 349, b.
Camera, i. 349, b.
Camillae, Camilli, i. 350, a ; ii.
144, a.
Caminus, i. 686, b.
Camisia, i. 350, a.
Campagus, i. 350, a.
Campestre, i. 350, a ; ii. 721, a.
Campidoctores, i. 350, b.
Campus sceleratus, ii. 942, b.
Canabae, ii. 69, b.
Canaliculus, i. 350, b ; ii. 854, a.
Canalis, i. 350, b. .
Cancellarius, i. 351, b.
Cancelli, i. 351, a ; i. 433, a.
Cancer, i. 219, b.
Candela, i. 351, b.
Candelabrum, i. 352, a
Candidarii, ii. 430, b.
Candidati, i. 802, a.
Candidatus, i. 100, a.
Canephorus, i. 354, a ; ii. 327, a.
Canes Pastorales, i. 77, a.
Canis, or Canis Sirius, i. 221, b.
, or Canicula, i. 221, b ;
i. 222, a.
, Venatici, i. 77, a.
, Villatici, i. 77, a.
Canistrum, i. 354, a.
Canna, i. 330, a.
Cannaba, i. 350, b.
Cannabis, i. 71, a.
Canon, i. 354, b.
Cantabrum, i. 356, a.
Cantharus, i. 356, a.
Canthus, i. 578, a.
Canticum, i. 357, a ; i. 522, a.º.
Canuleia lex, ii. 32, b ; ii. 37, a.
Capella, i. 218, a.
Caper, i. 220, b.
Capis, i. 357, a.
Capisterium, i. 357, b.
Capistrum, i. 357, b.
Capita aut navia, i. 358, b.
Capital, i. 358, b.
Capite censi, i. 359, b.
Capitis deminutio, i. 360, a ; ii.
801, b.
77 , media, i. 360, a.
, minutio, i. 360, a.
Capitium, i. 358, b ; ii. 720, b.
Capitolini, ii. 90, a.
y? ludi, ii. 90, a.
Capra, i. 218, a.
Capricornus, i. 220, b.
Capsa, i. 275, a ; i. 358, b.
Capsarii, i. 275, a ; i. 359, a ; ii.
97, a.
Capsula, i. 358, b.
Captio, ii. 461, a.
Capulator, ii. 850, b.
Capulus, i. 359, b ; i. 891, b,
Caput, i. 359, b ; ii. 696, a.
9, extorum, i. 360, b.
Carabus, i. 361, a.
Caracalla, i. 361, a.
Caragi, -ii, ii. 687, b.
Carbasus, i. 361, a.
Carbatina, i. 361, b.
Carcer, i. 362, a.
Carcerarii, i. 802, a.
Carceres, i. 430, a.
Carchesium, i. 363, b.
Cardo, i. 84, b ; i. 364, b.
Caristia, i. 365, a.
Carmen saeculare, ii. 93, b.
, saliare, ii. 590, b.
Carmentalia, i. 365, b.
Carminator, ii. 360, a.
Carnarium, i. 365, b.
Carneia, i. 365, b.
Carnifex, i. 366, a.
Caroenum, ii. 963, b.
1034
LATIN INDEX.
Carroballista, ii. 857, a.
Carpentum, i. 366, a.
Carptor, i. 397, a.
Carrago, i. 367, a.
Carruca, i. 367, b.
Carrus, or Carrum, i. 367, a.
Cartibulum, i. 367, b.
Caryatides, i. 368, a.
Cassia lex, ii. 37, a.
agraria, ii. 37, a.
tabellaria, ii. 37, a.
99 99
99 99
,, ,, Terentia frumenta-
ria, ii. 37, b.
�assiopeia, or Cassiepeia,i.218,a.
Cassis, i. 898, b ; ii. 546, a.
Castella, ii. 247, b.
Castellarii, i. 156, b.
Castellum aquae, i. 154, b.
.Castigatio, i. 811, b.
Castra, i. 369, a.
,, stativa, i. 369, b.
Castrense peculium, ii. 353, a.
Castrenses, i. 383, a.
Castrensis corona, i. 548, b.
Catagrapha, ii. 404, a.
Cataphracti, i. 383, b.
Catapirates, i. 384, b.
Catapulta, ii. 853, a.
Cataracta, i. 384, b.
Catasta, ii. 664, b.
Cateia, i. 385, a.
Catella, i. 385, b.
Catena, i. 385, b.
Catervarii, i. 917, b.
Cathedra, i. 386, a; ii. 619, a.
Catillum, or Catillus, i. 386, b ;
ii. 175, b.
Catinum, or Catinus, i. 386, b.
Cavaedium, i. 669, b.
Cavea, i. 110, b; i. 430, b ; ii.
821, b.
Cavere, i. 390, a.
Cavernae, i. 1, b.
Cavi menses, i. 341, a.
Caulae, ii. 568, a.
Caupo, i. 387, a.
Caupona, i. 387, a.
Causae probatio, ii. 353, a.
Causia, i. 388, b.
Cautio, i. 389, a.
,, Muciana, i. 389, b.
Cavum aedium, i. 669, b.
Celeres, i. 390, a; i. 754, a.
Celerum tribunus, i. 781, a.
Cella, i. 390, b ; ii. 774, a.
Cellae familiares, i. 672, b.
,, servorum, i. 6'/2, b.
,, vinariae, ii. 964, a.
Cellarius, i. 390, b.
Celox, i. 391, a.
Cena, i. 391, b.
,, recta, ii. 692, b.
Cenacula, i. 665, b.
{Cenatoria vestis, i. 396, a ; ii.
748, a.
Cenotaphium, i. 397, b.
Censere, i. 399, b.
Censiti, i. 472, a.
Censitores, i. 403, a.
Censor, i. 397, b.
Censoria nota, i. 401, a ; i.
1007, a.
Censuales, i. 403, a.
Censura, i. 397, b.
Census, i. 399, a.
,, (Greek), i. 403, a.
Centaurus, i. 222, b.
Centesima, i. 404, b.
99 rerum venalium, i.
38, a ; i. 404, b.
Centesimae usurae, i. 835, a.
Centesimatio, i. 602, a.
Cento, i. 404, b.
Centonarii, i. 404, b.
Centrum, ii. 696, a.
Centumviri, i. 404, b.
Centumculus, i. 404, b.
Centuria, i. 50, a ; i. 57, b; i.
85, a; i. 782, a; i. 1034, b ;
ii. 163, b.
Centuriata comitia, i. 504, b.
Centurio, i. 798, b.
99 primipili, i. 798, b.
Cepheis, i. 218, b.
Cepheus, i. 217, a.
Cepotaphium, i. 405, b.
Cera, i. 405, b ; i. 822, b ; ii.
753, a; ii. 805, a.
Cerae, ii. 753, a.
Ceratae tabulae, ii. 754, a.
Cerdo, i. 406, a.
Cerei, ii. 600, b.
Cerevisia, i. 407, a.
Ceriales Ludi, i. 406, a.
Cerialia, i. 406, a.
Cernere hereditatem, i. 950, a.
Ceroma, i. 406, a.
Certamen, i. 241, a.
Certi, incerti actio, i. 406, b.
Ceruchi, ii. 218, a.
Cervesia, i. 407, a.
Cervi, i. 407, b ; ii. 918, b.
Cervical, i. 407, b.
Cervisia, i. 407, a.
Cervoli, i. 380, a ; ii. 918, b.
Cessio bonorum, i. 305, b.
Cessio in jure, i. 653, a; i.
1036, a; ii. 983, a.
Cesticillus, i. 407, b.
Cestius pons, ii. 458, b.
Cestrum, ii. 393, a.
Cestus, i. 407, b.
Cetra, i. 408, a.
Cetus, i. 221, a.
Chalcidium, i. 408, b.
Chalcus, ii. 455, a.
Chaldaei, i. 213, a.
Charistia, i. 365, a.
Charta, ii. 57, b.
Cheironomia, i. 409, b; i. 930, a.
Chelae, i. 220, a.
Chemiscus, ii. 216, b.
Chiramaxium, i. 411, a.
Chirographum, i. 411, a.
Chiron, i. 222, b.
Chirurgia, i. 412, a.
Chlamys, i. 415, b.
Choragus, i. 419, a.
Choregia, i. 417, a.
Choregus, i. 417, a.
Chorobates, i. 419, a.
Chorus, i. 419, a.
Chronologia, i. 424, b.
Chryselephantina, i. 426, a.
Chrysendeta, i. 426, a.
Chrysoaspides, i. 185, a.
Cibaria servorum, i. 59, a.
Cibarium secundarium, i. 66, b.
Ciborium, i. 427, a.
Cicer, i. 69, a.
Cicera, i. 70, a.
Cicercula, i. 69, a.
Cidaris, ii. 839, b.
Cilicia, i. 74, b.
Cilicium, i. 427, a.
Cilliba, i. 427, a; ii. 157, a.
Cincia, or Muneralis, lex, ii.
37, b.
Cinctura, i. 427, a.
Cinctus, ii. 905, b.
,, Gabinus, ii. 3, a; ii.
848, b.
Cinerarius, i. 329, b.
Cingulum, i. 427, a.
Ciniflo, i. 329, b.
Cippus, i. 429, a ; ii. 443, b.
Circenses ludi, i. 437, a.
Circinus, i. 429, b.
Circuitores, i. 156, b; i. 337, a.
Circumlitio, ii. 395, b.
Circumluvio, i. 98, b.
Circus, i. 430, a.
,, Maximus, i. 430, a.
Cisiarii, i. 439, a.
Cisium, i. 439, a.
Cista, i. 439, b.
Cistella, i. 439, b.
Cistophorus, i. 441, a.
Cithara, ii. 104, b.
Civica corona, i. 547, b.
Civile jus, i. 449, a ; i. 1041, a.
Civilis actio, i. 21, a.
Civis, i. 448, a.
Civitas (Greek), i. 441, b.
,, (Roman), i. 448, a.
Clabularis, i. 450, a.
Clandestima possessio, i. 1018, a.
Clarigatio, i. 840, a.
Clarissimi, i. 992, a.
Classica corona, i. 548, b.
Classici, i. 380, b ; i. 802, b.
Classicum, i. 544, a.
Clathri, i. 686, b.
Clava, i. 450, a.
Clavarium, i. 453, a.
Claudia lex, ii. 38, a.
Clavicula, i. 380, a.
Claviger, i. 452, a.
Clavis, i. 450, b ; ii. 899, a.
Clavola, ii. 263, b.
Claustra, i. 989, a.
Clavularis, i. 450, a.
Clavus, i. 452, b.
,, angustus, i. 453, b.
,, annalis, i. 453, b.
,, latus, i. 453, b.
Clepsydra, i. 973, a.
Clibanarii, i. 384, a.
Cliens, i. 456, b.
Clientela, i. 457, a.
Clima, i. 458, a ; ii. 163, b.
Clipeus, -um, i. 458, b ; i. 993, a.
Clitellae, i. 461, a.
Cloaca, i. 461, b.
Cloacae servitus, ii. 653, a.
Cloacarium, i. 462, b.
ILATIN INIDEX.
1035
Cloacarum curatores, i. 462, b.
Clodiae leges, i. 878, b ; ii.
38, b.
Coactiliarii, ii. 945, a.
Coactor, i. 463, b.
Coactura, ii. 850, b.
Coa vestis, i. 463, b.
Cochlea, or Coclea, i. 463, b.
Cochlis, i. 463, b.
Cocleae, i. 82, a.
Coclear, i. 464, b.
Codex, i. 464, b ; ii. 753, b.
,, accepti et expensi, i.
465, a.
,, Gregorianus et Hermo-
giamus, i. 466, a.
,, Hermogeamius, i. 466, b.
,, Justinianus, i. 466, b.
,, Theodosianus, i. 467, a.
Codicilli, i. 464, b ; ii. 753, b ;
ii. 807, a.
Coemptio, i. 648, b; ii. 140, b ;
ii. 801, b.
Coercitio, ii. 111, a ; ii. 874, a.
Cognati, i. 468, a.
Cognatio, i. 468, a.
Cognitio extraordinaria, i.
1018, b; i. 1031, a.
Cognitor, i. 20, b.
Cognomen, ii. 234, a.
Coheres, i. 948, b.
Cohors, i. 785, b.
», in plano, i. 78, a.
Cohortes civium Romanorum,
i. 791, b.
99 equitatae, i. 790, a.
99 milliariae, i. 790, a.
99 peditatae, i. 790, a.
99 praetoriae, i. 791, a;
i. 793, b.
9» quingenariae, i. 790, a.
99 vigilum, i. 794, b.
99 urbamae, i. 794, a.
Coliphia, i. 238, a.
Coliseum, i. 107, b.
Collare, -ium, i. 470, a.
Collatio bonorum, i. 306, a.
Collectarii, i. 181, b.
Collegae, i. 470, a.
Collegatarii, ii. 20, b.
Collegium, i. 470, a ; ii. 979, a.
Colliciae, i. 471, a ; i. 849, a.
Colliquiae, i. 471, a.
Collybus, i. 181, b.
Collyrium, i. 471, b.
Colobium, ii. 317, a.
Colomatus, i. 471, b.
Coloni, i. 471, b ; ii. 70, a.
» indigenae, i. 60, a.
Colonia, i. 472, b.
Colonus, i. 60, a.
,, urbanus, i. 60, a.
Colores, i. 484, a.
Colosseum, i. 107, b.
Colossicotera, i. 488, a.
Colossus, i. 487, a.
Colum, i. 488, b ; ii. 964, b.
Columbar, i. 488, b.
Columbarium, i. 79, b; i. 488, b ;
ii. 647, b.
Columella, ii. 854, b ; ii. 868, a.
Columen, i. 489, a.
Columna, i. 489, a.
99 cochlis, i. 495, a.
99 rostrata, i. 495, a.
Columnarium, i. 496, a.
Colus, i. 897, b.
Coma, i. 496, a.
Comes, i. 502, b ; ii. 489, b; ii.
509, b.
Comissatio, i. 503, a ; ii. 740, a.
Comitia, i. 503, a.
99 calata, i. 503, a ; i.
504, b ; ii. 802, b ;
ii. 804, b.
99 centuriata, i. 504, b.
99 consularia, i. 505, b.
99 curiata, i. 503, b ; ii.
802, b.
99 praetoria, i. 505, b.
99 tributa, i. 509, a ; ii.
884, a.
Commendationes morientium, i.
855, b.
Commentariensis, i. 803, a; i.
804, b.
Commentarii sacrorum, ii. 462,a.
99 Senatus, i. 12, a;
ii. 631, a.
Commentarium, i. 1039, a ; ii.
154, b.
Commentarius, i. 512, a ; i.
1039, a.
Commercium, i. 448, b.
Commissoria lex, i. 512, b.
Commissum, i. 512, b.
Commixtio, i. 527, b.
Commodans, i. 513, a.
Commodatarius, i. 513, a.
Commodati actio, i. 513, a.
Commodatum, i. 513, a.
Communi dividundo actio, i.
513, b.
Comoedia, i. 514, a.
Compensatio, i. 523, a.
Comperendini dies, i. 636, b ;
i. 1030, a.
Compes, i. 523, b.
Competitor, i. 100, a.
Compitalia, i. 523, b.
Compitalicii ludi, i. 523, b.
Complexus remigum, ii. 215, a.
Compluvium, i. 669, b.
Compotatio, ii. 742, b.
Compromissum, i. 1026, b ; ii.
539, b.
Computatio, ii. 71, a.
Concamerata sudatio, i. 272, a.
Conceptivae feriae, i. 837, a.
Concha, i. 317, b; i. 524, a.
Conciliabulum, i. 482, a.
Conciliarii, i. 212, a.
Concilium, i. 524, b.
99 plebis, i. 510, a.
Concio, i. 538, a.
Conclamatio, i. 889, b.
Conclave, i. 525, a.
Concubina (Greek), i. 525, a.
9» (Roman), i. 526, a.
Concubinatus, i. 526, a.
Condemnatio, i. 17, b; i. 1030, b.
Condictio, i. 15, b ; i. 16, a ; i.
896, a; ii. 958, a.
Conditurae, ii. 966, a.
Conductio, ii. 70, a.
Conductor, ii. 70, a ; ii. 402, b.
Condus, i. 391, a.
Confarreatio, i.
140, b.
Confessio, i. 526, b.
Confessoria actio, i. 527, b.
Confidejussor, i. 1014, b.
Confidepromissor, i. 1014, b.
Confusio, i. 527, b.
Congiarium, i. 528, b.
Congius, i. 529, a.
Conjuratio, i. 805, b; i. 1049, b.
Connubium, ii. 138, b.
Conopeum, i. 529, a.
Conquisitores, i. 529, b.
Consanguinei, i. 468, b.
Conscripti, ii. 621, a.
Consecratio, i. 139, b; i. 1002, b.
Consensus, ii. 256, a.
Consiliarii, i. 529, b.
Consilium, i. 529, b.
Consistorium, i. 530, b.
Consobrina, i. 469, a.
648, a; ii.
“Consobrinus, i. 469, a.
Consortium, ii. 680, b.
Consponsor, i. 1014, b.
Constellatio, i. 214, b.
Constitutiones, i. 531, b.
Consualia, i. 532, a.
Consul, i. 532, a.
Consulares, ii. 510, b.
Consularis, i. 537, b.
Consulti, i. 1037, a.
Contestari, ii. 68, a.
Contignationes, i. 666, b.
Contio, i. 538, a.
Contorniati, i. 538, b.
Contractus, ii. 256, a.
Contrados, i. 690, b.
Contrascriptor, ii. 696, b.
Contrectatio, i. 895, a.
Contribules, ii. 885, a.
Controversia, i. 83, b ; i. 1026, a.
Contubernales, i. 540, a.
Contubernium, i. 526, b ; i.
540, a; ii. 660, b.
Contumelia, i. 1010, a.
Contus, i. 540, b.
Conventio in manum, ii. 138, b ;
ii. 141, b.
Conventiones, ii. 256, a.
Conventus, i. 540, b ; ' ii.
507, b.
Convicium, i. 1010, a.
Convivii magister, ii. 743, a.
,, rex, ii. 743, a.
Convivium, ii. 740, a.
Cooptare, i. 470, a.
Cooptatio, i. 909, b ; ii. 461, b.
Copa, -o, i. 387, a.
Cophinus, i. 541, a.
Corbicula, i. 541, b.
Corbis, i. 541, b.
Corbitae, i. 541, b.
Corbula, i. 541, b.
Coriarius, i. 542, a.
Cornelia lex agraria, ii. 38, b.
de alea, i. 97, a.
99 »9
9y ,, de falsis, i. 822, a.
9» ,, frumentaria, i.
878, a.
1036
LATIN INDEX.
Cornelia lex de injuriis, i.
1010, b.
9? , judiciaria, i. 1028,
3.
3? , majestatis, ii. 114,
}} ,, de novis tabellis,
ii. 40, a.
73 » nummaria, i.822,a.
55 2, de parricidio, ii.
39, a.
29 , de proscriptione
et proscriptis, ii.
504, a.
99 2, de repetundis, ii.
542, b.
27 , de Sacerdotiis, ii.
461, b.
99 , de Sicariis et vene-
ficis, i. 1003, a ;
ii. 11, a ii. 39, as
ii. 939, b.
2% », de sponsoribus, i.
1015, a.
35 2, Sumptuaria, ii.
725, a.
22 , testamentaria, i.
822, a.
25 , tribunicia, ii. 39,b.
37 2, unciaria, ii. 39, b.
Cornelia Baebia lex, i. 100, b ;
ii. 39, b.
35 Caecilia lex, i. 878, b.
33 et Caecilia lex, ii. 39, b.
Cornicines, i. 35, b ; i. 544, a.
Cornicularius, i. 543, b ; i.
803, b.
Corniculum, i. 543, b.
Cornu, i. 543, b.
Cornua, ii. 59, a.
Cornucopia, -ae, i. 544, b.
Corolla, i. 545, a.
Corona, i. 217, b ; i. 490, a ; i.
545, a.. -
, Ariadnes, i. 217, b.
2, Castrensis, i. 548, b.
, civica, i. 547, b.
, classica, i. 548, b.
2, convivialis, i. 550, b.
, Etrusca, i. 546, a.
, funebris, i. 550, a.
2, graminea, i. 547, b.
» hospitalis, i. 547, b.
, lemniscata, i. 546, a.
, longa, i. 546, a.
, Minoa, i. 217, b.
, muralis, i. 548, b.
, natalicia, i. 551, b.
, navalis, i. 548, b.
, nuptialis, i. 551, b.
,, obsidionalis, i. 547, b.
, oleagina, i. 549, a.
, ovalis, i. 549, a.
,, pactilis, i. 546, b.
,, pampinea, i. 549, b.
,, plectilis, i. 546, b.
, radiata, i. 549, b.
, rostrata, i. 548, b.
, Spicea, i. 549, b.
, Sutilis, i. 545, b.
,, tonsa, i. 546, b.
2, torta, i. 546, b.
Corona triumphalis, i. 548, b.
, vallaris, i. 548, b.
Coronarii, -ae, i. 545, a.
Coronis, i. 490, a ; i. 551, b.
Coronix, i. 551, b.
Corporati, ii. 978, b.
Corporatio, i. 470, a ; ii. 978, b.
Corpus, ii. 59, a.
, juris civilis, i. 551, b.
Correctores, ii. 487, a.
Correus, ii. 258, b.
Corrigia, i. 552, a.
Cortina, i. 552, a.
Corvus, i. 222, b : i. 552, b.
Corybantes, i. 553, a.
Corycaeum, i. 283, a ; i. 927, a.
Corycus, i. 553, b.
Coryphaeus, i. 420, a.
Corytus, i. 170, b.
Cosmetae, i. 553, b.
Cosmetes, i. 553, b ; i. 928, a.
Cosmetriae, i. 553, b.
Cosmi, i. 553, b.
Cothurmus, i. 557, b ; ii. 861, b.
Cotoriae, ii. 933, a.
Cotyla, i. 559, b.
Covinarii, i. 560, b.
Covinus, i. 560, a.
Crapula, ii. 966, a.
Crater, Cratera, i. 222, b ; i.
560, b.
Crates, i. 562, a.
Craticula, -um, i. 562, b.
Creditor, ii. 254, b.
Creditum, i. 182, a.
Crepida, i. 562, b.
Crepidata fabula, i. 563, a.
33 tragoedia, i. 423, b ;
i. 563, a.
Crepido, ii. 951, a.
Creta, i. 433, b.
, fullonia, i. 881, b.
Cretifodinae, ii. 933, a.
Cretio hereditatis, i. 950, a.
Cretula, ii. 754, a.
Crimen, i. 563, a.
Crimina extraordinaria, i. 564, a.
Criobolium, ii. 763, a.
Crista, i. 899, a.
Crocota, i. 564, a.
Crotalistria, i. 565, a.
Crotalum, i. 564, b.
Cruda, i. 844, b.
Crumena, i. 565, a.
Crusta, i. 326, a ; i. 728, a.
Crux, i. 565, a.
Crypta, i. 568, b.
Cryptoporticus, i.
957, a.
Ctesibica machina, i. 570, b.
Cubicularii, i. 571, a.
Cubiculum, i. 112, b ; i. 571, a ;
i. 671, a.
Cubitus, i. 571, a.
Cubus, i. 571, a.
Cuculio, i. 59, b.
Cucullus, i. 571, a.
Cucurbita, i. 590, a.
Cudo, or Cudon, i. 571, b ; i.
899, a.
Culcita, ii. 18, b.
Culeus, i. 571, b ; i. 572, a.
569, a ; ii.
Culina, i. 671, b.
Culleus, i. 571, b ; i. 572, a.
Culmen, i. 489, a.
Culpa, i. 572, a.
, lata, i. 572, a.
,, levis, i. 572, b.
Culter, i. 572, b.
Cultrarius, i. 572, b.
Cumatium, i. 590, b.
Cunabula, i. 573, a ; i. 1005, a.
Cunae, i. 573, a.
Cunaria, i. 573, a.
Cuneus, i. 112, b ; ii. 815, a.
Cuniculus, i. 573, b. e e
Cupa, i. 573, b ; ii. 868, a ; ii.
964, a. -
Cura adolescentium, i. 574, a.
,, annonae, i. 32, b.
,, anuli, i. 131, a.
,, bonorum, i. 575, b.
23 59 absentis,i,575,b.
99 9? et ventris, i.
575, b.
, furiosorum, i. 575, a.
,, hereditatis, i. 575, b.
jacentis, i.
575, b.
, ludorum, i. 32, b.
, minorum, i. 574, a.
, urbis, i. 32, a.
Curatela, i. 574, a.
Curator, i. 574, a.
Curatores, i. 575, b ; i. 801, b.
37 92
29 alvei et riparum, i.
575, b.
33 annonae, i. 575, b.
59 aquarum, i. 156, a.
39 kalendarii, i. 576, a.
95 ludorum, i. 576, a.
33 operum publicorum,
i. 576, a.
?? regionum, i. 576, a.
95 reipublicae, i. 576, a.
35 tabularum publica-
rum, i. 576, a.
33 viarum, ii. 948, b.
Curia, i. 482, a ; i. 576, b ; i.
577, a.
Curiae, i. 482, a ; i. 576, b.
Curiales, i. 482, a ; i. 577, a ;
i. 606, b.
Curiata comitia, i. 503, b.
Curio, i. 577, b.
, maximus, i. 577, b.
Curriculum, i. 434, b.
Currus, i. 216, a ; i. 577, b.
,, arcuatus, i. 581, a.
Cursores, i. 581, a.
Cursus, i. 581, a.
,, publicus, i. 583, a.
Curvatura, ii. 854, a.
Curules magistratus, ii. 619, b.
Curulis sella, ii. 619, b.
Cuspis, i. 934, b.
Custodia, i. 589, a.
Custodes, custodiae, i. 377, a ;
i. 801, b.
Custos urbis, ii. 477, a.
Cyathus, i. 589, b; ii. 530, b.
Cybaea, i. 590, a.
Cyclas, i. 590, a.
Cycnus, i. 218, a.
LATIN INDEX.
1037
Cylindrus, i. 590, a.
Cyma, i. 590, b.
Cymatium, i. 590, b.
Cymba, i. 590, b.
Cymbalistria, i. 591, b.
Cymbalum, i. 590, b.
Cymbium, i. 591, b.
Cynosura, i. 216, b.
D.
Dactyliotheca,i. 592, b.
Daedala, -eia, i. 592, b.
Dalmatica, i. 594, a.
Dammi injuria actio, i. 595, a.
Damnum, i. 594, b.
95 infectum, i. 594, b.
º 5 injuria datum, i.
595, a.
Dardanarii, i. 597, b.
Daricus, i. 597, b.
Dealbatores, i. 598, b.
Debitor, ii. 254, b.
Decanus, i. 599, a.
Decemjugis, i. 579, b.
Decempeda, i. 600, a ; ii. 162, a.
Decem Primi, i. 600, a.
Decemviri, i. 600, b.
39 agris dividundis, i.
602, a.
55 legibus scribendis, i.
600, b.
55 litibus, or stlitibus,
judicandis, i.
601, a.
59 sacrorum, or sacris
faciendis, i. 601,b.
Decennalia, or Decennia, i.602,a.
Decimanus, i. 84, b.
Decimatio, i. 602, a.
Decimatrus, ii. 535, b.
Declamatio, i. 602, a.
Declinatio, i. 458, a.
Decocta, ii. 520, a.
Decoctor, i. 602, b.
Decreta, i. 531, b.
Decretum, i. 602, b.
Decumae, i. 603, a.
Decumani, i. 605, b.
Decumcis, i. 606, a.
Decuria, i. 606, a.
Decuriae, ii. 613, a ; ii. 979, a.
99 judicum, i. 1028, a.
Decuriales, ii. 979, a.
Decurialis, i. 606, b.
Decuriati, ii. 979, a.
Decuriatio, i. 100, b.
Decuriones, i. 482, a; i. 606, b;
i. 754, a.
Decursio, -us, i. 608, a.
Decursoria, ii. 457, b.
Decussis, i. 608, b.
Dedicare, i. 687, b.
Dedicatio, i. 608, b.
Dediticii, i. 608, b. ar
Deditio, i. 608, b ; ii. 681, b.
Deducere, i. 608, b.
Deductio, i. 608, b.
Deductores, i. 100, a ; i. 608, b.
Defensor civitatis, i. 609, a.
Defensores, ii. 513, a.
Defrutum, ii. 963, b.
Dejecti effusive actio, i. 609, b.
Delatio nominis, i. 610, a.
Delator, i. 610, b.
Delectus, i. 805, a.
Delia, i. 610, b.
Delictum, i. 563, b.
Delmatica, i. 594, a.
Delphin, or Delphinus, i. 218, b.
Delphines, -i, i. 434, b.
Delphinia, i. 611, a.
Delta, ii. 248, a.
Delubrum, ii. 773, b.
Demarchi, i. 611, b.
Demensum, ii. 666, b.
Demetria, i. 612, b.
Deminutio capitis, i. 360, a.
Demiurgi, i. 612, b.
Demonstratio, i. 17, b.
Demus, i. 614, b.
Denarius, i. 617, a.
Dendrophori, i. 617, a.
Denecales feriae, i. 837, a.
Dens, or Dentale, i. 160, a.
Dentifricium, i. 617, a.
Depensi actio, i. 1014, b.
Deponens, i. 618, a.
Depontani senes, i. 617, b.
Deportatio, i. 820, b.
35 in insulam, i. 820, b.
Depositarius, i. 618, a.
Depositi actio, i. 618, a.
Depositor, i. 618, a.
Depositum, i. 182, a ; i. 618, a.
Derelictio, ii. 652, a.
Derogare legem, ii. 33, a.
Desertor, i. 618, b.
Designator, i. 891, a.
Desultor, i. 618, b.
Detestatio sacrorum, i. 911, a.
Devergentia, i. 458, a.
Deversorium, i. 387, b.
Deunx, i. 619, a ; ii. 455, a.
Devotio, ii. 583, a.
Dextans, i. 619, a ; ii. 455, a.
Dextrale, i. 619, a.
Dextrocherium, i. 619, a.
Diadema, i. 619, b.
Diaeta, i. 672, b.
Diaetetica, i. 623, b.
Dialis flamen, i. 865, a.
Diarium, ii. 666, b.
Diatreta, i. 626, a ; ii. 973, b.
Dicere, i. 631, b.
Dictator, i. 630, b.
Didia lex, ii. 724, b.
Diem dicere, i. 1027, a.
Dies, i. 634, b.
, atri, i. 636, a.
, civilis, i. 634, b.
, comitiales, i. 636, a.
, comperendini, i. 636, b.
, fasti, i. 635, b.
, feriati, i. 636, a; i. 836, b.
, festi, i. 636, b.
, fissi, i. 636, b.
, intercisi, i. 636, a.
, lustricus, ii. 102, b.
, naturalis, i. 634, b.
l
Dies nefasti, i. 636, a.
, parentales, i. 893, b.
,, postriduani, i. 636, a.
, proeliales, i. 636, b.
, profesti, i. 636, b.
,, religiosi, i. 636, a.
,, sementina, i. 838, b.
, stati, i. 636, b.
,, vitiosi, i. 636, a.
Diffarreatio, i. 648, b.
Digesta, ii. 330, a.
Digitalia, ii. 121, a.
Digitus, i. 592, b; ii. 161, b.
Dilatoria exceptio, i. 19, b.
Dilectus, i. 805, a.
Diligentia, i. 572, a.
Dimachae, i. 637, a.
Dimachaeri, i. 917, b.
Dimensum, ii. 666, b.
Dionysia, i. 637, a.
Dioptra, i.924, a.
Diploma, i. 641, a.
Diptycha, i. 643, b; ii. 753, b.
Directa actio, i. 21, b.
Diribitores, i. 508, a ; i. 644, a.
Discessio, ii. 629, a.
Discinctus, ii. 905, b.
Discus, i. 644, b.
Dispensator, i. 645, a ; ii. 666, a.
Dissignator, i. 891, a.
Diverbia, i. 357, a ; i. 522, a.
Dividiculum, i. 154, b.
Divinatio, i. 645, a.
99 (law term), i. 647, a.
Divisores, i. 100, b.
Divortium, i. 647, b.
Doctores, i. 801, b.
Dodrans, i. 650, a ; ii. 455, a.
Dogmatici, ii. 153, a.
Dolabella, i. 650, a.
Dolabra, i. 650, a.
Dolium, i. 650, a ; ii. 964, a.
Dolo, i. 651, a.
De dolo malo actio, ii. 543, b.
Dolus malus, i. 572, a.
Domicilium, i. 651, a.
Dominium, i. 651, b.
Dominus, i. 654, a; i. 916, b.
Domitia lex, ii. 461, b.
Domus, i. 213, b; i. 654, a.
, ,, triumphalis, ii. 897, b.
Dona, i. 687, b.
Donaria, i. 687, a.
Donatio, i. 688, b.
25 mortis causa, i. 689, b.
95 propter nuptias, i.
i s 3 s
Donationes inter virum et
uxorem, i. 689, a.
Donativum, i. 528, b.
Dormitoria, i. 671, a.
Dorsuarius, i. 694, a.
Dorsum, ii 951, a.
Dos (Greek), i. 691, a.
, (Roman), i. 693, a.
, adventicia, i. 693, a.
, constituta, i. 693, a.
, profectitia, i. 693, a.
, recepticia, i. 693, a.
Dossuarius, i. 694, a.
Dotis actio, i. 694, a.
, datio, i. 693, a.
1038
LATIN INDEX.
Dotis dictio, i. 693, a.
, promissio, i 693, a.
Drachma, i. 694, a ; ii. 455, a.
Draco, i. 217, a.
Ducenarii, i. 694, b.
Ducentesima, i. 404, b.
Duillia lex, ii. 40, a.
, Maenia lex, ii. 40, b.
Dulciarii, ii. 430, b.
Duodecim scripta, i. 695, a.
Duo Viri, i. 696, b. º
35 aedi
697, a.
, juridicundo, i. 697,a.
39 navales, i. 697, a.
39 perduellionis, ii.
368, a.
, quinquennales, i.
697, a.
9y sacrorum, i. 697, a.
95 viis extraurbem pur-
gandis, i. 697, a ;
ii. 949, a. -
Duplarii, i. 697, a.
Duplicarii, i. 697, a; i. 787, b.
Duplicatio, i. 20, a.
Duplum, i. 895, b.
Dupondium, i. 697, b.
Dupondius, i. 203, a ; i. 697, b.
Dussis, i. 201, b.
Duumvir, i. 696, b.
Dux, i. 793, a ; ii. 506, b.
E.
Ebur, i. 715, a.
Ecclesia, i. 697, b.
Eclectici, ii. 153, a.
Ectypum, i. 704, a.
Eculeus, i. 704, b.
Ecurria, i. 753, b.
Edere actionem, i. 14, a.
Edicta, i. 531, b.
Edictales constitutiones, i.531,b.
Edictum, i. 704, b.
aedilicium, i. 704, b.
53 perpetuum, i. 705, a.
55 provinciale, i. 705, b.
repentinum, i. 705, a.
59 Theodorici, i. 706, b.
52 tralaticium, i. 705, a.
35 urbanum, i. 705, b.
Editor, i. 916, b.
Editoris Tribunal, i. 112, b.
Effigies, i. 891, b.
Effractor, i. 707, a.
Elaeothesium, i. 272, b; i. 927, a.
Electrum, i. 714, a.
Elephantus, i. 715, a.
Eleusinia, i. 715, b.
Ellychnium, ii. 81, b.
Elogia, i. 992, b.
Emancipatio, i. 726, a.
Emansor, i. 618, b.
Emblema, i. 727, b.
Embolia, i. 11, a.
Emeriti, i. 809, a.
Emissarium, i. 728, b.
dedicandae, i.
Emphyteusis, i. 730, b.
Emphyteuta, i 730, b.
Emphyteuticaria praedia, i.
731, a.
Empirici, ii. 153, a.
Emporium, i. 731, b.
Empti et venditi actio, i. 731, b.
Emptio bonorum, i. 306, a.
, et venditio, i. 731, b.
Encaustica, ii. 392, b.
Endromis, i. 735, a.
Engonasi, or Engonasin, i. 217,b.
Ensis, i. 919, a.
Entasis, i. 737, b.
Ephebeum, i. 927, a.
Ephebia, i. 283, a.
Ephesia, i. 740, a.
Ephesiae litterae, i. 740, b.
Ephippium, i. 742, a.
Ephori, i. 743, a.
Epibatae, i. 745, b.
Epidemiurgi, i. 613, a.
Epirhedium, ii. 540, a.
Epistola, i. 531, b; ii. 293, b ;
ii. 628, b.
Epistylium, i. 750, b.
Epitaphium, ii. 828, b.
Epithalamium, ii. 136, b.
Epitoxis, ii. 854, a.
Epulones, i. 753, b.
Epulum Jovis, i. 753, b ; ii.
16, a.
Equester ordo, ii. 296, a.
Equirria, i. 753, b.
Equites, i. 753, b; i. 917, b.
, equo publico, i. 754, a.
, singulares Augusti, i.
794, b.
Equitum transvectio, i. 755, b.
99 centurias recognos-
cere, i. 755, a.
Equuleus, i. 704, b.
Equus, i. 218, b.
, October, ii. 261, b.
Ergastulum, i. 760, a; ii. 956, a.
Ericius, i. 760, a.
Eridanus, i. 221, b.
Erigone, i. 219, b.
Erogatio, i. 156, a.
Ervilia, i. 70, a.
Ervum, i. 70, a.
Eschatocollion, ii. 59, a.
Esseda, i. 760, b.
Essedarii, i. 760, b ; i. 917, b.
Essedum, i. 760, b.
Everriator, i. 893, b.
Evictio, i. 761, a.
Evocati, i. 761, b; i. 791, b.
Euripus, i. 113, a ; i. 436, a.
Exactio capitum, ii. 933, b.
Ex-archiatri, i. 163, a.
Ex-archiatris, i. 163, a.
Exauguratio, i. 765, a.
Excellentissimi, i. 992, a.
Exceptio, i. 19, a ; ii. 480, b.
99 dilatoria, i. 19, b.
99 doli, ii. 254, a.
33 litis dividuae, i. 19, b.
99 peremptoria, i. 19, b.
Exceptores, ii. 245, b.
Excubiae, i. 377, a.
Excubitores, i. 765, a.
Excusatio, i. 995, a.
Execratio, i. 1048, b.
Exedra, i. 282, a; i. 671, b; i.
765, a.
Exercitatores, i. 801, b.
Exercitor navis, i. 766, b.
Exercitoria actio, i. 766, a.
Exercitus, i. 766, b.
Exhibendum, actio ad, i. 813, a.
Exodia, i. 813, b.
Exostra, i. 815, a.
Expensilatio, ii. 254, a.
Expromissio, i. 1014, a.
Exsequiae, i. 891, a.
Exsilium, i. 816, b.
Exsul, i. 820, a.
Exta, ii. 586, b.
Exterere, i. 64, a.
Extispices, i. 934, b.
Extispicium, i. 934, b.
Extranei heredes, i. 949, b.
Extraordinarii, i. 786, a ; i.
787, a ; i. 806, b.
Exverrae, i. 893, b.
Exverriator, i. 893, b.
Exuviae, ii. 691, a.
F.
Faba, i. 68, a.
Fabacia, i. 68, b.
Fabatarium, i. 821, a.
Fabia lex, ii. 432, a.
Fabri, i. 821, a.
, aurarii, ii. 945, a.
Fabula crepidata, i. 563, a.
, palliata, i. 522, a.
, praetextata, ii. 865, b.
, togata, i. 522, a.
, trabeata, i. 522, a.
Fabulae Atellanae, i. 522, b.
, Salticae, ii. 335, a.
Facitergium, ii. 723, b.
Factiones aurigarum, i. 438, b.
Factorium, i. 821, b.
Factus, ii. 266, a.
Faecatum, ii. 965, a.
Faeniseca, i. 71, a.
Faenum, i. 70, b.
Faenum Graecum, i. 70, a.
Fala, i. 821, b.
Falarica, i. 937, a.
Falcidia lex, ii. 21, b.
Falcula, i. 823, a.
Falsarii, i. 822, b.
Falsum, i. 821, b.
Falx, i. 823, a ; ii. 311, b.
Familia, i. 824, a ; i. 917, a ; ii.
665, b.
Familiae emptor, i. 824,b; ii.
801, a.
99 erciscundae actio, or
judicium, i. 825, a.
Familiaris, i. 824, a.
Famosi libelli, ii., 57, a ; ii.
115, a.
Famulus, i. 824, a.
Fanatici, i. 825, b; ii. 773, b-
LATIN INDEX.
1039
Fannia lex, ii. 724, b.
Fanum, i. 825, b; ii. 773, b.
Far Clusinum, i. 65, b.
» venuculum rutilum, i. 65,b.
99 92 candidum, i.65,b.
Farrago, i. 70, b.
Farreum, ii. 140, b.
Fartor, i. 826, a.
Fas, i. 828, a.
Fasces, i. 826, a.
Fascia, i. 827, a.
Fascinum, i. 827, b.
Fasciola, i. 827, a.
Fasti, i. 828, a.
, annales, i. 829, b.
, calendares, i. 828, a.
, Capitolini, i. 829, b.
, consulares, i. 829, b.
, dies, i. 828, a.
, historici, i. 829, b.
, sacri, i. 828, a.
, triumphales, ii. 897, b
Fastigium, i. 154, b; i. 829, b.
Fauces, i. 671, a.
Favete linguis, i. 646, b.
Fax, i. 830, a.
Februa, ii. 99, b.
Februare, ii. 100, b.
Feminalia, i. 831, a.
Fenestra, i. 831, a.
Fenus, i. 831, a.
, nauticum, i. 836, a.
Ferae magna minorque, i. 216, b.
Feralia, i..893, b.
Ferculum, i. 836, a.
Ferentarii, i. 5, b; i. 782, a.
Feretrum, i. 891, b; ii. 19, b.
Feriae, i. 836, b.
Aeginetarum, i. 33, b.
, aestivae, i. 839, a.
, conceptivae, or concep-
tae, i. 837, a.
, denecales, i. 837, a.
, imperativae, i. 837, a.
, Latinae, i. 838, a.
, matronales, ii. 144, b.
, praecidaneae, i. 839, a.
, privatae, i. 837, a.
, publicae, i. 837, a.
, sementivae, i. 838, b.
, stativae, i. 837, a.
, stultorum, i. 873, a.
, vindemiales, i. 839, a.
Ferre legem, ii. 33, a.
Ferrum, ii. 166, a.
Ferula, i. 864, b.
Fescennina, i. 839, a.
Festi dies, i. 636, b.
Festuca, i. 839, b.
Fetiales, i. 839, b.
Fibula, i. 840, b.
Fictile, i. 841, b.
Fictio, i. 855, a.
Fictor, i. 842, a ; ii. 794, a.
Fideicommissarii praetores, i.
856, a.
Fideicommissarius, i. 857, a.
Fideicommissum, i. 855, b.
Fidejussor, i. 1014, b.
Fidepromissor, i. 1014, b.
Fides, i. 217, b; ii. 104, b.
Fidicula, i. 217, b; i. 858, a.
Fidis, i. 217, b.
Fiducia, i. 858, a.
Fiduciaria actio, i. 22, a.
Fiduciarius, i. 857, a ; i. 858, b.
Figlinae, i. 842, a.
Figmentum, i. 842, a.
Figulina ars, i. 842, a
Figulus, i. 842, a.
Filamen, i. 864, b.
Filia, i. 469, a.
Filiafamilias, ii. 351, b.
Filius, i. 469, a.
Filiusfamilias, i. 26, b; i. 825, a ;
ii. 351, b.
Filum, i. 864, b.
Fimbriae, i. 859, a.
Finis, ii. 655, a.
Finitores, i. 83, a.
Finium regundorum actio, i.
859, b.
Fiscales, i. 918, a.
Fiscalis praetor, i. 861, b.
Fiscus, i. 860, a.
Fistuca, i. 862, a.
Fistula, i. 862, a ; ii. 748, b.
Flabelliferae, i. 863, b.
Flabellum, i. 863, b.
Flagellum, i. 864, a.
Flagrum, i. 864, a.
Flamen, i. 864, b.
, Augustalis, i. 258, b.
, Curialis, i. 577, a.
, Dialis, i. 865, a.
, Martialis, i. 865, a.
, Quirinalis, i. 865, a.
Flaminia lex, ii. 42, a.
Flaminica, i. 866, a.
Flammearii, i. 867, b.
Flammeolum, i. 867, a.
Flammeum, i. 866, b ; ii. 142, b.
Flavia agraria lex, ii. 42, a.
Flexumines, i. 755, a.
Floralia, i. 867, b.
Flos (siliginis), i. 66, b.
Flumen, ii. 653, a.
Fluminis recipiendi, or immit-
tendi servitus, ii. 653, a.
Focale, i. 868, a.
Foculus, i. 868, a.
Focus, i. 868, a.
Fodinae, ii. 933, a.
Foederatae civitates, i. 868, b.
Foederati, i. 868, b.
Foedus, i. 868, b; ii. 682, a.
Foenus, i. 834, a.
, nauticum, i. 836, a.
Folliculus, i. 869, b.
Follis, i. 869, b.
Fons, i. 870, b.
Foramina, ii. 853, a.
Forceps, i. 871, b.
Fordicidia, i. 872, a.
Fores, i. 669, a.
Forfex, i. 872, b.
Forficula, i. 872, b.
Fori, i. 430, a ; ii. 216, b.
Foris, i. 988, b.
Forma, i. 872, b.
Formacei, i. 58, a.
Formella, i. 872, b.
Formido, ii. 545, b.
Formula, i. 18, a; i. 872, b.
Formula arbitraria, i. 1019, a.
, in factum concepta, i.
18, a.
, in jus concepta, i. 18, a-
, petitoria, ii. 959, b.
Formulae praejudiciales, ii.
479, a.
Fornacalia, i. 873, a.
Fornacatores, i. 279, a.
Fornacula, i. 873, a.
Fornax, i. 873, a.
Fornix, i. 171, a ; i. 873, b.
Foro cedere, or abire, i. 183, a.
, mergi, i. 183, a.
Forpex, i. 874, a.
Foruli, i. 298, a.
Forum, i. 540, b; i. 874, a.
Fossa, i. 57, a ; i. 380, a ; ii.
951, b.
, caeca, i. 57, a.
, patens, i. 57, a.
Framea, i. 937, a.
Frater, i. 469, a.
Fratres arvales, i. 198, a.
Frenum, i. 876, a.
Frigida mensa, i. 396, b.
Frigidarium, i. 272, b; i. 275, a ;
i. 927, a.
Fritillus, i. 877, a.
Frontale, i. 117, b.
Fructuaria res, ii. 988, b.
Fructuarius, ii. 988, a.
Fructus, i. 652, b; ii. 989, b.
Frumenta, i. 65, a.
Frumentariae leges, i. 877, a.
Frumentarii, i. 793, a; i. 880, a.
Frumentatio, i. 877, b.
Frumento servando, de i. 64, b.
Frumentum, ii. 715, a.
Fucus, i. 880, a.
Fuga lata, i. 821, a.
, libera, i. 821, a.
Fugitivarii, ii. 662, a.
Fugitivus, ii. 662, a.
Fulcra, ii. 18, b.
Fullo, i. 881, a.
Fullonica, i. 882, b.
Fullonicum, i. 882, b.
Fullonium, i. 882, b.
Fumarium, ii. 967, b.
Fumi immittendi servitus, ii.
653, a.
Funale, i. 882, b.
Funalis, i. 883, a.
,, equus, i. 579, b.
Funambulus, i. 883, a.
Funarius, i. 579, a.
Funda, i. 883, b; ii. 546, a.
Funditores, i. 883, b.
Fundus, i. 56, a ; i. 884, b.
, dotalis, ii. 986, a.
Funes, i. 437, a ; ii. 853, a.
Funus, i. 884, b.
, indictivum, i. 891, a.
, privatum, i. 890, b.
, publicum, i. 890, b.
, translaticium, i. 891, a.
Fur, i. 895, b.
Furca, i. 894, a.
Furcifer, i. 894, b.
Furcilla, i. 894, a.
Furcula, i. 894, a.
1040
LATIN INDEX.
Furfures, i. 66, b.
Furia, or Fusia Caninia lex, ii.
42, a ; ii. 124, b.
Furiosus, i. 575, a ; ii. 801, a.
Furnus, i. 873, a.
Furti actio, i. 895, b.
Furtum, i. 894, b.
, conceptum, i. 896, b.
,, manifestum, i. 895, b.
2, meC
895, b.
,, oblatum, i. 896, b.
, usus, i. 895, a.
Fuscina, i. 897, a.
Fustium animadversio, i. 897, b.
Fustuarium, i. 897, b.
Fusus, i. 897, b.
G.
Gabinia lex, i. 507, b ; ii. 752, a.
Gabinus cinctus, ii. 3, a ; ii.
848, b.
Gaesum, i. 936, b.
Gaius, i. 1013, a.
Galea, i. 898, b.
Galerus, -um, i. 899, b.
Gallare, i. 900, a.
Galli, i. 899, b ; i. 918, a.
Gallicae, i. 900, b.
Gallinae, i. 78, a.
Ganea, i. 388, b.
Gausapa, i. 901, a.
Gausape, i. 901, a.
Gausapum, i. 901, a.
Gemini, i. 219, b.
Gemma, i. 901, b.
Gemoniae Scalae, i. 363, b.
Gener, i. 42, b.
Genera, ii. 559, a.
Genethliaci, i. 213, a.
Geniculatus, i. 217, b.
Genitura, i. 213, b.
Gens, i. 906, b.
Gentiles, i. 907, a.
Gentilitas, i. 907, a.
Gentilicia sacra, i. 910, b.
Gentium jus, i. 907, a.
Genus scansorium, ii. 107, b.
Germani, i. 468, b, i. 795, b.
Gerrae, i. 916, a.
Gesta, i. 13, b.
Gestatio, i. 977, a.
Gladiatores, i. 916, a.
Gladiatorium, i. 916, b.
Gladius, i. 919, a.
Glandes, i. 884, a.
Glires, i. 82, b.
Glomus, i. 897, b.
Glos, i. 43, a.
Glutinatores, ii. 58, b.
Gomphi, ii. 951, a.
Gradus, i. 112, a ; i. 469, a ; i.
921, a ; ii. 162, a.
, cognationis, i. 469, a.
Graecostasis, i. 921, a.
Grammaticus, ii. 96, b.
Granea, i. 66, b.
manifestum, i.
Graphiarium, ii. 714, a.
Graphica, ii. 390, a.
Graphium, ii. 714, a.
Grassatores, ii. 11, a.
Gregorianus Codex, i. 466, a.
Gremium, i. 292, b ; ii. 951, b.
Groma, i. 378, b : i. 923, b.
Gromatici, i. 83, b ; i. 923, b.
Gubernaculum, ii. 208, a.
Gustatio, i. 396, b.
Gustus, i. 396, b.
Guttus, i. 279, a ; i. 925, a.
Gymnasium, i. 925, b.
H.
Habenae, i. 932, a.
Habitatio, ii. 652, b.
Haedi, i. 218, a.
Haeres, i. 943, a ; i. 948, b.
Halicastrum, i. 65, b.
Halteres, i. 932, b.
Harmamaxa, i. 933, a.
Harmostes, i. 933, a.
Harpaginetuli, i. 933, b.
Harpago, i. 933, b.
Harpastum, ii. 422, b.
Haruga, i. 934, b.
Harundo, i. 329, b.
Haruspices, i. 934, a.
Haruspicina ars, i. 646, b ; i.
934, a. º
Haruspicium, i. 646, b.
Hasta, i. 934, b.
, celibaris, i. 937, a.
,, pura, i. 937, a.
, vendere sub, i. 246, a.
Hastarium, i. 937, b.
Hastati, i. 783, b ; i. 785, a.
Helepolis, i. 938, b.
Heliaea, i. 627, a.
Heliocaminus, i. 686, b.
Helix, i. 939, a.
Hellanodicae, i.
271, a.
Hellenotamiae, i. 939, a.
Helotes, -ae, i. 939, b.
Hemina, i. 529, a ; i. 560, a ;
i. 941, b ; ii. 530, a.
Heminarium, i. 529, a.
Hemistrigium, i. 381, b.
Hepatizon, i. 39, a.
Heracleia, i. 942, b.
Heraea, i. 942, b.
Herculanei, i. 241, b.
Hercules, i. 217, b.
Hereditas, i. 948, b.
Heredium, ii. 163, b.
Heres ex libella, i. 203, b.
Heres (Greek), i. 943, b.
» (Roman), i. 948, b.
Hermae, i. 953, b.
Hermaea, i. 955, b.
Hermanubis, i. 955, a.
Hermaphroditus, i. 956, a.
Hermares, i. 955, a.
Hermathena, i. 955, a.
Hermeracles, i. 955, a.
939, a ; ii.
Hermogenianus codex, i. 466, a.
Hermuli, i. 953, b.
Herones, i. 956, b.
Hexaphori, ii. 379, b.
Hexaphoron, ii. 14, b.
Hexeres, ii. 221, a.
Hieronica lex, i. 605, b ; ii.
507, a.
Hilaria, i. 961, b.
Hippocratici, ii. 153, a.
Hippodromus, i. 962, a ; i.
977, a.
Hippoperae, i. 965, a.
Hirpex, i. 1023, b.
Hister, i. 967, b.
Histrio, i. 965, b.
Holoserica, ii. 650, a.
Holosericopratae, ii. 650, a.
Honoraria actio, i. 21, a.
Honorarii ludi, ii. 85, b.
Honorarium, i. 30, b ; ii. 37, b.
33 jus, i. 705, a.
Honores, i. 969, b.
Hoplomachi, i. 918, a.
Hora, i. 970, b.
, genitalis, i. 213, b.
Hordearium aes, i. 40, b.
Hordeum, i. 66, b.
93 cantherinum, i. 67, a.
77 Galaticum, or dis-
tichum, i. 67, a.
72 hexastichum, i. 67, a.
Horologium, i. 972, b.
Horoscopus, i. 213, b.
Horrearii, i. 976, a.
Horreum, i. 975, b.
Hortator, ii. 468, b.
Hortensia lex, ii. 32, b ; ii. 42, b ;
ii. 437, b.
Hortus, i. 976, a.
Hospes, i. 981, b.
Hospitalia, i. 978, b.
Hospitium, i. 977, a ; i. 978, b.
Hostia, ii. 586, b.
Hostis, i. 977, b ; ii. 474, a.
Hostus, ii. 266, a.
Hyacinthia, i. 982, a.
Hyades, i. 219, a ; i. 232, a.
Hydra, Hydros, i. 222, b.
Hydraula, i. 984, b.
Hydraulus, i. 984, a.
Hydriae, ii. 645, a.
Hydromelum, ii. 967, b.
Hypaethrae, i. 282, a.
Hypaethrum, ii. 783, a.
Hypocaustum, i. 278, a.
Hypogeum, i. 672, b.
Hypotheca, ii. 419, b.
Hypothecaria actio, ii. 419, b.
Hypotrachelium, i. 490, b.
I, J.
Jaculatores, i. 784, b.
Jaculum, i. 936, b ; ii. 546, a.
Janitor, i. 669, a ; i. 990, b.
Janua, i. 669, a ; i. 987, a.
Iatralipta, i. 990, b.
LATIN INDEX.
1041
Iatraliptice, i. 990, b.
Iatrosophista, i. 990, b.
Idus, i. 334, a.
Jejunum solum, i. 56, b.
Jentaculum, i. 394, b.
Igniaria, i. 991, a.
Ignominia, i. 1007, a.
Ilicet, i. 893, b.
Illustres, i. 991, b.
Ilotae, i. 939, b.
Imagines, i. 891, b; i. 992, a ;
ii. 672, a.
Imaginiferi, i. 801, a; ii. 673, a.
Imbrices, i. 849, a ; ii. 764, a.
Immolatio, ii. 586, b.
Immunes, i. 804, b.
Immunitas, i. 994, a.
Impendium, i. 834, a.
Imperativae feriae, i. 837, a.
Imperator, i. 995, b.
Imperium, i. 995, b; ii. 549, b.
Impilia, ii. 932, b.
Impluvium, i. 682, a.
Impuberes, i. 1000, a.
Impubes, i. 999, b.
Inauguratio, i. 1001, b.
39 regis, ii. 552, b.
Inaurator, i. 316, a.
Inauris, i. 1002, a.
Incendium, i. 1002, b.
Incensus, i. 400, a.
Incestum, -us, i. 1003, b.
Incitega, i. 1005, a.
Inclinatio, i. 458, a.
Incola, i. 651, b.
Incorporales res, i. 652, a.
Incubatio, i. 688, a.
Incunabula, i. 1005, a.
Incus, i. 1005, b.
Indago, ii. 545, b.
Index, ii. 59, a.
Indices, i. 992, b.
Indigitamenta, ii. 462, a.
Induere, i. 101, b.
Indumentum, ii. 314, b.
Indutus, i. 101, b ; ii. 903, a.
Infames, i. 1006, a.
Infamia, i. 1006, a.
Infans, i. 999, b.
Infantia, i. 1000, a.
Infector, ii. 945, a.
Inferiae, i. 893, b.
Infula, i. 1009, a.
Infundibulum, ii. 176, b.
Ingeniculatus, i. 217, b.
Ingeniculus, i. 217, b.
Ingenui, i. 1009, a.
Ingenuitas, i. 1009, b.
Ingratus, ii. 357, a.
Injuria, i. 1010, a.
Injuriarum actio, i. 1010, b ;
ii. 961, a.
Inlicium, i. 506, b.
Innixus, i. 217, b.
Inofficiosi querela, ii. 806, a.
Inofficiosum testamentum, ii.
806, a.
Inquilini, i. 471, b.
Inquilinus, i. 516, b; i. 820, a ;
ii. 70, a.
Inscripta, ii. 469, b.
Insigne, i 1011, a.
VOL. II,
Insignia triumphi, ii. 897, b.
Insilia, i. 1012, a.
Instauratio, ii. 86, a.
Instita, i. 1012, a ; ii. 716, b.
Institor, i. 1012, b.
Institoria actio, i. 1012, a.
Institutiones, i. 1012, b.
Institutoria actio, i. 1014, a.
Instrumenta
58, b.
Insubuli, ii. 765, a.
Insula, i. 665, a.
Integrum, restitutio in, ii. 543,a.
Intentio, i. 17, b.
Intercessio, i. 1014, a; i. 1015, b.
Intercisi dies, i. 636, a.
Interdictio aquae et ignis, i.
820, a.
Interdictum, i. 1018, a.
adipiscendae pos-
sessionis, 1.
95
1019, b.
y 5 duplicia, i. 1020,b.
55 exhibitorium, i.
1018, a.
95 possessorium, i.
1019, b.
55 de precario, i.
1020, a.
5 y prohibitorium, i.
1018, a.
59 quorum bonorum,
i. 1019, b.
9 ) recuperandae pos-
sessionis, i.
1020, a.
55 restitutorium, i.
1018, a.
35 retinendae posses-
sionis, i. 1019, b.
35 Salvianum, i.
1019, b.
5 y sectorium, i. 1019,
b; ii. 615, b.
95 simplicia, i.1020,b.
55 uti possidetis, i.
1020, a.
55 utrubi, i. 1020, a.
Intergerinus, ii. 345, b.
Intergerivus, ii. 345, b.
Internundinum, ii. 252, a.
Interpellatio, ii. 180, b.
Interpres, i. 1021, a.
Interregnum, i. 1021, a.
Interrex, i. 1021, a.
Interscalmium, ii. 213, b.
Intervallum, i. 374, a.
Interula, ii. 906, a.
Intestabilis, i. 1023, a.
Intestato, heredes ab, i. 952, a
Intestatus, i. 948, b.
Intestinum opus, i. 1023, b.
Inventarium, i. 953, a.
Investis, i. 1001, a.
Irpex, i. 1023, b.
Iselastici ludi, i. 241, b.
Isthmia, i. 1023, b.
Italia, ii. 506, b.
Italici, ii. 681, b.
Iter, ii. 457, b.
Iterare, i. 60, b.
Itineris servitus, ii. 653, b.
agriculturae, i.
Jubere, ii. 637, a.
Judex, i. 1026, a; ii. 15, a ; ii.
08
, ordinarius, i. 1031, b.
, pedaneus, i. 1031, b.
, quaestionis, i. 1028, b.
Judicati actio, i. 1031, b.
Judices editi, i. 1032, a.
, editicii, i. 100, b; i.
1028, b.
Judicia duplicia, i. 825, a.
, extraordinaria,i.1029,b.
, legitima, i. 1029, b; i.
1040, a.
, quae imperio, i. 1029, b;
i. 1040, a.
Judicium, i. 1026, a.
55 album, i. 1032, b.
53 populi, i. 1027, a.
5 ) privatum, i. 1029, a.
35 publicum, i. 1032, a.
Jugarii, i. 59, a.
Jugerum, i. 1034, a.
Jugum, i. 1034, b; ii. 163, b;
ii. 765, a.
Jugumentum, i. 987, a.
Jugus, i. 1034, a.
Juliae leges, ii. 43, a.
Julia lex de adulteriis, i. 29, b.
, - agraria, ii. 43, a.
y , de ambitu, i. 101, a.
55 de annona, ii. 43, a.
75 de bonis cedendis, ii.
43, a.
55 caducaria, ii. 43, a.
5 y de caede et veneficio,
ii. 43, a.
5 ) de civitate, i. 482, a;
ii. 43, a.
59 de foenore, ii. 43, b.
95 de fundo dotali, ii-
43, b.
55 judiciaria, ii. 43, b.
35 majestatis, ii. 114, b.
55 municipalis, ii. 44, a.
55 et Papia Poppaea, ii.
» a -
95 peculatus, ii. 361, a.
55 et Plautia, ii. 45, b.
5 y de provinciis, ii. 43, b.
5 ) repetundarum, ii.
543, a.
99 de residuis, ii. 361, a.
5 y de sacerdotiis, ii. 43, b.
5» de sacrilegio, ii. 587,a.
5 ) sumptuaria, ii. 45, b.
ii. 725, a.
95 theatralis, ii. 45, b.
5 ) et Titia, ii. 45, b.
55 de vi publica et pri-
vata, ii. 971, b.
99 vicesimaria, ii. 954, b-
Junea, or Junia, Norbana lex,
i. 10, b; i. 450, a ; ii. 45, b;
ii. 62, b; ii. 124, a.
Junia lex repetundarum, ii.
542, b.
Juniores, i. 505.
Jura in re, i. 652, a.
Jure, actio in, i. 1040, b.
adcrescendi, i. 951, a.
agere, i. 1036, a.
3 X
39
59
; 1042
LATIN INIDEX.
Jure, cessio in, i. 13, b ; i.
1036, a; ii. 983, a.
Jureconsulti, i. 1037, a.
Jurgium, i. 1036, a.
Juridici, i. 1036, b.
Juris auctores, i. 246, b ; i.
1037, a.
,, studiosi, i. 212, a.
Jurisconsulti, i. 1037, a.
Jurisdictio, i. 540, b ; i. 1039, b.
Jurisperiti, i. 1037, a.
Jurisprudentes, i. 1037, a.
Jus, i. 1040, b.
,, aquae impetratae, i. 155, b.
,, Aelianum, i. 1044, a.
,, anuli aurei, i. 132, a.
,, anulorum, i. 133, a.
,, applicationis, i. 820, a; ii.
- 9 ~ •
», asyli, i. 235, a.
,, augurum, i. 249, b.
,, civile, i. 449, a ; i. 1041, a.
Flavianum, i.!1044,b.
Papirianum,i. 1044,b.
9» 99
99 » »
,, civitatis, i. 448, a.
,, commercii, i. 448, b.
,, connubii, i. 448, b.
,, edicendi, i. 704, b.
,, eundi, ii. 653, b.
,, exulandi, i. 820, a.
,, fetiale, i. 840, a ; i. 1041, b.
,, gentium, or gentilitatis, i.
907, a ; i. 1041, a.
,, honorarium, i. 705, a; i.
1044, a.
,, honorum, i. 448, b.
,, imaginum, i. 993, b.
,, Jtalicum, i. 480, b.
,, Latii, i. 449, a; ii. 9, b.
,, liberorum, ii. 45, a.
,, naturale, i. 1043, a.
,, non scriptum, i. 1044, a.?
,, pascendi, ii. 653, b.
,, Pontificium, i. 1041, b ; ii.
462, a.
,, possessionis, ii. 470, a.
,, postliminii, ii. 472, b.
,, praediatorum, ii. 480, a.
,, praetorium, i. 705, a; i.
1044, a.
,, prensionis, i. 589, a.
,, privatum, i. 448, b ; i.
1042, a.
,, proferendi pomerii, ii.
444, a.
,, publice epulandi, ii. 626, b.
• ,, publicum, i. 448, b ; i.
1042, a.
,, Quiritium, i. 448, b; i.
1042, b.
,, relationis, ii. 628, a.
,, respondendi, i. 1038, a.
,, sacrum, i. 1041, b.
,, scriptum, i. 1044, a.
,, senatus, ii. 626, b.
,, sententiae, ii. 622, b.
,, suffragii, i. 448, b.
», superficiarium, ii. 726, b.
» virgarum in histriones, i.
968, b.
» vocatio, in, i. 15, a.
Jusjurandum, i. 1045, a.
Jusjurandum calumniae, i.
349, a. . &
Jussu quod actio, i. 1052, a.
Justa funera, i. 889, b.
Justinianeus codex, i. 466, b.
Justitium, i. 1052, a.
Justum, i. 1040, b.
Juvenalia, or juvenales ludi, i.
1053, a.
L.
Labrum, i. 277, a; ii. 850, b ;
ii. 868, a.] *
Labyrinthus, ii. 1, a.
Lacerna, ii. 2, b.
I.acinia, ii. 2, b.
Laconicum, i. 268, a ; i. 272, a ;
i. 277, b ; i. 278, a.
Lacunar, i. 686, a; ii. 778, b.
Lacus, i. 155, a ; ii. 8, a; ii.
850, b. -
Lacusculi, ii. 850, b.
Laena, ii. 3, b.
Laesa majestas, ii. 115, b.
Lagoenae, ii. 964, b.
Lagona, ii. 4, a.
Laguma, ii. 4, a.
Lamina, ii. 650, b.
Lancea, i. 936, a.
Lamcula, ii. 696, a.
Lanarius, ii. 426, b.
Lanificium, ii. 770, b.
Laniger, i. 219, a.
Lanista, i. 916, b.
Lanterna, ii. 6, b.
Lanx, ii. 7, a.
Lapicidinae, ii. 13, b ; ii. 933, a.
Lapis specularis, i. 686, b.
Laquear, i. 686, a.
Laquearii, i. 686, a; i. 918, a.
Laqueus, ii. 7, b.
Lararium, i. 672, b ; ii. 7, b.
Larentalia, ii. 8, a.
Larentinalia, ii. 8, a.
Largitio, i. 528, b.
Larva, ii. 374, a.
Lata fuga, i. 821, a.
Later, i. 848, a ; ii. 8, a.
Laterculus, ii. 8, a.
Lateres crudi, ii. 187, a.
Laterna, ii. 6, b.
Laticlavius, i. 456, a.
Latii jus, i. 449, a ; ii. 9, b.
Latinae feriae, i. 838, a.
Latini Jumiani, ii. 10, b.
Latinitas, ii. 9, b.
Latinus, i. 448, b.
Latium, ii. 9, b.
Latomiae, ii. 13, b.
Latrina, i. 269, b; i. 664, a;
i. 672, a.
Latrocinium, ii. 11, a.
Latrones, ii. 11, a.
Latrunculi, ii. 11, a.
Latumiae, ii. 13, b.
Latus clavus, i. 453, b.
Lavatio calda, i. 282, b.
Laudatio funebris, i. 892, a.
Lautia, ii. 24, b.
Lautomiae, ii. 13, b.
Lautumiae, ii. 13, b.
Lebes, ii. 13, b.
Lectica, ii. 14, a.
Lecticarii, ii. 14, b.
Lecticula, ii. 19, b. .
Lectio senatus, ii. 621, a.
Lectisternium, ii. 15, b ; ii.
730, a.
Lectores, i. 121, a.
Lectus, ii. 17, a.
,, cubicularis, ii. 18, a.
,, funebris, i. 890, a ; ii.
19, b.
,, genialis, ii. 19, a.
,, lucubratorius, ii. 19, a.
, ,, tricliniaris, ii. 19, a ; ii.
887, b.
Legatarius, ii. 19, b.
Legatio libera, ii. 24, b.
Legativum, ii. 954, a.
Legatum, ii. 19, b.
Legatus, ii. 23, a ; ii. 509, b.
99 legionis, i. 797, b.
Leges, ii. 32, a.
,, censoriae, i. 402, a.
,, centuriatae, ii. 32, a.
,, Corneliae, ii. 725, a.
,, curiatae, i. 504, a. ; ii.
32, a.
,, Juliae, ii. 43, a; ii. 725, a.
,, sumptuariae, ii. 723, b.
,, tabellariae, ii. 751, b.
Legio, i. 788, a.
Legis actiones, i. 14, a ; ii. 67, a.
,, Aquiliae actio, i. 595, b.
Legitima hereditas, i. 949, a.
Legitimae actiones, i. 14, a.
Legitimum spatium, ii. 655, b.
Legitimus modus, ii. 655, b.
Legumina, i. 68, a.
Lembus, ii. 30, a.
Lemniscus, i. 546, a.
Lemuria, ii. 30, b.
Lenaea, i. 638, a.
Leno, ii. 30, b.
Lenocinium, ii. 30, b.
Lens, i. 68, b.
Lenticula, i. 68, b.
Leo, i. 219, b.
Leporaria, i. 80, b.
Leporinum, ii. 945, b.
Lepus, i. 221, b.
Leria, ii. 67, a.
Lernaea, ii. 31, b.
Lessus, i. 891, a.
Levir, i. 43, a.
Lex, ii. 32, a. .
,, Acilia, ii. 34, b ; ii. 542, b.
9» ,, Calpurnia, ii. 34, b.
,, Aebutia, i. 17, a; i. 405, a;
ii. 34, b ; ii. 125, b.
,, Aelia, ii. 35, a.
Sentia, i. 450, a; ii.
35, a; ii. 357, a.
,, Aemilia, ii. 35, b ; ii. 725, a.
de censoribus, ii.
99 99
9» 99
35, b.
99 9» Baebia, ii. 39, b.
99 ,, Lepidi, ii. 725, a.
LATIN INDEX.
1043
Lex Aemilia Scauri, ii. 725, a.
39
2y
25
55
25
55
95
55
95
35
agraria, i. 49, b; ii. 35, b.
ambitus, i. 100, b.
Ampia, ii. 35, b.
Anastasiana, ii. 36, a.
annalis, or Villia, ii. 36, a.
annua, i. 705, a.
Antia, ii. 725, a.
Antonia, ii. 36, a.
Apuleia, i. 1014, b; ii.
- 36, a.
55 agraria, ii. 36, a.
99 frumentaria, i.
878, a ; ii. 36,a.
5? majestatis, ii.
36, a ; ii. 114,b.
Aquilia, i. 101, a ; ii. 32, b.
Aternia Tarpeia, i. 31, b ;
ii. 36, b.
Atia de sacerdotiis, ii. 36, b.
Atilia, ii. 36, b ; ii. 45, b;
ii. 910, a.
Atinia, ii. 36, b.
Aufidia, i. 101, a.
Aurelia, i. 1028, a.
Baebia, ii. 36, b.
55 Aemilia, ii. 39, b.
Caecilia de Censoribus, or
Censoria, ii. 36, b.
55 de vectigalibus, ii.
37, a.
57 Didia, ii. 37, a.
Caelia tabellaria, ii. 752, a.
Calidia, ii. 37, a.
Calpurnia, i. 16, a.
33 de ambitu, i.
100, b.
35 de repetundis,
ii. 542, a.
Canuleia, ii. 32, b; ii.
37, a.
Cassia, ii. 37, a.
, agraria, ii. 37, a.
, tabellaria, ii. 37, a ;
ii. 752, a.
, Terentia frumen-
taria, ii. 37, b.
Censoria, ii. 520, b.
Cicereia, i. 1015, a ; ii.
37, b.
Cincia, ii. 37, b.
Claudia, ii. 38, a ; ii. 912, b.
Clodiae, i. 878, b; ii. 38, b.
Coctia, ii. 38, b.
Coloniae Genetivae, ii. 38,b.
Commissoria, ii. 419, a.
Cornelia agraria, ii. 38, b.
55 de alea, i. 97, a.
5 ) de civitate, ii.
38, b.
5 9 de edictis, ii. 39,b.
55 de falsis, i. 822, a.
5 ) frumentaria, i.
878, a.
57 de injuriis, i.
1010, b; ii. 40,a.
33 judiciaria, ii. 39,b.
35 de lusu, ii. 40, a.
5 y de magistratibus,
ii. 39, a.
majestatis, ii.
114, b.
Lex Cornelia ne quis legibus
solveretur, ii.
40, a.
35 de novis tabellis,
ii. 40, a.
5 , de novorum ci-
vium et liberti-
norum suffra-
giis, ii. 39, b.
s 5 nummaria, 1.
822, a.
5 de parricidio, ii.
39, a.
2 ? de proscriptione
et proscriptis, ii.
504, a.
7 , de provinciis or-
dinandis, ii.39,a.
2 , de recipiendo Ma-
rio, ii. 39, b.
55 de rejectione ju-
dicum, ii. 39, b.
5 , de repetundis, ii.
542, b.
: 5 de restituendo Ci-
cerone, ii. 40, a.
35 de revocandis ex-
sulibus, ii. 39, b.
5 ) de sacerdotiis, ii.
461, b.
5 , de sententia fe-
renda, ii. 39, a.
5 , de sicariis et ve-
neficis, i. 1003,a;
ii. 11, a ; ii. 39,a;
ii. 939, b.
55 de sponsoribus, i.
1015, a ; ii. 40,a.
5 ) sumptuaria, ii.
725, a.
55 testamentaria, i.
822, a.
35 tribunicia, ii. 39,b.
35 unciaria, ii. 39, b.
53 de vadimonio, i.
17, b.
55 Baebia, i. 100, b.
25 , de ambitu,
ii. 39, b.
25 Caecilia, i. 878, b;
ii. 39, b.
35 Fulvia, i. 100, b.
Crepereia, ii. 40, a.
Curiata de adoptione, ii.
40, a.
, de imperio, i. 247,a;
i. 504, a; ii. 552, a.
Decia, ii. 40, a.
decimaria, ii. 40, a.
Didia, ii. 724, b.
Domitia de sacerdotiis, ii.
40, a ; ii. 461, b.
Duilia, ii. 40, a.
, maenia, ii. 40, b.
Duodecim Tabularum, ii.
40, b.
Fabia de plagio, ii. 432, a.
Fabricia, ii. 42, a.
Falcidia, ii. 21, b.
Fannia, ii. 724, b.
Flaminia, ii. 42, a.
Flavia agraria, ii. 42, a.
Lex frumentariae, i. 877, a.
Fufia de religione, ii. 42, a.
, judiciaria, ii. 42, a.
Furia or Fusia Caninia, ii.
42, a; ii. 124, b.
, Atilia, ii. 42, a.
, de sponsu, i. 1014, b;
ii. 125, b.
, or Fusia testamen-
taria, ii. 21, b.
Gabinia de senatu, ii. 42, b.
, tabellaria, i. 507,b;
ii. 752, a.
, de uno imperatore,
ii. 42, b.
, de versura, ii.42, b.
Gabiniae, i. 101, a; ii.
42, b.
Gellia Cornelia, ii. 42, b.
Genucia, ii. 42, b.
Glicia, ii. 42, b.
Gundobada, ii. 42, b.
Herennia, ii. 42, b.
Hieronica, i. 605, b; ii.
507, a.
Hirtia, ii. 42, b.
Horatia, ii. 42, b.
, Valeria, ii. 42, b.
Hortensia de nundinis, ii.
42, b.
99 de plebiscitis, ii.
32, b; ii. 42, b; ii.
437, b.
Hostilia, ii. 42, b.
Icilia, ii. 43, a.
judicaria, i. 1027, b.
judicaria C. Gracchi, i.
1027, b.
Julia de adulteriis, i. 29, b;
i. 648, b.
, de ambitu, i. 101, a.
, de civitate, i. 482, a.
, de majestate, ii.114,b.
,, Miscella, ii. 43, b.
, municipalis,i. 1007,a;
ii. 44, a.
, et Papia Poppaea, ii.
, a-
, peculatus, ii. 361, a.
, et Plautia, ii. 45, b.
, de repetundis, ii.
543, a.
, theatralis, ii. 45, b.
, et Titia, ii. 45, b.
, devi, i. 1003, a.
Juliae, ii. 43, a.
Junia de peregrinis, ii.
9
, Licinia, ii. 47, a.
, Norbana, i. 10, b; i.
450, a; ii. 45, b; ii.
62, b; ii. 124, a.
, repetundarum, ii.
542, b.
, Velleia, ii. 46, a.
Laetoria, ii. 46, a.
Lentuli, ii. 46, a.
Licinia de sodaliciis, i.
100, b.
39 Junia, ii. 47, a.
39 Mucia de civibus
regundis, ii. 47, a.
3 X 2
1044
LATIN INDEX.
Lex Licinia sumptuaria, ii.
725, a.
Liciniaerogationes, ii. 46, a.
Liviae, i. 878, a ; ii. 47, b.
Lutatia de vi, ii. 47, b.
Maenia, ii. 47, b.
majestatis, ii. 114, b.
Malacensis, Malacitana, i.
482, a ; ii. 116, a.
Mamilia de coloniis, ii.
47, b.
35 finium regunda-
rum, ii. 47, b.
mancipii, ii. 119, a.
Manilia, ii. 48, a.
Manilianae, ii. 48, a.
Manlia devicesima, i. 37, b ;
ii. 124, b.
Marcia, ii. 48, a.
Maria, ii. 48,
125, b.
Menenia, ii. 48, a.
Mensia, ii. 48, a.
Messia, ii. 48, a.
Metilia, ii. 48, a.
Minucia, ii. 48, b.
Mucia, ii. 48, b.
Muneralis, ii. 37, b.
Nervae agraria, ii. 48, b.
Octavia, i. 878, a.
Ogulmia, ii. 48, b.
Oppia, ii. 724, b.
Orchia, ii. 724, b.
Ovinia, ii. 48, b ; ii. 621, b ;
ii. 623, a.
Papia de peregrinis, ii.
a ; ii.
5 * *
Poppaea, i. 304, a ;
i. 648, b, ii. 357,b;
ii. 358, a.
Papiria, or Julia Papiria
de mulctarum aestima-
tione, ii. 48, b.
Papiria, ii. 48, b.
39 Plautia, ii. 48, b.
59 Poetelia, ii. 49, b.
99 tabellaria, ii.752,a.
Pedia, ii. 49, a.
Peducaea, ii. 49, a.
Pesulania, ii. 49, a.
Petreia, ii. 49, a.
Petronia, ii. 49, a.
Pinaria, i. 100, b ; ii. 49, a.
Plaetoria, i. 574, b ; i.
635, b ; ii. 49, a.
Plautia, or Plotia de vi, ii.
971, a.
, or Plotia judici-
aria, i. 1028, a ;
ii. 49, b.
Papiria, i. 449, a ;
ii. 48, b.
Poetelia, i. 16, b} i. 100, b :
ii. 49, b; ii.
95
99
125, b.
,, Papiria, ii. 49, b :
ii. 231, a.
Pompeia, ii. 49, b.
25 de ambitu, i.
100, b.
, judiciaria, i.
1028, a.
Pompeia de jure magistra-
tuum, ii. 49, b.
29 de parricidiis, ii.
49, b.
35 tribunitia, ii.
50, a.
29 de vi, i. 1003, a ;
ii. 50, a.
Pompeiae, ii. 49, b.
Porciae de capite civium,
ii. 50, b.
Porcia de provinciis, ii.
50, b.
Praediatoria, ii. 50, b.
Publicia, ii. 50, b.
99 de alea, i. 97, a.
Publilia, i. 16, b, i. 31, b:
ii. 50, b ; ii.
621, b.
25 de sponsoribus, i.
1014, b, ii.125,b.
Publiliae, ii. 32, b ; ii. 51,a;
ii. 437, b.
Pupia, ii. 51, b.
Quintia, ii. 51, b.
regia, ii. 51, b.
regiae, ii. 32, a.
Remmia, i. 349, a.
repetundarum, ii. 542, a.
de residuis, ii. 361, a.
Rhodia, ii. 52, a.
Roscia theatralis, ii. 52, a ;
ii. 821, b.
Rubria, ii. 32, b ; ii. 52, a.
Rupiliae, ii. 52, b ; ii.
507, a.
Rutilia, ii. 52, b.
sacratae, ii. 52, b.
Saenia, ii. 53, a.
Salpensana, i. 1016, b; ii.
53, a.
Satura, ii. 33, b ; ii. 597, b.
Scantinia, ii. 53, a.
Scribonia, ii. 53, a.
Sempronia de foenore, ii.
53, b.
Semproniae, ii. 53, a ; ii.
507, b ; ii. 632, a.
Servilia agraria, ii. 54, a.
, Caepionis, i. 1027,b.
,, Glaucia, ii. 542, b.
99 39 de repetun-
dis, ii. 54, a ; ii.
542, b.
, judiciaria, ii. 54, a.
Sestia, ii. 54, a.
Silia, i. 16, a ; ii. 54, a.
Sulpicia Sempronia, ii.
54, b.
Sulpiciae, ii. 54, a.
Sumptuariae, ii. 723, b.
Tabellariae, i. 507, b ; ii.
751, b.
Tarpeia Aternia, i. 31, b :
ii. 36, b.
Terentia Cassia, i. 878, a.
Terentilia, ii. 54, b.
Testamentariae, ii. 54, b.
Thoria, ii. 54, b.
Titia, ii. 55, a.
2, de alea, i. 97, a.
2, de tutoribus, ii. 55, a.
Lex Trebonia, ii. 55, a.
,, Tribunicia, ii. 55, a.
, Tullia de ambitu, i. 100, b.
, Valeria, de proscriptione,
ii. 504, a.
, Waleriae, ii. 55, b.
99 et Horatiae,
55, b ; ii. 532, b.
, Wallia, i. 16, b; ii. 56, a ;
ii. 125, b.
, Varia, ii. 114, b.
, Watinia, ii. 56, a.
* 9 , de colonis, ii. 56, a.
, Vectibulici, ii. 56, a.
,, de vi, ii. 971, a.
, viaria, ii. 56, a ; ii. 948, b.
,, vicesimaria, ii. 954, b.
, Willia annalis, ii. 36, a.
, Wisellia, i. 133, a ; ii. 56, a.
, Voconia, ii. 56, a.
, Ursonensis, i. 16, a.
Libatio, ii. 581, a.
Libella, ii. 56, b.
Libellus, ii. 56, b ; ii. 293, b.
Liber, i. 1009, a ; ii. 57, b ; ii.
60, b
ii.
3 we
, statu, ii. 123, b.
Libera fuga, i. 821, a.
Liberales ludi, ii. 61, a.
Liberalia, ii. 61, a.
Liberalis causa, i. 211, b.
25 manus, i. 211, b.
Liberalitas, i. 100, a.
Liberi, i. 1009, a.
Libertas, ii. 682, a.
Libertus (Greek), ii. 61, a.
, (Roman), ii. 62, b.
Libertinus, i. 1009, a ; ii. 62, b.
Libitinarii, i. 890, b.
Libra, ii. 56, b ; ii. 63, b.
, or as, ii. 63, a.
Librae, i. 220, a.
Libramentum, i.
854, a.
Librarii, ii. 60, a ; ii. 64, a.
Librarius legionis, i. 13, b.
Librator, ii. 64, a.
Libripens, ii. 118, b.
Liburna, ii. 222, a.
Liburnica, ii. 222, a.
Liceri, i. 246, a.
Licia, ii. 765, a.
Liciatorum, ii. 765, a.
Licinia lex de sodaliciis, i.
100, b.
,, Junia lex, ii. 47, a.
, Mucia lex, ii. 47, a.
, lex sumptuaria, ii.
725, a.
Liciniae rogationes, ii. 46, a.
Licitari, i. 246, a.
Licitatio fructuum, i. 1020, b.
Licium, ii. 721, a.
Lictor, ii. 64, b.
Ligo, ii. 66, b.
Ligula, i. 335, b ; ii. 67, a ; ii.
530, b.
Lima, ii. 67, a.
Limbus, ii. 67, a.
Limen, i. 987, a ; ii. 473, a.
Limes, i. 86, b.
Limitatio, i. 86, a.
154, b ; ii.
ILATIN INDEX.
1045
ILimus, ii. 67, b.
Linea, ii. 390, a.
Linearii, i. 85, b.
Lingula, i. 335, b.
Linteones, ii. 770, b.
Linum, i. 71, b ; ii. 753, b.
Lirare, i. 60, b.
Literae, ii. 628, b.
Literarum obligatio, ii. 253, a.
Literati, ii. 666, a.
Liticines, i. 35, b ; i. 544, a.
Litigare per formulas, i. 17, b.
Litis contestatio, ii. 67, b ; ii.
259, b.
Litis dividuae exceptio, i. 19, b.
Litterator, ii. 97, a.
Lituus, ii. 69, a.
Lixae, i. 348, b ; ii. 69, b.
Lixivium, i. 881, b ; ii. 963, b.
Locare agrum, i. 59, b.
Locarii, ii. 88, a.
Locati conducti actio, i. 387, a.
ILocatio conductio, ii. 70, a.
Locator, ii. 70, a.
Loculamentum, i. 298, a.
Loculi, ii. 70, b.
Locuples, ii. 70, b.
ILocus liberatus et effatus, ii.
773, a.
ILodicula, ii. 71, a.
Lodix, ii. 71, a.
Logistae, i. 763, a.
Logistica, ii. 71, a.
Lomentum, i. 68, b.
Lora, ii. 964, b. .
Lorarii, i. 864, b.
Lorica, ii. 77, b.
Lorum, i. 864, a.
ILucar, ii. 81, a.
Luceres, ii. 878, a.
Lucerna, ii. 81, b.
Lucta, ii. 82, a.
Luctatio, ii. 82, a.
Ludi, ii. 84, b.
,, Actiaci, ii. 89, a.
,, Apollinares, ii. 89, b.
,, Augustales, i. 257, b.
,, Capitolini, ii. 90, a.
,, Ceriales, i. 406, a.
4, Circenses, i. 437, a; ii.
85, b ; ii. 86, a.
,, Florales, i. 867, b.
,, funebres, ii. 85, a.
,, honorarii, ii. 85, b.
„, Juvenales, i. 1053, a.
,, liberales, i. 264, b.
4, magni, ii. 84, b.
,, Martiales, ii. 90, a.
,, Megalenses, ii. 155, b.
,, natalicii, ii. 85, a.
,, Palatini, ii. 90, b.
.',, piscatorii, ii. 90, b.
4, plebeii, ii. 90, b.
,, pontificales, ii. 89, a.
,, quaestorii, ii. 87, a.
,, quinquennales, i. 14, a.
,, Romani, ii. 91, a.
,, saeculares, ii. 92, a.
,, scenici, ii. 84, b.
,, sevirales, ii. 90, b.
,, Taurii, ii. 93, b.
,, Terentini, ii. 92, a.
Ludi veneris genetricis, ii. 93, b.
,, victoriae Caesaris, ii. 93, b.
99 ,, Sullamae, ii. 94, a.
,, Volcanalici, ii. 94, a.
,, Votivi, ii. 84, b.
Ludus, i. 916, b.
,, duodecim scriptorum, i.
695, a ; ii. 12, a.
,, latrunculorum, ii. 11, a.
,, litterarius, ii. 94, a.
,, matutimus, ii. 937, a.
,, Trojae, ii. 899, a.
Lumen, i. 156, a ; i. 862, b.
Luminum servitus, ii. 653, a.
Lunula, i. 335, b.
Lupanar, i. 388, b.
Lupatum, i. 876, b.
Lupercalia, ii. 99, a.
Luperci, ii. 100, a.
Lupi, ii. 651, a.
Lupinus, i. 68, b.
Lupus ferreus, ii. 101, a.
Lustratio, ii. 101, a.
Lustrum, ii. 103, b.
Lyceum, i. 926, b.
Lyra, i. 217, b ; ii. 104, b.
M.
Macchus, i. 522, b.
Macedonianum senatusconsul-
tum, ii. 640, a.
Macellarius, ii. 107, a.
Macellum, ii. 106, b.
Maceria, ii. 182, a.
Machinae, ii. 107, a.
Macrum solum, i. 56, b.
Mactra, i. 2, a.
Maenia lex, ii. 47, b.
Maenianum, i. 110, b ; i. 112, a ;
i. 430, b; i. 665, b ; ii. 109, b.
Magadis, ii. 106, b.
Magister, ii. 109, b.
» » admissionum, i. 25, b.
9» armorum, ii. 109, b.
99 auctionis, i. 245, b.
» » a censibus, ii. 109, b.
99 chori, i. 424, a.
9» collegii, ii. 110, a.
9» convivii, ii. 743, a.
9 , epistolarum, ii. 110, a.
9» equitum, i. 633, b.
9» fani, ii. 110, a.
99 libellorum, ii. 57, a;
ii. 110, a.
99 memoriae, ii. 110, a.
99 militum, ii. 110, a.
9» navis, i. 766, b.
99 officiorum, ii. 110, a.
99 pagi, ii. 310, a.
»» plebi, ii. 113, a.
»» populi, i. 630, b.
,, a rationibus, ii. 110, a.
99 scriniorum, ii. 110, a.
99 societatis, ii. 110, a.
9» vicorum, ii. 110, b ;
ii. 955, a.
Magistratus, ii. 110, b.
Magmenta, ii. 586, b.
Magnetarches, ii. 757, b.
Magnifici, i. 992, a.
Majestas, ii. 114, a.
Majores, i. 1000, a.
Malleolus, ii. 116, a.
Malleus, ii. 116, a.
Malluvium, ii. 125, b.
Malus, ii. 821, b. -
» oculus, i. 827, b.
Mamilia lex, ii. 47, b.
Mammaeani, i. 97, b.
Μamuralia, i. 753, b.
Manceps, ii. 116, b.
NIancipatio, ii. 118, a; ii. 803, b.
Mancipi res, i. 653, b; ii. 983, a.
Mancipii causa, ii. 117, a.
Mancipium, ii. 117, b.
Mandata, i. 531, b ; ii. 120, b.
Mandatarius, ii. 120, a.
Mandati actio, ii. 120, a.
Mandator, ii. 120, a.
Mandatum, ii. 120, a.
Mandra, ii. 12, b.
Mane, i. 635, b.
Mangones, ii. 664, b.
Maniae, ii. 304, a.
Manica, ii. 120, b.
Manicula, i. 160, a.
Mamilia lex, ii. 48, a.
Manipulares, i. 783.
Manipularii, i. 783.
Manipulus, i. 783, b; i. 787, b;
ii. 672, a.
Manlia lex, i. 37, b ; ii. 124, b.
Mansio, ii. 121, a.
Mansiones, ii. 121, b; ii. 590, a.
Mantele, ii. 122, a.
Mantica, ii. 122, a.
Manuarium aes, i. 40, b.
Manubiae, ii. 475, a; ii. 691, a.
Mamucla, ii. 854, a.
Manum, conventio in, ii. 138, b;
ii. 141, b.
Manumissio, ii. 122, a.
Manumissor, ii. 123, b.
Manupiarium, ii. 723, b.
Manus, i. 40, b ; ii. 141, b.
,, ferrea, i. 934, a.
,, injectio, i. 16, a ; ii.
124, b.
Mappa, ii. 125, b.
Marcellus, ii. 116, a.
Marcia lex, ii. 48, a.
Marculus, ii. 116, a.
Marcus, ii. 116, a.
Margo, ii. 951, a.
Maria lex, ii. 48, a; ii. 125, b.
Marra, ii. 126, a.
Marrubium, ii. 966, b.
Marsupium, ii. 126, a.
Marsyas, i. 481, a.
Martialis flamen, i. 865, a.
Martiales ludi, ii. 90, a.
Mastigia, i. 864, a.
Matara, i. 937, a.
Mater, i. 469, a.
Materfamilias, i.
138, b.
Matertera, i. 469, a.
Mathesis, i. 213, a.
Matralia, ii. 130, a.
825, a ; ii.
1046
LATIN INDEX.'
Matrimonium, ii. 130, a.
Matrona, ii. 138, b.
Matronales feriae, ii. 144, b.
IMatromalia, ii. 144, b.
Mausoleum, ii. 144, b.
Mazonomus, ii. 151, a.
Medianae, ii. 853, a.
Mediastini, i. 59, a; ii. 151, b.
Medica, i. 69, b. .
Medicamentum, ii. 390, b.
Medicamina; ii. 966, a.
Medici, i. 802, b.
Medicina, ii. 152, a.
NMedicus, ii. 153, a.
Medimnus, ii. 155, b.
Medityinalia, ii. 155, b.
Meddix'tuticus, ii. 151, a.
NIedulla nudata, i. 66, b.
Megalenises ludi, ii. 155, b.
Megalensia, ii. 155, b.
Megalesia, ii. 155, b.
Melitensis vestis, ii. 157, a.
Melligo, i. 82, a.
Membrana, ii. 58, a.
Mensa, ii. 157, a.
,, de, i. 182, a.
Mensae Delphicae, i. 1, a.
,, scripturam, per, i.182,a.
,, Vasariae, i. 1, b.
Mensam, per, i. 182, a.
Mensarii, i. 181, a.
Mensularii, i. 181, a.
Mensia lex, ii. 48, a.
Mensis, i. 341.
Mensores, i. 83, b ; ii. 158, a.
Menstruum, ii. 666, b.
Mensura, ii. 158, b.
Mercenarii, ii. 164, b.
Mercenarius, i. 59, a.
Merenda, i. 394, b.
Merga, i. 64, a.
Meridiani, i. 918, a.
Meridies, i. 635, b.
Merx peculiaris, ii. 661, b.
Messio, i. 63, b.
Metae, i. 432, b ; i. 435, a.
Metallum, ii. 166, a.
Metatores, i. 372, b.
Metaxarii, ii. 650, a.
ÌMethodici, ii. 153, a.
Metretes, ii. 170, b.
IMetronomi, ii. 170, b.
Micare digitis, ii. 171, a.
Miliarium, ii. 868, a.
Milium, i. 67, a.
Mille passuum, ii. 171, b.
Milliare, ii. 171, b.
Milliarium, i. 279, b; ii. 171, b.
99 aureum, ii. 171, b ;
ii. 952, a.
Milvus, i. 223, a.
Mimus, ii. 172, a.
Mina, ii. 446, a. {
Minores, i. 574, a ; i. 1000, a.
Minucia lex, ii. 48, b.
Minutio capitis, i. 360, a.
Missio, i. 809, b; i. 917, b.
,, causaria, i. 809, b.
„ honesta, i. 809, b.
,, ignominiosa, i. 811, b.
Missus, i. 438, a.
Mitra, i. 499, b ; ii. 174, a.
Modiolus, i. 578, a; ii. 174, b ;
ii. 868, a.
Modius, ii. 174, b.
Modulus, ii. 174, b.
99 acceptorius, i. 156, a.
99 erogatorius, i. 156, a.
Modus legitimus, ii. 655, b.
Μoenia, ii. 182, a. -
Mola, ii. 175, a.
,, salsa, ii. 143, b ; ii. 581, b.
Monarchia, ii. 177, a.
Moneta, ii. 177, a ; ii. 249, a.
Monetales trium viri, ii. 178, a.
Monile, ii. 178, b.
Monochromata, ii. 390, a.
Monopodium, ii. 157, b.
Monoxylon, ii. 460, a.
Monstrum, ii. 499, a.
Mora, ii. 180, a. .
Morbus comitialis, i. 508, a.
Morio, ii. 205, b.
Mortarium, ii.
868, a.
Μorum regimen, i. 400, b.
,, cura, or praefectura, i.
401, a.
Mos, i. 1042, a.
Motio e tribu, ii. 882, b.
Muciana cautio, i. 389, b.
MIula, -us, i. 76, b.
Mulier, ii. 912, b.
Mulleus, i. 334, a.
Mulsa, ii. 967, b.
Mulsum, ii. 967, b.
Multa, ii. 440, b.
Multicia, ii. 770, b.
Munerator, i. 916, b.
Municeps, ii. 181, b.
Municipes, ii. 979, a.
Municipium, i. 483, a.
Munifex, i. 296, a.
Munus, i. 893, b ; i. 916, b; i.
970, a. -
Munychia, ii. 181, b.
Muralis corona, i. 548, b.
Murex, ii. 870, a.
Muries, ii. 941, b.
Murrea vasa, ii. 181, b.
Murrhina vasa, ii. 181, b.
Murrina, ii. 967, a.
Murus, ii. 182, a.
Muscarium, i. 863, b.
Musculus, ii. 191, b.
Museum, ii. 192, a.
Musica, ii. 192, b.
Musivarii, ii. 397, a.
Musivum opus, ii. 397, a.
Mustaceum, ii. 143, b.
Mustax, ii. 200, b.
Mustum, ii. 963, a.
Mutationes, ii. 121, b.
Mutui actio, ii. 201, a.
,, datio, ii. 201, a.
Mutuli, i. 491, b.
Mutus, ii. 801, a.
Mutuum, ii. 201, a.
Myrmillones, i. 918, a.
Myrtites, ii. 966, b.
Mysteria, ii. 202, a.
Μystrum, ii. 205, a.
180, b ; ii.
N.
Naenia, i. 891, a.
Nani, ii. 205, a.
Napus, i. 69, a.
Narthecia, ii. 977, a.
Nassa, ii. 546, b.
Nassiterna, ii. 205, b.
Natalicii ludi, ii. 85, a. .
Natalibus restitutio, i. 1009, b.
Natatio, i. 275, b ; i. 282, b.
Natatorium, i. 275, b.
Natura, i. 1043, a.
Naturales, ii. 358, b.
Naturalis ratio, i. 1042, b.
Navalia, ii. 206, a.
Navales duoviri, i. 697, a.
Navalis corona, i. 548, b.
Navarchus, ii. 206, a.
Navis, ii. 208, a.
Naumachia, ii. 224, b.
Naumachiarii, ii. 225, a.
INauta, ii. 225, a.
Nebris, ii. 225, b.
Necessarii heredes, i. 949, b.
Nefasti dies, i. 636, a.
Negativa actio, i. 653, a.
Negatoria actio, i. 527, b; i.
653, a ; ii. 655, a.
Negligentia, i. 572, a.
Negotiatores, ii. 226, a.
Negotiorum gestorum actio, ii.
226, b.
Nenia, i. 891, a.
Nepos, i. 469, a.
Neptis, i. 469, a.
Neptumalia, ii. 228, b.
Neronia, ii. 536, a.
Nervus, ii. 228, b.
Nexum, ii. 229, a.
INexus, ii. 229, b.
Nidus, i. 298, a.
Nisus, or Nixus, i. 217, b.
Nitrum, i. 881, b.
Nobiles, ii. 231, a.
Nobilitas, ii. 231, a.
Nodus, ii. 233, a.
Nomen, i. 835, a ; ii. 233, a.
,, expedire, or expungere,
i. 182,
,, Latinum, ii. 681, a.
,, (Greek), ii. 233, a.
,, (Roman), ii. 233, b.
Nomenclator, i. 100, a ; ii.
235, b.
Nominatio, ii. 235, b ; ii. 551, b.
Nomino, ii. 235, b.
Nonae, i. 344, a.
Norma, ii. 243, a.
Notae, ii. 243, b.
,, censoria, i. 401, a ;
1006, a.
Notarii, i. 13, a ; ii. 245, a.
Notatio censoria, i. 401, a.
Novale, i. 72, a.
Novalis, i. 72, a.
Novatio, ii. 259, a.
Novellae, ii. 245, b. -
,, constitutiones, ii. 245,b.
Novendiale, i. 893, a.
Noverca, i. 43, a.
i.
LATIN INDEX.
1047,
Novi homines, ii. 232, a.
,, operis nuntiatio, ii. 275, a.
Noxa, ii. 246,.a.
Noxalis actio, ii. 246, a.
Noxia, ii. 246, a.
Nubilarium, i.. 64, b.
Nuces, ii. 247, a.
Nucleus, ii. 951, a.
Nudipedalia, ii. 248, a.
Nudus, ii. 248, a.
Numerus, i. 793, a.
Nummularii, i. 181, a.
Nummus, or Numus, ii. 248, b.
9» άureus, i. 260, b.
Numularii, i. 181, a.
Nuncupatio, ii. 119, a; ii. 801, a.
Nundinae, ii. 251, b.
Nundinum, ii. 252, a.
Nuntiatio, i. 252, a; ii. 275, b.
Nuptiae, ii. 130, a.
Nurus, i. 42, b.
Nymphaeum, i. 678, a.
O.
Oarion, or Oriom, i. 221, a ; i.
231, a.
Obarator, i. 63, a.
Obba, ii. 252, b.
Obeliscus, \i. 252, b.
Obices, i. 989, a.
Obligatio, ii. 253, a.
Obligationes, ii. 254, b.
Obnuntiatio, i, 252, a.
Obolus, ii. 260, a ; ii. 455, a.
Obrogare legem, ii. 33, a.
Obsidionalis co:ona, i. 547, b.
Obsonator, ii. 277, a.
Obsonium, ii. 276, b.
Occasus, i. 224, b.
Occatio, i. 63, a.
Occupatio, ii. 26), a.
Ocinum, or Ocymum, i. 70, b.
Qcrea, ii. 260, b.
Octaeteris, i. 342, a.
Octava, ii. 934, a
Qctavia lex, i. 878, a.
October equus, ii, 261, b.
Octophoron, ii. 14, b.
Ocularius, ii. 155, a.
Odeum, ii. 822, a
Oecus, i. 671, b.
Oenomelum, ii. 967, a.
Oenophorum, ii. 261, b.
Oenophorus, ii. 262, a.
Offendix, i. 135, b.
Officium admissioris, i. 25, a.
Offringere, i. 60, b,
Ogulnia lex, ii. 48, b.
Olea, ii. 262, a.
Oleagina corona, i. 549, a.
Oleitas, ii. 264, b.
Olemie, i. 218, a..
Olenium astrum, or pecus, i.
, 218, a. o* 4
Oletum, ii. 262, a.
Oleum, ii. 262, a.
Oliva, ii. 262, a.
Olivarum conditura, ii. 265, a.
Olivetum, ii. 262, a.
Olivitas, ii. 264, b.
Olla, ii. 267, a.
Ollaria, ii. 268, a.
Olor, i. 218, a.
Olympia, i. 14, a ; ii. 268, a.
Onager, ii. 856, b.
Onerariae naves, i. 541, b.
Oneris ferendi servitus, ii.
653, a.
Onyx, alabaster, i. 95, b.
Opalia, ii. 275, b.
Operae, ii. 357, a.
,, servorum et animalium,
ii. 652, b.
Operarii, i. 13, a ; i. 58, b.
Opercula, ii. 964, a.
Operis novi nuntiatio, ii. 275, b.
Opima spolia, ii. 691, b.
Opimianum vinum, ii. 962, b.
Opinatores, ii. 276, a.
Opisthographi, ii. 59, a.
Oppia lex, ii. 724, b.
Oppidum, i. 434, a ; ii. 276, a.
Opsonium, ii. 276, b.
Optio tabellariorum, ii. 696, b.
Optiones, i. 801, b.
Optimates, ii. 232, b.
Opus, or acceptum referre, i.
402, b.
Opus albarium, ii. 346, a.
,, incertum, ii. 188, b.
,, mixtum, ii. 190, a.
,, musivum, ii. 397, a.
,, novum, ii. 275, b.
,, quadratum, ii. 187, a.
,, reticulatum, ii. 189, a.
Oraculum, ii. 277, b.
Orarium, ii. 723, b. .
Oratio, i. 29, a.
Orationes, i. 531, b.
9 principum, ii. 293, b.
Orator, ii. 294, a.
Orbis, i. 843, a; ii. 157, b; ii.
868, a.
Orbus, ii. 45, a.
Orca, ii. 679, b.
Orchestra, ii. 811, b ; ii. 814, a.
Orchia lex, ii. 724, b.
Orcinus libertus, ii. 123, b.
,, senator, ii. 123, b.
Ordinarii gladiatores, i. 918, a.
99 servi, ii. 666, a.
Ordinarius judex, i. 1031, b.
Ordinum ductores, ii. 295, b.
Ordiri, ii. 765, b.
Ordo, i. 482, a; i. 606, b ; ii.
295, b
,, Augustalium, ii. 296, a.
,, decuirionum, i. 482, a; i,
606, b ; ii. 296, a.
,, equestris, i. 756, a ; i.
783, a ; ii. 296, a.
,, senatorius, ii. 296, a ; ii.
625, b.
,, sententiarum, ii. 628, b.
Oreae, i. 876, b.
Organum, ii. 107, a.
Orichalcum, ii. 297, a.
Originarii, i. 472, a.
Orion, i. 221, a.
Ornamenta. triumphalia, ii.
898, a. !
Ornatio, ii. 632, b.
Ornatrix, i. 501, b.
Ormeatae, ii. 372, b. ;
Ornithones, i. 77, b ; i. 80, a.
Orphica, ii. 297, b.
Ortus, i. 224, b.
Os resectum, i. 892, b ; i. 893, b.
Oscines, i. 250, a.
Oscillatio, ii. 304, b.
Oscillum, ii. 304, a.
Ostentum, ii. 499, a.
Ostiarium, ii. 306, a.
Ostiarius, i. 669, a.
Ostium, i. 669, a ; i. 987, a.
Ova, i. 434, b.
Ovalis corona, i. 549, a.
Ovatio, ii. 306, b.
Oves, i. 73, a.
Ovile, i. 508, a.
Ovinia lex, ii. 48, b ; ii. 621, b ;
ii. 623 a.
P.
Pabula, i. 69, b.
Pactio, ii. 256, a.
Pactum, ii. 256, a.
Paean, ii. 307, a.
Paedagogia, ii. 308, a.
Paedagogium, ii. 308, a.
Paedagogus, ii. 307, b.
Paenula, ii. 308, b.
Paganalia, ii. 311, a. *
Pagani, ii. 310, b.
Paganica, ii. 422, b."
Pagi, ii. 309, b ; ii. 955, a. .
Pagus, ii. 309, b ; ii. 955, a.
Pala, i. 130, a ; ii. 311, b.,
Palaestra, ii. 312, a.
Palaria, ii. 324, a.
Palatini ludi, ii. 90, b.
Palilia, ii. 347, b.
Palilicium, or Parilicium sidus,
i. 219, a.
Palimpsestus, ii. 58, b.
Palla, ii. 314, b.
Palliata fabula, i. 522, a.
Palliatus, ii. 322, a.
Palliolum, ii. 322, b.
Pallium, ii. 318, a.
Palmipes, ii. 322, b.
Palmus, i. 571, a; ii. 322,jb.
Paludamentum, ii. 322, b.
Paludatus, ii. 323, a.
IPalus, ii. 324, a.
Panathenaea, ii. 324, a.
Pancratiastae, ii. 325, a.
Pancratium, ii. 328, a.
Pandectae, ii. 330, a.
Pandia, ii. 333, a.
Panegyris, ii. 333, b.
Panicum, i. 67, a.
Pánis gradilis, i. 879, b.
Pantomimus, ii. 334, a.
Panus, ii. 765, a.
Papia lex de peregrinis, ii. 45, b.
1048
LATIN INDEX.
Papia Poppaea lex, i. 304, a ; i.
648, b; ii. 357, b; ii. 358, b.
Papilio, ii. 752, b.
Papiria lex, ii. 48, b.
Plautia lex, ii. 48, b. .
, Poetelia lex, ii. 49, b.
,, tabellaria lex, ii. 752, a.
Papyrus, ii. 58, a.
Par impar ludere, ii. 336, b.
Paradisus, ii. 338, a.
Paragauda, ii. 945, b.
Paralleli, ii. 853, a.
Parangariae, i. 587, b.
Parapechium, ii. 945, b.
Parapherna, i. 693, b.
Parasanga, ii. 343, a.
Parasiti, ii. 343, b.
Parentalia, i. 893, b.
Parentatio, i. 894, a.
Paries, ii. 345, b.
Parilia, ii. 347, b.
Parma, i. 784, b ; ii. 348, a.
Parmula, ii. 348, a.
Parochi, ii. 348, a.
Paropsis, i. 386, b.
Parricida, ii. 49, b.
Parricidium, ii. 49, b.
Partiarius, i. 60, a.
Pascendi servitus, ii. 653, b.
Pascua publica, ii. 613, a.
Passum, ii. 965, a.
Passus, ii. 349, a.
Pastillarii, ii. 349, a.
Pastillus, -um, ii. 349, a.
Pastio, i. 72, a.
2, agrestis, i. 72, b.
, villatica, i. 77, b.
Pastophoroi, ii. 349, a.
Pastores, i. 77, a.
Patagium, ii. 716, b.
Patrum auctoritas, i. 247, a ;
ii. 355, a.
Patella, ii. 349, b.
Pater, i. 469, a.
, familias, i. 825, a ; ii.
351, b.
2, patratus, i. 840, a.
Patera, ii. 349, b.
Patibulum, ii. 351, a.
Patina, ii. 351, a.
Patres, ii. 354, a ; ii. 620, b.
, conscripti, ii. 621, a.
Patria potestas, ii. 351, b.
Patricii, ii. 353, b.
Patrimi et matrimi, or Patri-
mes et matrimes, ii. 356, a.
Patrimus, ii. 356, a.
Patrona, ii. 356, b.
Patronomi, ii. 356, a.
Patronus, ii. 356, b.
Patruus, i. 469, a.
Pavae, -i, i. 79, a.
Pavimentum, i. 685, b.
Pavonaceum, ii. 764, a.
Pavones, i. 79, a.
Pauperie, actio de, ii. 360, a.
Pauperies, ii. 359, b.
Pausarius, ii. 468, b.
Pausia, ii. 265, a.
Pecoris servitus, ii. 653, b.
Pecten, ii. 360, a ; ii.
765, a.
39
Pectinator, ii. 360, a.
Pecuarii, ii. 613, a.
Pecudes majores, i. 75, a.
, minores, i. 72, b.
Peculator, ii. 360, b.
Peculatus, ii. 360, b.
Peculio, actio de, ii. 661, b.
Peculium, ii. 353, a ; ii. 661, a.
35 castrense, ii. 353, a.
Pecunia, ii. 361, a.
, certa, ii. 255, b.
, vacua, i. 182, a.
Pecuniae repetundae, ii. 542, a.
Pecus, ii. 613, b.
, Bubulum, i. 75, a.
, Caprinum, i. 74, a.
o, Equinum, i. 76, a.
, hirtum, i. 72, b.
, Suillum, i. 74, b.
, Tarentinum, or Graecum,
i. 72, b.
Pedaneus judex, i. 1031, b.
Pedarii senatores, ii. 624, b.
Pedes, ii. 559, a.
Pedisequi, ii. 361, a ; ii. 696, b.
Peducaea, lex, ii. 49, a.
Pedum, ii. 361, b.
Pegasus, i. 218, b.
Pegma, ii. 361, b.
Pegmares, ii. 361, b.
Pellex, i. 526, a.
Pelliarii, ii. 363, a.
Pellionarii, ii. 363, a.
Pellis, ii. 362, a.
Pelta, ii. 363, b.
Pelvis, ii. 364, a.
Penicillus, -um, ii. 390, a.
Peniculi, ii. 692, a.
Pensio, i. 59, b.
Pentacosiomedimni, i. 403, b ;
ii. 877, a.
Pentaspastos, ii. 108, a.
Pentathlon, ii. 364, b.
Peplus, ii. 319, b.
Per condictionem, ii. 366, b.
, judicis postulationem, ii.
367, a.
, manus injectionem, ii.
4,
,, pignoris capionem, ii. 367,b.
Pera, ii. 368, a.
Perceptio, ii. 988, b.
Perduellio, ii. 114, a.
Perduellionis duoviri, ii. 368, a.
Peregrinus, i. 448, b.
Peremptoria exceptio, i. 19, b.
Perferre legem, ii. 33, a.
Pergamena, ii. 58, b.
Pergula, ii. 97, a ; ii. 368, b.
Periscelis, ii. 373, a.
Peristiarchus, i. 699, b.
Peristroma, ii. 18, a ; ii. 762, b.
Peristylium, i. 671, a ; ii.
373, b.
Permutatio, i. 181, a.
Pero, ii. 373, b.
Perpendiculum, ii. 373, b.
Perpetua actio, ii. 481, a.
Perrogatio, ii. 629, b.
Perscribere, i. 182, a.
Perscriptio, i. 182, a.
Persea, i. 218, b.
Perseus, i. 218, a.
Persecutoria actio, ii. 481, a.
Persona, ii. 374, a.
Pertica, ii. 162, a.
Pes, ii. 159, b : ii. 161, b.
, Drusianus, ii. 159, b.
, monetalis, ii. 160, a.
, sestertius, ii. 667, a.
Pessulus, i. 989, a.
Pesulani lex, ii. 49, a.
Petasus, ii. 429, a.
Petauristae, ii. 379, a.
Petaurum, ii. 379, a.
Petitor, i. 23, a ; i. 100, a.
Petorritum, or Petortum, ii.
379, b.
Petreia lex, ii. 49, a.
Petronia lex, ii. 49, a.
Phalae, i. 821, b.
Phalangae, ii. 379, b.
Phalangarii, ii. 379, b.
Phalanx, i. 768, b–779, b.
Phalarica, i. 937, a.
Phalerae, ii. 380, a ; ii. 674, a.
Phallus, i. 638, a ; i. 827, b.
Pharetra, ii. 381, b.
Pharos, or Pharus, ii. 383, a.
Phaselus, ii. 223, b.
Phaseolus, i. 69, a.
Phasiani, i. 78, b.
Philyra, ii. 57, b.
Picatio, ii. 964, a.
Pictura, ii. 389, b.
Pigmentarii, ii. 939, b.
Pigmentum, ii. 390, b.
Pignoratitia actio, ii. 421, a.
Pignoris capio, ii. 367, b.
Pignus, ii. 419, a.
Pila, ii. 180, b; ii 421, b.
, trigonalis, ii. 422, b.
Pilae, ii. 937, b.
Pilani, i. 784, b.
Pilentum, ii. 426, a.
Pilicrepus, ii. 426, a.
Pilleolum, ii. 427, a.
Pilleum, ii. 426, b.
Pilleus, ii. 426, b.
Pilum, i. 783, b ; i. 936, a ; ii.
181, a.
Pinacotheca, ii. 429, a.
Pinaria lex, i. 200, b ; ii. 49, a.
Pinsere, i. 66, i.
Piper, ii. 429, 5.
Piperatorium, ii. 429, b.
Piscatorii ludi, ii. 90, b.
Pisces, i. 220, 5.
Piscis, i. 223, 1.
Piscina, i. 82, b ; i. 154, b ; i.
272, b ; i. 275, b ; i. 283, b ;
ii. 429, b.
Pistillum, ii. 81, a.
Pistor, ii. 430 a.
Pistrinum, ii. 181, a.
Pistris, or Pistrix, i. 221, a.
Pistum, ii. 181, a.
Pittacium, ii.964, b.
Pisum, i. 69, a.
Pix, ii. 966, a.
Plaetoria lex, i. 574, b ; i.
635, b.
Plaga, ii. 546, a.
Plagiarius, ii 432, a.
LATIN INDEX.
1049
Plagium, ii. 431, b.
Planetae, ii. 432, a.
Planetarii, i. 213, a.
Planipes, ii. 172, b; ii. 680, a.
Plastae, ii. 794, a.
Plaustrum, or Plostrum, i.
216, a; ii. 433, b.
Plautia, or Plotia lex de vi, ii.
971, a.
» judiciaria, i. 1028, a ;
ii. 49, b
Plebeii, ii. 434, a.
» ludi, ii. 90, b.
Plebes, ii. 434, a.
Plebiscitum, ii. 32, b ; ii. 437, a.
Plebs, ii. 434, a.
Plectrum, ii. 106, a.
Pleiades, i. 219, a; i. 227, a.
Pleni menses, i. 341, a.
Plostellum poenicum, i. 64, b ;
ii. 870, a.
Plumarii, ii. 439, b.
Plumbum, ii. 167, a.
Pluteus, ii. 18, b ; ii. 439, b.
Pneumatici, ii. 153, a.
Pnyx, i. 698, a.
Poculum, i. 346, b.
Podium, i. 110, b ; i. 113, a;
i. 490, b ; ii. 440, b.
Poena, ii. 440, b.
Poenae militum, i. 811, a.
Poetelia Papiria lex, ii. 49, b ;
ii. 231, a.
Politor, i. 59, a.
Pollem, i. 66, b.
Pollex, i. 571, a ; ii. 161, b.
Pollicitatio, ii. 256, a.
Pollinctores, i. 890, a.
Polubrum, ii. 125, b.
Polus, i. 972, b ; ii. 442, b.
Polyeres, ii. 213, b.
Polymita, ii. 770, b.
Pomeridianum tempus, i. 635, b.
Pomerium, or Pomoerium, ii.
443, a.
Pompa, i. 437, a.
,, Circensis, i. 437, a.
Ρompeiae leges, ii. 49, b.
Pondera, ii. 444, b ; ii. 765, a.
Pons, i. 508, a ; ii. 456, b.
,, Aelius, ii. 458, b.
,, Aemilius, ii. 458, a.
,, Aurelius, ii. 459, a.
,, Cestius, ii. 458, b.
,, Fabricius, ii. 458, b.
,, Janiculensis, ii. 459, a.
,, Molvius, ii. 459, b.
,, Neronianus, ii. 459, a.
,, Palatinus, ii. 458, b.
,, Sublicius, ii. 458, a.
,, suffragiorum, ii. 460, b.
,, Vaticanus, ii. 459, a.
Pontifex, ii. 460, b.
Pontificales libri, ii. 462, a.
9» ludi, ii. 89, a.
Pontifices minores, ii. 463, b.
Pontificii libri, ii. 462, a.
Pontificium jus, i. 1041, b ; ii.
• 462, a.
Popa, i. 572, b ; ii. 586, b ; ii.
617, a.
Ropina, i. 388, a.
Poplifugia, ii. 463, b.
Populares, ii. 232, b.
»y actiones, ii. 962, a.
Popularia, i. 112, a.
Populi scitum, ii. 32, b.
Populifugia, or Popiifugia, ii.
463, b. -
Populus, i. 112, b ; ii. 464, b.
Por, ii. 664, a.
Porciae leges, ii. 50, b.
Porta, ii. 466, b.
,, decumana, i. 375, b.
,, Libitinensis, i. 436, a.
,, pompae, i. 436, a.
,, praetoria, or extraordi-
maria, i. 375, b.
,, principalis, i. 375, b.
,, quaestoria, i. 375, b.
,, triumphalis, i. 436, a;
ii. 897, a.
Portentum, ii. 499, a.
Porticus, ii. 468, a.
Portisculus, ii. 468, b.
Portitores, ii. 469, a ; ii. 523, a.
Portorium, ii. 468, b.
Portumnalia, ii. 469, b.
Portunalia, ii. 469, b.
Posca, ii. 469, b.
Possessio, i. 53, a; ii. 469, b.
9» bonae fidei, i. 653, a.
99 bonorum, i. 307, a.
9» clandestina, i. 1018, a.
Possessor, ii. 472, b ; ii. 520, b.
Postes, i. 987, a.
Posticum, i. 987, a ; ii. 777, b.
Postliminium, ii. 472, b.
Postmeridianum tempus, i.
635, b.
Postsignani, i. 807, b.
Postulaticii, i. 918, a.
Postumus, i. 951, b.
Potestas, ii. 351, b.
Praecidianeae feriae, i. 839, a.
Praecinctio, i. 110, b ; i. 112, a;
ii. 815, a.
Praecinctus, i. 427, b.
Praecones, ii. 474, b.
Praeconium, ii. 475, a.
Praeda, ii. 475, a; ii. 691, a.
Praedia, ii. 475, b.
Praediator, ii. 480, a; ii. 984, b.
Praediatorium jus, ii. 480, a.
Praediatura, ii. 984, b.
Praediorum servitutes, ii. 652,b.
Praedium, ii. 475, b ; ii. 652, b.
Praefecti sociorum, i. 786, b.
Praefectus, ii. 476, a.
99 Aegypti, ii. 476, a.
99 aerarii, i. 38, a.
99 alimentorum, i.97,b.
» » annonae, i. 877, b ;
ii. 476, a.
99 aquarum, i. 156, a.
» » arcendis latrociniis,
i. 796, b.
99 castrorum, i. 798, a;
ii. 476, b.
$9 classis, ii. 476, b.
95 fabrûm, i. 798, a;
i. 821, b.
99 jure dicundo, i.
3,
Praefectus legionis, i. 798, a.
»» orae maritimae, i.
796, b.
99 praetorio, ii. 476, b.
,, . sociorum, i. 786, b.
» » vigilum, i. 795, a.
urbi, ii. 477, a; ii.
553, b.
Praefectura, i. 483, a.
Praefericulum, ii. 478, b.
Praeficae, i. 890, a.
Praefurnium, i. 273, a; i.
279, a ; i. 873, a.
Praejudicium, ii. 478, b.
Praelusio, i. 917, a.
Praenomen, ii. 234, a.
9» imperatoris, i. 998,a.
Praepetes, i. 250, a.
Praepositus, ii. 479, b ; ii. 696, b.
Praerogativa centuria, i. 509, a.
Praes, ii. 479, b.
Praescriptio, i. 19, a; ii. 480, a.
Praeses, ii. 511, a.
Praesidia, i. 377, a.
Praestatio, ii. 255, b.
Praetentura, i. 380, b.
Praeteritii senatores, ii. 622, a.
Praetexta, ii. 849, a.
Praetextata fabula, ii. 865, b.
Praetextatus, ii. 821, b.
Praetor, ii. 481, b.
,, peregrinus, ii. 482, a.
,, urbanus, ii. 481, b.
Praetoria actio, i. 21, a.
9» cohors, i. 791, a.
Praetoriami, i. 793, b.
Praetorii latera, i. 380, a.
Praetorium, i. 373, a ; i. 379, a ;
i. 380, a; ii. 483, a.
Praevaricatio, ii. 642, a.
Pragmatici, ii. 294, b.
Prandium, i. 394, b.
Prata, i. 70, b.
Precarium, i. 53, a ; i. 1020, a.
Prelum, ii. 483, a ; ii. 850, a.
Prensatio, i. 100, a.
Primicerius, ii. 483, b.
Primipilaris, i. 800, a.
Primus pilus, i. 799, b.
Princeps, ii. 483, b.
,, juventutis, i. 757, b.
99 senatus, ii. 642, a.
99 tabularius, ii. 696, b.
Principales, i. 800, b.
Principatus, ii. 484, a.
Principes, i. 783, b ; i. 785, a.
Principia, i. 784, b.
99 via, i. 374, a.
Principium, i. 504, a.
Privatae feriae, i. 837, a.
Privatum jus, i. 448, b ; i.
1042, a.
Privilegium, i. 819, b ; ii. 33, a.
Privigna, i. 42, b.
Privignus, i. 42, b.
Proamita, i. 469, a.
Proavia, i. 469, a.
Proavunculus, i. 469, a.
Proavus, i. 469, a.
Procinctus, ii. 803, b.
Proconsul, ii. 493, b ; ii. 507, b.
Procuratio, ii. 498, b.
1050
LATIN INDEX.
Procurator, i. 20, b; i. 59, a ;
ii. 496, b ; ii.
666, a; ii. 696, b.
„ alimentorum, i. 97,b.
9» peni, i. 391, a.
Procyon, i.. 222, a.
Prodigium, ii. 499, a.
Prodigus, ii. 801, a.
Prodomus, i. 661, a ; ii. 777, b.
Proeliales dies, i. 636, b.
Professor, i. 1039, b.
Profesti dies, i. 636, b.
Profusiones, ii. 581, a.
Progener, i. 42, b.
Projiciendi Servitus, ii. 653, a.
Proletarii, i. 359, b ; ii. 501, a.
Promatertera, i. 469, a.
Promissa, ii. 256, a.
Promissor, ii. 256, b.
Promulsis, i. 396, b ; ii. 967, b.
Promus, i. 391, a.
Promus condus, i. 391, a.
Pronepos, i. 469, a.
Proneptis, i. 469, a.
Pronubae, ii. 143, a.
Pronuntiatio, i. 1031, a ; ii.
629, b.
Pronurus, i. 42, b. ,
Propatruus, i. 469, a.
Rropinatio, ii. 743, a.
Proplasma, ii. 501, b ; ii. 697, a.
Propnigeum, i. 279, a ; i. 927, a.
Propraetor, ii. 501, b.
Proprietarius, ii. 988, a.
Proprietas, i. 651, b.
Proscenium, ii. 812, a.
Proscindere, i. 60, b.
Proscribere, ii. 503, b.
Proscripti, ii. 503, b.
Proscriptio, ii. 503, b.
Prosecta, ii. 586, b.
Prosocrus, i. 42, b.
Prospectus servitus, ii. 653, a.
Protropum, ii. 963, b.
Provincia, ii. 506, b.
Provinciae, ii. 111, a.
Provocatio, i. 145, a.
Provocatores, i. 918, a.
Proximus infantiae, i. 1001, a.
99 pubertati, i. 1001, a.
Prudentes, i. 1037, a. -
Pubertas, i. 574, b ; i. 1000, b.
Pubes, i. 1000, a.
Publicae feriae, i. 837, a.
Publicani, ii. 520, b.
Publici servi, ii. 662, b.
Publicia lex, ii. 50, b.
Publiciana in rem actio, ii.
523, b.
Publicum, i. 37, a; ii. 520, b.
1.
'»* jus, i. 448, b ;
1042, a.
Publicus ager, i. 49, b ; ii.
509, a.
Publilia lex, i. 16, b; i. 31, b ;
ii. 50, b. •
Publiliae leges, ii. 32, b; ii.
51, a.
Puer, ii. 664, a.
Pugilatus, ii. 524, a.
Pugiles, ii. 524, a.
Pugillares, ii. 753, a.
Pugio, ii. 525, a.
Pullarius, i. 250, b.
Pullati, i. 112, b.
Pulmentarium servorum, i.59,b.
Pulpitum, ii. 814, b.
Puls, i. 67, a; ii. 525, b.
,, fabata, i. 68, b.
Pulvinar, i. 430, b ; ii. 15, b ;
ii. 526, a.
Pulvini, i. 112, a.
Pulvinus, ii. 526, a.
Pumilio, ii. 205, a.
Pumilus, ii. 205, b.
Puncta, ii. 696, a.
Punctae, i. 156, a.
Pupa, ii. 526, a.
Pupia lex, ii. 51, b.
Pupillus, i. 1000, a; ii. 909, b.
Pupillaris substitutio, i. 950, b.
Puteal, ii. 526, a.
Puteus, i. 153, b ; i. 275, b.
Puticulae, ii. 647, b.
Puticuli, ii. 647, a.
Pyra, i. 893, a.
Pyrgus, i. 877, a.
Pyrrhica, ii. 527, a.
Pythia, ii. 282, a.
Pytho, ii. 281, a.
Pyxis, ii. 530, a.
Q.
Quadra, ii. 690, b.
Quadragesima, ii. 530, b.
Quadrams, i. 202, b ; ii. 455, a.
Quadrantal, ii. 530, b.
Quadriga, i. 579, b.
Quadrigatus, i. 205, a.
Quadriremes, ii. 221, a.
Quadrupes, ii. 359, b.
Quadruplatores, ii. 531, b.
Quadruplicatio, i. 20, a.
Quaesitor, i. 1032, b.
Quaestionarii, i. 803, b.
Quaestiones, i. 1032, a.
99 perpetuae, i. 1027,b.
Quaestor, ii. 532, a.
Quaestores aerarii, ii. 533, b.
99 alimentorum, i. 97, b.
9» classici, ii. 534, b.
9» parricidii, ii. 532, b.
99 pecuniae alimenta-
riae, i. 97, b.
,, principis, ii. 534, b.
9» rerum capitalium, ii.
533, a.
99 sacri palatii, ii. 636,a.
9» urbani, ii. 532, b.
Quaestoria munera, ii. 87, a.
Quaestorii ludi, ii. 87, a.
Quaestorium, i. 381, a.
Quaestura Ostiensis, ii. 534, b.
Quales-quales, ii. 666, a.
Qualus, i. 330, a.
Quanti minoris actio, ii. 535, a.
Quartarius, ii. 530, b; ii. 535, a.
Quasillariae, i. 330, b ; ii. 771, a.
Quasillus, i. 330, a.
Quaternio, i. 207, a.
Quatuorviri jure dicundo, i.
3, b. »
99 viarum curanda-
rum, ii. 949, a.
Querela inofficiosi testamenti,
ii. 806, a.
Quinarius, i. 617, a.
Quinctilis, i. 344, b.
Quincunx, ii. 455, a.
Quindecemviri, i. 601, b.
Quingenaria, ii. 958, a. '
Quinquagesima, ii. 535, b.
Quinquatria, ii. 535, b.
Quinquatrus, ii. 535, b.
99 minores or mi-
nusculae, ii. 536, a.
Quinquennalia, ii. 536, a.
Quinquennalis, i. 483, a.
Quinqueremes, ii. 221, a.
Quinquertium, ii. 364, b.
Quinqueviri, ii. 536, a.
9y mensarii, i. 181, a;
ii. 536, b.
Quintana, i. 374, b.
Quintia lex, ii. 51, b.
Quintilis, i. 341, a.
Quirinalia, ii. 536, b.
(Quirinalis flamen, i. 865, a.
Quiritium jus, i. 448, b ; i.
1042, b.
Quod jussu, actio, i. 1052, a.
Quorum bonorum, interdictum,
ii. 536, b.
R.
Radius, i. 578, a; ii. 537, b;
ii. 765, a.
Ramenta sulpurata, i. 991, b.
Ramnenses, ii. 878, a.
Ramnes, ii. 878, a.
Rapina, i. 69, b.
,, or rapta bona, i. 896, b.
Rastellus, ii. 537, b.
Raster, ii. 537, b.
Rastrum, ii. 537, b.
Rates, ii. 538, a.
Ratiocinandi ars, ii. 71, a.
Rationes, i. 182, a.
Rationibus distrahendis, actio
de, ii. 911, b.
Rationis subductio, ii. 71,-a.
Recepta ; de recepto, actio,3ii.
539, a.
Recinium, ii. 565, a.
Rector, ii. 979, b.
Recuperatores, i. 1026, a.
Reda, ii. 539, b.
Redemptor, i. 402, b ; ii. 70, a.
Redhibitoria actio, ii. 540, a.
Redimiculum, ii. 174, b.
Refriva, i. 68, b.
Reges socii, ii. 682, a.
Regia, i. 287, a; ii. 540, a.
,, lex, ii. 51, b.
Regifugium, ii. 540, b.
Regilla, ii. 142, b; ii. 906, a. .
LATIN INDEX.
1051
Regina sacrorum, ii. 555, a.
Regio, ii. 541, a.
Regula, ii. 541, b.
Rei contrectatio, i. 895, a.
, uxoriae, or dotis actio, i.
694, a. -
Relatio, ii. 628, a.
Relegatio, i. 819, b.
Relegatus, i. 821, a.
Religiosus locus, i. 893, b.
Remancipatio, i. 648, b; i.
726, b.
Remmia lex, i. 349, a.
Remulcum, ii. 541, b.
Remuria, ii. 30, b.
Remus, ii. 212, a ; ii. 215, a.
Renuntiatio, i. 508, a.
Repagula, i. 989, b.
Reparator, i. 60, b.
Repetundae, ii. 542, a.
Replicatio, i. 19, b.
Repolire, i. 64, b.
Repositorium, i. 396, b.
Repotia, ii. 144, b.
Repudium, i. 648, b.
Repurgare, i. 64, b.
Res, i. 652, a.
, communes, i. 652, b.
, corporales, i. 652, a ; ii.
977, b. -
, divini juris, i. 652, b; i.
1041, b ; ii. 985, a.
, fiduciaria, i. 858, a.
, fructuaria, ii. 988, b.
, fungibiles, i. 652, b.
, furtivae, ii. 985, b.
, hereditaria, ii. 984, b.
, humani juris, i. 1041, b.
, immobiles, i. 652, a.
, incorporales, i. 652, a ; ii.
977, b.
, mancipi, i. 653, b ; ii.
983, a.
, mobiles, i. 652, a.
, nec mancipi, i 653, b; ii.
983, a.
, privatae, i. 652, b.
, publicae, i. 652, b.
, religiosae, i. 652, b.
, sacrae, i. 652, b.
, sanctae, i. 652, b.
, serviens, ii. 652, a.
, singulorum, i. 652, b.
, universitatis, i. 652, b.
, uxoria, i 693, a.
, vi possessae, ii. 986, a.
Rescripta, i. 531, b.
Rescriptum, i. 531, b.
Resina, ii. 966, a.
Responsa, i. 1037, a.
Respublica, ii. 978, b.
Restitutio in integrum, ii. 543,a.
Restitutoria actio, ii. 545, a.
Rete, ii. 545, a.
Retentio dotis, i. 649, a.
Retentura, i. 381, a.
Retiarii, i. 918, a.
Reticulum, i. 499, a ; ii. 545, a.
Reus, i. 23, a ; ii. 258, b.
Rex, ii. 546, b.
, convivii, ii. 743, a.
, sacrificulus, ii. 555, a.
Rex sacrificus, ii. 555, a.
, sacrorum, ii. 555, a.
Rhetor, ii. 97, a.
Rhodia lex, ii. 52, a.
Rhombus, ii. 906, b.
Rhythmica, ii. 558, a.
Rica, i. 866, a ; ii. 565, b.
Ricinium, ii. 565, a.
Rivus subterraneus, i. 154, a.
Robigalia, ii. 566, a.
Roborarium, ii. 338, a.
Robur, i. 363, a.
Robus, i. 65, a.
Rogare legem, ii. 33, a.
Rogatio, i. 1027, a ; ii. 33, a.
Rogationem accipere, ii. 33, a.
95 promulgare, ii. 33, a.
Rogationes Liciniae, ii. 46, a.
Rogator, i. 508, a; ii. 751, a.
Rogus, i. 893, a.
Romphaea, i. 920, a ; i. 937, a.
Rorarii, i. 782, a ; i. 784, b.
Rosatio, i. 894, a.
Roscia theatralis lex, ii. 52, a ;
ii. 821, b.
Rostra, ii. 566, a.
Rostrata columna, i. 495, a.
59 corona, i. 548, b.
Rostrum, ii. 217, a.
Rota, i. 578, a ; i. 843, a ; ii.
567, a.
, figularis, i. 843, a. -
Rubria lex, ii. 32, b; ii. 52, a.
Rubrica, i. 244, b.
Rudens, ii. 217, b.
Ruderatio, i. 685, b.
Rudiarii, i. 917, b.
Rudis, i. 917, a.
Rudus, ii. 951, a.
Rufuli, i. 797, a.
Rumpia, i. 920, a ; i. 937, a.
Runcatio, i. 63, b.
Runcina, ii. 567, b.
Rupiliae leges, ii. 52, b.
Rustici, i. 471, b.
Rutabulum, ii. 567, b.
Rutellum, ii. 567, b.
Rutiliana actio, i. 306, b.
Rutrum, ii. 567, b.
S.
Sabaia, -um, i. 407, a.
Saccatus, ii. 964, b.
Saccus, ii. 568, a ; ii. 964, b.
Sacellum, ii. 568, a.
Sacena, i. 650, a.
Sacer, i. 1049, a.
Sacerdos, ii. 568, b.
Sacerdotes Augustales, i. 258, a.
Sacerdotium, ii. 568, b.
Sacomarii, ii. 696, b.
Sacra, ii. 577, a.
, gentilicia, i. 910, b ; ii.
577, b.
, municipalia, ii. 577, a.
, privata, ii. 577, b.
, publica, ii. 578, a.
Sacramento, ii. 958, a.
Sacramentum, i. 805, b; i.
1049, a ; ii. 958, a.
Sacrarium, i. 672, b; ii. 579, a-
Sacratae leges, ii. 52, b.
Sacrificium, ii. 579, a.
Sacrilegium, ii. 587, a.
Sacrilegus, ii. 587, a.
Sacrorum detestatio, i. 911, a-
Sacrosanctitas, ii. 113, b.
Sacrum novemdiale, i. 837, a-
Saeculares ludi, ii. 92, a.
Saeculum, ii. 92, a.
Saepes, i. 57, b.
Saepimentum, i. 57, b.
Saepta, i. 507, b.
Sagarii, ii. 588, b.
Sagatio, ii. 589, a.
Sagitta, i. 218, b ; ii. 587, a-
Sagittarii, ii. 588, a.
Sagittarius, i. 220, b.
Sagittifer, i. 220, b.
Sagittipotens, i. 220, b.
Sagmina, ii. 588, a.
Sagulum, ii. 589, a.
Sagum, ii. 588, b.
Salaminia, ii. 826, b.
Salarium, ii. 589, a.
Salientes, i. 871, a.
Salii, ii. 589, a.
Salillum, ii. 592, a.
Salinae, ii. 592, a.
Salinator, ii. 592, a.
Salinum, ii. 592, a.
Salsilago, ii. 592, a.
Salsugo, ii. 592, a.
Saltatio, ii. 592, b.
Saltus, i. 51, a ; i. 57, b ; ii-
613, a. t
Salvianum interdictum, i.
1019, b.
Salutatio, ii. 594, b.
35 pro imperio, i. 998, b.
Salutatores, ii. 594, b.
Sambuca, ii. 594, b.
Sambucistriae, ii. 595, a.
Samnites, i. 918, b.
Sampsa, ii. 850, a.
Sandalium, ii. 685, b.
Sandapila, i. 892, a.
Sapa, ii. 963, b.
Sapo, i. 881, b ; ii. 595, b; ii.
977, a.
Sarcinae, i. 807, a.
Sarcophagus, i.
595, b.
Sarculatio, i. 63, a.
892, b; ii.
Sarculum, i. 63, a ; ii. 597, a.
Sarisa, i. 778, a ; i. 936, b.
Saritio, i. 63, a.
Saronia, ii. 597, a.
Sarracum, ii. 597, a.
Sartago, ii. 597, b.
Satio, i. 62, a.
, septimontialis, i. 68, a.
, trimestris, i. 62, b.
Satira, ii. 597, b.
Satura, ii. 597, b.
, lex, ii. 33, b; ii. 597, b.
Saturnalia, ii. 599, b.
Scabellum, i. 432, b.
Scabillum, i. 591, a.
1052
LATIN INDEX.
Scaena, ii. 817, b; ii. 820, b.
Scalae, ii. 601, a.
,, Gemoniae, i. 363, b.
Scalpellum, i. 414, b.
Scalprum, ii. 601, a.
Scalptura, ii. 601, b.
Scamnum, i. 380, b.
Scandulae, ii. 763, b.
Scantinia lex, ii. 53, a.
Scaphium, ii. 611, a.
Scapus, i. 68, a; ii. 696, a ; ii.
765, a.
Scarabaeus, ii. 602, b.
Scenici ludi, ii. 84, b.
Sceptrum, ii. 611, b.
Schidae, ii. 58, a.
Schola, i. 275, b ; i. 277, a.
Scholae, i. 381, a.
,, auctores, i. 246, b.
Scillites, ii. 966, b.
Sciothericum, i. 974, b.
Scipio, ii. 612, a.
Scire, ii. 637, a.
Scirpea, ii. 433, b.
Scissor, i. 397, a.
Scitum populi, ii. 32, b.
Scobis, ii. 612, b.
Scopa, ii. 612, b.
Scordiscus, i. 742, b.
Scorpio, i. 220, a; ii. 853, a.
Scorpius, i. 220, a.
Scortea, ii. 308, b.
Scotia, ii. 690, b.
Scribae, i. 12, a ; ii. 612, b.
Scribere, i. 182, a.
Scribonia lex, ii. 53, a.
Scrinium, i. 358, b.
Scriplum, ii. 613, b.
Scripta, ii. 469, b.
,, , duodecim, i. 695, a.
Scriptura, i. 52, b ; ii. 613, a.
Scripturarii, ii. 613, b.
Scripulum, i. 57, b ; ii. 163, b ;
ii. 455, a; ii. 613, b.
Scrobes, i. 157, b.
Scrupulum, i. 1034, a ; ii. 613, b. |
Sculptura, ii. 601, b.
Sculponeae, i. 59, b ; ii. 613, b.
Scutella, ii. 614, a.
Scutica, i. 864, a.
Scutum, ii. 614, a.
Scyphus, ii. 614, a.
Scytale, ii. 615, a.
Secale, i. 67, b.
Secespita, ii. 615, a.
Secretarium, i. 248, a.
Sectatores, i. 100, a.
Sectio, ii. 475, b ; ii. 615, b.
Sector, ii. 475, b ; ii. 615, b.
Sectorium interdictum, i.
1019, b ; ii. 615, b.
Secundarium, ii. 965, a.
Securis, ii. 616, a.
Secutores, i. 803, b ; i. 918, b.
Sedile, ii. 619, a.
Seges, i. 72, a.
Sella, i. 386, a ; ii. 617, b.
,, curulis, ii. 619, b.
Sellistermium, ii. 16, a.
Sembella, ii. 56, b.
Semen adoreum, i. 65, b.
,, trimestre, i. 65, b.
Sementina dies, i. 838, b.
Sementivae feriae, i. 838, b.
Semimares, i. 900, a.
Semis, Semissis, i. 202, b ; ii.
455, a. .
Semita, ii. 951, a. .
Sempromia lex de foenere, ii.
53, b.
Semproniae leges, ii. 53, a.
Semuncia, ii. 455, a.
Semunciarium fenus, i. 835, b.
Senator, ii. 620, b.
Senatores Orcini, ii. 123, b.
99 pedarii, ii. 624, b.
Senatus, ii. 620, b. .
,, auctoritas, ii. 630, b ;
ii. 637, b.
Sematusconsultum, ii. 636, a.
,, Afinianum, ii. 638, a.
,, Apronianum, ii. 638, a.
,, Articuleianum, ii. 638, b.
,, de Bacchanalibus, ii.638,b.
,, Calvisianum, ii. 45, a; ii.
638, b.
,, Claudianum, ii. 45, a ; ii.
638, b. •
,, de collusione detegenda,
ii. 639, b.
,, Dasumianum, ii. 639, b.
,, Fabianum, ii. 638, a.
,, Hadriani, ii. 639, b.
,, Hosidianum, ii. 639, b.
,, Juncianum, ii. 639, b.
,, Junianum, ii. 639, b.
,, Juventianum, ii. 639, b.
,, Largianum, ii. 640, a.
,, Libonianum, ii. 640, a.
,, de ludis saecularibus, ii.
640, a. •
,, Macedonianum, ii. 640, a.
,, Memmianum, ii. 45, a ;
ii. 640, b.
,, Neronianum, ii. 640, b.
., Orfitianum, ii. 640, b.
,, Ostorianum, ii. 63, a.
,, Papinianum, ii. 638, a.
,, Pegasianum, i. 857, b ; ii.
641, a.
,, Persicianum, ii. 44, b ; ii.
641, a.
,, Pisonianum, ii. 640, b.
,, Plancianum, ii. 641, a.
,, Rubrianum, ii. 641, b.
,, Sabinianum, ii. 638, a.
,, Silanianum, ii. 641, b.
,, tacitum, i. 12, a.
,, Tertullianum, ii. 641, b.
,, Trebellianum, i. 857, a;
ii. 642, a.
,, Turpilianum, ii. 642, a.
,, Velleianum, ii. 642, a.
,, Vitrasianum, ii. 642, b.
,, Volusianum, ii. 642, b.
Senatus jus, ii. 626, b.
Seniores, i. 505, a.
Sententia, ii. 622, a.
Septem Triones, i. 216, b.
Septemviri Epulones, i. 753, b.
Septimatrus, ii. 535, b.
Septimontium, ii. 578, b.
Septunx, ii. 455, a.
Sepulchrum, ii. 643, a.
Sequestres, i. 100, a.
Sera, i. 989, b.
Seriae, ii. 964, a.
Sericarii, ii. 650, a.
Sericum, ii. 649, b.
Sermo, ii. 599, a.
Serpens, i. 217, a ; i. 218, b.
Serpentarius, i. 218, b.
Serra, ii. 650, b.
Serrarius, ii. 650, b.
Serrati, sc. demarii, ii. 651, b.
Serrula, ii. 650, b.
Serta, i. 545, a.
Servare de coelo, i. 252, a.
Serviana actio, ii. 419, b.
Servilia agraria lex, ii. 54, a.
,, Glaucia lex, ii. 542, b.
,, judiciaria lex, ii. 54, a.
Servitus, ii. 652, a ; ii. 659, b.
Servitutes, ii. 651, b.
Servus (Greek), ii. 656, a.
,, (Roman),. i. 59, a ; ii.
659, b. » •
,, ad manum, i. 99, a.
,, publicus, i. 12, a ; ii.
662, b. .
Sescuncia, ii. 455, a.
Sesquiplares, or Sesquiplarii, i.
787, b; i. 809, a.
Sessorium, i. 366, a ; i. 568, b.
Sestertium, i. 366, a ; i. 568, b.
Sestertius, ii. 667, a.
Sevir turmae equitum, i. 757, b.
Seviri, i. 259, a.
Sex suffragia, i. 754, a.
Sexatrus, ii. 535, b.
Sextans, i. 202, b ; ii. 455, a.
Sextarius, ii. 530, b ; ii. 668, a.
Sextilis, i. 341, a.
Sextula, ii. 455, a ; ii. 668, a.
Sibina, i. 937, a.
Sibyllini libri, ii. 668, a.
Sica, ii. 671, b.
Sicarius, ii. 672, a.
Sicilicus, ii. 455, a; ii. 672, a.
Sicilire pratum, i. 71, a.
Siclus, ii. 672, a.
Sidareus, ii. 672, a.
Sidus natalicium, i. 213, b.
Sigillaria, ii. 600, b.
Sigla, ii. 244, a..
Sigma, ii. 157, b.
Signa, i. 380, b.
,, militaria, ii. 672, a.
Signifer, i. 800, b ; ii. 672, b.
Signinum opus, ii. 397, b.
Signum, i. 807, b.
Silatum, i. 394, b.
Silentiarii, ii. 479, b.
Silentium, i. 251, b.
Silia lex, i. 16, a ; ii. 54, a.
Silicarii, i. 156, b.
Silicernium, i. 893, a.
Siligo, i. 65, b.
Simila, or Similago, i. 66, b.
Siliqua, ii. 455, a; ii. 675, b.
Silvae, ii. 613, a.
Simpulum, or. Simpuvium, ii-
675, b.
Sindon, ii. 945, b.
Sepulchri violati actio, ii. 961,b. i Singulares, i, 803, b.
TLATIN INDEX.
1053
Sinus, ii. 847, a.
Siparium, ii. 821, b.
Siparum, ii. 224, a.
Sirius, i. 221, b; i. 229, b.
Sistrum, ii. 676, a.
Sitella, ii. 679, a.
Siticines, i. 891, a ; ii. 901, a.
Situla, ii. 679, a.
Sobrina, i. 469, a.
Sobrinus, i. 469, a.
Socculus, ii. 679, b.
Soccus, ii. 679, b.
Socer, i. 42, b.
, magnus, i. 42, b.
Societas, ii. 680, a ; ii. 979, a.
Socii, i. 786, a ; i. 868, b ; ii.
681, a.
Socio, actio pro, ii. 680, a.
Socius, ii. 681, a.
Socrus, i. 42, b.
, magna, i. 42, b.
Sodales, i. 470, a.
, Augustales, i. 258, a.
, Titii, ii. 845, b.
Sodalitas, ii. 845, b ; ii. 979, a.
Sodalitium, i. 100, b ; ii. 979, a.
Solarium, i. 672, b; i. 974, b;
ii. 933, a.
Solea, ii. 684, b.
Solidus, ii. 687, a.
Solistimum, i. 250, b.
Solitaurilia, ii. 725, b.
Solium, i. 273, a ; ii. 838, b.
Solvere ex arca, i. 161, b.
Solum, i. 685, b.
Solutio, ii. 258, b.
Sonipes ales, i. 218, b.
Sophronistae, i. 928, b.
Sordidati, ii. 849, b.
Soror, i. 469, a.
Sortes, ii. 292, b; ii. 687, a.
,, conviviales, ii. 799, b.
Sortilegi, ii. 687, b.
Spadones, i. 900, a ; ii. 44, b.
Sparsiones, ii. 799, b.
Sparus, i. 936, b.
Spatha, ii. 765, a.
Spatium, i. 435, b.
59 legitimum, ii. 655, b.
Specificatio, -or, i. 528, a.
Specillum, i. 414, b.
Spectabiles, i. 992, a.
Spectio, i. 252, a.
Specularia, i. 686, b ; i. 977, b.
Specularis lapis, i. 686, b ; i.
977, b.
Speculatores, i. 802, a.
Speculum, ii. 688, a.
Specus, i. 153, b.
Sphaeristerium, i. 283, a ; i.
928, b.
Spiculum, i. 934, b; i. 936, b.
Spina, i. 430, b.
Spira, ii. 690, b.
Spirula, ii. 690, b.
Spolia, ii. 691, a.
Spoliarium, i. 274, b.
Sponda, ii. 18, b.
Spondeo, ii. 256, b.
Spongia, ii. 692, a.
Sponsa, ii. 139, b.
Sponsalia, ii. 139, b.
Sponsio, i. 1014, b; ii. 959, b.
Sponsor, i. 1014, b.
Sponsus, ii. 140, a.
Sporta, i. 541, a.
Sportula, ii. 692, a.
Stabularius, ii. 539, a.
Stadium, ii. 162, b; ii. 693, a.
Stalagmia, i. 1002, a.
Stamen, ii. 765, a.
Stannum, ii. 167, b.
Stater, ii. 695, a.
Statera, ii. 696, a.
Stati dies, i. 636, b.
Stationes, i. 377, a ; ii. 696, b.
59 fisci, ii. 696, b.
95 municipiorum, i.921,a.
Stativae feriae, i. 837, a.
Stator, i. 794, b.
Statores, i. 794, b.
Statu liber, ii. 123, b.
Statua laureata, ii. 898, b.
, triumphalis, ii. 898, b.
Statuaria ars, ii. 696, b.
Statumen, ii. 951, a.
Stela, ii. 712, a.
Stellae Parrhasides, i. 216, b.
, errantes, ii. 432, a.
Sterculinii servitus, ii. 653, a.
Stercoratio, i. 61, a.
Stercutius, i. 61, a.
Sterquilinium, i. 61, a.
Stesichorus, ii. 760, a.
Stibadium, ii. 157, b.
Stillicidii servitus, ii. 653, a.
Stillicidium, ii. 653, a.
Stilus, ii. 390, a ; ii. 713, b.
Stipendiaria, ii. 475, b.
Stipendiarii, ii. 714, a.
Stipendium, ii. 714, b.
Stipes, ii. 324, a.
Stipulatio, ii. 256, a.
Stipulator, ii. 256, b.
Stiva, i. 159, b; i. 160, a.
Stola, ii. 716, b.
Stragulum, ii. 19, a.
Stratores, i. 804, a.
Strenae, ii. 720, a.
Striae, i. 490, b.
Striga, i. 381, b.
Strigil, i. 278, a ; i. 279, a.
Strophium, ii. 720, b.
Structor, i. 396, b.
Studiosi juris, i. 212, a.
Stultorum feriae, i. 873, a.
Stuprum, i. 29, b; i. 526, a ; i.
1004, b.
Stylus, ii. 713, b.
Suasor, i. 246, a.
Subligaculum, i.
721, a.
Sublimissimi, i. 992, a.
Subrogare legem, ii. 33, a.
Subruncivi, i. 85, a.
Subscriptio, i. 531, b.
35 censoria, i. 401, a ;
i. 1007, a.
Subseciva, i. 54, b; i. 87, a.
Subsellium, ii. 619, b; ii. 873, a.
Subserica, ii. 650, a.
Subsignanus, i. 807, b.
Subsortitio, i. 1028, b.
Substitutio, i. 950, b.
919, b; ii.
Substitutio pupillaris, i. 950, b.
Subtegmen, ii. 770, a.
Subtemen, ii. 765, a.
Subucula, ii. 905, b.
Successio, ii. 721, b.
Successor, ii. 723, a.
Succinctus, i. 427, b.
Succolare, ii. 14, b.
Sucula, ii. 853, a.
Sudarium, ii. 723, a.
Sudatio concamerata, i. 272, a-
Sudatorium, i. 277, b.
Suffibulum, ii. 943, a.
Suffitio, i. 893, b.
Sufflamen, ii. 723, b.
Suffragia sex, i. 754, a.
Suffragium, ii. 751, a.
Suggestus, -um, i. 112, b ; ii
723, b.
Sui heredes, i. 949, b.
Sulci, ii. 951, b.
Sulcus, i. 69, b; i. 70, a.
Sulpicia Sempronia lex, ii. 54, b.
Sulpiciae leges, ii. 54, a.
Sulpurata ramenta, i. 991, b.
Sumptuariae leges, ii. 723, b.
Suovetaurilia, ii. 102, b ; ii.
582, b; ii. 725, b.
Supercilium, i. 987, a.
Superficiarius, ii. 726, b.
Superficies, ii. 726, b.
Supernumerarii, i. 5, a.
Superstitio, ii. 727, b.
Supparum, ii. 224, a ; ii. 729, b;
ii. 906, a.
Supparus, ii. 729, b.
Supplicatio, ii. 729, b.
Suppositicii, i. 918, b.
Suprema, sc. tempestas, i. 635,b.
Surdus, ii. 801, a.
Susceptores, i. 402, b.
Suspensura, i. 278, b.
Symphoniaci, ii. 739, a.
Symposium, ii. 740, a.
Syndicus, ii. 743, b.
Syngrapha, i. 411, a.
Synthesis, ii. 600, a ; ii. 748, a.
Syrinx, ii. 748, a.
Syssitia, ii. 749, a.
T.
Tabella, i. 642, b; ii. 751, a.
Tabellariae leges, ii. 751, b.
Tabellarius, ii. 752, a
Tabellio, ii. 752, a.
Taberna, i. 46, a ; i. 387, b; i.
679, b; ii. 752, a.
, deversoria, i. 387, b.
Tabernacularius, ii. 752, b.
Tabernaculum, ii. 752, a.
Tablinum, i. 670, b.
Tabula lusoria, ii. 752, b.
Tabulae, i. 182, a ; ii. 753, a.
censoriae, i. 400, b ; ii.
754, b.
55 novae, ii. 754, a.
, publicae, i. 12, b; i.
13, a ; ii. 754, b.
5 )
1054
LATIN INDEX.
Tabulae votivae, i. 688, a.
Tabulam, adesse ad, i. 245, b.
Tabularii, i. 803, a ; ii. 754, b.
Tabularium, i. 12, b ; ii. 754, b.
Tabulata, i. 666, b ; ii. 850, b.
Tabulinum, i. 380, b.
Taeda, ii. 755, b.
Taenia, ii. 975, a.
Talaria, i. 864, b ; ii. 758, a.
Talarus, i. 330, b.
Talasius, ii. 144, a.
Talassio, ii. 144, a.
Talea, ii. 263, b.
Talentum, ii. 446, a ; ii. 758, a.
Talio, ii. 758, b.
Talus, i. 864, b.; ii. 759, a.
Tapete, ii. 761, b.
Tarpeia Aternia lex, i. 31, b ;
ii. 36, b.
Tauria, ii. 762, b.
Taurii ludi, ii. 93, b.
Taurobolia, ii. 577, a ; ii. 762, b.
Taurus, i. 219, a.
Tectores, i. 156, b.
Tectorium opus, ii. 346, a.
Tegula, i. 849, a ; ii. 763, b.
Tela, ii. 764, b.
Telamones, i. 243, b.
Temetum, ii. 962, b.
Temo, i. 159, b ; i. 578, b.
Templum, i. 251, a ; ii. 566, a ;
ii. 772, b.
Temporalis actio, ii. 481, a.
Temporis praescriptio, ii. 481, a.
Tensae, ii. 823, b.
Tentipellium, i. 872, b.
Tentorium, ii. 752, a.
Tepidarium, i. 272, b ; i. 276, a.
Terebra, ii. 793, a.
Terentilia lex, ii. 54, b.
Terentini ludi, ii. 92, a.
Terminalia, ii. 793, b.
Termini, i. 91, a ; i. 953, b.
Terra cariosa, i. 60, b.
, restibilis, i. 71, b.
Territorium, ii. 878, b.
Tertiare, i. 60, b.
Teruncius, ii. 56, b.
Tescum, i. 251, a.
Tessella, ii. 397, b; ii. 799, a.
Tessera, ii. 397, b ; ii. 799, a.
, nummaria, or frumen-
taria, i. 878, b.
Tesseraconteres, ii. 800, a.
Tesserarii, i. 801, b.
Tesserula, ii. 799, a.
Testa, i. 842, a ; ii. 763, b.
Testamentariae leges, ii. 54, b.
Testamentifactio, ii. 801, a.
Testamentum, ii. 800, b.
Testator, ii. 801, a.
Testis, ii. 805, a.
Testudo, ii. 807, b.
Tetraphori, ii. 379, b.
Tetrarcha, ii. 808, b.
Tetrarches, ii. 808, b.
Textores, ii. 770, b.
Textrices, ii. 770, b.
Textrinum, ii. 771, a.
Thalassites, ii. 967, b.
Thargelia, ii. 809, b.
Theatridium, i. 282, b.
Theatrum, ii. 811, b.
Thensae, ii. 823, b.
Theodosianus codex, i. 467, a.
Thermae, i. 266, b.
Thermopolium, i. 336, a ; i.
388, a.
Thesauri, ii. 779, a.
Thesmophoria, ii. 829, a.
Thorax, ii. 77, b.
Thoria lex, ii. 54, b.
Thraces, i. 918, b.
Threces, i. 918, b.
Thronus, ii. 837, a.
Thymelici, ii. 814, b.
Thyrsus, ii. 839, a.
Tiara, ii. 839, b. -
Tiberinalia, ii. 469, b.
Tibia, ii. 840, a.
Tibicen, ii. 841, b.
Tigni immittendi servitus, ii.
653, a.
Tigno juncto, actio de, i. 897, a.
Tintinnabulum, ii. 844, b.
Tirocinium, ii. 848, b.
Titia lex, ii. 55, a.
Titienses, ii. 878, a.
Tities, ii. 845, b ; ii. 878, a.
Titii Sodales, ii. 845, b.
Titulus, i. 380, a ; i. 992, b ; ii.
59, a ; ii. 984, a.
Toculliones, i. 832, a.
Toga, ii. 845, b.
, candida, ii. 849, a.
» laxa, ii. 848, a.
o, picta, ii. 849, b.
,, praetexta, ii. 849, a.
,, pulla, ii. 849, b.
,, pura, ii. 849, a.
,, purpurea, ii. 849, b.
2, virilis, i.
849, a.
Togata fabula, i. 522, a.
Togatus, ii. 322, a ; ii. 683, a.
Tomentum, ii. 18, b.
Topiaria ars, i. 977, a.
Topiarius, i. 977, a.
Toralia, ii. 762, a.
Torcular, ii. 850, a.
Torcularium, ii. 850, b.
Torculum, ii. 850, a.
Tormentum, ii. 851, a ; ii.
853, a.
Torques, ii. 857, a.
Torquis, ii. 857, a.
Torus, i. 891, b ; ii. 18, b.
Toxicum, ii. 587, b.
Trabea, ii. 550, a ; ii. 849, b.
Trabeata fabula, i. 522, a.
Traditio, i. 653, b.
Tragoedia, ii. 858, a.
95. crepidata, i. 423, b;
i. 563, a.
Tragula, i. 937, a ; ii. 546, a.
Tragum, ii. 546, a.
Traha, i. 64, a ; ii. 870, a.
Trahea, i. 64, a ; ii. 870, a.
Trama, ii. 765, a.
Tramoserica, ii. 650, a.
Transenna, ii. 867, a.
Transfuga, i. 618, b.
Transvectio equitum, i. 755, b,
Trapetum, ii. 867, b.
1001, a ; ii.
Trebonia lex, ii. 55, a.
Tresviri, ii. 868, b.
3, agro dividundo, ii.
869, a.
35 capitales, ii. 868, b.
39 coloniae deducendae,
ii. 869, a.
27 epulones, i. 753, b.
93 equitum turmas re-
cognoscendi, or le-
gendis equitum de-
curiis, ii. 869, a.
79 mensarii, i. 181, a.
35 monetales, ii. 178, a.
7? nocturni, ii. 868, b.
92 reficiendis aedibus, ii.
869, a.
53 reipublicae constitu-
endae, ii. 869, a.
99 sacris conquirendis
donisque persignan-
dis, ii. 869, b.
» Senatus legendi, ii.
869, b.
Triarii, i. 783, a.
Tribula, i. 64, a.
Tribules, ii. 884, b.
Tribulum, i. 64, a ; ii. 870, a.
Tribulus, ii. 870, a.
Tribunal, i. 380, b, ii. 87), a.
Tribuni aerarii, i. 40, b ; ii.
871, a.
, cohortium, i. 797, a.
, militum, i. 797, a ; ii.
870, b.
, militum consulari po-
testate, ii. 871, b.
,, plebis, ii. 872, a.
Tribunicia lex, ii. 55, a.
35 potestas, ii. 873, b.
Tribunus, ii. 870, b.
55 celerum, ii. 553, b:
ii. 870, b.
Tribus (Greek), ii. 875, a.
, (Roman), ii. 877, b.
Tributa comitia, i. 509, a ; ii.
884, a.
Tributaria, ii. 475, b.
Tributoria actio, ii. 661, b.
Tributum, ii. 887, a.
Tricliniarcha, ii. 888, b.
Triclinium, ii. 887, b.
35 funebre, i. 894, a.
Tridens, i. 897, a.
Triens, i. 202, b; ii. 455, a.
Triga, i. 579, b.
Triglyphus, ii. 892, b.
Trigon, ii. 425, a.
Trilix, ii. 767, a.
Trimestris faba, i. 68, a.
Trinepos, i. 469, a.
Trineptis, i. 469, a.
Trinum nundinum, ii. 252, a.
Trinundinus, ii. 252, a.
Triplicatio, i. 20, a.
Tripos, ii. 892, b.
Tripudium, i. 250, b.
Triremes, ii. 214, a.
Tritavia, i. 469, a.
Tritavus, i. 469, a.
Triticum, i. 65, a.
99 spelta, i. 65, b.
LATIN INDEX.
1055
Triticum trimestre, i. 65, b.
Tritura, i. 64, a.
Triumphalia ornamenta, ii.
898, a.
Triumphalis corona, i. 548, b.
99 domus, ii. 897, b.
39 statua, ii. 898, b.
55 vestis, ii. 897, b.
Triumphus, ii. 894, a.
99 castrensis, ii. 898, a.
39 navalis, ii. 898, a.
Trochus, ii. 899, a.
Trojae ludus, ii. 899, a.
Tropaeum, ii. 900, a.
Trossuli, i. 755, a.
Trua, ii. 901, a.
Trulla, ii. 901, a.
Trulleum, ii. 364, a. .
Trullissatio, ii. 346, a.
Truncus, ii. 263, b.
Trutina, ii. 696, b.
, campana, ii. 696, a.
Tuba, ii. 901, a.
Tubicen, i. 35, b.
Tubilustrium, ii. 536, a.
Tubus, tubulus, i. 862, a ; ii.
763, b.
Tudicula, ii. 868, a.
Tugurium, ii. 902, a.
Tullia lex de ambitu, i. 100, b.
Tullianum, i. 363, a.
Tumultuarii, i. 805, b.
Tumultus, i. 805, b.
Tunica, ii. 902, b.
, palmata, ii. 849, b.
, recta, ii. 142, b; ii.
769, a ; ii. 906, a.
Tunicati, ii. 905, b.
Turbo, ii. 906, b.
Turibulum, ii. 907, a.
Turma, i. 754, a ; i. 787, a.
Turricula, i. 877, a.
Turris, ii. 907, b.
Tutela, ii. 909, a.
Tutelae actio, ii. 911, b.
Tutor, ii. 909, a.
Tutulus, i. 866, a.
Tympanistriae, ii. 914, a.
Tympanum, i. 129, a ; i. 829, b;
ii. 433, b ; ii. 914, a.
U, V.
Vacantia bona, i. 305, a.
Vacatio militiae, ii. 917, b.
Vadari reum, i. 17, b.
Vades dare, i. 14, b ; i. 17, b.
Vadimonium, Vas, i. 17, b; ii.
479, b.
Vagina, i. 919, b.
Valeriae leges, ii. 55, b.
, et Horatiae leges, ii.
55, b; ii. 532, b.
Valeria lex, ii. 504, a.
Valetudinarium, i. 380, b ; ii.
917, b.
Vallaris corona, i. 548, b.
Vallis Murcia, i. 430, a.
Vallum, i. 44, a ; i. 380, a ; ii.
918, a.
Vallus, ii. 918, b.
Valva, i. 988, b.
Vannus, ii. 919, a.
Vappa, ii. 966, a.
Vari, ii. 545, b.
Varia lex, ii. 114, b.
Vas, ii. 479, b; ii. 919, b.
Vasarium, ii. 589, a.
Vatillum, i. 294, b.
Vatinia lex, ii. 56, a.
Udo, ii. 932, b.
Vectigal rerum venalium, i.
404, b.
Vectigalia, ii. 932, b.
59 templorum, ii. 934, b. |
Vectigalis ager, i. 51, a ; i.
730, b.
Velarium, i. 110, a ; ii. 821, b.
Velati, i. 5, b.
Velites, i. 784, b ; i. 918, b.
Velleianum senatusconsultum,
ii. 642, a.
Velum, ii. 217, b ; ii. 821, a.
Venabulum, ii. 938, b.
Venaliciarii, ii. 664, b.
Venatio, ii. 936, b.
Venditio, i. 731, b.
Venefica, ii. 939, b.
Veneficium, ii. 939, a.
Veneficus, ii. 939, b.
Venereus jactus, ii. 759, b.
Venter, i. 154, a.
Ventilabrum, ii. 312, a.
Ventilatio, i. 64, b.
Venus, ii. 759, b.
Ver sacrum, ii.
939, b.
Verbena, ii. 588, a ; ii. 720, a.
Verbenarius, i. 840, a ; ii. 588, a.
Vergiliae, i. 219, a.
Vergiliarum sidus, i. 219, a.
Verna, ii. 662, b.
Verriculum, ii. 546, a.
Verso, actio in rem, ii. 661, b.
Versura, i. 61, a; i. 835, a.
Versus, i. 61, a ; ii. 163, b.
, quadratus, i. 57, b.
Verticillus, i. 898, a ; ii. 906, b.
Veru, i. 936, b.
Vervactor, i. 60, b.
Vervactum, i. 60, b.
Verutum, i. 936, b.
Vespae, i. 892, a.
Vespillones, i. 892, a.
Vestalis, ii. 940, b.
, maxima, ii. 943, b.
Vestes bombycinae, ii. 649, b.
, Coae, ii. 649, b.
, Sericae, ii. 649, b.
Vestibulum, i. 668, b.
Vesticeps, i. 1001, a.
Vestis, ii. 944, a.
, cenatoria, i. 396, a ; ii.
748, a.
, triumphalis, ii. 897, b.
Veteranus, i. 792, b.
Veteratores, ii. 665, a.
Veteretum, i. 68, a.
Veterinarium, i. 380, b.
Vexillarii, i. 792, b.
583, a ; ii.
Vexillum, i. 792, b; ii. 672, a.
Via glareata, ii. 950, b.
, munita, ii. 950, b.
, privata, ii. 947, a.
, publica, ii. 946, b.
, sagularis, i. 380, a.
, terrena, ii. 950, b.
Viae, ii. 946, b.
, servitus, ii. 653, b.
, vicinariae, or vicinales, i.
380, a ; ii. 947, a.
Viaria lex, ii. 56, a; ii. 948, b.
Viaticum, ii. 954, a.
Viator, ii. 954, a.
Vicarii servi, ii. 666, a.
Vicesima, ii. 954, b.
99 hereditatum et lega-
torum, i. 38, a ; ii.
954, b.
99 libertatis, ii. 954, b.
Vicesimaria lex, ii. 954, b.
Vicesimatio, i. 602, a.
Vicia, i. 70, a.
Vico magistri, ii. 955, a.
Victima, ii. 586, b.
Vicus, ii. 955, a.
Victoriatus, i. 206, a ; ii. 954, b.
Vigiles, i. 794, b.
Vigiliae, i. 377, a.
Vigintisexviri, ii. 955, b.
Vigintiviri, ii. 955, b.
Vilica, i. 59, a.
Vilicus, ii. 957, b.
, ex horreis, i. 976, a.
Villa, i. 884, b ; ii. 956, a.
, fructuaria, i. 58, b; ii.
956, a.
, publica, i. 399, b.
, rustica, i. 58, a ; ii. 956, a.
, urbana, i. 58, b; ii.
956, a.
Villia annalis lex, ii. 36, a.
Villicus, i. 59, a ; i. 156, b ; ii.
957,
, amphitheatri, i. 113, a.
Vinalia, ii. 957, b.
Vindemialis feria, i. 839, a.
Vindex, i. 14, b; ii. 125, a.
Vindicatio, i. 14, b; ii. 957, b.
95 in ingenuitatem, ii.
958, a.
99 in libertatem, ii.
958, a.
35 in servitutem, ii.
958, a.
59 per formulam peti-
toriam, ii. 959, b.
55 per sponsionem, ii.
959, b.
Vindiciae, ii. 959, a.
Vindicta, ii. 122, b; ii. 961, a.
Vinea, ii. 962, a.
Vinum, ii. 962, a.
Violatio, i. 894, a.
Virgae, i. 826, a.
Virgines Vestales, ii. 940, a.
Virgo, i. 219, b.
, Vestalis Maxima, ii.
943, a.
Viridarium, i. 977, b.
Virilis pars, ii. 359, a.
, toga, i. 1001, a ; ii. 849,a.
105v
LATIN INDEX.
Vis, ii. 971, a.
privata, ii. 971, b.
,, publica, ii. 971, b.
,, et vis armata, ii. 972, a.
Visceratio, i. 893, b.
Visellia lex, i. 133, a.
Vitelliani, ii. 754, a.
Vitium, i. 252, a.
Vitrearii, ii. 973, b.
Vitricus, i. 43, a.
Vitrum, ii. 972, a.
Vitta, Vittae, ii. 975, a.
Vittata sacerdos, ii. 975, b.
Vivaria, i. 80, b.
Uliginosus campus, i. 60, b.
lUlna, ii. 976, a.
Ulpiani
97, b.
Ultrotributa, i. 402, b.
Umbella, ii. 976, a.
Umbilicus, ii. 59, a.
Umbo, ii. 847, b ; ii. 951, a.
Umbraculum, ii. 976, a.
Uncia, i. 202, b; ii. 455, a.
Unciarum fenus, i. 835, b.
Unctores, i. 98, b.
Unctorium, i. 276, b.
Unctuarium, i. 98, b ; i. 273, b.
Unguentum, ii. 976, b.
Unguentaria, ii. 977, b.
9»
pueri puellaeque, i.
Unguentariae, ii. 977, b.
Unguentarii, ii. 977, b.
Universitas, ii. 977, b.
Universum, ii. 723, a.
Vocatio in jus, i. 15, a.
Voconia lex, ii. 56, a; ii. 980, b.
Volcanalia, ii. 981, b.
_, Volgares, ii. 666, a.
Volsellae, ii. 981, b.
Volucris, i. 218, a.
Volumen, ii. 59, a.
Volutae, i. 939, a.
Vomitoria, i. 110, b.
Vota publica, ii. 981, b.
Urceolus, i. 192, b ; ii. 982, a.
Urceus, ii. 982, a.
Urna, ii. 530, b; ii. 679, b.
Urpex, i. 1023, b.
| Ursa major, i. 216, a.
,, minor, i. 216, b.
,, Moenalis, i. 216, b.
Ustrina, i. 893, a.
Ustrinum, i. 893, a.
Usucapio, ii. 982, b.
Usufructuarius, ii. 988, a.
Usurae, i. 835, a.
Usureceptio, ii. 984, b.
Usurpatio, ii. 987, b.
Usus, ii. 988, a ; ii. 989, b.
Votorum nuncupatio, ii. 982, a.
Usus auctoritas, ii. 983, b.
Ususfructus, ii. 988, a.
Uterini, i. 468, b.
Uti possidetis, i. 1020, a.
Utilis actio, i. 21, b. `
Utres, ii. 965, a.
Utrubi, i. 1020, a.
Uxor, ii. 138, b.
Uxorium, i. 41, a.
X.
Xystarchus, i. 241, b.
Xystici, i. 239, a.
Xystus, i. 927, a ; i. 976, b ; ii.
956, b.
Z.
Zona, i. 427, a.
Zophorus, i. 490, a ; ii. 992, b.
Zotheca, -ula, i. 671, b.
( 1057 )
ENG LISH IN DEX.
A.
Account-books, i. 465, a.
Actors (Greek), i. 965, b.
, (Roman), i. 967, b.
Adjutant, i. 543, b.
Admiral, ii. 206, a.
Adoption (Greek), i. 25, b.
27 (Roman), i. 26, a.
Adultery, i. 29, a.
Advocate, ii. 743, b ;
ii.
man), i. 503, a ; i. 524, b ;
i. 529, b ; i. 538, a ; i. 540, b ;
i. 576, b ; i. 1036, b.
Astrology, i. 212, b.
Astronomy, i. 214, a.
Athletes, i. 237, a.
Attorney, i. 20, b ; ii. 496, b.
Auction (sale), i. 245, b.
Augur, Auguries, i. 248, a.
Autonomy, i. 263, a.
Axe, ii. 616, a.
Assemblies and Councils (Ro-
|
j
744, b.
Adze, i. 208, b.
Agent, i. 20, b ; ii. 496, h.
Agrarian laws, i. 49, b.
Agriculture, i. 55, a.
Ale, i. 407, a.
Aliens, resident, ii. 168, b.
Allies, ii. 681, a.
Altar, i. 157, a ; i. 222, b.
Ambassadors, ii. 23, a.
Amber, i. 714, a.
Amnesty, i. 102, a.
Amphitheatre, i. 106, b.
Amulets, i. 118, a.
Anchor, ii. 218, a.
Anklets, ii. 373, a.
Annexe, ii. 368, a.
Anvil, i. 1005, b.
Appeal, i. 144, a.
Apron, ii. 67, b ; ii. 721, a.
Aqueduct, i. 146, b.
Arbitrator, i. 620, b.
Arch, i. 171, a ; i. 873, b.
Archer, the, i. 220, b.
Archers, ii. 588, a.
Architecture, i. 163, b.
Archives, ii. 754, b.
Arena, i. 113, a.
Aristocracy, i. 187, a.
Arithmetic, i. 187, b.
Armour, i. 189, b.
Armoury, i. 190, b.
Arms, i. 189, b.
Army (Greek), i. 766, b.
» (Roman), i. 781, a.
Arrest, i. 133, b.
Arrow, the, i. 218, b.
Arrows, ii. 587, a.
Arson, i. 1002, b.
Artillery, ii. 853, a.
Artisans, i. 194, b.
Assemblies and Councils(Greek),
i. 44, b ; i. 102, b ; i.
175, a ; i. 197, b ; i. 309, a ;
Axle, i. 578, a.
B.
Badge, i. 1011, a.
| Bag, ii. 568, a.
Bagpipe, ii. 739, a.
Bail (Greek), i. 736, a.
, (Roman), i. 14, b.
Baize, i. 901, a.
Bakers, ii. 430, a.
Balance, the, i. 220, a.
Balcony, ii. 109, b.
Baldric, i. 284, a.
Ball, game at, i. 869, b ; ii.
421, b.
Ballot, ii. 751, b.
Bangles, ii. 373, a.
Bankers, i. 179, b.
Bankrupts, i. 602, b.
Banishment (Greek), i. 816, b.
2? (Roman), i. 819, b.
Barrel, i. 573, b.
Basin, i. 410, b ; ii. 364, a.
Basket, i. 38, b ; i. 287, a ; i.
541, a ; ii. 692, a.
Baths (Greek), i. 266, b.
, (Roman), i. 269, a.
Battering-ram, i. 185, b.
Bear, the Great, i. 216, a.
, the Lesser or Little, i.
216, b.
Bear-warden, the, i. 217, a.
Beard, i. 285, a.
Beds, ii. 17, a.
Beer, i. 407, a.
Beggars, i. 93, b.
Bell, ii. 844, b.
Bellows, i. 870, a.
Belt, i. 284, a ; i. 427, b.
Berenice, the hair of, i.
223, a.
i. 697, b ; i. 703, a ; i.
912, a ; ii. 201, b ; ii. 333, b ;
ii. 334, a.
WOL. II.
Bit (of horses), i. 876, b.
Blacking, i. 244, a.
Blanket, ii. 71, a.
Boat, i. 391, a ; i. 464, b ; i.
590, b ; ii. 30, a ; ii. 223, a.
Bobbin, ii. 765, a.
Boeotian constitution, i. 300, a.
Bond, ii. 229, a.
Books, ii. 57, b.
Bookseller, ii. 59, b.
Bootlace, i. 552, a.
Boots, i. 557, b ; i. 727, a ; ii.
373, b.
Booty, ii. 691, a.
Boss, i. 318, b.
Bottomry, i. 833, a.
Bow, i. 169, b.
Bowl, i. 560, b ; ii. 31, a ; ii.
252, b ; ii. 478, b.
Boxing, ii. 524, a.
Bracelet, i. 191, b.
Brasier, i. 868, a.
Breakfast, i. 392, b.
Bribery (Greek), i. 599, b.
92 (Roman), i. 100, a.
Bricks, i. 848, a ; ii. 8, a
182, b.
Bridge, ii. 456, b.
Bridle, i. 876, a.
Bronze, i. 38, b; ii. 697, b.
Brooch, i. 840, b.
Broom, ii. 612, b.
Bucket, ii. 679, a.
Bull, the, i. 219, a.
Burglar, i. 707, a.
Burial (Greek), i. 885, a.
, (Roman), i. 889, b.
Butter, i. 319, a.
; 11.
C.
Cake, ii. 151, a.
Calculation, ii. 75, b.
Calendar (Greek), i. 336, b.
73 (Roman), i. 340, a.
Caltrop, ii. 870, a.
Calumny, i. 349, a.
Cameos, ii. 606, b.
Camp, i. 369, a.
breaking up of, i. 378, a.
choice of ground for, i.
369, b.
construction of, i. 369, .b
of Hyginus, i. 378, a.
,, of Polybius, i. 370, b.
Camp-oath, the, i. 37§ à.
Y
}}
55
35
2?
1058
ENGLISH INDEX.
Campstool, ii. 619, a.
Canal, i. 350, b.
Candle, i. 351, b.
Candlestick, i. 352, a.
Canton, ii. 309, b.
Canvassing, i. 100, a.
Cap, i. 135, b : i. 899, b.
Capital (of columns), i. 490, b.
Carpets, ii. 761, b.
Carrier, i. 294, a.
Cart, ii. 433, b; ii. 597, a.
Cask, i. 573, b. -
Casket, ii. 70, b ; ii. 530, a.
Casque, i. 898, b.
Castanets, i. 564, b.
Catalogue, i. 383, a.
Catapult, ii. 853, a.
Ceilings, i. 685, b.
Censer, ii. 907, a.
Centaur, the, i. 222, b.
Chain, i. 385, b.
Chairs, ii. 618, b.
Chandelier, i. 882, b.
Chariot, i. 577, b ; i. 760, b.
Charioteer, the, i. 218, a.
Chest, i. 160, b.
Chimneys, i. 664, a ; i. 674, b ;
i. 687, a.
Chronology, i. 424, b.
Cipher, ii. 243, b.
Circumvallation, ii. 918, b.
Circus, i. 430, a.
Citizenship (Greek), i. 441, b.
3? (Roman), i. 448, a.
Clarinet, ii. 841, a.
Claws, the, i. 220, a.
Clerks (Athenian), i. 311, a ; i.
921, b
» (Roman), i. 23, a ; ii.
612, b.
Cloaks, i. 3, a ; i. 97, a ; ii.
2, b ; ii. 308, b ; ii. 318, a ;
ii. 322, b ; ii. 588, b.
Clocks, i. 972, b.
Clogs, ii. 613, b.
Clubs (social), i. 758, a.
Coffer, i. 160, b.
Coffins, i. 161, a ; i. 887, b ; i.
891, b ; ii. 595, b.
Coinage, ii. 444, b.
Colander, i. 488, b.
Collar, i. 470, a.
Collectors, ii. 733, a.
Colleges, i. 470, a.
Colony (Greek), i. 472, b.
, (Roman), i. 479, a.
Colours, i. 484, a.
Column, i. 489, a.
Combs, ii. 360, a.
Comedy (Greek), i. 514, a.
,, . (Roman), i. 521; b.
Commanders (military), ii.
717, a ; ii. 763, a.
Commissioners, i. 813, a , i.
960, b ; ii. 733, b; ii. 991, b.
Compass, i. 429, b.
Concubines, i. 525, a.
Confederacies, i. 868, b.
Conspiracy, i. 313, b.
Constellations, i. 214, b.
Conveyance (legal), ii. 117, a.
Cooks, i. 394, a.
Copper, i. 38, b ; i. 409, a.
Cordage, ii. 217, b.
Corn, ii. 676, b.
, crops, i. 65, a.
,, drag, ii. 870, a.
, laws, i. 877, a.
, merchants, i. 880, a.
,, preservation of, i. 64, b.
Corporations, ii. 978, b.
Corset, ii. 720, b.
Cottage, ii. 902, a.
Couches, ii. 17, a.
Country-house, ii. 956, a.
Couriers, i. 941, b.
Cowardice, i. 212, b.
Cowl, i. 571, a.
Crab, the, i. 219, b.
Cradle, i. 573, a.
Crane, i. 552, b.
Cretan constitution, i. 553, b.
Criers, ii. 474, b.
Crime, i. 563, a.
Crook, ii. 361, b.
Crops, i. 65, a.
Cross, i. 565, a.
Crossbow, i. 169, a.
Crow, the, i. 222, b.
Crown, i. 545, a.
, the Northern, i. 217, b.
, the Southern, i. 222, b.
Crucifixion, i. 565, b.
Cubit, ii. 162, a.
Cuirass, ii. 77, b.
Cup, the, i. 222, b.
Cupboard, i. 191, a.
Cups, i. 559, b : i. 589, b : i.
591, b ; i. 617, b; i. 626, a ;
ii. 614, a.
Curling-irons, i. 874, a.
Curtain, i. 259, b.
Cushion, i. 407, b ; ii. 526, a.
Custom-duty, ii. 366, a ; ii.
530, b ; ii. 535, b.
Cymbal, i. 590, b.
D.
Daggers, ii. 525, a ; ii. 671, b.
Damage, i. 594, b.
Dance, the Pyrrhic, ii. 527, a.
Dancing, ii. 592, b.
Day, i. 634, b.
Debts, ii. 253, a.
Decrees, i. 602, b.
Democracy, i. 613, a.
Demurrer, ii. 480, a.
Depilatory, ii. 519, b.
Depository, ii. 754, b.
Desertion, i. 212, b.
Dice, ii. 799, a.
Dice-box, i. 877, a.
Dining-room, ii. 887, b.
Dinner, i. 392, a ; i. 395, a.
Dish, i. 386, b ; ii. 7, a ; ii.
151, a ; ii. 349, b ; ii. 351, a.
Distaff, i. 897, b.
Dithyramb, ii. 858, a.
Divination, i. 645, a.
Divorce (Greek), i. 647, a.
» (Roman), i. 648, a.
Doctor, ii. 153, a.
Dog, the Great, i. 221, b.
, the Little, i. 222, a.
Doles, i. 528, b ; i. 625, a.
Dolls, ii. 526, a.
Dolphin, the, i. 218, b.
Door, i. 987, a.
Dovecote, i. 488, b.
Dowry (Greek), i. 691, a.
» (Roman), i. 693, a.
Drag, i. 933, b ; ii. 723, b.
Dragon, the, i. 217, a.
Drains, i. 57, a ; i. 461, b.
Draughts, game of, ii. 11, a.
Drawers, ii. 721, a.
Dress, ii. 944, a.
Drinking-horn, ii. 565, a.
Drugs, ii. 382, b.
Drum, ii. 914, a.
Dry-docks, ii. 206, a.
Dwarfs, ii. 205, a.
Dynasty, i. 905, a.
E.
Eagle, the, i. 218, b.
Ear-ring, i. 1002, a.
Earthenware, i. 841, b ; ii.
919, b.
Edicts, i. 704, b.
Education (Greek), ii. 94, a.
35 (Roman), ii. 96, b.
Eleven, the, i. 942, a.
Emblems, i. 850, b.
Enchantment, i. 827, b.
Engineers, i. 821, b.
Engines, ii. 107, a ; ii. 853, a.
Engraving, ii. 601, b.
Ensign, i. 1011, a.
Ensigns, military, ii. 672, a.
Envoy, ii. 23, a.
Era, i. 425, b.
Eviction, i. 761, a.
Evil eye, i. 827, b.
Executioner, i. 366, a.
Expiation, ii. 730, a.
F.
Family, i. 903, a.
Fan, i. 863, b.
Farm, ii. 956, a.
Felting, ii. 426, b.
Fences, i. 57, b.
Fetters, i. 523, b.
Figure-head, i. 1011, b.
File, ii. 67, a.
Fillet, ii. 975, a.
Fines, i. 745, b.
Fire-place, i. 868, a.
Firewood, i. 5, a.
Fish, the Southern, i. 223, a.
ENGLISH INDEX.
1059
Fishes, the, i. 220, b.
Fishpond, ii. 429, b.
Flesh-hook, i. 933, b.
Floors of houses, i. 685, b.
Flute, ii. 840, a.
Foot (measure of length), ii.
159, b. -
Foot-race, i. 581, a.
Fork, i. 894, a.
Fortification, ii. 918, a.
Fountain, i. 870, b.
Fowler, i. 245, b.
Freedman (Greek), ii. 61, a.
}} (Roman), ii. 62, b.
Freeholders, ii. 70, b.
Fresco, ii. 390, b.
Frieze, i. 901, a.
Fringe, i. 859, a.
Frying-pan, ii. 597, b.
Fuller, i. 881, a.
Funerals (Greek), i. 885, a.
}} (Roman), i. 889, b.
Furnace, i. 279, b ; i. 873, a.
G.
Gambler, Gaming, i. 96, b.
Games (public), ii. 84, b.
, (amusements), i. 36, a ;
i. 137, a ; i. 558, b ; i. 644, b ;
i.695, a ; i. 928, b ; i. 929, a ;
ii. 11, a ; ii. 171, a ; ii. 201, b ;
ii. 247, a ; ii. 306, a ; ii.
336, b, ii. 421, b ; ii. 752, b ;
ii. 759, a ; ii. 799, a ; ii.
899, a ; ii. 906, b.
Garden, i. 976, a.
Gates of cities, ii. 466, b.
Gem-engraving, ii. 602, a.
Gems, i. 901, b ; ii. 602, a.
Gimlet, ii. 793, a.
Girdle, i. 407, b ; i. 427, b.
Gladiators, i. 916, a.
Glass, ii. 972, a.
Goat, the, i. 220, b.
Gold, i. 260, b.
Gown, ii. 716, b.
Granary, i. 975, b.
Grappling-iron, ii. 101, a.
Graves, ii. 644, a.
Greaves, ii. 260, b.
Groom, i. 43, a.
Gruel, ii. 525, b.
Guardians (Greek), i. 749, a ; i.
751, a.
3) (Roman), i. 594, a ; i.
814, a ; ii. 909, a.
Guards, i. 376, a.
Gymnastics, i. 925, b.
H.
Hair (Greek), i. 496, a.
, (Roman), i. 499, b.
Hamlet, ii. 955, a.
Hammers, i. 209, a ; ii. 116, a.
Handbells, ii. 844, b.
Handkerchief, ii. 723, a.
Harbour-dues, i. 726, a.
Hare, the, i. 221, b.
Harness, ii. 380, a.
Harp, ii. 594, b.
Harrow, i. 1023, b.
Harrowing, i. 63, a.
Hat, i. 388, b.
Hatchet, ii. 616, a.
Head-quarters, ii. 483, a.
Hearth, i. 868, a.
Heir (Greek), i. 943, b.
, (Roman), i. 948, b.
Heliacal rising, i. 225, a.
, setting, i. 225, a.
Helmet, i. 571, b ; i. 898, b.
Hemlock, i. 942, a. *
Heraclean tablet, ii. 44, a.
Heralds, ii. 474, b.
Hide and seek, i. 137, a.
Hinge, i. 364, b.
Hoeing, i. 63, a.
Holidays, i. 836, b.
Homesteads, ii. 955, a.
Homicide, ii. 384, b.
Honours, i. 969, b.
Hoop, ii. 899, a.
Horology, i. 972, b.
Horse, the Little, i. 218, b.
Horse-shoe, ii. 685, b.
Hospitality, i. 977, a.
Hospitals, ii. 918, a.
Hour, i. 970, b.
House (Greek), i. 659, a.
, (Roman), i. 664, b.
Hunting, ii. 936, b.
Hunting-spear, ii. 936, b.
Hurdle, i. 562, a.
Hut, ii. 902, a.
I, J.
267, a ; ii. 695, a.
Jewel-box, ii. 530, a.
Imprisonment, i. 362, a.
Incense box, i. 7, b.
,, offerings, ii. 581, a.
Infirmary, ii. 917, b.
Informer, i. 610, b ; ii. 730, b.
Inheritance (Greek), i. 943, b.
23 (Roman), i. 948, b.
Ink, i. 244, a.
Inn (Greek), i. 387, a.
» (Roman), i. 387, b.
Inspectors, i. 750, a.
Intaglios, ii. 608, b.
Intercalary month, i. 341, a.
123, a ; i. 831, a.
» (Roman), i. 834, a.
Isthmian games, i. 1023, b.
ºt. “
Hoe, i. 209, a ; ii. 66, b; ii.
537, b ; ii. 567, b ; ii. 597, a.
Jar, i. 650, a ; i. 985, a ; ii.
Interest of money (Greek), i.
Interpreter, i. 765, b ; i. 1021, a.
Italy, i. 481, b.
Judges (Greek), i. 564, a ; i.
627, a ; i. 740, b.
, (Roman), i. 1026, a.
Jug, ii. 4, a ; ii. 982, a.
Jurisdiction, i. 1039, b.
Ivory, i. 715, a.
K.
Kettle, ii. 13, b.
Key, i. 450, b.
Kids, the, i. 218, a ; i. 232, b.
Kiln, i. 873, a.
King (Greek), ii. 546, b.
» (Roman), ii. 549, a.
Kitchen, i. 671, b.
Kite, the, i. 223, a.
Knife, i. 572, b ; ii. 601, a.
Knights (Athenian), i. 403, b.
» (Roman), i. 753, b.
Knockers, i. 990, b.
Knuckle-bones, ii. 759, a.
L.
Labyrinth, ii. 1, a.
Ladders, ii. 213, a ; ii. 601, a.
Ladle, ii. 901, a.
Lamps, ii. 81, b.
Land-surveyors, i.
158, a.
Lanterns, ii. 6, b.
Law, i. 1040, b ; ii. 32, a ; ii.
237, b.
Lawsuits (Greek), i. 628, b.
23 (Roman), i. 14, a.
Legacy, ii. 19, b.
Legion, i. 788, a.
Leguminous crops, i. 68, a.
Letter-carrier, ii. 752, a.
Level (carpenter's), ii. 56, b.
» (mason's), i. 120, b.
Levy, i. 805, a.
Library, i. 297, b.
Light-house, ii. 383, a.
Linen, i. 319, b.
Link, i. 883, a.
Lion, i. 219, b.
Liquidators, i. 598, b.
Litters, i. 162, b ; i. 294, a ; ii.
14, a.
Liturgies, ii. 27, a.
Loaf, ii. 151, a.
Loans, i. 513, a.
Looking-glass, ii. 688, a.
Loom, ii. 764, b.
Lots, ii. 687, a.
Luncheon, i. 392, b.
Lyre, the, i. 217, b; i. 225, b.
Lyres, ii. 104, b.
º e * -
83, a ; ii.
3 y 2
1060
ENGLISH INDEX.
M.
Machines, ii. 107, a.
Magic, ii. 727, 728; ii. 906, b.
Magistrates (Greek), i. 93, a ;
i. 165, a ; i. 469, b ; i.
613, b, i. 708, a ; i.
743, a ; i. 931, b ; i.
939, a ; i. 942, a ; i.
959, a ; ii. 237, a ; ii.
308, a ; ii. 442, a ; ii.
676, b; ii. 755, b : ii.
809, a.
n (Roman), i.
606, b ; i.
694, b ; i.
110, b ; ii.
600, b : i.
630, b ; i.
696, b ; ii.
151, a ; ii.
5 * *
Mallet, ii. 116, a.
Mamertine, i. 363, a.
Mantle, i. 415, b, ii. 318, a ;
ii. 565, a ; ii. 729, b.
Manuring, i. 61, a.
Market, ii. 106, b ; ii. 251, b.
Marriage (Greek), ii. 130, a.
3) (Roman), ii. 138, a.
Masks, ii. 304, a ; ii. 374, a.
Masonry, ii. 184, b.
Masts, ii. 211, b.
Meals (Greek), i. 391, b.
» (Roman), i. 394, b.
Measure, ii. 158, a.
Measures of land, i. 57, b.
Medicine, ii. 152, a.
Mercenary soldiers, ii. 164, b.
Merchant-ships, i. 541, b ; i.
590, a.
Metals, ii. 166, a.
Mile, ii. 171, b.
Mile-stones, ii. 171, b.
Mills, ii. 175, a.
Mines, i. 573, b ; ii. 167, b.
Mint, ii. 177, a.
Mirror, ii. 688, a.
Mitre, ii. 174, a.
Monarchy, ii. 177, a.
Money, coined, ii. 248, b.
» (Greek), gold, i. 262, a.
» (Roman), , i. 262, a.
Month (Greek), i. 337, a.
» (Roman), i. 340, b ; i.
341, a.
Mortars, ii. 180, b.
Mosaics, ii. 396, b.
Mosquito-curtains, i. 529, a.
Mould, i. 872, b.
Mourning for the dead, i. 885, b :
i. 889, a.
Moustaches, ii. 200, b.
Music, ii. 192, b.
Mysteries, ii. 202, a.
N.
Nail, i. 452, b.
Names (Greek), 233, as
Names (Roman), ii. 233, b.
Napkin, ii. 122, a ; ii. 125, b.
Necklaces, ii. 178, b ; ii. 380, b.
Needle, i. 23, b.
Nemean games, ii. 227, a.
Nets, ii. 545, a.
Nobles, ii. 231, a.
Notary, ii. 752, a ; ii. 754, b.
Note-books, i. 30, a ; i. 512, a.
Notice-board, i. 96, b.
O.
Oars, ii. 212, a.
Oath (Greek), i. 1045, a.
» (Roman), i. 1048, b.
Obelisks, ii. 252, a.
Oboe, ii. 841, a.
Ochlocracy, ii. 260, a.
October-horse, ii. 261, b.
Officers, duty of, i. 376, b.
» parade of, i. 376, b.
Oil-press, i. 821, b ; ii. 850, a.
Oligarchy, ii. 266, a.
Olive-oil, ii. 262, a.
Olives, ii. 262, a.
Olympiad, ii. 274, a.
Olympic games, ii. 268, a.
Oracles, ii. 277, b.
Orders of architecture, i. 489, a ;
i. 490, b ; i. 491, b ; i. 492, aft
i. 493, b.
Organ, i. 984, a.
Organist, i. 984, b.
Ostracism, i. 818, a.
Oven, i. 873, a.
Ounce, i. 202, b ; ii. 455, a.
P.
Paint, i. 880, a.
Painting, ii. 389, b.
Palanquin, ii. 14, a.
Panniers, i. 461, a.
Pantomime, ii. 334, a.
Paper, ii. 57, b.
Parasite, ii. 343, b.
Parasol, ii. 976, a.
Parchment, ii. 57, b.
Partnership, ii. 680, a.
Pattern, i. 872, b.
Pay of soldiers, i. 40, b, ii.
714, b.
Pedestal, i. 11, a.
Pediment, i. 11, b ; i. 829, b.
Pen, i. 329, b.
Pepper, ii. 429, b.
Perfumery, ii. 976, b.
Physicians, ii. 153, a.
Pickaxe, ii. 126, a.
Picture gallery, ii. 429, a.
Pillory, i. 488, b.
Pillow, i. 407, b.
Pin, i. 23, b.
Pincers, i. 871, b.
Pipe, ii. 748, a ; ii. 840, a.
Piracy, ii. 209, b.
Pitchfork, i. 894, a.
Planets, ii. 432, a.
Pledges, ii. 419, a.
Plough, i. 159, a ; i. 216, a.
Ploughing, i. 60, b.
Plumbline, ii. 373, b.
Poisoning, ii. 382, b ; ii. 939, a.
Poles, ii. 212, b.
Police, i. 234, a ; i. 569, b ; ii.
129, b, ii. 170, b.
Polychromy, ii. 395, a.
Pomade, ii. 595, b.
Porridge, ii. 525, b.
Portcullis, i. 384, b.
Portico, i. 94, b ; ii. 468, a.
Portrait-masks, i. 992, a.
. Postal service, i. 583, a ; ii.
121, b.
Pottery, i. 841, b ; ii. 919, b.
Priests, i. 258, a ; i. 761, a ;
i. 839, b : i. 864, b ; ii. 568, b ;
ii. 589, a.
Prison, i. 362, a ; i. 760, a.
Prodigies, ii. 499, a.
Property-tax (Greek), i. 711, a.
23 (Roman), ii. 887, a.
Proscription, ii. 503, b.
Prostitutes, i. 956, b.
Prow, ii. 208, a.
Pump, i. 464, a ; i. 570, b.
Punishments (civil), i. 143, b ;
i. 161, b ; i. 285, a ;
362, a ; i. 390, a ;
565, a ; i. 704, b ;
760, a ; i. 858, a ;
864, a ; i. 894, a ;
932, a ; ii. 7, b ; ii.
13, b ; ii. 351, a.
, (military), i. 212, b ; i.
602, a ; i. 618, b ; i
897, b.
Purification, ii. 101, a.
Purses, i. 565, a ; ii. 126, a.
Pyrrhic dance, ii. 527, a.
Pythian games, ii. 528, a.
i:
ººººº
Q.
Quack-doctors, ii. 382, b.
Quarries, ii. 13, b.
Quiver, ii. 381, b.
Quoit, i. 644, b.
R.
Race-course, ii. 693, a.
Races, i. 433, a.
Raft, ii. 538, a.
Rake, ii. 537, b.
Ram, the, i. 219, a.
Rampart, i. 44, a.
| Rattle, ii. 676, a.
ENGLISH INDEX.
1061
Raven, the, i. 222, b.
Reaping, i. 63, b.
Referee, i. 44, b.
Reins, i. 932, a.
Relationship, i. 42, b ; i. 468, a.
Resident aliens, ii. 168, b.
Revenues, ii. 932, b.
Rhythm, ii. 558, a.
Riddle, i. 35, b.
Rings, i. 129, b.
Ritual (Greek), ii. 584, a.
» (Roman), ii. 585, b.
Road, ii. 946, b.
Robbers, ii. 11, a.
Rod, i. 839, b.
Rope-dancers, i. 883, a.
Rounds, i. 377, a.
Rudder, ii. 212, a.
S.
Sackbut, ii. 595, a.
Sacrifices, i. 710, b ; i. 813, b :
ii. 579, a.
Sacrilege, ii. 587, a.
Saddle-bags, i. 965, a.
Saddles, i. 742, a.
Sails, ii. 211, b.
Salary, ii. 589, a.
Salt, ii. 592, a.
Salt-cellar, ii. 592, a.
Salt-works, ii. 592, a.
Sandal, i. 294, b, ii. 684, b ; ii.
758, a.
Satire, ii. 597, b.
Saucer, ii. 349, b.
Saw, ii. 650, b.
Sawdust, ii. 612, b.
Scales, ii. 63, b.
Scene-painting, ii. 816, a.
Sceptre, ii. 611, b.
Schools, ii. 94, a.
Scorpion, the, i. 220, a.
Screens, i. 351, a.
Screw, i. 464, a ; i. 939, a.
Sculpture, ii. 696, b.
Scythe, i. 823, a.
Seats, ii. 617, b.
Sedan-chair, ii. 620, a.
Senate (Greek), i. 309, a ; i.
12, a.
» (Roman), ii. 620, b.
Sentinels, i. 376, b; i. 765, a.
Sepulchre, ii. 643, a.
Serfs, ii. 364, a.
Serpent-holder, the, i. 218, a.
Servitude, ii. 651, b ; ii. 988, a.
Sham-fight, ii. 899, a.
Shawl, ii. 318, a.
Shears, i. 872, b.
Shelf, ii. 440, a.
Shields, i. 458, b; ii. 348, a ;
ii. 363, b ; ii. 614, a.
Ships, ii. 208, a.
Shirt, i. 350, a ; ii. 902, b.
Shoe, i. 332, a ; i. 562, b ; i.
727, a ; i. 900, b ; ii. 679, b ;
ii. 932, b.
Shops, ii. 752, a.
Shorthand, ii. 243, b.
Shuttle, ii. 765, a.
Sibyl, ii. 668, a.
Sickle, i. 823, a.
Sideboard, i. 1, a.
Signs, Northern, i. 216, a.
,, of the Zodiac, i. 219, a.
Silk, ii. 649, b.
Silver, i. 183, a.
Slaves (Greek), ii. 656, a.
» (Roman), ii. 659, b.
Sleeve, ii. 120, b.
Sling, i. 883, b.
Slingers, i. 883, b.
Slipper, ii. 679, b.
Snake, the, i. 218, b.
Soap, i. 881, b ; ii. 595, b.
Soothsayers, i. 934, a.
Sounding-lead, i. 384, b.
Sowing, i. 62, a.
Spade, ii. 311, b.
Span, ii. 161, b ; ii. 691, a.
Spartan constitution, i. 912, b.
Spear, i. 934, b.
Spectacles, ii. 84, b.
Speusinians, i. 614, a.
Spindle, i. 897, b, ii. 906, b.
Sponge, ii. 692, a.
Spoon, i. 464, b.
Spring-board, ii. 379, a.
Stage, ii. 566, a.
Standards, military, ii. 672, a.
Stars, fixed, i. 223, b.
Statuary, i. 853, b, ii. 696, b.
Steelyard, ii. 696, a.
Step, i. 921, a.
Stern, i. 211, a.
Storehouse, ii. 828, a.
Store-room, i. 390, b.
Stoves, i. 664, a.
Straps, i. 932, a.
Street, ii. 955, a.
Sun-dial, i. 972, b.
Surety, ii. 479, b.
Surgery, i. 412, a.
Sutlers, ii. 69, b.
Swaddling-clothes, i. 1005, a.
Swan, the, i. 218, a.
Sword, i. 919, a.
T.
Table-cloth, ii. 122, a.
Tables, ii. 157, a.
Talent, ii. 446, a ; ii. 758, a.
Tambourine, ii. 914, a.
Tanner, i. 542, a.
Taper, i. 883, a.
Tapestry, ii. 761, b.
Target, i. 408, a.
Tassel, i. 859, a.
Tax-collector, i. 704, a, ii. 771,a.
Taxes (Greek), i. 707, b} i.
711, a ; ii. 771, b.
» (Roman), ii. 887, a ; ii.
932, b ; ii. 954, b.
Temple, i. 825, b : ii. 772, b.
Terra-cotta, i. 853, b; ii. 698, a,
ii. 794, 3.
Testament, ii. 800, b.
Theatre, ii. 811, b.
Theft, i. 462, b ; i. 894, b.
Thessalian constitution, ii.
755, b.
Threshing, i. 64, a.
Threshold, i. 987, a.
Throne, ii. 837, a.
Thrum, i. 859, a.
Tickets, ii. 799, b.
Tiles, roofing, i. 849, a ; ii.
763, b. -
Tithes, i. 603, a.
Tolls, ii. 468, b.
Tombs, ii. 643, a.
Tongs, i. 871, b.
Tooth-powder, i. 617, a.
Top, ii. 906, b.
Top-boots, i. 735, a.
Torch, i. 830, a ; ii. 755, b.
Torch-race, ii. 4, b.
Torture, ii. 851, a.
Towel, ii. 122, a.
Tower, ii. 527, a ; ii. 907, b.
Tow-rope, ii. 541, b.
Tragedy (Greek), ii. 858, a.
» (Roman), ii. 865, b.
Training schools, ii. 312, a.
Transit dues, ii. 468, b.
Treason, ii. 114, a ; ii. 499, b.
Treasury, i. 37, a ; i. 161, b ;
i. 860, a ; ii. 828, a.
Treaty, i. 868, b.
Triangle, the, i. 218, b.
Tribes (Greek), ii. 875, a.
» (Roman), ii. 877, b.
Tribunes, ii. 870, b.
Tribute, ii. 387, a ; ii. 887, a.
Trident, i. 897, a.
Tripod, ii. 892, b.
Trophy, ii. 900, a.
Trousers, i. 314, b.
Trumpet, i. 317, b ; ii. 69, a ;
ii. 901, a.
Truncheon, ii. 468, b.
Tumblers, ii. 593, b.
Tunnel, i. 568, b.
Tweezers, ii. 981, b.
Twelve Tables, ii. 40, b.
Twins, the, i. 219, b.
U, W.
Wase-making, i. 842, a ; ii.
919, b.
Wase-painting, ii. 398, a ; ii.
929, b.
Wases, ii. 919, b.
Vault, i. 569, a ; i. 873, b.
Weil, i. 866, b.
Veto, i. 1015, b.
Villa, ii. 956, a.
Winegar, i. 966, a.
Virgin, the, i. 219, b.
Umbrella, ii. 976, a.
Umpire, i. 620, b.
1062
ENGLISH INDEX.
Voting (Greek), i. 311, b ; i.
409, b ; ii. 516, a.
, (Roman), i. 507, b ; ii.
751, a.
Voting-tablets, ii. 751, a.
Usurers, i. 832, a ; ii. 226, b.
W.
Waggon, ii. 433, b ; ii. 597, a.
93 the, i. 216, a.
Waggoner, the, i. 217, a.
Wain, Charles's, i. 216, a.
Walking-stick, i. 265, b.
Wall, i. 683, b ; ii. 182, a ; ii.
345, b.
Wallet, ii. 122, a ; ii. 368, a.
War-tax, ii. 736, a.
, ships, ii. 220, a ; ii. 800, a.
Waterman, the, i. 220, b.
Water-organ, i. 984, a.
, pipe, i. 862, a.
Watersnake, the, i. 222, b.
Waterstream, the, i. 220, b.
Weaving, ii. 764, b.
Weeding, i. 63, b.
Whale, the, i. 221, a.
Wheel, i. 578, a ; i. 843, a ; ii.
914, b.
Whip, i. 864, a.
Wills, ii. 800, b.
Window, i. 663, b; i. 686, a ;
i. 831, a.
Wine, ii. 962, a.
, cooler, i. 294, b ; ii. 519, b.
, press, ii. 850, a.
Winnowing, i. 64, b ; ii. 919, a.
Witnesses (Greek), ii. 126, b.
77 (Roman), i. 1048, b.
Wolf, the, i. 222, b.
Worship, ii. 577, a.
Wrestling, ii. 82, a.
Writing tablets, ii. 753, a.
Y.
Yards of a sail, ii. 211, b.
Year (Greek), i. 336, b.
, (Roman), i. 340, a.
, division of, i. 233, a.
Yoke, i. 1034, b.
( 1063 )
A PP E N D L X.
THE whole of Wolume II. was in type, and Volume I. already published,
when the tract ascribed to Aristotle on the Athenian Constitution first
appeared. The following Appendix shows the principal points on which
the conclusions arrived at in the Dictionary require to be modified, if
that authority is followed, and also supplies references to several passages
of the treatise which support opinions already expressed. In the first
part of the Appendix, which bears on articles in Volume I., Dr. Hager
is responsible for the notes on Civitas, Eisangelia, Emmenoi Dikai, Endeixis,
Epitropus, Eponymus, Euthyne, Exomosia, Exsilium, Heres, Jusjurandum ;
Mr. Wayte for the remainder. As regards the notes which refer to articles
in Wolume II., Dr. Hager is responsible for those on Nomos, Paranoias
Dike, Prostates tou Demou, Psephus, Seisachtheia; Mr. Wayte for those
on Sitophylaces, Synegorus, Tamias, Tettaraconta, Tribus, Trieropoei;
Mr. Marindin for the remainder.

APPENDIX TO WOLUME I.
ADYNATI. The quotation from Harpocra-
tion can now be corrected from the author's
own words. No other rate of payment is men-
tioned than two obols daily; and a special
Tapaſas, chosen by lot, presided over the distri-
bution ('A6. troA. c. 49).
AGORANOMI. The statement as to their
number, five for the city and five for the Pei-
raeus, is in accordance with the text (c. 51).
ANTIGRAPHEIS. The distinction between
these and the GRAMMATEIS is perhaps too
strongly emphasised in both articles. The Ypap-
pareiſs, an assessor to the BovXij (bs trapakd-
0m rat), is appointed €rl rows vópous, and sees
that they are correctly transcribed (ávriypā-
ºperat kal otros trävras, c. 54).
APODECTAE. They had summary juris-
diction to the value of ten drachmas only : be-
yond that, eis to Sukaothpiov eio &yovres éup.mva
c. 52).
( ARCHON. Against the received tradition
that the Medontidae, the early successors of
Codrus, held office for life, but without the title
of king, the contention of Lugebil and Caillemer
(see ARCHON, p. 165 b) that both the name and
the attributes of royalty survived almost un-
changed, has now received important confirma-
tion. In 'A6. troA. c. 3 it is stated that “in the
times before Draco" the head of the state was
styled Bagińeſs, and ruled for life; next to him
was a troAépapxos, or commander-in-chief, who
indeed dates back to the period of the real kings;
thirdly, an àpxov, or chief civil magistrate.
These two officers were probably elected for a
term of years by the Eupatrids, and formed an
important check on the autocracy of the titular
king. Mr. Kenyon remarks: “The abolition of
the title of king as that of the chief magistrate
of the state probably took place when the
decennial system was established. The name
was then retained only for sacrificial and similar
reasons, and, to mark the fact that the kingly
rule was actually at an end, the magistrate
bearing the title was degraded to the second
position, while the Archon, whose name natu-
rally suggested itself as the best substitute for
that of king, was promoted to the titular head-
ship of the state.”
Fresh light is also thrown on the question
discussed at p. 166 b, as to the time when the
election by lot was introduced. We find “the
following stages in the history of the method of
election to this office: (1) prior to Draco, the
archons were nominated by the Areopagus;
(2) under the Draconian constitution they were
elected by the ecclesia; (3) under the Solonian
constitution, so far as it was not disturbed by
internal troubles and revolutions, they were
chosen by lot from forty candidates selected by
the four tribes; (4) under the constitution of
Cleisthenes they were directly elected by the
people in the ecclesia; (5) after 487 B.C. they
were appointed by lot from 100 (or 500, see
below) candidates selected by the ten tribes;
(6) at some later period the process of the lot
was adopted also in the preliminary selection by
the tribes” (Mr. K., pp. 59–60; ’A6. troA. c. 22).
As regards the number of candidates selected
under the arrangement of 487 B.C. the MS. here
gives 500, but the writer had previously stated
(c. 8) that each tribe chose ten candidates,
making a total of 100. It is probable that for
arevrakoorſov (p') we should read Škarów (p').
After the expulsion of Damasias, who in a two
years' archonship (B.C. 582–1) tried to establish
a tyranny, we have for one year the unprecedented
1064
APPENDIX.
number of ten archons, of whom five were Eupa-
trids, three #ypoikoi = Geomori, and two De-
miurgi (c. 13). The conjecture mentioned at
p. 167 a, that the tenth tribe, which did not
elect an archon, was compensated by having the
appointment of the secretary (Ypapuateis), is
stated as a fact ("A0. troA. c. 55).
The received account of the abolition of the
property qualification (ARCHON, p. 167 a) must
also be modified. If, according to Plutarch’s
account, Aristides in 479 B.C. widened the area
of eligibility, he may at most have extended it
from the trevrakootouéðuplvot to the intreſs. It
is now definitely stated ("A0. troA. c. 26) that
the Çevyºral first became eligible in 457 B.C.,
“five years after the death of Ephialtes”:
which shows incidentally that the murder of
Ephialtes must have taken place immediately
after the triumph of his democratic legislation
in 462. It is a further curious fact, that the
property qualification was never entirely abo-
lished by law. The 6mrukov réAos, or lowest
class, was still in theory ineligible for any office,
but in the time of Aristotle a member of that
class was allowed to represent himself as a
(evyirms by a legal fiction (c. 7).
In the archons' oath we get a rational expla-
nation of the Xpworm eiköy without the absurd
addition ioropérpmros (see ARCHON, p. 169 a).
The archons and, it would seem, the diaetetae
also, swore that if they accepted bribes they
would dedicate a golden image—presumably of
equal value to the amount received, though
this is not explicitly stated. A somewhat similar
explanation is given by Thompson on Plat.
Phaedr. 235 D ('A6. trox. cc. 7, 54).
It has generally been held, as by Schömann
(Antiq. i. 401–2, E. T.), that all magistracies
(àpxal in the technical sense) were unpaid at
Athens (cf. HYPERETEs, p. 986 a). The treatise
before us mentions, on the contrary, the pay of
many public officers; and there is reason to
think that that of the archons was four obols a
day, though the passage ('A6. troA. c. 62) is
mutilated and the words évv[éa &pxovires partly
conjectural. -
AREIOPAGUS. Our account, in all its
main features, is thoroughly confirmed by the
'A9. troA. The Areiopagus unquestionably ex-
isted before the time of Draco, and till then, it
would seem, was the only council; in those
times it appointed the archons, who already,
after their year of office, were called up into it.
It was thus a close corporation of Eupatrids,
then the only depositaries of real political power.
Draco, whose legislative changes went much
further than has hitherto been supposed, was
the first to constitute a second Bovah (see below,
App. under Boulé); he also gave additional
importance to the ecclesia, which had previously
existed only in a rudimentary and uninfluential
form, and assigned to it the election of archons.
The conduct of the Areiopagites at the time
of the battle of Salamis (Vol. I. p. 176 a) was
rewarded by a greatly increased respect for their
authority; and for the first sixteen years of
Athenian naval supremacy (B.C. 478–462) they
once more became the ruling power in the state
('A6. troA. cc. 23, 41). The personality of
Ephialtes, who put an end to this state of
things, and the precise date of his reforms, now
come out more clearly. It was in the archon-
ship of Conon, B.C. 462, that he overthrew the
Areiopagus; he was at this time the leader of
the democratical party, not Pericles, whose
advent to power must be dated some years later.
As has been already said (Vol. I. p. 177 b), the
curtailment of the powers of the Areiopagus
was necessary to the expansion of Athens, and
must be pronounced justifiable; it was not,
however, carried out by constitutional methods:
Ephialtes put many Areiopagites to death, and
was himself assassinated (A6. troX. c. 26).
ASTYNOMI. We have further proof (c. 50)
that the Astynomi, and not the Areiopagus,
were charged with preventing encroachments of
private buildings upon the streets. From the
same passage it is clear that windows were not
allowed to open back into the street: cf. DOMUS,
p. 663 by JANUA, p. 987 b.
BOULE. The origin of the second or pro-
bouleutic council is now definitely ascribed to
Draco: the number was 401, chosen apparently
by lot from the whole body of citizens (ék ràs
troAireſas, c. 4); for the odd number compare
the 51 Ephetae, and the juries of 201, 501, &c.
dicasts. The additional member was omitted by
Solon, who assigned an equal number to each of
the four tribes (c. 8); the ten Cleisthenean
tribes and 8ovX) of 500 are described in the
usual terms (c. 21). The limitations on the
powers of the BovX?) are insisted on : the people
alone is sovereign, and governs by psephismata
and dicasteries (ai Tàs BovXàs kptoreus eis Tov
6%pov čAmaë0aoiv, c. 41 ; oi kvpta 5’ j kptorus,
&AA’ eq60 ipios sis to 61kao Tſiptov, c. 45). Com-
pare Aristot. Pol. iv. 4- p. 1292, 5. The con-
trol of the BovXh over naval matters through
àpxitércroves and Tpumpotrotoſ, subordinate to
itself, and the conditions of its receiving the
annual compliment (6apedv, crown, or “vote of
thanks’’), are in accordance with the text of
Demosthenes (Androt. pp. 598–9, §§ 17–20; cf.
Boulé, p. 310 a ; 'A6. troA. c. 46). The “naval
architects,” or “master ship-builders,” however,
are mentioned only by our author. The āpxt-
Téktov of Dem. de Cor. p. 234, § 28, is a different
person.
The pay of the BovXevrat, usually stated as a
drachma a day, is given as five obols ('A6. troA.
c. 62). Under the oligarchy of 411 B.C. those
of the Four Hundred 8ovXevra, who were absent
without leave were to be fined a drachma a
day (c. 30).
The functions of the Prytanes, Proedri, and
Epistatae are clearly and simply explained in
accordance with the view now universally held
[BOULé, p. 311 al. There is only one set of
Proedri, one from each of the non-presiding
tribes, and there are two Epistatae (c. 44). Ac-
cording to Aristotle (c. 43), the four first pry-
tanies were the longest, having the extra (thirty-
sixth) day: our statement (p. 310 b) that the
four last were the longest is based on an in-
scription of B.C. 410; but the rule may have
changed between that date and the middle of
the following century.
CENSUS (GREEK). In this article the pro-
perty qualification of the Zeugitae is given, on
the authority of Boeckh and Schömann, at 150
medimni a year. The more usual statement,
following Plutarch (Sol. 18) and several passages
of the grammarians, puts the figure at 200: a
view strongly maintained by Grote (ii. 320 m.,
APPENDIX.
1065
ed. 1862). Gilbert (Staatsalterth. i. 133) de-
clares that the question cannot be positively
decided. To the testimony of later writers in
favour of the number 200 is now added the
earlier and better authority of Aristotle ("A0.
troA. c. 7), and this must be pronounced by far
the most probable opinion.
CIVITAS (GREEK). The 'A9hvafov troAireia,
if right in this matter, throws a new light upon
the legislation of Draco: in a less degree, on
that of Solon and Cleisthenes. From c. 4 it
appears that Draco not merely codified the law
(though this is particularly emphasised in the
summary of political changes in c. 41, # £rl
Apákovros év fi kal vánovs &véypalav trpátov *),
but also gave Athens a constitution. A share
in the government (h troAireſa) was given to all
• who could furnish a military equipment (roſs
§trâa trapexoplévous—the same qualification was
necessary after the overthrow of the Four Hun-
dred, Thuc. viii. 97: roſs trevrakio Kuxtous épmqi-
oravro rā trpáyuata trapabooval, eivat 8& airów
ôtróa'ot kal &m Aa trapéxoviral). This body elected
(aipeio 6al) the more important magistrates. There
were property qualifications of varying amount
for the different offices, e.g. of 100 (?: cf. Appen-
dix, s. v. STRATEGUS) minae for ortparmyol and
itrarapyol, they had besides to be married and to
have children more than ten years old; cf.
Dinarch. c. Dem. § 71 : kal rows uév vóplovs
trpoxéyely tº fiftopi kal T6 orparmy® thv
trapë roß Shuov triotiv ščwoovri Aapabdivetv,
trauðotroteio 6at karð ‘rous vóuous, yāv évròs
āpav kekrāoréal, etc.; the property qualifica-
tion of the nine archons and the rapital was
only 10 minae. Moreover 401 members of
this body (over thirty years of age) were
elected by lot as senate, and some others were
in the same way appointed to some less im-
portant magistracies; but as no one could be
a member of the senate or hold one of these
offices a second time, before all other qualified
persons had had their turn, the lot decided
merely the order in which such persons should
succeed. According to 'A6. Irox. the creation of a
senate, which has hitherto been ascribed to Solon,
was the work of Draco ; nor was the property
classification Solon’s work, for it is incidentally
mentioned as existing in the time of Draco, who
ordained that for non-attendance at a meeting
of the 8ovX?) or éickamata a senator should pay
three, two, or one drachma according as he was
a revrakootouéðuvos, a in trebs or a Gevyſtms.
No further information is given as to the func-
tions of Bovāh and ékkamoria; probably they did
not exercise any important powers, the Areo-
pagitic council having still (as before c. 3) con-
trol over all the magistrates, and being the
guardian of the laws (# 3è Bovº, # 6: 'Apeſov
ardyov påAaś fiv táv vöuwu kal Steråpel r&s
&px&s 8tra's karū tows vówovs &pxwaiv : cf. Tisa-
menus' decree in Andoc. Myst. § 84, triplexeſa'90,
# 8ovXh ji č 'Apetov trgyou rôv vöuov, Štros &v
ai àpxai Tois kelp,évous vóplots xpávrat); in fact it
* Mr. Kenyon infers from c. 3, 3ros &vaypdºpavres r&
6éopºta buxattooru trpès rêv ràv [trapavouotſ]vrov
kptoruv, “that the thesmothetae received their name not
merely from the fact that they made law by administer-
ing it, but from being the first to lay it down in written
decisions. There was, therefore, some written basis of
law before the time of Draco.”
would seem to have possessed the right of revising
decisions (éčāv 8& ré àöucoupévg trpoſs thv Tóv)
'Apeotrayett[æv] SovX}v eiorayyéAAew &topaſ-
vourt trap' 8v &öuke?rai váuov). These consti-
tutional changes failed, however, to remove the
prevailing distress: they did not touch the large
class of people who could not furnish a military
equipment, and these remained as before étl
toſs oréſualori Šešeuévot (cc, 2, 5).
Solon therefore, when he was elected Stax-
Aakths ſcal épxov by the contending parties
(Icolvī), first attacked the economic question,
as has been described under SEISACHTHEIA (cf.
*A6. Trox. cc. 9, 10). Then all the laws of Draco
(6eauol) except those on homicide were repealed,
and the new code of laws (váuot, c. 6; 6eopol,
cc. 12, 35) was written on köpflets and placed ev
Tń aro; tā 3aoixelº (= Harpocr. s. v. kõpgels).
The most democratic features of his constitution
are said to be : the prohibition of borrowing on
the security of a man's person, the right of
every one to commence an action for wrong done
to him—to èeival Tó Bouxoplévº [ºypdqeq6al,
Mr. Kenyon] útrép rôv &ötkovpuévoy—and the
right of appeal to a court of law—[j] uáAto rd:
qaqiv ioxvkéval to TAñ60s—h eis to 61kDa-
orràptov] pſeqils. kõptos yöp &v ć 67aos Tās
Whqov köptos yiveral ràs troAireſas (c. 9).
As regards Solon's reconstruction of the con-
stitution, he used the classification of the
people according to their property for political
purposes (c. 7): offices (archons, tapital, troXºm-
taí, of Évöeka, kalaakpéral) were filled from the
first three property classes, some from one,
others from another (ékáorrows &váAoyov rá, ue-
ºyéðel roo tip.[f]uſarols &točičovs Tſhv &p]xñv),
e.g. only Pentacosiomedimnoi were eligible as
archons and rapital, and it was not until 457 B.C.
that (evyital were admitted to the archonship
(c. 26, the intreſs must have become qualified
before that time), whilst the rapiſai rās 'A6mvās
had to be members of the first class—at least
nominally, even in the days of the writer (cc. 8,
47, Čic trevrakootouečiuvov carā Tov >6×ovos
vópſov—ért yūp 6 vláuos köptós éotiv, Lépzel 5’
6 Aaxöv kāv travu Trévns fi). To the fourth class,
the Thetes, Solon also gave a share of political
power for the first time: a voice in the assembly
and a seat in the law-courts.
Solon re-established the senate to the number
of 400 (100 from each tribe), and left to the
Areiopagitic council the guardianship of the
laws (vouoqvXakeiv) and its other important
functions, giving it the right to pass judgment
on those who conspired to overthrow the consti-
tution (c. 8, kal rows étrl karaXáael roo Shuov
avv[i]o Tapiévous ékpivey, XóAwwos 9ev[tós]; cf.
the law in c. 16). -
Cleisthenes put an end to the four old tribes
with their subdivisions, the trittyes and nau-
craries, and instituted a new set of tribes,
ten in number (āvauíča, BovXópºevos étra's pºeta-
axógi traetovs ris toxiretas, c. 21), each to
contain three trittyes, of which one was taken
from the plain, one from the shore, and one
from the mountain. See further under DEMUs.
Cleisthenes left the yávn and pparpíai and
iepooréval undisturbed, increased the number of
the members of the senate to 500 (fifty from each
tribe), and introduced the direct election of the
principal magistrates (robs atpatnyovs 'ſpoilvro
karð ‘puads, é; ákárrms puxºis Éva, c. 22) by the
1()60
APPENDIX.
popular assembly, which, as far as the nine
archons are concerned, remained in force until
487 B.C., when selection by lot, closely resem-
bling that of Solon, seems to have been re-intro-
duced. Out of consideration for the new citizens
(veoroxira) whom Cleisthenes had introduced in
large numbers, Cleisthenes altered the official
mode of designation (c. 21) [DEMUs]. The
account of Cleisthenes’ reforms is summed up
(c. 22), Tobrov 88 yewouévov Smuorikorépa
troAſ, rås X]óNovos éyévero à troAireſa (cf.
c. 41, but see c. 29, Cleitophon's rider) kal
ºy&p ovvé8m rows uév ×6Aww.os vówovs & pavioral
thvºrvpavvíða 6ix to Ah Xp?orbal, robs 6* {AAous
6eival Tov KAetor06vnv aroxaſówevov rob TAh-
0ovs, év ois éré0m kal 6 repl roń śarpakuguoi,
vágos.
From c. 40 we learn that Thrasybulus pro-
posed to grant citizenship traoru rois ék IIsipatóws
ovykarex00üot (&v čviol pavepās morav 600Aoi),
and that Archinus instituted against him a
ºpaqº trapavónov. This was Thrasybulus 6
Xtelpleſs, and Archinus won his case (Aeschin.
c. Ctes. § 195; one scholiast explains that
Thrasybulus proposed civic rights for the orator
Cephalus, another for Lysias: cf. [Plut.] Witt. X.
Oratt. p. 835 E f).
C. 42 deals with the manner of registration of
the youths in the Amātapxikov ypaupareſtov, on
completion of their eighteenth year, as it ex-
isted in the writer's own time. The demotae
having sworn the customary oath, decided by
vote ei čokoúat yeyovéval Thy ñAuktav rhy
ěk too véuov, and secondly ei éAeë9epós éoºrt
kai yé yove karð rous vópious. If they were
not satisfied on the former point, the par-
ticular youth was relegated to the traßes: if
they found that a youth was not Aéâ6epos, the
latter might appeal to a court of law, before
which the demotae were represented by five ka-
Tâyopoi elected from amongst themselves; and in
case the court decided against the youth, he was
sold by the state, whilst, on receiving a verdict
in his favour, he was of necessity entered in the
register of the deme. A second Šokuaata was
instituted by the senate; and if it was found that
the name of one under eighteen years had been
entered, they inflicted a penalty on the demotae
who had admitted him. For details how the
youths spent the following two years, see
EPHEBUS. The account continues: ‘ppoupowai
8è to 860 &rm ... kal &reAeſs eigl tróvrov kai
6trºv otre âtöðarly otre Aapabdvovariv (va pº
trpáygaal avuluiyelev (?) ri, TAhv repl kaſipov
kal étrikaſipov, käv rive karū to yévos iepajaºvm
ºvévmtal. (This refers probably to disputes as
to who was entitled to the succession in a
priestly office : ; cf. c. 57 and Pollux, viii. 90,
âtical 3& Tpès airby (Baqixéa) Aayzávoviral . . .
iepworövms àuqto Smthorews). The second doki-
masia on the part of the senate is, it seems,
only mentioned here. As regards the &réAeta,
it is evident from Lys. c. Diog. § 24, that
orphans were at that time released from
liturgies only one year; ois (Tois àppavows) #
tróAts oi, uávov traičas āvras &Texei's émotmorev
&AA& ſcal étretóðv Šokugar860-w, éviavtov &qikev
ătraorév táv Aetrovpyióv. The list of such law-
suits is either not complete—for see the action
in Lys. c. Theomn. (§ 4, paivopal of v Tptorkat-
ãekaérms &v, §re 6 Tarhp Örö róv rpudicovira
&ré6vmake raúrmv 3& #xov Tºv #Auclav otre
. . . otite éiceive &ölkovuévº, #5vváumv Bombāoral.
§ 31, §s uévos [of the brothers] reiðh ráxtorra
éðokuāorónv, rešāA90y rois Tpiákovra év 'Apeſº
IIdyq)—or it applies to the writer's time only.
The time of Lysias is referred to by Tpérepov
in c. 60, trpárepov 6’ 3rd Ael rov kāprov iſ
tróAus; cf. Lys. pro Olea sacr. § 2, trpos rows
éww.muévous rows kāpirous rös Moptºv: but the
punishment mentioned there (§§ 3, 5, 26, 41)
was not death (p. 817 a ; cf. also App. s. v.
STRATEGUS for the date of the election of
generals for special duties).
It is stated in c. 26 that in 451 B.C., on the
proposal of Pericles, it was decreed u? werexelv
täs tróAews Śs &v u% é; āpupoſváoroiv # yeyovás
(cf. c. 13: among the followers of Pisistratus
were also oi rig yevel uh ka9apoſ. The account
goes on : a muetov 8° 3rt uerò, rºv ráv rvpdvvov "
kardavoriv [Mr. Kenyon] motmorav Šiaqºmuto abv
[Mr. Kenyon, 6taſymptopov P] &s troAAöv kolvo-
voivºrov ràs troAiretas oi, trporâncov), and that
the same law prevailed in the time of the writer
is said in c. 42. No mention is made in the
treatise of Aristophon's proposal in B.C. 403,
§s &v wheł &a rās yévmtat v660V elval, and of
Nicomedes' amendment, robs 5& trpo Eök^etöov
&ve;er&a rows & pelo 6al, and we know that this
became law (Isae. Cir. Her. § 43).
We find in c. 55 the proceedings at the
dokimasia of the nine archons fully described.
The questions as to descent bear out Pollux's
statement (viii. 85, ei 'A9hvatot eioriv Škarépa,0ev
ék Tpivovias); they were: rſs got trathp ka?
tróðev táv Óñuov, kal ris ratpos rathp cal rts
Affirmp, kal ris amrpos rathp kal tró9ev táv
Shuow uerò, 6% ratra si èativ airó ‘AtróAAov
trarpájos kal Zebs épkeſos kal trot Tatra rà ispá
éorruv, etc.
DECUMAE. We read of Pisistratus (A9.
troX. c. 16) étrpärrero y&p &rö rôv yi-yvouévau
Selcármv. This is direct evidence for the tithe,
which has hitherto been merely inferred from
Thucyd. vi. 54. The difficulty still remains,
that the sons who levied only an eikoor) are
always stated to have been more oppressive than
their father. They may have lightened this
particular tax, and levied others more bur-
densome.
DEMUS. The ten Cleisthenean tribes, like
the four old-Ionic, were divided each into three
Tpurrães: the number of demes must have
been unevenly distributed among trittyes as
well as tribes ('A6. troA. c. 21). The same
passage confirms what is stated as probable
[DEMUs, p. 616 al, that before the time of
Cleisthenes, Athenians were not described by
the name of their deme.
DIAETETAE. According to our author
(c. 53), they were men of just sixty years of
age, bound under the penalty of atimia to serve
in that capacity for the first year after their
superannuation from military service. Cf. be-
low, App. s. v. EPONYMI.
DICASTERION, DICASTES. The di-
casteries existed at least as early as the time of
Solon (c. 9), a point which has been regarded
as doubtful. The dicasticon is here expressly
referred to Pericles as its author (c. 27): no
other amount than three obols is mentioned
(c. 62). The usual number of the jury in civil
cases was 201 if the amount was below 1000
drachmas; above that sum 401 ("A0. troA. c. 53).
AIPHPENDIX.
1067
DIOBELLA; DIOBOLON. The evidence
on which this payment is ascribed to Pericles is
insufficient. Our author (c. 28), who uses the
form Śiw80Åſa (which is found also in the
passage cited from the Politics of Aristotle),
states definitely that it was first established by
Cleophon. As regards the words which follow,
speaking of an increase by Callicrates, see note
on THEORICON.
ECCLESIA. It has been mentioned (App.
S. v. AREIOPAGUs) that the Ecclesia first took
a definite shape in the legislation of Draco.
The four regular assemblies in each prytany, of
which only the first was called kvpta, appear in
the text of the 'A6. troA. in accordance with the
citations from Aristotle in Harpocration and
Pollux [ECCLESIA, p. 697 b ). The name of
Callistratus does not occur in the account of
the purðbs éickamortaorukás [ib. p. 699 al: it is
briefly stated that Agyrrhius first gave an obol,
one Heraclides raised it to a 61%Boxov, Agyr-
rhius again to a rpić80Aov (c. 41). A very
different statement in another part of the work
must be left unexplained: uta:00 popodot 5&
Tpótov ſºv č Šipos] rais pºv &AAals ēkkamatais
Spaxpañv, Tſi è kupíg évvéa (i.e. nine obols or a
drachma and a half, c. 62). If, as Mr. Kenyon
supposes, this doubling and trebling of the pay
was the work of demagogues of the fourth
century, we should probably have found some
mention of it in the orators and grammarians.
The word 67/10s, it will be seen, has been sup-
plied from conjecture, but seems to give the
sense required by the context.
As regards the business taken at each meet-
ing, the details given by the grammarians
[ECCLESIA, p. 702 b may be supplemented, but
are not contradicted. In the first or kvpta
ékkamota of each prytany, after the “claims to
succession” (Aſſets kaſipov) the words kal rôv
étrukxhpov follow, and may easily have dropped
out (c. 43). Then follows an account of matters
reserved for the kupía ékkAmaría of the sixth
prytany: questions of ostracism, and of the
prosecution of informers (irpoSoxal avkopavrāv).
The 'A6. Toà., in agreement with other autho-
rities, assigns the second assembly of each
prytany to incet mptat: as to the third and fourth
it differs somewhat from Pollux, whose account
we had followed: ai 8& São repl rôv &AAov
eigtv, Šu ais kexei ovov of véuot rpía wºviepāv
xpmuarígely, tpia be khpuštv kal trpeggetats,
Tpia 5’ 60twv: i.e. not more than three proposals
or motions on each of these subjects were
allowed in each prytany.
Schömann's conjecture [ib. p. 702 b1 that the
àpxalperial took place in the ninth prytany
must now give place to the definite statement
that they were in the first prytany after the
sixth in which the omens were favourable
(trotovo. 8 of Pietà têv 5 rpvravečovres éq’ &v
àv ei'a muta yévmtat, c. 44). This of course
applies only to 3pxal xelpotov'n'ral such as the
Strategi and other military officers: &pxal kam-
parat, as we have stated l.c., might be filled up
at the very end of the year.
EISAGOGEIS. These magistrates were
five in number, 8volv puxaïv čkarros (c. 52),
instead of the more usual ten.
EISANGELIA. EigayyáAAew trpos rºv táv
Apeotrayettöv BovX}v is used in c. 4 (for the
time before Solon) of one who had been illegally
dealt with by a magistrate, and now pointed out
the law which had not been observed (éâv Šē Tó
&ötkovpuévº trpoſs rºv rôv]'Apeotrayeltſºv) Sov-
Ahv eio'ayyáAAelv &modatvoviri trap' by &öuke ºral
vöuov).
Under the rule of the Four Hundred it was
proposed to abolish tūs róv trapavduov ypaq as
kai rās eio'ayyextas, etc. &mos &v oi é9éAovres
'A6mvaſol ovu}ovXetwori repl rôv trpokeupévov,
etc. (c. 29). Anyone accusing such persons as
had come forward with proposals was to be
punished most severely: évôelºw airrot, sival kai
&mayory?iv trpos rows orparmºyoffs, robs &
grparryovs trapabotival roſs evöeka 6avárq,
(mutódral. (Thuc. viii. 67 gives a much briefer
account.)
Among the instances of gross abuse of the
eisangelia Hyper. pro Eua, col. 19 mentions that
of Diognides and the metoec Antidorus against
whom an eisangelia was laid, &s tračovos ut-
a 900ures r&s ai,xntpíðas # 6 véuos kexeget—this
law is quoted in c. 50.
From c. 45 we learn that in former times the
senate had summary jurisdiction, Xphazariv
&mutórai kal 670 at kai ätorteival, but that,
when they were on the point of putting a certain
Lysimachus to death, they were deprived of it by
the people. This does not agree with c. 48, kal
Tajra eioºrpaſtrew # 80]vX?) kal 670 at [kup]ía
karð ‘rous vópous éorív: cf. C. J. A. ii. No. 809 b
(B.C. 325–4). In the time of Demosthenes the
senate was competent to impose a fine of 500
drachmae (Dem. c. Everg, and Mmes. p. 1152,
§ 43), nor was the eisangelia laid by a private
individual before the senate, at that time con-
fined to charges against magistrates for not
carrying out the laws, as described in c. 45
(#eart 5& kal toſs ióid rais eigayyáNAely ºv &v
BoöAovral rôv àpxöv u% xpāoréal roſs véuois).
The passage about the functions of the thesmo-
thetae in Pollux, viii. 87 f, is almost verbally
taken from c. 59; thus the statement that they
laid the eisangeliae before the popular assembly,
which Boeckh considered wrong and due to a
misapprehension of some sort, is taken verbatim
from the 'A9mv. troA. But whilst the 'A9mv.
rox. has: kal ypaſpès trapavčuwu kal vöuov gh
étruth Setov 9eival kal trpoeëpurchv ſcal émigratikhu
kai gºtpatmyois eiðivas, Pollux strangely enough
omits rpoeëpuchu kal étriotarticău. Harpocre, s. v.
finropuch ºpaqi, mentions the trpvtavikh ſcal
érigºraruch ypaſp# [RHETORICE GRAPHE].
2. Among the charges laid before the Archon
are mentioned in c. 56 yovéov (Mr. Wyse)
kaicóorea's, with the remark attal 56 eioiu
&ćhutoi ré Bovkouévº Štákeiv.: this seems to
point to the eigayyeafa kakégews yovéov, cf.
Bekk. Anecd. p. 269, 5 f, and Harpocr. s. v.
kakóorews.
3. In c. 53 the eisangelia against Šiaurmtal is
mentioned: éott & Kai eio'ayyáAAew eis rows
Stavrmºrès (papyrus: Mr. Kenyon reads buraorès)
gāv ris &Sukmófi into roi, Šiautºmtow, käv Tivos
karayvöriv &ruoia bat kexei ovoiv. of véuot.
*@eoris à écrirl kal rotºrois. , Appeal, to a law-
court was inferred by Fränkel, Att. Geschworen-
ger, p. 73 n., from Dem. C. Mid. P: 543, § 91.
The reading of the papyrus els, rows Stararás
ought not to have been altered to eis robs bika-
grès on the authority of Harpocr. s. v. eiday-
yeafa : Bergk's alteration there from 7pbs rows
Šikagrès to irpos rows Śiairmtās is borne out by
1068
APPENDIX.
the papyrus... [In the article in Vol. I. p. 710 b,
Bergk's reading is by a printer's error wrongly
given; read also Schol. Plat. Legg. p. 920 D
instead of p. 926 D.]
EMMENOI DIKAI. In c. 52, the eiga-
'yoyeºs are mentioned as still existing. They
were five in number, appointed by lot Svoiv
‘pwazīv čkaotos, oi rās éughvous eiord) oval
8tras. The list of the classes of cases coming
under this head is longer and more detailed
than that , given elsewhere: trpoucos éév ris
Öq'etàov uh &toã6 kāv ris étrº Spaxufi Savel-
orduevos &rootepſ (i.e. 12 per cent. : in Dem. c.
Aphob. i. p. 818, § 17, c. Neaer. p. 1362, § 52,
the interest as fixed by law is at the rate of
9 obols, i.e. 18 per cent. in case of non-fulfil-
ment of marriage-contract or of divorce) kāv ris
év &yopá Šovaðuevos épyáçeoróat 6aveformtal
trapd. Tivos & popuńv.
aircías (this action was brought before the
Forty in the time of Demosthenes, Dem. c.
Pantaen. p. 976, § 33; cf. Schol. Plat. de Republ.
v. p. 464 E);
épavikal ſcal ſcouvøvikaſ (Harpocr. s. v. kolvo-
vircóv réxa 5& kai repl rôv érotatov koivoviav
ovv6epuévov ćutropias # twos &AAov: cf. Dem. c.
Pantaen. p. 977, § 38, oi koivovodvºres uétáNAov);
&vöpatrööwy, Öroſvy[ially (cf. the title of
Dinarch. c. Antiph. repl?rtrov, etc.);
Tpinpapxſas kal Tpaire(rrukat.
The 6tral ueraxxtical and épatropical are not
mentioned, probably because they belonged to
the fiyegovía of the thesmothetae (Dem. c. Apat.
p. 892, § 12; "A0mv. troA. c. 59 =Pollux, viii. 88).
Then follows the sentence oirot uév ošv raû-
tas Šukáçovoiv čupivous eigáy[ov]res, of 6 &tro-
ôéktai Toſs readºvais kal karð ºrów rexováv,
T& Hºv uéxpl 5éka Spaxuāv čvres köptol, rā ā’
ãAA’ eis to 5ukaothpiov eiorðºyovres éup.mva (cf.
Pollux, viii. 97); here 5ucăgely seems to refer
to the jºyeuovía.
ENDEIXIS. From c. 52 we learn that some
évôetēets were laid before the Eleven and some
before the thesmothetae. From c. 29 it appears
that during the rule of the Four Hundred they
were laid before the generals. This measure
was directed against those who prosecuted any-
one for anti-constitutional propositions. The
évôeiðis against persons who acted as dicasts,
though disqualified as state-debtors or &ripot, is
discussed in c. 63, Śvēetkvvrat karū to Suka-
otfiguop eiq'ayyex{[a] (Mr. Kenyon now reads é.
ical ſeis] to Sucao rhpiov eio &yeral), śāv 3’ &Aó
Tpoorluſãoiv airló of Sucaorral & ri &v Šokfi
&čios sival traffe[ſv} } &lrorioral. &v 5& 3pyuptov
Tupamóñ 8e7 airby Sečéſoróatl gas &v éktform ré
ºre trpórepov čq^muſa &lp” & evečetx0m kal & ri
aúró ºrpoo Tiphan Tſo burjao r^ptov.
EPIMELETAE. Three kinds of gripexºral
are mentioned in the 'A6. troA., Nos. 3, 4, and 5
in our article. The received account of the
étriplexmiral too €utroptov (No. 3) is taken mainly
from Harpocration, who copied Aristotle. The
only point worth noticing is the reading oritikov
('A6. troA. c. 51) for the 'Artukov of Harpocrat.
and &otikov of Lew. Seguer. p. 255. It appears
to us that 'Artukov ćutróptov, a common phrase
for “the port of Athens,” is the best reading of
the three: cf. Dinarch. c. Dem. § 96, rf kare-
orkedakev oiko66pmua Amp,000évms év tá, épatropiº
Tô juerépq, 3) év rá šarei ?) &AA061 trov ràs
xćpas; where épºráptov is simply the Peiraeus.
The étrue&m'ral rôv pivotmptov (No. 4) are men-
tioned in c. 57 as associated with the king
archon : here also we find nothing that has not
been already extracted by Harpocrat. On the
étriplexmiral tis tropatris Tó Atovão 4 (No. 5) there
is a difference of some importance. “They
were formerly chosen by xelpotovía, and paid
the expenses [of the greater Dionysia] them-
selves: but now ("A0. troA. c. 56) by lot, and the
state allows them 100 minae for expenses.”
This change must have been very recent when
the tract was written, as xelpotovía was still
the rule in B.C. 349–8, the date of the Midias
(p. 519, § 15). Whether the 100 minae were
allotted to each of the ten, or to the whole
body, is not clear from the words of the 'A6.
troA.: but £400, rather than £4000, is the more
likely sum for the Athenians to have voted for
the festival.
Another étriplex mºths is mentioned in ’A6. troA.
c. 43, and not, it would seem, elsewhere; the
ér. Töv Šādrov. The office was an important
one, as he was elected by xelpotovía : and he is
apparently to be identified with the étriotárms
táv 56&rav (Plut. Themist. 31 ; EPISTATES).
The kpmvoq'ſ Nakes (Hesych., Phot.) were probably
his subordinates, and the icpmvoq'vX&klov their
place of business.
EPISKEUASTAE. To the list of Athenian
public officers must now be added ten ispáv
étriorkevaorraſ, “repairers of temples,” chosen by
lot and allowed the very moderate sum of
30 minae (£120) for their department ('A6. troX.
c. 50). For the ordinary, unofficial sense of
ériorkevao ris, cf. Dem. c. Androt, p. 615, § 69,
p. 618, § 78.
EPITROPUS. C. 56 contains a full account
(of which Pollux, viii. 89, gives a summary) of
the functions of the archon; we quote here the
passages which refer to the superintendence he
exercised over orphans and their estates: ypaq'ai
6|& Kai 61ſkat Aayxdvoviral trpès airóv, Šs &va-
kpívas eit" [sis 6.jkaarāpiov eiodſ yet] . . . .
ôppavāv k[akó]orews (airai 6’ eioſi caré, Tóv
étrurpátrov)
étrikxhpov kakóaeſa's] (airai Sá eioſi Katë.
[róv] étutpétrov kal Tóv ovvoukouvrwv),
otkov Šppavukoi, kakóorea's (eiot be kai ſaintal
karð Tóv] étrutpó[trolv). . . .
eis étrutpotris Kardo Taoiv, eis étritpotris Staët-
kaatav, ei [TAetoves rās airms 9éAovo liv Čiritporov
aútbv ćyypályai. . . .
puorðof 5& kal Tovs oftcovs róv Öppavóv.
EPONYMI. Under this head we have to
notice a new explanation of the difficult phrase
érôvvuot rôv #Aukuſov. In c. 53 we read eigh
'y&p étrévvuot 5éka uèv oi rāv puxáv, 500 5&
kal Terrapákovra oi rāv #Alicióv : and that
formerly the names of the éq m}ot were written
eis AeAevkapiéva "ypappareſa, and in the time of
the writer eis otfixmu XaAkiv kai to Tatau i
at #xm irpo roi, BovXeſur]mptov trapā robs étrovć-
povs. Mr. Kenyon observes: “It seems that for
the purposes of military service a cycle of forty-
two years was arranged, to each of which a name
was given, probably chosen, like those of the
eponymi of the ten tribes, from the heroes of
Athenian legendary history. Thus when a
youth was enrolled in the lists of the tribes
and became liable for military service, his name
was entered on a roll, with the name of the
year according to the archon and the name of
APPENDIX.
1069
the eponymous hero from whom his military
service was to be dated.” (The meaning of
ê šarēvvuos é ré, trporépº [æret] be 6tatt micós is
not explained.) “For all official purposes, such
as the indication of what years were to be called
out for service on any particular occasion, these
names were employed:” xpóvrat 8& rols arová-
pous kal irpos rās orpareſas, kal &raw fixticial,
ektréuirwai trpoypépovolv &rb rivos ūpxovros ſcal
étovſöuov pláxpt twów bef orparedegºat. [App.
s. v. DIAETETAE.] As a matter of fact the
orators use a shorter expression: ºmburapévov
6' juáv ... kal rows uéxpt Tpićkovit’ &rn Ye-
'yovóras &#1éval, Aeschin. F. L. § 133: épmºpt-
gaarðe... kal rows uéxpt trévre ſcal retrapákovra
grów airroës engaivetv, Dem. Olymth. iii. p. 29,
§ 4: cf. Lycurg. c. Leocr. § 39.
EUTHYNE. The Aoytotal are twice men-
tioned. From c. 48 we learn that they, ten in
number, were appointed by lot from among
the members of the senate, to check the ac-
counts of the different officers in each prytany;
and in c. 54, Aoytotal 6éka kai ovváryopot
rońrous Séka are mentioned as appointed by
lot. Then follows a detailed account of the
proceedings in the law-courts: if they prove a
man guilty of embezzlement (k)\oträ; cf. Dem.
c. Timocr. p. 735, § 112, ei uév ris &yopavópos
. . . . kAotis év ei6üvais #Awkev, .... toirq ºv
Thy SekairMag.ſav elval; Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 10 ;
Plut. Arist. 4), then the dicasts find him guilty
of embezzlement, and he is fined in ten times the
amount of the sum proved against him. The
same procedure took place in case of bribes
(cf. Dem. F. L. p. 429, § 273, 6&pa Aa3eiv šāoše
Trpeggewaas), the fine being again tenfold; whilst
in the case of &öuktov the fine was in the same
amount as the fraud, if paid before the 9th pry-
tany, and double the amount if deferred. The
8ſicm &öuktov is mentioned in Plut. Per. 32, eite
kAotrås kal 6&pov eſt' &ölktov BoöAoutó ris àvo-
p.d.ſelv riv 8twälv of Pericles regarding the ex-
penditure of public money; cf. Harpocr. S. v.
and Pollux, viii. 31. Two ºrdpeãpot to each
et,0vvos, appointed by lot, are mentioned in c. 48.
The duty of the trapeãpot was to station them-
selves in the &yopal by the Eponymi of the
several tribes, and there to receive complaints
against persons who had received their discharge
from a court of law within three days from
such discharge. The complaint was entered
upon a tablet with the name of the complainant
and the person accused, together with the
amount of the tſumua (Tſumua [trapaxlašáuevos,
Mr. Kenyon: étriypaq6pºevos ?). This he handed
to the sū6vvos who investigated the matter
(6 8& Aagöv roßto kal &ſkoúgas], Mr. Kenyon :
&[vakpāvas]?); and if he judged the man guilty,
he passed over the matter if a private one to
the Sucaorral oi katē Shuous of thv puxhv raúrmv
eioráyovoriv, but if a public matter to the
thesmothetae.
EXOMOSIA. (2) The exomosia of those
enrolled by the kataAoyeſs as horsemen is
mentioned in c. 49: oitou (oi in trapxot kal
qūAapxot) trapaxaflóvres eio bépovoi Tſov] kará-
Aoyov eis rāv SovX}v kal Töv trívaka &votěavºres,
by § karageo muaguéva rä, övéuata Töv intréav
garſ, rows uév čouvvuévows tav trpárepov čºyye-
'ypapºuévov uh, 6vvarovs, elval toſs oréuggiv
intreſſelv čaxeſ poval, robs 58 kareixe-yuévous
[k]&Aoûgi, kāv Aév Tus ééopéantal uh 5üvao 6al
ró ord wart intrečeiv h rī, ovatº Toorov &qiāoriv,
etc.
EXSILIUM. In c. 22 it is stated that
Cleisthenes introduced ostracism (Ös sc. vöpios
éré0m Ötö. Thu introlytav Tów év rais Svváueou, .
3rt IIeuato Tpatos &muayanybs kal otpatmyos &v
Túpavvos katégºrm ; cf. Harpocr. s. v. “Irmapzos).
It was in the first place aimed at the supporters
of his family who still remained at Athens—the
first victim was Hipparchus, the son of Charmus,
the law being put in force against him two
years after the battle of Marathon, and in 487
B.C. Megacles, the son of Hippocrates, was ostra-
cised—but soon it became to be used et ris
Sokołm uetſov sival, e.g. Xanthippus, the son of
Ariphron, in 468 B.C., Aristides, Damonides (c.
27). The only foundation for the story that
Cleisthenes himself was ostracised is Aelian
(W. H. xiii. 24). At the approach of Xerxes
the persons ostracised were recalled, and it was
henceforward ordained that persons ostracised
should reside évros Tepatorrow kal XievXAatov 3)
&rtuous eival kaflātraš, i.e. between the extreme
south of Euboea and east of Argolis respectively.
“The regulation,” Mr. Kenyon remarks, “can-
not, however, have been strictly observed sub-
sequently; for instance, we find the ostracised
Themistocles living in Argos (Thuc. i. 135),
and the ostracised Hyperbolus in Samos (Thuc.
viii. 73).” These facts, and the statement of
Philochorus in Lew, Rhet. Cantabr. s. v. čarpa-
kiguoi, Tpáros uh émigaívovira évros Tepatorov
toū EüBoſas ākpatmptov, suggest the reading
éktös instead of évros in the 'A6mv. troX.
GEOMORI. For these, the second of the
Theseian classes in early Attica, the name
#[yp}oukou occurs 'A6. troA. c. 13. The restora-
tion of the illegible letters is undoubted. In a
passage already cited (Dion. Hal. ii. 8) the plebs
at Rome are called &ypotkot in distinction from
the sūtratpíðal or patricians. Cf. Hesych. s. v.
&ypotórai : āypotkoi, kal yèvos 'A9hvmoriv, of
ăvrièteorréAAovro trpos rows eitrarpíðas ºv 6&
to róv yeapyöv, kal rpírov to róv Šmutovpyóv.
HECTEMORII. The following passage
confirms the view taken in the text: kal 63,
kai éðočAevov of trévºte[s toſs] traovatous ka?
airol [kal Tlº Tékua ſcal ai Yuvaikes, kal éka-
Aoûvro treadtai kal éictmuápoi’ [éril taúrms yap
täs uto:660 ea's [si]pyáçovro róv trºovortov toºs
âypots ('A6. Trox, c. 2). Thus the ékrmuápiot
or ékrmuápot (the latter form, given also by
Hesychius, seems the correct one) received only
a sixth part of the produce : ávrſ, however,
rather than étri, seems the preposition to be
supplied.
HENDECA, HOI. Meier's conjecture as to
the early origin of this body is now confirmed :
Solon provided for their election, it would seem,
out of the first three classes, and is not said to
have created the office (A9. Irox. c. 7). The
account of their duties (c. 52) adds no new
particulars.
HERES. The Thirty are said (c. 35) to
have struck out in Solon’s law relative to the
right of bequest (repl row 500val r& £avroſ, 3
&v é0éAm) the provisions éâv uh wavióv # ympäv
# yuvaik) tribówevos, to limit the opportunities
of the sycophants (ātros wh ºff roſs ovkoqāvrats
époãos).
HODOPOEI. We now learn that they were
five in number, and appointed by lot: they
1070 APPENDIX.
repaired (étrioticevågely) the roads, having public of Solon by an oath which was still sworn by
slaves (Smudgiot épydrat) under them (A6, troA. them in the time of the writer (c. 7; cf. c. 55):
c. 54). &vaßávres à ér rotºrov (röy Atôov Sq’ & ‘rā
JUSJURANDUM. . Some particulars about rautela €grív) āpavāovoiv Sukatos &piety kal car&
, the oath of the nine archons are supplied by the rows vówovs kal 6&pa Aji Ahiyegbai rās &px?s
*A6. troA.; it is said that they swear [ka94 repl #veka, kāv Tu AdBooty &vöptavra &vaðhorely
étri 'Akáarov [ris tróAews &pi;]siv; and this is |xpvootiv. čuretºev 5’ 6,160-avres, etc. At the
used as an argument to show that the archon same stone oi udºprupes ééðuvvural r&s papruptas.
was first associated with the king at the accession | The treaty in c. 23 (ép’ of [äpkows] kal rows
of Acastus (c. 3: cf. ARCHON). pºpovs év rá, treadyet kaðeforav) supplies a
The archons were bound to observe the laws | parallel to Herod. i. 165 (p. 1046 a).
APPENDIX TO WOLUME II.
METOECI. . C. 58 confirms the statements OLEA. We learn from c. 60 that the state
(p. 170 a) as to their actions at law before the management of the poptal described in the article
polemarch. (p. 263 a) was earlier than the date of the
METRONOMI. Fränkel’s view as to their treatise ’A6. troA., and that the penalty in those
number (see p. 170 b) is confirmed by 'A6. Irox. older times for damaging one of the trees was
c. 51. death (at an earlier date probably than the
NAUCRARIA. The passage in c. 8 clearly oration of Lysias). In the writer's own time the
makes the vavkpaptat date from a period before owner of the land where the poptat grew was
Solon: not only the context, but the tense #aav obliged to render to the archon 13 cotylae of oil
veyepimuéval admits of no other explanation. The for each tree, and (since the registers of the trees
transference of the duties to the demarchi is doubtless remained, so that their destruction
stated in c. 21. entailed no loss of oil upon the state) the state
NOMOS. For Draco's constitutional changes penalty became obsolete. The archon had to
cf. note on CIVITAs. hand over the oil so received to the rapital at
Solon's law repl rôv rvpdvvav is quoted c. 16. the end of his year of office. The rapital stored
The text is evidently corrupt. Perhaps the law it in the Acropolis till the Panathenaea, when
was Édiv ris étri rvpavvíðt éraviorâtal # ovy- they delivered it to the athlothetae.
kaðtorm rāv rvpavvíða &ripov eival airov ka? PANATHENAEA. The statement (p. 327
ºyévos. In Andoc. Myst. § 97 a law is quoted b) that the officials of the greater festival were
(professedly Solonian) in which the same , the Athlothetae, not the Hieropoioi, is confirmed
phrases occur—ktev㺠. . . . kal éáv ris rvpav- by cc. 54 and 60. In c. 49 it is mentioned that
velv ćiravaotfi à têv Túpavvov ovykarao Thorn. the selection of weavers of the sacred réirAos
Dobree inserts Érl rô before rvpavvetv: probably (p. 327 a) was first in the hands of the BovXà,
in the 'Abnv. troA. Tvpavveſv was written above and afterwards of a Śukao Tiptov (see note on
étrº rvpavvíðl, and a copyist inserted the phrase | Bouxá).
lower down in the text. The story (Plut. Sol. PARANOIAS DIKE. It was laid before
18) about want of clearness in Solon’s laws the archon : éév tis airiárat rug trapavooſivra
occurs in c. 9. T[& éautoi, kräuara djiroNAü[vail, c. 56.
CC. 29 to 32 give at great length the consti- PAREDRI. The mumber, two for each of
tutional schemes of the Four Hundred, quoting the three superior archons, is confirmed by c. 56:
apparently from original documents. also that they were subject to 60kipiao'ía and
Of the Thirty it is said (c. 35): rö uèv et,0vval. The two trópeopol of the et Ovvoi are
ow rpótov . . . . trpoo’etrotoovro 5uouceſv rhv mentioned in c. 48.
Trárptov troLAir]etav (the restoration of the “an- PHYLARCHI. The surmise that the ten
cient constitution * was included in the terms of phylarchi were elected by cheirotonia is con-
peace) ſcal roës ºrepl rôv 'Apeomayitáv caffeixov | firmed by c. 61 [see p. 388 b, where a misprint,
ěč 'Apetov [ºráyovl kal rôv ×6Awvos 6eopov čoot “one tribe commanded the cavalry contingent,”
6tapºpto Smtſhaleus eixov, e.g. in Solon's law | should be altered to “one phylarch "J. Their
regarding testamentary dispositions they abo- examination of the cavalry roll in presence of
lished the provisions éðv whº uavióv 3 ympäv # the Bovah, and in conjunction with the hipparchs,
ºyvvaiki trióðuevos (Dem. C. Steph. ii. p. 1133, and their register of the vote passed as to the
§ 14 lea). Cf. Schol. Aeschin. C. Tim. § 39, fitness or unfitness of those who pleaded in-
éAvuftvavro toi's Apákovros kal XóAwvos vöuovs. capacity for service, are mentioned in c. 49.
Of the restoration of the democracy after the POLETAE. The statements in the article
fall of the Thirty little is said in c. 39: T&s are confirmed by the account of the Poletae in
8è bikas row ºpévov elval karū tº irárpua, k.T.A. | c. 47 with some additional details. They are
(the text is unfortunately corrupt), an amnesty said to ratify the lease of revenues conferred on
was granted with certain exceptions, and in any rexévns by the Bovaiſ, in conjunction with
c. 40 an instance is given of the zeal with which the ranſas Tāv orpatiotików and the superin-
Archinus prosecuted a breach of this amnesty | tendents of the theoricon. The Poletae deliver
(éret ris #péaro róv kareAmAv6órww uvmaikakeiv, to the Bovah tablets (ypaupareſa AéAevkouéva)
&rayayêv tourov ćirl Thu Bovāīv kal treto as stating the amount of payments (kara Soxal) to-
ãkpitov &mokretval, etc.: cf. Isocr. C. Callim. § 3). be made in each prytany. The greater number
APPENDIX.
1071
were made in the 9th prytany of the year (cf.
TELONES).
PROBOULI. The statement (p. 493 b) in
which we followed Grote, that there was no
sufficient ground for supposing that the Évy'ypa-
q is airrokpátopes of Thuc. viii. 67 were the same
persons as the irpáBovXot must be modified. In
c. 29 we are told that on the motion of Pytho-
dorus twenty persons over forty years of age
were elected, in addition to the ten trpoi-
trapyovres trpóBovXol, to draw up the consti-
tution under the 400. We should infer, with
Mr. Kenyon, that this “pre-existing” board of
ten commissioners was a continuation of that
mentioned in Thuc. viii. 1; and that the party
of Pisander having either reappointed them, or
appointed others with the same title, added
twenty to carry out the work. So far this
treatise justifies Androtion and Philochorus
when Harpocration (s. v. ovyypaqets) cites as
speaking of thirty in all ; and Grote is probably
wrong in supposing that they confused the
oligarchy of the 400 with that of the Thirty.
PROSTATES TOU DEMOU. In the ’A6.
troA. the term Trpoorárms roß Shuov (or roo
TAñ9ovs) is constantly used in the sense of “leader
of the popular party”: e.g. Solon (irpáros é-yé-
v[ero roi, Shpov] arpoordºrms, cc. 2, 28), Pisi-
stratus (Seárepos, c. 28), Cleisthenes (cc. 21, 28),
Xanthippus, Themistoles and Aristides (cc. 23,
28), Ephialtes (cc. 25, 28), Pericles, Cleon, Cleo-
phon. These are opposed to the leaders for the
time being of the other party (ºrpoot. Táv
étépov, táv eitrópov, Tóv yvaptuov. Hipparchus,
the son of Charmus, is called āryeudov Kai trpo-
orrárms of the pſi\ot rôv rvpdavvav, c. 22).
PRYTANEUM. C. 62 notes that the Athlo-
thetae dined in the Prytaneum in the month in
which the Panathenaea was celebrated, from the
4th of the month onwards. It should be observed
also that this treatise (c. 43) speaks of the
prytanes as still dining together in the Tholos
(cf. p. 515 b).
PSEPHUS. Unfortunately the greater por-
tion of the detailed account of the procedure in
the law-courts is either lost or exists only in a
very mutilated condition. On p. 168 ft. we
have the description of the voting: of the two
&pſpope's, one was of metal, à kùptos—the other of
wood, 6 &rvpos, placed separate (ötaíperot); the
&pſpopets of metal is described (Schol. Aristoph.
Equ. 1147, and Pollux, viii. 123, are correct);
êtreira tráAlv [ä käpvč Kmplárr[e], i re [tputrml-
pºvn rod trpſó]repoſv Aéyovros] # [5&] traffſpris
to]9 Worepov Aéyovros . . . . tav iſ fiqa v too uèv
6taſkóv]ros rās retpvrmuévas, too 6é pſet yov-
ros] [röls trafipets 6trorépº 6’ [&v traeto
'y]évm[ral oil.ros vikä. &v Šē ſtoral, &ropetryell.
(Cf. Lea. Rhet. Cantabr. s. v. toral ai Jigot
aúróv.) Eir]a tráAlv Tuða'i, &v čefi ruñoral,
Töv airby rpárov ºnquéðuevoi, to uév oriušoxov
âtročíðovres, Baktmptav 5è traXiv trapaxapºdvov-
res (cf. p. 163=Schol. Aristoph. Plut. 278; see
Dem. de Cor. p. 298, § 210), i. 5* rºunoris éa riv
trpos juixovy iſ8aros éka répav. That the clep-
sydra was filled again for the ripamoris was
known from Aeschin. c. Ctes. $ 197: #öm ro
Tpírov iſoap yxe?rat Tſi ripahoet, but only now
do we learn the amount of water put in, half a
x00s. The time allowed was certainly short,
considering that in a ypaſp?) trapatrpeo:3etas each
side was allowed eleven &piq'ope's (Aeschin.
F. L. § 126), and in an inheritance suit each
party was allowed one àuſpopews for the first
speech, and the quarter of that, three Xóes, for
the second. (Dem. c. Macart. p. 1052, § 8.)
SEISACHTHEIA. This measure, which
was a cancelling of all debts, both public and
private (c. 6), preceded Solon's legislation, and
the reform of the money standard and of the
system of weights and measures followed the
legislation (c. 10; it was not contemporary with
the Seisachtheia, Plut. Sol. 15). Some parti-
culars are given as to the monetary standard
introduced by Solon: unfortunately the reform
of the system of weights and measures is only
mentioned as a fact without details.
SITOPHYLACES. Fränkel’s view as to
their number, five for the city and five for the
Peiraeus, is shown to be correct (A9. Irox.
c. 51).
STRATEGUS. A6. Tox, c. 4, speaks of
otpatnyol in the time of Draco, mentioning the
qualification that they must be married, and
adding that they must have children over ten
years of age. As the text stands we are told of
a property qualification of 100 minae; but,
since the qualification of an archon (at that time
a more important office) was only ten minae,
this is unlikely, and ékaotov m' (implying a
qualification of eight minae) may be a truer
reading than 3) #karóv.
The election of one strategus from each tribe
in the time of Cleisthenes is mentioned in c. 57 :
we learn also that after the reforms of Clei-
sthenes they were still of lower rank than the
archons and subordinate in military rule to the
Polemarch (c. 22, tis 3' &ráorms orpartàs #yeuðv
fiv 6 IIoxéuapxos). This bears out the account
of Herod. vi. 109, 111, placing the growth of
their importance later.
From c. 61 we learn that, instead of one being
elected as in older times from each tribe, the
ten were now chosen by xelpotovía from the
whole body of citizens (é; árávrov), which
obviously gave a greater freedom for choosing
the best men. It is not, however, stated when
this change was made.
The assignment of the five first strategi to
special duties is mentioned as fixed and definite :
1. the commander of hoplites on service out of
the country : 2. Over the local defence and
general-in-chief in case of invasion: 3. over
Munychia : 4, over the shore (= the x&pa
trapaxta of C. I. G. 178, 179, as Mr. Kenyon
remarks)—3 and 4 are reckoned together as ém)
Töv IIeupatéa: 5. €tri rās orvpuoptas, the duties
specified being to make out the register of the
trierarchs, to carry out the āvriègorets and to
preside at legal proceedings connected with the
trierarchy (cf. p. 892 a). The other five strategi
were employed , as occasion demanded (roºs
8’ &AAous trpos ré répovra irpáyuata ékºréatrov-
oriv). It is added that the strategus could
imprison and fine (érifloxhv étrifláAAéiv) anyone
guilty of breach of discipline on service, but that
the fine was rarely resorted to. It will be seen
from the above that the treatise gives a clearer
view of the question of election (discussed on
pp. 719, 720), and a definite apportionment of
their functions in more regular order (cf. p. 718
a). In this point the supposed date of the
treatise will bear out Gilbert's deduction from
inscriptions (Gr. Staatsalt. i. p. 221), that the

1072
APE’ENDIX.
special office of otpatmyos étrº ovuuopias began
sometime between 334 and 324 B.C.; and agrees
also with the fact, which he notices, that a
further apportionment of offices, not here
mentioned, such as étri to vavruków, earl Tows
$évows, &c. (presumably taking up the other five
strategi), is traceable first in reference to an
event (C. I. A. ii. 331) shortly before 315 B.C.
(i.e. later than the date assigned to 'A9. troA.).”
SYNEGORUS. For the ovváryopoi tā
Aoyiotów, see App. s. v. EUTHYNE. -
TAMIAS. The rapial, who were required
by the law of Solon to be trevrakoglouéðipºvot
(cc. 7, 8, 47), are undoubtedly the tapital ris
6eoû. Here, again, a legal fiction came in : the
property qualification was never actually re-
pealed, but the poorest man was eligible in
practice (c. 47). What is said of their duties
contains nothing new, the passages having been
extracted by the grammarians. The tautai toſs
&AAous 9eois or rôv &AAwy 6eóv, i.e. of all except
Athena, are mentioned c. 30; the passage, how-
ever, refers to the short-lived rule of the Four
Hundred. The rapital of the sacred triremes
(see p. 761 b) are mentioned in 'A6. troA. c. 61 :
xelpotovoda i ö& kal rapitav rās IIapáNov kai
&AAov ris [roi,”A]upww.os (cf. THEORIS; Gilbert,
Staatsalterth. i. 330, n. 3). On this tautas see
also Köhler in Mittheil. des archäol. Instituts,
viii. 165 ft. Inscriptions show that the rapuías
of the Paralos could also be trierarch of another
ship: C. I. A. ii. 804 b, line 66, and ib. 808.
The rapitas róv otpatiotików (p. 761 b), in ad-
dition to his military duties, is curiously enough
associated with the BovX3) in matters connected
with the Panathenaic festival (c. 49). See also
App. s. v. ADYNATI.
TETTARACONTA, HOI. Their origin is
now ascribed to Pisistratus ("A0. troX. c. 16);
their number at this time is not stated. They
reappear under Pericles, B.C. 453, and are then
thirty (c. 26). In c. 53 their duties are de-
scribed : ten drachmas as the limit of their
competence to decide; and the traditional reason
for the change of number from thirty to forty.
The opening. words, KAmpoño's 5& kal Tetrapd-
kovira, rértápas à ékáorms puxils, now supply
documentary evidence for the view maintained
in our concluding paragraph (p. 809 b), which
hitherto has rested partly upon conjecture.
THEORICON. According to c. 43 of 'A6.
troA. the superintendents of the 6ewpulcov were
elected, not chosen by lot : from the same
chapter it is clear that there were more than
one, since the plural rôv émºl to 6ewpukov is
contrasted with the singular rapitas orparta-
Tuków. It is even more impossible to get over
(by such an argument as Gilbert uses for the
passage in Aeschin. c. Ctes. § 25) the words in
c. 47, uerò, too raptov táv otpatuatików kai
Töv čari to 6ewpulcov Ripmuévov čvavtſov rºs
BovX?is katakupovolv, &c. The evidence therefore
from this treatise is opposed to the view sup-
ported by Gilbert (Gr. Staatsalt. i. 230) and
* Since the above was in print, a writer in the Quar-
terly Review has given reasons for believing that the
date of the treatise is much later (Q. R. for April 1891,
p. 345).
Fränkel (note on Boeckh, Staatsh. i. p. 225), and
may incline us to hold, with Boeckh, that there
were more than one.
As regards the payment of two obols [see
DIOBELIA ; THEATRUM, p. 819 b : THEORICON,
p. 326 al, there is a passage in 'A9. Irox. c. 28,
Merå Ös Taira karéAvore KaNAukpárms IIataviews
Tpótos ūtrooxéuevos étrióñorely irpos roiv 8volv
ô86Aotu &AAov č80Aov. If this means that
Callicrates raised the 9ewpiköv for any continued
period to 3 obols for a single spectacle, it is at
Variance with other authorities. But the words
trpótos ūtrooxéuevos, &c. seem to imply that it
was a promise of a demagogue, imitated after-
wards by others, which was either never carried
out at all or revoked soon after. This would
illustrate Arist. Pol. ii. vii. 19 = p. 1267 b.
THEORIS. The office of a treasurer for the
Paralus and the Ammonis or Ammonias is
noticed in c. 61 (see note on TAMIAs). That a
treasurer of the Salaminia is not mentioned
agrees with the account supported by Boeckh
and Fränkel (op. cit.), that in the course of the
4th century B.C. Salaminia ceased to be the
name of a sacred ship, appearing as that of an
ordinary war-ship (for which a trierarch is
mentioned) in the navy records. Fränkel notes
as the earliest inscription in which the name
so appears one of B.C. 357 (C. I. A. ii. 793). If
the argument is correct, it follows that from
that date until the Ammonis was built we have
mention of only one ship, the Paralus, which
can have been available for theoriae, other
than the mission to Delos. Fränkel has
observed that the sacred ships are not included
in the navy records. Such names as Delias,
Biera, Theoris occurring in the lists of war-
ships do not denote a special destination. The
reference to Plutarch should be Thes. 23.
TRIBUS. The four old-Ionic tribes were of
immemorial antiquity, and were retained un-
altered by Solon, being still divided into Tpurrées
and vavkpaptai ("A0. troX. c. 8). The constitution
of Cleisthenes is described at length in c. 21, and
the writer brings out forcibly the desire of the
legislator to break up the old organisations and
party ties: cf. DEMUs, Vol. I. 615 a. He did not
adopt the number of twelve tribes, as that would
have coincided with the old division of the four
tribes into twelve Tpurrães: he divided each of
his ten tribes into Tpitties on a new principle,
assigning one Tpitri's to the Śarv, one to the
trapaxta, and one to the uéoró)ala, 8tros ékáorm
(pvXà) weréxm trăvrov Tóv tárov. The theory,
already advanced as probable, that the city and
ports now formed ten demes, one belonging to
each tribe, thus becomes almost a certainty
[DEMUs, l.c.].
TRIEROPOEI. See App. s. v. Boulſ. In
the words of c. 46, roleirai Ös (# 8ovX}) ràs
Tpiñpets, 6éka čvöpas à [ätrávray] &Aouévn rpin-
potrotočs, we suggest that the lacuna is to be
supplied with éavrìs rather than &rdvrov.
The Tpumpotrolol may possibly have been a
subordinate body appointed by, as they were
unquestionably responsible to, the BovX%: but
it is more likely that they were a committee of
the Bouleutae themselves.
LONDON : WM. CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
--~~~~ ~~~~）;∞） =3&ſv=√（−）-
s '''<）· ~（ ∞ → ~~~~）;~
*** ' *= *~~~~）;~~ ~~~~==~~~~ ！ …, gºſ，……? •
·***~~~~）--：-
* . . . Yº
-º
14
|||||||
06990 14
3 9015
||||








***
¿]
~&&